LDS and the bible vs BOM

[Stephen168]

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.

I think you touched on a common myth of the Galileo Affair and it is the belief that Galileo proved the earth moved around the sun and the church denied it. As you say he never proved it therefore, the Church never denied it.

 

[Telstar]

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 we’ve avoided having to defend the change in Mormon Church teaching.

Quite true. It’s certainly possible that it might have come up, maybe as a way to express how God ‘favors’ mankind by making him the center of the universe (which I tend to think may actually be true). But, it’s not like the Church ever considered it to be a teaching necessary for our salvation. In the grand scheme of Biblical teaching, it was a pretty insignificant idea. But, the entire ancient world believed the earth was flat until the time of Copernicus and Galileo’s discoveries, so it was something that rocked the whole world’s view, not just the Catholic Church’s. That’s what gave it such significance, because many people looked to the Church to confirm or deny it. It was a major discovery that most people were afraid to even think about, so they turned to the Church to assure them that it was OK to accept it as true. The Church studied it prudently for a long time before finally making a decision, but She was correct.

 

[Telstar]

I think you touched on a common myth of the Galileo Affair and it is the belief that Galileo proved the earth moved around the sun and the church denied it. As you say he never proved it therefore, the Church never denied it.

At that point in time, it was still only a theory. The Church wasn’t about to jump the gun and agree to a theory that was completely unprovable. She wanted to be sure before She would allow him, or anyone else, to claim it was anything more than a hypothesis. A discovery of that magnitude required a lot more study before it could be accepted.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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

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

Allegoricalizing. Maybe you are going for the, say it often enough and it will stick.

Please, we are talking history, and you confuse history and faith, and then bring up science.

There is no such thing as Nephites, Lamanites, Zarahemla, Hebrew culture in the Americas, horses, steal swords, etc. You know the list. All of these were, or still are, historical claims of the Mormon Church.

History is history, it is what it is. You can’t make horses or steal appear in American history with faith.

Science changes, history does not.

There is no doctrinal stance on whether the earth is the center, or the moon. There is theology, that looks at the faith and explains it according to human understanding. Human understanding changes, truth does not.

This is why I asked you what your objective truth is. The objective truth of Christianity is a Revelation, of a Person, the Son of God. This Truth does not change. Human understanding does, and it is scriptural that this itself is a truth about ourselves, and God. God does not change. His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts.

So it doesn’t bother this former atheist that Catholic theology changes. It should change, if it did not we would be irrational, sticking to understandings about the world, science included, of 2000 years ago. Our understanding changing is not the same thing as changing scripture to match human understanding. It not the same thing as claimed prophecies, being replaced with “updated” prophecies. It is not the same thing as pretending history exists on faith.

What is the objective truth of Mormonism? A “true” church, a “most correct” book, subjective prophecies, changing foundational narratives? What?

 

[TOmNossor]

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

You are correct that Copernicus was a Catholic before Galileo. Earlier I spoke more specifically claiming that it was 100 years before Galileo (which luckily predates Copernicus). But I hope in this post I have corrected what was an error on my part!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12889533&postcount=320

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.

I did misspell Bellarmine! Thanks!
I was first exposed to the idea that Catholics MUST believe that the earth is stationary and the sun moves around it by my Engineering PhD friend who at the time was merely a Vatican II denier, but has become a Sedavacantist. In the last 10 years or so of exploring this amazing position I have come across many folks who hold this view. Many but not all are Ultra-Trads.
Here is a quote from, “dated February 25, 1616, in which the two propositions, of the stability of the sun and the motion of the earth, were, by the command of the Pope and the Inquisitors, stigmatized by the theological qualifiers of the Holy office as follows:”
quote from “Pope and the Inquisitors:

The proposition that the sun is the centre of the world, and immovable from its place, is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to holy Scripture. And the proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with diurnal motion, is absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

The above comes from the Rambler in Jan 1852.
Here is a little about the Rambler, which Newman was involved in publishing.
catholic.com/encyclopedia/rambler-the
Here is the Google books section where the quote above is included:
books.google.com/books?id=1Hw4AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Go to bottom of page 4 and then page 5.

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.

I am not disputing this. I am saying that the literal interpretation of scripture was preferred in this issue SO much so that the writings of Galileo and Copernicus were condemned and the Pope and Bellarmine claimed it was injurious to the faith.
I make this claim specifically in response to Rebecca who claimed that Catholics have ALWAYS embraced allegorical interpretation and the CoJCoLDS is CHANGING in its way of interpreting scripture. After the Alexandrian school won the day sometime in the third, fourth, or fifth century the literal interpretation of scriptures was not the ONLY one available, but this did not mean that figurative interpretations were to be preferred.

Telstar:
From New Advent:
…
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.
New Advent downplays this a little. There is virtually NO Evidence that Bellarmine was anything but an advocate of the idea that heliocentrism was heretical and opposed to scripture. That being said, Bellarmine did acknowledge that if heliocentrism was proved (which he neither thought it was or would be), then it would be necessary and difficult to address scriptural passages that clearly teach the opposite. Bellarmine further states that Trent forbids the exposition of scriptures in opposition to UNIVERSAL witness of the Fathers (making response to PROOF difficult at best).
Again, all of this is to show that Catholics exegesis of scripture changes. And it does! Rebecca claimed that the CoJCoLDS was changing the way re read the BOM. That is true, but we are very early in such things and Catholicism has been doing it for hundreds of years. I do not expect the BOM to be ahistorical as an official position 14 centuries from now, but the figurative interpretation of the Old Testament by the Catholic Church DISPLACED the literal in the 17th century. If the CoJCoLDS has figured out the BOM 14 centuries from now we will be FASTER than the Catholic Church.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

But yet, none of the locations, or people mentioned in the BoM can be found.

As I have mentioned here that the locations of the BOM that have permanence in archeology and thus provide fixed points of reference are well agreed upon. Jerusalem, the Red Sea, Nahom, (and Valley of Lemuel, Bountiful, …) are well documented.
New world locations like Teotihuacan are reasonably postulate IMO, but there are virtually no toponyms from BOM times that are known and the small number that are known cannot be pronounced with any certainty.

The DNA theory of mormonism has been soundly disputed by reputable authorities.

The BOM theories that predated DNA evidence if correct led Simon Southerton to say that his DNA evidence does not refute them (but Simon’s position was the LDS CANNOT change these theories even pre-DNA evidence – Catholics changed their geocentric theories after not before science called them into question).

Horses and cement in the BoM are way off based upon the supposed timeframe of the book.

Let’s add in that smith didn’t “translate” the papyri correctly, since it is evidently a funerary text, and, there is no evidence to support the claim of the type of temple worship currently done by mormons.
I would have to say there is no proof that mormon church or the BoM are the church that Christ established, or for that matter, even closely related.
Well, horses are a minor negative and BOA translation IMO is a large negative. Neither demonstrate the falsity of the CoJCoLDS, but neither is on the positive side of the ledger. Cement on the other hand is a positive as science has moved from where it was when this was a criticism to now agreeing that cement was worked in BOM times (Teotihuacan is the place BTW).
Charity ,Tom

 

[TOmNossor]

The Catholic Church has no doctrinal declaration on the matter. You can be Catholic, and view Genesis as a Sacred Myth (myth, as in genre of literature) or you can view it literally.

I agree with you concerning what Catholics hold now. In 300AD the Antiochian school would be quite opposed to your view.
Charity, Tom

 

[TOmNossor]

Telstar:
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.
I consider the geography of the BOM to be of MUCH less importance than Pope Paul V and St. Bellarmine considered geocentricism.
I like you think geocentricism for the Catholic is not a make or break issue.
Charity, Tom

 

[TOmNossor]

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?
“Tenacious” is better than much I have been called. Thank you. Really, thanks.
Much of what you discuss is covered in Bickmore’s book. I am a fan, but I recognize there are some things I would do differently. Here is some about this, but this was not the direction I was going.
Here is a review from a Catholic (actually non-Catholic now, but never LDS).
http://www.fairmormon.org/perspecti...rry-bickmores-book-from-a-non-lds-perspective

Here are some chapters:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2011572/posts
Some on Masonary / Temples / Polygamy / garment:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2013190/posts

I find value in the direction Bickmore takes here. I find evidence of development in many of the areas that a LDS would expect it to exist.
I however find more strength in things like Nibley’s Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity and comparing this to Robert Eno’s Rise of the Papacy and Father Francis Sullivan** From Apostles to Bishops.**
I also think the simplistic “Peter received revelation to be delivered to the entire church, but the Pope cannot” is a point of weakness for the “successor of St. Peter argument” even when the issue is complicated by Catholic positions on Public Revelation, Private Revelation, and Infallible guidance to truth via development.
Finally, if Catholicism develops in ways that are change (presumably are change because they violate Newman’s characteristics of true developments), then this is a FATAL FLAW. My certainty here is lacking, but I would say the evidence points this way. And Catholicism doesn’t even stand a chance if Newman’s theory is a departure from the faith like many folks thought it was originally.
All of this is far afield of much of the recent thrust of this thread in that LDS have changed their understanding of the BOM over our first 200 years, but Catholics have changed their understanding of the Bible and continued for much more than 200 years.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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?
I should have said 100 years all who wrote including all who we call Church Fathers. If there is a single exception I am not aware, but it is rare.
I moved the post Galileo to 200 years, but MOST is much muted from ALL. Many Catholics argue well IMO that Catholics must be geocentrists today. See works by Robert Sungenis. I am unconvinced that you must be a geocentrist, but I believe it harder for you to move away from such a view than it is for me to move from an all of North and South America BOM view.
I do absolutely see the difference between matters of science and matters of faith. The geography of the BOM is a matter of science IMO. The mechanics of the apostasy is a matter of history. That in 1830 there was a restoration is of a more eternal religious matter.
Charity, TOm

 

[JaminB123]

TOm,

Again, you have my genuine respect for sticking with this dialogue. I really do want to hear what you have to say on this. However, I read your reply (#348) to my question and yes, I even read read the links that you referred us to… and alas I did not find a real answer to my specific points. It seemed like a dodge, smoke and mirrors, look at these urls that you’ll probably ignore. So I’ll repeat my question again and maybe, just maybe, you can prove me wrong point-by-point:

“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?”

With references to NT scripture, early church father writings, or early church history, can you show me where these elements were present in the early Christian church founded by Christ and St. Peter and later “restored” by the LDS church?

 

[JaminB123]

The geography of the BOM is a matter of science IMO.

Agree. The geography and history of the BOM is a matter of science and science has consistently proved the geography and history of the BOM to be false. No reputable geologist, scientist, or historian finds any truth whatsoever in the BoM.

On the other hand, the historical credibility of the New Testament and early Christian history is well-documented. We can have reasonable confidence that Pontius Pilate was real, that Caesar was real, the there was a man called Jesus crucified in the approximate time frame attested to in the NT (the historian Josephus comes to mind), that Israel was an actual place, that the temple was real, that Aramaic was a real language, that there were early Christians martyred under an actual man named Nero, that St. Augustine was an actual man with writings we can read, that the Nicene Council actually occurred, etc. Furthermore, historical discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls can give credence to the scripture translations and so on.

Even most secular historians can agree that early Christianity was an actual phenomenon in the early centuries, but no secular historian will agree that any of the events described in the BoM actually happened. Additionally, no reputable linguist gives any credence whatsoever to the JS translation of the Book of Abraham, that “reformed Egyptian” is a thing, and of course we have no basis of validation for the BoM since the golden plates don’t exist in the material universe to anyone’s knowledge. The JS translation of the bible hasn’t borne any resemblance to historical discoveries. Your version of North/South American history is an absolute joke among anyone but a TBM. I’m not trying to be mean–it’s just reality. I know history, science, and linguistics are not interesting to some, but they actually do matter to some degree.

Maybe it seems I’m going off on a tangent, but in some ways this brings us back to the original post–the bible vs. the BoM. One has historical credibility… and the other, frankly, doesn’t. Yet the one with historical credibility is believed in “insofar as it is correctly translated” and the historically uncredible one is the most correct book on earth. Funny how that works…

 

[Stephen168]

Tom can quote all the individual Catholics he wants or claim groups of Catholics or people who claim to be Catholic to have held a view contrary to the Catholic Church it will not change the fact that the Catholic Church has never required a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Tom has also tried to twist this into claiming the Church never required an allegorical interpretation; which is not the same as not requiring a literal interpretation. Saying someone can do something doesn’t require them to do it.

The Mormon Church is being forced by science to reject what their scriptures say about their scriptures. I believe this is moving them to do as the Catholic Church has always done and allow the view that scripture could be an allegory and not historical fact. Of course this requires the Mormon Church to reject their scripture which says the Book of Mormon is not an allegory but the factual history of all the American Indians.

 

[Jerusha]

Of course this requires the Mormon Church to reject their scripture which says the Book of Mormon is not an allegory but the factual history of all the American Indians.

But this would require them to bring their beliefs into line with the best of the BoM, and reform their practices. That would be much more painful than continuing to believe that it is literally true. They don’t have any viable alternatives. I believe it is a sinking ship.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I agree with you concerning what Catholics hold now. In 300AD the Antiochian school would be quite opposed to your view.
Charity, Tom

And?

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm,
Again, you have my genuine respect for sticking with this dialogue. I really do want to hear what you have to say on this. However, I read your reply (#348) to my question and yes, I even read read the links that you referred us to… and alas I did not find a real answer to my specific points. It seemed like a dodge, smoke and mirrors, look at these urls that you’ll probably ignore. So I’ll repeat my question again and maybe, just maybe, you can prove me wrong point-by-point:

“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?”

With references to NT scripture, early church father writings, or early church history, can you show me where these elements were present in the early Christian church founded by Christ and St. Peter and later “restored” by the LDS church?

Jamin,
At the risk of losing your respect, the key point of my post was:

All of this is far afield of much of the recent thrust of this thread in that LDS have changed their understanding of the BOM over our first 200 years, but Catholics have changed their understanding of the Bible and continued for much more than 200 years.
Charity, TOm

Since I said that history IMO points to the CoJCoLDS as Peter’s successor I also told you what I think most clearly demonstrates that.

I find value in the direction Bickmore takes here. I find evidence of development in many of the areas that a LDS would expect it to exist.
I however find more strength in things like Nibley’s Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity and comparing this to Robert Eno’s Rise of the Papacy and Father Francis Sullivan** From Apostles to Bishops.**
I also think the simplistic “Peter received revelation to be delivered to the entire church, but the Pope cannot” is a point of weakness for the “successor of St. Peter argument” even when the issue is complicated by Catholic positions on Public Revelation, Private Revelation, and Infallible guidance to truth via development.
Finally, if Catholicism develops in ways that are change (presumably are change because they violate Newman’s characteristics of true developments), then this is a FATAL FLAW. My certainty here is lacking, but I would say the evidence points this way. And Catholicism doesn’t even stand a chance if Newman’s theory is a departure from the faith like many folks thought it was originally.
Charity, TOm

Now concerning my links you can read them, you can read the book. You can go to a LDS site to ask LDS questions and likely get many responses rather than an overwhelmed TOm and Jane.
I told you what I was attempting to show in this thread (Catholic views of scripture have CHANGED). I told you what I mean when I say history evidences that the CoJCoLDS is the valid successor of Peter and the Catholic Church is not. If you want more info on these I can offer you links of discussions here.
I also provided you links to Bickmore’s book (and I suspect you could find ALL if you didn’t want to buy it).
From the link (which you evidently missed):
Polygamy:

And Augustine wrote that polygamy was only forbidden at that time because of the laws and customs of the time:
Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.164Polygamy and the Mystery of Marriage

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Note 4: Masonry & Mormonism
It is a well-known fact that certain symbols used in the LDS Endowment have counterparts in the ritualism of the Freemasons. Since Joseph Smith was himself a Mason for a short time, anti-Mormon writers often charge that he stole the Endowment from that fraternity. The correspondence is hardly surprising, however, since the Prophet confided in several people that he believed the Masonic rituals were incomplete remnants of the ancient Endowment. Apparently, the ceremony was revealed to him after he had asked the Lord about the status of the Masonic teachings.216
Therefore, the question at hand is not whether the Prophet borrowed some symbolism from the Masonic rites, but whether similar rites were found in ancient Christianity. Indeed, the symbols Joseph Smith made use of are not exclusive to the Masons, but go back thousands of years. So even if the Prophet borrowed some symbols, just as the early Christians apparently borrowed from the mystery religions, it is entirely possible that these were exactly the right symbols, handed down from a time when the rituals were not yet corrupted. Furthermore, the Prophet restored symbolism in the Endowment which is not found in the Masonic rite, but which was to be found, as we have seen, in the liturgies of the various mystery rites we have discussed.

So, loose respect for me if you wish. Declare since I will not demonstrate what you claim must be demonstrated that my claim of history is false if you wish. But I do not have time to feed this to you.
Bickmore used to post here, and still has an account, perhaps he will have something to say concerning this. And his book was reviewed by a Catholic as I pointed you to.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I told you what I was attempting to show in this thread (Catholic views of scripture have CHANGED)…

You will always fail at your attempt because the Carholic Church has never had a “view” of scripture. You can’t change something you don’t have.

 

[Telstar]

You are correct that Copernicus was a Catholic before Galileo. Earlier I spoke more specifically claiming that it was 100 years before Galileo (which luckily predates Copernicus). But I hope in this post I have corrected what was an error on my part!

My point was that they were not considered to be Church “authorities” (even though Copernicus was a Priest).

I did misspell Bellarmine! Thanks!

No problem, I was just making it clear who we were talking about.

I was first exposed to the idea that Catholics MUST believe that the earth is stationary and the sun moves around it by my Engineering PhD friend who at the time was merely a Vatican II denier, but has become a Sedavacantist. In the last 10 years or so of exploring this amazing position I have come across many folks who hold this view. Many but not all are Ultra-Trads.

Maybe sedevacantists believe that, but I’m not so sure it was ever considered to be a required belief in the RCC. They have a much more literal attitude concerning a lot of Catholic Church teachings, which is why they are no longer part of the Church.

Here is a quote from, “dated February 25, 1616, in which the two propositions, of the stability of the sun and the motion of the earth, were, by the command of the Pope and the Inquisitors, stigmatized by the theological qualifiers of the Holy office as follows:”

Originally Posted by quote from “Pope and the Inquisitors”
The proposition that the sun is the centre of the world, and immovable from its place, is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to holy Scripture. And the proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with diurnal motion, is absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

That’s the decree that was issued to Galileo, but it doesn’t say anything about the interpretation of those books you mentioned.

I am not disputing this. I am saying that the literal interpretation of scripture was preferred in this issue SO much so that the writings of Galileo and Copernicus were condemned and the Pope and Bellarmine claimed it was injurious to the faith.

Preferred by whom? Please, post specific examples where this is said to be held as a tenet of Catholic Faith, prior to the turmoil brought to light by Copernicus’ theory. Their writings were only said to possibly be “erroneous in faith” because up until that time, the whole world believed that the earth was flat. So, the hierarchy of the Church’s view of the subject was not based solely on religious belief, but was based largely on the secular belief of the time, which influenced every man on earth whether they believed in God or not. It was not just because of the religious issue.

I make this claim specifically in response to Rebecca who claimed that Catholics have ALWAYS embraced allegorical interpretation and the CoJCoLDS is CHANGING in its way of interpreting scripture. After the Alexandrian school won the day sometime in the third, fourth, or fifth century the literal interpretation of scriptures was not the ONLY one available, but this did not mean that figurative interpretations were to be preferred.

Rebecca is right. The Church has always used allegorical interpretations of Scripture, because Jesus did! Jesus often taught in parables. Why? Because it’s a very effective way to get a point across, especially to uneducated people who might not understand complicated philosophical explanations of a theological nature. Did He intend for any of us to take those parables literally? Is Heaven really like a mustard seed? No! They are meant to be allegorical. Jewish tradition is full of allegorical teachings and interpretations. Christianity is no different. The Church has always used literal and allegorical methods to interpret the Bible. Are there some things that must be taken literally? You betcha! Jesus was born. Jesus died. Jesus was resurrected. Jesus gave us His real body and blood to sustain us until He comes again. All of those Biblical statements are to be taken literally. Others? Not so much.

Again, all of this is to show that Catholics exegesis of scripture changes. And it does!

No, it doesn’t. The methods of interpretation that the Church uses today, are the same ones She always used.

Rebecca claimed that the CoJCoLDS was changing the way re read the BOM. That is true, but we are very early in such things and Catholicism has been doing it for hundreds of years.

What started this discussion was the mention of Mormons’ ever changing doctrine. Your attempt to divert attention from that subject was to say that the Catholic Church’s handling of the Galileo affair was the same kind of thing. It’s not. No doctrine of the Catholic Church was ever changed by what happened back then, because it was unrelated to faith, morals, or anything in any way related to Jesus Christ or His teachings.

 

[jane_doe]

What started this discussion was the mention of Mormons’ ever changing doctrine. Your attempt to divert attention from that subject was to say that the Catholic Church’s handling of the Galileo affair was the same kind of thing. It’s not. No doctrine of the Catholic Church was ever changed by what happened back then, because it was unrelated to faith, morals, or anything in any way related to Jesus Christ or His teachings.

And how is the ancestry of Native Americans related to Christ’s sacrifice?