Let's talk about Mormonism

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168:

TOmNossor:

I am judging the Catholic Church by the standards I was taught for many years at Catholic Answer. By the standards I learned when I read Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine (not to mention hundreds of his personal letters).

The reason I asked for a reference is because I already know you have misunderstood Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine. So I’ll be waiting.

Awesome. Have you read his personal letters? How do you know I misunderstand? Maybe it is you!
But, I want to understand so I will listen to your points of course.

Charity, TOm

I have my Kevlar underwear on so here goes nothing…

 

[TOmNossor]

BT3241:

No not at all its ridiculous - I guarantee you will not be converting any Catholic here to the Mormon faith

Calling my faith “ridiculous” may create a wall to “conversion,” which it seems to be your main concern, but I actually post not so Catholics convert, but so that my church is properly represented and to invite others to not sneer at my faith.
You are welcome to a “non-ridiculous” faith, but it is very unlikely it is the faith of Christ or Peter, James, and John. It is not the faith of St. Monica (St. Augustine’s mother). It is not the faith of Serapion. (A devote 4th century monk who worshiped God knowing man was created in the image of God before being stripped of this truth).
It is the faith of St. Ambrose and the sophisticated Christians that followed the de-ridiculous-ifying of Christ’s Church.

You mock what you do not understand just like the Greeks and Jewish thinkers did Christ’s Church. Just like St. Augustine did the church of his mother St. Monica. But, St. Monica was the real Christian and St. Augustine would only embrace the ACCEPTABLE version taught him by St. Ambrose.

St. Francis is busy making Catholicism even more acceptable, which according to the Blessed Cardinal Newman means that St. Francis’ DEVELOPMENTS are not valid developments but are changes. Only a faith that is viewed as ridiculous could be the real Christian faith (that is the position of Cardinal Newman and even Fulton Sheen)
I love that word “ridiculous.” May I suffer that appellation if I am in Christ’s Church and not man’s non-ridiculous church
Like Cardinal Newman said, I embrace a faith that folks do not think they must learn about before they declare it to be ridiculous. So I can embrace a faith that does not violate the basic laws of logic and yet is still called ridiculous because nobody takes the time to read and learn before dismissing. Awesome!
Keep “sneering” at my faith while Pope Francis makes yours acceptable to the world and we will see who Archbishop Fulton Sheen would embrace as Christ’s church (based on reading what he says not withstanding his incomplete knowledge of Mormonism)
Keep accusing me of “folly and falsehood so distinct that a glance suffices to judge of it, and that careful examination is preposterous” while Pope Francis makes your church acceptable to the world and we will see who Cardinal Newman would embrace as Christ’s church (based on reading what he says not withstanding his incomplete knowledge of Mormonism-though Newman did mention Mormonism favorably in the only place I have found him mention it).
I think uninformed sneering is not nice. So actually, I encourage you to not do this. But, I will point out how your comments support my view that the CoJCoLDS is Christ’s church. If your church is not the subject of such sneering (before or after Francis), it CANNOT possibly be Christ’s Church (at least that is the position of Sheen &Newman).
So, please stop sneering, please stop calling my church “ridiculous.” It might prevent Catholics from “converting,” but at what cost?

Meant Pope Francis.

 

[TOmNossor]

Here is a post where I offer both a Fulton Sheen quote and Cardinal Newman:

Seeking the True Church Non-Catholic Religions

Of course preceding Sheen is/was the Blessed John Henry Newman. He said: On the whole then I conclude as follows:—if there is a form of Christianity now in the world which is accused of gross superstition, of borrowing its rites and customs from the heathen, and of ascribing to forms and ceremonies an occult virtue;—a religion which is considered to burden and enslave the mind by its requisitions, to address itself to the weak-minded and ignorant, to be supported by sophistry and imposture, …

The Sheen quote:

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along in the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never had learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because he came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims to be infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called himself Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of it’s Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is definitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine.

Cont…

 

[lilypadrees]

You stated at the end of that post, “Here at Catholic Answers this “mark of a true church” is well fulfilled by Mormonism!”

Except for one thing, TOm. No one here hates your church. Mormonism hasn’t fulfilled any truths but has deceived many. So how can the Mormon church be “the true church” under such circumstances? It can’t and isn’t.

 

[Apache75]

Are you trying to use Sheens writing to uphold that your church is the true church? That if he was looking for a church that the lds church would be the church he is looking for? Is this correct? From what I read it means that if he were never catholic and was looking that the catholic church is the church he would choose. I know the lds members love to use that since they are persecuted that their church must be the true church. I think not. Maybe it has to do with what your church teaches, then doesn’t teach or maybe it was taught or its not doctrine, just opinion or something.

 

[TOmNossor]

The Newman quote:

On the whole then I conclude as follows:—if there is a form of Christianity now in the world which is accused of gross superstition, of borrowing its rites and customs from the heathen, and of ascribing to forms and ceremonies an occult virtue;—a religion which is considered to burden and enslave the mind by its requisitions, to address itself to the weak-minded and ignorant, to be supported by sophistry and imposture, and to contradict reason and exalt mere irrational faith;—a religion which impresses on the serious mind very distressing views of the guilt and consequences of sin, sets upon the minute acts of the day, one by one, their definite value for praise or blame, and thus casts a grave shadow over the future;—a religion which holds up to admiration the surrender of wealth, and disables serious persons from enjoying it if they would;—a religion, the doctrines of which, be they good or bad, are to the generality of men unknown; which is considered to bear on its very surface signs of folly and falsehood so distinct that a glance suffices to judge of it, and that careful examination is preposterous; which is felt to be so simply bad, that it may be calumniated at hazard and at pleasure, it being nothing but absurdity to stand upon the accurate distribution of its guilt among its particular acts, or painfully to determine how far this or that story concerning it is literally true, or what has to be allowed in candour, or what is improbable, or what cuts two ways, or what is not proved, or what may be plausibly defended …

TOm’s little bit of comment:

And of course, if we use this “mark” Newman provides and we gauge what church it points to based on posts here at Catholic Answers, I would think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a better answer than the Catholic Church.

I wonder if Bishop Sheen thought about Mormonism when he said this?

We of course know that Cardinal Newman did because he continues:

—a religion such, that men look at a convert to it with a feeling which no other denomination raises except Judaism, Socialism, or Mormonism, viz. with curiosity, suspicion, fear, disgust, as the case may be, as if something strange had befallen him, as if he had had an initiation into a mystery, and had come into communion with dreadful influences, as if he were now one of a confederacy which claimed him, absorbed him, stripped him of his personality, reduced him to a mere organ or instrument of a whole;—a religion which men hate as proselytizing, anti-social, revolutionary, as dividing families, separating chief friends, corrupting the maxims of government, making a mock at law, dissolving the empire, the enemy of human nature, and a "conspirator against its rights and privileges.

Newman goes on to say that this religions he describes “is not unlike Christianity as that same world viewed it, when first it came forth from its Divine Author.”

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Only a faith that is viewed as ridiculous could be the real Christian faith (that is the position of Cardinal Newman and even Fulton Sheen)

Like Cardinal Newman said, I embrace a faith that folks do not think they must learn about before they declare it to be ridiculous. So I can embrace a faith that does not violate the basic laws of logic and yet is still called ridiculous because nobody takes the time to read and learn before dismissing. Awesome!

Do you have references for these claims? They don’t seem right to me, and you have a good track record for misunderstanding Catholic authors.

So, I said, “I embrace a faith that folks do not think they must learn about before they declare it to be ridiculous.”

Newman said, “which is considered to bear on its very surface signs of folly and falsehood so distinct that a glance suffices to judge of it, and that careful examination is preposterous”

IMO “careful examination is preposterous” is well expressed by “folks do not think they must learn about it.” And “they declare it to be ridiculous” is well expressed by “which is considered to bear on its very surface signs of follow and falsehood.” This is a pretty good linkage.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

You didn’t quote what I said in the post even more explicitly:

Keep accusing me of “folly and falsehood so distinct that a glance suffices to judge of it, and that careful examination is preposterous” while Pope Francis makes your church acceptable to the world and we will see who Cardinal Newman would embrace as Christ’s church (based on reading what he says not withstanding his incomplete knowledge of Mormonism - though Newman did mention Mormonism favorably in the only place I have found him mention it).

Newman’s entire essay is about showing which DEVELOPED church is the real Christianity. He is writing in England and among Anglican divines who criticize Catholicism for its CHANGES from original Christianity. Who think it ridiculous that Catholicism claims to preserve Tradition and yet has changed so radically. Newman’s essay is what brought him and many folks from Anglicanism to Catholicism. Newman says, “I shall admit that there are in fact certain apparent variations in its (historic Christianity) teaching.” Newman’s argument to these Anglican scholars is that original Christianity did not have the DEVELOPED concept of the Trinity, did not have the DEVELOPED concept of the EUCHARIST, and did not have the DEVELOPED concept of the Papacy. BUT, to be Anglican one MUST accept the development that is the Trinity and the Eucharist. Why in the name of “NO CHANGE” can one reject the Papacy and still accept the Trinity and the Eucharist.

In Newman’s introduction he implores a continued and careful reading of his points. One of the methods he uses is to explain to his Anglican Scholar brothers and sisters that if they find Catholicism ridiculous, then this is precisely how the world viewed Christianity in the beginning. He is describing the things he hears concerning Catholicism from his Anglican brothers and sisters and saying that they too were said of the Early Christians. My point (and I think it is well founded) is that Mormonism is treated among my Catholic brothers and sisters just as Catholicism was treated among the Anglican divines.

I absolutely believe that Newman and Sheen would look at what Pope Francis is doing to Catholicism and reject it as moving from the divine church to the church that the world likes and doesn’t say the things we hear about Mormonism or the things that were said about Early Christianity. I also think Newman (and probably Sheen) would recognize many of the mocking, dismissive, disrespectful comments lofted at Mormonism here at Catholic answers are similar to those that were lofted at Early Christianity.

With what do you disagree?

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

In November, it was explained to Tom that Pope Francis has not changed Catholic dogma. Tom parroted it back to make sure he understood. He did.
Now he comes to this thread making the claim that Pope Francis has changed dogma to satisfy the masses.
Satisfying the masses makes them not hate the Catholic Church. Bishop Fulton Sheen claimed the mark of Christ’s Church is to be ridiculed. Cardinal Newman claimed the Christian Church was treated badly at its beginning like Judaism, Socialism, and Mormonism were treated in the 19th century. Therefore, Bishop Sheen and Cardinal Newman would not like what Pope Francis is doing. Meanwhile, the Mormon Church is called ridiculous so it is the true Church according to Bishop Sheen and Cardinal Newman. By dropping the names “Cardinal Newman” and “Bishop Sheen,” Tom tries to make Catholics believe all of this is true and rational.

As you can see it starts off with dishonesty and degrades into Tom’s special sophistry.

In the real world:

Both Cardinal Newman and Bishop Sheen believed that educating people about the truth of the Catholic Church makes the hate go away.

Tom’s quote of Bishop Sheen starts with:
“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church - which is, of course, quite a different thing.“

They believed it was Catholic teaching and history that makes the true Church true, and they both died Catholics.

I believe Cardinal Newman would agree that being educated about Mormonism would never make it Christian just as Judaism, and Socialism are not Christian.

 

[TOmNossor]

In November, it was explained to Tom that Pope Francis has not changed Catholic dogma. Tom parroted it back to make sure he understood. He did.
Now he comes to this thread making the claim that Pope Francis has changed dogma to satisfy the masses.
…
As you can see it starts off with dishonesty

Wow!
I never DREAMED that that was what you were talking about. In November I acknowledged that there is a way that eliminates the ABSOLUTE truth that Pope Francis was changing Dogma.
In this thread I NEVER claimed Pope Francis’s bowing to the liberal forces in Europe and America involves CHANGING DOGMA. I merely claimed he was changing the Catholic Church to make it acceptable. CHANGING to eliminate ridicule. CHANGING to avoid the sneering from the educated masses.
There is NO DOUBT Pope Francis is changing the Catholic Church. There is no doubt that he is making it easier for the divorced and remarried to feel good about their objectively grave sin of adultery. That Tim Staples has invented a way that directly contradicts the teachings of past Popes (including teachings I found after November from the 17th century) but preserves some acknowledgement that Adultery is grave matter and marriage is non-dissolvable does not change the fact that if Catholic moral teachings were ever true, Pope Francis is likely doing grave damage to thousands of souls.
Again, I didn’t say Pope Francis was changing dogma. I am not sure it would be unfair to say that because the path to avoid it is convoluted and damning of many concepts of free will. The path to avoid it can easily be walked for homosexual marriage, for abortion, for numerous objectively grave sins.
Wow! You cannot respond to my comments so you call me a liar. If you exercise a modicum of charity as you read my posts, you could easily see that I am not lying. Of course this is just a tactic you exercise because you have no response.
Stephen, here is the post to which I think you refer.

More Catholic than … Catholic Answers (a play on the more common idiom, “More Catholic than the Pope.”) Apologetics

(name removed by moderator), Thank you very much. I hope to restate your position to your satisfaction (because that is what Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Weinandy would do). After that I have things I want to poke on, but I am sure I can do so without “insulting in nearly every comment” As I understand your posts there are a few things necessary to rightly assess what has been done by Pope Francis and how it relates to the unchanging teachings of the Catholic Church. The deposit of faith or “d…

Read it. It is how to CHARITABLY try to understand what you are being taught when you give a crap about understanding. You should try that!
After this conversations, I continued discussion in PM. Then, I went here and continued:
https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=80409&pid=1357839#pid1357839
Stephen you could learn something from how I handled myself in that conversation too. I reject the authority of the Catholic Church, but I REALLY want to understand.
I am not interested in attacking you, Stephen168, regardless of how uncharitably you view virtually everything I say and do. But, you called me a liar again and I was not lying. You have no arguments just name calling. Folks here should see that is what you do.
Amazing.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Satisfying the masses makes them not hate the Catholic Church. Bishop Fulton Sheen claimed the mark of Christ’s Church is to be ridiculed. Cardinal Newman claimed the Christian Church was treated badly at its beginning like Judaism, Socialism, and Mormonism were treated in the 19th century. Therefore, Bishop Sheen and Cardinal Newman would not like what Pope Francis is doing. Meanwhile, the Mormon Church is called ridiculous so it is the true Church according to Bishop Sheen and Cardinal Newman. By dropping the names “Cardinal Newman” and “Bishop Sheen,” Tom tries to make Catholics believe all of this is true and rational.

TOm believes it is rational and reasonable. TOm has long believed that Vatican II the “Newman Council” would be rejected by Newman.

As you can see it starts off with dishonesty and degrades into Tom’s special sophistry.

You shouldn’t call me a LIAR. It is against the rules. Not to mention inacurate.

Both Cardinal Newman and Bishop Sheen believed that educating people about the truth of the Catholic Church makes the hate go away.

Tom’s quote of Bishop Sheen starts with:
“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church - which is, of course, quite a different thing.“

I also believe that educating people about the CoJCoLDS makes the HATE go away. And just to set the record straight, TOm didn’t parse the Sheen quote. That was a Catholic poster I quoted.
However, “Like Cardinal Newman said, I embrace a faith that folks do not think they must learn about before they declare it to be ridiculous. So I can embrace a faith that does not violate the basic laws of logic and yet is still called ridiculous because nobody takes the time to read and learn before dismissing.”
I am well aware of the position of Newman and Sheen about learning removes the “hate and ridiculous,” but like Newman (and really Sheen), I see folks who refuse to learn, refuse to CHARITABLY interact with folks who hope to help them put away the HATE, ridicule and sneering.
Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

They believed it was Catholic teaching and history that makes the true Church true, and they both died Catholics.
I believe Cardinal Newman would agree that being educated about Mormonism would never make it Christian just as Judaism, and Socialism are not Christian.

I have read two books by Newman and two volumes of letters containing hundreds of letters. I believe Newman would be somewhat concerned about Vatican II. He would be very concerned with the post Vatican II Catholic Church. And he would be VERY CONCERNED about Pope Francis (just like numerous Cardinal, Bishops, and Priests are concerned). He thought it was imprudent to declare Papal Infallibility at Vatican I, what a volume of imprudence would he see today!
I see nothing in his writings that suggest to me that he would be interested in becoming a LDS. I just think that he would not be uncharitable as he interacted with folks who seek to follow Christ as LDSs. And given the choice between Pope Frances’s Catholic Church and a church that blows up all the things Pope Francis is blowing up anyway… who knows …(just kidding).
I do not predict Newman would become a LDS. If I was Newman, I expect I would be very concerned about Pope Francis, but I doubt I would give up what I KNEW because Pope Francis is doing what he is doing. “10000 Problems do not a doubt make!!!”
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Then, I went here and continued:
On the appearance of the pope’s letter in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis

I thought I might point out that I began this conversations not denying my “my personal religions convictions,” but by specifically not stating them.
You see, when I dialogue with a Catholic priest I met and got a ride home from a couple of years ago he was quite respectful and we had a great conversation. When I had dinner with my childhood parish priest about 3-4 months ago, he told me that he enjoyed our religious discussions and it reminded him of the discussions he used to have with my Catholic father. When I send emails to Catholic priests or philosopher, I get nice responses and sometimes recommendations. Even Atheist authors like Sapolsky are courteous.
One difference I suggest is that here I am the LDS that Stephen will call a liar (and if Stephen was not here to do that, my Mormonism would automatically lead to the dismissing of my thoughts). This is the type of dismissiveness that Newman and Sheen are talking about. This is the type of thing I spoke against when I entered this thread.
I post on a LDS board, and while I have never been the Catholic there, I do not see Catholics treated like LDSs are here in the Non-Catholic Religions Forum.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not all withering under the scorn or anything. I just think it worth pointing out. I doubt this is all a matter of my persecution complex.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I have read two books by Newman and two volumes of letters containing hundreds of letters.

WOW, I’ve been to two Papal Audiences and a wine tasting.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I graduated a high school with a really high drop-out rate! So there! In all seriousness, reading it doesn’t mean much considering when reading the book means anyone who can read it can take it out of context. Think of the people who only know the verse from the Bible that says not to judge.

 

[USAFwife]

Honest question: why are there Mormons on a Catholic forum? Trolling? Boredom? Interweb evangelization?

 

[Stephen168]

Exactly. Reading a book doesn’t mean one understands it or gives an honest presentation of it.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Some of the people here are here for honest questions, a lot of people are here to proselytise .

 

[Sunstone]

Mormonism is unsettled right now, and has been increasingly so for several years. Some Mormons are here out of genuine interest, and others are here out of defensiveness.

 

[Lemuel]

When has Mormonism ever been settled? Their doctrine changes like the wind and has always done so.