LDS and the bible vs BOM

[kimg901]

Not to doubt you, but there were (and still are) a lot more than Aztecs in Mexico. Aztecs were an empire, not a tribe. It would be like me saying I am iroquois and qin dynasty.

You are correct. But its a more simple way of saying instead of naming many tribes!

 

[Jerusha]

One way to get an understanding of the multiplicity of tribes in pre-Columbian Mexico and during the Conquest would be by reading Clavigero’s History of Mexico It is a very old two-volume work, available for download from various sites. Some historians today say that it was an imaginative work, but it does capture the inter-tribal dynamics. It was available in English before the BoM was written (hint hint).

Cortez couldn’t have succeeded without Indian allies eager to stop the human sacrifices. They were tired of the Aztec terror.

 

[TOmNossor]

Lax,
I have read a good bit on your debunking site.
I have implied or said precisely what your debunking site did. I have acknowledged that Catholicism has a process of development described by Cardinal Newman. That Catholicism at some point in time developed the idea that ONLY the decisions of General Councils and a minority of papal statements were irreformable/infalliable. At some point in time Catholicism developed the idea that the only things that were irreformable/infalliable where things concerning faith and morals. There are numerous points to quibble about within these things, and I will mention just one.
Who defines what concerns “faith and morals.”
Doctor of the Church St. Bellarmine said:

I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

This does not mean that St. Bellarmine was as inflexible on this as Robert Sungenis (he was not), but Bellarmine does witness to the decree of Trent AND the universality of teaching by the ECF concerning Geocentrisim (Your sites Augustine quote is of limited applicability in that Augustine is commenting on Young Earth Creationism scripture not geocentrism scripture. Whenever Augustine commented on geocentrism scripture he was a geocentrist. Limited applicability because the premise he espoused IF geocentrisim does not concern “faith and morals” would suggest Augustine would change his mind about geocentrism if it was proven false).
I personally do not think geocentrism concerns faith and morals. I can however think of many things other than geocentrism that St. Bellarmine would also think “concern faith and morals” and modern science is in the process of showing are much more complex issues than Bellarmine could have possibly understood. This movement forward of science and an ability to disagree on what concerns faith and morals makes this issue more complex (more complex than your debunking site acknowledges).

So you do not misunderstand, I am not Robert Sungenis. I am not telling you that you must either accept geocentrism or reject Catholicism. I am telling you that if you joined the CoJCoLDS and declared that I must either accept New York Cumorah or reject the CoJCoLDS you would be the LDS Robert Sungenis. From outside my faith you are the LDS William Webster. If I ever thought my arguments were so solid they would demand all exist the Catholic Church, then I could be William Webster too. In this thread my point is far more muted.
Centuries after the Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinth Church, Catholics developed ideas concerning that which was “official” and that which was not. Today like in Bellarmine’s day Catholics are wrangling about what was official and not official, what was “concerning faith and morals” and what was not. I think your declaration that I must consider evidence against a New Your Cumorah disqualifying of LDS truth claims is directly analogous to Robert Sungenis’ and William Webster’s decedent declaring that Catholics must consider evidence against geocentrism disqualifying of Catholic truth claims. I do not understand why you disagree (I see one thing concerning why Stephen168 might disagree, but I do not think it holds much water).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm - I would like your thoughts on the many quotes I posted from LDS prophets and apostles spanning 163 years of Mormon history, stating that the BoM took place in New York.

Considering the Mormon church has only been around for 185 years, that’s an awfully long time.

My thoughts are that NONE of them would have claimed to receive a revelation concerning that location of the Hill Cumorah. And based on my Harold B. Lee quote, if it were to be binding doctrine that the Hill Cumorah spoken of in the BOM was in NY then it would be received by the prophet via revelation, sustained by the quorum of the 12, and then accepted by common consent. None of this happened and as such I am not troubled. Here is the Harold B. Lee quote again:
Harold B. Lee 1.5 centuries removed from Joseph Smith said:
"Harold B. Lee:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

Based on the above, I think the geography of the BOM is opinion. I am happy to worship with folks who think the BOM happened in upstate NY, but I am not troubled at all by evidence against the BOM in upstate NY.

I consider the FLDS to be the orthodox of Mormonism.

There are two flaws (at least) in your assessment.
First, the flaw that a change in believe is departure from the faith. LDS thought and teaching has developed/changed and no LDS thinker would deny this.
The second flaw is a failure to recognize that the CoJCoLDS if true is led by God through a prophet. To reject the movement of the church leaders away from polygamy is to fail to recognize this authority.
I will let you draw parallels to things you think are Catholic errors if you want.
Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre1]

Doctor of the Church St. Bellarmine said:

Tom,

You often quote saints and doctors of the church as if what they said is binding on the Church or is necessarily an accurate portrayal of Catholic doctrine. It is not.

Doctor of the Church (Latin doctor, teacher, from Latin docere, to teach) is a title given by a variety of Christian churches to individuals whom they recognize as having been of particular importance, particularly regarding their contribution to theology or doctrine.

…not because they were always right or because the Church teaches exactly what they taught.

Saint is a title given by a variety of Christian churches to individuals whom they recognize as having lived lives of extraordinary holiness.

…not because they were always right or because the Church teaches exactly what they taught.

Paul

 

[Stephen168]

Who defines what concerns “faith and morals.”
Doctor of the Church St. Bellarmine said:

1. You know that a single quote from an individual Catholic, even a Pope, is not necessarily Church teaching.
2. we know that you cherry pick quotes from Catholics and claim the quote is Church teaching
   Yet you continue to do the same thing over and over.

And over and over and over again.
"Cardinal Bellarmine Letter to Father Foscarini 1615:

…since you ask for my opinion, I will giving it to you very briefly, …
Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Who decides? The Catholic Church decides, but you already knew that.
Was the Cardinal speaking for the whole Church or giving his opinion? It was his opinion, but you already knew that.

Trent forbids the teaching of the Fathers when the Fathers are unanimous on faith and morals.

This does not mean that St. Bellarmine was as inflexible on this as Robert Sungenis (he was not), but Bellarmine does witness to the decree of Trent AND the universality of teaching by the ECF concerning Geocentrisim (Your sites Augustine quote is of limited applicability in that Augustine is commenting on Young Earth Creationism scripture not geocentrism scripture. Whenever Augustine commented on geocentrism scripture he was a geocentrist. Limited applicability because the premise he espoused IF geocentrisim does not concern “faith and morals” would suggest Augustine would change his mind about geocentrism if it was proven false).

The Alexandrian school of thought taught the scriptures could be taken allegorically which is consistent with Augustine. So the teaching of the Fathers that geocentrism is faith and morals is not unanimous, but I think you already knew that.

I personally do not think geocentrism concerns faith and morals.

The Catholic Church has never believed it is faith and morals either, but you already knew that.

I can however think of many things other than geocentrism that St. Bellarmine would also think “concern faith and morals” and modern science is in the process of showing are much more complex issues than Bellarmine could have possibly understood. This movement forward of science and an ability to disagree on what concerns faith and morals makes this issue more complex (more complex than your debunking site acknowledges).

It is not complex at all. It is simply not what you are trying to make it out to be, and you know it.

So you do not misunderstand, I am not Robert Sungenis. I am not telling you that you must either accept geocentrism or reject Catholicism. I am telling you that if you joined the CoJCoLDS and declared that I must either accept New York Cumorah or reject the CoJCoLDS you would be the LDS Robert Sungenis. From outside my faith you are the LDS William Webster. If I ever thought my arguments were so solid they would demand all exist the Catholic Church, then I could be William Webster too. In this thread my point is far more muted.
Centuries after the Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinth Church, Catholics developed ideas concerning that which was “official” and that which was not.

The Catholic Church has always determined what was official and what was not. The Catholic Church always gave councils the highest consideration; it is a historical and biblical fact.

The Mormon Church has clearly HAD a teaching on Cumorah that they have backed away from. Lax16 has proven that. You can claim they don’t teach it anymore but that was never Lax’s claim. The Mormon Church DID have a doctrine but it has changed.

This reminds me you haven’t answered our question

For a second time I’ll ask: what is the purpose of a fallible prophet? Is a fallible prophet really a prophet?

Today like in Bellarmine’s day Catholics are wrangling about what was official and not official, what was “concerning faith and morals” and what was not. I think your declaration that I must consider evidence against a New Your Cumorah disqualifying of LDS truth claims is directly analogous to Robert Sungenis’ and William Webster’s decedent declaring that Catholics must consider evidence against geocentrism disqualifying of Catholic truth claims. I do not understand why you disagree (I see one thing concerning why Stephen168 might disagree, but I do not think it holds much water).

Today Catholics are not wrangling about what is faith and moral, but you already know that.

Mormon truth claims change, they are not the same claims made by Joseph Smith, 1832, or Joseph Smith, 1844.
The Mormon Church had a doctrine on Cumorah. The Catholic Church never had a doctrine on geocentrism, but you already know that.

 

[Stephen168]

Based on the above, I think the geography of the BOM is opinion.

The doctrine that the final scenes of the BoM happened at Cumorah was Mormon doctrine until atleast 2010 when Mormon Doctrine was backed away from as being Mormon doctrine.

 

[lax16]

Lax,
I have read a good bit on your debunking site.
I have implied or said precisely what your debunking site did. I have acknowledged that Catholicism has a process of development described by Cardinal Newman. That Catholicism at some point in time developed the idea that ONLY the decisions of General Councils and a minority of papal statements were irreformable/infalliable. At some point in time Catholicism developed the idea that the only things that were irreformable/infalliable where things concerning faith and morals. There are numerous points to quibble about within these things, and I will mention just one.
Who defines what concerns “faith and morals.”
Doctor of the Church St. Bellarmine said:

This does not mean that St. Bellarmine was as inflexible on this as Robert Sungenis (he was not), but Bellarmine does witness to the decree of Trent AND the universality of teaching by the ECF concerning Geocentrisim (Your sites Augustine quote is of limited applicability in that Augustine is commenting on Young Earth Creationism scripture not geocentrism scripture. Whenever Augustine commented on geocentrism scripture he was a geocentrist. Limited applicability because the premise he espoused IF geocentrisim does not concern “faith and morals” would suggest Augustine would change his mind about geocentrism if it was proven false).
I personally do not think geocentrism concerns faith and morals. I can however think of many things other than geocentrism that St. Bellarmine would also think “concern faith and morals” and modern science is in the process of showing are much more complex issues than Bellarmine could have possibly understood. This movement forward of science and an ability to disagree on what concerns faith and morals makes this issue more complex (more complex than your debunking site acknowledges).

So you do not misunderstand, I am not Robert Sungenis. I am not telling you that you must either accept geocentrism or reject Catholicism. I am telling you that if you joined the CoJCoLDS and declared that I must either accept New York Cumorah or reject the CoJCoLDS you would be the LDS Robert Sungenis. From outside my faith you are the LDS William Webster. If I ever thought my arguments were so solid they would demand all exist the Catholic Church, then I could be William Webster too. In this thread my point is far more muted.
Centuries after the Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinth Church, Catholics developed ideas concerning that which was “official” and that which was not. Today like in Bellarmine’s day Catholics are wrangling about what was official and not official, what was “concerning faith and morals” and what was not. I think your declaration that I must consider evidence against a New Your Cumorah disqualifying of LDS truth claims is directly analogous to Robert Sungenis’ and William Webster’s decedent declaring that Catholics must consider evidence against geocentrism disqualifying of Catholic truth claims. I do not understand why you disagree (I see one thing concerning why Stephen168 might disagree, but I do not think it holds much water).
Charity, TOm

TOm - there is nothing more essential to the LDS faith than the beliefs that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is a true, historical text inspired by God. Period.

To back away from these two beliefs completely debunks Mormonism.

The essential beliefs in Catholicsm lie in the Niceness Creed. Please tell me when a pope has ever taught differently.

“Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last, the beginning and the end of everything. The Credo begins with God the Father, for the Father is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity; our Creed begins with the creation of heaven and earth, for creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God’s works.”

—the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 198
Catholic belief is succinctly expressed in the profession of faith or credo called the Nicene Creed:
The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[Stephen168]

TOm - there is nothing more essential to the LDS faith than the beliefs that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is a true, historical text inspired by God. Period.

To back away from these two beliefs completely debunks Mormonism.

True, and to bring it back to the bible comparison, the Catholic Church does not rise and fall on the bible; the Church was around almost 400 years before the canon. As Christians we look to Jesus Christ.

 

[vsedriver]

Re: lack of that caveat on the Book of Mormon. (Speaking as a believing Mormon here) There was only one translation of the Book of Mormon into English, made possible by God through the prophet Joseph Smith. God made sure that the translation was done correctly. I do realize that such matter of faith seems strange to non-Mormons, but it is a matter of faith.

what I can’t understand is why the BoM is translated into 17th century English instead of 19th century English.

 

[kimg901]

what I can’t understand is why the BoM is translated into 17th century English instead of 19th century English.

Or the many phrases taken from other books that are in the B.o.M. I guess God got His centuries mixed up!

 

[Jerusha]

what I can’t understand is why the BoM is translated into 17th century English instead of 19th century English.

The BoM is one of the last of a series of works written in King James language. Most of them were American, meant to illustrate the analogy between the post-Exodus Jewish conquest of Canaan and the European conquest of North America. Late War, by Gilbert Hunt is the one which bears the most resemblance to the BoM. The_Late_War_between_the_United_States_and_Great_Britain

 

[Horton]

what I can’t understand is why the BoM is translated into 17th century English instead of 19th century English.

I asked this same question, either on this thread or another thread regarding LDS teachings, and the answer was basically it gave the book (BoM) more credibility by using that language style.

 

[Jerusha]

I asked this same question, either on this thread or another thread regarding LDS teachings, and the answer was basically it gave the book (BoM) more credibility by using that language style.

Exactly. Remember that back then, KJV was the most prevalent.

 

[TOmNossor]

You often quote saints and doctors of the church as if what they said is binding on the Church or is necessarily an accurate portrayal of Catholic doctrine. It is not.
…not because they were always right or because the Church teaches exactly what they taught.
…not because they were always right or because the Church teaches exactly what they taught.
Paul

Paul,
I am not sure if you carefully read my post or not, but nothing you said is new to me nor did I try to speak as if it was new to me.
I said to START my post:

I have implied or said precisely what your debunking site did. I have acknowledged that Catholicism has a process of development described by Cardinal Newman. That Catholicism at some point in time developed the idea that ONLY the decisions of General Councils and a minority of papal statements were irreformable/infalliable. At some point in time Catholicism developed the idea that the only things that were irreformable/infalliable where things concerning faith and morals. There are numerous points to quibble about within these things, and I will mention just one.

I looked at the debunking site, but I never saw the definition of “official” doctrine. The only definition that works for the purposes of the site is “infallibly defined at EC or by Pope.” Such a definition would exclude many things that Catholics agree upon today, but SOME of those things that Catholics agree upon today that have not been codified infallibly couldn’t change (the all-male priesthood has not –per then Cardinal Ratzinger- been codified by an exercise of Papal Infallibility or in a Council, but per Ratzinger it COULD not change).
So, I know that a pope or a Cardinal/Saint/Doctor can be theologically mistaken even concerning faith and morals (or in this case concerning the content of what is “faith and morals.”
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168,
You wrote about what I KNOW, KNEW, …
It is my position that the things you claim I know fall in 3 catagories.

1. (the largest). Things that I do know that I think my post makes clear that I know.
2. Things that I do know that I think are extraneous or almost extraneous to the point I am making so I do not mention them.
3. Things that I do not know. Often because I disagree with what you are claiming is true.

You have regularly said that I am a liar.
Perhaps you believe that the things you claim “I know” are things “I know” but obscure or hide or speak as if I do not know them because I am dishonest. That is not the case.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Who decides? The Catholic Church decides, but you already knew that.

Of course the church decides, but my point was that the decision on what was “concerning faith and morals” was - is different today than it was when Cardinal Bellarmire provided his recommendation to Pope Paul V (and Pope Paul V followed said recommendation).
In addition to this it would seem potential debates on this qualifier, “concerning faith and morals” abound even today. Actual debates do in fact happen too. The whole reason there is a site debunking geocentricism is because there is debate. I like you think the geocentricism folks are on the wrong side of this debate, but they are not without their strengths.

Was the Cardinal speaking for the whole Church or giving his opinion? It was his opinion, but you already knew that.

The Cardinal was not speaking “ex Cathedra” and was not speaking as part of a General Council. So, it is true that the Cardinal was giving his opinion. That opinion was followed for many decades by all or almost all Catholic leaders when they made decisions on what would and would not be tolerated concerning Biblical teaching about geocentrism. Pope Paul V followed the opinion. It was “the teaching of the church” for decades afterwards. And of course by “the teaching of the church” I do not mean infallibility defined, just what was taught by the ordinary magisterium.

Trent forbids the teaching of the Fathers when the Fathers are unanimous on faith and morals.

True, and in 1515 every Catholic authority thought geocentrisim concerned faith and morals. That you and I do not now does not change what was thought then. I was just relaying what Bellarmine said about Trent. He said geocentrism concerns the faith just like the virgin birth (that was his comparision). He said the ECF universally taught geocentrism (I have found no examples of where he was wrong and the Alexandrian school did not as you later incorrectly claim teach anything but geocentrism. He said the Trent was applicable to this question knowing full well what Trent said.

The Alexandrian school of thought taught the scriptures could be taken allegorically which is consistent with Augustine. So the teaching of the Fathers that geocentrism is faith and morals is not unanimous, but I think you already knew that.

I am not sure if you are saying something you know has no bearing on this discussion or if you think this has bearing. I will assume that you are making a mistake not just distracting. Let me attempt to illustrate why I think you are making a mistake.
Augustine suggested that literal 7 day creation might be allegorically understood, but whenever he spoke of geocentrism he did not employ and allegorical interpretation.
The Alexandrian school did teach that scripture could be taken allegorically. They said nothing about geocentrism being taken allegorically. They said nothing about taking the miracle of loaves and fishes allegorically (Jesus just got them to share, there was no miraculous multiplication). They said nothing about taking Christ’s divinity or the Virgin Birth allegorically. It is true that had the Antioch school prevailed there would be much more literal interpretation of ALL passages, but because you can take something allegorically does not mean the Catholic Church EVER in its history has taken it allegorically. If you are suggesting that the existence of allegorical interpretation means that ANYTHING can be (or even that anything was in fact) taken allegorically, you are not Catholic in your thought. That is not what having the ability to take scripture allegorically means within the Catholic Church.
And BTW, allegorical interpretations of SOME things exist from the foundational days of the CoJCoLDS so if you happen to be right, that by itself would erase the New York criticism.

The Catholic Church has never believed it is faith and morals either, but you already knew that.

This is not true. From 1615 - 1664 the Catholic Church as defined by the Pope and the Magisteriam did believe that geocentrism concerned faith and morals. You should read what Alexander VII said. Where I Catholic I would be a MINIMALIST when it comes to Papal infallibility. In investigating this to respond to you, I have greater problems with Alexander VII’s word than Bellarmine’s, but my point is that it was taught by the Catholic Church (not that it was taught infallibly by the Catholic Church).

The Mormon Church has clearly HAD a teaching on Cumorah that they have backed away from. Lax16 has proven that. You can claim they don’t teach it anymore but that was never Lax’s claim. The Mormon Church DID have a doctrine but it has changed.

I have never denied it was taught, I have merely said that it was not taught as revelation and that we do not have an infallible principle. I have also said that to condemn the CoJCoLDS for this is directly analogous to condemning the Catholic Church for teaching geocentrism.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

This reminds me you haven’t answered our question.

I would have thought I had answered that, but perhaps not.
To sustain the prophet is to believe that he reliably, but not infallibly, relays what God communicates. This is not technically limited to “faith and morals,” but it is usually in this realm. When the prophet speaks at general conference, what he relays sources at its genesis from God’s desired communication to the church (and world). I look to the messages delivered so that I can reorient my life towards God’s plan for me. Sometimes the Holy Spirit makes the words mean more for me than they might where I less receptive. Sometimes I am less receptive, but I get something out of it.
You and I get a lot from teachers that lack the chrism of infallibility. Your question almost implies such is not true. I just do not demand infallibility before I make my fallible steps toward God. I doubt you do either, but perhaps I am wrong.

All that being said, I do not believe there is an infallible Pope, so choosing between a fallible prophet and an infallible Pope is not really an option.

If the history of papal teaching evidenced that the Pope was miraculously protected from teaching error (even with qualifiers like “concerning faith and morals”) it would be a powerful apologetic for Catholic truth claims. History instead suggests that there are so many popes that SEEMED to teach errors that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is a negative for Catholic truth claims. It must be explained and limited and explained again. That is why I would be a MINIMALIST.

I do believe that LDS prophets speak for God. SOME things, like Joseph Smith celebrating witnesses and telling his followers that they too can receive revelation are positive evidence for this IMO. Or the desire to end the priesthood ban by David O. McKay but his insistence that this non-reveled policy be ended by revelation (David O. McKay did not believe he could make up revelations he wanted and expected). Some things are negative. If as I believe the priesthood ban was a mistake, surely Brigham Young should have been receptive enough to the spirit to recognize that he was putting in place a policy that was wrong. (now is when you write a great deal about the priesthood ban, Brigham Young’s racist comments, and …).

If I all had to decide what was true was LDS history and our teaching of prophets who speak for God, and Catholic history and your teaching of Pope’s who are infallible (and NOT INCLUDING the fact that I think the successor of Peter should have the ability to receive revelation to be delivered to the entire church), I would be a LDS because history makes it more likely that the LDS church is lead by a fallible prophet (who helps us all reorient our lives to God) than that the Catholic Church is lead by an infallible Pope (who does a lot of good too IMO).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm - there is nothing more essential to the LDS faith than the beliefs that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is a true, historical text inspired by God. Period.

This is just NOT TRUE.
“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it”
A reason that I am a LDS and not a Catholic is because I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, so my departure from Catholicism is largely impacted by “the belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet.”
I consider the historicity of the BOM to be a HUGE positive for the CoJCoLDS. I personally am not backing away from this, but I would not advocate that folks who recognize God’s prophet leave the CoJCoLDS over a failure to believe the BOM is a historical document.
What is at issue here is that I do not believe God revealed to Joseph Smith or any LDS leader the geography of the BOM. I then suggest that such ignorance from LDS leaders is analogous to the geocentric ignorance within Catholicism.
I am not sure how you can believe that I should stake my faith upon the New York Cumorah and you should care none about geocentrism. But, regardless of your direction or the reason for this inconsistency that I think I see, I do not stake my faith upon the New York Cumorah.

Concerning your other question: I do not know of any Pope who said anything clearly contrary to THE CREED you posted, I only believe that such does little to prove the truth claims of Catholicism.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168,
You wrote about what I KNOW, KNEW, …
It is my position that the things you claim I know fall in 3 catagories.

1. (the largest). Things that I do know that I think my post makes clear that I know.
2. Things that I do know that I think are extraneous or almost extraneous to the point I am making so I do not mention them.
3. Things that I do not know. Often because I disagree with what you are claiming is true.

You have regularly said that I am a liar.
Perhaps you believe that the things you claim “I know” are things “I know” but obscure or hide or speak as if I do not know them because I am dishonest. That is not the case.

If I were to say that John Adams was the first President of the United States, you would not know if I lied or if I was just misinformed. After being told it was in fact George Washington who was the first President and agreeing that that was in fact the case, I then tell someone that John Adams was the first President of the United States, you would know I lied, and was not just misinformed.

You know and have agreed to the understanding that when an individual speaks, that individual is not necessarily speaking as the infallible voice of Catholic dogma, but you continue to quote Catholics as if that are teaching Catholic dogma. You are lying.

You quote Cardinal Bellarmine as if he his giving Catholic dogma, but in that same letter Bellarmine said he is only giving he opinion. You leave out that part which is a lie of omission in addition a lie of commission by quoting an individual and suggesting he speaks to the whole Church. Of course when you are catch, you quickly admit your lie as if that doesn’t make it a lie anymore.

Stephen168 and Rebecca,
You (Stephen) have claimed you know a great deal about the Galileo affair. Perhaps Rebecca should be corrected by you instead of me.
I know of virtually no church authorities before Galileo that taught anything but Geocentrism. Please correct me if I have missed any.

A lie of omission is to suggest that ONLY Catholics believed geocentrism in the 17th century. You omit the fact that almost every human being on the planet believed the sun rotated around the earth. Why? Because that is what they saw. It is what we still see to this day. Catholics believed geocentrism as a matter of natural philosophy (science) not faith. But you lie.

The dismissal of the BOM as a clearly 19th century production is IMO harder and harder to do as the book is taken seriously by scientists and religious scholars. I have been waiting for about 2 years to see if Michael Coe has any additional thoughts on the BOM after reading Sorenson’s magnum opus. Coe’s previous responses have IMO been solid in their archeology but lacking in their pluming the BOM. I am sure you disagree.

A lie of commission is claiming science is coming around to the idea that the BoM is true, but there isn’t one non-Mormon Anthropologist that believes that. A lie of omission/lie of influence/misdirection is to suggest that Michael Coe takes the BoM seriously, and just can’t wait to verify Sorenson’s work as proving the BoM to be history.

Yes, when I say you already know something it is because I know you already know, AND what you are saying is not true. As I posted out in post 465, your post 462 is one dishonest statement after another. If I get a chance I’ll provide Catholics with the same observations of your post 476 if they haven’t already observe the dishonesty for themselves.