M
Mike_D30
Guest
If that’s what makes a religion authentic we have “Our Lady of Fatima” miracles. Real modern miracles witnessed by over 70,000 people. Come one over, the water is fine…
- Status
T
Tmaque
Guest
Rough Stone Rolling is an excellent book. It’s impeccably researched and documented. The testimonies of those involved in the early LDS Church are not so easily dismissed. Miraculous, unexplained, phenomena can happen to anyone, anytime, anywhere. It doesn’t just happen to Catholics. I often have to explain the reverse to LDS who are completely unaware of all of the miracles in our own Catholic Church’s history.
I’m convinced that something supernatural happened in the early LDS Church to convince so many people. I’m also convinced that it was from evil. During the many years he was using the occult to search for treasure, I believe that Joseph Smith opened himself up to an evil influence. What a great deception from the devil.
While reading this book I was struck that Joseph Smith, in his search for a church, never even considered the Catholic Church. Everything he complained that was lacking in all the Churches in the world, he would have found in Catholicism.
T
Tmaque
Guest
I never claimed the LDS Church was “authentic”. I’m confused, where do you want me to “come on over” to?If that’s what makes a religion authentic we have “Our Lady of Fatima” miracles. Real modern miracles witnessed by over 70,000 people. Come one over, the water is fine…
M
majick275
Guest
Todd,
You might find “early Mormonism and the magic world view” by Quinn also a good read. It goes into the same detail as “rough stone rolling” but focuses on the prevalence and types of folk magic common to the region and time period of Joseph Smith Jr. He wasn’t the only one, nor even the first in his area to claim heavenly visitation. Based on what you posted earlier I think you would enjoy it.
You might find “early Mormonism and the magic world view” by Quinn also a good read. It goes into the same detail as “rough stone rolling” but focuses on the prevalence and types of folk magic common to the region and time period of Joseph Smith Jr. He wasn’t the only one, nor even the first in his area to claim heavenly visitation. Based on what you posted earlier I think you would enjoy it.
M
Mike_D30
Guest
It was just lighthearted, I was saying the miracles at Fatima are well documented and well witnessed by 1,000’s of people, yet it doesn’t go very far in silencing critics. When I said come over, I was alluding to the Catholic Church…
I hope that clears things up…
M
MJE
Guest
I hate to belabor a point but what has the ancestory of the American Indian got to do with “everlasting life” or “Truth” or even the price of tripe?
A
ABalch
Guest
Tmaque, let me step in here.It was just lighthearted, I was saying the miracles at Fatima are well documented and well witnessed by 1,000’s of people, yet it doesn’t go very far in silencing critics. When I said come over, I was alluding to the Catholic Church…
I hope that clears things up…
Mike_D30, I think what Tmaque was alluding to is that if you had looked at his public profie, he is an ex-LDS, who came into the Catholic Church a couple years back. Therefore, he was wondering why you were telling him to “come on over” when he is already standing right next to you.
The peace of Our Lord be with you always,
ABalch
edited because I mistakenly referred to the wrong poster.
T
Tmaque
Guest
If the ancestry of Native Americans is Hebrew(as claimed in the Book of Mormon), then it has everything to do with the validity of the LDS Church, which then has everything to do with truth, and with “everlasting life” for it’s members.
B
Batjacboy
Guest
Not to go off on a tangent, but since this thread has brought up the issue of science and faith, and Galileo’s name was mentioned (as it always is), let’s keep in mind:
- Galileo was brought before the Inquisition, not for his scientific theories, but for attempting to use his theories to prompt the Church to change its teaching on Scripture (e.g., Joshua 10:12-13), for which he received an injunction in 1616;
- When Galileo was brought before the Inquisition again in 1632, it was for violating the injunction; he had been assured by both Cardinal Bellarmine and Pope Urban VIII that he could consider heliocentrism hypothetically, but until he could prove it, he was not to promote it as fact and then use it to force the Scripture issue, but he disobeyed;
- He did, in fact, get the Scriptural interpretation wrong (which is funny since a Catholic priest named Nicole Oresme got it right 300 years earlier (that God merely stopped the earth’s rotation); he also got the shape of the orbits and the explanation for the tides wrong, which made much of what he proposed suspect;
- That Galileo admitted, in a private letter to a friend 2 years before he died, that the Church had been right;
- That, contrary to what the news media reported, Pope John Paul II did not, in fact, “apologize” for the Galileo affair, and Pope Benedict XVI, when he was a Cardinal, said that Galileo was treated fairly, and his sentence was just.
I
IAMLDS
Guest
I was quite surprised by the response to my post. Though we have different beliefs in God I was sure that as persons of faith we were willing to recognize that at times science and religion conflict, and when given the choice we will side with religious belief. Today religious thought enjoys an uneasy truce with science but that has not always been the case, and may not always be the case. Advances in our ablility to clone life and possibly create life will cause additional rethinking of the matter.
In cases of conflict between what we believe to be true and what science says is true, is it alway religious thought that must realign? Obviously the Church must change if it’s teachings are based on bad science. In my reference to the case of Galileo I was not accusing the Catholic Church of being anti-science. I was only stating that the Church had aligned itself with the wrong side of the issue. They didn’t want Galileo forcing the Church to change it teachings of the scriptures to match a heliocentric universe. Science initially got it wrong and self corrected. The Catholic Church eventually went along with the correction. You’ll have to tell me how long after Galileo’s case was settled that the Church aligned it’s teachings with the heliocentric model.
Why did I pursue this discussion? As a member of the LDS Church I feel it is too soon to form an opinion about the DNA issue. It’s too soon for me to be realigning my religious belief based on what science has offered so far. My previous study (scriptural and secular), prayer, reasoning, and life experience tells me that I can continue to believe that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical account of a group of people that lived someplace here in the Americas during the time period that the book says they did.
So do I have any takers? None of you will admit that at times science and religion conflict and in those times you side with what you believe to be the revealed truth. There’s never been a day when you haven’t looked at the sky and asked yourself, “Have I really got this whole God thing right?” It’s during those times when I have to admit:
“For we walk by faith, not by sight…” 2 Cor. 5:7
Patrick
In cases of conflict between what we believe to be true and what science says is true, is it alway religious thought that must realign? Obviously the Church must change if it’s teachings are based on bad science. In my reference to the case of Galileo I was not accusing the Catholic Church of being anti-science. I was only stating that the Church had aligned itself with the wrong side of the issue. They didn’t want Galileo forcing the Church to change it teachings of the scriptures to match a heliocentric universe. Science initially got it wrong and self corrected. The Catholic Church eventually went along with the correction. You’ll have to tell me how long after Galileo’s case was settled that the Church aligned it’s teachings with the heliocentric model.
Why did I pursue this discussion? As a member of the LDS Church I feel it is too soon to form an opinion about the DNA issue. It’s too soon for me to be realigning my religious belief based on what science has offered so far. My previous study (scriptural and secular), prayer, reasoning, and life experience tells me that I can continue to believe that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical account of a group of people that lived someplace here in the Americas during the time period that the book says they did.
So do I have any takers? None of you will admit that at times science and religion conflict and in those times you side with what you believe to be the revealed truth. There’s never been a day when you haven’t looked at the sky and asked yourself, “Have I really got this whole God thing right?” It’s during those times when I have to admit:
“For we walk by faith, not by sight…” 2 Cor. 5:7
Patrick
M
majick275
Guest
I respect that you are not ready to abandon your faith based on what science has so far revealed. I will join you in stating that at times religion and science have clashed. Sometimes it DOES take a while to either come to a full understanding of the science…the faith…or both in order to really know what is true. However, the LDS church is a bit different in that it has always claimed the “shortcut” of ongoing prophecy through it’s current president form Jospeh Smith Jr. to the present. further, it’s not just the DNA. The entire accumulation of established scientific facts, thoroughly studied sacred scripture and tradition, intensive analysis of history and anthropology has given us a pretty good idea of what certainly appears to be a direct proof that many significant “prophecies” made by LDS leaders must be false. Sufficient that to myself and many others, the LDS church is blatantly fraudulent from the “translation” of the book of Abraham papyri to the peepstone in the hat “revealed” Book of Mormon to the manipulative “revelations” in the D&C right on up to Gordon B. Hinkley claiming he doesn’t know about eternal progression.
With respect to the topic of this thread, DNA evidence is one of many reasons to be skeptical about the veracity of the BoM.
With respect to the topic of this thread, DNA evidence is one of many reasons to be skeptical about the veracity of the BoM.
I
IAMLDS
Guest
But for every derogatory criticism of Joseph Smith, for every negative comment about my current prophet, for every scientific truth that seems to contradict my beliefs there is an alternate very plausible explanation. There is no 100% certainty in this game. Being skeptical also allows the possibility of something being correct.
Patrick
M
majick275
Guest
I have yet to see ANY alternate explanation that is plausible. FARMS and FAIR sure haven’t published any. There may not be any 100% certainty but I’ll take the five nines. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid. Which brings up an interesting point. Why are you here? I don’t go to LDS boards to proselytize and your posts sure seem like the typical LDS “missionary” we get strolling in here from time to time.
I
IAMLDS
Guest
Majick,
Your question is fair to ask. I didn’t come here to prosyletize. I learned about this site from Catholic Radio. I listen to the Calvary Chapel station in the morning when they broadcast sermons. When the Calvary programing switches over to music I change over to the Catholic station.
I came to this board to discuss the Christian faith with a bunch of Christians. It’s something I’ve been yearning to do. I can’t get anybody here where I live to do it.
I enjoy gospel discussion, and I have very much enjoyed gospel discussion with a Catholic friend in the past. I’ve seen that the same level of respect in discourse can exist on this board as existed between my friend and I. If your willing to give me 1/1000 of a chance of being right then I’ll accept that.
I’ve benefited from the discussions. Don’t feel threatened if I say something that makes sense. I’m not trying to set you up. I’ve had many an a-ha moment reading posts from others on these boards, wether they be Catholic, Born Again, or Muslim.
Why do you come here to the Non-Catholic Religions Forum? Was this meant only as a place for Catholics to discuss Non-Catholic Religions? If so then I’ll beg your pardon and be on my way. Do you think discussions have benefited from multiple faith perspectives? Don’t you think it would get boring with you, Mike, Robert, Todd and Paul slapping eachother on the back, and congragulating eachother about how right you are? If LDS are allowed to participate in the discussion then everything I say is going to have LDS color, and that doesn’t mean I’m prosyletizing.
Up to this point all I’ve asked is that you concede that there is some level of uncertainty in all of our arguements. You did, even if it was only a level of .001, so I’ll say thanks.
Patrick
Your question is fair to ask. I didn’t come here to prosyletize. I learned about this site from Catholic Radio. I listen to the Calvary Chapel station in the morning when they broadcast sermons. When the Calvary programing switches over to music I change over to the Catholic station.
I came to this board to discuss the Christian faith with a bunch of Christians. It’s something I’ve been yearning to do. I can’t get anybody here where I live to do it.
I enjoy gospel discussion, and I have very much enjoyed gospel discussion with a Catholic friend in the past. I’ve seen that the same level of respect in discourse can exist on this board as existed between my friend and I. If your willing to give me 1/1000 of a chance of being right then I’ll accept that.
I’ve benefited from the discussions. Don’t feel threatened if I say something that makes sense. I’m not trying to set you up. I’ve had many an a-ha moment reading posts from others on these boards, wether they be Catholic, Born Again, or Muslim.
Why do you come here to the Non-Catholic Religions Forum? Was this meant only as a place for Catholics to discuss Non-Catholic Religions? If so then I’ll beg your pardon and be on my way. Do you think discussions have benefited from multiple faith perspectives? Don’t you think it would get boring with you, Mike, Robert, Todd and Paul slapping eachother on the back, and congragulating eachother about how right you are? If LDS are allowed to participate in the discussion then everything I say is going to have LDS color, and that doesn’t mean I’m prosyletizing.
Up to this point all I’ve asked is that you concede that there is some level of uncertainty in all of our arguements. You did, even if it was only a level of .001, so I’ll say thanks.
Patrick
M
majick275
Guest
Patrick,
It’s not “my” forum BUT it IS CATHOLIC ANSWERS. So one wold exepct everything t have a Catholic perspective. I am here (fair question as well) because I am a convert to the RCC from the LDS church. I try to answer from curious Catholics (those who choose NOT to seek out LDS sites). I also fellowship here with other former LDS.
It’s not “my” forum BUT it IS CATHOLIC ANSWERS. So one wold exepct everything t have a Catholic perspective. I am here (fair question as well) because I am a convert to the RCC from the LDS church. I try to answer from curious Catholics (those who choose NOT to seek out LDS sites). I also fellowship here with other former LDS.
T
Tmaque
Guest
Patrick, my main point is that when religion comes up against well established and proven scientific fact, religion must move and not the other way around. With that statement, it must be said that, like Aquinas, I believe God is the primary mover in the universe and can in no way be scientifically accounted for or measured. So, ultimately, there is nothing in my belief system as a Catholic that threatens me in regards to scientific discoveries.
As religious traditions, we run into trouble when we place primary emphasis on things which can be proved or disproved. When these things become one of the pillars of our faith, our faith is put in jeapordy(the authenticity of the BOM or the Shroud of Turin for example). In my opinion, it’s only a matter of time until science proves, and the LDS Church accepts, the fact that the BOM is not historical. When that time comes, the admission by the LDS Church will not cause very many LDS faithful to abandon their church. They will simply place it in the realm of revealed allegory meant to teach God’s word.
You mentioned embryonic research. This has nothing to do with science challenging religious statements or claims. Catholics are opposed to this simply because we believe an embryo is a human being in every way, created in the image of God, and so should be afforded human diginity. It isn’t science challenging the Church’s credibility, it’s the Church challenging science’s ethics.
T
Tmaque
Guest
Thanks for the detailed history. Most historians I’ve read would not agree with 100% of this post but most historians have an anti-Catholic bias. I largely agree with it. My main point was that the Catholic Church does not obstinately stand in the way of proven science.
A
amgid
Guest
None of your business! You don’t own the board. You don’t determine board rules or board policy. You have no business to ask that question from anybody on this board, either Mormon or any other.
If that would make you feel any better, be my guest! There is nothing stopping you. How come every time you are cornered by a newly arrived LDS, you try to drive him out of the board? You know what you can do with that, don’t you!
Where does it say in the board rules that only Catholics must come here and discuss religion? I haven’t seen a sign anywhere saying that. This is an open forum; that means that anybody who wishes to join in the discussions is free to do so as long as they obey the rules. Naturally every person who joins will speak and debate from his own religious perspective, and will try to promote his own religious beliefs whatever that may be. So you reckon that Moslems, Jews, Mormons, Protestants, Bahais, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Shinto’s, Maronites, Assyrians, Greek Orthodox etc, etc, who come here to discuss religion must all tow the Catholic line, and promote Catholic theology and doctrine, otherwise they are “proselytizing”? Is that some kind of a joke or what?
“Catholic Answers” is the name of the website, and the forum naturally assumes the name of the website it is attached to. But that does not mean that the forum is exclusively devoted to Catholics members, or that its sole purpose it to provide “Catholic Answers”. The forum is open to everyone who whishes to join, and speak and debate from whatever religious perspective they happen to adhere to. The name of this particular board is called “Non-Catholic Religions”. I should have thought that that title did not require any explanation.
And what exactly is that supposed to mean? Should everyone who comes here preach Catholicism, regardless of whatever religious persuasion they may already be? I am just waiting to see quite how much more absurd and ludicrous you intend to get.
I don’t know about others; but let me assure you that I for one am not in the least bit interested in why you are here, and I couldn’t care less one way or another.
amgid
A
amgid
Guest
Thank you. You appear to be well informed about this subject. That is what we like, intelligent and informative posts! If you know of a website that describes this event in greater detail I would be interested to read it.
amgid
M
majick275
Guest
same old amgid. Good example of “real” LDS and why to avoid them.
- Status