Why would anyone want to be a Mormon or Jehovah Witnesses?

[mathonihah]

Pomp, ceremony, tradition, and truth are not mutually exclusion. Truth requires reason.

I didn’t say they are “mutually exclusive”. I suggest you read my post more carefully in the future before replying.

This does not seem like a method to know if something is true, it lacks reason. Is there a reason you became Mormon?

I don’t agree with your analysis of that. The “testimony of the Holy Ghost” is as good a “reason” as any (I would say a better reason than any). Jesus said, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17) Therefore no “reason” of the kind that you are apparently expecting is required.

 

[Robot_Maria]

Not at all. As I said in my previous post: “It is perfectly possible to “ask the wrong question,” or to have the wrong expectation of religion; and many do.”

Well, no. I’m giving you the definition of what you’re doing. You admit that someone can ask the wrong question. That point of view and the answers you give to questions based on that view point is called artful dodging. Look:

npr.org/2012/09/14/161156791/detecting-the-artful-dodge

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_dodging

harvardmagazine.com/2012/03/the-art-of-the-dodge

changingminds.org/techniques/questioning/dodging_question.htm

Don’t say, “No, not at all.” Don’t tell me you’re baking a cake when you’re clearly barbecuing ribs.

 

[mathonihah]

I think others have pointed out why you may want to change your approach. Of course, you don’t have to, but you should be aware that answering a question with the question you think should have been asked, can be viewed as seeking to manipulate rather than inform.

I am not going to get into an argument with you about that. You and others are very welcome to have whatever opinion you like about that.

 

[mathonihah]

It is the Op’s question and it is correct for that person. And a person’s “expectation of religion” is also their own and not yours. Telling someone what they should expect is part of the dodge/lie/manipulation.

Am I allowed to disagree with you guys or not? Like it or not, I do!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, no. I’m giving you the definition of what you’re doing. You admit that someone can ask the wrong question. That point of view and the answers you give to questions based on that view point is called artful dodging. Look:

npr.org/2012/09/14/161156791/detecting-the-artful-dodge

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_dodging

harvardmagazine.com/2012/03/the-art-of-the-dodge

changingminds.org/techniques/questioning/dodging_question.htm

Don’t say, “No, not at all.” Don’t tell me you’re baking a cake when you’re clearly barbecuing ribs.

From the last link:

Answering another question

A technique that many politicians use is to answer the question that would be asked to allow a desired point to be made. Robert MacNamara epitomized this when he said, ‘Never answer the question that is asked of you. Answer the question that you wish had been asked.’

Explicitly changing the question
A variant on this is to explicitly change the question, telling the questioner they have asked the wrong thing and then saying what that question should be (and then answering it).

:dancing:

 

[Stephen168]

I didn’t say they are “mutually exclusive”. I suggest you read my post more carefully in the future before replying.

I did read it carefully. The word “or” is used to describe alternatives; which means mutually exclusive.

I don’t agree with your analysis of that. The “testimony of the Holy Ghost” is as good a “reason” as any (I would say a better reason than any). Jesus said, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17) Therefore no “reason” of the kind that you are apparently expecting is required.

People can have two contradicting feelings about what is true. I feel the Book of Mormon is not true. Now we have to use reason to sort it out.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am not going to get into an argument with you about that. You and others are very welcome to have whatever opinion you like about that.

Well, it isn’t an opinion, it is an observation.

 

[Stephen168]

Am I allowed to disagree with you guys or not? Like it or not, I do!

On this point I think it is irrational to disagree. Unless you have a reason.

 

[mathonihah]

Can somebody tell me how I can stop receiving emails notifications every time somebody replies to my post? I have tried to fix it in my profile, but I still keep receiving them!

 

[twopekinguys]

Am I allowed to disagree with you guys or not? Like it or not, I do!

Of course you are. However, it is up to us as Catholics to point out the errors of mormonism, as well as the errors in your apologetic approach.

That is what debate is about.

Just a little advice, the persecution card doesn’t play well here.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t want to go into the details of what makes a religious tradition. Suffice it to say that religious tradition takes time to develop; whether it is Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, or any other religion. No religion starts off with an established tradition. It develops over time. To say that a religion is not worth joining unless it has an established tradition amounts to saying that a religion is not worth joining until it is old! That is an illogical expectation, and implies that you are not looking at religion from a logical point of view.

You misunderstand the Catholic meaning of Sacred Tradition. It does not develop over time, but rather constitutes the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. This deposit of faith, entrusted to the Apostles by Jesus Christ, has been guarded by the Church throughout the centuries. The Bible is that part of Sacred Scripture that was committed to writing. The Church proclaimed these writings as the inspired word of God because it already possessed the Sacred Tradition (fullness of truth) against which they were measured. The mother of the Bible is Sacred Tradition.

So in the Catholic sense of the word “Tradition” (with a big “T”), yes Tradition would be all important because it is the truth given to the Apostles by Jesus himself and if one does not possess this Tradition then one is lacking in the fullness of truth.

 

[Robot_Maria]

Am I allowed to disagree with you guys or not? Like it or not, I do!

Are you looking for a manipulated audience or are you looking for the truth?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Can somebody tell me how I can stop receiving emails notifications every time somebody replies to my post? I have tried to fix it in my profile, but I still keep receiving them!

The stop-receiving tick box in your profile I think only works for threads that you participate in after you have un-ticked it.

I’m guessing you have to unsubscribe from the thread.

 

[mathonihah]

Of course you are. However, it is up to us as Catholics to point out the errors of mormonism, as well as the errors in your apologetic approach.

That is what debate is about.

Just a little advice, the persecution card doesn’t play well here.

Well thank you for pointing that out; but I have already given you all my answers. I don’t have any more answers to give!

 

[RebeccaJ]

You misunderstand the Catholic meaning of Sacred Tradition. It does not develop over time, but rather constitutes the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. This deposit of faith, entrusted to the Apostles by Jesus Christ, has been guarded by the Church throughout the centuries. The Bible is that part of Sacred Scripture that was committed to writing. The Church proclaimed these writings as the inspired word of God because it already possessed the Sacred Tradition (fullness of truth) against which they were measured. The mother of the Bible is Sacred Tradition.

So in the Catholic sense of the word “Tradition” (with a big “T”), yes Tradition would be all important because it is the truth given to the Apostles by Jesus himself and if one does not possess this Tradition then one is lacking in the fullness of truth.

Yes, little ‘t’ traditions like turkey on Thanksgiving, isn’t what we’re talking about. Those are cultural traditions, not spiritual traditions.

 

[mathonihah]

The stop-receiving tick box in your profile I think only works for threads that you participate in after you have un-ticked it.

I’m guessing you have to unsubscribe from the thread.

Thank you. I will try that to see if it works.

 

[mathonihah]

The stop-receiving tick box in your profile I think only works for threads that you participate in after you have un-ticked it.

I’m guessing you have to unsubscribe from the thread.

I may have found a better solution. If you go to “subscribed threads” from your profile, there is a drop-down menu that allows you to opt out of email notifications form each individual thread. I have tried that, and will see what happens.

 

[mathonihah]

You misunderstand the Catholic meaning of Sacred Tradition. It does not develop over time, but rather constitutes the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. This deposit of faith, entrusted to the Apostles by Jesus Christ, has been guarded by the Church throughout the centuries. The Bible is that part of Sacred Scripture that was committed to writing. The Church proclaimed these writings as the inspired word of God because it already possessed the Sacred Tradition (fullness of truth) against which they were measured. The mother of the Bible is Sacred Tradition.

So in the Catholic sense of the word “Tradition” (with a big “T”), yes Tradition would be all important because it is the truth given to the Apostles by Jesus himself and if one does not possess this Tradition then one is lacking in the fullness of truth.

If you want to look at it that way, then Mormonism also has a tradition. We have the Bible and the Book of Mormon, which are sacred scriptures of ancient origin; we have the Doctrine and Covenants, which is a series of revelations received as the Church was being organized and established, little by little setting out the organizational structure and liturgy of the Church; we have the writings and other documents of Joseph Smith, establishing guidelines for various aspects of the Church. So in that sense of the term we also have a “tradition” as you claim to have.

 

[Robot_Maria]

If you want to look at it that way, then Mormonism also has a tradition. We have the Bible and the Book of Mormon, which are sacred scriptures of ancient origin; we have the Doctrine and Covenants, which is a series of revelations received as the Church was being organized and established, little by little setting out the organizational structure and liturgy of the Church; we have the writings and other documents of Joseph Smith, establishing guidelines for various aspects of the Church. So in that sense of the term we also have a “tradition” as you claim to have.

I don’t think anyone here is claiming Mormons have no traditions. (And there are quite a few Mormon to Catholic converts on this board.) SteveH and others were trying to help you understand what you dismissed as “pomp and ceremony”. And by arguing about the Church’s virtues not necessarily being true just because they’re “really old”, you’re arguing against a point that was never made.

 

[kimg901]

If you want to look at it that way, then Mormonism also has a tradition. We have the Bible and the Book of Mormon, which are sacred scriptures of ancient origin; we have the Doctrine and Covenants, which is a series of revelations received as the Church was being organized and established, little by little setting out the organizational structure and liturgy of the Church; we have the writings and other documents of Joseph Smith, establishing guidelines for various aspects of the Church. So in that sense of the term we also have a “tradition” as you claim to have.

Uh, ancient origin huh? 180 years aint ancient. LOL, joe smith and his prophecies that never came true? How about doctrine that has been changed or “it wasnt doctrine, its a teaching”? The b.o.m? I like fiction just as much as the next guy. And the Bible, which Bible? Your KJB mormon edition? For a religion that says “only if its translated correctly” you sure got me fooled. A bible that was being used before without alterations to it then it is changed. What does Revelations say about this? Or how about believing in another Gospel when the Bible clearly states not to recieve or listen to it?