WhyMe and others: Can you Be Catholic and LDS at the same time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Religio71
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WhyMe, to say that any of the Catholic (or Non LDS) members on these thread has despised anyone based on their creed, would be the same as saying that Dianaiad and ParkerD has broke the 11th Article of Faith. Neither has happened.

People from both religions have questioned and challenged the truth behind the other’s religion. But they have never scorned anyone for what they believe.
Not exactly. The tone of the posts left much to be desired and yes, they were despising the mormon faith. Heck, we even had one catholic claim that she didn’t trust a single mormon. And when you start a thread calling the lds faith obviously false, I would also call that a form of despising someone’s beliefs. And if you would read that thread, you may find that christian charity flew out the window.

Perhaps break was the wrong word. But most of the catholics on the mormon threads would have to answer yes to the question about despising those of another creed. Thus, it would be time to go to confession.
 
Not exactly. The tone of the posts left much to be desired and yes, they were despising the mormon faith. Heck, we even had one catholic claim that she didn’t trust a single mormon. And when you start a thread calling the lds faith obviously false, I would also call that a form of despising someone’s beliefs. And if you would read that thread, you may find that christian charity flew out the window.

Perhaps break was the wrong word. But most of the catholics on the mormon threads would have to answer yes to the question about despising those of another creed. Thus, it would be time to go to confession.
Calling something false is not despising that thing. Believing that the Catholic Faith is the fullness of Truth necessitates that something other than the Catholic Faith doesn’t have that fullness, and thus replaces it with falsehoods. If all Catholics beliefs are True, then those beliefs that are not the same as Catholic beliefs are false. I mean, hello, logic? 🤷

As you say it’s time to go to confession for others on this thread, I hope you too have gone to confession for being baptized in the LDS Church, since you say you’re now Catholic again, right?
 
As you say it’s time to go to confession for others on this thread, I hope you too have gone to confession for being baptized in the LDS Church, since you say you’re now Catholic again, right?
My first confession after 40 years lasted over 2 hours. How about your first confession? And have you gone to confession for your posts despising those of other creeds? You see, if you claim to people that their faith is false, you show a form of derision. Time for confession, my friend.
 
Dogma kills, it always has. Many people have died because of dogma. When people put dogma above the human, the human beings suffers at the hand of others. On this forum, catholics bash mormons about their dogma. And who benefits? No one. Contention is of the devil.
Are you a Puritan?

I have to ask, a general poll, raise your hand if you are Mormon and are suffering here at the hands of Catholics.
 
And confession is dogma, right? Why does it even matter?

:rolleyes:
Check catholic history and see the harm that dogma has done when used to bash others. And of course, the protestants are not blameless. Their dogma listed Native Americans as savages and massacred the Indian ‘savage’ at will.
 
Are you a Puritan?

I have to ask, a general poll, raise your hand if you are Mormon and are suffering here at the hands of Catholics.
Their dogma burned a lot of witches who were not really witches. Puritans forgot the verb to love.
 
My first confession after 40 years lasted over 2 hours. How about your first confession? And have you gone to confession for your posts despising those of other creeds? You see, if you claim to people that their faith is false, you show a form of derision. Time for confession, my friend.
Thankfully, we don’t have to go to confession for believing that non-Catholic religions are false, or have many falsehoods (hence why they are non-Catholic. 🤷 ). Just like how a LDS is not committing a sin by believing that all other Christian churches are apostate. Do you not get this??
 
Check catholic history and see the harm that dogma has done when used to bash others. And of course, the protestants are not blameless. Their dogma listed Native Americans as savages and massacred the Indian ‘savage’ at will.
Try reading Diana’s post above. I’ll post it here: "I’m really having a bad day today. I just channeled the NRA;** dogma doesn’t kill, people do**. "

I don’t think you understand what dogma means.

"1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet"

Religions are made up of dogmas. Joseph Smith being a prophet? Dogma. The Catholic Church being the one, true church? Dogma. The possibility of being exalted? Dogma.

You have an irregular view of dogma.
 
Calling something false is not despising that thing. Believing that the Catholic Faith is the fullness of Truth necessitates that something other than the Catholic Faith doesn’t have that fullness, and thus replaces it with falsehoods. If all Catholics beliefs are True, then those beliefs that are not the same as Catholic beliefs are false. I mean, hello, logic? 🤷

As you say it’s time to go to confession for others on this thread, I hope you too have gone to confession for being baptized in the LDS Church, since you say you’re now Catholic again, right?
Religio, it’s a matter of rhetorics and emotional intent. There really IS a difference between saying “the Catholic Faith is the fullness of Truth” and “Mormonism is obviously false!”

The first is a statement of belief, and of hope and an offering of something you care deeply about. It’s a caring statement. Here is something that means everything to me; come and share.

The other is a statement of attack. First, “obviously false” is begging a logical question, it is offensive (in all senses of that word) and puts the reader (especially if the reader is Mormon) in an instant defense mode. The intent of that statement is NOT to share something precious, but to destroy something.

What seems to be forgotten in equating “This is true” to “that is false” is that the first offers something to take the place of the false thing. The second offers nothing at all but dissension.
 
Religio, it’s a matter of rhetorics and emotional intent. There really IS a difference between saying “the Catholic Faith is the fullness of Truth” and “Mormonism is obviously false!”

The first is a statement of belief, and of hope and an offering of something you care deeply about. It’s a caring statement. Here is something that means everything to me; come and share.

The other is a statement of attack. First, “obviously false” is begging a logical question, it is offensive (in all senses of that word) and puts the reader (especially if the reader is Mormon) in an instant defense mode. The intent of that statement is NOT to share something precious, but to destroy something.

What seems to be forgotten in equating “This is true” to “that is false” is that the first offers something to take the place of the false thing. The second offers nothing at all but dissension.
I like your explanation. I think that when one says “this is false” it must be paired with “this is true” in the same way that “We alone have the fullness of Truth” or “we alone have priesthood authority” logically proceeds to “no one else has the fullness of Truth” or “no one else has priesthood authority”. While saying “obviously false” seems offensive to whoever believers in that “obviously false” thing, to the person saying that it is obviously false, it makes sense, because they see their world view as true.

I don’t see that calling something false is hateful. In the Catholic worldview, it is logical to call other religions false, because they have beliefs that are not Catholic, making those different beliefs false. Likewise, in Mormonism, all other religions are seen as apostate, and in fact, that was the starting point of the LDS Church. So, when we say something is false, we must also say what is the Truth that replaces what is false.
 
I like your explanation. I think that when one says “this is false” it must be paired with “this is true” in the same way that “We alone have the fullness of Truth” or “we alone have priesthood authority” logically proceeds to “no one else has the fullness of Truth” or “no one else has priesthood authority”. While saying “obviously false” seems offensive to whoever believers in that “obviously false” thing, to the person saying that it is obviously false, it makes sense, because they see their world view as true.

I don’t see that calling something false is hateful. In the Catholic worldview, it is logical to call other religions false, because they have beliefs that are not Catholic, making those different beliefs false. Likewise, in Mormonism, all other religions are seen as apostate, and in fact, that was the starting point of the LDS Church. So, when we say something is false, we must also say what is the Truth that replaces what is false.
Indeed.

As you mentioned earlier, saying “this is true” is, in most things, also saying that 'everything else is false." Logically there is no difference…but emotionally? All the difference in the world. Saying “This is true” allows the conversation to completely skip the need to prove the other thing false, because once the true thing is established, the false thing simply goes away; one does not need to battle the darkness, after all. One simply needs to turn on the light; the darkness goes away on its own.

Because of this, I think that one need only say “this is true.” What happens after that is that if you can convince your debate partner that ‘this is true,’ then you don’t have to ALSO convince him that his previous belief is false; proving yours to be true did that.

So many people divide this one step process into two…first attack the false belief, and only when the believer is in utter confusion do you let him out of his misery and give him truth. That’s not only cruel, it’s counterproductive; it’s like telling someone that he has to jump off his ledge because it is crumbling, but not letting him know that there’s a safe place to jump TO until after he is in the air. Few people are going to go for that.
 
Where did I claim no one was suffering?
OK, ‘my bad…’ you actually wrote:

“I have to ask, a general poll, raise your hand if you are Mormon and are suffering here at the hands of Catholics.” (emphasis on ‘suffering’ yours)

So you didn’t claim that nobody was, but the tenor of your question seems to indicate that you don’t think anybody is, and if a Mormon actually claimed to be, you would argue with him or her about it…

Or make fun of him or her about it.

The emphasis you used for ‘suffering’ seems to indicate that you have a specific (and perhaps restrictive?) definition for the word.

so…what is it?

The dictionary says it is "The condition of one who suffers: the bearing of pain or distress.
or “An instance of pain or distress.”

However, Christ said “suffer the little children to come unto me.” and even though I have had to deal with two and three year olds m’self, “pain and distress” doesn’t seem to be an appropriate meaning for the word.

Now the OED has several other meanings for ‘suffer.":
!. to allow, to endure ( I guess this is how the word is used in Jesus’ instructions to let the children come to Him.)
2. to go or pass through, be subjected to, undergo, experience (usually something evil or painful)
3.To submit patiently.
4.to resist, to endure, hold out, bear, stand…to be long suffering.
5. to allow oneself to be treated in a certain way; to endure, to consent to be or to do something.

Suffering, on the other hand, means:

Patient endurance, long-suffering.
The bearing or undergoing of pain, distress or tribulation.
The action of suffering death, execution, martyrdom
The incurring of loss
Pain suffered
passive reception of an action.

Well, nobody here is enduring physical pain because of anti-Mormon attacks, that’s certain–though that HAS happened (not here!)

So I guess the operative words would be 'distress" 'patient endurance," passive reception of an action", “tolerance” “to allow oneself to be treated in a certain way” and “to endure, hold, stand…” or 'to submit patiently."

Lessee…I don’t think you could characterize me a passive person, and I say something, generally a rather sharp something, when I think I am being treated unjustly or wrongly. So that doesn’t apply.

Hmmmnnn…I’m still HERE arguing the same old points, so perhaps 'endure, hold and stand" work. Perhaps even 'patient." (Well, in a sense…) I don’t think that’s what you have in mind, though, when you think about 'suffering."

I guess it all comes down to 'distress." Are we being distressed?

The OED says that 'distress" (verb) means “to harass or put to straits in war,” "to cause pain suffering, agony or anxiety to; to afflict, vex, make miserable.

I think that it’s quite reasonable to assume that being insulted, called a liar, being constantly told that one is a cultist, evil, not a Christian, worshiping a false god, a member of a group that consists solely of liars, gossipers, con men and evil doers could be considered vexing, even distressing.

I dunno. What’s your take on this?
 
***No and be grateful. LDS and JW’s are CULTS not religions:thumbsup:

Love and prayers***
All religions are cults, by definition, PJM.

I just happen to have the Oxford English Dictionary up, for an answer to another post.

Cult: Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings.

If you are going to throw gratuitous insults around, it might be a good idea to look up the meaning of the words you use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top