Pahoran Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 It is one thing I like about Catholicism, worship is done with the whole body and all the senses can be employed. Sight, sound and the smell of incense....all for one purpose, the worship of God, Three In One, Holy Trinity. And just think: only yesterday, a Mormon poster got pinged for proselyting.Incidentally, I have to wonder if an idol is defined as an object of worship made by human hands, how is it any less of an idol if those hands held pens instead of chisels? Because, make no mistake: a philosophical abstraction is every bit as man-made as a statue.Regards,Pahoran
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Hmm, one then wonders what all the fuss is about a wooden statue of Christ bleeding at the wrists or crying at the eyes that drives millions of devout Catholics to put various offerings at its feet and the Catholic church sending representatives to such an idol to verify if it is an authentic miracle.I'll avoid comments on grilled cheese sandwiches.JMSAnd then we have nightlion.
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I am sorry, Saemo, but I think this is now a symantics issue. Just my opinion though.JMSIf its just semantics why not give him the benefit of the doubt?
volgadon Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 On a lighter note, there are Mormon icons. When I served a mission in Russia we used to hand out very small cards with a picture of Christ in the red robe or the First Vision on the front and a calendar on the back. I've personally seen how some non-LDS bus drivers placed them among their icons and crossed themselves.
saemo Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) I am sorry, Saemo, but I think this is now a symantics issue. Just my opinion though.JMSYou get a shrug from me on that one. I can only say I see it is the usual case of people opposing what they think Catholics believe, not actually what we do believe. Edited March 23, 2012 by saemo
saemo Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) And just think: only yesterday, a Mormon poster got pinged for proselyting.Incidentally, I have to wonder if an idol is defined as an object of worship made by human hands, how is it any less of an idol if those hands held pens instead of chisels? Because, make no mistake: a philosophical abstraction is every bit as man-made as a statue.Regards,PahoranAh I'm not trying to Convert you. I reserve my conversion efforts for my husband. Just sometimes I think,Mormons have more in common than not then people like you make a comment like this and I think, maybe, not a much. Edited March 23, 2012 by saemo
Bernard Gui Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 People view them as signs, not as an event of a possession. Signs from God are viewed as miracles. We are to offer our lives to God, sometimes an outward gesture of this offering is given, especially in places where God has given His own gesture.As far as I know a grilled cheese sandwich has never been approved. but seriously, seeing signs of God in everyday things, whether a miracle or not...I think is a better thing than not.Would you explain the function of relics?Bernard
saemo Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Would you explain the function of relics?BernardCopying and pasting from http://www.catholic.com/tracts/relics ....Keep in mind what the Church says about relics. It doesn’t say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture. The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: "So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet" (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint! Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).
Cobalt-70 Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Copying and pasting from http://www.catholic.com/tracts/relics ....Keep in mind what the Church says about relics. It doesn’t say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture. The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: "So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet" (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint! Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12). Wilford Woodruff also had a handkerchief that he said Joseph Smith gave him after imbuing it with healing powers. (See History of the Church 4:4-5, http://books.google.com/books?id=hLgUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR1)
saemo Posted March 24, 2012 Posted March 24, 2012 Wilford Woodruff also had a handkerchief that he said Joseph Smith gave him after imbuing it with healing powers. (See History of the Church 4:4-5, http://books.google.com/books?id=hLgUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR1)How do you imbue something with healing powers?
mfbukowski Posted March 24, 2012 Posted March 24, 2012 How do you imbue something with healing powers?Now that is a question that I think might be touchy for a Catholic to push on too hard. I remember some attitudes from my childhood about blessed objects, relics, holy water etc. that I would definitely find a bit superstitious now.
Mike Reed Posted March 24, 2012 Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Now that is a question that I think might be touchy for a Catholic to push on too hard. I remember some attitudes from my childhood about blessed objects, relics, holy water etc. that I would definitely find a bit superstitious now.Apostle Heber C. Kimball (1857) asked, How much would you give for even a cane that Father Abraham had used? or a coat or ring that the Saviour had worn? The rough oak boxes in which the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum were brought from Carthage, were made into canes and other articles. I have a cane made from the plank of one of those boxes, so as brother Brigham and a great many others, and we prize them highly, and esteem them a great blessing. I want to carefully preserve my cane, and when I am done with it here, I shall hand it down to my heir, with instructions to him to do the same. And the day will come when there will be multitudes who will be healed and blessed through the instrumentality of those canes, and the devil cannot overcome those who have them, in consequence of their faith and confidence in the virtues connected with them.Journal of Discourses, 4:294. Edited March 24, 2012 by Mike Reed
saemo Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) Now that is a question that I think might be touchy for a Catholic to push on too hard. I remember some attitudes from my childhood about blessed objects, relics, holy water etc. that I would definitely find a bit superstitious now.I ask because I don't know what Mormons think. I'm not asking so that I can judge, which is what you seem to want to me to do, or you need to do? Edited March 25, 2012 by saemo
mfbukowski Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 I ask because I don't know what Mormons think. I'm not asking so that I can judge, which is what you seem to want to me to do, or you need to do?Well I was about to say that "we don't believe in that stuff" but then Mike posted that quote. Let's just say that the quote seems highly out of character for our present practices. On the other hand, we have blessed oil which is used for annointing the sick and we have Priesthood garments. Those are about the only examples I can think of where an object takes on some degree of "sacredness"
saemo Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 Well I was about to say that "we don't believe in that stuff" but then Mike posted that quote. Let's just say that the quote seems highly out of character for our present practices. On the other hand, we have blessed oil which is used for annointing the sick and we have Priesthood garments. Those are about the only examples I can think of where an object takes on some degree of "sacredness"Why would a belief in this regard change so much that a past belief seems "out of character"?
mfbukowski Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) Why would a belief in this regard change so much that a past belief seems "out of character"?It seems you are implying that Catholic beliefs don't change?http://www.catholicn...cns/0702310.htmOne reason the Second Vatican Council rejected attempts to strengthen teaching against the salvation of unbaptized infants was that bishops felt it was "not the faith of their people," the document said.It referred to an important teaching of Vatican II, which said that the whole body of the faithful shares in Christ's prophetic office and "cannot err in matters of belief."To support its conclusions on limbo, the theological commission's document also cited the need for the church to read the "signs of the times" in order to better understand the Gospel.Also see this:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm Edited March 25, 2012 by mfbukowski
saemo Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 It seems you are implying that Catholic beliefs don't change?http://www.catholicn...cns/0702310.htmAlso see this:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htmI asked why this Mormon belief changed. Never implied anything about Catholic belief. But never mind, I see you can't answer questions about what Mormons believe. Have a good evening.
volgadon Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 I asked why this Mormon belief changed. Never implied anything about Catholic belief. But never mind, I see you can't answer questions about what Mormons believe. Have a good evening.Nothing you said limited the question to Mormon belief, so it did read as very generalised.
mfbukowski Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) Why do beliefs change? That is a huge question!I suppose the smarty pants answer is "Because God wants them to", or it could be that religion evolves, or that God changes, or that people no longer believe in the correct God, or that all religion is false, or that Zeus changed his mind, or that people just don't believe the old stuff anymore.I mean- what kind of question IS that? All of those could be reasons for why Mormonism changes also, according to the person's opinion.Why do I think Mormon doctrine changes? Because God changes and so does our understanding through personal revelation. Times change- we didn't used to need revelation about internet pornography for example, now we do. So what worked for previous generations doesn't work anymore and doctrine needs to be adjusted. Edited March 26, 2012 by mfbukowski
LeSellers Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) Why do I think Mormon doctrine changes? Because God changes and so does our understanding through personal revelation. Times change- ... . So what worked for previous generations doesn't work anymore and doctrine needs to be adjusted.Doctrine, I believe, is like an onion: it has layers. At the core, doctrine does not change in the least: God is our Father. He created this earth so we, His children, could advance, mature and become like Him. He knew/knows that we will stumble, fail, and even rebel against Him, so He arranged a system whereby we can repent and return to the path that leads to that End. To do so, He sent His Son to sacrifice Himself, and by virtue of His perfection, we can escape the imperfection that just punishments for our rebellions would cause. Adam and Eve, our First Parents, sacrificed themselves, too, so we could attain mortality, a necessary step along that path. None of that will change.The Word of Wisdom is an application of a core doctrine: that our bodies are temples of God (partly because we are spirit children of God and our spirits inhabit those temples). The Mosaic Law included a different application of that same core doctrine. The Word of Wisdom and the dietary portions of the Law of Moses are doctrines that have changed. They reside in different layers from the core tenets of the True Religion of God, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in whatever dispensation she is manifest.Why, we ask, do doctrines change? I agree with all of your possibilities. Central to each is that people and our environments change. This change is cyclic, sometimes quick, often slower, varying from greater to lesser obedience to God and His commandments. He changes the façade of His religion, but not the structure, as people are more or less willing to obey. Since, as He told Moses, His work and glory are to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life (two separate things, in spite of what cinepro's topic four years ago argued–see Doc&Cov 19:13~19) of man, we know He will do nothing designed to cause us to fail. If we refuse the brilliant light of day, He will lower the shades until we can accept the light. But the goal is the sunshine, not the shadow.Lehi Edited March 26, 2012 by LeSellers 1
mfbukowski Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 I really like that last paragraph.The real reason is that his work and his glory is bringing to pass our immortality and eternal life, ie: exaltation.As our cultures change, the way he teaches us changes us to match what our paltry little brains can understand.Were I given the responsibility to do so, as a missionary in some eternal realm, I would not teach a peasant from 300 BC in Java the same way I would teach Albert Einstein, the gospel.Both could be brilliant individuals, but culturally they would probably be as far apart as two humans could be.
KevinG Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) I have no problem with Catholic or Mormon use of symbols and objects to help our mortal minds wrap themselves around eternal concepts. In my discussions with Catholic friends I have come to understand their faith in intercessory spirits is not to far from our own belief in earthly representatives of Christ (priesthood). In both cases the ultimate power itself comes from God and Christ. I'm all for a brazen serpent with healing powers. It was good enough for the Old Testament. Edited March 26, 2012 by KevinG
Cobalt-70 Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 How do you imbue something with healing powers?In this case, I think it's just the fact that it came from Smith, and it provided some sort of magical connection between Smith and the person being healed. It's the same sort of magic that worked with Paul's handkerchiefs in Acts 19.
Cobalt-70 Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 Apostle Heber C. Kimball (1857) asked, How much would you give for even a cane that Father Abraham had used? or a coat or ring that the Saviour had worn? The rough oak boxes in which the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum were brought from Carthage, were made into canes and other articles. I have a cane made from the plank of one of those boxes, so as brother Brigham and a great many others, and we prize them highly, and esteem them a great blessing. I want to carefully preserve my cane, and when I am done with it here, I shall hand it down to my heir, with instructions to him to do the same. And the day will come when there will be multitudes who will be healed and blessed through the instrumentality of those canes, and the devil cannot overcome those who have them, in consequence of their faith and confidence in the virtues connected with them.Journal of Discourses, 4:294.Plus, there's the Book of Mormon relics, some of which have magical powers: the gold plates, the Interpreters, the seer stones, the Liahona, the sword of Laban, the giant's breastplate, etc.
Recommended Posts