Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dee_Dee_King
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dee_Dee_King said:
science will not be able to directly detect the divine essence of the eucharist just like science would not be able to detect the divine essence of Jesus. essences/substances are metaphysical realties, not physical ones. just like science can’t directly prove or disprove the existence of mathematics.

science can tell us the BOM is false because aboriginal peoples of the americas are not decedents of jews but are genetically east asians who came across the land bridge around 10,000 years ago. archeology can tell us jews did not come to america 1000s of years ago by crossing the pacific and that the BOA was a forgery of an egyptian book of the dead from the 2nd or 1st century.

and common sence tells us that joe smith was a liar and deceiver.
Click to expand...
Dee Dee,
You posted earlier,
"at some point, we should apply reason using all of the scientific and historical evidence to weed out those religions which are clearly and undeniably false.

I think it is our job as catholics to bring to the public sphere a vigorous debate on religion and philosophy. we shouldn’t be afraid to ask tough questions to those who hold to false religions."

Now you’re saying that “science will not be able to directly detect the divine essence of the eucharist just like science would not be able to detect the divine essence of Jesus. essences/substances are metaphysical realties, not physical ones.”

There was a vigorous debate about the eucharist a long time ago, in England. Guess who “lost” the debate? I suppose you would say those who were tortured or exiled or killed for teaching contrary to your belief about the eucharist. One such was William Tyndale. You are applying the same logic and logic standard as was applied then, and I think there are many wonderful people in the world who would reject your standard of logic now, and the “public sphere” would find it not only illogical, but abhorent and illegal.

By the way, are you saying Jesus was a “metaphysical reality” and not a “physical Person” who was God the Son?
 
Whyme,
why_me said:
Since no one is attacking catholic doctrine there is no reason to stand up for it. However, mormons are here defending their faith against attacks and so they are standing up for their faith. You just have to read the title of this thread to see what I mean.
Click to expand...
I agree that the thread’s subject, spelling of obvioulsy–nor withstanding, can be seen as an attack, and the fact that it’s directed toward both the the people who are Mormon as well as the church itself seems to be a double whammy. But I suspect (hope, really) that an attack was not the intention. I think it was simply a not-very-diplomatic expression of incredulity. (But I’ do have some reservations.)

Meanwhile, some defense of one faith is almost by definition an attack on another, (or at least a repudiation of another faith). For example, the notions of a three person/three being godhead and a three person/one being godhead are mutually exclusive, and therefore to accept one is to deny the other. And to deny ones beliefs is an attack (of sorts). Some of your defense of Mormon beliefs fall in this category. So I think it’s not unreasonable to question a seemingly lack of commitment to the Catholic church by a stated member of the church.

–kc
 
ricko said:
If I might help my brother Catholic. I’d like to say that scientifically, in nature there is one substance that can exist in three separate states. That would be water. It exists as a gas, liquid or as a solid. It would make logicial sense that if a substance on earth could exist in three different forms then God who made that substance could certainly exist as three separate persons yet be one God.
Click to expand...
Rick,
I accept the use of the word “substance” as could be applicable to the “material” or “attributes” of God.

What I don’t understand is how your definition is applied in the specific instance of the baptism of Jesus, when there was voice out of heaven, a Person being baptized, and a sign of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove, all at the same exact moment in time. Was that instance the manifestation of One Being? If so, how and why?
 
ParkerD said:
Rick,
I accept the use of the word “substance” as could be applicable to the “material” or “attributes” of God.

What I don’t understand is how your definition is applied in the specific instance of the baptism of Jesus, when there was voice out of heaven, a Person being baptized, and a sign of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove, all at the same exact moment in time. Was that instance the manifestation of One Being? If so, how and why?
Click to expand...
I don’t understand your question. The baptism of Jesus shows the reality of three separate Persons. Traditional Christians believe that those separate Persons have/are the same “substance”, as in, what makes God, God. In the water example, I can have a bowl of water, ice, and vapor. The three are separate and distinct, yet the essence is the same.
 
Religio71 said:
I don’t understand your question. The baptism of Jesus shows the reality of three separate Persons. Traditional Christians believe that those separate Persons have/are the same “substance”, as in, what makes God, God. In the water example, I can have a bowl of water, ice, and vapor. The three are separate and distinct, yet the essence is the same.
Click to expand...
Religio71,
I can totally accept that, but I wouldn’t call the “substance” or “essence” the word “Being.” To me, a “Being” is a “Person.” A human being is a human person. A divine being is a divine Person. The essence of what makes God, God is not something I differ with at all.
 
Originally Posted by why me
“Since no one is attacking catholic doctrine there is no reason to stand up for it.”
Click to expand...
No? How about those 50,000 missionaries knocking on doors all over the world, delivering the message that our beliefs are an abomination, and that those of us who profess them are corrupt?

abomination: n; anything filthy, hateful and disgusting

corrupt: a; rotten, decayed, perverted, evil, depraved
 
ParkerD said:
Religio71,
I can totally accept that, but I wouldn’t call the “substance” or “essence” the word “Being.” To me, a “Being” is a “Person.” A human being is a human person. A divine being is a divine Person. The essence of what makes God, God is not something I differ with at all.
Click to expand...
I think wikipedia has a good overview of “consubstantiality”. I think “being” has a different meaning when we discuss the "substance/essence/“being” ".

A common mistake I see, both when traditional Christians describe what we all believe, and when non-traditional Christians describe the Trinity, is to say they are “One Person” or “manifestations of God”, “they are the same Person”, etc. They are completely distinct Persons.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality
 
ParkerD said:
Religio71,
I can totally accept that, but I wouldn’t call the “substance” or “essence” the word “Being.” To me, a “Being” is a “Person.” A human being is a human person. A divine being is a divine Person. The essence of what makes God, God is not something I differ with at all.
Click to expand...
Either you missed the whole point of the water example or you are being stubborn.

The water example points out that “something” can exist in three forms yet be from the same “thing”. If water can exist that way then (to an unbiased mind) it should be no problem for God to be that way, after all He IS God.

Parker, for 2,000 years Christian scholars have studied the nature of God along with all the scriptures. Even though we are of different beliefs, all Christians believe in the teaching of the Trinity. I think that would carry considerable weight.
 
Religio71 said:
I think wikipedia has a good overview of “consubstantiality”. I think “being” has a different meaning when we discuss the "substance/essence/“being” ".

A common mistake I see, both when traditional Christians describe what we all believe, and when non-traditional Christians describe the Trinity, is to say they are “One Person” or “manifestations of God”, “they are the same Person”, etc. They are completely distinct Persons.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality
Click to expand...
Religio71,
I read the Wikipedia article you cited. I agree that Christ and the Holy Spirit came from the Father, and They have the same essence (the essence of being God meaning absolutely good, absolutely omniscient and omnipotent and omni-benevolent). The chemistry/water example is fine with me. Water is a substance that can be a gas, a liquid, or a solid. But in any of those forms, its chemical composition is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, combined into a compound we call water. I suppose I agree more closely with that metaphor than do you, because water has a physicality and even in its gaseous state its presence can be detected.

Are you saying that God sent part of Himself into the world when He sent His Son into the world? And that when God sends the Holy Ghost, He is sending part of Himself? And that during the baptism of Jesus, One Being was present although Three Persons were present?
 
There was a vigorous debate about the eucharist a long time ago, in England. Guess who “lost” the debate?
Click to expand...
what is your point? of course people will abandon the faith, the pharisees and sadducess walked away from Jesus when he said that we mush eat his flesh and drink his blood. science is not able to prove or disprove Jesus was God. science does prove the BOM is false. this is a fact you don’t seem to want to admit.
By the way, are you saying Jesus was a “metaphysical reality” and not a “physical Person” who was God the Son?
Click to expand...
Jesus is both God and man. he’s obviously a physical person. God is pure spirit and is not a physical being. therefore science is unable to directly detect God’s being.
 
MelanieAnne said:
… Most Mormons I have come in contact with, while generally very nice people, are both utterly ignorant of and also totally lacking in curiosity about other faiths. …
Click to expand...
I have seen this too - and don’t know what to make of it.
 
ParkerD said:
Religio71,
I read the Wikipedia article you cited. I agree that Christ and the Holy Spirit came from the Father, and They have the same essence (the essence of being God meaning absolutely good, absolutely omniscient and omnipotent and omni-benevolent). The chemistry/water example is fine with me. Water is a substance that can be a gas, a liquid, or a solid. But in any of those forms, its chemical composition is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, combined into a compound we call water. I suppose I agree more closely with that metaphor than do you, because water has a physicality and even in its gaseous state its presence can be detected.

Are you saying that God sent part of Himself into the world when He sent His Son into the world? And that when God sends the Holy Ghost, He is sending part of Himself? And that during the baptism of Jesus, One Being was present although Three Persons were present?
Click to expand...
No. God did not send “part” of Himself. Jesus Christ is fully God, and always has been. The Holy Spirit is also fully God. As is the Father. Together, they are one God. They don’t have “parts” of God. Also, they aren’t “one Being”, they are “one in Being/of one Being”. Jesus was begotten (not made/created) of the Father (this is a relational statement, in that Jesus is eternally the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
what is your point? of course people will abandon the faith, the Pharisees and Sadducess walked away from Jesus when He said that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. science is not able to prove or disprove Jesus was God. science does prove the BOM is false. this is a fact you don’t seem to want to admit. Jesus is both God and man. he’s obviously a physical person. God is pure spirit and is not a physical being. therefore science is unable to directly detect God’s being.
Click to expand...
Dee Dee,
So you’re saying as long as science can be used to “prove” what you happen to believe, then it is fair game to use as a tactic to force your beliefs onto others, but if science fails to “prove” what you believe, then metaphysics wins out and thus you are always right?

Your “science” “proves” the Book of Mormon is false, but show me that science and I will “prove” that your science is merely conjecture and not real science.

My point in bringing up what happened in England is that your belief system evidently brought you to a condition of forcing beliefs onto others, since you associated your assertions with your beliefs and your assertions implied the use of force. I think that is a logical result of being brought up in a culture where babies are forced against their will, a culture that fomented the deplorable actions against those who did not accept the belief you hold about the eucharist by people who thought they were doing the right thing. It is the irony of ironies that those who brought about those punishments, exiles, and tragic deaths thought they were living the gospel of Jesus Christ, when in fact they were exhibiting a condition of depravity totally contrary to the gospel. Would you really think to lead people down that same path?
 
ParkerD said:
Dee Dee,
So you’re saying as long as science can be used to “prove” what you happen to believe, then it is fair game to use as a tactic to force your beliefs onto others, but if science fails to “prove” what you believe, then metaphysics wins out and thus you are always right?

Your “science” “proves” the Book of Mormon is false, but show me that science and I will “prove” that your science is merely conjecture and not real science.

My point in bringing up what happened in England is that your belief system evidently brought you to a condition of forcing beliefs onto others, since you associated your assertions with your beliefs and your assertions implied the use of force. I think that is a logical result of being brought up in a culture where babies are forced against their will, a culture that fomented the deplorable actions against those who did not accept the belief you hold about the eucharist by people who thought they were doing the right thing. It is the irony of ironies that those who brought about those punishments, exiles, and tragic deaths thought they were living the gospel of Jesus Christ, when in fact they were exhibiting a condition of depravity totally contrary to the gospel. Would you really think to lead people down that same path?
Click to expand...
Parker, I and others are watching this debate with interest. I think it would help if you stay on topic instead of going into places as your last paragraph. Just for the sake of brevity please.
 
ricko said:
Parker, I and others are watching this debate with interest. I think it would help if you stay on topic instead of going into places as your last paragraph. Just for the sake of brevity please.
Click to expand...
Ricko, I’m watching it too but I am losing interest with the turns its taking. I’ll leave you to supervise when it gets out of hand - which it seems to be on the brink of.
 
Rick,
Following was Dee Dee’s statement that I took issue with:
Dee_Dee_King said:
because we live in a secular multicultural society, we tolerate demonstrably false and therefore harmful religions and cults. i would include mormonism as one of these. to me, the fact that our society takes religion as something beyond or apart from reason makes religion irrelevant and fits perfectly with the secular mindset that truth is what we make of it.

if we by our law prevent false advertising, we should by the same logic prevent false religions. at some point, we should apply reason using all of the scientific and historical evidence to weed out those religions which are clearly and undeniably false.

I think it is our job as catholics to bring to the public sphere a vigorous debate on religion and philosophy. we shouldn’t be afraid to ask tough questions to those who hold to false religions.
Click to expand...
She (or he) asked for a vigorous debate, and I brought it, but I assure you I dislike the subject and dislike the debate. I brought up issues that I think are pertinent if such a debate were to really take place in the “real world”. But I totally agree that such a debate gets into negative territory and I would rather leave it alone.
 
Eliza10 said:
I have seen this too - and don’t know what to make of it.
Click to expand...
Well of course we can’t know what is in the minds of total strangers, but were I to guess, I would strongly suspect that the reason many Mormons are not particularly interested in the doctrines of other faiths is that they believe Mormonism has the “fullness of truth” and that all other faiths are lacking, so what’s the point?
 
why_me said:
Your statement is false. I must have missed the newsbullentin that claimed the book of mormon false. In which paper was it in? You still will probably preach that no one saw the book of mormon. I proved you wrong on that one statement you made. Can you provide proof that the book is demonstrably false? Oh, I think that I am on your ignore button. Oh well…
Click to expand...
The book and its creation is proof enough. Why would God inspire someone to create a book that had needed so many corrections and editions?

Why would he get an angel who would such a terrible job at translating, especally when God wanted this new word (ie: the BoM) to be followed by everyone?

God created the universe and everything in it but if you believe that the BoM is true, God cant get a simple book right. Not only that, you are saying that God isnt perfect but borders on the incompetent.

It has to be false, otherwise you are saying that God isnt God.

Add to the that the complete lack of evidence that the people mentioned in the BoM and their civilisation existed. The are details of MASSIVE battles where tens of thousands (or was it hundreds of thousands) fought, yet there isnt even a single arrow head to confirm this (much less bodies, armour, weapons, chariots ect).

Where are the ruins of the cities, towns & villiages that they lived in?

Their metal working was far superior to their contemparies in Europe (well pretty much everywhere) for their time, no culture in the whole of America even reached their level. Yet there is nothing to show that such an advanced culture even existed.

We can find Pompeii, but nothing about the civilisations from the BoM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top