Catholic to Mormon to Catholic?

[Contrabass101]

Great stuff – I am shocked that we are so close!

Yeah, I’m a bit surprised too… but it’s been a great discussion.

I even agree with you about Aquinas – the problem is that coming from a post-modern perspective, I don’t understand a word he says. I mean I understand what “being” means in some sense, or “substance”, but the way he uses them, I can’t figure out if he is right or wrong. But no question that the guy was a genius genius. He could hold a bunch of different propositions in his brain and juggle them all, and have it come out perfectly. You can’t fault his logic, just whether or not his word usage is ambiguous. But that is what linguistic analysis is about. I don’t know if it’s progress or not

The other problem is his epistemology. How are you supposed to know what is “out there” beyond appearances? But that is for another thread I guess, if anyone is interested in it. Don’t know that I am.

I guess it’s easier for me, coming from a medieval point of view

What I don’t understand is the Nominalists and the people who start doubting not only reality, but even their own existence. I mean… why don’t they just open their eyes and shut their mouth! Only a philosopher could go so wrong.

I’d pick Realism over that any time.

So I guess you like Teilhard de Chardin? If you haven’t read him you ought to. But I think he got excommunicated?

Never heard of him. But if he’s excommunicated I stand with the Church.

For now I need to finish reading Newman and Vincent, though… but eventually I might get to him. I’m studying Theology for the next 6 years, so there might be a good chance to bump into him eventually.

I also agree with your view on time, and I think we get into linguistic paradoxes by talking about “being out side of time” in temporal language. I mentioned once before somewhere on these posts that I taught a lesson on this once about a “time before time” and one of the students years later did the cartoon movie “The Land Before Time” about some dinosaur characters.

Haha… we can’t even say it without using paradoxical language - “outside” of time, or “before time”. “Outside” signifies space, “before” signifies time.

Words surely fall short trying to describe the nature of God.

But I think this is the key to understanding the Mormon view that “God was once as we are now”. He is outside of OUR time, but in some sense in his own time context which is different from ours, and so to us he is both “eternal” AND “progressing”.

But that would require another God in God’s world. Someone who was outside and creator of God’s spatio-temporal world. And that would leave you with what? An infinite number of Gods and Universes?

An infinite number of enities none of which are necessary beings? Seems like an absurdity to me. Again, I’d pick Aquinas’ one Immovable Mover any day.

I’d like to say He is totally outside of time, but then he could not be different at T1 than he is at T2, and so could not change. I don’t know.

True. But again we have a limited understanding of what “outside time” means. I just know that if it seems to us anything less than being in time, we are getting it wrong. Like when we (Catholics) say that God is Spirit, we do not mean that He is less concrete or less real than us, but rather that He is more real and concrete… we are the shadows and dust.

What time is it inside a black hole, where space/time itself is fractured? And yet black holes, I think the theory goes, change over “time” as they get bigger and perhaps explode into a “big bang”. So are they “outside time” too? A physical entity that exists outside time? Ahhh… there is so much to learn!

Uhm…





Black holes are when God divide by 0

I’m working on a blog that is not yet “ready for prime time” about these questions, but will send you a link when I get some of the sawdust picked up.

Cool.

But I have a bone to pick with you!

What do you have against bass fishing?

(stupid joke!)

I didn’t get it.

But then again, English is only my second language.

One last question – you remind me of a Catholic guy I knew at UCLA - If you went there in the late 60’s and your name is Jim, you should send me a private message! I have been looking for this guy for a while. He owes me $5.

Then I’m definitely not Jim…

I’m… uh… Tim, yeah Tim… Jim’s brother, who doesn’t owe you $5

Nah, actually I’m just some random European guy named Stephen. I’m not even really Catholic yet.

But anyhow, I think we’ve both got food for thoughts here, so I’ll go to bed. Time is relative, as you know, and right here it’s way past midnight.

• CB

 

[Robert_in_SD]

One more thing
If God personally appeared to you, and you wanted to tell the story to someone, would you tell them that God personally appeard to you or might you soften it to “I have seen an angel” or something like that?

I would tell the truth.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

To be brief I was raised Catholic and when I was 18 living in Utah I was given a Book of Mormon. I was told to read it and pray about it as stated in John 1:5 and Moroni 10:4. I did, felt the “burning in the bosom” and now 18 years later I have been a Mormon ever since, married in the Temple, heavily involved in the youth program of my ward, four kids, the oldest of which I just baptized last month, and deeply entrenched in Utah Mormon culture, etc, etc, etc. If you live in Utah and are a Mormon or were, you know what I mean.

The problem began about a month ago when searching for something on Google I came across some Mormon church history. I studied, learned and became a little “too familiar” with the Church’s past. Needless to say, a reasonable person could no longer continue as a Mormon knowing the truth.

So here I am, wondering where do I go from here. A study of the doctrine of the Catholic church or any other church for that matter is secondary to me in a way because the primary concern is finding the true church, Christ’s church. Then the doctrine will matter. In other words, if the Mormons are right then their idea of Heaven is right, same with Catholics. I have a good “general” sense of Catholic teachings but if the church is not the true one, then the doctrine is irrelevant.

So how do I know? How do I find out? I understand Apostolic succession and to a certain extent I think I believe it. The history makes sense and adds up but my problem is that as a Mormon I was told to “study it out” come up with what I felt to be the right answer and then ask God for a confirmation. So what do Catholics do?
How do you pray for an understanding of these things? How do you get answers? Do you get answers? How do they come? Feelings, promptings, thoughts, signs?

As a Mormon I felt like I had answers to almost everything and if I didn’t i need do nothing more than pray about it. I now no longer trust what I feel.

To a certain extent, scriptural backing is almost irrelevant too. Why? Because almost everyone can find or quote scriptures that back or “prove” their belief. Catholics can and so can Mormons and Born Agains.

I am distraught, sad, mad, confused and I need help. Prayers, thoughts, suggestions? Any or all would be helpful.

Regards

C2M2C?

Start with the study of the Great Apostacy. If it never happened, the LDS Church is based on a lie. I think you will find that there is no support for the notion of a complete and total Great Apostacy as the LDS Church teaches. Hence, there was never a need for restoration.

Then the question becomes one of Authority. Did God create a Church with authority to teach doctrine and morals. As an LDS, I think you are already accepting of the need for a Church with teaching Authority.

Then, ask which Church is Christ’s Church… Study the history of the Catholic Church, the Schism, the Reformation… all of it. To paraphrase Newman, to be deep in history is to be solidly Catholic.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

Yeah, I’m a bit surprised too… but it’s been a great discussion.

I guess it’s easier for me, coming from a medieval point of view

What I don’t understand is the Nominalists and the people who start doubting not only reality, but even their own existence. I mean… why don’t they just open their eyes and shut their mouth! Only a philosopher could go so wrong.

I’d pick Realism over that any time.

Never heard of him. But if he’s excommunicated I stand with the Church.

For now I need to finish reading Newman and Vincent, though… but eventually I might get to him. I’m studying Theology for the next 6 years, so there might be a good chance to bump into him eventually.

Haha… we can’t even say it without using paradoxical language - “outside” of time, or “before time”. “Outside” signifies space, “before” signifies time.

Words surely fall short trying to describe the nature of God.

But that would require another God in God’s world. Someone who was outside and creator of God’s spatio-temporal world. And that would leave you with what? An infinite number of Gods and Universes?

An infinite number of enities none of which are necessary beings? Seems like an absurdity to me. Again, I’d pick Aquinas’ one Immovable Mover any day.

True. But again we have a limited understanding of what “outside time” means. I just know that if it seems to us anything less than being in time, we are getting it wrong. Like when we (Catholics) say that God is Spirit, we do not mean that He is less concrete or less real than us, but rather that He is more real and concrete… we are the shadows and dust.

Uhm…





Black holes are when God divide by 0

Cool.

I didn’t get it.

But then again, English is only my second language.

Then I’m definitely not Jim…

I’m… uh… Tim, yeah Tim… Jim’s brother, who doesn’t owe you $5

Nah, actually I’m just some random European guy named Stephen. I’m not even really Catholic yet.

But anyhow, I think we’ve both got food for thoughts here, so I’ll go to bed. Time is relative, as you know, and right here it’s way past midnight.

• CB

Explanation of stupid joke:
“Contra” means “against”
“Bass” can mean either a low note, or an instrument which plays a low note, but it is also the name of a species of fish, the bass, which has almost a cult following because fishing for it requires special techniques and lures etc.

So “contra-bass” really stretching for a pun, could mean one who is “against bass (fishing)”

In english, we call the above explanation “beating a dead horse”

I have no problem doubting reality, it’s just talking about it clearly that presents problems. Especially since you are just a figment of my imagination, and here you pretend to be real.

 

[mfbukowski]

Again, I’d pick Aquinas’ one Immovable Mover any day.

Yes but you see that is the problem. I don’t know what that means, and I would allege that you don’t either. It all sounds good, but in reality it is mumbo jumbo. Who needs a mover when the river is eternally moving already? You can’t have it both ways.

Either it is eternal change or dualism. ( A mover who doesn’t move cannot be experienced, or I would say, known) All I experience in my life is change. I know of nothing empirically which does not.

Again, so you have what is knowable and changing or what is unknowable and unchanging.

I like a God I can know, because I do.

 

[truthsilence]

One more thing
If God personally appeared to you, and you wanted to tell the story to someone, would you tell them that God personally appeard to you or might you soften it to “I have seen an angel” or something like that?

Now that you mention it, can you imagine that God would send *an angel *to the Blessed Virgin Mary, to tell her that she will give birth to His only begotten son Jesus Christ …
but then Joseph Smith gets a personal visit face to face with God Himself?!

I don’t think so

 

[PaulDupre]

truthsilence:

but then Joseph Smith gets a personal visit face to face with God Himself?!

I don’t think so

Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God the Father face to face, but the bible clearly teaches that no man can see God and live.

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. (Exodus 33:20)

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18)

Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God [Jesus], he hath seen the Father. (John 6:46)

Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

If there is anything that proves Mormonism to be unbiblical, this is it.

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes but you see that is the problem. I don’t know what that means, and I would allege that you don’t either. It all sounds good, but in reality it is mumbo jumbo. Who needs a mover when the river is eternally moving already? You can’t have it both ways.

Either it is eternal change or dualism. ( A mover who doesn’t move cannot be experienced, or I would say, known) All I experience in my life is change. I know of nothing empirically which does not.

Again, so you have what is knowable and changing or what is unknowable and unchanging.

I like a God I can know, because I do.

Infinite past time is impossible.

A God that changes is no God at all.

 

[hosemonkey]

Infinite past time is impossible.

A God that changes is no God at all.

Quite so. But for mfbukowski and mormons like him, God can be anything that they want him to be. Because in mormon belief, God is just another man who done real good for himself and who gives them hope that they can do the same. Imagine, your own world in which you are all-powerful, platoons of “wives” to have endless sex with to produce all those “spirit babies” to populate your very own domain with, yum! Kinda makes your eyes red just to think about it, no? So that is why Ski just can’t stand the idea of God being immutable and unchanging. He needs to have God “grow up”, so that he can “grow up” to godhood himself and have his own adolescent fantasies fulfilled. How about that Ski, did I hit it, oh god in training?:bowdown:

 

[mfbukowski]

Here’s another site that talks about this issue of whether it was an angel or God who appeared to Joseph. It shows the outright lies and misquotes that the anti-mormons use

fairlds.org/Misc/Did_Early_LDS_Leaders_Misunderstand_the_First_Vision.html

 

[mfbukowski]

Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God the Father face to face, but the bible clearly teaches that no man can see God and live.

If there is anything that proves Mormonism to be unbiblical, this is it.

I think you are mistaken. All these verses refer to seeing God.

Acts 7:55-56
Gen. 32:30
Gen. 17:1
Gen. 18:1
Acts 7:2
Ex. 3:6
Ex. 19:11
Ex. 33:11
Num. 12:7-8
1_Kings 9:2
1_Kings 11:9
Is. 6:1,5
Ex. 24:10-11
Deut. 34:10
Deut. 5:4
Jud. 13:22
Genesis3 :
Heb. 11:27
Job 42:5
Job 33:26
Job 19:26
Ez. 1:1
Ez. 8:1-4
Josh. 5:12-15
Rev. 22:4

We believe the bible insofar as it is translated correctly.

As you have pointed out many times, it is the Catholic church which has given us the perfect bible. So I guess you are responsible for the inconsistencies.

 

[mfbukowski]

Infinite past time is impossible.

A God that changes is no God at all.

I’ll let you be the one to tell God what he can and can’t do.

 

[mfbukowski]

Quite so. But for mfbukowski and mormons like him, God can be anything that they want him to be. Because in mormon belief, God is just another man who done real good for himself and who gives them hope that they can do the same. Imagine, your own world in which you are all-powerful, platoons of “wives” to have endless sex with to produce all those “spirit babies” to populate your very own domain with, yum! Kinda makes your eyes red just to think about it, no? So that is why Ski just can’t stand the idea of God being immutable and unchanging. He needs to have God “grow up”, so that he can “grow up” to godhood himself and have his own adolescent fantasies fulfilled. How about that Ski, did I hit it, oh god in training?:bowdown:

Tu es plenus stercoris

 

[hosemonkey]

Tu es plenus stercoris

mormon doctrine! Saw it just in time! Sure glad I didn’t step in it.

 

[PaulDupre]

I think you are mistaken. All these verses refer to seeing God.

Acts 7:55-56

It doesn’t say that Stephen saw the Father. It says he saw Jesus “at God’s right hand”. To be at someone’s right hand is a term of art meaning “in the place of honor”.

Gen. 32:30
Gen. 17:1
Gen. 18:1
Acts 7:2
Ex. 3:6
Ex. 19:11
Ex. 33:11
Num. 12:7-8
1_Kings 9:2
1_Kings 11:9
Is. 6:1,5
Ex. 24:10-11
Deut. 34:10
Deut. 5:4
Jud. 13:22
Genesis3 :
Heb. 11:27
Job 42:5
Job 33:26
Job 19:26
Ez. 1:1
Ez. 8:1-4
Josh. 5:12-15

Nope, whom they saw was the pre-incarnate Christ. God the Father never appeared to anyone. All theophany in the OT was the pre-incarnate Christ. Didn’t the LDS used to believe that, too?

Rev. 22:4

Nope, Revelation 22 takes place after the final judgment depicted in Rev 20. So these are they who have already died and been resurrected (or were translated) and admitted into the presence of God.

We believe the bible insofar as it is translated correctly.

Nope, you believe the bible insofar as it supports Joseph Smith. Your church has always taught that the bible is corrupt and untrustworthy, full of omissions, additions, errors and intentional distortions.

 

[1holycatholic]

I’ll let you be the one to tell God what he can and can’t do.

Be sure to tell God how you think He is imperfect while you’re at it.

 

[1holycatholic]

It doesn’t say that Stephen saw the Father. It says he saw Jesus “at God’s right hand”. To be at someone’s right hand is a term of art meaning “in the place of honor”.

There are some literalists who think that it is a literal place that you could locate by entering the appropriate coordinates in a GPS.

 

[BRB]

Why would God select J.S. as his new leader … and not tell his 1800 yo Church & Peter’s successor ?

Mormonism is a monstrous lie, nice people …yes. But, delusional and indoctrinated from their infancy to worship the human family unit & geneology.

Where did trusting in their geneology alone get the Hebrews ?

 

[RebeccaJ]

There are some literalists who think that it is a literal place that you could locate by entering the appropriate coordinates in a GPS.

Well, these folks clearly do not understand the doctrine of Geographic Positioning.

 

[mfbukowski]

Be sure to tell God how you think He is imperfect while you’re at it.

Nobody said he was imperfect. It is your Scholisticism and Aristotle that believe that to be perfect you have to be unchanging. It’s actually a question-begging definition-- “perfect” MEANS unchanging.

You are the one who was limiting God’s abilities. And that makes him “imperfect”

It’s a linguistic paradox like “Can God make a stone so large that he cannot lift it”?

You lose either way when you try to limit his abilities linguistically.

He is beyond our silly definitions. That is why I don’t like Aquinas. By limiting God to being an “unmoved mover” he has linguistically limited our conception of God to be anything else.

The language itself has put limitations on our concept of Him.

We can only speak of Him in what appear to be paradoxes. He is so large, to use another analogy, that when we walk around him, we must see him in different perspectives. Like the elephant and the blind men, we only see small bits at any one time. The elephant is not a wall, or a rope, or a snake, but yet it is like all those things. It is a question of perspective. You can’t see or say the whole picture at once.

To do so limits God