A
- Status
T
TheosisM
Guest
Doesn’t everyone hate when a non-[insert religion] tells members of that religion that they know it (or something about it) better than them? Especially when that something is related to canon law, which should really be left to canon lawyers (or at least Catholics familiar with it), who have degrees in its study (odd when some think it is rather black and white…).
D
dianaiad
Guest
Stephen, I did not insult you. I simply requested that you not put quotes around your own text, so that it would be easier to reply. Given that you have to deliberatly DO that…put quotes around your own text…it’s not a difficult thing to refrain from, and it would certainly make it easier on those of us who would like to quote you in our responses.
OK. I’m simply telling you that it would be easier on us if you did that another way than putting your own text in a quote box. Of course, I realize that I have just guaranteed that you will ALWAYS put your own text in quote boxes, now, just to ‘show’ me that you can do anything you want to do.
You are quite right. I do not.
I am aware of that. Are you?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Theosis,
Given that more than half of the people who were making fun of me and telling me what an anti-Catholic bigot I was to even address the issue had NEVER HEARD of it, I hope you will excuse me if I don’t take your criticism of my own research into this very seriously.
Especially since I did not attempt to get into the intricacies of who is, or is not, suffering under this sort of excommunication. That is indeed a matter for the lawyers. However, the law is pretty clear on its face; THESE acts result in THAT consequence. The assumption is that those who committed those acts qualify for the consequences.
In some states, a criminal who assaults someone over 60 is going to get more jail time than someone who clobbers a 40 year old. That’s the law. One does not need to have a doctorate in law to understand that there IS a difference in the way the law treats one assault vs. another; the assumption is that a: the assault was committed, b; the attacker knew what he was doing, and c; the question isn’t about guilt, but what penalty is assigned to what act.
In canon law, too, one does not need to have a degree in theology and canon law…and to understand all the intricacies of what makes an assault on the Pope an 'assault on the Pope," or to understand all the details about when a person is guilty of a specific act. The description of the consequences assume that all that was decided; a guilty person committed this act…ok, THESE are the consequences.It is IRRELEVENT whether a latae sententiae excommunication applies if a woman isn’t aware that getting an abortion would result in it. It is irrelevant whether a Catholic excommunication is the same as, or different from, a Mormon one. The point is simple; you guys call it ‘excommunication,’ and it is the consequence of certain acts–acts that have already been determined to have taken place.
In other words, this isn’t about whether or not the woman had an abortion or procured one for someone else. It’s not about whether she’s mentally responsible, or if he was aware that having an abortion would result in instant excommunication. Assessing consequences (latae sententiae excommunication) comes after it has been decided that yep, she procured and abortion and yep, she knew it was wrong and yep, she knew what the consequences were going to be.
It’s not about whether that woman who climbed the fence to go after the Pope was nuttier than a walnut orchard; it’s about what happens to those who know exactly what they are doing, what happens as a result, and who do it anyway. That is a GIVEN.
You don’t need to be a canon lawyer to get that, Theosis. Specific consequences for a specific act.
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
T
TheosisM
Guest
Who are these people that were making fun of you and calling you a bigot that had never heard of “it” (what?)?
You keep attempting, in multiple threads, to somehow tell Catholics what they really believe. We explain how we see Catholic teaching, since we actually are Catholics, and how we see Catholic law, since it has to be interpreted in the context of Catholic teaching, culture, and practice. Then you tell us we are equivocating or something, and then attempt to interpret Catholic law (or doctrine) for us, presenting it as the reality, when it is really your outsider view of the matter. Perhaps it would be better for you to take Catholics at their word when they are describing Catholic law and belief. It is clear to me, from the other discussion about excommunication, that you do not understand what actually happens to an excommunicated Catholic (and therefore should not present what you think as the fact, unless you are actually well read on the issue), which is okay, since you are not Catholic.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Again, your interpretives skills seem to be lacking. I have never “demanded” anything. I also did not “pretend” anything one way or the other.
Personally I am tired of your insinutations, and sniping comments. Especially when they are returned in kind, you think someone is picking on you, or making fun of you.
As you are fond of saying so much…“get over it”
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Well said.
Stephen168
New member
I was just sailing along following the Ten Commandments and the Precepts of the Catholic Church until 1988 when I suddenly heard of IT.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Diana,
Theosis has a valid point, you know. You do have this tendency to do exactly what you accuse non-Mormons of doing when it comes to Mormon doctrine.
It gets under your skin when a non-Mormon presents Mormon doctrine in such a way that you know to be false. Understandable.
As a non-Catholic you are doing the very same thing. You are presenting Catholic doctrine in such a way that is false. And we know that is exactly what you are doing, even if you dont see it.
You may want to think about that.
Theosis has a valid point, you know. You do have this tendency to do exactly what you accuse non-Mormons of doing when it comes to Mormon doctrine.
It gets under your skin when a non-Mormon presents Mormon doctrine in such a way that you know to be false. Understandable.
As a non-Catholic you are doing the very same thing. You are presenting Catholic doctrine in such a way that is false. And we know that is exactly what you are doing, even if you dont see it.
You may want to think about that.
A
Answersplease
Guest
jake23 said:
A
Answersplease
Guest
Prodigal_Son1 said:
S
SuRoj
Guest
I’m puzzled by many of the posts on this thread. This discussion of ‘milk before meat’ is really about the perception of holding back information and sharing it later. That has nothing to do with ‘milk’ and ‘meat’ scripturally.
Regarding holding back information. Let’s be consistent. This is something everyone does because it is overwhelming to share everything all at once with anyone about anything important.
For example: I spent quite a bit of time in Hong Kong and the Jesuits have a very bad history there in China. Some Chinese know about and many do not. I have no problem when my Christian friends purposefully avoid the Jesuit and also Crusades discussion; along with hundreds of other ‘dark spots’ in Christian history. They are not holding back meat. They are simply being wise with someone who is just beginning to learn. Most Chinese people have only heard of Jesus Christ. You have to start with the basics and build from there. And, when or if they ever learn about former Christian atrocities they are not learning about ‘meat’ they are learning the truth about imperfect people.
The same goes with Mormonism. I happily and openly discuss all things with my friends when they ask. However, there are some things about LDS history that simply do not represent the whole picture. And all the ‘meat’ of LDS doctrine is beautiful to me. I never hide that. In fact, I am excited to share with my friends the ‘meat’ up front if they are interested.
Additionally, when I have had friends who have chosen to join the LDS Church I have sat down with them BEFORE baptism to discuss any of their concerns and openly share about everything good and bad in LDS history. Because the doctrines and the ‘meat’ are clear to them and internalized, they understand that (AS WITH ALL RELIGIONS) there are some things in history that are not good. This does not mean ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’. Nor does it mean that there is some huge shock unfolded after they join. This has been my experience over and over again as a lifelong member of the LDS Church.
Finally, there are thousands of books, articles, websites, etc out there about the LDS Church. No one is hiding anything. Everything you need to know if available to anyone. The problem is that there are too many lies and misrepresentations spread scaring people away from the LDS Church.
If you are truly consistent and hold the same scrutiny to other Christian religions as many of you scrutinize the LDS Church, you will find that no one in Christianity can be 100% proud of everything in their history. This does not mean we discard the entire thing because of the imperfection of people.
Regarding holding back information. Let’s be consistent. This is something everyone does because it is overwhelming to share everything all at once with anyone about anything important.
For example: I spent quite a bit of time in Hong Kong and the Jesuits have a very bad history there in China. Some Chinese know about and many do not. I have no problem when my Christian friends purposefully avoid the Jesuit and also Crusades discussion; along with hundreds of other ‘dark spots’ in Christian history. They are not holding back meat. They are simply being wise with someone who is just beginning to learn. Most Chinese people have only heard of Jesus Christ. You have to start with the basics and build from there. And, when or if they ever learn about former Christian atrocities they are not learning about ‘meat’ they are learning the truth about imperfect people.
The same goes with Mormonism. I happily and openly discuss all things with my friends when they ask. However, there are some things about LDS history that simply do not represent the whole picture. And all the ‘meat’ of LDS doctrine is beautiful to me. I never hide that. In fact, I am excited to share with my friends the ‘meat’ up front if they are interested.
Additionally, when I have had friends who have chosen to join the LDS Church I have sat down with them BEFORE baptism to discuss any of their concerns and openly share about everything good and bad in LDS history. Because the doctrines and the ‘meat’ are clear to them and internalized, they understand that (AS WITH ALL RELIGIONS) there are some things in history that are not good. This does not mean ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’. Nor does it mean that there is some huge shock unfolded after they join. This has been my experience over and over again as a lifelong member of the LDS Church.
Finally, there are thousands of books, articles, websites, etc out there about the LDS Church. No one is hiding anything. Everything you need to know if available to anyone. The problem is that there are too many lies and misrepresentations spread scaring people away from the LDS Church.
If you are truly consistent and hold the same scrutiny to other Christian religions as many of you scrutinize the LDS Church, you will find that no one in Christianity can be 100% proud of everything in their history. This does not mean we discard the entire thing because of the imperfection of people.
R
ricko
Guest
Lying for the Lord refers to the practice of lying to protect the image of and belief in the Mormon religion, a practice which Mormonism itself fosters in various ways. From Joseph Smith’s denial of having more than one wife, to polygamous Mormon missionaries telling European investigators that reports about polygamy in Utah were lies put out by “anti-Mormons” and disgruntled ex-members, to Gordon B. Hinckley’s dishonest equivocation on national television over Mormon doctrine, Mormonism’s history seems replete with examples of lying. Common members see such examples as situations where lying is justified. For the Mormon, loyalty and the welfare of the church are more important than the principle of honesty, and plausible denials and deception by omission are warranted by an opportunity to have the Mormon organization seen in the best possible light
When prompted to discuss an issue that is potentially embarrassing to the Mormon religion, Mormons often make an appeal to the impropriety of discussing such “sacred” things. Practically speaking, what is often explicitly appealed to as “sacred” is treated as “secret”[6]. Many Mormons, for example, will appeal to the sacredness of temple ceremonies as an excuse not discuss the pre-1990 swearing to throat-slitting or disembowelment, the Masonic “Five Points of Fellowship”, or the chanting of “Pay Lay Ale”. The same appeal is made not to discuss the spirit mother(s) in heaven, the implications of the Mormon view of human exaltation, or the potentially embarrassing, non-divine, sinful past of God the Father.
Sounds like the standard definition of lying.
mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord
S
SuRoj
Guest
Posting wikipedia threads as references displays ignorance and lack of credibility.
Furthermore, taking quotes from LDS leaders and discussing them out of context is dishonest.
The bottom line is that presenting some of the more spurious Mormon Doctrines immediately to someone who has had one viewpoint of Christian Doctrine their whole life is simply not appropriate. This is true for all religions. Not because the doctrines and history are to be ashamed of, but because the person learning for the first time is not in a position to understand those things immediately.
It would be like taking a classroom full of 1st graders and introducing them to Calculus before they even know their times tables. It would blow their mind and many of them would conclude that it must all be nonsense. A foundation has to be built first before you can go to the next level.
‘Milk before meat’ is more about building from the foundation up so that people understand the context of the doctrines and don’t misinterpret or misrepresent them like so many in this Thread of discussion. It is not, however, about dishonesty, embarrassment, or concealment. It is the most effective way to help someone completely understand the Doctrines in context.
Furthermore, taking quotes from LDS leaders and discussing them out of context is dishonest.
The bottom line is that presenting some of the more spurious Mormon Doctrines immediately to someone who has had one viewpoint of Christian Doctrine their whole life is simply not appropriate. This is true for all religions. Not because the doctrines and history are to be ashamed of, but because the person learning for the first time is not in a position to understand those things immediately.
It would be like taking a classroom full of 1st graders and introducing them to Calculus before they even know their times tables. It would blow their mind and many of them would conclude that it must all be nonsense. A foundation has to be built first before you can go to the next level.
‘Milk before meat’ is more about building from the foundation up so that people understand the context of the doctrines and don’t misinterpret or misrepresent them like so many in this Thread of discussion. It is not, however, about dishonesty, embarrassment, or concealment. It is the most effective way to help someone completely understand the Doctrines in context.
A
adstrinity
Guest
SuRoj, welcome to the boards!
I must disagree, however, we answer any and all questions up front. We present EVERYTHING to those who ask. Those who believe in a certain Christian way like us, (Trinitarians), those who believe in restorationism (LDS, JWs), Athiests, Monothiests (Unitarians, Jews, Muslims), Polythiests (Hindus), Thiests (Agnostics, et al), we answer them and we share up front what we know in a way that it would be best suited for them to understand. Thoroughly. The context and the doctrine.
Secondly, I don’t think any First Grader would think Calculous is bunk, I think it may inspire some to learn addition and subtraction adequately to do the cooler stuff. (Myself, I never caught on to math so much, until Beginners Statistics.)
I have asked Mormons on this forum questions, and I have always found them to be helpful and willing to discuss most things; I don’t really think I can complain about the Mormons on this forum.
I must disagree, however, we answer any and all questions up front. We present EVERYTHING to those who ask. Those who believe in a certain Christian way like us, (Trinitarians), those who believe in restorationism (LDS, JWs), Athiests, Monothiests (Unitarians, Jews, Muslims), Polythiests (Hindus), Thiests (Agnostics, et al), we answer them and we share up front what we know in a way that it would be best suited for them to understand. Thoroughly. The context and the doctrine.
Secondly, I don’t think any First Grader would think Calculous is bunk, I think it may inspire some to learn addition and subtraction adequately to do the cooler stuff. (Myself, I never caught on to math so much, until Beginners Statistics.)
I have asked Mormons on this forum questions, and I have always found them to be helpful and willing to discuss most things; I don’t really think I can complain about the Mormons on this forum.
- Status