I have no idea what you just communicated in your posted?karenprtlnd wrote:As for specific examples? and how would you know my doctrine eccept by what you've been taught by those who've already "labeled" it? This is no mystery... There are very few mysteries in LDS-ism (eccept how it alots its Tithes and Offerings or "calls" its own officers).Pierac wrote:Labels are often uses to dismiss that which can not be explained away with logic and truth. So what specific example can you offer? You will not hurt my feelings, as my research is just that, research. I think the word you are looking for is "mystery." I'm familiar with your doctrine that attempts to explain all you do not understand as a 'mystery.' I'm cool with that but don't label me while I search for the truth.karenprtlnd wrote:Pierac's studies themselves have shown to be so extensive, with a kind of focused suffering at its very foundation, that it has been hard to ignore. Contrasted by merely incessant interuptions of sudden subjective argument, which is the exibited "style" throughout the forum, I just wanted to say, that these personal studies, compiled by many on the forum, have not gone unnoticed.
Paul
The Roman Catholic (and others) is the "Mystery" claimer and "bad people" namer, not the LDS.
As for your research. I fail to understand how I may have labeled you while you search for truth. I appologize. You cannot hide that you have struggled for such a vast clearity you intend to defend, yet there are many people who already share many of your views, for instance your non-trinitarian views. The tendency for your work to sound so close to the Messianic Jew, then to find out that you've come out of Roman Catholicism, is a very specific "suffering". this was not intended to be a label.
You have got to speak clearer for us old timers.
Paul