LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

[Todd520]

Hi Arandur,

How can we identify this? Is there a Catechism? A formula for us to examine various documents and determine a hierarchy of truths? Or some other means of discerning what has been accepted by the LDS church “as a body” as opposed to the various interpretations of that list from among the members?

For LDS, they are clearly identified in #2, and

• every LDS member has copies of the complete docrtine or scriptire
• most LDS have actually read all of the said scripture (not me, but I’m new)

I will postulate for RCC that

• Catholics all have the Holy Scripture (Bible) but not copies of Catholic Holy Tradition
• The Catechism functions as the official Cliff-Notes to interpreting Catholic doctrine

I wish Mormons had an LDS version of the Catechism, to reduce ambiguity on interpretation. It would make answering these posts much easier.

Also, I take issue with the OP’s suggestion that LDS prophets aren’t seen as infallible under some conditions and senses, and the implication that the Catholic concept of infallibility is an arrogant claim to a greater gift. It is in fact a claim of a lesser gift. For LDS believe that their prophets can produce Scripture, which they accept as inerrant, divinely-inspired in the same manner as other Scripture.

As mentioned in another post, I think Papal infallibility is Catholic code for what the LDS call revelation. Like LDS leaders, sometimes the Pope is just talking on a subject, not guided by the Holy Spirit and not creating doctrine. Although he may say something embarrassing, it is not automatically Sacred Tradition.

I would guess early Catholic Popes also postulated some odd ideas that were never intended as doctrine, but your bloopers have been lost to history. With 2k yrs of practice, the Popes learned to think thrice before speaking anything .

Thus I am left wondering why LDS think the Catholic Church is so very different from how they’ve constituted their Prophets and Assembly, that we quarrel so much about the idea of “continuing revelation.” We both believe that the Spirit continues to guide the Church and “lead into all truth” by explaining the truth.

I agree with your sentiment. No revelation can substitute or replace Christ’s teachings, but the Holy Spirit can help guide us in modern times.

Naturally we can never agree on which of us has the real “red phone” with a direct line to God.

 

[Arandur]

Hi Arandur,

For LDS, they are clearly identified in #2, and

• every LDS member has copies of the complete docrtine or scriptire
• most LDS have actually read all of the said scripture (not me, but I’m new)

The Protestants have our Scriptures (sans a few OT books they don’t like) and they can’t agree on anything. So saying the LDS have their defined Scriptures and that’s how we should know what their doctrine is doesn’t really help.

I will postulate for RCC that

• Catholics all have the Holy Scripture (Bible) but not copies of Catholic Holy Tradition
• The Catechism functions as the official Cliff-Notes to interpreting Catholic doctrine

I wish Mormons had an LDS version of the Catechism, to reduce ambiguity on interpretation. It would make answering these posts much easier.

You’re right that on some issues, the particulars of Catholic doctrine and where they stand on the hierarchy of truths requires some digging and is subject of some theological controversy. By and large, though, dogmas and central doctrines are well-defined, as are normative beliefs and practices. In my experience, there seems much more unity in the Catholic faith on doctrine and acceptable practice than in any others–remarkable considering it’s the largest Christian group. Yes, there are unfortunately a great many “cafeteria Catholics,” but the un-orthodox beliefs they espouse or practice are identifiable as such.

I see that you commented on the “infallibility and revelation” thing on my other topic, and I’ve responded there. Thanks!

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I’ll give you that, since “Prepared in advance but delivered without notes or text” is the second definition for “extemporaneous” on the web dictionary. The first is, “Carried out or performed with little or no preparation; impromptu.”

So, to be fully unambiguous: The talks were impromptu.

It’s a rather uncontroversial historical fact that nobody, to my knowledge, has ever disputed. People would come to the conference, settle into the pews, then find out for the first time that they were being called on a mission to Hawaii or England, or to move to one of the outlying settlements, or to give a talk.

I wonder which was scarier?

In any case, it’s fairly well-documented.

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t follow. From anything at all.

I was merely acknowledging a fact.

I don’t regard your questions as uncivil.

I agree it is reasonable to ask for documentary support for actually disputed assertions. I also think, as a rule of thumb, that the burden here ought to rest upon those who are making assertions about the other fellow’s faith which the other fellow disputes.

Put simply: I don’t have to prove that we don’t sacrifice virgins at midnight. If someone thinks we do, they have to prove it.

Actually if someone who is not a Latter-day Saint makes that assertion, and a Latter-day Saint respondent disagrees, then I suggest that common courtesy holds that the LDS position is what the LDS poster says that it is, unless the non-LDS poster can provide documentation for his view.

In the example given, there is an LDS teaching buried in there, but badly garbled.

• Kolob is a star, not a planet.
• It is said to be “nearest the throne of God.”
• There is no LDS source to my knowledge that locates the throne of God on any planet.

Naturally, since it is impossible to prove a negative, I cannot provide documentation for what the Church does not teach. Therefore, anyone who wants to dispute the last bullet point will need to shoulder the burden of proof.

Stendahl’s first rule relies upon the presumption of good faith. Either you accept that Latter-day Saints are acting in good faith and representing their beliefs honestly, or you embrace the kind of bigotry that Charles Kingsley demonstrated against John Henry, Cardinal Newman, when he attempted to poison the well against him.

Incidentally, Newman responded to Kingsley’s tactic by calling his claims “foul calumnies.” This seems to be an accurate descriptor for the claims certain parties make against the Latter-day Saints.

Catholic apologist Karl Keating would appear to disagree with you.

“It must be admitted,” he writes, “they enjoy a certain tactical (if short-term) advantage in that they can get away with presenting bare-bones claims such as these; they wear out Catholicism’s defenders by inundating them with short remarks that demand long explanations.” (Quoted in Offenders for a Word, here.)

But I’m not coming into anyone’s house and asking to start a conversation. The conversation is already happening. Either it can be a real conversation, and Latter-day Saints can participate, or you can talk about us behind our backs, and it will be nothing more than a gossip-fest.

But we – the Latter-day Saints – deny that we have any obligation whatsoever to defend every random Mormon quote that might fit someone’s polemical agenda. We are obligated to defend what the Church actually teaches, and nothing else.

Regards,
Pahoran

Again as I truly expected more denial of any responsibility to provide that what is said and quoted is not required from you. all you have to do is say not true your a liar. I believe it was you that started this tread there for it was you that came to the catholic site (some one else home) and are tring to define the rule of the conversation. Also it is if (which has been done quotes are given with source if you say that it is out of context you need to provide the context to back up your assertion. Defending what the Church teach is not what we are asking we are asking you to provide solid proof of what that is . Strange thing are heard you come to the internet and find quote like that of BY that says every thing he preached is scripture . then you and other tell us its not. were the documentation on what is and what is not.

I accept that you truely believe what you say. I would just like you to pride the evidence that when you are asked about beliefs if they are personal or teaching of the church were are these defined by the LDS church. You can not tell someone that ask the question and prodise the source that raised that question that they are wrong and then not back it up.

 

[hosemonkey]

Again as I truly expected more denial of any responsibility to provide that what is said and quoted is not required from you. all you have to do is say not true your a liar. I believe it was you that started this tread there for it was you that came to the catholic site (some one else home) and are tring to define the rule of the conversation. Also it is if (which has been done quotes are given with source if you say that it is out of context you need to provide the context to back up your assertion. Defending what the Church teach is not what we are asking we are asking you to provide solid proof of what that is . Strange thing are heard you come to the internet and find quote like that of BY that says every thing he preached is scripture . then you and other tell us its not. were the documentation on what is and what is not.

I accept that you truely believe what you say. I would just like you to pride the evidence that when you are asked about beliefs if they are personal or teaching of the church were are these defined by the LDS church. You can not tell someone that ask the question and prodise the source that raised that question that they are wrong and then not back it up.

Keeping in mind that what we are dealing with here is a false religion, manufactured by a false “prophet”, preaching a non-Christian “doctrine” to a duped and gullible people. You have to expect mormon “apologists” on these fora to use every tactic at their disposal to defend the indefensible. They will deny, obfuscate, tap-dance and dissemble in order to try to explain their erroneous beliefs. I tend to listen to the many ex-mormons on these fora who have seen and experienced the maze of mormonism up close and personal. My quarrel is not so much with mormonism per se, it is with the secrecy and deception that seems to drive their recruiting effort.

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys

I will answer your two questions, after I first make a comment on style.

respectfully, your use of the word “admit” was not appropriate. I have been reading CAF threads about Mormonism (not all of them, too many for that) since a couple years before I first joined CAF a little over a year ago. Thus, I am aware that, for years, many LDS posters have emphatically denied that the ideas that I posted are doctrines of our Church. As my post itself made clear, those LDS posters are absolutely correct about that, because what I posted is NOT taught by the Church. Thus, I did not “admit” anything about Church doctrine or what prior LDS posters have said about Church doctrine. I am also aware that, for years, LDS posters have denied that the ideas that I posted are “our” beliefs. The ideas that I posted are, as has already been noted by Pahoran, a minority view, and clearly not shared by Diana (“stop telling me what I believe”), Zerinus (“it’s not in the Standard Works”) and other LDS posters at CAF. Those other LDS posters are neither lying nor hiding anything. Instead, they are honestly stating their own beliefs and accurately describing mainstream Mormon thought. If you want to point out that what I have posted is different than what has been posted by other LDS, then the worst things that anyone can say to you are (a) “that’s obvious” and (b) “so what?” However, to say that I have “admitted” something is to imply that there have been LDS lying and concealment here at CAF when, based upon my extensive albeit not exhaustive reading of Mormonism threads here at CAF, that is simply not the case. Please understand that I write all of the foregoing – which I know is too long – without any animosity or rancor and with the understanding that, during spirited debate, one should not scrutinize every word as excruciatingly as I have just done.

First, let me say thank you for a well thought out and reasoned reply. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re going to agree on my usage of the word “admit”. Like you, I lurked at CAF long before I joined, and started posting, and in many of those threads (like you said, there are alot), we can see posters making comments eluding to, and building up to saying what you did, but stop short. You can tell they want to say it, but don’t say it outlad because they know other posters will pounce on it. Thus, from my perspective, it isn’t that they are lying, it is more like they are thinking “Boy, I don’t want to open this can of worms”
So, unfortunately, I think we have to agree to disagree on the usage of the word “admit”.

1. I get my ideas from all those sources that critics of Mormonism tend to abuse, e.g., the King Follett Discourse, the Sermon in the Grove, other texts included in “The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, the Journal of Discourses, SOME entries in Bruce R. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”, etc. – so I am not a Mormon heretic.
2. John and Jane Mormon have no interest in the topics that I addressed in my post. If you want to know what topics do interest them, then go to ww.lds.org and read the Sunday School manuals there. Believe it or not, the Church continuously solicits the (name removed by moderator)ut of the membership as to what interests them, and addresses those interests in the curricula of the various classes. So much for brainwashing. While I have never seen a poll, my unscientific best guess is that, of those Mormons who do give substantial thought to the topics of my post, most view them as interesting possibilities and take a “let’s wait and see” approach.

I’m going to lump my reply to both of these into one, because I think it fits. First, I would never think you are a Mormon heretic.

I think it is reasonable that a person (lds or non) using the same resources you do could come to the same conclusion that you have.

I also don’t think that you are in the minority of people (lds or non) that belive this. I think, with others, it’s more a matter of going public with their belief/understanding, and being blasted from both sides. A) from church membership because it isn’t official, and B) from non lds because it doesn’t fit in with traditional Christianity.

1. I hope Soren reads this. Soren views LDS theology as reprehensible because it does not PRECLUDE ideas such as those of my post. However, my post, which is not precluded by LDS theology, does not suggest that “God sinned”, which is the notion to which Soren takes exception. Rather, BEFORE Elohim was a God, he sinned, and once he WAS a God, he did not sin. Thus, I dispute Soren’s contention that LDS theology calls into question the holiness of God. More accurately, in terms of Soren’s “preclusion” analysis, I dispute the notion that LDS theology does not safeguard the holiness of God. Also, obviously, I deny that my post calls into question the holiness of God.

Soren has his own views, and since this portion is directed at him, I will let him address it.

I will simply state, that in my view, I disagree with your view that there is more than one god.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Again, thanks for the civil post.

Murdock

 

[Pahoran]

Yawn. I don’t take collect calls.

Your favourite little mantra, which actually means: “I’ve made yet another accusation I can’t support. I’ll try to bluff my way out of it.”

Thus, it is settled: I have not denied that past prophets have said such things, or that the personal beliefs of Mormons are diverse. Neither has Diana. I doubt very much that Todd has, either.

And when you accused us of so doing, you demonstrated your idea of “truth.” It is nothing more or less than bearing false witness.

No. It is factual. Joe was a guy who conned people by saying he could find treasure. He couldn’t.

Call for references, please; what first-hand statement do you have from Joseph Smith (his name was not Joe) in which he claimed to be able to find treasure?

really? There is no need for you to be dishonest.

You’re right. Evidently only you need to do that.

Grant Palmer has an MA from BYU in History. He is a three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah. He was an instructor at the Church College in New Zealand, and was an LDS Seminary Teacher. He was active in the Mormon History Association.

Which means what? That he made the coffee at their meetings? You do know, don’t you, that his inaptly (and ineptly) titled An Insider’s View is his first ever publication, and that came after his retirement? To be counted among the community of scholars, it is generally expected that someone publishes in the field of their alleged scholarship.

He is a sholar.

What’s a “sholar?” Exaggerating the credentials of critics of the Church is SOP in anti-Mormon circles. Incidentally, Palmer claimed not to know who “Paul Pry” was, despite using the name as a pseudonym on early drafts of his book. Being an Institute “director” is an administrative position and has nothing to do with scholarship.

Please note: some of your Catholic audience may not be aware that, in LDS usage, a Seminary teach is someone who teaches high school kids.

Were you relying upon them not being aware of that?

Yes…as he told the truth about Joe’s lies and various versions of everything he did. We are in agreement. He was truthful about Joe.

We see above what your idea of “truth” is. He told a fanciful tale which you find to be polemically useful; hence you label it “truth.”

lol…that is not true. In fact, even Richard Bushman agreed with Palmer on several issues.

He said vaguely, overlooking the fact that he did not agree with him on any key issues. No book is 100% wrong on everything; even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Wow…Richard Bushman is depserate? Good to know

No. Bushman said of Palmer that he “presents himself as just wanting to deepen our understanding of our own history, but under his cloak, there’s a dagger.”

Did you not know Bushman’s real view, or did you prefer to ignore it?

lol…really? Go back and do your research…but here is a newsflash…when we landed on the moon, there were no men dressed like quakers. Joe was wrong. Again.

Okay, I’ll go and do my research.

(Researching… Researching… Researching…)

Okay, here is what I found out: there is no contemporary source that reports any such comment. It does not appear in any of Joseph’s voluminous writings. Instead, in 1892, an old man recalled hearing this story in 1837, when he was ten years old.

Thus, no honest, responsible person could conclude – or has concluded – that Joseph actually said what was reported.

No wonder you didn’t want to provide the reference. It doesn’t support you.

And I rather suspect you knew that all along.

Yes…it does. Even after you white-wash it

No. it does not.

Here is what it says:

Doctrine and Covenants 130:
14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.
17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

No “white-washing” necessary.

No wonder you didn’t want to provide the reference. It doesn’t support you.

And I rather suspect you knew that all along.

And now, let us return to the actual topic at hand, shall we?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

Murdock,

It is truly refreshing to hear an LDS express belief in the doctrines I was taught when I was LDS (1975 - 1986). It is distressing to former LDS when the doctrines we were taught to treasure (and which were consistently taught by all the pre-1990 LDS leaders) are denied as anti-Mormon propaganda or mere opinion.

I did not leave the LDS church because I disliked the teachings; in fact I liked most of them very much. I left because I learned that they are wrong.

You’re laying on the gush just a bit thick, don’t you think? If you really believe these “teachings” are wrong, why should it “distress” you if a Church of which you are no longer a member, no longer teaches them?

Thank you for your honesty.

Thus getting in a nice little back-hander at the rest of us.

But since you’ve thanked Murdock for his honesty, I guess you are conceding that his views are not, and never were, authoritative LDS doctrine? Because that’s what he said.

Thank you for that.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

Your favourite little mantra, which actually means: “I’ve made yet another accusation I can’t support. I’ll try to bluff my way out of it.”

 

[SirThomasMore]

cont’d

He said vaguely, overlooking the fact that he did not agree with him on any key issues. No book is 100% wrong on everything; even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

No. Bushman said of Palmer that he “presents himself as just wanting to deepen our understanding of our own history, but under his cloak, there’s a dagger.”

Did you not know Bushman’s real view, or did you prefer to ignore it?

I did not say Bushman agreed with everything. But Bushman DOES agree with some of the book. I heard interviews from both on LDS podcasts. Perhaps you should.

Okay, I’ll go and do my research.

(Researching… Researching… Researching…)

Okay, here is what I found out: there is no contemporary source that reports any such comment. It does not appear in any of Joseph’s voluminous writings. Instead, in 1892, an old man recalled hearing this story in 1837, when he was ten years old.

Wow…how funny. a 10-year-old hears something from Joe and because he was young and it makes Joe look stupid, he MUST be wrong. Yet, Joe says he sees a vision, has 9 versions of it, does not have anything written about it for 12 years, and you accept it right away. That…is…HYSTERICAL. Thank you. I needed that laugh.

Thus, no honest, responsible person could conclude – or has concluded – that Joseph actually said what was reported.

no…only those who can;t have their “prophet” saying things like that will ignore it and deny it

No wonder you didn’t want to provide the reference. It doesn’t support you.

Actually, it does. I do not play the “accept only what you like” game. You like accepting the good things people said about Joe, but not the bad things.

No. it does not.

Here is what it says:

Doctrine and Covenants 130:
14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.
17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

lol…fine. Ignore the prophesy about the Jesus coming back in the 1800s. I do not blame you. It is your method…ignore and whitewash what you dislike

 

[Pahoran]

On the OP, what does this mean:

How can we identify this? Is there a Catechism? A formula for us to examine various documents and determine a hierarchy of truths? Or some other means of discerning what has been accepted by the LDS church “as a body” as opposed to the various interpretations of that list from among the members?

No, there is no catechism. We have never been in the business of “systematising” things. Some people choose to exploit this in order to level baseless accusations of “dishonesty” against us, but for that, they have their reward. The Church’s teaching program can be summed up in the first part of a famous saying by Joseph Smith: “Teach correct principles.” The job of codifying those principles into something like a catechism is simply one that no-one has taken an interest in.

The list of authoritative scriptures I gave in the OP is derived from the fact that all of these have at some time been presented to the Church in Conference assembled, and sustained by the membership as canonical. Thus the Church as a body has accepted them.

Also, I take issue with the OP’s suggestion that LDS prophets aren’t seen as infallible under some conditions and senses, and the implication that the Catholic concept of infallibility is an arrogant claim to a greater gift.

I’m sorry you saw such an implication; I certainly intended none. All I was attempting to do was to make clear that we don’t actually ascribe inerrancy to their statements. I used “infallibility” because it seemed like a term that would be understood.

It is in fact a claim of a lesser gift. For LDS believe that their prophets can produce Scripture, which they accept as inerrant, divinely-inspired in the same manner as other Scripture.

We don’t regard Scripture as inerrant either. Even apart from the possibility of actual mistakes on the part of prophets, scribes, copyists and so forth, we see revelation as a dialogue, in which God’s pure truth is filtered through imperfect men using imperfect human language; hence, there is no way for us to receive it as it really is.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[dianaiad]

Thank you Murdock!!

I must say, I think you are the first LDS I have encountered that readily admits

1. The LDS view of god was the he was once a sinful man.
2. The god of the LDS had a god before him, and before him, etc.

Now, a couple of questions for you.

In your disclaimer, you say your view should not be construed as teachings of the church. If it isn’t a teaching of your church, how did you arrive at these conclusions?

and

How widely do you think your view is held by the everyday mormon?

Actually, I believe that Murdock went to quite some considerable lengths in presenting his words as HIS opinions, and not binding on the church as a whole, or upon the opinions of all Mormons everywhere. He is perfectly entitled to his beliefs, and I realize that you LIKE what he said, as they appear to substantiate your views, but the fact is, having one Mormon agree with you doesn’t mean that the rest of us must, or that what he thinks MUST then be official Mormon Doctrine.

M’just sayin’…

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Keeping in mind that what we are dealing with here is a false religion, manufactured by a false “prophet”, preaching a non-Christian “doctrine” to a duped and gullible people. You have to expect mormon “apologists” on these fora to use every tactic at their disposal to defend the indefensible. They will deny, obfuscate, tap-dance and dissemble in order to try to explain their erroneous beliefs. I tend to listen to the many ex-mormons on these fora who have seen and experienced the maze of mormonism up close and personal. My quarrel is not so much with mormonism per se, it is with the secrecy and deception that seems to drive their recruiting effort.

Yeah I realize that. I am just playing the devils advocate hear to try and see of I can get just one to see a little more clearly.

 

[Caprica]

Keeping in mind that what we are dealing with here is a false religion, manufactured by a false “prophet”, preaching a non-Christian “doctrine” to a duped and gullible people. You have to expect mormon “apologists” on these fora to use every tactic at their disposal to defend the indefensible. They will deny, obfuscate, tap-dance and dissemble in order to try to explain their erroneous beliefs. I tend to listen to the many ex-mormons on these fora who have seen and experienced the maze of mormonism up close and personal. My quarrel is not so much with mormonism per se, it is with the secrecy and deception that seems to drive their recruiting effort.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Not sure what is funny about the LDS church leading people away from God

but that’s just me

 

[Caprica]

Not sure what is funny about the LDS church leading people away from God

but that’s just me

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Thanks for your opinion.

I would think that the belief it is not funny to lead people away from God should be everyone’s opinion.

I understand now, that to you its not

 

[Caprica]

I would think that the belief it is not funny to lead people away from God should be everyone’s opinion.

I understand now, that to you its not

Thanks again!

 

[SirThomasMore]

anytime. That is why I am here

 

[Pahoran]

Keeping in mind that what we are dealing with here is a false religion, manufactured by a false “prophet”, preaching a non-Christian “doctrine” to a duped and gullible people. You have to expect mormon “apologists” on these fora to use every tactic at their disposal to defend the indefensible. They will deny, obfuscate, tap-dance and dissemble in order to try to explain their erroneous beliefs. I tend to listen to the many ex-mormons on these fora who have seen and experienced the maze of mormonism up close and personal. My quarrel is not so much with mormonism per se, it is with the secrecy and deception that seems to drive their recruiting effort.

Hosemonkey,

I’m sure you thought you contributed something by stringing together that many anti-Mormon bullhorn slogans into a single paragraph.

When you say things like “a duped and gullible people” and “secrecy and deception,” you are attempting to communicate something about the Church of Jesus Christ. What you succeed in doing is communicating something about yourself.

This is a variation on a popular theme: “Anyone who claims to believe X must be either deluded or a liar.” And you can fill in that X with almost anything the speaker does not believe. But what it really means is this:

*I don’t share a belief in *X;
I don’t know how anyone could genuinely believe in X;
And my mind is too tiny to even make the effort to understand it.

Here is an example you might be familiar with: there exists a group of people who all devoutly believe that when a priest in their religion performs a ceremony and says a few well-chosen words, a piece of ordinary bread becomes the actual flesh of the being they worship, who died 2000 years ago, and a cup of wine becomes His actual blood. Not only that, but they believe that these emblems undergo this miraculous transformation even while retaining their original colour, texture, odour, flavour and chemical composition!

And – here’s the real kicker – they say that the retaining of these essential properties – which they call mere “accidents” – makes the transformation doubly miraculous!

So, someone – we’ll call him Walter the Protestant – looking at it from the outside might say: “Surely these guys have got to be ‘deluded,’ right? When the evidence of their senses clearly contradicts their belief, they actually think it confirms their belief; how ‘deluded’ is that?”

“And,” Walter the Protestant continues, as he warms to his theme, “when some of their top intellectuals write learned arguments in support of this miraculous transformation, they must be trying to ‘deny, obfuscate, tap-dance and dissemble in order to try to explain their erroneous beliefs.’ Right? Surely they’re not stupid enough to really be ‘duped’ by it, so they must be willingly participating in the ‘deception;’ right?”

Please understand: I am not making this argument. In fact, if Walter the Protestant made such an argument in my presence, I would tell him that he was downright pig-ignorant, and if he’s too lazy and closed-minded to make the effort to understand the Catholic belief in the Real Presence, then he should shut his mouth about it.

The point, Hosemonkey, is that religious beliefs we don’t share always look absurd. It takes no talent at all to mock and jeer at the beliefs of others, as we have daily proof.

The triumphantly ignorant assumption that all believing Latter-day Saints are either deluded or liars (and its corollary, that unbelieving cultural Mormons are “refreshingly honest” or something) is merely an expression of prejudice.

I don’t expect you to share our beliefs. But when you make dogmatic pronouncements about things you don’t understand, it only reflects upon you.

Think about it.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

Thus it is settled, y’all have denied it. But, I am willing to [agree] fabricate that you NOW say that your god was once a sinful man. Thank you.

There. Corrected it for you.

I say no such thing. Nothing I have posted supports that false claim. You are deliberately trying to provoke me. Why?

I do not accept collect calls. But, I find it odd that you do not know your LDS history and that Joe engaged in treasure seeking. Interesting.

Wrong. I know perfectly well that Joseph (his name was not Joe) was once employed to look for treasure.

And, as you know perfectly well, that is not what I was talking about.

Just like you know perfectly well that you cannot find a single instance of him claiming to be able to find treasure. That is what I was talking about.

As you perfectly well know.

Means he was a scholar. Unless, of course, you want to admit that the LDS Church puts guys who know nothing as heads of Religious Insitutes and colleges, etc.

Palmer was never the head of a religious institute or a college.

Nope. My point was, to be a teacher, and to CALLED as a teacher, one must know the material. To get a calling in the LDS Church, it is claimed the Bishop gets guidance from God.

Seminary teacher is not a calling from the Bishop.

I know. I’ve been a Seminary teacher.

Regards,
Pahoran