Catholic to Mormon to Catholic?

[mfbukowski]

Enlighten us, Mr. Philosopher: Why is God necessarily atemporal?

I have read my Aquinas, and don’t know what the question means. If you read your Wittgenstein, I will be glad to discuss it in those terms. The bottom line is that your question is hopelessly ambiguous, and these are the questions that all of philosopy has been discussing for 2000 years. I don’t think we have time to cover the answer I would like to live for another 2000 years on this earth, but I think I would have better things to do with my time if given this gift.

 

[po18guy]

You are not getting this at all. There was one boat, two or three steel implements. The mention of steel implements refers to these.

How come Joseph Smith is the only “written record” of this new world discovery? A literate, metal-working society would have rejoiced in the discovery of the new world and writings, in some form, would have been made, and likely preserved. There are no Mormon Dead Sea scrolls. You must place 100% of your faith in the physically unsubstantiated claims of one man in 1800s America. While it is clear that millions have somehow come to believe this, it remains unreasonable. God is reason and truth.

 

[mfbukowski]

Really? If you like, we could talk about the other 2300 years of philosophy. Now granted, I’m not trying to say that people need to be Positivists, like Augusto Comte of France, where science supplants faith completely (as evidenced by the motto "Order and Progress, which you can even find on the Brazilian flag), nor do I think that you are advocating a type of Nietzschian nihilism, where nothing can be known for certain. That said, I think it’s unfair to reject some of the most influential philosophers ever just because they’re 2300 years old. I was trying to open up the conversation at an elementary philosophical level, but since you know your ancient Greeks, we can move to something more contemporary if you wish.

What did you have in mind to discuss? St. Augustine? St. Thomas Aquinas? Utopia? The Enlightenment? Existentialism? Before you accuse me of not knowing philosophy, you should know that I have a background in that subject too, that I teach philosophy in all of my history classes, and that I have published on the subject.

William James and Wittgenstein, also Whitehead. You know, like at least the 20th century?

 

[JRKH]

Precisely my point. Those quotes in 1 Nephi about steel weapons were IMPORTED with the immigrants when they came over. Those were middle eastern weapons which came with them on the boat.

So did these immigrants leave their “artisans” behind? Are you saying that these people who supposedly came here brought steel weapons but not the people and knowledge to make more?

This is the entire point of my earlier post in the hideous green text. The “duhs” and the “so what’s” refer to the fact that BIBLICAL ARTIFACTS THAT HAVE BEEN FOUND ARE NOT RELEVANT to what happened in this hemisphere. Duh.

They are only irrelevant to you. The fact that there is so much historical evidence to back up biblical texts and none to back up BoM texts is quite relevant.

There were NO COINS in the americas, no steel artifacts to be found.

The use of steel by the Jaredites would have been VERY long ago if they ever occurred. Steel does rust you know, and what they regarded as steel was not exactly high carbon stainless steel like we have today. That would also have been in a very limited area geographically. So if these implements still exist, they still would be extremely hard to find due to their use in such a limited area. There have just not been enough excavations done.

Yes steel does rust, but remnents of ancient iron or Steel implements have been found in archeological digs. Any Iron/Steel implement that is buried and left undisturbed will rust, this is true, however, the Iron Oxide will remain, just as it was left. Thus at an archeological dig, one might find the outline of the weapon made up of Iron oxide in the soil. so you see, rust is not necessarily an impediment to archeological study.

There are even other interpretations of what the Jardedites wrote, which I will link to in a following post. No time to look it up now.

It is also ironic that one of the complaints is that the Church will not allow excavation around the hill of Cumorah, and then the complaint is made that there are no artifacts from the great battle.

You can’t have it both ways! IF THE EXCAVATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE, OF COURSE THERE ARE NO ARTIFACTS.

Your right. You cannot have it both ways. If the Church denies excavating then it invites doubt.

I guess I will just have to yell more. Speaking softly and logically apparantly does not get heard around here.

Yelling does not change facts. Nor does it impress people of character.

Again, I am only answering arguments that might be relevant to C2M2C and ignoring the others because with his Mormon background he will understand the Mormon context where others will not, and I don’t want to waste time responding to those with no understanding of the church whatsoever.

That’s fine. I do hope that C2M2C is getting good information from these discussions.

Peace
James

 

[mfbukowski]

So the only metals were the ones they brought with them?

NOT according to the Book of Mormon…

1 Nephi 18.25

1 Nephi 19.1

Now if the Nephites were a culture of writing, wouldn’t there be writings available as there is for the Old and New Testament, which are much older?

Helaman 3.15

Records from a culture that kept records, for approximately 1000 years, do not totally disappear. Every single book of the Old Testament, with the exception of Esther, is found in the Dead Sea scrolls which date back to 200 to 100BC. Where is the ancient manuscript for the Book of Mormon?

No coins you say? NOT according to the book of Mormon.

Alma 11 the heading

Alma 11.5-19

I’m not going to post the whole chapter 11 of Alma, but invite anyone to go read it for themselves.

Keep in mind, coins from the time of Christ have been found and are still found to this day.

quick response on the coins- more to come–

AS I ALREADY SAID, THESE WERE NOT COINS they are measures of volume

AS I ALREADY SAID, THE ONLY MENTION OF THE WORD “COINS” APPEARS IN THE HEADING WHICH HEADS THE CHAPTER YOU HAVE QUOTED — THE HEADING WAS WRITTEN LATER AND IS NOT PART OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.

You can go to Guatamala today and buy measuring containers in the same proportions which are commonly used to weigh gold silver and other commodities.

I have answered this twice now, and will not waste any more time on coins

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

quick response on the coins- more to come–

AS I ALREADY SAID, THESE WERE NOT COINS they are measures of volume

AS I ALREADY SAID, THE ONLY MENTION OF THE WORD “COINS” APPEARS IN THE HEADING WHICH HEADS THE CHAPTER YOU HAVE QUOTED — THE HEADING WAS WRITTEN LATER AND IS NOT PART OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.

You can go to Guatamala today and buy measuring containers in the same proportions which are commonly used to weigh gold silver and other commodities.

I have answered this twice now, and will not waste any more time on coins

Apparently some Mormons along the way thought they were coins as Mormons put ‘coinage’ in the heading. Don’t you ever wonder about all the excuses Mormons have to come up with to continue their story?

If they were measured by measuring containers, surely everyone had a container. Where are the measuring containers?

My post addressed more than coins.

Why the avoidance on those subjects?

 

[Rolltide]

William James and Wittgenstein, also Whitehead. You know, like at least the 20th century?

Fair enough. I’m less familiar with twentieth century philosophers, due to the nature of my job, but I’m certainly capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation about them. I have to say, however, that I fail to see why modern makes philosophers better. Old philosophies are still valid ways of looking at the world, and are still incredibly influential. (Not that these modern philosophers aren’t important, because they are. They simply offer additional ways of looking at the world.)

 

[Rolltide]

AS I ALREADY SAID, THESE WERE NOT COINS they are measures of volume

AS I ALREADY SAID, THE ONLY MENTION OF THE WORD “COINS” APPEARS IN THE HEADING WHICH HEADS THE CHAPTER YOU HAVE QUOTED — THE HEADING WAS WRITTEN LATER AND IS NOT PART OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.

You can go to Guatamala today and buy measuring containers in the same proportions which are commonly used to weigh gold silver and other commodities.

I can also go to Guatemala today and see pyramids. Is this proof that the Egyptians settled Mesoamerica?

 

[mfbukowski]

Fair enough. I’m less familiar with twentieth century philosophers, due to the nature of my job, but I’m certainly capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation about them. I have to say, however, that I fail to see why modern makes philosophers better. Old philosophies are still valid ways of looking at the world, and are still incredibly influential. (Not that these modern philosophers aren’t important, because they are. They simply offer additional ways of looking at the world.)

This is not the place to get into philosophy, but suppose after understanding new philosophy, old philosophy is quaint and silly?

Suppose looking at those old arguments is like arguing about whether sagitarians are wise or librans are whatever librans are supposed to be? And then coming up with counter arguments about why sagitarians really ARE wise etc. It’s a waste of time.

Essentially this is precisely what Wittgenstein is about - especially in his later work. He sees all these old philosophical arguments as linguistic confusions. For Wittgenstein, as I said earlier, all truths must be defined within their contexts, and there is no other “truth”. It makes no sense to discuss the “truth” of any proposition outside of its context. And this is precisely the point I am making regarding history.

I guess in your terms, it would be as if the sophists had won the day, and no credible philosopher who is not catholic believes anything else. It would be like looking into the Harvard biology department for a Intelligent Design theorist. Wouldn’t happen.

This is the state of modern philosophy, and there are good reasons for it.

This is why faith is so important in these issues. You really cannot “prove” any religion true or false. No one can. Catholics can’t Buddhists can’t Mormons can’t. And historic evidence is always subject to interpretation. So where does that leave us?

It’s faith or nothing. Prove to me with historical evidence OR ANY EVIDENCE that the consecrated host is actually the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. It’s impossible.

There is no evidence for it at all. NONE. There is the HISTORY of belief in that proposition, but the proposition itself cannot be proven.

Same with the proposition that the “Book of Mormon is true”. It cannot be PROVEN OR DISPROVEN with evidence of any kind.

Does the existence of biblical evidence prove that the bible is true? No. It can show some correlation with historic events perhaps reported in the bible

Can the atonement of Jesus Christ be proven by evidence? No.

Now with the level of comment here, I suspect someone will accuse me of being a satanist who denies Jesus Christ. Just watch.

 

[mfbukowski]

Apparently some Mormons along the way thought they were coins as Mormons put ‘coinage’ in the heading. Don’t you ever wonder about all the excuses Mormons have to come up with to continue their story?

If they were measured by measuring containers, surely everyone had a container. Where are the measuring containers?

My post addressed more than coins.

Why the avoidance on those subjects?

I have answered any issues I believe would have any credibility at all to someone knowledgable about the Mormon church. In the absence of a response from C2M2C, I have accomplished my purpose.

 

[mfbukowski]

I can also go to Guatemala today and see pyramids. Is this proof that the Egyptians settled Mesoamerica?

No one said it was. Nevertheless, why do you think there is a similarity there? The pyramids ARE evidence however of advanced civilization and “cities” which ARE cited in the BOM.

 

[mfbukowski]

So the only metals were the ones they brought with them?

Of course not! As you mention below, they worked gold, silver and copper. Obviously the plates were made of gold, so they must have been able to work gold!

NOT according to the Book of Mormon…

1 Nephi 18.25

1 Nephi 19.1

Now if the Nephites were a culture of writing, wouldn’t there be writings available as there is for the Old and New Testament, which are much older?

Uh, there are-- like all the Mayan inscriptions etc. What is your point?
Helaman 3.15

Records from a culture that kept records, for approximately 1000 years, do not totally disappear. Every single book of the Old Testament, with the exception of Esther, is found in the Dead Sea scrolls which date back to 200 to 100BC. Where is the ancient manuscript for the Book of Mormon?

As I have said, there was only one manuscript. Again,- no Xerox machines, remember? It was hard to engrave on gold plates. I will not answer this one again.

No coins you say? NOT according to the book of Mormon.

Alma 11 the heading

Alma 11.5-19

I’m not going to post the whole chapter 11 of Alma, but invite anyone to go read it for themselves.

Keep in mind, coins from the time of Christ have been found and are still found to this day.

Coins: already answered at least twice.

 

[1holycatholic]

This is not the place to get into philosophy, but suppose after understanding new philosophy, old philosophy is quaint and silly?

This is exactly the place to discuss philosophy, and your statement is incredibly naive.

This is the state of modern philosophy, and there are good reasons for it.

Wittgenstein’s work has fallen out of favor, which isn’t surprising since his contributions to the Perennial Philosophy are nonexistent.

 

[JRKH]

Keep in mind, coins from the time of Christ have been found and are still found to this day

Yes answered twice. Fine - A group of immigrents come from an area that uses coinage chooses to not use coinage in their new home.

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son1
So the only metals were the ones they brought with them?

Of course not! As you mention below, they worked gold, silver and copper. Obviously the plates were made of gold, so they must have been able to work gold!

Again, you have of immigrents coming from an area with the technology to make steel, (since the brought steel with them) yet chose not to make steel. In addtion they chose not to make weapons out of copper, which you say they did work, prefering wooden weapons instead? Not likely since copper weapons were also known in the ancient world.

Records from a culture that kept records, for approximately 1000 years, do not totally disappear. Every single book of the Old Testament, with the exception of Esther, is found in the Dead Sea scrolls which date back to 200 to 100BC. Where is the ancient manuscript for the Book of Mormon?

As I have said, there was only one manuscript. Again,- no Xerox machines, remember? It was hard to engrave on gold plates. I will not answer this one again.

OK - No Xerox machines in the “New World”. Are you saying that there were “Xerox” machines in the Old World when the OT books were being copied? Of course not. They were copied by hand on parchment, skins etc. As for engraving on gold, Gold is actually a fairly soft metal and thus would be relatively easy to engrave on. In addition it is not any harder to engrave on two gold plates than on one. The Jews - and later the monastaries employed many many people in the task of copying texts. So the material existed, the technology existed and, presumably, the manpower existed to make more copies.
This is another argument that just doesn’t hold up to examination.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

C2M2C,
I hope you are getting good information from the discussion here.

One thing I note in the discussion going back and forth is how in Christianity and the Catholic Church, so much of the information is out there and avialable. In addition so much of it is backed up by historical evidence. It appears that in Mormonism, some things that could be made public aren’t and other things that could be proven, aren’t.
It just keeps sounding more and more fishy.

Peace
James

 

[mfbukowski]

This is exactly the place to discuss philosophy, and your statement is incredibly naive.

Wittgenstein’s work has fallen out of favor, which isn’t surprising since his contributions to the Perennial Philosophy are nonexistent.

Naive? Ok. I have been called many things, but that is a first.

Wittgenstein made no contributions to what you call the “Perennial Philosophy” because he was correct. Philosophy is not religion

Philosophy is the science of linguistic logic. Religion is the realm of thinking about metaphysics – things which cannot be proven except by faith. The only relevance that philosophy has for religion is to help us think clearer about it.

Want to talk about Wittgenstein? Hand me a brick. I am presuming you know the reference. What business does that have on this forum?

 

[1holycatholic]

Philosophy is the science of linguistic logic.

No, it isn’t, unless you are a nominalist.

 

[1holycatholic]

Naive? Ok. I have been called many things, but that is a first.

Wittgenstein made no contributions to what you call the “Perennial Philosophy” because he was correct. Philosophy is not religion

:hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

 

[C2M2C]

To C2M2C:

See what I mean?

Do you really want to be associated with these kind of people?

Be sure to read that post “Mormon Stumpers” and you will see how distorted it is.

Well let me say first, I really, really, want to believe in Mormonism. I’ve devoted the last 18 years of my life to callings, temple attendance, 3 hours of church every Sunday (sometimes five depending upon my calling) and a whole host of other Mormon “things”.

Having said that, I am here because I have come across a lot of things over the last little while that make me question evertything I’ve done & believed over the last 18 years. I am trying to be as objective as possible. I am looking at Catholic and Mormon history, and to a lesser extent doctrine. I am staying away from the sensationalized anti Mormon propaganda because I recognize it for what it is. However some of Mormonisms past is very ugly and I think makes a reasonable person call into question it’s truthfullness, but we can discuss my issues later. My response at this point is for the comment you made earlier about “Mormon Stumpers” because this is in fact the cause for some of my concerns.

To Be Continued…

 

[C2M2C]

…Continued

“We don’t bash your church, why bash ours?”

Many Mormons, including their hierarchy, look upon any criticism—regardless of how honest and sincere—as perverseness inspired by the Evil One. But these same individuals ignore their own past (and present) attacks on Christian churches. You might like to point out a few of these to those Mormons who say their church “never attacks other churches.”

1. “I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian churches), for they were all wrong…their creeds were an abomination in [God’s] sight; that those professors were all corrupt” (Joseph Smith—History 1:19).

1. “Orthodox Christian views of God are pagan rather than Christian” (Mormon Doctrine of Deity, B. H. Roberts [General Authority], 116).

1. “Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute beast” (Journal of Discourses, John Taylor [3rd Mormon President], 13:225).

1. “The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church, is the great corrupt, ecclesiastical power, represented by great Babylon” (Orson Pratt, Writings of an Apostle, Orson Pratt, n. 6, 84).

1. “All the priests who adhere to the sectarian [Christian] religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels” (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith, ed. Vol. 1, n. 4, 60).

1. [Under the heading, “Church of the Devil,” Apostle Bruce R. McConkie lists:] “The Roman Catholic Church specifically—singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being ‘most abominable above all other churches’ (I Ne. 13:5)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, 129).

1. “Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls (Morm. 8; Moro. 8)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, Bruce R. McConkie, 177).

I’m not sure I see what’s wrong with Catholics or persons of any other faith for that matter thinking that the statements from the LDS leadership over the years have been a little “anti all other religions”. I think the quotes above speak for themselves and need no further discussion as to what was meant and how Catholics and others could be upset. When I have heard deragotory comments from other faiths over the years directed and Mormonism I too have been upset. From my perspective the facts have simply been pointed out and Mormons take offense to their history being questioned. I don’t see what the issue is.