Non-Catholics, a question

[zerinus]

Yes.

Such as?

 

[dianaiad]

Then you will understand that your complaint is invalid. Until you actually read the book, any judgement you make on it has no real value. It’s merely an opinion based on previous experience with similar books that are written by other authors.

I also this you point about a non-Catholic (for example) being unable to “get it right” (writing about the Catholic faith) is invalid. Of course someone outside the particular faith can get it right.

I think you missed the point where I actually read parts of the book. Since I did, and since I pointed out where the author was both incorrect and biased, that pretty much does it. I don’t have to read the entire thing and point out every instance of error and bias, y’know. Just one does the job.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m going to Amazon to check the sample myself.

You say that it was a universal you. That is not how a universal you is used. I believe that by “you”, you meant Catholics, or CAF, or me, as a Catholic member of CAF, and most likely all of the above.

When someone uses you in a universal case, it’s something like, “When you advertise a book to Catholics…”

Saying, "Don’t look now by you are advertising a book… " is not a universal you case.

You are absolutely right. I wasn’t using the universal case. However, I wasn’t claiming the universal case. I wrote: “That’s a general ‘you,’ not a specific one; it is the ‘you’ that belongs to an organization that publishes such books, and the you who are defending the nature of it.”

The universal ‘you’ includes everybody. A general ‘you’ is a little more narrowly defined. In this case, it was: Catholics, CAS and those who defend the publication of such works. You, specifically, are included in that more general category, of course, but I have noticed that it sometimes is necessary to signal that ‘you’ refers to a broader category than the specific addressee alone, for clarity’s sake.

English should not have given up the plural ‘you’ form. It’s inconvenient, confusing…and only the American South seems to have found a substitute for; ‘y’all…’

 

[dianaiad]

You wrote ealier.

"No, I’m making an informed prediction because I HAVE read others. I’ve also, since I wrote this last post, managed to peek at Bennett’s books “Inside Mormonism” and “When Mormons Call” (Amazon.com has a copy that I can sort of preview…) and guess what?

I was right.

Oops. You are quite right. I was unclear and that’s entirely my fault. I’m sorry. I reviewed “Inside Mormonism,” not “When Mormons come to call.”

was pleasantly surprised at the language he used; it is very academic, far more accurate than some of his fellow “Mormon exposers” and not nearly as polemic as I expected it to be. His education shows. However…here is a quote from page 352 of the book: “Though a chief tenet of Mormon belief, members do not often discuss eternal progression. Perhaps this is because much of the teaching is new and, understandably, offensive to Christians. Perhaps, too, it’s because the theme is a central concern of the temple ceremony, which must be kept hidden from the unworthy. Or perhaps it’s because discussing one’s ambitions to godhood is not a fit topic for polite conversation…” "

It seems that you were saying that you were looking at “When Mormons Call”.
I checked out Amazon. It shows only pages 21-26 or so of “Inside Mormonism”.

Since I don’t have access to the quote (Do you own the book?), there really isn’t much I can say. From what you posted, I stand by my statement. And also because I read the review from the publisher which states that the purpose of the book is to give Catholics information to defend the faith against Mormon challenges.

Hidden from the unworthy. Obviously he’s not talking about the elders talking amongst themselves in this passage.

Actually, I gave the page number, and if you go to Amazon’s search function in the preview box, it will allow you to go to that page. I can’t remember now whether it is 342 or 352…or 354. One of those.

 

[dianaiad]

Then you will understand that your complaint is invalid. Until you actually read the book, any judgement you make on it has no real value. It’s merely an opinion based on previous experience with similar books that are written by other authors.

I also this you point about a non-Catholic (for example) being unable to “get it right” (writing about the Catholic faith) is invalid. Of course someone outside the particular faith can get it right.

Nobody has yet.

I’m certain that someone, somewhere, can. However, I have never, and I mean NEVER, read a book about the LDS faith written by a non-LDS who has ‘got it right.’–and that is in forty years of reading. How many years of such research is required before the point is made? I keep hoping, so I keep reading…but so far?

Nada.

I will admit that there was one site…a website, that managed to pull it off. It was the Canadian based site, www.religioustolerance.org. For quite some time they presented the LDS beliefs accurately. It gave me hope. However, a couple of years ago or so they allowed someone else to write the information about the Mormons and, well–it then read like a CARM examination of Catholicism.

I live in hope, however—and just paid a brief visit back to it. They are back on track for accuracy and an even handed treatment of our history and beliefs.

They do well by Catholicism, too, I imagine,but you would have to confirm that.

 

[kalt]

You are absolutely right. I wasn’t using the universal case. However, I wasn’t claiming the universal case. I wrote: “That’s a general ‘you,’ not a specific one; it is the ‘you’ that belongs to an organization that publishes such books, and the you who are defending the nature of it.”

The universal ‘you’ includes everybody. A general ‘you’ is a little more narrowly defined. In this case, it was: Catholics, CAS and those who defend the publication of such works. You, specifically, are included in that more general category, of course, but I have noticed that it sometimes is necessary to signal that ‘you’ refers to a broader category than the specific addressee alone, for clarity’s sake.

English should not have given up the plural ‘you’ form. It’s inconvenient, confusing…and only the American South seems to have found a substitute for; ‘y’all…’

And still, I have not advertised anything. I am not part of the plural you that you’re trying to use. The publisher and whoever runs the ad are doing the advertising. These are the only people who are putting the ad out.

This is how I understood your you. This use is incorrect, since I and all Catholics didn’t advertise anything.

 

[kalt]

Such as?

You want names?

 

[kalt]

Nobody has yet.

I’m certain that someone, somewhere, can. However, I have never, and I mean NEVER, read a book about the LDS faith written by a non-LDS who has ‘got it right.’–and that is in forty years of reading. How many years of such research is required before the point is made? I keep hoping, so I keep reading…but so far?

Nada.

I will admit that there was one site…a website, that managed to pull it off. It was the Canadian based site, www.religioustolerance.org. For quite some time they presented the LDS beliefs accurately. It gave me hope. However, a couple of years ago or so they allowed someone else to write the information about the Mormons and, well–it then read like a CARM examination of Catholicism.

I live in hope, however—and just paid a brief visit back to it. They are back on track for accuracy and an even handed treatment of our history and beliefs.

They do well by Catholicism, too, I imagine,but you would have to confirm that.

I found the page. The unworthy includes non-Mormons and those mormons who haven’t reached some level of something (faith, guess).

When I checked out the other book, it lists the point as discussion 4.

And so your complaint about the book centers on the words “don’t often”. How often is often? To you? To the author?

Isn’t this author a former Mormon? Do you think that he’s a disgruntled former Mormon? Or is he someone who spent time there but was never really a member?

I agree that people should use the catechism (or whatever each religion calls it, if they have one) of the faith they’re studying. It seems that these books were written for Catholics and address specific differences between the two faiths. Does the Mormon church have a catechism? If not, there really is no way to verify the facts.

If this former Mormon (I think he is.) didn’t get it right, according to you, there is no use in reading something written by any Mormon, unless it is an official publication of the doctrine.

Maybe a non-mormon could have done a better job of it, eh?

 

[Kansas_Girl]

I work for an evangelical Christian who is constantly putting down the Catholic Church. He once took me to lunch with an ex-Catholic seminarian who had left the Church and become an evangelical protestant. He actually gave me Jack Chick comics to read. My boss is a lawyer and a very brilliant one at that. He was a national debate champion. It is almost impossible to win an argument with him, which he constantly leads me into. He now has his own House Church, and I often interact with his church members. I find them to be very sincere, religious people, who are open about their love for Jesus. They are nice to me and I know are praying that I will leave the awful “whore of Babylon” and become saved. I really don’t know how to evangelize these people other than by also being nice and by being firm in my faith. I don’t hide the fact that I’m Catholic, that I lead a Catholic Bible study group, and that I love the Catholic Church and I also love Jesus. One thing I have noticed is that these people seem to jump around from one evangelical church to another quite frequently. To you ex-evangelical protestants, do you have any suggestions on how to explain to these people that the Catholic Church is really Christian and that Catholics are not all going to hell?

 

[zerinus]

You want names?

No; I was speaking in general terms, just as you were. You said that people here seemed (to you) surprised that “Catholics” (generally) defend their faith with vigor. I am puzzled. Are you suggesting that Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Baptists, Lutherans etc. defend their faith with any less “vigor” than Catholics do?

 

[kalt]

No; I was speaking in general terms, just as you were. You said that people here seemed (to you) surprised that “Catholics” (generally) defend their faith with vigor. I am puzzled. Are you suggesting that Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Baptists, Lutherans etc. defend their faith with any less “vigor” than Catholics do?

You’re really not making sense here. You asked if I know people who don’t defend their faith vigorously. My answer is, Yes.

I have no idea why my question made you think that I was suggesting that other people don’t defend their faith, when no such thing was said and certainly not implied.

Please stop this strange accusation and the weird line of questions.

 

[dianaiad]

And still, I have not advertised anything. I am not part of the plural you that you’re trying to use. The publisher and whoever runs the ad are doing the advertising. These are the only people who are putting the ad out.

This is how I understood your you. This use is incorrect, since I and all Catholics didn’t advertise anything.

The Catholic church is not disavowing books like this, and the authors of them are respected members of the church and even members of the clergy. Thus, the church supports the idea.

You know that these books are being published, and are here defending the idea of them. That puts you squarely in that group–not merely passively, as would be a Catholic unaware that such books exist, but actively, as a supporter of them. .

Since you are defending the book and the practice of publishing it, you think that it’s a good idea, and shouldn’t feel defensive about being in that group any more than I am defensive about being called a conservative. After all, I am one.

 

[zerinus]

I have no idea why my question made you think that I was suggesting that other people don’t defend their faith, when no such thing was said and certainly not implied.

Because your question simply doesn’t make sense. Why should people here be surprised that Catholics defend their faith with vigor? That is an absurd question. I should have thought that people of any faith, that take their religion seriously, would want to defend it with vigor, Catholics included. Your question implies that people of other faiths don’t; or that Catholics are an exception to the rule. Why should you think that?

Okay, if you don’t like that line of questioning, allow me to choose a different line. Are you surprised that Mormons here defend their faith with vigor?

 

[dianaiad]

I work for an evangelical Christian who is constantly putting down the Catholic Church. He once took me to lunch with an ex-Catholic seminarian who had left the Church and become an evangelical protestant. He actually gave me Jack Chick comics to read. My boss is a lawyer and a very brilliant one at that. He was a national debate champion. It is almost impossible to win an argument with him, which he constantly leads me into. He now has his own House Church, and I often interact with his church members. I find them to be very sincere, religious people, who are open about their love for Jesus. They are nice to me and I know are praying that I will leave the awful “whore of Babylon” and become saved. I really don’t know how to evangelize these people other than by also being nice and by being firm in my faith. I don’t hide the fact that I’m Catholic, that I lead a Catholic Bible study group, and that I love the Catholic Church and I also love Jesus. One thing I have noticed is that these people seem to jump around from one evangelical church to another quite frequently. To you ex-evangelical protestants, do you have any suggestions on how to explain to these people that the Catholic Church is really Christian and that Catholics are not all going to hell?

Ah, honey, you can’t. (the term of endearment is NOT sarcastic…but real and sympathetic!) All you can do is be who you are and not worry about it. Now if it were anybody but your BOSS (for instance, some twit on a forum like this one who tried telling you this) you could get feisty about it, but ‘evangelizing’ them?

Not going to work. Just answer their questions, if they have any, about what you believe. Correct any misinformation they have about your beliefs (that is, if they would actually listen without arguing with you) and just be nice.

But do NOT let anybody get away with telling you that you are not a Christian. If they insist upon harping on that, just tell them that a: you ARE, and b: your salvation is between you and the Savior; they don’t get a vote, and C: that with all due respect, they don’t get to define Christianity in a way that excludes you.

Then live your life, lead your study group, and be happy.

…and come to forums like this one and argue with me, instead.

 

[cides23]

Ah, honey, you can’t. (the term of endearment is NOT sarcastic…but real and sympathetic!) All you can do is be who you are and not worry about it. Now if it were anybody but your BOSS (for instance, some twit on a forum like this one who tried telling you this) you could get feisty about it, but ‘evangelizing’ them?

Not going to work. Just answer their questions, if they have any, about what you believe. Correct any misinformation they have about your beliefs (that is, if they would actually listen without arguing with you) and just be nice.

But do NOT let anybody get away with telling you that you are not a Christian. If they insist upon harping on that, just tell them that a: you ARE, and b: your salvation is between you and the Savior; they don’t get a vote, and C: that with all due respect, they don’t get to define Christianity in a way that excludes you.

Then live your life, lead your study group, and be happy.

…and come to forums like this one and argue with me, instead.

Is it true that the Mormons teach that man can become gods of their own planet?

 

[dianaiad]

Is it true that the Mormons teach that man can become gods of their own planet?

No, actually, it is not.

The Mormons teach that we may become 'heirs and joint-heirs" with Christ and have all that He has.

God did not create the earth alone. He created all things; 'worlds without number." The universe we live in.

He will always be the one and only Creator of the universe…so if we are to become 'heirs and joint-heirs" with Christ, then it’s something else that awaits us; nowhere do the scriptures, either the bible or those works that we accept as scripture, say that we will become gods of our own planets–so whatever ‘heirs and joint-heirs’ means, it doesn’t mean THAT.

Nor has any ‘oral tradition’ taught me by any teacher mouthing off on his or her own speculative path, mentioned this. In fact, the ONLY place I have ever heard this is from non-Mormons, critics and anti’s. It’s a very popular concept with them.

As for me, following the logic of that ‘heirs and joint-heirs’ thing, it would have to result in the creation of universes, not the rule of already created planets.

 

[cides23]

No, actually, it is not.

The Mormons teach that we may become 'heirs and joint-heirs" with Christ and have all that He has.

God did not create the earth alone. He created all things; 'worlds without number." The universe we live in.

He will always be the one and only Creator of the universe…so if we are to become 'heirs and joint-heirs" with Christ, then it’s something else that awaits us; nowhere do the scriptures, either the bible or those works that we accept as scripture, say that we will become gods of our own planets–so whatever ‘heirs and joint-heirs’ means, it doesn’t mean THAT.

Nor has any ‘oral tradition’ taught me by any teacher mouthing off on his or her own speculative path, mentioned this. In fact, the ONLY place I have ever heard this is from non-Mormons, critics and anti’s. It’s a very popular concept with them.

As for me, following the logic of that ‘heirs and joint-heirs’ thing, it would have to result in the creation of universes, not the rule of already created planets.

so Mormons believe you will own a universe? is that what u are saying… just a little confused.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Because your question simply doesn’t make sense. Why should people here be surprised that Catholics defend their faith with vigor? That is an absurd question. I should have thought that people of any faith, that take their religion seriously, would want to defend it with vigor, Catholics included. Your question implies that people of other faiths don’t; or that Catholics are an exception to the rule. Why should you think that?

Okay, if you don’t like that line of questioning, allow me to choose a different line. Are you surprised that Mormons here defend their faith with vigor?

Maybe the question comes from the Should the Non-Catholic Religion board be done away with thread.

 

[dianaiad]

so Mormons believe you will own a universe? is that what u are saying… just a little confused.

Not exactly, no. The official teaching is “heirs and joint heirs with Christ.” We believe that we are children of God, quite literally.

The speculation that goes with these two things can run wild, and does. As I step through the logical progression personally, it seems obvious to me that whatever it is the above means, it does NOT mean demi-godhood over individual planets, especially since the church does not teach that. So if it doesn’t mean that, what does it mean?

God created the universe, not a single planet. Therefore, again to me, something like universes would be involved; this one or another one. The point I"m attempting to make, though, is this: as fond of speculation as we all are (and Mormons are REALLY good at speculating) what we know is those two statements: we are to be heirs and joint-heirs with Christ, and we are the literal spiritual children of God.

I’m not certain that we are even capable of understanding what that means, any more than a typical two year old is capable of understanding the equations of John Nash.

 

[kalt]

The Catholic church is not disavowing books like this, and the authors of them are respected members of the church and even members of the clergy. Thus, the church supports the idea.

You know that these books are being published, and are here defending the idea of them. That puts you squarely in that group–not merely passively, as would be a Catholic unaware that such books exist, but actively, as a supporter of them. .

Since you are defending the book and the practice of publishing it, you think that it’s a good idea, and shouldn’t feel defensive about being in that group any more than I am defensive about being called a conservative. After all, I am one.

I don’t feel defensive, because I have no stake in the success or failure of the ad campaign, since I have nothing to do with it. Contrary to your belief, when a book on Catholicism is published, the average Catholic has nothing to do with it. You seem to think that being aware that a book on Catholicism exists means that I have a part in the advertising campaign. What twisted logic that is.

I’m not “defending” the book as you claim. I take issue with your trashing it without reading it. Your complaints about even the small part you read on Amazon are invalid, since they are based not on what this book has to say, but on what you’ve disliked in similar books that you may or may not have read (If you’re willing to denounce this author without reading the book, why should I believe that you’ve read the similar books that you’re denouncing?)