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

[why_me]

Thank you very much for posting that reference. Those who are interested can read it for free here:

psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=20071228-000003&page=2

So yes, there are Catholic Atheists, and Mormon Atheists, and Jewish Atheists, and we’ll stay where we are regardless of whether or not anyone else approves.

From the same article:

Looking back, Tom Reed, a former Roman Catholic priest from Mississippi, can pretty clearly identify his own moment of truth. It followed a quick succession of historical events: the 1968 Vatican statement upholding opposition to birth control and the death of Martin Luther King Jr. The two events finished off Reed’s faith in the church and his faith in God.

For Reed, deconversion was almost as quick and binary as the flick of a switch. At a certain point, he says, "it was suddenly clear that the courageous thing to do was to just admit that this is all made up.

“I remember waking up one day saying, I’m going to practice being an atheist, just move through the day with that in mind. It had become a part of my being, the idea that God was ultimately responsible for everything that was happening. Now I proceeded from the assumption that there was no God in the picture.”

It sounds like a coolly rational process, a Jesuitical internal debate tipping forward into certainty. It wasn’t. “It was scary as hell,” Reed says. "I realized, ‘I’m not going to see my mother and father again.’ " The sense of cold finality, the impression that one’s prayers are just so many tennis balls served into the ocean: Such existential issues are a big part of anybody’s crisis of faith. But for religious leaders, the stakes are raised even further, for faith is no longer a private matter.

psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=20071228-000003&page=4

It happens across faiths and so, one can be a cultural catholic since catholicism can be a cultural construction for someone.

 

[RC_Matt]

Sorry R C Matt but you need a good class in your Catholic Faith, and especially in the use and understanding of Sacramentals. If the holy Medal your parents gave you for Confirmation means no more to you than that, then they wasted their efforts. Just explain to me what you mean when you say there is a world of difference between a Holy Medal and a garment. According to you, wearing a holy medal is not much different than wearing a watch or ring.

You misunderstood my point. Mormons are REQUIRED to wear garments once they have gone through the temple, it is dogmatic. Garments are supposed to have inherent qualities that can protect Mormons from physical harm.

Catholics are not REQUIRED to wear medals or any other Sacramentals, it is not an issue of dogma. My medal is a daily reminder of the Sacrament of Confirmation and it’s relevance to my life as a Catholic Christian. In other words, it reminds me to try and follow Christ’s teachings as opposed to doing Matt’s will (and believe it or not, they’re not always in synch) and by so doing (usually) predisposes me to receive grace by doing my best to follow Jesus. A holy medal is a man made thing, in and of itself it has no special qualities and does not convey any grace; only Sacraments, which come from God, can do that. It is the devotion that the Sacramental MAY help encourage that has value. Furthermore, it has absolutely no special powers to protect me from physical harm or anything like that; thinking that way is pagan and would reduce it to the level of a lucky charm like a rabbit’s foot or something.

 

[LaMar]

You misunderstood my point. Mormons are REQUIRED to wear garments once they have gone through the temple, it is dogmatic. Garments are supposed to have inherent qualities that can protect Mormons from physical harm.

Required by whom? Nobody in my house is wearing garments right now. What are they going to do about it? LOL!

Both you and Why Me are right in your own ways. Garments are a fetish, the same way a medal is a fetish. I use that term in the original way. As something physical which stands for something intangible.

Jews have a version of the garments (Mormons created them out of the same old testament verse that encourages believing Israelites to have tzitzit showing). Not coincidentally, I have a tallit too (got it as a gift from a family member) but I don’t wear that either.

When I was about 16 I spent my summer vacation in Provo, Utah (much nicer climate than the 120 degree heat of my hometown) and fell in love with a girl who was also hanging out with her relatives down the street. She gave me a cool little religious icon (oval with Mary inside it) that I still have today, so I have one of those too.

I don’t believe any of them have any supernatural powers (no sensible person does). Personally, I like them all, and appreciate them all, for largely the same reasons. They symbolize people I cherish and experiences which were good.

 

[LaMar]

Sorry R C Matt but you need a good class in your Catholic Faith, and especially in the use and understanding of Sacramentals. If the holy Medal your parents gave you for Confirmation means no more to you than that, then they wasted their efforts. Just explain to me what you mean when you say there is a world of difference between a Holy Medal and a garment. According to you, wearing a holy medal is not much different than wearing a watch or ring.

What does a holy medal mean to you?

 

[why_me]

RC_Matt;3519851

• 
  Dang, here we go with the statues again… Please show me in the Catechism of the Catholic Church where is says we’re encouraged, or supposed, or required to pray in front of statues. I must have missed that point somewhere along the line; I always thought they were there to contribute to the ambiance and to remind us of people who have lived holy lives.
  [/QUOTE]
  At the parish that I attend, people light a candle (not switch on a light) and pray infront of either the statue of saint joseph or the virgin mary. It is a silent prayer but it is done by many. Most likely they are asking the Virgin Mary or St. Joseph for help or for safe keeping. Or to look after a loved one.
  
  I think that it is rather nice and respectful.

 

[why_me]

You misunderstood my point. Mormons are REQUIRED to wear garments once they have gone through the temple, it is dogmatic. Garments are supposed to have inherent qualities that can protect Mormons from physical harm.

Mormons are not required to wear their garments but most do. I don’t and I haven’t worn garments in years. Yes, I do think that mormons think that the garments will protect them in some way. But I think that most wear them as a reminder of the covenant that they have made with god.

 

[why_me]

What does a holy medal mean to you?

To answer that question: Catholic charities send cheap metals all the time so people will donate some money to the charity. These medals are meaningless for most catholics and one can find them in some catholic churches near statues for people to take.

However, a medal has significance once it has been blessed. These medals are worn for protection and reminders and the blessing by the priest can have a special significance by the person who is wearing it. Also, in certain cultures, the medal is kissed before it is put on as a sign of affection for the saint that is being worn. I have seen this happen.

Once medals or rosaries have been blessed it is not recommended that the person throw such items in the garbage. I believe that it is recommended that it be given to a priest.

 

[majick275]

Mormons are not required to wear their garments but most do. I don’t and I haven’t worn garments in years. Yes, I do think that mormons think that the garments will protect them in some way. But I think that most wear them as a reminder of the covenant that they have made with god.

this is not accurate. endowed members are required to wear garments night and day. failure to do so makes you ineligible for a temple recommend. it can also be used to justify disciplinary action but that is rare these days. in the Temple mormons covenant to wear the garments.

 

[LaMar]

this is not accurate. endowed members are required to wear garments night and day. failure to do so makes you ineligible for a temple recommend. it can also be used to justify disciplinary action but that is rare these days. in the Temple mormons covenant to wear the garments.

Give me a break majick. There are two endowed people in my house, neither is wearing garments. I never wore garments regularly, even when I lived in Utah, past the age of 21. Nobody ever did anything.

These days, garments are pretty much indistinguishable from what you get out of a ten dollar hanes package from the local department store. Even the most uptight true believers can’t tell if you’re suited up or not without making you strip for them, and I don’t show my bare behind without some big tippers in the audience.

 

[RC_Matt]

Mormons are not required to wear their garments but most do. I don’t and I haven’t worn garments in years. Yes, I do think that mormons think that the garments will protect them in some way. But I think that most wear them as a reminder of the covenant that they have made with god.

Unless it’s been changed very recently, which I sincerely doubt, Mormons are supposed to wear the garments day and night in order to retain a temple recommend. I assume you don’t have a TR (at least I hope not), so it’s not an issue for you.

 

[Elric]

This video is an eye-opener. I challenge you to watch it.

Paul

I just finished watching it, I quite enjoy watching archelogical show. That was the only reason I didnt mind that “Tomb of Jesus Christ” show, it provided insight into an ancient culture/civilisation and not much else really.

It could be argued that the show was biased, but it would be a weak argument since there is no evidence supporting the civilisations in the BoM.

For what the show is (presenting a historical based argument), its quite good.

 

[why_me]

I just finished watching it, I quite enjoy watching archelogical show. That was the only reason I didnt mind that “Tomb of Jesus Christ” show, it provided insight into an ancient culture/civilisation and not much else really.

It could be argued that the show was biased, but it would be a weak argument since there is no evidence supporting the civilisations in the BoM.

For what the show is (presenting a historical based argument), its quite good.

The video was made by a ministry that has a fetish for mormonism. They spend every waking moment publishing antimormon films and literature. I do believe that it is an addiction with them and addictions can be harmful. I consider them to be a rather sad case, really.

 

[why_me]

.

This video is an eye-opener. I challenge you to watch it.

Paul

Yep, it sure is an eye opener. But here is the mormon apologetic response:

fairlds.org/Bible/Bible_vs_the_Book_of_Mormon_Video.html

I challenge you to read it.

And for more information about the book of mormon and archeology:

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Debating_the_Foundations_of_Mormonism.html

 

[Elric]

The video was made by a ministry that has a fetish for mormonism. They spend every waking moment publishing antimormon films and literature. I do believe that it is an addiction with them and addictions can be harmful. I consider them to be a rather sad case, really.

I was aware of that (which is why I put that biased bit in), but simply labeling something as “anti-mormon” does nothing to invalidate what it presents. There wasnt anything “anti-mormon” in the clip.

Besides which, you cry “anti-mormon” so much that you are exactly like the boy who cried wolf.

 

[LaMar]

Yep, it sure is an eye opener. But here is the mormon apologetic response:

I didn’t find the video to be too eye-opening. I just watched it.

The LDS church already acknowledges the Book of Mormon to be fiction, de facto. Given the fact that it was just re-written to remove the Lamanites=principle ancestors supposition, it’s sort of a non-issue.

The video was sort of peripherally amusing, in that while it would have been a great expose on the Book of Mormon ten years ago, it also provided no evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, Moses, or any of the Bible stories the filmmakers were clearly trying to hawk. It’s a lot like the Tanners’ book Shadow Or Reality, which holds their favorite novel (the Bible) above all the sound standards they use to deconstruct the inspired fiction they dislike.

FYI: The Mormon apologetic response is pretty silly, and while I love and respect Why Me, I would never recommend the FAIR web page as anything more than entertainment. Just my opinion as a Mormon realist.

 

[Elric]

Yep, it sure is an eye opener. But here is the mormon apologetic response:

fairlds.org/Bible/Bible_vs_the_Book_of_Mormon_Video.html

I challenge you to read it.

And for more information about the book of mormon and archeology:

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Debating_the_Foundations_of_Mormonism.html

I read them, they were pretty funny.

Just an observation: For people who claim to use/follow the bible, mormons sure attack it a lot.

 

[why_me]

I didn’t find the video to be too eye-opening. I just watched it.

The LDS church already acknowledges the Book of Mormon to be fiction, de facto. Given the fact that it was just re-written to remove the Lamanites=principle ancestors supposition, it’s sort of a non-issue.

The principle ancestors has its own history. The introduction to the book of mormon was never canon but it was an introduction to the book that was included in 1981 edition of the book of mormon. However, to my understanding many on the committee did not want the word principle in the introduction mainly because it was not determined which theory about the book of mormon geography was more correct. And we still don’t. But there are assumptions. Bruce R. was on the committee I believe and he wanted the principle word included. He was wrong.

You should notify the lds members that the lds leadership has announced the book to be fiction. I must have been sleeping when the announcement was made.

 

[why_me]

I read them, they were pretty funny.

Just an observation: For people who claim to use/follow the bible, mormons sure attack it a lot.

They don’t attack it. They just prove that the reasoning to disprove the book of mormon may also be used to judge the bible. Nothing wrong with turning the tables a little.

 

[why_me]

FYI: The Mormon apologetic response is pretty silly, and while I love and respect Why Me, I would never recommend the FAIR web page as anything more than entertainment. Just my opinion as a Mormon realist.

It all depends just what side of the fence someone is on. If a person is more or less out of the church, it would be considered silly. But I think that the arguments presented did a good job in turning the tables. Proving the bible true is just as problematic as proving the book of mormon true.

 

[LaMar]

The principle ancestors has its own history. The introduction to the book of mormon was never canon but it was an introduction to the book that was included in 1981 edition of the book of mormon. However, to my understanding many on the committee did not want the word principle in the introduction mainly because it was not determined which theory about the book of mormon geography was more correct. And we still don’t. But there are assumptions. Bruce R. was on the committee I believe and he wanted the principle word included. He was wrong.

You should notify the lds members that the lds leadership has announced the book to be fiction. I must have been sleeping when the announcement was made.

They won’t burst the bubbles of all the true believers. Reading Ratzinger’s chat with Habermas suggests he won’t burst any bubbles with the true believers either. In both cases, what isn’t said is a lot more illuminating than what might be.

It all depends just what side of the fence someone is on. If a person is more or less out of the church, it would be considered silly.

I’m not out of the church. People like me are the majority of the church outside rural Utah. Just like the majority of Catholics are nice pro-choice liberals who have a healthy appreciation for social issues and aren’t hung up on nonsense (look at the American states of Mass., Vermont, or Washington, which have the highest per-capita RC populations).

Come on, admit it. FAIR is a ridiculous bunch.