How do the Mormons do it?

[Telstar]

And everyone attended these?
Y’know, even Tiny Tim, whos parents could barely afford to feed him…
Somehow I suspect not, and so he was left to rely solely on the church for his scripture, and it’s interpretation.

Point #1)
I never went to college. In fact, I never finished High School, but I think I do just fine, tyvm.

Point #2)
Tiny Tim was a fictional character from the pen of Charles Dickens (who was not even a very ‘religious’ man, but one of my favorite authors), long after the reformation. He was certainly not a Roman Catholic, so, using him or his characters as an example in this instance is far from accurate for 16th century Catholics that were the ones affected by the translations of the Bible in the time of Martin Luther. If anything, Tiny Tim says much more about the elitist society of 19th century England than it does about anything pertaining to the Catholic Church. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/roll.gif

 

[Tony888]

And of course it’s the Catholic Churches fault that all the people were uneducated.

“Well … there you go again” with your deflection
I love that quote from Ronald Reagan.

When you can’t argue a point, just change the subject

 

[Tony888]

Yes, the Catholic Church founded and ran universities in order to keep people dumb and illiterate.

I expect you have no knowledge of the history of Education, from the Roman times through the 1700’s.
Please stop playing the martyr with feigned attacks I haven’t made nor insinuated in any fashion.

 

[Telstar]

“Well … there you go again” with your deflection
I love that quote from Ronald Reagan.

When you can’t argue a point, just change the subject

I can see poor ol’ Ron spinning in his grave, now.

You do realize that it was the Catholic Church that was responsible for building many schools and universities that would be available for educating those that couldn’t afford to go, otherwise, right?

 

[Tony888]

I can see poor ol’ Ron spinning in his grave, now.

You do realize that it was the Catholic Church that was responsible for building many schools and universities that would be available for educating those that couldn’t afford to go, otherwise, right?

Now they’ve got Telstar deflecting TOO.

Telstar, please feel free to start a thread dedicated to the RCC role in education, if that’s what you want to discuss

 

[Telstar]

Now they’ve got Telstar deflecting TOO.

Telstar, please feel free to start a thread dedicated to the RCC role in education, if that’s what you want to discuss

As soon as you decide to respond to those of us that made reference to the fact that Latin was commonly used in the 16th century, as well as the fact that translations often made it difficult to convey the true meanings, accurately. Not to mention the fact that printing presses were not readily available (hmmm…when did they first make them?), so all of their work had to be done by writing it all out, ***in longhand. ***When was the last time you wrote out a book the size of the Bible by hand, Tony? Oh yeah, they also didn’t have computers, google or wikipedia to find all of their info, lickity-split! http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/roll.gif

 

[Miriam1947]

Good point! I tend to forget about that! But, even when I was a kid, all schools still taught Latin as a secondary language alternative. The main reason was because those who wanted to read the Bible in it’s purest form, used Latin. The Church at the time still said Mass in Latin because it was a ‘dead language’, meaning that it never changed. It was always the same, unlike English (especially) and other languages that are constantly changing and evolving, because they’re subject to regional idiosyncrasies and modes of usage. Not to mention that all Doctors always used Latin (still do) for the same reasons. That’s why the Church was so concerned about other translations of the Mass, as well. Once you start translating, it’s just like playing Telephone. Eventually, the Truth gets ‘lost in translation’.

But, Stephen is right. Why let the facts get in the way of a good anti-Catholic story?

I wanted to take French but my mother insisted that I take Latin. We were not Catholic but we were literate and her belief was that taking Latin enhances our understanding of the roots of words. It has since come in handy.

 

[Miriam1947]

Hey guys read this:

mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/93637

Why Are the Letters in ABC Order?

. . . The Greeks borrowed the Phoenician alphabet sometime in the 8th century BC or earlier, keeping the order and adapting it for use with their own language. (For example, the Phoenician alphabet did not have letters representing vowel sounds, which were important in the Greek language and had to be added). After they had worked out the finer points of their new alphabet, Greeks living on the Italian peninsula came in contact with a tribe known as the Latins.

Sometime in the 5th century BC, the tribe adopted writing from the Greeks and another tribe called the Etruscans, choosing and mixing letters from the two alphabets as they needed.

The Latins would expand in population, geographic size, and cultural influence over the centuries, creating a little empire called Rome. As they conquered most of Europe, the Romans took their alphabet with them and spread it to new lands. Even when the empire contracted and fell, the Latin alphabet survived with the people of former Roman lands. The alphabet was adapted to some native languages and exerted influence on others — most notably for us, Old English, which gave rise to Middle English and the Modern English we use today. . . .

But wait there’s more . . .

 

[Stephen168]

What I see is possibly the most clever and elaborate scheme of Satan, concocted over centuries and slowly drip-fed to the church from the time of the apostle’s death. The alteration of the simple, clean ordinances with contamination from pagan and Jewish mysticism because the membership found it difficult to adjust to being so simple and non-exclusive. The slow and careful persuasion that no further revelation from God needed to come, and therefore He need not be consulted. The suggestion to rely on ones own wisdom and powers of reasoning above the true gift of irrefutable testimony from God Himself.

The Mormon myth of the Apostasy by the great abominable church.

A prime example, to me, is the refusal to allow the Bible to be translated and/or made available to people in general, but should only be available to ‘properly trained’ ministers who could then expound the meaning to the ignorant masses. Satan told the decision-makers the truth about the reasons for not doing this; that in freeing up the manuscripts to people, they would be able to make their own interpretations and it would cause schisms and dissections. What he failed to tell is, probably, much more important; that these schisms and dissections would allow people to see the true nature of the church, and it’s misinterpretations and folly. People would once again have the ability to read the teachings, and find out for themselves the truth; which Satan could not afford if his deceitful purposes to bring down the work of God were to proceed.

Great Protestant fiction, mostly of British origin. What year was the Bible first translated into the common language of the people?

It’s pretty irrelevant: during the middle ages, translation of scripture was discouraged, the excuse used was misinterpretations, and a couple of groups were labelled as heretics when they did it.

Continuing your historical fantasy but you can’t tell me the first Bible translated into the common language of the people.

The lingua franca at the time of Christ was Greek thanks to Alexander the Great. The original writings of the Christian Bible were written in Greek. When the The Catholic Church decided on which writings would be included in the Bible, the Pope had it translated into the common (vulgar) language of the west; latin. So, anyone who was able to read could read the Bible. The Church had no problem with anyone reading the Vulgate Bible. Heretics were heretics whether they translated the Bible or not. Joseph Smith was an apostate not because he made his own translation of the Bible, but because of his heretical beliefs. The Catholic Church protected the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, which proves there was never an apostasy. Pretending one without the other is ‘how Mormon’s do it.”

 

[zaffiroborant]

Now they’ve got Telstar deflecting TOO.

Telstar, please feel free to start a thread dedicated to the RCC role in education, if that’s what you want to discuss

Did you read the whole thread? How is anything you said related to the OP? Maybe you should feel free to start your own threads, or you could accept that we feel the point has been addressed and to conversation has moved on to other anti-Catholic myths you drag up.

. . . how do Mormons keep together all these disparate, anti-factual aspects of their faith? I mean the notions about American geography, etc., long disproved by archaeology? And the big Race War in History concept?

I’m not knocking Mormons. I just see the potential for a great deal of internal cognitive dissonance, and wonder how it’s all reconciled.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I expect you have no knowledge of the history of Education, from the Roman times through the 1700’s.
Please stop playing the martyr with feigned attacks I haven’t made nor insinuated in any fashion.

Hey skippy, you brought it up.

 

[mwok]

Some background context:
John the Revelator, writing and speaking after the time of Christ, while an unbroken line of Apostles were still alive, prophesying about a time yet to come in the future (from his perspective)

Summary:
John sees an angel from heaven, carrying the 'everlasting gospel, to the earth so that it can be preached to every person thorough the world.

Firstly, as I have pointed out, the everlasting gospel can refer to nothing but the gospel as taught by Christ and the Apostles; this is the only everlasting covenant God has made with men on earth.Secondly, the angel is bringing the gospel from heaven: if the gospel were already (or still) on the earth at the time, why would it need to be brought? The angel would only need to come to encourage men to spread the word. Yet John clearly says, prophetically and by inspiration from God, that an angel would need to come to the earth and bring the gospel back with them.
Thirdly, the church that this gospel was restored to would take it to every part of the world; therefore it must be a proselyting and missionary church.

Conclusions:
For there to be any need of the gospel to be brought back to the earth, the gospel cannot have been present on the earth in any form recognised or accepted by God. If it were, He would not need to send an angel, He could simply speak to the prophet, and even if He did choose to send an angel, they would not be bringing to gospel to the earth, merely visiting the saints of God. therefore, sometime after the time of Jesus Christ (and after John the Revelator) there must be an apostasy, absolute and complete, such that the gospel in its fulness, and the authority that goes hand in hand, no longer reside anywhere on the earth. Therefore, any church claiming to have (or that it will have) continuous, unbroken lineage of leaders from Christ’s mortal ministry until His return in glory, is mistaken (at the very least and to put it lightly). Any church that is true must be a restored gospel: it has been prophecied and therefore will come to pass.
While this scripture does not give any way to reference a timescale as to when this might occurr: if one believes that a church that has existed since the time of Christ is true and is unchanged from that time, then one must, logically, accept that that church will fail, will change from true doctrine and lose its communion with God. The only other possible truth is that this has already happened, been covered up by those in authority at the time such that there appear to be records suggesting otherwise, and that the church is already in an apostate state. These are the only two possible, logical deductions that can be made from the prophecy of John, and LDS and Catholics are on diametrically opposing sides of the argument.

Let me quote from the Psalms:
Psalms 111:7-9
7 The works of his hands are fidelity and justice, all his precepts are trustworthy,

8 established for ever and ever, accomplished in fidelity and honesty.

9 Deliverance he sends to his people, his covenant he imposes for ever; holy and awesome his name.

And what about the “New and Everlasting Covenent” mentioned in D&C 132

Are three everlasting covenants your defenition of “the only”?

FYI the Revelation of John is about the Mass and the reference of the angel is actually a priest in which case he is either holding the eucharist or proclaiming the Gospel of the Lord, because during the Mass Heaven and earth are joined. I would love to go into greater detail but Scott Hahn wrote a whole book on the subject that explains this phenomena better than I could.

Can’t find a proper arguement for your third point.

As for your conclusions, how could there be a complete and total apostasy when both in the Old and New Testaments Gods Covenants are identified as ETERNAL?

 

[Tony888]

Hey skippy, you brought it up.

My names not skippy, or are you just being rude/snippy?

 

[RebeccaJ]

My names not skippy, or are you just being rude/snippy?

Don’t be such drama queen. Skippy is what I call my friends.

 

[Tony888]

Don’t be such drama queen. Skippy is what I call my friends.

Rebecca, it is insincere of you to pretend we are friends. Please call me Tony here.

Zaffiroborant, please show where I’ve dragged up any “anti-Catholic myths”

 

[zaffiroborant]

Rebecca, it is insincere of you to pretend we are friends. Please call me Tony here.

Zaffiroborant, please show where I’ve dragged up any “anti-Catholic myths”

Net, the RCC responses here reflect an elitism, where only the priests and highly educated (rich) were allowed to understand the world of God. The rest were just dumb sheep to be lead, right?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, it is insincere of you to pretend we are friends. Please call me Tony here.

If that’s the way you feel, “Tony”.

 

[Naf623]

Look, Mormons harp day and night with an unnatural anxiety over the Bible being kept uncorrupted. When the Catholic Church acts, exactly for the reason of protecting the Faith handed on, you take a Protestant stance all of the sudden. Acting like protecting the Gospel that the Apostles handed on is some kind of conspiracy theory with grand schemes to keep the small people down.

Actually, I didn’t make any attack against the intentions and reasons of those who wanted to protect the truth as they saw it; we agree on the point that scripture needs to be both translated and interpreted correctly to be of worth. What we disagree on is the correct translation (to a point, and in some circumstances) and mainly the interpretation.

In England, Latin was the language of literacy from the 6th century. In the 11th century French replaced Latin in the Courts (government) while Latin was used by the Church and Universities. In 1362, English replaced French in the Courts. The first literature not written in Latin was produced in 14th century. In 1534, English replaced Latin in the Church. Gradually from the 16th through the 18th century English replaced Latin in the Universities while borrowing many Latin words along the way. At what point should the Bible have been written in English because literate people could no longer read the Vulgate?

The scriptures sould always be available to everyone in a language they can understand. The fact is, for whatever reason or intention (I do not doubt the well meaning and good intentions of the church leaders) the scriptures were not available to many many people in a language they could understand, and neither were the services they attended.
The gospel should be available to everyone in their own language: pentecost is proof of that.

No, what is your point?

That it’s no good trying to claim that schooling was available, when the people who really needed it (for basic reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic skills) had no way to get access to it.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Actually, I didn’t make any attack against the intentions and reasons of those who wanted to protect the truth as they saw it; we agree on the point that scripture needs to be both translated and interpreted correctly to be of worth. What we disagree on is the correct translation (to a point, and in some circumstances) and mainly the interpretation.

The scriptures sould always be available to everyone in a language they can understand. The fact is, for whatever reason or intention (I do not doubt the well meaning and good intentions of the church leaders) the scriptures were not available to many many people in a language they could understand, and neither were the services they attended.
The gospel should be available to everyone in their own language: pentecost is proof of that.

That it’s no good trying to claim that schooling was available, when the people who really needed it (for basic reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic skills) had no way to get access to it.

The New Testament is the Catholic Churches Diary. Who best to interpret it?

 

[Tony888]

zaffiroborant:
zaffiroborant,
I thought I summarized the facts accurately (you only copied my summary statement)
please articulate the myth i stated?