I'm LDS....let's learn from eachother.....

[PaulDupre]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus

I can say I believe in God (in that I believe in an ideal), but my definition is much different than Magick’s, and probably pretty close to that fellow’s.

Hi LaMar,

The way that Catholics understand God as the uncaused cause is exactly the way Duns Scotus understood and explained it. And his explanation of the Immaculate Conception is the one you will find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Sounds like you should be Catholic. We need more Catholics who are willing to dig in and really understand Catholic teaching.

I hope you’ll consider it.

Paul

 

[LaMar]

Hi LaMar,

The way that Catholics understand God as the uncaused cause is exactly the way Duns Scotus understood and explained it. And his explanation of the Immaculate Conception is the one you will find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Sounds like you should be Catholic. We need more Catholics who are willing to dig in and really understand Catholic teaching.

I hope you’ll consider it.

Paul

Ha! Uncle Duns was so unpopular with the true believers we still know him today. When a kid gets into trouble he sits in the corner with a “Duns” cap on. (You realize that’s where we get the expression from, right?)

you believe as Duns did? he was pretty catholic in his expressed views.

Absolutely do believe as Duns Scotus did. Read him sometime and see what you think. I wrote a paper on him years ago and have been a huge fan ever since. His position approached the recognition that proving the existence of God was impossible (which approaches the recognition that God is irrelevant) and that the only way to truly contemplate God’s existence was through studying the natural world (like Darwin and Einstein) and in helping one’s fellow (wo)man (like Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson). That’s why the church despised him so badly that we still have the dunce cap tradition today.

Thanks for the invitation to convert. I honestly wouldn’t leave my own tradition for anyone else’s. I do understand why you guys did though and I appreciate the reasons behind it all.

 

[LaMar]

you seem to discount that judaism has existed from the beginning of humanity. that appears to be your basis for claiming that the bible is copied from other traditions rather than the other way around or the parallel experience view that other traditions are based on the same origin but a different perspective. would you then consider yourself more of a deist then?

Judaism is what, 5700 years old? Humanity is 1.5 million years old. Of course Judaism didn’t exist from the beginning of humanity. Even if it did, it means nothing, since I’m not a Jew and have no plans to become one. (Being a Jew is a fine thing, don’t get me wrong, it’s just not for me).

umass.edu/aesop/content.php?n=10&i=1

Here’s a great story your parents probably read to you as a kid (mine did too, and I read this story to my kids). It teaches an important lesson. Nowhere in this story is it required to believe that this character actually lived, or did any of the things s/he does in the story. We don’t say: “this fox talked, and that’s a miracle, and the proof is in the fact that the story is 2500 years old”. What benefit would we derive from a literal view of this fox who jumped at the grapevine?

It’s a metaphor. Taking it literally is nothing but a distraction and it detracts from the message. Jesus never existed. Who cares? I don’t. His message is important to me. That’s why I like him.

 

[PaulDupre]

Ha! Uncle Duns was so unpopular with the true believers we still know him today. When a kid gets into trouble he sits in the corner with a “Duns” cap on. (You realize that’s where we get the expression from, right?)

Yes, I know. Many theologians were unpopular with other theologians in their day, and the infighting among them got pretty fierce at times. There are always thinkers (and artists) that are so far ahead of the crowd that it takes the rest of us a while to catch up with them. Duns Scotus was one of those. I think he would be disappointed with your view that he could think God to be irrelevant. On the contrary, he was passionate about the need for God and the reality of God.

I understand why you would want to stay with your tradition, especially since you don’t currently believe that any tradition is superior to any other. I like the way you think, though. I am sure that your thinking will eventually bring you to the truth about God. If that wasn’t so, you wouldn’t think about these things so much or so deeply.

God love you,
Paul

 

[majick275]

Ha! Uncle Duns was so unpopular with the true believers we still know him today. When a kid gets into trouble he sits in the corner with a “Duns” cap on. (You realize that’s where we get the expression from, right?)

you believe as Duns did? he was pretty catholic in his expressed views.

Absolutely do believe as Duns Scotus did. Read him sometime and see what you think. I wrote a paper on him years ago and have been a huge fan ever since. His position approached the recognition that proving the existence of God was impossible (which approaches the recognition that God is irrelevant) and that the only way to truly contemplate God’s existence was through studying the natural world (like Darwin and Einstein) and in helping one’s fellow (wo)man (like Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson). That’s why the church despised him so badly that we still have the dunce cap tradition today.

Thanks for the invitation to convert. I honestly wouldn’t leave my own tradition for anyone else’s. I do understand why you guys did though and I appreciate the reasons behind it all.

i think you make some HUGE stretches here. Duns was very much a believer in the relevance of God. His defense of doctrines like the immaculate conception show a man who was very committed to his faith. I think you also exaggerate his “study of the natural world”. he was certainly a fan of prayer and liturgy and nothing like Darwin in beliefs. (einstein is getting close) he was into good works for sure but certainly not in the way of Marx (okay maybe like Marx talked but certainly not like Marx tried to implement) Jefferson …a little but I still see Duns as a staunch Catholic and Jefferson more like your own professed beliefs. I challenge that the church hates him since he was beatified. i’m sure he was a figure of controversy but he is certainly recognized y the church today as one of its best.

 

[LaMar]

i think you make some HUGE stretches here. Duns was very much a believer in the relevance of God. His defense of doctrines like the immaculate conception show a man who was very committed to his faith. I think you also exaggerate his “study of the natural world”. he was certainly a fan of prayer and liturgy and nothing like Darwin in beliefs. (einstein is getting close) he was into good works for sure but certainly not in the way of Marx (okay maybe like Marx talked but certainly not like Marx tried to implement) Jefferson …a little but I still see Duns as a staunch Catholic and Jefferson more like your own professed beliefs. I challenge that the church hates him since he was beatified. i’m sure he was a figure of controversy but he is certainly recognized y the church today as one of its best.

Your church certainly did hate Duns Scotus when he was alive, but at the same time your church is big enough to realize its mistakes with Uncle Duns, same as it did recently with Brother Galileo.

newscientist.com/article/mg13618460.600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right-.html

Lots of people criticize the Catholic church, but I think this is something you should be very proud of. Nobody forced JPII to do this. He (and the college of cardinals, et. al.) did it not because they were trying to escape a mythical after-death punishment, but because it was the right thing to do.

Even non-Christians, like me, appreciate that, and can look to things like that as examples of living an ethical life.

 

[majick275]

Judaism is what, 5700 years old? Humanity is 1.5 million years old. Of course Judaism didn’t exist from the beginning of humanity. Even if it did, it means nothing, since I’m not a Jew and have no plans to become one. (Being a Jew is a fine thing, don’t get me wrong, it’s just not for me).

umass.edu/aesop/content.php?n=10&i=1

Here’s a great story your parents probably read to you as a kid (mine did too, and I read this story to my kids). It teaches an important lesson. Nowhere in this story is it required to believe that this character actually lived, or did any of the things s/he does in the story. We don’t say: “this fox talked, and that’s a miracle, and the proof is in the fact that the story is 2500 years old”. What benefit would we derive from a literal view of this fox who jumped at the grapevine?

It’s a metaphor. Taking it literally is nothing but a distraction and it detracts from the message. Jesus never existed. Who cares? I don’t. His message is important to me. That’s why I like him.

i know of no credible anthropologist who claims humans are 1.5 million years old. judaism as an abrahamic religion with defined practices dates back to only about 1800 BC but it’s claim to be descended from earlier traditions shouldn’t just be waved because others make similar claims or the old argument from silence since we have so little evidence from further back. if there is a God then man has a beginning. that means some religion goes back there too. many religions have some “creation story” and one can easily make the case that either these are copied from the original or they are different views of the original. I choose to believe that the judeo-christian version is the original for a number reasons after a lengthy journey to study this.

now to your point on fables… first of all I know of no fables that involved what I wold consider miracles nor claims of divine origin. secondly fables are intended to teach values but once again, the author must have in mind what those values are. from where do they come? any good cultural anthropologist will tell you that absent a universal religious framework (christianity, islam, budhism, etc.) there are VAST differences in what is considered good and bad by whole societies. now add in an absence of agreed upon moral authority for the society and the individual definition of right and wrong REALLY goes in all directions. this can be seen in our society today as we attempt to implement just such an approach.

so once again what is “right” and who decides?

 

[LaMar]

i know of no credible anthropologist who claims humans are 1.5 million years old.

cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/03/27/spanish-hominin.html?ref=rss

A new study from Spanish scientists suggests that early humans may have lived in Western Europe as long as 1.3 million years ago, much earlier than previously believed.

There’s a cave in S. Africa with homonid remains in it that’s 2.5 million years old, though it wasn’t homo sapiens, so I take it that doesn’t count. 1.5 M is a conservative estimate for the age of our particular species.

 

[majick275]

Your church certainly did hate Duns Scotus when he was alive, but at the same time your church is big enough to realize its mistakes with Uncle Duns, same as it did recently with Brother Galileo.

newscientist.com/article/mg13618460.600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right-.html

Lots of people criticize the Catholic church, but I think this is something you should be very proud of. Nobody forced JPII to do this. He (and the college of cardinals, et. al.) did it not because they were trying to escape a mythical after-death punishment, but because it was the right thing to do.

Even non-Christians, like me, appreciate that, and can look to things like that as examples of living an ethical life.

it wasn’t just JP2. Pope Pius 9 used his theology in declaring the dogma of the immaculate conception and Pope John 23 puts him on the recommended reading list for seminarians. the only real opposition to him was Aquinas. (which admitedly was pretty significant) but even then they merely debated each other no one was branded heretic.

once again… the “right thing to do” is determined by God.

 

[LaMar]

the “right thing to do” is determined by God.

Sounds good. I’ll define God in my way, and you define him in yours, and in the end we’ll both be working toward the same ends…a more just society with the maximum possible amount of good for everyone.

 

[majick275]

cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/03/27/spanish-hominin.html?ref=rss

A new study from Spanish scientists suggests that early humans may have lived in Western Europe as long as 1.3 million years ago, much earlier than previously believed.

There’s a cave in S. Africa with homonid remains in it that’s 2.5 million years old, though it wasn’t homo sapiens, so I take it that doesn’t count. 1.5 M is a conservative estimate for the age of our particular species.

those aren’t homo sapiens and no hominids don’t count either. homo sapiens is more like 200,000 years old if you go by the prevailing theories of anthropologists today. anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

i’ll admit that some put it as far back as 400000 years ago (although they present few facts) wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/h-sapiens/h-sapiens-a.html

none of which in my opinion is contradictory to scripture. I choose not to limit the means by which God created man nor how he chose to define time measures in revealing to Moses the events of genesis.

 

[majick275]

Sounds good. I’ll define God in my way, and you define him in yours, and in the end we’ll both be working toward the same ends…a more just society with the maximum possible amount of good for everyone.

we may well end up at the same place BUT… the problem is when we disagree on who/what god is and what he is telling us then we risk having differing opinions on what a “just” society is and just what is “good” for everyone.

Shoot just look at contemporary american politics…the democrats and republicans can’t agree on what these things are much less how best to achieve them.

idealistic as it may sound I think we have to appeal to a higher power for a divine law on which to base our attempts at justice and common good.

 

[Brother_Dorsey]

If anyone ever had any doubt, let that doubt be now removed…

LDS are not Christians… not even Donny and Marie, and not governor what’s his name.

.

MrsS.,…a few questions for you…yes or no answers will suffice.
Thanks in advance

1. Please tell me, when did you become the judge of who and who isn’t Christian?
2. I think the judging should be left up to God don’t you think?
3. Or do you not believe in what He said in the Bible regarding judging people?
4. Do you realize that it is mean and rude and wrong to make such statements about others beliefs?
5. And that Jesus never taught that we should act this way?
6. Is this how all Catholics act?
7. Is this self righteous attitude a prerequisite for being a member of the Catholic church?

I will await your answers.
Brother D.

 

[MrS]

MrsS.,…a few questions for you…yes or no answers will suffice.
Thanks in advance

1. Please tell me, when did you become the judge of who and who isn’t Christian?
   Yes
2. I think the judging should be left up to God don’t you think?
   No… Scripture tell us of our responsibility to judge, not be the Judge
3. Or do you not believe in what He said in the Bible regarding judging people?
   Yes… read it
4. Do you realize that it is mean and rude and wrong to make such statements about others beliefs?
   No… Truth is its own defense. LDS are not Christians.
5. And that Jesus never taught that we should act this way?
   So now you care what Jesus said? Kinda late… and selective.
6. Is this how all Catholics act?
   No… some would slam the door on you. I welcome you.
7. Is this self righteous attitude a prerequisite for being a member of the Catholic church?
   No, but believing that Jesus is God is .

I will await your answers.
Brother D.

 

[majick275]

MrsS.,…a few questions for you…yes or no answers will suffice.
Thanks in advance

what a hypocrite

1. Please tell me, when did you become the judge of who and who isn’t Christian?

mormons judge other churches apostate and their own church the sole repository of sacramental grace and complete truth. Mormons even judged by skin color who was favored by god and who was cursed.

1. I think the judging should be left up to God don’t you think?

joseph smith didn’t think so neither did Brigham young. I’ll go you one further…neither did jesus. he doesn’t want us to judge unrighteously but we have to judge. ironically that is also teh LDS position. (look it up in your NT gospel doctrine manual)

1. Or do you not believe in what He said in the Bible regarding judging people?

i think you misunderstand it. see above

1. Do you realize that it is mean and rude and wrong to make such statements about others beliefs?

would that include the mormon scripture calling our creeds ABOMINATIONS in the sight of god? or calling all of us who profess them corrupt?

1. And that Jesus never taught that we should act this way?

and yet we do. look at 2 Peter 2. this is exactly what we are to do. denounce false doctrine and false prophets.

1. Is this how all Catholics act?

no. we are a diverse people and unfortunately some catholics dabble in other religions and fall away from the true faith.

1. Is this self righteous attitude a prerequisite for being a member of the Catholic church?

you say this as a mormon? with a straight face? have you read the talks by LDS leaders on being God’s chosen people? the most valiant? the only ones with ANY authority to act in Christ name? please…

I will await your answers.
Brother D.

and we yours. this is all too typical of mormons. is this scripted? hey let’s learn about each others religion (with no interest or intent in anything other gaining converts) and then when rebuffed…you are persecuting us (arrogantly disregarding mormon teaching past and present being so offensive to others)

Christ does not want us to silently listen to false doctrine, nod our head and say how wonderful. he wants us to be true to the faith that he gave us. you know the one that he said wold never fail and htat he would never abandon?

 

[majick275]

in case you wanted a detailed view of the LDS view of judging others:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=2d0584d4a0a0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

(note this is from an official LDS source)

read and draw your own conclusions but I think it makes the previous rant the height of hypocrisy.

 

[why_me]

in case you wanted a detailed view of the LDS view of judging others:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=2d0584d4a0a0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

(note this is from an official LDS source)

read and draw your own conclusions but I think it makes the previous rant the height of hypocrisy.

From the link:

First, a righteous judgment must, by definition, be intermediate. It will refrain from declaring that a person has been assured of exaltation or from dismissing a person as being irrevocably bound for hellfire. It will refrain from declaring that a person has forfeited all opportunity for exaltation or even all opportunity for a useful role in the work of the Lord. The gospel is a gospel of hope, and none of us is authorized to deny the power of the Atonement to bring about a cleansing of individual sins, forgiveness, and a reformation of life on appropriate conditions.

Second, a righteous judgment will be guided by the Spirit of the Lord, not by anger, revenge, jealousy, or self-interest. The Book of Mormon teaches: “For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain … as the daylight is from the dark night.

“For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil” (Moro. 7:15–16).

The Savior taught that one of the missions of the Comforter He would send would be to assist in the judgment of the world by guiding the faithful “into all truth” (John 16:13; see also John 16:8, 11).

Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities. Some time ago I attended an adult Sunday School class in a small town in Utah. The subject was the sacrament, and the class was being taught by the bishop. During class discussion a member asked, “What if you see an unworthy person partaking of the sacrament? What do you do?” The bishop answered, “You do nothing. I may need to do something.” That wise answer illustrates my point about stewardship in judging.

Fourth, we should, if possible, refrain from judging until we have adequate knowledge of the facts. In an essay titled “Sitting in the Seat of Judgment,” the great essayist William George Jordan reminded us that character cannot be judged as dress goods—by viewing a sample yard to represent a whole bolt of cloth (see The Crown of Individuality [1909], 101–5).

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=2d0584d4a0a0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

The judgements about mormons and mormonism that go on in this section of the forum are evil and certainly not righteous judgements by the catholics.

 

[why_me]

MrsS.,…a few questions for you…yes or no answers will suffice.

1. Is this how all Catholics act?
2. Is this self righteous attitude a prerequisite for being a member of the Catholic church?

I will await your answers.
Brother D.

No, catholics are actually not judgemental at all. For most ordinary catholics this section of the forum would be considered strange to say the least. This is why the majority of posters stay away from this section of the forum. Catholics are more or less content to discuss their own faith and not condemn other faiths. Also, many catholics and their families have their own problems that they deal with every day. They realize the hypocrisy of self-righteous condemnation of others.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The judgements about mormons and mormonism that go on in this section of the forum are evil and certainly not righteous judgements by the catholics.

evil?

Is that your righteous judgment?

Very sad whyme. It is obvious this person only came around to get his persecution complex fed. And he throws around insults in order to make it happen. Not to mention the link to a mormon proselytizing website. He is here for anything but to learn about religion…particularly the religion he has already rejected.

And, I googled his user name. He’s doing the same game at another forum. Only that one, he’s discrediting Catholicism in order to prove that mormons are Christian.

He was waiting for the topic of “are mormons Christian” to come up, that’s all there is to it. He has responded to nothing else but that, which says to me that is what he wanted to “discuss” to begin with.

Troll behavior.

 

[why_me]

evil?

Is that your righteous judgment?

Very sad whyme. It is obvious this person only came around to get his persecution complex fed. And he throws around insults in order to make it happen. Not to mention the link to a mormon proselytizing website. He is here for anything but to learn about religion…particularly the religion he has already rejected.

And, I googled his user name. He’s doing the same game at another forum. Only that one, he’s discrediting Catholicism in order to prove that mormons are Christian.

He was waiting for the topic of “are mormons Christian” to come up, that’s all there is to it. He has responded to nothing else but that, which says to me that is what he wanted to “discuss” to begin with.

Troll behavior.

Dear Rebecca,

You need to view posts with an open mind. Reread the thread and see what the catholics have said about mormonism. Dorsey is coming from a mormon perspective on what it feels to read such posts about his faith. To understand him is to understand that he values his religion as much as you value yours. Also, please read the blue that I posted from a poster’s link and then consider the judgements that have been made by the catholics here about mormons and mormonism.

I am no troll. But the catholic behavior has been less than stellar.