Faith Vs. Science

[Jeff K.]

Yes I know it is anecdotal. But leadership studies are difficult to find in regard to Mormon missionary activities. But his counter intuitive ignorance is bothersome. Even non members see the two years as a maturing time in which leadership is developed. You are right though, answering anecdotal with anecdotal simply means you have different experiences. Unlike the troll though, I do not presume that my anecdotal experiences validate my negative and prejudicial opinions of other groups.

[thesometimesaint]

Nathan6329:

It is called the Big Bang, and it was something very very small. "All the power in the universe, and a very very small living space".

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

[Jeff K.]

Nathan6329:

It is called the Big Bang, and it was something very very small. "All the power in the universe, and a very very small living space".

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

Wow, like a small Japanese living room.

[44Foxtrot]

Jeff K.:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7947460.stm

thesometimesaint,

Thanks for the reference.

http://www.guardian....003/oct/09/aids

also works.

[thesometimesaint]

Bingo.

[Jeff K.]

thesometimesaint,

Thanks for the reference.

http://www.guardian....003/oct/09/aids

also works.

Well I acknowledge the answer for the CFR.

Now if Foxtrot will go back and show how I have revised history, a CFR he still has responded to, I will find that most interesting.

[44Foxtrot]

Should I also bother to point out that your post has nothing to do with the OP, but appears to be a blatant, baseless expression of your bigoted opinion of the LDS Church?

The response was to Walker's kind request for a better understanding of my position. He and many on this board, I fear, see me as a severe rationalist with not much appreciation for the fine points. I was merely trying to provide some context as to how my early training and background (military) might be different from his (LDS mission). My views on the military and a mission are perfectly appropriate in that context.

Also, I would claim that, as a former faithful member of the Church and with most of my family still faithful members, I have certainly earned the right to be critical of religion in general and the LDS Church in particular.

[44Foxtrot]

Sorry. Double Post.

[Jeff K.]

The response was to Walker's kind request for a better understanding of my position. He and many on this board, I fear, see me as a severe rationalist with not much appreciation for the fine points. I was merely trying to provide some context as to how my early training and background (military) might be different from his (LDS mission). My views on the military and a mission are perfectly appropriate in that context.

Also, I would claim that, as a former faithful member of the Church and with most of my family still faithful members, I have certainly earned the right to be critical of religion in general and the LDS Church in particular.

No bigotry is irrational not rational. You need to look up the definition of the words. They don't mean what you think they do.

[44Foxtrot]

Well I acknowledge the answer for the CFR.

Now if Foxtrot will go back and show how I have revised history, a CFR he still has responded to, I will find that most interesting.

Jeff,

I do not recall stating that you "revised" history. I believe I claimed that your description of the Galileo affair was similar to that I found on a Catholic apologetics site, and that if you were trying to deny what history records happened to Galileo, I was going to call you on it.

In an exchange with Walker, I stated that, regardless of the politics and personalities involved, the outcome of the Inquisition was that Galileo was sanctioned, forced to deny/denounce his own science, confined under house arrest for the rest of his life and effectively silenced by the banning of all future publications. I claim that this outcome speaks for itself.

If you will read the above exchanges with Walker on the subject, you will see that he agreed to the facts as to the three main outcomes asI stated them. He then pointed out that (he believed) Galileo bore no particular animosity for the Catholic Church because of his treatment. I stated that I could not disagree. He also drew a distinction between the Catholic religion and the Catholic Church. Fair enough. I see it as a distinction without a difference.

I trust that this will be a sufficient response to your CFR.

[nicolasconnault]

My views on the military and a mission are perfectly appropriate in that context.

Also, I would claim that, as a former faithful member of the Church and with most of my family still faithful members, I have certainly earned the right to be critical of religion in general and the LDS Church in particular.

I didn't know that disingenuousness and misrepresentation were rights one could earn through experience. The way you expressed your views might have been context-appropriate, but they were inappropriate in most other regards.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff,

I do not recall stating that you "revised" history. I believe I claimed that your description of the Galileo affair was similar to that I found on a Catholic apologetics site, and that if you were trying to deny what history records happened to Galileo, I was going to call you on it.

It is exactly what you said.

You were ignorant of the context of the trial, why it occurred and more importantly how the science Galileo used to defend himself was wrong. All of this was placed within the context before you NOT using Catholic apologetic sites but using the same websites you did. In effect you are either disengenuous and false with us or you are an incredibly ignorant man who is little more than a troll.

In an exchange with Walker, I stated that, regardless of the politics and personalities involved, the outcome of the Inquisition was that Galileo was sanctioned, forced to deny/denounce his own science, confined under house arrest for the rest of his life and effectively silenced by the banning of all future publications. I claim that this outcome speaks for itself.

That would be pretty dumb given that motivation in effect cancels out the idea that science is involved in anything beyond a thin veneer of legitimacy.

You see your problem is that you don't know what is going on, and you troll, and yes we feed trolls like you sometimes. But you aren't even a very entertaining troll, you can't seem to keep your arguments consistent, you display a bigotry that belongs in 1930's Germany not in America, and you have provided no proof that your arguments are either sound or even have a basis in fact. You deal more in conjecture than religion does and you do it in the name of science. Ignorant bigots who use science are like lynch mobs with a gun, they are irrational, irresponsible and they provide little in redeeming qualities.

Walker actually laid you low and pretty much stated that you were in the wrong, he was diplomatic about it, but I suggest you read the posts. I know you are not a historian, you aren't much of a scientist either since scientists use a rational method to analyze information. You do not. You have been consistently proved wrong every since you laid out your bigotry towards religious people. And yet you cannot seem to comprehend or rationalize it, indeed you ignore your own irrationality.

So I believe, given your inconsistencies, that you are not a scientist, you do not run a company, or are full partner in one, nor do you even work in the HR department (you would have been fired long ago for your practices). You will of course make claims that are unsubstantiated and unproveable. But your writings reflects a lack of knowledge so profound as to make all who read it question the somewhat grandiose claims you make about yourself.

Reread Walkers post and I still await your CFR claiming I was revising history.

[Jeff K.]

What? Are you not aware that Copernicus so much feared the retribution of the Catholic Church that he did not publish his work until he was near death?

Are you denying that Galileo was summoned to a Church hearing and forced, upon threat of imprisonment and torture, to recant his claim that the earth circled the sun?

If the name of the Pope was all that was at issue, why was Galileo required to recant his support for a Copernican solar system, for which he had a great deal of sound physical evidence?

Why did the Catholic Church feel a need, 350 years later, to officially apologize for their treatment of Galileo?

It appears that you and Dr. Peterson are not content with revision of Mormon history but also feel an apologist's need to do so for the Roman Catholic Church as well.

Again CFR

Try and get it right this time.

[Senator]

Well, the name calling has certainly reached saturation levels...

[Jeff K.]

Senator, you above all should know that dishonest and disengenuous remarks make people angry. But feel free to chime in at the heels.

[WalkerW]

I would greatly appreciate hearing your explanation of how believing in religion is different from believing in magic. Naive or not, the analogy holds.

It is just the polemical use of the term "magic" that is naive. Your use of the term is an attempt to make religion seem silly.

The problem is that you now have to define "magic."

Quinn ran into problems with defining it.

[Senator]

Senator, you above all should know that dishonest and disengenuous remarks make people angry. But feel free to chime in at the heels.

Wow

If you're angry Jeff, then perhaps it's a red flag signaling that you need to back off a regain your composure.

I'm not sure by this statement if you are accusing me of being dishonest and disengenuous; or that I should know how such people can affect us? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. At any rate I'll take it that it was just said in anger.

[Jeff K.]

No offense intended senator, but you do have a habit of chiming in and nipping at the heels rather than being in the conversation. Just something to consider. And yes, when I feel someone is being dishonest in their arguments, trolling if you will, then I do become angry. I appreciate your advice on the matter.

[44Foxtrot]

It appears that you and Dr. Peterson are not content with revision of Mormon history but also feel an apologist's need to do so for the Roman Catholic Church as well.

Again CFR

Try and get it right this time.

Okay. I see that I was mistaken about the revision of Church history comment. I should have looked further back in the thread for it before. I apologize.

Anyway, in defense of religion and the Catholic Church you claimed that,

In it [a presentation] there was a conversation of three people, a wise man, a neutral man, and a foolish man. The foolish man's name was also the Pope's. This led to the trial, nothing more.

You claim the foolish man's name in presentations of Galileo's work was the only offense that led to the formal Inquisition( Actually, according to the Cathlolic apologists who wrote the article, your description is not quite accurate, but close enough). Based on a more accurate description of who offended whom and how, this is same argument that the Catholic Church makes in their defense. True or not, it is a minor point.

The fact is that (according to that same Catholic apologetics site) the Church had already forbade Galileo to "hold or defend" his heliocentric theory. Thus the Church had effectively passed both judgment and sentence, effectively silencing what they claimed to be Galileo's heresy before the Inquisition even began.

So your claim that the Catholic Church was essentially blameless, and that Galileo's trial was the result of a little misunderstanding and not the result of Galileo's challenge to Chucrh dogma, and that the Church really did support Galileo and his science, is clearly a misrepresentation of history.

As I stated before, the fact that the Catholic Church felt the need to make a formal apology for its actions 350 years later indicates that the affair was not a minor incident wherein the Pope took offense at the theatrical casting of a scientific presentation.

Returning to the theme of the thread, the Catholic apologist website states that the trial is "heralded as the final separation of science and religion". Could the point be made much clearer than that?

Dr. Peterson's revision of Church history was his claim that the Mormon Church did not characterize the Catholic Church as the "great and abominable Church and the whore of the whole earth", even though such a characterization is found in Church scripture, made in Church publications, proclaimed in writings by Church leaders and (was) taught in Seminary and Institute. Of course the Church is now trying to backpedal on this characterization, but the written evidence for it remains.

[WalkerW]

...even though such a characterization is found in Church scripture

Where is the Catholic Church named?

made in Church publications

Where? This might be true (especially in older ones), I'm just unaware of it if so.

proclaimed in writings by Church leaders

True.

and (was) taught in Seminary and Institute

Depends on teacher. I have never been taught that.

but the written evidence for it remains.

The only one I think you have on your side is the Church leaders claim, particularly McConkie.

[WalkerW]

Catholic apologist website

For one who disparages apologists, I'm not sure why you are taking a Catholic apologetics site over the list of academic sources that have been provided.

[44Foxtrot]

For one who disparages apologists, I'm not sure why you are taking a Catholic apologetics site over the list of academic sources that have been provided.

I figured that facts taken from the narrative that Jeff seemed to be using for reference would be the most appropriate. When it is possible make a point in debate using the opponents data set, who would pass up the opportunity to do so?

[44Foxtrot]

The only one I think you have on your side is the Church leaders claim, particularly McConkie.

There are a few more than just McConkie. Please see below.

1 Nephi 14:9: And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil.

1 Nephi 14:17: And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel.

Q&A from LDS Church Publication "The Seer," January, 1854. No. 1., Page 204-206

Q. Who founded the Roman Catholic Church?

A. The Devil, through the medium of Apostates, who subverted the whole order of God by denying immediate revelation, and substituting in the place thereof, tradition and ancient revelations as a sufficient rule of faith and practice.

________________

D&C 29:21: "And the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign."

"She is termed, in other places, by the same prophet, "The whore of all the earth," making the nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. Some three centuries ago there came out sortie excellent men, named Martin Lather, John Calvin and many others that might be mentioned, who protested against the wickedness and abominations of the Church wherein they had been educated, and of which they had been members. Because of their protestations against the mother Church they were called Protestants. They pronounced her the whore of all the earth; they declared that she had no authority, that she had none of the blessings and gifts which characterized the ancient Christians. They came out and established other Churches... But among all these Churches where are the characteristics of Zion? We hunt for them in vain." - Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses Vol. 14, p.346

Apostle Pratt is attributing the "whore of all the earth" language to Luther and/or Calvin. You would probably know if this is accurate or not.

However, if accurate, then with such a reference in the religious literature outside of the LDS Church and referenced as such by the LDS Church leaders, I would think that this "whore of all the earth" language, especially as it appears in LDS scripture, would always be taken to be in reference to the Catholic Church, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Given that this 'whore of the whole earth' description is used synonymously or as equivalent with "great and abominable church" and "church of the devil", I think it is pretty clear that Joseph Smith and the early Church leaders at least, clearly understood these passages in scripture to refer to the Catholic Church. McConkie certainly did, and he published in 1958.

So, is this another "misunderstanding" by the early Church leaders?

Is it an issue that calls for another "thoughtful re-reading" of the scriptures?

The problem here is that this language appears in both the BoM and the D&C, and does so often (I stopped counting after about 20 passages.)

It would appear that the Catholic Church was not too popular with God in the 19th Century.

[WalkerW]

I figured that facts taken from the narrative that Jeff seemed to be using for reference would be the most appropriate. When it is possible make a point in debate using the opponents data set, who would pass up the opportunity to do so?

Fair enough. I wasn't really paying attention to what Jeff was saying.

[WalkerW]

Walter

Walker. I always think of this when I am mistakingly called "Walter."

There are a few more than just McConkie. Please see below.

I know. McConkie is just the most well-known. I was skimming James E. Talmage's The Great Apostasy and Jesus the Christ last night, taking note of the unnecessary hostility toward Catholicism. See this excellent article on Talmage's (and other GAs') sources.

You've provided work by Pratt. The Seer was officially denounced by the First Presidency in 1865. I think this barely counts as a "Church publication."

Any others?