Mormons; why don't you have crosses in your churches?

[sweetnay]

Yes.

And?

Indeed?

Please look very closely at the rules of this forum. Examine what is allowed under those rules and what is not allowed under those rules…and look at the sort of language that is permitted to Catholics defending Catholicism, as opposed to the sort of language that is permitted to non-Catholics defending their own faiths.

At your own posts, for instance.

This is a moderated forum that is heavily weighted toward Catholicism, and THAT IS AS IT SHOULD BE, don’t get me wrong. It is your forum, and though I do remind people from time to time that this specific sub-forum is for the discussion of non-Catholic religions, the forum rules remain the same: under 'Conduct Rules," rule #7 states: “Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectfurl of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.”

Please note: *there is no rule that says that anybody, Catholics or non–have to be respectful of anybody else’s faith. *

More people attempt to be even handed in here than do else where, but…it is still rather onesided. For instance, how often have you and others here called Joseph Smith horrific names? How often have you and others shown incredible disrespect for our faith? How often have you called our leaders frauds, criminals, murderers even…right down to deserving the persecutions and the deaths that they suffered?

No, I’m not talking about saying “I don’t agree with that,” or “I think that Joseph Smith was either a false prophet” or “I think the Book of Mormon is not scripture…” and then giving reasons why. I’m talking about saying things like “Joseph Smith was a con-man” or a criminal, or a murderer, or a pedophile, or deserved his death, or any number of other things that, if I wrote them about any of the Popes, would get me banned from CAF for life…as it should.

If this forum were the ‘free and open debate’ you claim for it, the rules would be the same for everybody. They aren’t, and that’s just plain fact. The forum rules are right here on top of the page. Go look 'em up.

I’m not complaining about it, oddly enough. It’s a Catholic forum, and frankly, the rules as they exist here are about the only way you guys are going to have a place where it is possible to discuss Catholicism without the trolls coming in. Your right, your privilege, and I’m fine with that.

Just understand, please, that those of us who are NOT Catholic are also aware that we come in here under different rules than you do. You may say things about our faith that we cannot say about yours. You may behave in a manner that we may not follow. You may use insults that are barred to us.

We must respect your faith. You have no limit upon the disrespect you may show ours.

When the rules are different, then the debate is not 'open" or without a predetermined outcome, NOR do we have access to the same rights as anyone here.

I understand the rules. I may even agree with them–mostly. That does NOT mean I have to pretend that they are something they are not.

If you have relations w a 14 year old girl, Society at Large (SAL) considers you a pedophile.
-When you are convicted in a court of law for “money digging” a con fraud, SAL considers you a “con man”
-when you have relations and “marry” someone who is already married, SAL considers you an “adulterer”.

Calling Joseph Smith a pedophile, adulterer and con man are facts. Not the same as saying he’s ugly or something,a pointless slander. These are just facts. Sorry. I’m not saying no one else has ever done these things, but in the context of discussing Joseph Smith specifically, these are the facts.

 

[dianaiad]

I said it was an “open debate”, I did not say it was a “free” debate, you put words in my mouth and that is deceptive.

If you think there are some rules that prohibit you from giving a proper defense then state them on the thread, shoe the link and the exact rule itself.

“Free” and “open” are synonyms in this context.

As to showing the exact rule, I did that. Rule #7 under “Forum Rules,” subsection “Conduct rules,” The link is at the top of this page. It reads (please note that this is the second time I have posted this for you.) “Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectfurl of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board”

There is no corresponding rule instructing Catholics to be respectful of non-Catholic faiths, nor is there a corresponding rule instructing anybody to be respectful of any faith but Catholicism.

Don’t take my word for this, though. Go look. It’s right. up. there. At the top of the page.

I could consider that this is a simple oversight; that readers would automatically consider that they should be respectful of the faiths of religions other than Catholic, except of course that in many cases they are not.

For instance, you wrote (about Mormons and Mormonism) “Just like a cult…” “So says the Mormon brainwasher, who NEVER gives a STRAIGHT ANSWER…” "

Plus you have placed more than one link to self avowed anti-Mormon publications in your
posts. Now it could be just me, but I would consider posting links to anti-Catholic sources to be very disrespectful of Catholicism, when done for the reason you posted your links–as a ‘proof’ of how horrific the church is or how incorrect it is…and you have used the term ‘lying for Jesus’ in terms of Mormons.

…and you are not, by any means, the most disrespectful debater on this forum.

When we have threads like “The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are Brainwashed” and “Mormons prefer to prey on which? - Catholics or Protestants?” and threads with these titles are allowed to stay open…

Can you imagine a title like “The Catholics are brainwashed idol worshipers” being allowed to stay on? How about “Catholics prey on which?- Jews or Protestants?”

Won’t happen.

There is a thread on right now, where PattyPryor apologized, very graciously, for starting the 'brainwashed" thread. Within three posts of her OP, people were yelling at her, and excoriating the Mormons. This is respect for the faiths of others?

As to being able to defend my beliefs…you are fairly new, sir, or you would know better. I’m not here to defend my beliefs. At least, not to prove that they are ‘true.’ I only wish to make certain that those who disagree with my beliefs disagree with what they actually are, not some strawman construct.

If during the process I get a little frustrated at the unevenness of the rules, oh, well, that’s what the rules are. I do not, however, feel like allowing you to claim that we are on an even playing field. We aren’t.

(shrug) But then you would be similarly handicapped, I understand, if you were to post on MADB. I"m not certain about that, mind you, but it’s possible.

 

[aquabatix]

Originally Posted by ParkerD View Post
The differentiation between the Nephites and the Lamanites had to do with which group was spiritually dead because they didn’t follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost beginning in 588 BC, but all that changed in about 90 BC when many Lamanites began joining the true church of Christ and received the Holy Ghost in their lives.

I have read some amazing things on these Mormon threads. This is the first time I have heard of Church existing “BC”. I always thought that Jesus built the Church, and that He gave the HS after His resurrection. To find that these things actually happened 90 years before He was born is quite eye opening.

I agree with guanophore. I don’t understand what ParkerD is saying.

So the Lamanites joined the “true church of Christ” 90 YEARS before He was born?!? How does that work?

 

[Janet1983]

so the lamanites joined the “true church of christ” 90 years before he was born?!? How does that work?

lol!!

 

[Janet1983]

If you have relations w a 14 year old girl, Society at Large (SAL) considers you a pedophile.
-When you are convicted in a court of law for “money digging” a con fraud, SAL considers you a “con man”
-when you have relations and “marry” someone who is already married, SAL considers you an “adulterer”.

Calling Joseph Smith a pedophile, adulterer and con man are facts. Not the same as saying he’s ugly or something,a pointless slander. These are just facts. Sorry. I’m not saying no one else has ever done these things, but in the context of discussing Joseph Smith specifically, these are the facts.

That is exactly it…
Unfortunately you will not get any response unless you mention it again in some other post after which you will hear exactly the same complaints…

 

[ParkerD]

Originally Posted by ParkerD View Post
The differentiation between the Nephites and the Lamanites had to do with which group was spiritually dead because they didn’t follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost beginning in 588 BC, but all that changed in about 90 BC when many Lamanites began joining the true church of Christ and received the Holy Ghost in their lives.

I agree with guanophore. I don’t understand what ParkerD is saying.

So the Lamanites joined the “true church of Christ” 90 YEARS before He was born?!? How does that work?

Aquabatix,
These descendants of Manasseh (house of Israel) living in the New World had knowledge of the mission of Jesus Christ who was to come. Here is an example of a conversion experience from Helaman 5:

18 And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi did preach unto the Lamanites with such great power and authority…, and they also had what they should speak given unto them—
19 Therefore they did speak unto the great astonishment of the Lamanites, to the convincing them, insomuch that there were eight thousand of the Lamanites who were… baptized unto repentance…
20 And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi did proceed from thence to go to the land of Nephi.
21 …
22 And after they had been cast into prison many days … 23 And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi were encircled about as if by fire, even insomuch that they durst not lay their hands upon them for fear lest they should be burned. Nevertheless, Nephi and Lehi were not burned; and they were as standing in the midst of fire and were not burned.
24 And when they saw that they were encircled about with a pillar of fire, and that it burned them not, their hearts did take courage.
25 For they saw that the Lamanites durst not lay their hands upon them; neither durst they come near unto them, but stood as if they were struck dumb with amazement.
26 And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi did stand forth and began to speak unto them, saying: Fear not, for behold, it is God that has shown unto you this marvelous thing,…
27 And behold, when they had said these words, the earth shook exceedingly, and the walls of the prison did shake as if they were about to tumble to the earth; but behold, they did not fall. And behold, they that were in the prison were Lamanites and Nephites who were dissenters.
28 And it came to pass that they were overshadowed with a cloud of darkness, and an awful solemn fear came upon them.
29 And it came to pass that there came a voice as if it were above the cloud of darkness, saying: Repent ye, repent ye, and seek no more to destroy my servants whom I have sent unto you to declare good tidings.
30 And it came to pass when they heard this voice, and beheld that it was not a voice of thunder, neither was it a voice of a great tumultuous noise, but behold, it was a still voice of perfect mildness, as if it had been a whisper, and it did pierce even to the very soul—
31 And notwithstanding the mildness of the voice, behold the earth shook exceedingly, and the walls of the prison trembled again, as if it were about to tumble to the earth; and behold the cloud of darkness, which had overshadowed them, did not disperse—
32 And behold the voice came again, saying: Repent ye, repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; and seek no more to destroy my servants. And it came to pass that the earth shook again, and the walls trembled.
33 And also again the third time the voice came, and did speak unto them marvelous words which cannot be uttered by man; and the walls did tremble again, and the earth shook as if it were about to divide asunder.
34 And it came to pass that the Lamanites could not flee because of the cloud of darkness which did overshadow them; yea, and also they were immovable because of the fear which did come upon them.
35 Now there was one among them who was a Nephite by birth, who had once belonged to the church of God but had dissented from them.
36 And it came to pass that he turned him about, and behold, he saw through the cloud of darkness the faces of Nephi and Lehi; and behold, they did shine exceedingly, even as the faces of angels. And he beheld that they did lift their eyes to heaven; and they were in the attitude as if talking or lifting their voices to some being whom they beheld.
37 And it came to pass that this man did cry unto the multitude, that they might turn and look. And behold, there was power given unto them that they did turn and look; and they did behold the faces of Nephi and Lehi.
38 And they said unto the man: Behold, what do all these things mean, and who is it with whom these men do converse?
39 Now the man’s name was Aminadab. And Aminadab said unto them: They do converse with the angels of God.
40 And it came to pass that the Lamanites said unto him: What shall we do, that this cloud of darkness may be removed from overshadowing us?
41 And Aminadab said unto them: You must repent, and cry unto the voice, even until ye shall have faith in Christ, who was taught unto you by Alma, and Amulek, and Zeezrom; and when ye shall do this, the cloud of darkness shall be removed from overshadowing you.

 

[ParkerD]

Originally Posted by ParkerD View Post
The differentiation between the Nephites and the Lamanites had to do with which group was spiritually dead because they didn’t follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost beginning in 588 BC, but all that changed in about 90 BC when many Lamanites began joining the true church of Christ and received the Holy Ghost in their lives.

Continuation from Helaman 5:
42 And it came to pass that they all did begin to cry unto the voice of him who had shaken the earth; yea, they did cry even until the cloud of darkness was dispersed.
43 And it came to pass that when they cast their eyes about, and saw that the cloud of darkness was dispersed from overshadowing them, behold, they saw that they were encircled about, yea every soul, by a pillar of fire.
44 And Nephi and Lehi were in the midst of them; yea, they were encircled about; yea, they were as if in the midst of a flaming fire, yet it did harm them not, neither did it take hold upon the walls of the prison; and they were filled with that joy which is unspeakable and full of glory.
45 And behold, the Holy Spirit of God did come down from heaven, and did enter into their hearts, and they were filled as if with fire, and they could speak forth marvelous words.
46 And it came to pass that there came a voice unto them, yea, a pleasant voice, as if it were a whisper, saying:
47 Peace, peace be unto you, because of your faith in my Well Beloved, who was from the foundation of the world.
48 And now, when they heard this they cast up their eyes as if to behold from whence the voice came; and behold, they saw the heavens open; and angels came down out of heaven and ministered unto them.
49 And there were about three hundred souls who saw and heard these things; and they were bidden to go forth and marvel not, neither should they doubt.
50 And it came to pass that they did go forth, and did minister unto the people, …insomuch that the more part of the Lamanites were convinced of them, because of the greatness of the evidences which they had received.
51 And as many as were convinced did lay down their weapons of war, and also their hatred and the tradition of their fathers.

There are many other examples. These people, Nephites and Lamanites, had baptism, the Holy Spirit, and a faith and belief in Christ before He was born because prophets knew about His life and mission. (Isaiah also knew, and prophesied plainly. Others knew His name as well as His Messianic mission and message.)

 

[Jerusha]

You don’t need to have Parker quote whole passages from the BOM and explain it for you. You are certainly capable of reading it on your own and making up your own mind about it.

2think.org/hundredsheep/bom1830/bom_main.shtml

 

[dianaiad]

If you have relations w a 14 year old girl, Society at Large (SAL) considers you a pedophile

-When you are convicted in a court of law for “money digging” a con fraud, SAL considers you a “con man”

Except of course that he was not.

-when you have relations and “marry” someone who is already married, SAL considers you an “adulterer”.

Calling Joseph Smith a pedophile, adulterer and con man are facts. Not the same as saying he’s ugly or something,a pointless slander. These are just facts. Sorry. I’m not saying no one else has ever done these things, but in the context of discussing Joseph Smith specifically, these are the facts.

Polygamy is a cultural and religious issue; adultery is what happens when a married person has sex with a person married to another. Thus, even though David was a polygamist, he was not an adulterer until he dallied with Bathsheba.

Therefore, calling Joseph Smith an ‘adulterer’ is not a fact, but opinion and a pejorative.

“pedophilia,” is defined as the sexual preference for prepubescent children. No matter what you might think of Joseph smith, that does not apply to him. Nobody, no matter how nastily they attack him, has ever accused him of having sex with, or even desiring, sex with prepubescent children.

Therefore, calling Joseph Smith a ‘pedophile’ is not fact, but an opinion and a pejorative.

Since Joseph was never convicted of a crime, (even the Tanners admit that the 1826 ‘examination’ doesn’t qualify as a trial or a conviction) then the term ‘con-man’ is not fact, but opinion and pejorative.

You are entitled to your opinions, of course. But since I have just established that your opinions are not, in fact, ‘FACTS,’ then your opinions, stated as if they were fact, is extremely disrespectful to our faith.

 

[sweetnay]

Except of course that he was not.

Polygamy is a cultural and religious issue; adultery is what happens when a married person has sex with a person married to another. Thus, even though David was a polygamist, he was not an adulterer until he dallied with Bathsheba.

Therefore, calling Joseph Smith an ‘adulterer’ is not a fact, but opinion and a pejorative.

“pedophilia,” is defined as the sexual preference for prepubescent children. No matter what you might think of Joseph smith, that does not apply to him. Nobody, no matter how nastily they attack him, has ever accused him of having sex with, or even desiring, sex with prepubescent children.

Therefore, calling Joseph Smith a ‘pedophile’ is not fact, but an opinion and a pejorative.

Since Joseph was never convicted of a crime, (even the Tanners admit that the 1826 ‘examination’ doesn’t qualify as a trial or a conviction) then the term ‘con-man’ is not fact, but opinion and pejorative.

You are entitled to your opinions, of course. But since I have just established that your opinions are not, in fact, ‘FACTS,’ then your opinions, stated as if they were fact, is extremely disrespectful to our faith.

Um, except he did marry and have sex with women already married and um, having sex w a 14 year old is pedophelia. And pls don’t hold him to an Old Testament standard of polygamy–you really are reaching w that one…

 

[dianaiad]

Um, except he did marry and have sex with women already married and um, having sex w a 14 year old is pedophelia. And pls don’t hold him to an Old Testament standard of polygamy–you really are reaching w that one…

Um, except that he did not.

And a fourteen year old is not prepubescent, even if he HAD sex with one, which he did not. And of course I can hold him to OT standards of polygamy. those were the standards he was using. Religious differences, Sweetnay.

Your opinions are not facts, no matter how much you want to believe that they are.

 

[sweetnay]

Um, except that he did not.

Really!??

And a fourteen year old is not prepubescent, even if he HAD sex with one, which he did not.

So sex w a 14 year is just swell w you–oh if it did happen that is…nice

And of course I can hold him to OT standards of polygamy. those were the standards he was using. Religious differences, Sweetnay.

Your darn right!! So stop calling yourselves “christians” and we have no argument.

Your opinions are not facts, no matter how much you want to believe that they are.

Now THAT’S irony!!! You believe what you want in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary–I suppose OJ is innocent too…le sigh…

Rebecca was right, dialogue with you is pointless…

I’m outeeeeeee

 

[mjf001]

Michael,
While several posting here are on the subject of knowledge and the advancement and spread of knowledge, could you explain the treatment by Catholic leaders of their time, of John Wycliffe and William Tyndale, with respect to the Bible being translated into English? I have wanted to try and understand how people reconcile the actions against those two who sought the spread of knowledge in the language of the common people. Thanks when you have time to respond. I will appreciate being able to read your perspective, and am not trying to “corner you”–just understand a point of view.

Parker,
I have now looked into both John Wycliffe and William Tyndale. I already responded to you on Wycliffe, so this post will focus on Tyndale.

First, from my reading I can tell you the Catholic Church did not have a problem with the printing of the Bible in the vernacular language. A person could go into the church and find Bibles in the vernacular language, which the could study at their leisure. These Bibles were commonly “chained” to the walls because they were expensive to produce and they didn’t want people walking off with them. The main point is, anyone who could read could come into the church and read these Bibles.

My second point is one you may have a problem with, but it needs to be made. The magisterium of the Church has several responsibilities. I’m only going to deal with two items here.

1. To safeguard the deposit of faith from error.
2. To teach the faith to the faithful.

William Tyndale was a Catholic priest, who showed contempt for the clergy, from the pope down. He requested permission from the Holy See to be allowed to translate the Bible, but he was turned down, in part for his unorthodox positions on several issues. I can’t elaborate on these, because none of the articles I’ve read specified what they were prior to leaving England. From England, where he apparently met Martin Luther. According to the various articles I’ve read, there were three prologues inserted in 3 books of the NT, which were English copies of the prologues in Luther’s Bible. In addition, Tyndale included a preface and an epilogue of his own, which showed his contempt for the clergy, and was further filled with distinctly Lutheran theology.

In one article I read, it was noted that the Bishop of London counted 2,000 errors in Tyndale’s text of the NT.  In another, the Bishop of London was so distressed over the translation, he asked Sir Thomas More to look at selection of writings from Tyndale (the NT was apparently among them), and asked More to comment.  Sir Thomas More wrote the “Dialogue on Heresies,” in response to his readings.

William Tyndale drew the ire of the King Henry VIII.  Tyndale was betrayed and handed over to the English authorities, where he was convicted of Heresy.  He was strangled at the stake and burned to death by order of the King of England.

Above is my summation of the major points I’ve found while researching William Tyndale.  Did the Church oppose his translation?  The answer is an emphatic, yes.  Did the Church oppose the translation because they didn’t wish for an English translation of the Bible widely distributed to the people?  The answer is an emphatic, no.  They were exercising their duty to protect the deposit of faith and to teach the people.  As mentioned before, there were already Bible in the vernacular language in the churches; there were also Bibles available for purchase that they were having trouble selling.  The issue was one of proper translation – free from error or ulterior motives.  
So, to answer your original question as to Wycliffe and Tyndale, no I don’t have a problem with the Church’s response or reaction to either one of them.  The Church wasn’t involved in Tyndale’s death, King Henry was.  The Church condemned heretical writings and/or statements, which from a Catholic point of view is proper.  I would expect them to do it today, if it came up.

I look forward to your response,
In Christ,
Michael

 

[dianaiad]

Now THAT’S irony!!! You believe what you want in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary–I suppose OJ is innocent too…le sigh…

Rebecca was right, dialogue with you is pointless…

I’m outeeeeeee

It is when you equate a scientific fact like ‘14 year olds are not prepubescent’ with saying that sex with a fourteen year old is OK, or when you equate a belief that Joseph Smith was innocent of having sex with a fourteen year old with believing that OJ Simpson was innocent.

Having a conversation with someone who uses that sort of insane fallacious reasoning is like attempting to debate quantum theory with Einstein’s beard.

As a matter of fact, Helen Mar Kimball was two months shy of her fifteenth birthday when she was ‘sealed’ to Joseph Smith in May of 1843. She continued to live with her parents–and never lived with Joseph. After Joseph’s death the following year, she met Horace Whitney, and married him when she was seventeen and a half. It was made mostly because her father was Heber J. Kimball.

Helen was a life long supporter of the practice of polygamy, and never once regretted her choice–made when she was almost fifteen, not barely fourteen–and at an age where it was perfectly permissible for girls to marry.

Today? No. I don’t think it is a good thing to have sex with a fourteen year old. Too bad so many fourteen year olds don’t agree with me. Too bad that, according to the Kaiser Foundation, over a third of them have had sex by the time they are fourteen. Too bad that you think that a man marrying an almost fifteen year old girl according to his religion (and her permission) almost two hundred years ago is worth so much more condemnation than what is happening to YOUR teenagers right this minute.

Last year in my high school, with a ninth grade population of 800 14 year olds, 460 were girls. Of those, 200 were already sexually active. 15 of those got pregnant. Four of those pregnant girls were working on their second baby.

None of those pregnant girls was Mormon. Three were “Christian”, one was ‘decline to state,’ and eleven were Catholic.

Of the sophomore class, 503 girls…312 admitted to being sexually active. Of those, 24 were pregnant–three working on their second child. Again, no Mormons, 12 Catholics, the rest ‘Christian’ or ‘decline to state.’

Of the Juniors, 312 girls (kids are starting to drop out…) 234 admitted to having had sex, 5 were pregnant…1 working on baby #2, and 1 on baby # 3. (her first two were twins.)
Again, none were Mormon. The rest were Catholic.

Of the Seniors, 214 girls; 160 admitted to having had sex. One pregnancy (she had the baby just before graduation) Catholic. She married the day after her graduation. She was headed for UCLA–and may eventually get there, who knows?

So. I guess you think that having sex and babies at the age of fourteen is just dandy, as long as the daddy is properly Catholic?

(Let’s see if anybody here gets the point.)

 

[Janet1983]

Last year in my high school, with a ninth grade population of 800 14 year olds, 460 were girls. Of those, 200 were already sexually active. 15 of those got pregnant. Four of those pregnant girls were working on their second baby.

None of those pregnant girls was Mormon. Three were “Christian”, one was ‘decline to state,’ and eleven were Catholic.

Of the sophomore class, 503 girls…312 admitted to being sexually active. Of those, 24 were pregnant–three working on their second child. Again, no Mormons, 12 Catholics, the rest ‘Christian’ or ‘decline to state.’

Of the Juniors, 312 girls (kids are starting to drop out…) 234 admitted to having had sex, 5 were pregnant…1 working on baby #2, and 1 on baby # 3. (her first two were twins.)
Again, none were Mormon. The rest were Catholic.

Of the Seniors, 214 girls; 160 admitted to having had sex. One pregnancy (she had the baby just before graduation) Catholic. She married the day after her graduation. She was headed for UCLA–and may eventually get there, who knows?

So. I guess you think that having sex and babies at the age of fourteen is just dandy, as long as the daddy is properly Catholic?

(Let’s see if anybody here gets the point.)

You’ll actually try and tell us that the absolutely sad fact that so many teenagers get pregnant today is a reason for us to look different at J.S.Jr.?
Seriously… Those kids have relations with kids of their own age and they want to do so. Even though it might be wrong according to the law or just morally it does not make J.S. better or the circumstances his wives were in…
Helen Mar Kimball was 14 (they got sealed in May and she turned 15 in August). That is definitely a difference, especially considering the fact that J.S. was 29… She was 14! (Try and buy a beer a couple of months before your 21st and you will know the difference.)

"[My father]
asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph … [Smith] said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.‘] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. … [After the marriage] I felt quite sore over it … and thought myself an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur."

 

[dianaiad]

You’ll actually try and tell us that the absolutely sad fact that so many teenagers get pregnant today is a reason for us to look different at J.S.Jr.?
Seriously… Those kids have relations with kids of their own age and they want to do so. Even though it might be wrong according to the law or just morally it does not make J.S. better or the circumstances his wives were in…
Helen Mar Kimball was 14 (they got sealed in May and she turned 15 in August). That is definitely a difference, especially considering the fact that J.S. was 29… She was 14! (Try and buy a beer a couple of months before your 21st and you will know the difference.)

That’s one who didn’t get the point. I wonder how many others do not?

 

[mjf001]

That’s one who didn’t get the point. I wonder how many others do not?

Enlighten us, please.

 

[dianaiad]

Enlighten us, please.

The point is about fallacious reasoning and debating styles. Here is a poster who, when I point out that it is a fallacy to figure that my factual statement about what pedophilia is (a sexual attraction to prepubescent children) and that Joseph Smith was not that—accuses me of saying that it’s OK to have sex with fourteen year olds.

…and then tells me that I am impossible to talk to!!!

So I turned the tables. The pregnancy rate of modern teenagers (especially their religious affiliation) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Joseph Smith. Mentioning that most of the pregnant teenagers in my old school are Catholic is also irrelevent (of course most of them are Catholic; the neighborhood, and thus the school, is mostly Hispanic.)

The times are different. The mores are different. the attitudes are different, and my mentioning this does not mean anything—it is illogical and a lousy debate tactic. I submit that it’s closer to the point than what Sweetnay et. all, pull with their accusations of approving sex with fourteen year olds because I point out that they are insulting, off base, inaccurate and disrespectful to my faith in regard to Joseph Smith, but still…

I was wondering if anybody got the irony, is all—that it is permissible to call me immoral and an approver of adults having sex with fourteen year olds because I correct them on a matter of fact, and then get insulted and huffy because I use a different debate fallacy (and a far less disrespectful one) in return.

---

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
I have now looked into both John Wycliffe and William Tyndale. I already responded to you on Wycliffe, so this post will focus on Tyndale.

First, from my reading I can tell you the Catholic Church did not have a problem with the printing of the Bible in the vernacular language. A person could go into the church and find Bibles in the vernacular language, which the could study at their leisure. These Bibles were commonly “chained” to the walls because they were expensive to produce and they didn’t want people walking off with them. The main point is, anyone who could read could come into the church and read these Bibles.

My second point is one you may have a problem with, but it needs to be made. The magisterium of the Church has several responsibilities. I’m only going to deal with two items here.

1. To safeguard the deposit of faith from error.
2. To teach the faith to the faithful.

William Tyndale was a Catholic priest, who showed contempt for the clergy, from the pope down. He requested permission from the Holy See to be allowed to translate the Bible, but he was turned down, in part for his unorthodox positions on several issues. I can’t elaborate on these, because none of the articles I’ve read specified what they were prior to leaving England. From England, where he apparently met Martin Luther. According to the various articles I’ve read, there were three prologues inserted in 3 books of the NT, which were English copies of the prologues in Luther’s Bible. In addition, Tyndale included a preface and an epilogue of his own, which showed his contempt for the clergy, and was further filled with distinctly Lutheran theology.

In one article I read, it was noted that the Bishop of London counted 2,000 errors in Tyndale’s text of the NT.  In another, the Bishop of London was so distressed over the translation, he asked Sir Thomas More to look at selection of writings from Tyndale (the NT was apparently among them), and asked More to comment.  Sir Thomas More wrote the “Dialogue on Heresies,” in response to his readings.

William Tyndale drew the ire of the King Henry VIII.  Tyndale was betrayed and handed over to the English authorities, where he was convicted of Heresy.  He was strangled at the stake and burned to death by order of the King of England.

Above is my summation of the major points I’ve found while researching William Tyndale.  Did the Church oppose his translation?  The answer is an emphatic, yes.  Did the Church oppose the translation because they didn’t wish for an English translation of the Bible widely distributed to the people?  The answer is an emphatic, no.  They were exercising their duty to protect the deposit of faith and to teach the people.  As mentioned before, there were already Bible in the vernacular language in the churches; there were also Bibles available for purchase that they were having trouble selling.  The issue was one of proper translation – free from error or ulterior motives.  
So, to answer your original question as to Wycliffe and Tyndale, no I don’t have a problem with the Church’s response or reaction to either one of them.  The Church wasn’t involved in Tyndale’s death, King Henry was.  The Church condemned heretical writings and/or statements, which from a Catholic point of view is proper.  I would expect them to do it today, if it came up.

I look forward to your response,
In Christ,
Michael

Michael,
Thanks. As I had said earlier, I just wanted a Catholic viewpoint, and I thank you for it. I think I’m going to leave it at that, being a guest here and all.

 

[mjf001]

The point is about fallacious reasoning and debating styles. Here is a poster who, when I point out that it is a fallacy to figure that my factual statement about what pedophilia is (a sexual attraction to prepubescent children) and that Joseph Smith was not that—accuses me of saying that it’s OK to have sex with fourteen year olds.

…and then tells me that I am impossible to talk to!!!

So I turned the tables. The pregnancy rate of modern teenagers (especially their religious affiliation) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Joseph Smith. Mentioning that most of the pregnant teenagers in my old school are Catholic is also irrelevent (of course most of them are Catholic; the neighborhood, and thus the school, is mostly Hispanic.)

The times are different. The mores are different. the attitudes are different, and my mentioning this does not mean anything—it is illogical and a lousy debate tactic. I submit that it’s closer to the point than what Sweetnay et. all, pull with their accusations of approving sex with fourteen year olds because I point out that they are insulting, off base, inaccurate and disrespectful to my faith in regard to Joseph Smith, but still…

I was wondering if anybody got the irony, is all—that it is permissible to call me immoral and an approver of adults having sex with fourteen year olds because I correct them on a matter of fact, and then get insulted and huffy because I use a different debate fallacy (and a far less disrespectful one) in return.

---

I don’t know one fallacy from another. I don’t know whether the debate tactics which are being used on either side are wrong. I can’t speak as an LDS, I’ve been non LDS for longer than I was LDS.
I can speak as a Catholic. I can speak as someone who left the LDS faith. I left the LDS faith because when I went looking for answers, I couldn’t get a straight answer. Or, if I did, the answers made no sense.
When I went online and began looking at JS character, there was already no way I was coming back to the LDS church; though what I found, deepened my convictions. I feel that his character is an issue. I feel it is material to the discussion, and I know others share my feelings. You may not. I can’t take a relativistic approach on this or any issue. You have the right to feel and believe that way, but I don’t believe it’s the right way. That’s how I feel.
For the record, I don’t know what the standards of JS day were regarding 14 yo girls. I know what the standards of today are. However, it doesn’t matter how much you defend polygamy; I believe the Bible shows polygamy was never a good thing. There is not one incident I’ve read in the Bible where polygamy turned out positive for the people who engaged in it. Add to that Christ’s own statement on what marriage was supposed to be, and I feel pretty safe polygamy can be defined as objectively sinful, because it is in the category of adultery. Again, you as an LDS may not believe it, and you have every right to that opinion. It doesn’t make it right though.
I’ve tried to be as respectful as I can in this post, while still telling what I see as the truth.
In Christ,
Michael