A
Answersplease
Guest
So you have no problem believing that Joseph Smith lied, how do you know he didn’t lie about the golden plates and everything else?
- Status
W
why_me
Guest
Quote: from answerplease:
St. Augustine said, “God does not need my lie.”
And yet, I am sure that augustine lied since he was not perfect.
St. Augustine said, “God does not need my lie.”
And yet, I am sure that augustine lied since he was not perfect.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Thanks for showing how mormons hide their beliefs. Catholics do not hide their beliefs. Read a Catechsim, you can buy one at most bookstores or read it online for free.Here is a quotation from the mormonwiki provided by answers:
“Milk before meat”, and then some dessert
Mormon Molly Bennion writes:
“Many have argued, often under the guise of ‘milk before meat,’ that we must not disillusion the new or weak with all-too-human history or the questioning of the Lord’s anointed–questioning being by definition under this theory, criticism, even heresy. Better the lie.”[9]
Mormon missionaries won’t tell you they think God–a man who became a god–physically lives on a planet near a star-base named Kolob. Why? Because it is “meat”.Mormons often appeal to the concept of “milk before meat” to justify not disclosing potentially shocking and embarrassing doctrines. [3]
“I would be careful bringing [up] this matter with any nonmembers… [H]ow to address this [Lorenzo Snow Couplet theology] with nonmembers?]. My advice: don’t. This is difficult doctrine. Remember, milk before meat.” [4]
When I searched the referencing this is what I found for number 3 and four:
Subject: List of Silly Mormon Beliefs - List of meats
Date: Jan 29 23:14 2003
Author: InfidelCowboy
The misshies [missionaries] kind of upset me with their “milk before the meat” concept. I would like to compile a list of meat to help out people see what the Morg is all about before they get dunked or too far invested (time/money/relationships) to open their eyes.
So please help me out. Remind me of the stuff that TBM’s only talk to each other about, because the rest of the world would just shake their head in amusement or disgust!
Thanks
Subject: Re: List of Silly Mormon Beliefs - List of meats
Date: Jan 30 00:08
Author: InfidelCowboy
Likewise for number four in the referencing system. I got a discussion board.As I have said. I always knew about kolob because it was discussed in class. Nothing was secret. Now god does live somewhere. At least the mormons have an idea and they discuss it. For catholics or protestants how to answer where god lives? What is the meat?
Go to an RCIA class, they are at every parish one night a week. All Church doctrines are taught. Nothing is hidden.
The meat of Catholicism is the source, center and summit of our Faith. Jesus Christ, present Blood and Body in the Eucharist.
A
aquabatix
Guest
You are exactally right. When I was LDS, it was the later “meat” that got me disenchanted and began my research into what I had gotten myself into. I was “ready” for the information, but not ready for the contradictions with the Bible and the mistruth/craziness that I found the church taught or did. When I went through RCIA, I asked every question I could think of, and every question from the best anti-catholic writters and sites I could find. When I asked them, they were answered in a straightforward and humble fashion. All past mistakes were admitted and all questions were answered to my satisfaction, with scripture to back it. A stark difference for sure to the LDS.
S
soren1
Guest
I can respect Mormons for not just laying out the hard parts of their relgion right off the bat. After all, we Catholics tend to emphasize the easier aspects of Catholic belief at the outset as well. Having said that, it is still worth noting that that is not what the “milk before meat” passages are really about. They refer to the priority of moral instruction in theological training. A person who possesses a carnal attitude and has not purified his soul in virtue will not be ready to fathom or love the deepest doctrines of Christ. In two different passages, Paul tells his congregations that he cannot fully instruct them because of their moral failings:
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 1 Cor: 1-3
Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Heb 5:11-14
In the passage from Hebrews, it is worth observing that “dull of hearing” is a euphemism for “disobendient,” and the importance of milk is to teach discernment of good and evil. The whole context points to moral discipline.
These passages could be reasonably used by Mormons to justify certain things like temple secrecy or non-disclosure of highly sanctified doctrines, and I have no quarrel with Mormons who use in that limited way. In principle, the most sacred Catholic doctrines are taught last as well. But if it is extended to justify not revealing information only because it is aplogetically sensitive, then that is a misuse of the text.
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 1 Cor: 1-3
Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Heb 5:11-14
In the passage from Hebrews, it is worth observing that “dull of hearing” is a euphemism for “disobendient,” and the importance of milk is to teach discernment of good and evil. The whole context points to moral discipline.
These passages could be reasonably used by Mormons to justify certain things like temple secrecy or non-disclosure of highly sanctified doctrines, and I have no quarrel with Mormons who use in that limited way. In principle, the most sacred Catholic doctrines are taught last as well. But if it is extended to justify not revealing information only because it is aplogetically sensitive, then that is a misuse of the text.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Rebecca,
I don’t much appreciate being called a liar, nor do I much appreciate being accused, as a Mormon, of lying. Everything we believe is there to see. I do not lie to you about our beliefs. No other Mormon does, either.
In fact, from everything I have ever seen or read over the last 45 years, the lies are all coming from the other direction…those who do not believe as we do, or who for whatever reason have left, or whose entire faith is based upon destroying the faith of others (as the ‘counter-cult’ evangelicals are…) are the ones who invented, and approve of, the term ‘lying for Jesus.’
We don’t.
Now I wonder what would happen to me, as a Mormon posting in the ‘non-Catholic religions’ sub-forum of CAF, if I wrote 'only Catholics interpret this scripture as St. Paul saying that it’s OK to lie."
“Milk before meat” isn’t about lying. It’s about …first, talk about the basics–that which is salvific. After that, get into the details. There isn’t any lying going on, except from those who insist that we are lying if we don’t agree with them that we believe what they claim we do.
But that’s a little like calling a Catholic a liar when he says he doesn’t worship statues, don’t you think?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Baloney, Rebecca.
We just had quite a conversation about something called latae sententaie excommunication, information about it that (like all LDS doctrine and beliefs) is readily available to all Catholics at the click of a mouse. Yet the concept seems to have come as a huge surprise to many of you, and y’all were falling all over each other telling me how it didn’t matter because in order for it to be in effect, the sinner would have to be aware that his or her sin would result in such a thing—and that the vast majority of Catholics are unaware of the idea. I think that was illustrated by the number of posters HERE who were surprised by it.
Now that idea is pretty 'meaty…" I’d think…and some of the defenses I"ve heard here about why Catholics as a whole might NOT know about it is because it’s an obscure bit of canon law, not in the catechism. That’s quite a logical twist you seem to be caught in. On one hand, there it is; any Catholic can find it fairly easily. Certainly all Catholic PRIESTS must know about it, and a considerable majority of Catholics in the world have access to computers and libraries. Therefore it’s not secret.
But y’all were defending your position regarding Catholics having very few excommunications by saying that somehow the latae sententaie sort didn’t really count because the sinners didn’t know…because it wasn’t all that available.
That’s called ‘keeping it a secret,’ Rebecca. Now I know it is not a deliberate practice of the Catholic church to hold this information back from the membership. That would be really silly, since the information is indeed right there.
Yet you are using a double standard here. There is nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, about Mormon doctrine that is held back, or is secret, or is reserved for the ‘more elect’ or however you want to characterize it. It’s all out there. The Temple scripts; the scriptures, the publications—all out there.
If Temple goers refuse to discuss their sacred experiences with folks they KNOW will riducule it and treat it with disrespect, that’s not being secretive–that’s respecting their own beliefs. It’s–like not allowing the neighborhood child molester to have access to your kid’s baby pictures.
Are Mormons human and tempted? Of course…I don’t know why anybody figures that we should be held to a higher standard than anybody else is; the very early Christians weren’t exactly perfect, either. On the other hand, MADB and other LDS sites don’t advertise “When Baptists Call” or “What Catholics Really Believe,” or “LDS Apologetics 101…how to witness to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Quakers,” either.
I want you to notice something, Rebecca. I am here in non-Catholic religions defending my faith against people who come to this sub-forum for the express purpose of attacking, belittling and defaming my beliefs. I am not in any other sub-forum of CAF attacking Catholicism. If y’all didn’t come after our beliefs, you wouldn’t see me here, at all.
And that should make you think a little bit. It won’t, of course, but it SHOULD.
Stephen168
New member
I’m not sure what you mean by “easier aspect” or “sacred Catholic Doctrine” but my son-in-law was taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist at his first RCIA class. I would think the Eucharist is very sacred and not easy to understand. But as you suggest, we was willing to learn.
A
Answersplease
Guest
I don’t see mormons teaching that it is okay to lie. I must have missed that lesson in the manual.
First, it is not suprising that in public JS would deny polygamy. I would have done so too since the hatred for mormons was very real. Polygamy would have created an intolerable position for the early mormons if the cat was let out of the bag. And so, I can see denying polygamy in public. No problem.
…
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
How much of the PoG is taught to a convert before they are baptized…none…where are the very non-Christian beliefs of mormonism taught? The PoG…withholding information in order to not scare people off is a form of lying. Where in the mormon missionary discussions is “Gods creating the world”, as found in the PoG taught? Or, the truth that polygamy is a mormon doctrine, still, only not practiced? Or, your god is created?
If you don’t like this, well then, maybe write an apostle, as, it isn’t the fault of people who point it out. It’s like saying adultery isn’t wrong until someone catches you and tells another person. And then it is the person who caught you who is lying. Deception is also a form of lying.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
…is a practice, not a doctrine. I don’t believe anyone expects a new convert to any religion understands all practices before converting. You can read about, and learn, every doctrine of Catholicism from a Catechism. In the US, the USCCB recommends a catechism for adults that goes into the doctrines in detail, with explanations as to why the Catholic church teaches these doctrines.
Mormons hide doctrines from prospective converts. WHY??
I’m sure you won’t answer with anything but another diversion.
M
Marie5890
Guest
When reading this thread basically two thoughts came to me
1)with the advent of the internet the whole idea of “milk before meat” kind of fades away. all one has to do if they find themselves interested in any faith tradition is google.
2)Not sure if the whole approach to dealing with investigators in the LDS church has changed. When I was a member, the baptismal challange was given after the 3rd discussion. And if accepted baptism was quickly arranged. All of this well before most of LDS doctrine was even hinted at. Hell I didnt know about temples, the 3 kingdoms, the idea of becoming gods, temple work, priesthood garments, and so much more when I was baptized. And that is the “modern day” dogmas. You dont hear these days things like all of the women (both single and women married to other men and girls) JSmith was married too, Blood Atonement…So much of that stuff even present day devout Mormons either dont know about or know very little of.
3)Catholic inquirers are treated just the opposite. From my inquirer’s stage to received into full communion was 16 months. There were weekly meetings. There was no “challenge” given. There was always a sense of “you need to discern where God is leading you”
Catholics lean HEAVILY on the idea of discernment. They dont try to illicit a commitment after a few meetings.
They want you well catechized before you make any commitments. Many a person going thru RCIA finds that frustrating.
Mormons go with (or at least did when I was LDS) with the approach of “baptize them first, teach them the rest later”
Catholics go with “teach them first, make sure they are ready to really accept and live as a Catholic Christian, THEN bring them into full communion/baptize them”
Very different approaches.
(Of course for Catholics that goes all the way back to the early church when Catechumenantes had to wait 3 years)
1)with the advent of the internet the whole idea of “milk before meat” kind of fades away. all one has to do if they find themselves interested in any faith tradition is google.
2)Not sure if the whole approach to dealing with investigators in the LDS church has changed. When I was a member, the baptismal challange was given after the 3rd discussion. And if accepted baptism was quickly arranged. All of this well before most of LDS doctrine was even hinted at. Hell I didnt know about temples, the 3 kingdoms, the idea of becoming gods, temple work, priesthood garments, and so much more when I was baptized. And that is the “modern day” dogmas. You dont hear these days things like all of the women (both single and women married to other men and girls) JSmith was married too, Blood Atonement…So much of that stuff even present day devout Mormons either dont know about or know very little of.
3)Catholic inquirers are treated just the opposite. From my inquirer’s stage to received into full communion was 16 months. There were weekly meetings. There was no “challenge” given. There was always a sense of “you need to discern where God is leading you”
Catholics lean HEAVILY on the idea of discernment. They dont try to illicit a commitment after a few meetings.
They want you well catechized before you make any commitments. Many a person going thru RCIA finds that frustrating.
Mormons go with (or at least did when I was LDS) with the approach of “baptize them first, teach them the rest later”
Catholics go with “teach them first, make sure they are ready to really accept and live as a Catholic Christian, THEN bring them into full communion/baptize them”
Very different approaches.
(Of course for Catholics that goes all the way back to the early church when Catechumenantes had to wait 3 years)
T
twopekinguys
Guest
All very good points.
Everyone attending our RCIA program knows that no question is out of bounds. No subject is too early for them to discuss.
Our particular program does offer a challenge at the very beginning of RCIA year. We tell all of them that we are there to answer their questions. We are there to help guide them. We challenge them to make us defend our faith.
There are several occasions during our program each year where we play “Stump the Priest” (Usually when a session has ended unexpectedly early.) No question is out of bounds. No doctrine, no dogma, no nothing. They can ask the priest any question related to the church.
Needless to say, it becomes very informative, and the sessions usually run over because they get into it so much.
I can honestly say that I have never seen them stump the priest, and I have never heard any of them say they weren’t satisfied with the answer(s) they were given.
When we do our end of year evaluation after the Easter Vigil, “Stump the Priest” usually gets the best grade.
Just a side note to Marie. We had a great presentation about the Abp. Fulton Sheen cause presented by Msgr. Deptula on Saturday. (He is heading the cause for his canonization)
A
adstrinity
Guest
What is the baptismal challange?
What do you mean, “the idea of becomming gods”? Are you sure you have the wording of this right?
What do you mean, “the idea of becomming gods”? Are you sure you have the wording of this right?
Stephen168
New member
A subject you fail to grasp and a conversation you ran from. It also has nothing to do with Catholic Doctrine or this thread.
There is an established pattern
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Mormon missionaries ask people they are teaching to commit to things…it is the method mormon missionaries use…ask people to commit to doing X and then bother them until they actually do what they committed to do. Commit to reading their BoM, or certain passages of it. Commit to going to church with them next Sunday. Commit to getting baptized on Feb. 6th.
Mormons teach that men become gods, only, they don’t teach this to people they are asking to make commitments.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Is that the new documentary on Abp Sheen? Im fully behind and supportive of his Cause. I’ve had some contact with Bill Englebrecht, who I know is also part of his Cause.
Love and respect Abp. Sheen more than I can tell you. Read his autobiography and am now reading his “Life of Christ”
This man was not only a Catholic-Christian
He was not only a bishop-priest.
He was a serious and authentic disciple of Christ.
:harp:
T
twopekinguys
Guest
It was a live presentation. I am in the Peoria Diocese (Sheen’s home diocese) He did talk about the documentary though.Is that the new documentary on Abp Sheen? Im fully behind and supportive of his Cause. I’ve had some contact with Bill Englebrecht, who I know is also part of his Cause.
Love and respect Abp. Sheen more than I can tell you. Read his autobiography and am now reading his “Life of Christ”
This man was not only a Catholic-Christian
He was not only a bishop-priest.
He was a serious and authentic disciple of Christ.
I will send you more in a PM.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Begging a rather large question there, Rebecca. The beliefs that YOU call ‘non-Christian’ are most definitely taught before baptism. Certainly the plan of Salvation and our view of the Godhead is taught, and isn’t that what you consider to be ‘non-Christian’ about us? As to the Pearl of Great Price…oh, c’mon. Since the plan of salvation is taught, and our view of the Godhead is taught, then what is in the PoGP is ALSO taught! As well, it is most certainly THERE for prospective converts to read; easily obtained.
For that matter, how much of Catholicism is taught? For instance, is something as important as canon law in regard to abortion taught to potential Catholic converts? Think about it.
Right in the beginning, Rebecca. In fact, you can find it in Genesis, where it says “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” (Genesis 1:26). In fact, our view of the Godhead…including the fact that we believe that there are three Persons, and that God created all things through His Son Jesus Christ, is right there in one of the very first lessons taught. Always has been.
Our lessons on what Temple/Celestial marriage is all about is ALSO one of the first lessons, Rebecca. Whether it agrees with you that ‘polygamy is a mormon doctrine’ or not is debatable, but then we get to tell you what our doctrine is, you don’t get to tell us.
Unless of course you really DO enjoy double standards as much as it seems you do.
Actually, Rebecca, since you are claiming things that simply are not true…
D
dianaiad
Guest
Only one statement; Mormons do not ‘hide doctrines from prospective converts.’ We don’t teach them what YOU think we believe, true. That, however, is not quite the same thing. We teach them what we actually, really, honest to goodness and truly, believe. That you get upset because we don’t teach the strawman version you prefer and justify your own hatred by is not our problem.
- Status