Published anti-Catholicism from a Mormon in place of business!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lehl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vashsunglasses said:
Well I’m new around these parts but I feel that I may legitimately share my feelings on this issue. I’m sorry to say this, but I don’t think you handled the situation correctly at all.

What I’m seeing is a mother who became so enraged at a printout that she ruined a play that her children had worked very hard on. How would you feel if you were in their place and your mother interrupted the play, humiliated you by stripping you of your costume in front of everybody, and then dragged you out of the room?!

So, what do I think you should have done? I think that perhaps you should have waited for the play to finish, gone home without a fuss so that your children aren’t dragged into the middle of an adult matter, and then called the lady and the owner and whoever else and complained in a loving and Christian manner.
Click to expand...
👍 Finally some common sense around here! Welcome to the forum. Stick around, please.
 
why_me said:
Not exactly. The problem with the book was its title. The title was a huge mistake because it created confusion among the members. I have already stated that the abominable church expression contained in the book of mormon was speculated on by members. Some said the catholic church, others said communism etc. Much speculation was offered. Point of fact, no revelation was ever given as to what that church was. And even today, no one knows. However, because of that book’s first edition, some members still say the catholic church. But in reality most likely it refers to any organization that fights against the word of god. At least, I have heard this speculation rather recently. Also, as you know, mormons have an unfortunate way of listening to everything people in authority say without a questioning or critical mind. And it is here that we also have a problem with the first edition of Mormon Doctrine. It was accepted uncritically until the leadership understood the problems in that book.

But Mormon Doctrine is not mormon doctrine.
Click to expand...
It was not speculation. I was taught that the Catholic church was the abominable church, the whore of babylon in Sunday school and seminary. I also had a class that was for teaching people how to be teachers, and in that class this idea was covered in very much detail. It was part of the curiculum in the class. It was in the workbook that we were using in the class. The workbook was provided by the LDS church. It wasn’t some random member’s speculation.

Mormons have an unfortunate way of not questioning and not using their own senses because that is what they are taught to do. To question mormon church authority is to question God Himself (if you are mormon of course).

If the problem is the title…the title should have and could have been changed. It has not been changed.
 
RebeccaJ said:
If the problem is the title…the title should have and could have been changed. It has not been changed.
Click to expand...
No, but I do believe that the premises of the book were changed in the second edition.

As I said I do remember having discussions about it and the catholic church was mentioned but so was communism among other things. I have never seen it in any manuals.

Maybe Zernius can help.
 
why_me said:
Dear Rebecca,

I was born catholic. I know for a fact that when I was growing up I would never dream of attending a different church or read a book that was anticatholic. It was a sin to do so. Even today catholics should not read anticatholic literature and they are cautioned not to do so. Why?

Because such books cause doubt because they are designed to cause doubt. This is not just a Mormon ‘thing’ but an universal understanding which the catholic church subscribes to also.

Now about Mormon Doctrine. As our friend Zenius stated when Mormon Doctrine was published the book was not exactly published by the Desseret Book that we know today… And even though faithful saints worked at the publisher I am sure that the book passed under the radar of the First Presidency because of the name of the author.

When published, the First Presidency took a direct interest and had McConkie do some revision, not because of pressure but because of dontrine.
Click to expand...
I understand that everyone finds comfort in their own beliefs. I understand that when a publication is “safe” for Catholics that the Vatican puts a stamp of approval on the book, saying that the content conforms correctly to church doctrine. But there is not a double speak going on. To my knowledge there is not a Catholic-owned book publisher who puts out material with disclaimers that what is inside is not doctrine, while at the same time ensuring that was is inside does in fact hold to church doctrine.

Books aren’t designed to cause doubt. That is making an assumption that people who read can’t think for themselves.

Rebecca
 
zerinus said:
You are talking a lot of irrelevant drivel and platitudes, stating the obvious, which has nothing to do with your original claims and assertion. Your original assertion had been that because the books published Deseret are vetted by a committee, therefore it is “official LDS doctrine”. I explained to you that that does not necessarily follow. Now you have changed the subject and are talking about something completely different, stating the obvious which I never denied.

Zerinus, if you feel that we have gone away from the subject, it is you who led us here. You asked the questions. That you do not like my answers is not my problem.

Accept what truth? That Deseret is a Church owned publisher, managed and owned by LDS Church, and staffed by faithful LDS members? When did I deny that? How ridiculous can you get?

Oh, I can get ridiculous given enough time and alcohol. But you know that is not what we are talking about.

It does? How amazing! How did you manage to make that great discovery?

I worked there.

Now that is an amazing discovery! You must have been working for the secret service too part time to be able to discover that great mystery.

No, just showed up for work.

Deseret is owned and staffed by LDS, nobody is denying that. It is the publishing arm of the LDS Church, nobody is disputing that. It is staffed and run mainly by faithful LDS members, nobody is questioning that. Their “hearts” are bound to be “in the right place,” no arguments about that. And that proves exactly what? All the major churches have a church owned publishing arm. The Catholic Church I am sure must have one too—staffed and run by faithful Catholics “whose hearts” are bound to be where? In the wrong place? That proves exactly what?

Jeez Zerinus, it was compliment to the people I used to work for and with. But you are right, that is beside the point.
Click to expand...
 
why_me said:
No, but I do believe that the premises of the book were changed in the second edition.

As I said I do remember having discussions about it and the catholic church was mentioned but so was communism among other things. I have never seen it in any manuals.

Maybe Zernius can help.
Click to expand...
I haven’t made a study of the history of the Mormon Doctrine editions, and frankly I am not sufficiently interested to. The LDS Church has repeatedly stated its position that what defines LDS doctrine is the standard works–the scriptural canon of the Church. Nothing written by others, including by Church leaders, takes the place of that. Mormon Doctrine does not define LDS doctrine, period. Nothing does except the standard works. I have already discussed that at length in this post.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
I haven’t made a study of the history of the Mormon Doctrine editions, and frankly I am not sufficiently interested to. The LDS Church has repeatedly stated its position that what defines LDS doctrine is the standard works–the scriptural canon of the Church. Nothing written by others, including by Church leaders, takes the place of that. Mormon Doctrine does not define LDS doctrine, period. Nothing does except the standard works. I have already discussed that at length in this post.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Really? Then what about all that stuff we hear about “follow the living prophet” and “the living prophet trumps the dead prophets” etc. ?

Most Mormons would strenuously disagree with your sola scriptura brand of Mormonism. You only take that position because you are ashamed of the things your modern prophets and apostles have taught. You will eventually leave Mormonism. Start planning your exit strategy now, and don’t marry a Mormon - it only makes it harder to leave.

Paul
 
Paul

I think Zerinus wants to make a “zerinus distinction” (a distinction without a difference) on the “Mormon Doctrine does not define LDS Doctrine, period.”

What he is very subtly trying to convey in his weasel logic is that ‘mormon does not equate with LDS’ So, unless the book title is ‘LDS Doctrine’ it is not considered to be ‘Mormon Doctrine’ unless 4 CONSECUTIVE church Prophets say it is in PRINT from a publisher other than DESERET.

Of course, this begs the question: why hasn’t the mormon hierarchy tried to get their ‘doctrinal’ books published by a commercial publisher?

The Church does it with the Catechism and Bibles, why not the Mormons?

(O boy! More ‘zerinus distinction’ coming!)

Robert
 
why_me said:
And here we have the difference. The pope lives in the Vatican. To get to see the Pope one must have an invitation. The pope is locked away from the people and sees a select few in which he can have a conversation with and share ideas away from the media . Nothing wrong with that but there is a difference between lds leaders and catholic leaders as to where they live and among who they live.

Mormons regardless of what their calling in the lds church are people living with the people around them and yes, they also have opinions that may not be doctrinal.
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah? When was the last time you sat down with the lds president and had a chat?
 
Rbt_Southwell said:
Great.

Does it have the mormon equivalent of an “Imprimatur”?

If so, then it will be interesting to see how future editions of the BoM are compared with the Doubleday translation.

How will the Prophet handle THOSE complaints?

Robert
Click to expand...
No official stamp of approval, the inside flap is written like it is explaining reference material, along the lines of: Mormons believe that plates made of gold were translated into this book. Yes, it uses the term Mormon, not LDS.

Easy to refute…claim it was not authorized by the LDS church, or if that doesn’t work, claim that it was a mistake.
 
RebeccaJ said:
No official stamp of approval, the inside flap is written like it is explaining reference material, along the lines of: Mormons believe that plates made of gold were translated into this book. Yes, it uses the term Mormon, not LDS.

Easy to refute…claim it was not authorized by the LDS church, or if that doesn’t work, claim that it was a mistake.
Click to expand...
Rebecca;

Do you think the mormon church paid Doubleday to print it with the understanding that they would buy X number of copies and handle all distribution?

I wonder how Doubleday lists the book in their list? Under fiction? Current events? Spiritualism? Religion?

Is there an ‘imprint’ on the title page indicating what subgroup of Doubleday is the co-publisher?

Thanks

Robert
 
Rbt_Southwell said:
Rebecca;

Do you think the mormon church paid Doubleday to print it with the understanding that they would buy X number of copies and handle all distribution?

I wonder how Doubleday lists the book in their list? Under fiction? Current events? Spiritualism? Religion?

Is there an ‘imprint’ on the title page indicating what subgroup of Doubleday is the co-publisher?

Thanks

Robert
Click to expand...
I don’t know the details of the negotiations and wouldn’t even guess.

Doubleday is an imprint of Random House. I believe that the Doubleday imprint is the imprint that Random House uses for religious titles. It is where you will find Pope Benedict’s new book, “Jesus of Nazareth”. Doubleday has the BoM classified as “Religion - History”.

Here’s the Doubleday link:

randomhouse.com/doubleday/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385519472
 
Rbt_Southwell said:
Rebecca;

I wonder how Doubleday lists the book in their list? Under fiction? Current events? Spiritualism? Religion?

Thanks

Robert
Click to expand...
The book is placed in the Religion section of Barnes and Noble. Of course Barnes and Noble has many sections for religious books but the book is placed in the mainlstream section of comparative christianity or religion.

Doubleday would do the same. One doesn’t make a deal with a religious organization and place their sacred text under ‘fiction’. It would be a gross insult to do so.
 
PaulDupre said:
Really? Then what about all that stuff we hear about “follow the living prophet” and “the living prophet trumps the dead prophets” etc. ?

Most Mormons would strenuously disagree with your sola scriptura brand of Mormonism. You only take that position because you are ashamed of the things your modern prophets and apostles have taught. You will eventually leave Mormonism.

Paul
Click to expand...
I think that you misunderstand the mormon way of thinking. Yes, mormons do follow what the prophets say but what the church leaders say is not automatically put into the lds scriptures. Also, the lds church believes in continuous revelation and guidance from above.

I believe that Zerinus is referring to that fact.
 
why_me said:
I think that you misunderstand the mormon way of thinking. Yes, mormons do follow what the prophets say but what the church leaders say is not automatically put into the lds scriptures. Also, the lds church believes in continuous revelation and guidance from above.

I believe that Zerinus is referring to that fact.
Click to expand...
Thank you, that is right. Also, the focus of my attention in previous posts was new doctrine which cannot be substantiated from existing scripture. Inspired and revelatory teaching, preaching, and sermonizing, which occurs frequently in the Church, does not have to introduce new doctrine into the Church, and they rarely do. The teachings of the Prophet and Apostles and other leaders of the Church are generally inspired and convey the word and will of the Lord to us. But they rarely, if ever, introduce new doctrine into the Church. They consist of exhortation and counsel to live our lives more fully in harmony with the commandments and will of God, and they are in agreement with what God has revealed in scripture. They do not deviate from that. If they did, then additional factors would come into play which would require that teaching to be validated, either by revelation or by the word of God.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Thank you, that is right. Also, the focus of my attention in previous posts was new doctrine

which cannot be substantiated from existing scripture. Inspired and revelatory teaching, preaching, and sermonizing, which occurs frequently in the Church, does not have to introduce new doctrine into the Church, and they rarely do. The teachings of the Prophet and Apostles and other leaders of the Church are generally inspired and convey the word and will of the Lord to us.

zerinus
Click to expand...
There is nothing sweeter than an admission by a zealot for a mistaken sect that it’s own ‘revelations’ don’t add up to a hill of beans (forgive me Bogie) in this world (or in any other that mormons claim to populate with new gods and 'spirit children").

This is the mormonism 101: distinction without a difference.

Zerinus and whyme: “It’s REVELATION but it don’t say much except for rah rah rah.”

Now, of course, Z will protest that the BoM which he so dearly loves to cavil about is the “fullness of the gospel.”

Which gospel? The JW’s? The Moslems? They all claim the same thing and all rewrite Jewish and Christian history and scripture to fit their “salvation history.”

Robert
 
PaulDupre said:
Really? Then what about all that stuff we hear about “follow the living prophet” and “the living prophet trumps the dead prophets” etc. ?

Most Mormons would strenuously disagree with your sola scriptura brand of Mormonism. You only take that position because you are ashamed of the things your modern prophets and apostles have taught. You will eventually leave Mormonism. Start planning your exit strategy now, and don’t marry a Mormon - it only makes it harder to leave.
Paul
Click to expand...
I agree that Z will eventually leave Mormonism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top