Cumorah

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexanKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gracepoole said:
First, I’m not sure why you’re bringing abortion and gay marriage into this conversation, since the Church of LDS and the RCC agree on those issues. You’ve stated, “you would not understand it; just like not understanding the Catholic teaching on same-sex marriage or abortion.” So your point in raising these issues is to make some comment on me?
Click to expand...
Only if you reject the teaching of the Catholic Church
 
Stephen168 said:
They are irrational and Mormonism is slowly embarrassing them, because they do not reason; they ‘feel.’
Click to expand...
Do you mean “embarrassing” here as you’ve written, or “embracing”? I’m not sure how either is possible regarding same-sex marriage, since Mormons ponied up more money than Catholics to vote in Prop 8.
Stephen168 said:
Mormons make many claims that are wrong, their religion is based on irrational claims.
Click to expand...
And what I’ve stated is that Mormons may make the same claims about Catholics. This still doesn’t get us any closer to understanding how someone might have viewed St. Faustina, just as an example, as having a “feeling” when she saw and spoke with Christ. The trouble is that no one can say person x didn’t have a personal encounter with God. That’s the nature of private, personal revelation. There’s no possibility of proving or disproving it. But for the Mormon who says she’s had a personal revelation, I doubt archaeological evidence is required.
 
gracepoole said:
Reason and philosophy tell us that bread and wine that still looks like bread and wine are really body and blood?
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
How does philosophy tell us that.
Click to expand...
Stephen168, there was a question mark in my comment. Yes – how *does *philosophy tell us this?
gracepoole said:
First, I’m not sure why you’re bringing abortion and gay marriage into this conversation, since the Church of LDS and the RCC agree on those issues. You’ve stated, “you would not understand it; just like not understanding the Catholic teaching on same-sex marriage or abortion.” So your point in raising these issues is to make some comment on me?
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
Only if you reject the teaching of the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
Wait, what? So you’re now diverting to my personal beliefs on these subjects? Why? What could this possibly have to do with the topic at hand?
 
gracepoole said:
Do you mean “embarrassing” here as you’ve written, or “embracing”? I’m not sure how either is possible regarding same-sex marriage, since Mormons ponied up more money than Catholics to vote in Prop 8.

And what I’ve stated is that Mormons may make the same claims about Catholics. This still doesn’t get us any closer to understanding how someone might have viewed St. Faustina, just as an example, as having a “feeling” when she saw and spoke with Christ. The trouble is that no one can say person x didn’t have a personal encounter with God. That’s the nature of private, personal revelation. There’s no possibility of proving or disproving it. But for the Mormon who says she’s had a personal revelation, I doubt archaeological evidence is required.
Click to expand...
You need to study more about the changing beliefs of the Mormon Church.
 
gracepoole said:
First, I’m not sure why you’re bringing abortion and gay marriage into this conversation, since the Church of LDS and the RCC agree on those issues. You’ve stated, “you would not understand it; just like not understanding the Catholic teaching on same-sex marriage or abortion.” So your point in raising these issues is to make some comment on me?
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
Only if you reject the teaching of the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
gracepoole said:
Wait, what? So you’re now diverting to my personal beliefs on these subjects? Why? What could this possibly have to do with the topic at hand?
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
Stay on task
Click to expand...
Bingo! Glad we finally got there.
Stephen168 said:
you don’t seem to understand what transubstantiation means.
Click to expand...
Why do you draw that conclusion from what I’ve stated?
 
gracepoole said:
Why do you draw that conclusion from what I’ve stated?
Click to expand...
Your question makes no sense to someone who understands what transubstantiation means. Which has nothing to do with the irrational teachings of Mormonism or its changing teachings. You seem to be trying to defend the indefensible with little knowledge of the subject. How long did you attend meetings at a Mormon Church?
 
Stephen168 said:
You question makes no sense to someone who understands what transubstantiation means. Which has nothing to do with the irrational teachings of Mormonism or its changing teachings. You seem to be trying to defend the indefensible with little knowledge of the subject. How long did you attend meetings at a Mormon Church?
Click to expand...
There’s a certain mastery of ad hominem attacks here… In any case, I am not defending Mormonism. I’ve simply asked how we might disprove revelation and if we can’t, why archaeological evidence is necessary.

As for changing teachings, hop on over to the death penalty thread that’s going right now in World News.
 
gracepoole said:
There’s a certain mastery of ad hominem attacks here… In any case, I am not defending Mormonism. I’ve simply asked how we might disprove revelation and if we can’t, why archaeological evidence is necessary.
Click to expand...
Then your question has been answered.
As for changing teachings, hop on over to the death penalty thread that’s going right now in World News.
Click to expand...
Again, you should learn more about the changing teachings of Mormonism
 
OK, correct me if I am wrong. gracepoole is trying to get some apologetics going on what one would say to a Mormon - particularly one that is personally convinced by personal revelation or a “feeling”. The supposition that this confidence of right/wrong (due to the revelation/feeling) has nothing to do with JS, Cumorah, or any other historical/archaelogical underpinnings. Is this about right?

steven168 seems to be apologizing using gracepoole’s profile. Which means that steven168 is arguing to or at gracepoole instead of apologizing the particular topic. Is this right?

I can understand the sentiment of gracepoole (if I have it right). I’ve lost count of how many times I have been given someone’s testimony about the rightness of the LDS. Like that is relevant to my salvation (or the discussion at hand, it is conversation stopper), what am I supposed to do with someone else’s testimony? I get to the Pearly Gates and start name dropping, “Oh, alright, you can come in”? However, what can I do to have a discussion with an LDS person that is “supernaturally convinced” of their rightitude?

Arguments about reason, philosophy, history, etc. fall on deaf ears when one has had a “personal revelation”. So, how does one work with this? For my part, it is just irritating that I can not share the joy of my faith with them, as the ones I bump into the most are friends and family with “personal revelation of truth” and do not want to hear my Truth. So, I end up biting my tongue because you cannot argue, cannot even get a foot in the door with someone who is convinced of their truth in this manner. So, I understand (albeit grudgingly) that I have to step back and just pray for them.

I suppose the best you could hope for is to ask questions, listen to the answers, and try to get some thoughtful discussion directed towards the sticky parts. Maybe you can get them to investigate their apologetics a little deeper and maybe discover something they need to consider.
 
gracepoole said:
Ah, yes. I am familiar with Aquinas, but I do enjoy the injection of a philosopher and theologian and doctor of the church in response to my question.

(And seeing your sign-off always makes me grin :))
Click to expand...
Pork. 🙂
 
Still waiting for Mormons to pipe in and let us know if they believe js’ definitive declaration that the Cumorah in NY is THE Cumorah
 
Phntm said:
OK, correct me if I am wrong. gracepoole is trying to get some apologetics going on what one would say to a Mormon - particularly one that is personally convinced by personal revelation or a “feeling”. The supposition that this confidence of right/wrong (due to the revelation/feeling) has nothing to do with JS, Cumorah, or any other historical/archaelogical underpinnings. Is this about right?

steven168 seems to be apologizing using gracepoole’s profile. Which means that steven168 is arguing to or at gracepoole instead of apologizing the particular topic. Is this right?
Click to expand...
You are incorrect about my apologetics and the spelling of my name.
Phntm said:
I can understand the sentiment of gracepoole (if I have it right). I’ve lost count of how many times I have been given someone’s testimony about the rightness of the LDS. Like that is relevant to my salvation (or the discussion at hand, it is conversation stopper), what am I supposed to do with someone else’s testimony? I get to the Pearly Gates and start name dropping, “Oh, alright, you can come in”? However, what can I do to have a discussion with an LDS person that is “supernaturally convinced” of their rightitude?

Arguments about reason, philosophy, history, etc. fall on deaf ears when one has had a “personal revelation”. So, how does one work with this? For my part, it is just irritating that I can not share the joy of my faith with them, as the ones I bump into the most are friends and family with “personal revelation of truth” and do not want to hear my Truth. So, I end up biting my tongue because you cannot argue, cannot even get a foot in the door with someone who is convinced of their truth in this manner. So, I understand (albeit grudgingly) that I have to step back and just pray for them.

I suppose the best you could hope for is to ask questions, listen to the answers, and try to get some thoughtful discussion directed towards the sticky parts. Maybe you can get them to investigate their apologetics a little deeper and maybe discover something they need to consider.
Click to expand...
I basically agree, but I prefer to do more than pray when someone attempts to make the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church the same. The Catholic Church argues from reason and as a Catholic I’ve taken a good amount of time to understand the reasons. I’ve also taken some time to try and understand Mormonism. The Mormon Church makes claims about itself which are unreasonable; conflict with logic, science and history. They are not the same. There are also protestant-Catholics who also operate on their “personal revelation of truth” who ‘feel’ instead of ‘reason’ and have difficulty understand the difference. I also pray for them.
 
Stephen168 said:
You are incorrect about my apologetics and the spelling of my name.

I basically agree, but I prefer to do more than pray when someone attempts to make the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church the same. The Catholic Church argues from reason and as a Catholic I’ve taken a good amount of time to understand the reasons. I’ve also taken some time to try and understand Mormonism. The Mormon Church makes claims about itself which are unreasonable; conflict with logic, science and history. They are not the same. There are also protestant-Catholics who also operate on their “personal revelation of truth” who ‘feel’ instead of ‘reason’ and have difficulty understand the difference. I also pray for them.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍👍
 
gracepoole said:
First, I’m not sure why you’re bringing abortion and gay marriage into this conversation, since the Church of LDS and the RCC agree on those issues. You’ve stated, “you would not understand it; just like not understanding the Catholic teaching on same-sex marriage or abortion.” So your point in raising these issues is to make some comment on me?
Click to expand...
Maybe you should do a little more research before you make such a statement. mormons DO NOT agree with the Catholic Church on abortion.
 
Isn’t this thread about Cumorah?

I’m pretty sure it isn’t about other people’s posting styles and system of apologetics and board nannies.

Just sayin. 🤷
 
gracepoole said:
First, I’m not sure why you’re bringing abortion and gay marriage into this conversation, since the Church of LDS and the RCC agree on those issues. You’ve stated, “you would not understand it; just like not understanding the Catholic teaching on same-sex marriage or abortion.” So your point in raising these issues is to make some comment on me?

Second, I’m guessing that Mormons make the same claim you’ve made: you don’t know that personal revelation is rational because you don’t understand it.
Click to expand...
“We have no revelation on abortion”

Didn’t you assume Mormons were pro-life? That’s certainly the image their church attempts to broadcast, and most Mormons, in fact, mistakenly believe their church opposes abortion and regards it as an objective evil. But not so.Indeed, the Mormon church accepts abortion for a number of reasons. The Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September, 1998, states that abortion may be performed in the following circumstances: pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; a competent physician says the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or a competent physician says that the “fetus” has severe defects that will not allow the “baby” to survive beyond birth. In any case, the persons responsible must first consult with their church leader and receive God’s approval in prayer (156).

This same Handbook, the official policies of the Mormon church to be followed by all local church leaders throughout the world, also claims: “It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body” (156). Previous teachings by former Mormon prophets referred to the unborn child as “a child,” “a baby,” a “human being,” and decried abortion as “killing,” “a grievous sin,” “a damnable practice.” Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who died in 1985, taught, “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the church in unalterably opposing all abortions” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 189).

It appears that this “unalterable” position, constantly “affirmed,” is just another in a series of doctrinal and moral teachings that Mormons have reworded, reworked, rescinded, or reneged—though never officially renounced. Such is the quality of the Mormon belief in “continuing revelation.” Don’t expect dogmatic or ethical consistency. Rather, look for expediency and conformity with “the times.”
A further statement in the Handbook says: “The church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion (156).” While the Mormon prophet claims to speak the mind and will of God, he can neither figure out when the unborn child becomes human or if it is God’s desire that we protect the unborn unconditionally.

Your Mormon friend will offer the excuse that his church leaves many decisions to the free agency (free will) of its people, and that abortion is one such concern. You might point out the irony in the fact that the Mormon church has no hesitation or uncertainty in making the following declarations:
  1. “The church opposes gambling in any form” (including lotteries). Members are also urged to oppose legislation and government sponsorship of any form of gambling (Handbook, 150).
  2. The church also opposes [correctly, of course] pornography in any form (158).
  3. Church members are to reject all efforts to legally authorize or support same-sex unions (158).
There is no need for a member to pray for divine guidance or seek church approval for such activities, for there will be no divine or ecclesiastical finessing of morality to permit even an occasional bingo game. A prayerful game of poker, unrepented, will bar the member from the temple and ultimate salvation; a prayerful, by-the-book abortion, unrepented, won’t.
catholic.com/tracts/mormon-stumpers
 
[SIGN]Let’s stay on Cumorah…start another thread if needed…pretty please[/SIGN]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top