LDS and the bible vs BOM

[TOmNossor]

The history of heliocentricism and the RCC begins with Copernicus, whose scientific discoveries and ideas regarding the sun as the center, were received favorably and with interest by the Pope and Bishops, and encouragement to publish his work without delay.

You are correct that Copernicus was not originally condemned by the Catholic Church. It was during the Galileo controversy that Copernicus’ writings were declared contrary to scripture.
Lucky (because I was not thinking this when I said it) for me I said 100 years before Galileo Catholics all taught that scripture taught heliocentricism. This is still true. It was the Galileo controversy that lead the Catholic Church to make clear its position (at that time).
So, if your point is that less than 100 years before Galileo some Catholics warmed considerably to Copernicus’ theories. During Galileo’s time Catholic condemned non-heliocentric theories including Copernicus and Galileo as being in opposition to scripture, and now few Catholics believe non-heliocentric theories are contrary to scripture, then you are right. But, this does not change that the interpretation of scripture by learned Catholics was specifically opposed to heliocentricism. Cardinal, Saint, and Church Doctor Bellamire made it clear that heliocentrism was “De Fide.” (Doctors of the church are not infallible per Catholic teaching).
In any case:
Catholic teaching regarding what to take literally and figuratively concerning scripture and geocentrism changed during the handful of years around Galileo’s time. 100 years before Galileo all Catholics believed scripture demanded geocentrism. 100 (maybe this should be 200) years after Galileo’s death most Catholics believed that such scriptures should be taken allegorically. This is CHANGE
I will await to see some evidence “I a wrong.”
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Catholics have not always or universally done this. The CHANGE just predated your paying attention or you ignore it.
The Pope is not infallible in his geo-centrism, but such was not the opinion of Doctor of the Church St. Bellarmine who said geo-centrism was “De fide.” Now the celebrated scriptural reference that made geocentrism true is just allegory.
Again, I am not saying that such shouldn’t be viewed as allegory, just that you are not paying attention to your own tradition.
Some Catholics refuse to follow the majority of Bishops in this changing view and are thus geocentrist today. One of my favorite Catholic apologists from 10 years ago, Robert Sungenis, makes all of this very clear. Sungenis has further departed from Catholic Answers over the last 10 years, but he, Scott Hahn, and Peter Kreft predate Jimmy Akin as pillars of Catholic defense.
Atheist consistently say, “The BOM must be understood as a history of ALL North and South American” AND the “The Bible must teach geocentrism.” Thinkers in my church and your church have “left” over such things and other thinkers have stayed. I say you are inconsistent, but maybe you just don’t know the history.

the Book of Mormon must be understood as a history of ALL American Indians because it is contained in Mormon scripture and taught by every prophet until the 1980 when science began to prove that idea to be false. It is the Mormon Church which has changed its teaching

 

[Stephen168]

You are correct that Copernicus was not originally condemned by the Catholic Church. It was during the Galileo controversy that Copernicus’ writings were declared contrary to scripture.
Lucky (because I was not thinking this when I said it) for me I said 100 years before Galileo Catholics all taught that scripture taught heliocentricism. This is still true. It was the Galileo controversy that lead the Catholic Church to make clear its position (at that time).
So, if your point is that less than 100 years before Galileo some Catholics warmed considerably to Copernicus’ theories. During Galileo’s time Catholic condemned non-heliocentric theories including Copernicus and Galileo as being in opposition to scripture, and now few Catholics believe non-heliocentric theories are contrary to scripture, then you are right. But, this does not change that the interpretation of scripture by learned Catholics was specifically opposed to heliocentricism. Cardinal, Saint, and Church Doctor Bellamire made it clear that heliocentrism was “De Fide.” (Doctors of the church are not infallible per Catholic teaching).
In any case:
Catholic teaching regarding what to take literally and figuratively concerning scripture and geocentrism changed during the handful of years around Galileo’s time. 100 years before Galileo all Catholics believed scripture demanded geocentrism. 100 (maybe this should be 200) years after Galileo’s death most Catholics believed that such scriptures should be taken allegorically. This is CHANGE
I will await to see some evidence “I a wrong.”

You are wrong. You are ignorant of the Galileo Affair, the history of astronomy and Catholic teaching even after several of my posts anticipated your rant.
I see you embarrassing yourself.

 

[jane_doe]

the Book of Mormon must be understood as a history of ALL American Indians because it is contained in Mormon scripture and taught by every prophet until the 1980 when science began to prove that idea to be false. It is the Mormon Church which has changed its teaching

And the Catholic church changed its position about Earth being the center of the universe when science started proven that theory wrong, as discussed in TOm’s previous posts.

The reason neither of these keep me up at night is because they are not core tenets of faith. The story of Christ’s sacrifice does not change if the Earth was literally made in 7 days, if the sun is center of the solar system, or if all Native Americans were descendent from Israelites.

 

[TOmNossor]

The conversation was about Mormon history, and your statements that history proves Mormonism to be true.

Please read more carefully, I specifically said I would not say this.

The Mormon history narrative changes, according to the views of its leadership, and therefore it’s followers, of which you are one. The narrative changes, but each opposing narrative always, for a Mormon, is true. Opposing narratives can only be true, simultaneously, when each opposing narrative is viewed as true, from a certain POV.

I see what you are saying now. You have read a great deal of things into my posts that I didn’t say.
I am saying that the CoJCoLDS is a restoration of the church headed by Christ and St. Peter. I am saying that the Catholic Church of 2015 (and 1830) is not the valid successor of the church headed by Christ and St. Peter. I am saying that history evidences (not proves) this. I am saying that this was true in 1830 and is true today. This was the teaching of the CoJCoLDS in 1830 and it is the teaching today.
I am saying that the understanding of the BOM has changed. Joseph Smith said things that indicated he thought that the BOM covered all of North and South America. Joseph Smith said things that indicated he didn’t think this. The CoJCoLDS predominately thought this (all North and South America) for many years, but most scholarly LDS do not think this now. Some scholarly LDS around 100 years ago were in alignment with today’s scholars. This is CHANGE. Not change in essentials IMO, but change. It is far more peripheral than the Catholic heliocentric changes IMO.
If one day the BOM is viewed as ahistorical by the church, that will be closer to the allegoricalizing of scriptures evident in Catholic thought from Antioch to today. I personally do not think such is necessary nor very likely. But, I also think it is a poor idea to excommunicate folks who believe in prophets and the restoration, but believe the BOM is not a historical document. We will see.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You are wrong. You are ignorant of the Galileo Affair, the history of astronomy and Catholic teaching even after several of my posts anticipated your rant.
I see you embarrassing yourself.

I am too stupid to feel embarrassed, but I do not think, “you embarrassing yourself” is a valid argument.
What errors did I make?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

And the Catholic church changed its position about Earth being the center of the universe when science started proven that theory wrong, as discussed in TOm’s previous posts.

The reason neither of these keep me up at night is because they are not core tenets of faith. The story of Christ’s sacrifice does not change if the Earth was literally made in 7 days, if the sun is center of the solar system, or if all Native Americans were descendent from Israelites.

He is ignorant in the history of astronomy and you have also displayed it above.

As I said before, nothing keeps Mormons up night because they reject, science, history and reason. They just believe

Which returns me to my original claim. The Mormon Church is not what it claims to be while the Catholic Church is what it claims to be.

 

[jane_doe]

He is ignorant in the history of astronomy and you have also displayed it above.

As I said before, nothing keeps Mormons up night because they reject, science, history and reason. They just believe

Which returns me to my original claim. The Mormon Church is not what it claims to be while the Catholic Church is what it claims to be.

I see not science, history, or reason being used in this post.

What would be your response to mine or TOm’s posts using science, history, reason, or faith?

 

[Telstar]

I know of virtually no church authorities before Galileo that taught anything but Geocentrism. Please correct me if I have missed any.

Copernicus was also Catholic, though neither of them were “church authorities”. (see below)

The Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellamire (also a Catholic Cardinal) made it clear that the church has always taught that Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue literally teach that the earth is the center and the sun revolves around it. The Pope Paul V agreed.

St. Robert Bellarmine(sp) Perhaps you could post a source for your claims of what St. Robert Bellarmine and Pope Paul V said regarding the Church’s teachings on those books of the Bible. But, either way, since the subject matter is of a scientific nature that was previously unknown, then the Church has every right and, in fact, is obligated to change it’s teaching regarding those things, in light of the new information.

Galileo was certainly not a Church authority. He was just a faithful member of the Church laity. He was strongly influenced by studies done by Copernicus, who was also a member of the faithful. Both of them had many members of the hierarchy that were very much interested in their studies, including St. Robert Bellarmine.

From New Advent:“Bellarmine did not live to deal with the later and more serious stage of the Galileo case, but in 1615 he took part in its earlier stage. He had always shown great interest in the discoveries of that investigator, and was on terms of friendly correspondence with him. He took up too–as is witnessed by his letter to Galileo’s friend Foscarini–exactly the right attitude towards scientific theories in seeming contradiction with Scripture. If, as was undoubtedly the case then with Galileo’s heliocentric theory, a scientific theory is insufficiently proved, it should be advanced only as an hypothesis; but if, as is the case with this theory now, it is solidly demonstrated, care must be taken to interpret Scripture only in accordance with it. When the Holy Office condemned the heliocentric theory, by an excess in the opposite direction, it became Bellarmine’s official duty to signify the condemnation to Galileo, and receive his submission.”

Note: I am not saying that Paul V or Bellamire were INFALLIBLE per Catholic teaching in this positions. I am saying that all Catholics believed and taught this before Galileo and many Fathers made it clear that this was the teaching of scripture.

Since the subject matter is related to science, and not to faith or morals, the ruling pronounced against it, which was later reversed, is not subject to infallibility. So, even mentioning it is completely irrelevant to this dialogue, and just confuses the real issue.

So, while I think it likely true that many Catholics in the pew believed in a literal 7 day creationism, such might be harder to prove than the clear teaching concerning geocentrism.

Some people still believe in a literal 7 day creation, today. But, those are the kinds of beliefs that are allegorical, and can be loosely interpreted without really damaging our faith.

Catholic teaching regarding what to take literally and figuratively concerning scripture and geocentrism changed during the handful of years around Galileo’s time. 100 years before Galileo all Catholics believed scripture demanded geocentrism. 100 years after Galileo’s death most Catholics believed that such scriptures should be taken allegorically. This is CHANGE.
Charity, TOm

It is change. But, it is change consistent with the Church recognizing the progress of man in uncovering the ineffable mysteries of God. If the Church denied something absolutely proved by science, then you might have something to complain about. But, the Church believes that there is no conflict between God and science, because God created all science. Learning more about it glorifies God, and shows us how absolutely magnificent His creation really is.

However, this kind of change does not constitute any change in Church Doctrine. It is only a change in our understanding of God’s creation, which continues to grow.

 

[JaminB123]

I am saying that the CoJCoLDS is a restoration of the church headed by Christ and St. Peter.

TOm,

Thanks for sticking with us. If I was getting my beliefs so bashed by occasionally ungracious people like me, I probably would have left the thread a while ago. I sincerely admire your tenacity!

But to your point above, if the CoJCoLDS is a restoration of the church headed by Christ and St. Peter, why is it that we don’t find any record of early and current Mormon practices (polyandrous/polygamist marriage, Masonic handshakes, undergarment requirements, marriage in heaven, racist exclusions to holding the priesthood, prohibition on alcohol, acceptance of divorce, etc.) in the early Christian church? From my readings of the NT, early church history, and early church fathers, many of these practices enumerated above were either condemned or had no historical basis in the church headed by Christ and St. Peter. In all sincerity, what say you on this matter?

Thanks,
JaminB

 

[PaulDupre1]

One problem (among many) that the Mormons have about Catholicism is that they expect our saints to be like LDS general authorities.

Actually, a saint is an ordinary person who is known to have lived a life of heroic holiness, not someone who was always correct. The saints, like all of us, were human and subject to error.

The popes who are canonized were infallible on faith and morals in their office as pope, but are saints only because they lived lives of heroic holiness, not because everything they did or said in their personal lives was correct or holy.

So stop quoting Augustus or other doctors of the church and saints as if their writings are binding on the faithful (they are not) or as if everything they wrote was true (not necessarily).

Remember that doctors of the Church like Augustine were theologians, not prophets. A theologian’s job is to speculate about spiritual things and propose ideas about how to explain those spiritual things.

I never understood why people would argue about what Augustus wrote. It was just Augustus writing about where he was in his thinking at that time. He was a brilliant man, but he was just a man.

Paul

 

[PaulDupre1]

100 years before Galileo all Catholics believed scripture demanded geocentrism. 100 years after Galileo’s death most Catholics believed that such scriptures should be taken allegorically. This is CHANGE.
Charity, TOm

!00 years before Gordon B. Hinkley all Mormons believed that God the Father came down from the celestial kingdom and had sex with his daughter Mary in order to conceive Jesus. Now most Mormons do not believe that. This is CHANGE.

Charity,

Paul

 

[PaulDupre1]

And the Catholic church changed its position about Earth being the center of the universe when science started proven that theory wrong, as discussed in TOm’s previous posts.

The reason neither of these keep me up at night is because they are not core tenets of faith. The story of Christ’s sacrifice does not change if the Earth was literally made in 7 days, if the sun is center of the solar system, or if all Native Americans were descendent from Israelites.

Ah, but the Book of Mormon was held forth in modern times to be a true history of all Native Americans. The Mormon church now admits that it is not.

Doesn’t that bother you?

 

[JaminB123]

100 years before Galileo all Catholics believed scripture demanded geocentrism. 100 years after Galileo’s death most Catholics believed that such scriptures should be taken allegorically.

I’m not an expert but to say that “100 years before Galileo all Catholics believed scripture demanded geocentrism” sounds pretty darn incorrect to me! I doubt there was ever a time when ALL Catholic believed in anything in absolute unity (though at times I wish that were true). I’m not sure the second sentence is actually true either. I think you are overreaching on both statements.

The false statements above notwithstanding, these are scientific matters and not matters of faith & morals. The Catholic Church has (despite the myth) been remarkably progressive in embracing scientific advances. As for the matter of scriptural interpretation, the Catholic Church has historically and currently allowed for a range of interpretations within reason. One of the things that appeals to me about Catholicism is that we aren’t required to check our brains out at the door on matters of science. Despite what we’ve been taught by the anti-Catholic culture in which most of us has been raised, I doubt that any single organization has done more over the course of human history for the advancement of science than the Catholic Church.

Bottom-line—there are religious matters that cannot change (the cannon of the NT, the nature of God, etc.) and matters that can (understanding of scientific truths, the language of the mass, etc.). This, I believe, is where Catholics and Mormons depart ways. To Mormons, the nature of God is changing, scripture is changing, the nature of marriage is changing, etc.

What say you, Tom? Do you agree that your statements above are hyperbole? Do you see the difference between advances in scientific understanding and in more eternal religious matters?

 

[Stephen168]

And the Catholic church changed its position about Earth being the center of the universe when science started proven that theory wrong, as discussed in TOm’s previous posts.

The reason neither of these keep me up at night is because they are not core tenets of faith. The story of Christ’s sacrifice does not change if the Earth was literally made in 7 days, if the sun is center of the solar system, or if all Native Americans were descendent from Israelites.

The Catholic Church has never had a position about the earth being the center of the universe. Tom would just have to quote a Council of the Church that says that, but he can’t.
The Council of Trent says the Bible is infallible in regard to faith and morals. Science is not faith and morals. Trent occurred before Galileo published.
The Catholic Church has never claimed that a literal interpretation of the bible is the only one. It was taught since the Bible was established by the Catholic Church and was understood by Galileo as well as most Catholics today. What a Catholic thought in the 17th century would only be guessing. The teaching of the Catholic Church did not change.

I have been told by Mormons for years that the only doctrine is the doctrine found in Mormon Scripture. Mormon scripture says the Book of Mormon is the history of all the American Indians. It is also what the Mormon Church taught about its scripture. The Mormon Church has changed what it believes it’s scripture is and it goes against its scripture.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m not an expert but to say that “100 years before Galileo all Catholics believed scripture demanded geocentrism” sounds pretty darn incorrect to me! I doubt there was ever a time when ALL Catholic believed in anything in absolute unity (though at times I wish that were true). I’m not sure the second sentence is actually true either. I think you are overreaching on both statements.

The false statements above notwithstanding, these are scientific matters and not matters of faith & morals. The Catholic Church has (despite the myth) been remarkably progressive in embracing scientific advances. As for the matter of scriptural interpretation, the Catholic Church has historically and currently allowed for a range of interpretations within reason. One of the things that appeals to me about Catholicism is that we aren’t required to check our brains out at the door on matters of science. Despite what we’ve been taught by the anti-Catholic culture in which most of us has been raised, I doubt that any single organization has done more over the course of human history for the advancement of science than the Catholic Church.

Bottom-line—there are religious matters that cannot change (the cannon of the NT, the nature of God, etc.) and matters that can (understanding of scientific truths, the language of the mass, etc.). This, I believe, is where Catholics and Mormons depart ways. To Mormons, the nature of God is changing, scripture is changing, the nature of marriage is changing, etc.

What say you, Tom? Do you agree that your statements above are hyperbole? Do you see the difference between advances in scientific understanding and in more eternal religious matters?

Yes, there is no way to know what every person in any group believes. It is also irrational, ahistorical, and anti-catholic to think that only catholics held a almost universal belief.

It also seems irrational to believe that Catholics accepting the fact there was a continent between Europe and Asia when it became a known fact is a change in believe unique to Catholicism and the same as the Mormon Church changing its beliefs about what the nature of it scriptures are or the nature of God.

 

[Stephen168]

How is that not change?

See posts 334 and 335

 

[Telstar]

The Catholic Church has never had a position about the earth being the center of the universe. Tom would just have to quote a Council of the Church that says that, but he can’t.
The Council of Trent says the Bible is infallible in regard to faith and morals. Science is not faith and morals. Trent occurred before Galileo published.
The Catholic Church has never claimed that a literal interpretation of the bible is the only one. It was taught since the Bible was established by the Catholic Church and was understood by Galileo as well as most Catholics today. What a Catholic thought in the 17th century would only be guessing. The teaching of the Catholic Church did not change.

Excellent point. TOm would be hard pressed to find any record of sermons or actual teachings, preached in the Church or anywhere else, related to geocentric belief or anything like it. It’s not related to any spiritual topic, so it’s certainly not something any Priest or Bishop would ever think to mention in a homily. This whole subject is completely irrelevant to man’s salvation or spirituality. So, what’s the point in bringing it up, except for someone to try to make the Church look silly?

 

[Stephen168]

No such thing. All truth is subjective to a Mormon, subject to his feelings. To a Mormon, feelings are the arbiter of truth.

i think that is clear especially when discussing the Book of Mormon

 

[Stephen168]

Excellent point. TOm would be hard pressed to find any record of sermons or actual teachings, preached in the Church or anywhere else, related to geocentric belief or anything like it. It’s not related to any spiritual topic, so it’s certainly not something any Priest or Bishop would ever think to mention in a homily. This whole subject is completely irrelevant to man’s salvation or spirituality. So, what’s the point in bringing it up, except for someone to try to make the Church look silly?

Even if there was a sermon by a priest bishop or Cardinal, it would not make it Church teaching until a Council said it was.

The Mormon Church took its scriptures literally and are having to back away from that idea due to science making a literal interpretation impossible. So the classic Mormon approach is to try to show the Catholic Church did it too. The problem is the Catholic Church never required a literal reading of scripture. Which requires the next classic response: Galileo.

Of course they really don’t know much about the Galileo Affair but at least they’ve avoided having to defend the change in Mormon Church teaching.