How do the Mormons do it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Captain_America
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Transubstantiation. It is not reasonable for someone outside of catholicism to believe in that.
It is just axiomatic. Obviously, bread is not a body and wine is not blood. So it is not reasonable to the common person. As a catholic, you may find it reasonable because you have been trained that way, but in the real world, even a child can see it does not make sense. My kids ask me all the time, how can a piece of bread really be a body. Natural question. And the answer from a catholic would be, just believe it. You can throw Aristotle philosophy around Accent versus the appearance, but again it takes analysis paralysis and imagination, not reason. At least not for a common person like myself.

Of course, if you treat it as just a symbol, much easier to accept from a common sense stand point.
I was not asking you to prove or disprove a Christian belief. I was asking you to prove the unreasonableness of Catholics and non-Catholic sharing a belief.

As a side note: Aristotle’s philosophy in regard to transubstantiations did not include ‘accents.’ Also accidents and appearances would be the same so we would not talk about accidents versus appearances either. Also belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and transubstantiation are two different ideas.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
So we should not believe that the names of the animals in the stories are actually those animals?
1Voice,

Try if you will, to think of a translator, with no word for “llama”, no word for “peccary”, no word for “alpaca”, no word for “Rocky Mountain Sheep”, and the word “ox” readily meaning “bison”.

What would you do, being a translator, if you were trying to describe an animal using a term familiar to the people who would be reading the translation, but which was one of those animals unfamiliar to them or to you but had some similarities to the animals with which they and you were familiar?
Finding names for unusual animals didnt seem to present a problem though.

… Ether 9:19, cureloms and cumoms
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
So we should not believe that the names of the animals in the stories are actually those animals?

Finding names for unusual animals didnt seem to present a problem though.

… Ether 9:19, cureloms and cumoms
Precisely. 👍
 
What would you do, being a translator, if you were trying to describe an animal using a term familiar to the people who would be reading the translation, but which was one of those animals unfamiliar to them or to you but had some similarities to the animals with which they and you were familiar?
I would use the orginal word in the orginal language, if the equivalent didn’t exist in my language.

It happens all the time in linquistics. Neologisms are formed from foreign word stock. The tatars show up with a new invention called (in English) “stirrups” and the Slavic peoples get a new word.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
So we should not believe that the names of the animals in the stories are actually those animals?

Finding names for unusual animals didnt seem to present a problem though.

… Ether 9:19, cureloms and cumoms
And Joseph Smith claimed that he translated the gold plates not by understanding the language on the plates but that the translation was revealed to him by the gift and power of God.

If the names of the animals in the BOM are wrong it just means that the Mormon god is not very bright and is an incompetent translator.

But then the same demigod failed to keep a church together.

Twice.
 
I was not asking you to prove or disprove a Christian belief. I was asking you to prove the unreasonableness of Catholics and non-Catholic sharing a belief.

As a side note: Aristotle’s philosophy in regard to transubstantiations did not include ‘accents.’ Also accidents and appearances would be the same so we would not talk about accidents versus appearances either. Also belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and transubstantiation are two different ideas.
The whole point of this thread is really about asking someone to be reasonable in the context of Mormon belief. There is a comment from someone around you can really make that reason argument for all religions.

I am not a catholic. I am a Christian. But the point I want to make that there are somethings I believe in that just sound unreasonable to people, and we are fooling ourselves to think otherwise. That is why the attempt of disproving certain Mormon beliefs by reason is not practical in many cases. For example, I believe in:

1.) a Talking Snake in the Garden
2.) a talking donkey on the road.
3.) a parting Red Sea.
4.) A Virgin Birth
5.) a Resurrection from the Dead
6.) Healing miracles of Jesus, either of himself or through apostles

An Athiest can easily look at me as unreasonable by logic. But there are somethings that the Lord does beyond our comprehension. And it is ok, to have a God that knows more than what I can reason.

It is only through a Gospel of repentance from Sin and forgiveness through the Body Blood of Jesus Christ that a heart can be changed. We may be able to change some minds through our own cleverness, but only Jesus can change the heart of an unbeliever.
 
I’m sure that’s what some disciples thought too, but it is clear that is not what Jesus meant. You can see that it is not what He meant by the fact that many disciples stopped following Him after he continually taught about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. If it were supposed to be taken as mere symbol, like the vine or door He also said He was, they should have had no trouble with this teaching.

That’s logic.👍
That would make sense if the event took place during the last supper and not after he fed 5000 with bread. Jesus was the very literal bread standing in front of them, and Jesus was calling them to believe on Him and follow Him. He even compared Himself to Manna of Moses. Not too logical in my mind that Jesus would compare Himself to Manna from Heaven and then turn it into another Physical Bread.
 
That would make sense if the event took place during the last supper and not after he fed 5000 with bread. Jesus was the very literal bread standing in front of them, and Jesus was calling them to believe on Him and follow Him. He even compared Himself to Manna of Moses. Not too logical in my mind that Jesus would compare Himself to Manna from Heaven and then turn it into another Physical Bread.
Then answer why many disciples STOPPED following him after he told them they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood if it was only a symbol. I wouldn’t give up my salvation for misinterpreting a symbol.
 
The whole point of this thread is really about asking someone to be reasonable in the context of Mormon belief.
That is true. Mormonism seems to routinely violate laws of logics (law of thought); just as you did in post #334. It IS reasonable that non-Catholics and Catholics can hold the same belief, so you are wrong.

Catholic beliefs are very reasonable and consistent with the teaching of Christ. I believe it is so reasonable that few Catholics take the time to discover the reason for many of her teachings, so they leave to become their own Pope.
 
And Joseph Smith claimed that he translated the gold plates not by understanding the language on the plates but that the translation was revealed to him by the gift and power of God.

If the names of the animals in the BOM are wrong it just means that the Mormon god is not very bright and is an incompetent translator.

But then the same demigod failed to keep a church together.

Twice.
I decided to go back and give the BoM another shot, just to read up on the whole trip to “a land choice above all other lands”. But, every time I try to read it, it makes me ‘antsy’, so I haven’t even bothered to read any of it in a while. The constant repetitiveness of certain phrases (“But, behold”; “And it came to pass”; “And the Lord said”, etc., etc, over, and over, and over …) really drives me up a wall. I certainly don’t find it to be nearly as enjoyable to read as the real Bible is (DR). JS really tried to make it sound Biblical, but it doesn’t even come close to the real thing. I had never read any of “Ether” before, and I probably won’t be reading much more of it, if I can avoid it. I have to say, it does live up to it’s name. But, I did find something in it that really made me giggle, so it wasn’t a total waste of time.
*"Ether 1:6 And on this wise do I give the account. He that wrote this record was Ether, and he was a descendant of Coriantor.

7 Coriantor was the son of Moron. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/blink.gif

8 And Moron was the son of Ethem.

9 And Ethem was the son of Ahah. "*

Shouldn’t there be an exclamation point after that last one? 🤷

I really have to wonder where he came up with some of the names for people, places and other ‘stuff’ he put in it. That particular list goes on for several more ‘generations’ of sons, but those two were definitely the best of all of them. I suppose his imagination did have its limits. One thing really struck me as rather odd. In that long list of ‘sons’, and in the rest of the narration, it never gives the name of the “brother of Jared”. If he was supposed to be so important in this whole story, why didn’t they give him a name? If they ever said it, anywhere, I never saw it. He’s just always referred to as “the brother of Jared”, the poor guy. He didn’t get any recognition at all for what he supposedly did. But, Jared was always telling him what to do:
“34 And the brother of Jared being a large and mighty man, and a man highly favored of the Lord, Jared, his brother, said unto him: Cry unto the Lord, that he will not confound us that we may not understand our words.”
Huh??? The last part of that whole line makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. (I even had my son read it to see if it made any sense to him. Nope.) It’s supposed to refer to the confusion that happened after the fall of the tower of Babel, so maybe it’s supposed to reflect that kind of indecipherable nonsense? If that’s the case then, ok… http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/shrug.gif

My apologies to all those who believe that this book is true. I just can’t see how anyone could read any of it for more than 5 minutes without wanting to :banghead:.
 
Catholic-RCIA,

I am familiar with that logic. That logic would say that humankind are dead to the things of the Spirit, and would blame that on Adam and Eve with no recognition that the atonement of Christ overcame the effects of the fall of Adam and Eve.

That logic is what Paul was trying to get his readers to move away from when he wrote his epistle to the Corinthians and wrote about “hidden wisdom” from God as being completely different from the “wisdom of men” and the wisdom of the flesh.

Whatever happened to wanting to be back in the presence of God, back into the pattern of gaining greater knowledge than the limited and ultimately short-changing “wisdom of men”?
ok?
 
Then answer why many disciples STOPPED following him after he told them they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood if it was only a symbol. I wouldn’t give up my salvation for misinterpreting a symbol.
They were doing what one would expect people to do when they had heard about “free food”.

They were looking for more “free food”. They weren’t thinking about “salvation”, at all–but about food, as in bread and fishes.
 
Catholic-RCIA,

I am familiar with that logic. That logic would say that humankind are dead to the things of the Spirit, and would blame that on Adam and Eve with no recognition that the atonement of Christ overcame the effects of the fall of Adam and Eve.
Are you speaking about Pagans or Heathens here? Those that really do not beleive in the fall, in Jesus yet make fun of their own sins? You certanly are not speaking about Christians of all Christian denominations right? Beacuse that would simply be evil.

Any Catholics other than me like to comment on this? Soren maybe? Steve? Kathleen?
 
Are you speaking about Pagans or Heathens here? Those that really do not believe in the fall, in Jesus yet make fun of their own sins? You certanly are not speaking about Christians of all Christian denominations right? Beacuse that would simply be evil.

Any Catholics other than me like to comment on this? Soren maybe? Steve? Kathleen?
Catholic-RCIA,

I was responding to your statement about Adam and Eve, that responded to my statement about the Bible and the Book of Mormon, which included a statement about the Bible that I was agreeing with that had been stated by a Catholic, as follows:

Originally Posted by ParkerD (Note: this was the quote that you picked up to respond to.)
Hi, TS Krobacz,
I agree that “the Bible provides plenty of wisdom for a lifetime of learning and growth in the Spirit.” That doesn’t limit the Book of Mormon from adding to that pattern–except for those who choose not to reap its benefits. It is a choice one can make for themselves, a gift given for those who choose to receive the gift.
Spiritual truths are that way, as attested by the Bible in several places.
This was your response to that statement:
When Adam and Eve accepted this same kind of gift you offer they lost that which was given to them as a free gift from God.
I was disagreeing with the idea that your statement conveyed that implied that they “lost [wisdom]” “as a free gift from God”, which carries two wrong concepts; and no I don’t think the whole Christian world would agree with your statement.
 
They were doing what one would expect people to do when they had heard about “free food”.

They were looking for more “free food”. They weren’t thinking about “salvation”, at all–but about food, as in bread and fishes.
That is only partially true. If you read John 6 at about verse 26 Jesus explains that the “people” were interested in free lunch and miracles:
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
But in subsequent verses Jesus provide the teachings on his flesh and blood:
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
And by verse 60 or so, it is the disciples who are struggling with the “hard” teaching:
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
To the poster’s point, simile and metaphor don’t usually make for hard teachings, the examples of that are numerous. Neither is saying “lunch is over” a hard saying.
 
That is only partially true. If you read John 6 at about verse 26 Jesus explains that the “people” were interested in free lunch and miracles:

But in subsequent verses Jesus provide the teachings on his flesh and blood:

And by verse 60 or so, it is the disciples who are struggling with the “hard” teaching:

To the poster’s point, simile and metaphor don’t usually make for hard teachings, the examples of that are numerous. Neither is saying “lunch is over” a hard saying.
Thank you for answering that before I could. 👍
 
Thank you for answering that before I could. 👍
Mike,

So are you saying that John 6:35 is an “easy” saying that would have been considered by all those Jews as “easy”–or in other words in our use of language, a “piece of cake”?

Are you saying that what Jesus described in John 6:35 is never hard for anyone in the world, not for the Jews nor for anyone else the world over, from the beginning of time to the end of time in our world?

Also, are you saying that Jesus didn’t know the meaning of the words “living bread”, or in other words “living Manna” “which came down from heaven”? Or that He confused the meaning in His own teaching?
 
I have to hand it to Parker, it is not easy to take on a room full of Catholic Christians. I think he has done an admirable job of defending Mormon doctrine. I think if there is anything we can celebrate it is the fact that Mormonism continues to follow many of the historic moral teachings of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. Though we don’t see eye to eye on every moral teaching (Mormonism still does not defend life in EVERY circumstance) we can pray together that our churches will grow closer in at least this.

Without stirring the pot too much, I do wonder how Parker, or any Mormon for that matter, fails to see how LDS theology paints a much weaker God than the theology of Catholicism. According to Mormon beliefs, hell can triumph over the Church, both in the Roman Empire, and in the Americas with the failing of the Nephites. The Catholic Church would teach that no matter how corrupt or evil man might become, the power of evil will never prevail against the truth of Christ and his Church. No matter what you say Parker, you cannot show that Mormonism holds a higher view of the power of God than the Catholic Church, for your God failed twice to establish his Church, and eventually depended on an American man 1800 years later to restore it.

This begs the question: is the Mormon Church superior to the Church established by Jesus Christ and the Twelve Apostles? Either it is, which puts your God in a very precarious position of not being capable of keeping his promises, or it isn’t, which implies that there may just be a Church superior to the one you subscribe.

It also begs the question: Can Mormonism suffer ANOTHER Great Apostasy?

Thoughts???
 
It also begs the question: Can Mormonism suffer ANOTHER Great Apostasy?

Thoughts???
I’ve asked Mormons a number of times almost the same question but never get an answer
Stephen168 said:
Can you give us a step by step explanation on how the Mormon Church could lose ‘priesthood authority’ and still exist as an organization?
 
I have to hand it to Parker, it is not easy to take on a room full of Catholic Christians. I think he has done an admirable job of defending Mormon doctrine. I think if there is anything we can celebrate it is the fact that Mormonism continues to follow many of the historic moral teachings of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. Though we don’t see eye to eye on every moral teaching (Mormonism still does not defend life in EVERY circumstance) we can pray together that our churches will grow closer in at least this.

Without stirring the pot too much, I do wonder how Parker, or any Mormon for that matter, fails to see how LDS theology paints a much weaker God than the theology of Catholicism. According to Mormon beliefs [and the Bible teachings on the subject, the devil] can triumph over the Church, both in the Roman Empire, and in the Americas with the failing of the Nephites. The Catholic Church would teach that no matter how corrupt or evil man might become, the power of evil will never prevail against the truth of Christ and his Church. No matter what you say Parker, …

This begs the question: is the Mormon Church superior to the Church established by Jesus Christ and the Twelve Apostles? Either it is, which puts your God in a very precarious position of not being capable of keeping his promises, or it isn’t, which implies that there may just be a Church superior to the one you subscribe.

It also begs the question: Can Mormonism suffer ANOTHER Great Apostasy?

Thoughts???
H2O Plyer2,

Since I don’t agree with your logic at all, I don’t feel the need to answer your questions, other than to note that Daniel really did have a vision and really was told that the stone cut out of the mountains without hands would someday fill the earth, meaning that there will not be “another Great Apostasy”.

That would be because communication is better, there is less contention, there is greater willingness for unity in the faith through the atoning grace of the Savior and the light of His love staying in the hearts of the people despite opposition from the outside; there is greater understanding of the principles of the gospel including the power given through temple ordinances so that Isaiah’s prophecies about Zion being a place of refuge and safety are fulfilled, and because the people sent to the earth for the end of times were foreordained to come at their appointed time with a fervent desire to find, to know and to uphold the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ in their fullness as described in the Bible.

As far as the strength of God’s plan of salvation in giving people what they want through their deep-down desire and free will choice, here are some general estimates about the inheritances (degrees of glory) in the hereafter, then you can come back with a reply about the kinds of numbers your theology reflects by comparison:

If approximately 20 billion people have lived on earth up to now, then of those perhaps 75-100 million will live or have already lived to find the fullness of the gospel and make the full covenants for full covenant blessings. From those, an estimate would be that there would be 500 million among their ancestors who will desire the full gospel covenants offered to them through their desires and through their descendants teaching them in the spirit world after those descendants arrive there. Another 500 million young children out of the total population can be estimated to have died before age eight or so, yielding 1,075,000,000 people. During the Millenium, a conservative estimate is that another 70 billion persons will be born, and that of those a fair estimate is that at least 60 billion will “grow up without sin unto salvation” and have the full gospel covenants, yielding 61,075,000,000 out of 90,000,000,000 total who lived on the earth at some point–over 67.8% exalted children of God, out of those who chose to come to this earth and didn’t choose against Jesus Christ in their pre-mortal life.

Of the remaining 28,925,000,000 that chose against exaltation or didn’t know about the opportunity, a fair estimate is that 9 billion born during the early Millenium, plus 10 billion who didn’t know about Jesus Christ or knew very little about Him and thus are judged on a different standard based on their choices of loving others given the light they had given to them, yields 19 billion. Add to that 5 billion who can be assumed to have chosen repentance during their life to a sufficient extent that they receive the Terrestrial glory, yields 24 billion. I have no way of estimating how many actually will choose against the Savior so rebelliously that they become sons of perdition, but could estimate that number to be, say, 500,000 including those who rebel at the very end of the Millenium.

That leaves 4,425,000,000 who would suffer the pains of “eternal torment” during the thousand years until they finally do bow the knee and confess that Jesus is their Christ also, and receive a Telestial glory.

So, in summary:

67.5% exalted to live with Heavenly Father and be like the Son of God in their glorified state, receiving a joint throne with Him. Another 0.36% (estimated) in Celestial glory, but not exalted because they didn’t choose marriage.

26.66% receiving the glory and joy of the Terrestrial kingdom.

4.917% receiving the glory of the Telestial kingdom, with greater glory than this present earthly existence, and the presence of the Holy Ghost in their lives.

0.56% having rebelled into Outer Darkness, being cast out there with the devil and the fallen angels.

That sounds like a very strong “success rate” to me, plus the all-important thing is that everyone had their free will choice and sought what they deep-down desired with all their heart.

“Blessed are they … that seek him with the whole heart.” (Psalm 119:2)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top