Milk before meat

[dianaiad]

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

I neither failed to grasp it, nor did I run.

I grasped it just fine…the problem is that you didn’t much like that I DID understand it. As to running…a; I have a life and b: it was very obvious that every word I wrote in that thread was going to be nit picked and lawyered.

As to latae sententaie…I have a sneaking suspicion that I understand it better than most of the posters who were arguing with me about it. I know what it is, how it works, what causes it…and the difference between it and the more formal sort. The whole concept actually makes sense to me, though it seems to be a stumbling block to many of those who were arguing with me and picking apart my word choices while completely ignoring the ideas BEHIND those word choices.

 

[Marie5890]

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.

I would agree with this. I never felt when I was an LDS investigator that anyone was deliberately “hiding” things from me.

It would be more accurate to say that I was just baptized well before most of the basic concepts and doctrines were taught.

Like I said before, with the advent of the internet, now a days it really pretty moot.

Google is everyone’s friend and resource library.
And all religious organization, be it LDS, Catholic, JW, whatever, have to deal with it all out in the open.

When I was LDS there really was no way of finding out what went on in the temples. Now the ceremony is out there with pics of temple clothing and garments etc.

Everyhting is easy as pie to discover and anyone who joins any organization w/o knowing facts and history just has never seriously done any research

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

I’m not upset. I just know you’re lying.

 

[twopekinguys]

I neither failed to grasp it, nor did I run.

I grasped it just fine…the problem is that you didn’t much like that I DID understand it. As to running…a; I have a life and b: it was very obvious that every word I wrote in that thread was going to be nit picked and lawyered.

As to latae sententaie…I have a sneaking suspicion that I understand it better than most of the posters who were arguing with me about it. I know what it is, how it works, what causes it…and the difference between it and the more formal sort. The whole concept actually makes sense to me, though it seems to be a stumbling block to many of those who were arguing with me and picking apart my word choices while completely ignoring the ideas BEHIND those word choices.

No, unfortunately, you did not, and still do not understand canon law/ or latae sententaie. I also find it amusing that you are objecting to being “lawyered”, considering you were talking about canon law. Especially since you’ve only found the links to the canon law approx. 10 days ago.

Also, you never did provide a resource for your claim about that child’s step father now did you?

This is just another tactic that has been demonstrated repeatedly by some of the mormon posters on here. When asked to provide a resource or reference for something they claim, they disappear for a few days and come back. Or, in some cases, when they can’t substantiate their claim, then all of a sudden, they claim the subject is no longer worth their time.

I find it funny that you are always reading between the lines, or looking for the ideas behind those word choices, but yet Catholics point something out as written, in black and white, you disagree with and you can’t handle it at face value.

What I also find amusing is how many mormons automatically dismiss someone who left the church. Whether they study their way out (as I have heard many times),or they have had a bad experience and left. It is always the ex-mormons fault somehow, and their credibility is supposedly less, just because they left.

 

[Stephen168]

No, unfortunately, you did not, and still do not understand canon law/ or latae sententaie. I also find it amusing that you are objecting to being “lawyered”, considering you were talking about canon law. Especially since you’ve only found the links to the canon law approx. 10 days ago.

I also can’t help thinking there is something in the Mormon/ testimony mentality that makes them believe if they say it; it is true.

I neither failed to grasp it, nor did I run.
I grasped it just fine…the problem is that you didn’t much like that I DID understand it.

 

[Stephen168]

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)

I think you are uniquely qualified on this thread; a convert to LDS and a convert to Catholicism. I’ve never converted to anything but I was my son-in-law’s sponsor when he converted.

I think you are right about the internet to some degree but one would still have to know enough to put something in the search engine.

 

[twopekinguys]

I think it is the original form of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

If they don’t ask, don’t tell.

 

[why_me]

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.

Well, this is not exactly true. Missionaries don’t bother people to be baptized. Of course it can happen because people are people but it shouldn’t. Mormons do teach the idea that people can become gods.

 

[adstrinity]

Well, this is not exactly true. Missionaries don’t bother people to be baptized. Of course it can happen because people are people but it shouldn’t. Mormons do teach the idea that people can become gods.

I humbly submit to you, latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=1&c=3

Is this the same thing dianaiad was saying?

 

[soren1]

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.

I said that the deeper doctrines are taught last “in principle,” not that in point of fact they always are. Traditionally, instruction in the Eucharist was about the very last thing that anyone becoming a Catholic could learn. St. Augustine, for instance, did not explain the Eucharist to adult catechumens until *after *they were baptized, so that the grace of baptism could assist their understanding. That type of practice does not need to be the standard for every time period, but we should acknowledge the legitimacy of the principle, and notice that there are ways in which we ourselves do the same thing, introducing learner in steps according to the progress they are making.

To the extent that Mormons use milk/meat to justify the same kind of thing, we should not simply criticize them, since it would involve a double-standard with respect to the Catholic tradition. If, however, a Mormon uses milk/meat to dodge apologetic bullets, that is another matter: milk/meat can’t apply to something like that. Yet before criticizing them for such actions, it is important to understand that a legitimate use of the milk/meat principle exists. Otherwise, we risk making an unfair judgment that they are being dodgy every time they invoke it.

 

[Answersplease]

(color, emphasis, and underline added)

Rebecca,

I don’t

as much as it seems you do.
…

Actually, Rebecca, since you are claiming things that simply are not true…

 

[aquabatix]

I think you are uniquely qualified on this thread; a convert to LDS and a convert to Catholicism. I’ve never converted to anything but I was my son-in-law’s sponsor when he converted.

I think you are right about the internet to some degree but one would still have to know enough to put something in the search engine.

This brings up a fantastic point. First, when I was a LDS convert in 98, there was the advent of the internet, but even having many Mormon friends and taking all the lesson (even going to church with them many times), I NEVER heard of the many troubling things that led to me “studying my way out” of Mormonism. Perhaps the info was “available” on the internet, but I never knew to go look for it. Only years later would I find these things on my own, almost by accident. Perhaps there was no lying, but serious omissions were going on.

 

[Answersplease]

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.

She has done a great job of showing us that anti-Catholicism is alive and well in Mormonism.

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.

That doesn’t tell us anything.

Are those actions done, just so you can use that specific argument?
See, look at me, I don’t go to other sub-forums, and that proves my religion is good?

It is easier to proselytize in person so people can can convey emotion and testimony better.

 

[Answersplease]

(color added)

No. I have never been a Mormon. I don’t have family that is Mormon. I just have a real heart for them. I have a heart for them because of their 60,000 missionaries out there witnessing their lie. Most of these missionaries are born to the lie and they go out to trick people who might have an honest desire to get close to God. Once they are in, either way, it is hard for them to get out without feeling rejected by friends and family. Because of their insistence of being called Christian, a person who leaves the Mormon church also could feel rejected by Christ. That is the trap and another lie. I think there will be die hard Mormons who will always reject Christ’s message of truth because they have lived in the lie for so long, They have started to view the faults in their church, faults in their prophet, faults in their scripture as faith-testing moments. And to be quite honest, it does take faith to believe that JS saw God, when the Bible clearly teaches no man has seen God, except Jesus. So you have to have a tremendous faith to believe even God has rejected his own truth to appear before JS. I’m afraid I have a minuscule faith to simply believe God’s truth is constant.

 

[Marie5890]

I think it is the original form of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

If they don’t ask, don’t tell.

TOUCHE!

Yes, I think that describes it very well.

 

[Stephen168]

To the extent that Mormons use milk/meat to justify the same kind of thing, we should not simply criticize them, since it would involve a double-standard with respect to the Catholic tradition. If, however, a Mormon uses milk/meat to dodge apologetic bullets, that is another matter: milk/meat can’t apply to something like that. Yet before criticizing them for such actions, it is important to understand that a legitimate use of the milk/meat principle exists. Otherwise, we risk making an unfair judgment that they are being dodgy every time they invoke it.

Ok, I agree.

This brings up a fantastic point. First, when I was a LDS convert in 98, there was the advent of the internet, but even having many Mormon friends and taking all the lesson (even going to church with them many times), I NEVER heard of the many troubling things that led to me “studying my way out” of Mormonism. Perhaps the info was “available” on the internet, but I never knew to go look for it. Only years later would I find these things on my own, almost by accident. Perhaps there was no lying, but serious omissions were going on.

Are there any of the ‘troubling things,’ which you would call the ‘meat’ of Mormonism, that you almost felt lied to about, when you found them out? Or were the ‘troubling things’ more like sour ‘milk’?

 

[aquabatix]

Ok, I agree.

Are there any of the ‘troubling things,’ which you would call the ‘meat’ of Mormonism, that you almost felt lied to about, when you found them out? Or were the ‘troubling things’ more like sour ‘milk’?

I would say there was a mixture of both. When it came to very aparent contradictions to the Bible or the trinitarian view of Jesus, I would say these were very foundational and the ‘meat’. When it came to other topics that were outright omitted, they were ‘meat’ as well. Perhaps they were waiting for me to be “ready” to be theologically mature enough to understand/believe them, but when it came to the nature of these other teachings, no amount of time, study or maturity would make it so that I could view them as acceptable and part of my faith.

Some were indeed ‘sour milk’. These things were told off the bat, but in such a light and generalized way, that when I dug deeper and asked the serious implications about what they were proposing, the milk soured very quickly.

 

[dianaiad]

No, unfortunately, you did not, and still do not understand canon law/ or latae sententaie. I also find it amusing that you are objecting to being “lawyered”, considering you were talking about canon law. Especially since you’ve only found the links to the canon law approx. 10 days ago.

Also, you never did provide a resource for your claim about that child’s step father now did you?

Yes I did…the logical thought process behind the Cardinal’s reaction to being asked why the step father was not excommunicated is obvious; the answer he gave got him some VERY bad press,and simply increased the controversy. He could have settled it instantly by saying 'we can’t excommunicate him–he’s not Catholic." End of discussion. However, he didn’t say that. He made several statements about how his sin (pedophelia and rape) was not as serious–worthy of excommunication–as abortion is. The ONLY logical conclusion one can reach is that the Cardinal was telling the truth; they didn’t excommunicate the step father because his sin wasn’t serious enough–which embodies the assumption that had his sin BEEN serious enough, they would have had the right to excommunicate him. The only way they could have that right is if the man were Catholic.

Ergo, the man is a Catholic.

This is just another tactic that has been demonstrated repeatedly by some of the mormon posters on here. When asked to provide a resource or reference for something they claim, they disappear for a few days and come back. Or, in some cases, when they can’t substantiate their claim, then all of a sudden, they claim the subject is no longer worth their time.

Or…they could have been in the hospital having IV antibiotics pumped into them. Or they could be on vacation. Or they could be working. Or—any number of things. It would be a really good idea for you not to assume that the entire lives of the posters in here are tied to, surrounded by and controlled with CAF.

I find it funny that you are always reading between the lines, or looking for the ideas behind those word choices, but yet Catholics point something out as written, in black and white, you disagree with and you can’t handle it at face value.

An example here would be good. Seems to me that canon law is pretty black and white–and you were the one who was trying to wiggle around it by objecting to word tenses.

What I also find amusing is how many mormons automatically dismiss someone who left the church.

As we should. As YOU should automatically dismiss ex-Catholics–as PRIMARY SOURCES. It’s one thing to use ex-members of any faith as a secondary source, but it’s never a good idea to use one as a primary source of information about their old faith.

…and I treat everybody equally. I wouldn’t accept an ex-Catholic’s description of Catholicism at face value, either. Would you want me to?

Whether they study their way out (as I have heard many times),or they have had a bad experience and left. It is always the ex-mormons fault somehow, and their credibility is supposedly less, just because they left.

Absolutely it is less, and yes, it’s because they left.–and this is true NO MATTER WHAT FAITH THEY LEFT. If they left because they didn’t ‘fit’ in with the lifestyle (they had an affair, they objected to the standards/culture of the faith) they are going to want to justify their leaving–and they aren’t going to want to admit that they left because they wanted to continue doing something their old faith considered to be sinful. That’s not a very honorable reason to leave a religious faith, is it? So…they will do their level best to find something wrong, and present their old faith in as negative a light as possible. If they 'studied their way out," then they are going to focus on the negative things that they were disappointed in, and will present those in the most negative light possible. I have only met ONE ex-Mormon who remained objective and truthful about Mormonism…and that’s in 45 years of dealing with this stuff. I have no idea whether I’ve met ex-members of OTHER faiths who are equally objective and fair–and I’d have no idea whether they were or not, anyway.

So…yep. ex-Mormons don’t have the credibility that believing Mormons do about the LDS faith. Ex-Catholics don’t have the credibility that believing Catholics do about that faith. Ex-Baptists don’t have the credibility that faithful Baptists have. Ex…

Do you see where I am going with this?

It’s not that I believe that ex-Mormons are ESPECIALLY nasty; from what I have seen of other faiths, ex-Mormons aren’t any better, or worse, than ex-Catholic-now evangelical Protestant, or (from right here…) ex-evangelical Protestant-now Catholics are about their old faith.

Ex-Protestant and ex_Catholic-now Mormons tend not to revisit and publish expose’s of their old faiths the way ex-Mormons and ex-Catholics who convert elsewhere are, though; the church frowns on that sort of thing.

 

[dianaiad]

I humbly submit to you, latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=1&c=3

Is this the same thing dianaiad was saying?

Try this one…look at verse 26:

latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=1&c=1

 

[dianaiad]

(color, emphasis, and underline added)

Rebecca,

My dear sir…there is a great deal of difference between calling someone a liar (which Rebecca did to me) and telling someone that they are claiming things that simply are not true.

A lie is deliberate; an untruth said in full knowledge that it IS an untruth. Calling someone a liar is an insult and a comment upon one’s character.

Telling someone that the claims she makes are not true is not addressing her character in any way. It is simply informing her that the claims she is making are not true. Now, if she knows that they are untrue and continues making them, THEN she becomes a liar, but that is an entirely different matter.