Mormons to build temple in Rome

[mfbukowski]

We do have the knowing experience, but we Catholics don’t brag about it and use it as evidence that our Church is true. It is very private, as private revelation should be.

My son, who also posts on these fora, describes it as someone opening a drawer in the file cabinet of his mind, inserting a folder and closing the drawer. Suddenly the information is just there where it was not before, along with a profound awe at the miracle of it all. I think that describes very well what I experience as a Catholic.

Now I will not mention it again - it is private and sacred.

Pardon my off the topic totally stupid question – is the correct latin plural of “forum” really “fora”? Trying to remember my latin it would seem to me that it would be a second declension noun and therefore the right plural would be something like “fori” which doesn’t sound right either. Anybody know? But I think there were fifth declension endings that I can’t remember —??

 

[Jerusha]

It sounds like you are saying that there are “facts” out there somewhere which no one has discovered yet?

Maybe there are some real facts which people choose to ignore, because they fly in the faces of those who justify their actions based upon madeup stories which they call “facts”.

 

[ronald_g_w]

The Catholic Church agrees with you on this, as do I.

Why did Prodigal Son 1 say he atoned for sins on the cross alone yet you agree with me ?

 

[ronald_g_w]

What about the Immaculate Conception as a major example?

The reason for my question is if revelation for the church ceased with the death of the Apostles then surely all changes are then man made and not from God as the Pope does not recieve revelation for the church is this correct ?

 

[PaulDupre]

Pardon my off the topic totally stupid question – is the correct latin plural of “forum” really “fora”? Trying to remember my latin it would seem to me that it would be a second declension noun and therefore the right plural would be something like “fori” which doesn’t sound right either. Anybody know? But I think there were fifth declension endings that I can’t remember —??

According to the Oxford English Dictionary…

forum n. (pl. forums)

1. a meeting or medium for an exchange of views.
2. (pl. fora) (in an ancient Roman city) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business. Origin ME: from Latin, lit. what is out of doors.

The proper Latin plural is fora, but in common English usage, forums seems to be permissible.

 

[mfbukowski]

The bible is public revelation; not private revelation. There is a clear difference between the two.

I’m not disputing the fact that the bible is inspired and revealed by God. And I’m not disputing that the revelations experienced and documented in the bible are also real. And I’m certainly not going to dispute the validity of the preaching declared by the prophets of the OT and of John the Baptist. But I’m drawing a distinction between public and private revelation. I’m also distinguishing between revelation of the truth of previously publicly revealed doctrine (i.e. Christ’s manifestation to Paul on the Damascus road as confirming christian claims of Christ’s resurrection), as opposed to post-Apostolic individuals who claim that God privately revealed to them alone startlingly new and divergent doctrines. IOW I’m not disputing that the prophets of the bible were called by God. But I question the claims of modern day prophets, because I believe public revelation ended at the death of John, the last Apostle.

Good enough for what? For doctrine? What if your wife wakes up tomorrow and tells you that the Angel Moroni visited her in a dream and told her she was to marry another man? Is that “good enough” or would you question your wife’s conclusions regarding the source of her dream?

First, that’s not exactly what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that an individual’s private revelation is no basis for establishing truth of doctrine. I’m not saying that doctrines cannot be shown to be true.

I’m guessing that under your scenario, Paul would come to the same conclusion I have. That personal visions and revelations are no basis for arguing the truth of doctrine to someone else; and he would move to another line of argument. Perhaps reasoning from his own faith, as in his speech to the men of Athens. (Acts 17: 20ff) He pointed, ultimately, to the truth of the resurrection. He did not say believe me because God revealed the truth of Christianity to me in a profound conversion experience. Nor did he beg the Athenians to read the hebrew scriptures and pray for personal revelation. He called men to repent and come to Christ because the Day of the Lord was coming.

Faith and reason. Not personal revelation.

Faith and reason. Not personal revelation.

Peace,
-Robert

I do not subscribe to the difference between public and private revelation as described here:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011bt.asp

If I understand it correctly, the difference between public and private revelation is exactly the difference between what is revealed in the bible and what is revealed to individuals.

What this point of view ignores is that the bible was revealed to INDIVIDUALS. People just like you and me who admittedly were more spiritually advanced (speaking for myself at least) who received visions etc. As we have said Mary, Paul, Peter (shall we all sing Kumbayah?) Moses, Abraham-- all these were people who received what you would call “private” revelations, which magically became “public” revelation by being recoded and then that record being placed in the right manuscript which was later copied by the right scribe and defined by the right church council to be called “The Bible”. There is no essential difference between public and private revelation, except that one is defined as public because it is in the bible.

It is exactly analagous to Pluto being redefined as a “non-planet”. The only thing that has been changed about Pluto is its definition.

I was fascinated to read an article recently about many “new” fish species which have been "discovered " by scientists — where did they find them? In fish markets in the orient!

People have been eating these fish for thousands of years, and they know where and how to catch them, and what parts to eat and not eat, but because some western scientist wanders down the right alley and suddenly sees something new TO HIM, “a new species is discovered”!! Unbelievable arrogance!

Again, the only thing that has changed is now the fish is on the scientists list, whereas before it was on an unknown fisherman’s list which had been passed to him for generations.

This is a perfect analogy for how private revelations end up in the bible.

Revelation has not ended with Jesus Christ. Why would it? Do we not need revelation any more? Have we solved all the worlds problems?

More importantly, have we come to the “unity of the faith” predicted in the bible? If we had, we would not be here discussing our differences.

Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

(CONTINUED)

 

[mfbukowski]

(CONTINUATION OF POST 202 TO ROBERT IN SD)

So the essential question has not been answered.

How do we know that Mary was telling the truth about the angel who declared the annunication upon which the incarnation of Christ, the virgin birth and much of christian doctrine depends?

Are we to take the word of the Magesterium because it is in the bible and the Magesterium says so, or is there another way?

There is another way, and that is by direct revelation to each of our hearts.

You quoted me a situation where my wife wakes up one morning and tells me she has seen an angel and is to marry another man.

I have another one for you that is better, and actually happened.

Suppose your wife wakes up one morning and tells you she is pregnant, and you know the baby is not yours. What’s more, she tells you that the baby was conceived by God.

How do you handle that little problem?

You do what Joseph did. You pray and receive a direct revelation that she was right.

What would you do in that situation?

Would you believe the revelation that you received?

Would you believe that the baby had been conceived by God?

Or would you go to the Magesterium and ask their opinion?

 

[mfbukowski]

Why did Prodigal Son 1 say he atoned for sins on the cross alone yet you agree with me ?

Paul is an ex-mormon who is now a Catholic and it appears that he disagrees with Prodigal1 on this point.

 

[PaulDupre]

My understanding of the redemptive nature of the passion derives from my meditation on the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary and reading Catholic apologists and seeing the movie “The Passion of the Christ” - not from any Mormon influence.

 

[mfbukowski]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary…

forum n. (pl. forums)

1. a meeting or medium for an exchange of views.
2. (pl. fora) (in an ancient Roman city) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business. Origin ME: from Latin, lit. what is out of doors.

The proper Latin plural is fora, but in common English usage, forums seems to be permissible.

Thanks for the education Paul!

 

[mfbukowski]

I’m not going to re-ask questions. It’s apparent you are avoiding answering and using the Mormon technique of ‘answering the question that should have been asked’.

We are at an impasse. You say, repeatedly, no one can answer your questions. What you mean is no one can answer them to your satisfaction. Does that, in itself, make our answers wrong? Only in your ‘opinion’.

We believe we are right. You believe you are right. From this point, we have to find a way to ‘discover’ right. The problem is, you will only consider, as you say, your own personal subjective experience. Subjective experience cannot be fully shared. We turn to scriptures, traditions and the Church, which you fully disregard as wrong over your subjective experience.

Catholics feel their own subjective experience that leads them to seek and know the truth, through prayer, scriptures, traditions and His Church. These things have been documented and existed since the death and resurrection of Christ.

All you offer is your own subjective experience and an admittance of no evidence or proof whatsoever.

I can understand our Protestant brothers and sisters, as they have a part of the truth that came from the Church. The problem with Mormonism as I see it is, Mormons have scriptures but deny it’s inerrancy and have an entirely different interpretation. I’m not aware of any Protestants that believe in the plurality of God. I don’t know of any Protestants that believe Jesus and satan were brothers or ‘spirit’ brothers. I don’t know of any Protestants that believe God the Father is an exalted man. I don’t know of Protestants that believe they, themselves, can one day be exalted to be Gods. I don’t know of any Protestants that believe in surrogate baptisms for the dead. I’m not aware of any Protestants that believe the Bible to be errant.

Protestants have a ‘connection’ to truth, as the reformation came directly from the Church Christ built, promised to be with until the consummation of the world and assured us even the gates of hell would not prevail. Are there doctrinal differences? Yes, most definately. Those doctrinal differences do not include the many differences between Mormonism and Christianity.

I do thank you for the answers you have given and for the research you’ve made me do when you avoided giving answers. I have learned a lot, even though it’s not what you hoped I, or others, would accept.

I will not continue the arguments with you any longer, as I admit, I am weak and easily drawn into the ‘return fire’ attitude to your style of ‘sharing’. I see condescending, ad hominem attacks, obfuscation and covert purposes behind all your posts anymore. I believe you are not here to truly share as much as you are here in a veiled attempt to seek conversions.

When I see you raise issues that I have gained knowledge of, I will share what I learned for the sake of those who might be considering what you say.

You are in my prayers.

I appreciate the sincere tone of your post.

If we can continue our dialogue as a real dialogue I am sure you will learn more that will be beneficial for your further training as an apologist for your church. But that will be at the risk that you will accuse me of trying to convert you or others. To me THAT is the impasse more than anything else.

I could only be trying to convert others if anyone would admit that I was making headway with them, which I am sure will never happen.

Your present level of knowledge is not enough to make serious arguments against Mormons who are somewhat informed. You may catch some who are uneducated as to their faith, but I think most will see through your arguments as they now stand.

You are right that we are not “christian” in a Nicene Creed sense, because we do not accept the Nicene Creed. If that is what defines “christians” we ain’t it. If accepting Jesus Christ as our personal savior and God who died for our sins individually, thus saving us by grace is the definition, that is exactly where we are.

I will pray for you as well.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My understanding of the redemptive nature of the passion derives from my meditation on the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary and reading Catholic apologists and seeing the movie “The Passion of the Christ” - not from any Mormon influence.

Thanks for articulating my point Paul. School takes up much of my attention and I don’t have as much time to respond as I once did.

The mysteries of the Rosary are all a part of Christ’s Passion. His death upon the cross and His resurrection was His redemptive act of opening heaven to us.

Catechism:

**1026 By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has “opened” heaven to us. The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ. **

 

[mfbukowski]

My understanding of the redemptive nature of the passion derives from my meditation on the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary and reading Catholic apologists and seeing the movie “The Passion of the Christ” - not from any Mormon influence.

I did not mean to imply Mormon influence - I was simply explaining your background as I understand it.

I think that we as Mormons need to ponder and meditate more than we do, because that is when true understanding comes. We preach it, but for the most part, I think we do not do it. I think that is the real benefit of the rosary for Catholics. As a Mormon I have come up with regular routines of meditation on a personal basis which I have found very valuable.

 

[coleraine]

Distortions seeking to bury the question at hand. How did Paul know his vision was real?

they are not distortions you just cant respond because your pastor hasnt burned a response into your mind yet

 

[Chris-WA]

Read Paul’s post again? He was mocking lds revelation and how young men tell young women that they met in the preexistence and decided to marry on earth. And they do so to convince the young woman to say yes. I equated such revelation with a raging hormone.

I remember that time well too. It was used quite a lot. Usually on the fourth date back in the 1970’s… But usually the young women saw through it. I am sure that the young men believed what they said but…

You mean the same way Joseph Smith claimed a revelation from God when he told his wife Emma that she must accept his plural wives or face destruction? Too bad Emma didn’t stick to her guns. Can’t really blame her though, since she was after all under extreme duress from a death threat. At least the men at BYU didn’t claim their girlfriends would be destroyed if they said no to the marriage proposal.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

It sounds like you are saying that there are “facts” out there somewhere which no one has discovered yet?

That is exactly what I am saying.

e.g. It is a fact that either there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, or there is not.

Intelligent life elsewhere in the universe does not blink in and out of existence as we sift through the evidence.

Similarly, either jews did migrate to North America before Christ, or they did not. The fact does not blink in and out of existence as we sort the geographical and historical evidence supporting and opposing the contention.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Chris-WA]

Why don’t you tell us what else “those Mormons” do to help the destitute in those countries and give the Mormons a break !

Obviously you did not read back far enough on this thread because you completely misunderstood my post. One of the LDS posters criticized the Catholic Church for buidling expensive cathedrals in places where there was poverty instead of using those riches to aid the poor. I was merely pointing out that this was a hypocritical thing to say because the LDS also build lavish structures in countries where there is poverty. Neither church is wrong for doing so. There is nothing wrong with building such edifices. Both churches also help the poor. I was merely pointing out the double-standard on the part of the LDS poster.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I do not subscribe to the difference between public and private revelation as described here:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011bt.asp

If I understand it correctly, the difference between public and private revelation is exactly the difference between what is revealed in the bible and what is revealed to individuals.

I understand that, being an LDS member, you subscribe to the idea that public revelation is ongoing. On that point we can respectfully disagree. But that’s not really the point I was trying to address. My point is that we cannot rely on personal revelations to support the truths of our religious doctrines, because there is no way to verify the validity of the reveleation as inspired. In other words, I think it is improper to suggest that I can ascertain the validity of the LDS faith by reading the Book of Mormon and then asking the HS to send me a revelation that it is either true or false. Similarly, I think it is improper of me to suggest that you ascertain the validity of the truths of the Catholic Church by taking a copy of the Catechism home, reading it, and asking the HS to come and reveal to you its truth.

mfbukowski:

What this point of view ignores is that the bible was revealed to INDIVIDUALS. People just like you and me who admittedly were more spiritually advanced (speaking for myself at least) who received visions etc. As we have said Mary, Paul, Peter (shall we all sing Kumbayah?) Moses, Abraham-- all these were people who received what you would call “private” revelations, which magically became “public” revelation by being recoded and then that record being placed in the right manuscript which was later copied by the right scribe and defined by the right church council to be called “The Bible”. There is no essential difference between public and private revelation, except that one is defined as public because it is in the bible.

You are incorrect here. Go back and reread the article. Public revelation involved God over time revealing himself to all of mankind through the history Adam, Abraham, Moses, David and ultimately by sending us His final Word on the subject, Jesus Christ. Public revelation ended with Jesus Christ because, after His own Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, died and rose from the dead, there was nothing left to be revealed publicly. Private revelation does not exceed what was encompassed in this original body of public revelation. I understand that you disagree with this notion. But your disagreement on this point does not invalidate my original point - i.e. that personal subjective spiritual experiences cannot be a proper basis for validating doctrine as true or false.

mfbukowski:

It is exactly analagous to Pluto being redefined as a “non-planet”. The only thing that has been changed about Pluto is its definition.

Wrong analogy. Private revelation is to Public revelation what “commentary” is to Scripture. Sometimes informative. Sometimes confusing. Never binding. And, importantly, not extending beyond what it seeks to comment upon.

mfbukowski:

I was fascinated to read an article recently about many “new” fish species which have been "discovered " by scientists — where did they find them? In fish markets in the orient!

People have been eating these fish for thousands of years, and they know where and how to catch them, and what parts to eat and not eat, but because some western scientist wanders down the right alley and suddenly sees something new TO HIM, “a new species is discovered”!! Unbelievable arrogance!

I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that rejecting private revelation as a proper basis for ascertaining truth of doctrine is arrogant?

mfbukowski:

Again, the only thing that has changed is now the fish is on the scientists list, whereas before it was on an unknown fisherman’s list which had been passed to him for generations. This is a perfect analogy for how private revelations end up in the bible.

This takes inspiration entirely out of the writers’ hands, and removes the magesterial authority of the Church from the process of selecting the canon of scripture. And it also makes some faulty presuppositions about the nature of OT writing, which is beyond the context of this discussion. And, as noted above, public revelation is more than simply revelation included in the bible.

mfbukowski:

Revelation has not ended with Jesus Christ. Why would it? Do we not need revelation any more? Have we solved all the worlds problems?

Christianity uniformly agrees that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, becuase Jesus was the final Word by which God revealed His nature to humanity. We do not need any new revelation. What we need is to pay more attention to what was revealed by God in Christ. And we have not solved all the worlds problems, but with Christ we could. Nothing new regarding Him needs to be revealed for this to happen.

mfbukowski:

More importantly, have we come to the “unity of the faith” predicted in the bible? If we had, we would not be here discussing our differences.

No. But continuing public revelation would move us all further from that unity.

(continued on next post)

 

[Robert_in_SD]

(CONTINUATION OF POST 202 TO ROBERT IN SD)

So the essential question has not been answered.

How do we know that Mary was telling the truth about the angel who declared the annunication upon which the incarnation of Christ, the virgin birth and much of christian doctrine depends?

We know the truth by faith and reason. Both are gifts of God. Most people go their whole lives without receiving a private revelation. Many have faith despite that lack.

mfbukowski:

Are we to take the word of the Magesterium because it is in the bible and the Magesterium says so, or is there another way?

Protestants don’t seem to need the authority of the magesterium. They take the Virgin Birth as a matter of christian dogma - without proof other than the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and those who came thereafter.

mfbukowski:

There is another way, and that is by direct revelation to each of our hearts.

But God does not give the gift of private revelation to all people. Are you not confusing revelation with grace here?

mfbukowski:

You quoted me a situation where my wife wakes up one morning and tells me she has seen an angel and is to marry another man. I have another one for you that is better, and actually happened. Suppose your wife wakes up one morning and tells you she is pregnant, and you know the baby is not yours. What’s more, she tells you that the baby was conceived by God.

How do you handle that little problem?

I pray for guidance; strength, compassion, truth, etc. And I talk to my wife about her belief.

mfbukowski:

You do what Joseph did. You pray and receive a direct revelation that she was right.

I suppose that if I was lucky enough to receive God’s direct revelation that my wife’s child was conceived by the power of the HS, that would change my actions. But the point of my original hypothetical was that I would not accept my wife’s revelation as truth without questioning, praying, searching of my own. Apparently, you would not either.

mfbukowski:

What would you do in that situation?

Pray for the same spirit of discernment that St. Joseph was given (and invite St. Joseph to intercede as well).

mfbukowski:

Would you believe the revelation that you received?

I don’t know. What if the revelation I received was different from my wife’s revelation? Which should I believe?

mfbukowski:

Would you believe that the baby had been conceived by God?

I don’t know. What if my personal revelation differed substantially from my wife’s? Should I believe either of them. Should I think this was some sort of trick or reality TV practical joke show? It’s hard to say. But my point was about a situation where you have competing personal revelations. What if my vision told me that Allah had deigned to send another prophet to preach the message of Muhhammad to the Western world? Should I believe that message, or my wife’s message that the God of Israel was sending another Messiah?

mfbukowski:

Or would you go to the Magesterium and ask their opinion?

If my wife and I were receiving conflicting messages from an entity claiming to be God, you’d better believe I would want to call in the experts for their guidance and assistance on the matter.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

That is exactly what I am saying.

e.g. It is a fact that either there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, or there is not.

Intelligent life elsewhere in the universe does not blink in and out of existence as we sift through the evidence.

Similarly, either jews did migrate to North America before Christ, or they did not. The fact does not blink in and out of existence as we sort the geographical and historical evidence supporting and opposing the contention.

Peace,
-Robert

No, these are tautologies, not facts. Tautologies are by definition always true and convey no real information.

“The moon is made of green cheese, or it is not” Is true

“I can fly like a bird or I cannot” Is true

But neither of these propositions convey any useful information.

Facts can be true or false, depending on their context. There are no facts about things which do not exist, or have not happened yet.