Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[MormonMason]

I am a bit sick and feel dull minded. I am not sure of what your point is. I don't think that is your fault-- its my slowness right now.

I know the feeling. I have been sick repeatedly over the last few weeks.

[Ahab]

A testimony without using logic, reason, and study of all sides of the issue is just wishful thinking or believing. Anyone can claim they believe anything but that does not make it real. A true testimony has to stand up to the rigors of evidence and rationality.

As far as the ancient church is concerned I think you would find very little support outside of Mormonism that the current LDS church has any relation to what was practiced long ago. There is little to support that claim other than Mormons claiming it is so.

I don't know what you're thinking about, specifically, but I can think of a lot of things they did that we also do, and a lot of things they had that we also have, and if you thought more about it I'm sure you could come up with a long list by yourself. Edited April 5, 2013 by Ahab

[Ahab]

I am a bit sick and feel dull minded. I am not sure of what your point is. I don't think that is your fault-- its my slowness right now.

The point is that the 12 weren't always the same 12, meaning there were more than only 12 apostles. I addressed that here:

Paul is giving a chronological timeline of our Lord's appearances after his resurrection, so when he's saying our Lord was seen of Cephas then of the twelve, he's referring to those particular men who were apostles during his mortal ministry, minus Judas Iscariot who had killed himself by that time. Later he was seen of 500 other men, and then James (the Lord's brother who incidentally also become an apostle), and then all of the apostles who were apostles at that time which included Matthias, and Barnabas, and Paul, and maybe some others who had been called to that office we don't know about now. That's who those "other" apostles were, and they were all in the quorum which apostles are members of.

[CASteinman]

The point is that the 12 weren't always the same 12, meaning there were more than only 12 apostles. I addressed that here:

So you are saying that MormonMason made your point for you?

Your interpretation does not make sense, really ... because, except for Paul, these appearances are accounted for in his 40 day ministry. And at that time, the 12 was the 12. (less one I think).

Edited April 5, 2013 by CASteinman

[mfbukowski]

There are HP quorums- in each stake and the Stake President is the president of the quorum. Cheesh.

[saemo]

The LDS claim of revelation is probably not the best evidence of the antiquity of the LDS Church, since anyone can claim to have revelation. The structure and doctrine of the LDS Church is itself the best evidence that it is the authentic, restored Church of Jesus Christ on the Earth, with a Prophet at its head.

All still, claims that come from LDS revelation. Which of course, I don't find convincing.

I fully realize that, being Roman Catholic, you cannot accept that, and that you feel that the Roman Catholic Church is the authentic Church of Christ with the Pope at its head. I very much respect that, and find that Catholic scholarship is often worthy of my full attention. There is a great deal of truth in Roman Catholicism, but the priesthood power exercised by Roman Catholic priests is null and void -- despite the best of intentions of those acting in priesthood offices. It all comes down to authority from God.

Priesthood authority wasn't lost. That is, again, an LDS claim that comes from LDS revelation.

I read no serious response or engagement from you with what I demonstrated. Of course you are not obligated to respond to anything. However, this is supposed to be a discussion board. Just now you are in attack mode. Not very kind, gracious, or ecumenical.

My suggestion to you is: Read more of your own Roman Catholic scholarship on the early Christian Church. See if what I am saying is not so. Then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion.

I'm not attacking, just, find LDS arguments to be: the evidence are the LDS claims, and the claims are the LDS evidence.

I don't know why you would assume I haven't read Roman Catholic sources. What I find is that LDS overlay LDS belief over them. That, to me, is not meaningful at all.

[Robert F. Smith]

All still, claims that come from LDS revelation. Which of course, I don't find convincing.

Priesthood authority wasn't lost. That is, again, an LDS claim that comes from LDS revelation.

I'm not attacking, just, find LDS arguments to be: the evidence are the LDS claims, and the claims are the LDS evidence.

I don't know why you would assume I haven't read Roman Catholic sources. What I find is that LDS overlay LDS belief over them. That, to me, is not meaningful at all.

I assume that you haven't read the scholarly Roman Catholic sources because you show no familiarity with them. Scholars of your Church have produced some excellent studies of early Jewish Christianity. The evidence that the LDS Church is a restoration of that early Church is contained in a wide array of non-Mormon scholarly sources, including Roman Catholic sources. The evidence for the Great Apostasy is contained in detailed studies of patristic writings kept and copied faithfully by Roman Catholic monks. LDS scholars, who are every bit as well-trained and well-informed as their Roman Catholic counterparts are certainly capable of reading and understanding those early Christian as well as patristic sources and drawing reasonable conclusions therefrom.

I have tried to make these things clear to you before, but it is obvious that you deeply fear to engage these issues on a scholarly or intellectual level.

[Robert F. Smith]

A testimony without using logic, reason, and study of all sides of the issue is just wishful thinking or believing. Anyone can claim they believe anything but that does not make it real. A true testimony has to stand up to the rigors of evidence and rationality.

Yeh, D. Michael Quinn says that "the unexamined faith is not worth having." Is that what you are suggesting?

However, are you sure that this is the true nature of a testimony? A Mormon testimony? A non-Mormon testimony? On what basis are you making this demand that a testimony "stand up to the rigors of evidence and rationality"? Not that I mind you making such demands, but are they preferential on your part? Or are they part of a specifically scientific-rationalistic exercise? Are you basing it on the experimental method in Alma 32, for example?

As far as the ancient church is concerned I think you would find very little support outside of Mormonism that the current LDS church has any relation to what was practiced long ago. There is little to support that claim other than Mormons claiming it is so.

That is what saemo keeps saying, albeit without any documentation.

Are you saying that a scholarly assessment by you or someone you know has shown that "the current LDS church has" no "relation to what was practiced long ago" in "the ancient church"? Which scholars or what compilation of evidence leads you to make this statement?

Edited April 9, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[saemo]

I assume that you haven't read the scholarly Roman Catholic sources because you show no familiarity with them. Scholars of your Church have produced some excellent studies of early Jewish Christianity. The evidence that the LDS Church is a restoration of that early Church is contained in a wide array of non-Mormon scholarly sources, including Roman Catholic sources. The evidence for the Great Apostasy is contained in detailed studies of patristic writings kept and copied faithfully by Roman Catholic monks. LDS scholars, who are every bit as well-trained and well-informed as their Roman Catholic counterparts are certainly capable of reading and understanding those early Christian as well as patristic sources and drawing reasonable conclusions therefrom.

I have tried to make these things clear to you before, but it is obvious that you deeply fear to engage these issues on a scholarly or intellectual level.

As I said...

I don't know why you would assume I haven't read Roman Catholic sources. What I find is that LDS overlay LDS belief over them. That, to me, is not meaningful at all.

I haven't seen you demonstrate otherwise, and this posts just confirms what I said.

So. there can be no meaningful discussion as I don't view twisting the writings of Catholics to suit Mormon purposes to be either scholarly or intellectual.

[Robert F. Smith]

As I said...

I haven't seen you demonstrate otherwise, and this posts just confirms what I said.

So. there can be no meaningful discussion as I don't view twisting the writings of Catholics to suit Mormon purposes to be either scholarly or intellectual.

A real discussion demands a respectful consideration of the actual evidence, something you do not do.

I don't find Roman Catholic scholars twisting their historical sources, or using twisted logic to obtain some predetermined conclusions. Nor do I see that in Mormon scholars. Instead of quoting examples of scholars twisting history to reach some predetermined conclusion. you quote yourself claiming that those bad Mormon scholars twist everything. When you automatically fail to grant sincere purpose to others, you tell us more about you than about those with whom you find fault.

[volgadon]

Priesthood authority wasn't lost. That is, again, an LDS claim that comes from LDS revelation.

I can assure you that Movses Khorenatsi and his earlier Armenian sources were not making an LDS claim coming from LDS revelation.

[3DOP]

All still, claims that come from LDS revelation. Which of course, I don't find convincing.

Priesthood authority wasn't lost. That is, again, an LDS claim that comes from LDS revelation.

I'm not attacking, just, find LDS arguments to be: the evidence are the LDS claims, and the claims are the LDS evidence.

I don't know why you would assume I haven't read Roman Catholic sources. What I find is that LDS overlay LDS belief over them. That, to me, is not meaningful at all.

I wish I could find my copy of Barry Bickmore's book so I could give some highlights of what I am trying to admit. I can remember thinking how much I disagreed with Jean Cardinal Danielou's view of church history and understanding why Barry Bickmore picked up on it. It becomes very difficult to explain what right I have as a truck driver to oppose the teaching of a learned, but in my opinion, misguided prince of the Church. I remember thinking that I wished Barry would expand his sources beyond Danielou. But Danielou's work probably had the necessary imprimaturs. Why shouldn't a Mormon rely on it and present it as Catholic?

It would seem that the modern Catholic Church believes that academic freedom must be allowed to undermine the Catholic faith if it is so inclined. Discipline of Catholic scholars who refute and oppose doctrines of the faith are very rare indeed. Very few are the Catholic universities that seem to have a vision to promote the Catholic faith. I have little doubt that since Danielou's day, many other Catholic scholars laboring in Catholic institutions have unwittingly done even more to prove that Mormon claims are true. I would be willing to say that if the historical, philosophical, and theological teachings of the typical Catholic university are true, the Catholic Church is false. They cannot both be true.

3DOP

Edited April 10, 2013 by 3DOP

[saemo]

I wish I could find my copy of Barry Bickmore's book so I could give some highlights of what I am trying to admit. I can remember thinking how much I disagreed with Jean Cardinal Danielou's view of church history and understanding why Barry Bickmore picked up on it. It becomes very difficult to explain what right I have as a truck driver to oppose the teaching of a learned, but in my opinion, misguided prince of the Church. I remember thinking that I wished Barry would expand his sources beyond Danielou. But Danielou's work probably had the necessary imprimaturs. Why shouldn't a Mormon rely on it and present it as Catholic?

It would seem that the modern Catholic Church believes that academic freedom must be allowed to undermine the Catholic faith if it is so inclined. Discipline of Catholic scholars who refute and oppose doctrines of the faith are very rare indeed. Very few are the Catholic universities that seem to have a vision to promote the Catholic faith. I have little doubt that since Danielou's day, many other Catholic scholars laboring in Catholic institutions have unwittingly done even more to prove that Mormon claims are true. I would be willing to say that if the historical, philosophical, and theological teachings of the typical Catholic university are true, the Catholic Church is false. They cannot both be true.

3DOP

I just wonder why it matters, that is, one voice among centuries.

Every religion has its "thinkers" that are opposed in writing to the very religion they say they belong. Also seems an imprimatur can be put on just about anything...like people who search a priest who will react a certain way in confession, I'm certain there are writers who search for a Bishop who will accept their writings as "orthodox". We can use our own reasoning, and measure against orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

But, a lot of people have a personal ideas of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, steeped in today's secularism, which is steeped in relativism....seems to me just about anything goes, for anyone, in every religion. Catholics and LDS included. LDS have the additional "ism" of pragmatism, which makes being relative about anything and everything all the easier, with a moral slipperiness. In other words, I find more and more that so many people accept truth as based on who can produce the best spin. LDS apologetics that use Catholic sources, are, by and large some of the biggest spin there is. Turns me off faster than anything there is, and certainly, I'm not going to entertain the notion that spin is "scholarly and intellectual".

At any rate, the LDS spin is aimed at neutralizing Christianity and Judaism, in its entirety. Using Catholic writings, of any kind, to do so strikes me as simply evil, as it is an evil work. I don't mean that as a method to insult for the sake of being insulting, it is just what I see. LDS want Catholics to engage them, so they can springboard off our words and writings, add a suitable spin for the neutralizing effect, but I see no reason to be helpful in this endeavor.

[Robert F. Smith]

I wish I could find my copy of Barry Bickmore's book so I could give some highlights of what I am trying to admit. I can remember thinking how much I disagreed with Jean Cardinal Danielou's view of church history and understanding why Barry Bickmore picked up on it. It becomes very difficult to explain what right I have as a truck driver to oppose the teaching of a learned, but in my opinion, misguided prince of the Church. I remember thinking that I wished Barry would expand his sources beyond Danielou. But Danielou's work probably had the necessary imprimaturs. Why shouldn't a Mormon rely on it and present it as Catholic?

It would seem that the modern Catholic Church believes that academic freedom must be allowed to undermine the Catholic faith if it is so inclined. Discipline of Catholic scholars who refute and oppose doctrines of the faith are very rare indeed. Very few are the Catholic universities that seem to have a vision to promote the Catholic faith. I have little doubt that since Danielou's day, many other Catholic scholars laboring in Catholic institutions have unwittingly done even more to prove that Mormon claims are true. I would be willing to say that if the historical, philosophical, and theological teachings of the typical Catholic university are true, the Catholic Church is false. They cannot both be true.

3DOP

Nearly a half-a-century ago, I vaguely recall visiting the library at the University of San Francisco, which is a Catholic institution. I found some books kept under lock and key, apparently as part of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books). In the old days also, a Roman Catholic scholar could be silenced and prevented from publishing his views. I am much more appreciative of the openness of Catholic scholarship nowadays, which I do not think is a threat to the Roman Catholic faith. The thing which all Christians need to fear is rampant secularism and scientism. These new gods have come to the fore, and Satan is having a field day.

[Robert F. Smith]

But, a lot of people have a personal ideas of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, steeped in today's secularism, which is steeped in relativism....seems to me just about anything goes, for anyone, in every religion. Catholics and LDS included. LDS have the additional "ism" of pragmatism, which makes being relative about anything and everything all the easier, with a moral slipperiness. In other words, I find more and more that so many people accept truth as based on who can produce the best spin. LDS apologetics that use Catholic sources, are, by and large some of the biggest spin there is. Turns me off faster than anything there is, and certainly, I'm not going to entertain the notion that spin is "scholarly and intellectual".

At any rate, the LDS spin is aimed at neutralizing Christianity and Judaism, in its entirety. Using Catholic writings, of any kind, to do so strikes me as simply evil, as it is an evil work. I don't mean that as a method to insult for the sake of being insulting, it is just what I see. LDS want Catholics to engage them, so they can springboard off our words and writings, add a suitable spin for the neutralizing effect, but I see no reason to be helpful in this endeavor.

So, Rebecca, the Mormons in your view are pragmatists, relativists, and simply evil. According to you, the Mormons do this using spin to neutralize the entirety of Christianity and Judaism.

You have not bothered to provide any documentation for this very incendiary and vicious conspiratorial claim. Are the Mormons really that powerful and that much of a threat in your estimation? Or could it be that there is no such conspiracy? Could it be that Mormon scholars, like the scholars from other backgrounds, have a genuine interest in discovering and disclosing the truth about religious and secular history? Jesus believed that truth is essential. Some of us have a deep and abiding interest in the truth, regardless of where it is to be found.

Your contempt for Mormon scholars as well as for the scholars of your own religion, without being able to provide evidence, speaks volumes. It tells us that you have a commitment to petty and even silly rumormongering rather than to the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This does more to sully your own religion than any scholarly opinion expressed by someone you regard as an errant coreligionist. You might try to take a quiet look at the humble and kindly way in which 3DOP conducts himself. He doesn't gratify himself by casting aspersions on Mormons, but realizes that an authentic dialogue is possible on a wide range of issues. He is frank and reflective, but always a good Christian gentleman.

[saemo]

So, Rebecca, the Mormons in your view are pragmatists, relativists, and simply evil. According to you, the Mormons do this using spin to neutralize the entirety of Christianity and Judaism.

You have not bothered to provide any documentation for this very incendiary and vicious conspiratorial claim. Are the Mormons really that powerful and that much of a threat in your estimation? Or could it be that there is no such conspiracy? Could it be that Mormon scholars, like the scholars from other backgrounds, have a genuine interest in discovering and disclosing the truth about religious and secular history? Jesus believed that truth is essential. Some of us have a deep and abiding interest in the truth, regardless of where it is to be found.

Your contempt for Mormon scholars as well as for the scholars of your own religion, without being able to provide evidence, speaks volumes. It tells us that you have a commitment to petty and even silly rumormongering rather than to the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This does more to sully your own religion than any scholarly opinion expressed by someone you regard as an errant coreligionist. You might try to take a quiet look at the humble and kindly way in which 3DOP conducts himself. He doesn't gratify himself by casting aspersions on Mormons, but realizes that an authentic dialogue is possible on a wide range of issues. He is frank and reflective, but always a good Christian gentleman.

Robert, it is what I see when I read anything from FAIR: spin. What is the purpose? To neutralize Christianity. I see no other reason for what I read there. Of course, as a Christian, I would (and should) view such an endeavor as evil.

You, spinning my words, to say I view all Catholics scholars, and Mormons as evil, is a good example of the springboard. Can't say I'm surprised.

If you can show me some sort of redeeming Mormon scholarship that could change my mind, I'd be willing to read it. So far, everything I've read supports what I've said here.

But, as usual, Mormons get to talking about me, and not about the subject. What does that say about you?

I think it says you are not willing to dialogue but prefer to go on and on about personal ideas of someone who doesn't agree with your point of view.

Edited April 10, 2013 by saemo

[Ahab]

I just wonder why it matters, that is, one voice among centuries.

How far would you carry your disregard for one person's perspective? I can somewhat relate to what you're talking about. Every opinion is just another opinion in the world of opinions, so I don't value any opinion over another opinion unless God personally tells me that a particular opinion is his. It's only at that point that an opinion has any real value to me.

Every religion has its "thinkers" that are opposed in writing to the very religion they say they belong.

Yep, and every religion has it's "thinkers" who are in agreement with the very religion they say they belong. On both sides there is both agreement and disagreement, both in and out of every religion.

Also seems an imprimatur can be put on just about anything...like people who search a priest who will react a certain way in confession, I'm certain there are writers who search for a Bishop who will accept their writings as "orthodox". We can use our own reasoning, and measure against orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

Yes, which is just more of the same thing, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with a particular opinion. But how do you get at the truth on an issue? You, personally, I mean. How do you do it? Who do you go to for the truth? If you respond by saying "God" I will check with God for myself to see if he agrees with you and your opinion, and if he doesn't your opinion will be just another personal opinion to me.

.... etc, etc, etc. You can say whatever you want about anyting you want to talk about and all the while I'll be able to find out what is true, and you'll probably think you can also do what I do even though you may not agree with me.

Just more of the same and either agreement or disagreement.

[saemo]

How far would you carry your disregard for one person's perspective? I can somewhat relate to what you're talking about. Every opinion is just another opinion in the world of opinions, so I don't value any opinion over another opinion unless God personally tells me that a particular opinion is his. It's only at that point that an opinion has any real value to me.

Yep, and every religion has it's "thinkers" who are in agreement with the very religion they say they belong. On both sides there is both agreement and disagreement, both in and out of every religion.

Yes, which is just more of the same thing, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with a particular opinion. But how do you get at the truth on an issue? You, personally, I mean. How do you do it? Who do you go to for the truth? If you respond by saying "God" I will check with God for myself to see if he agrees with you and your opinion, and if he doesn't your opinion will be just another personal opinion to me.

.... etc, etc, etc. You can say whatever you want about anyting you want to talk about and all the while I'll be able to find out what is true, and you'll probably think you can also do what I do even though you may not agree with me.

Just more of the same and either agreement or disagreement.

Ahab, my understanding is that Truth has a name: Jesus Christ. I believe Him.

All the writings surrounding the teachings of Christ can be helpful, but scriptures, prayer and Mass where I receive Him Body and Blood, is what matters to me. I trust Him.

Beyond that, God created us as rational beings, able to reason. Reason and faith are not at odds, as God is the author of both. I see nothing inherently wrong with reading any particular writings, theological, philosophical or otherwise. They can all be measured, using reason, against what Christ taught, and the faith handed on, once for all.

I guess you could say I am extra-cautious, even skeptical, regarding people who have made themselves their own authority, of any religious belief, or no belief at all. My faith does not rest in anyone but Jesus Christ. I don't believe someone's writings just because of their title, and I don't disbelieve someone because they lack a title. I'm more interested in scripture (the Bible), than any one writing, mainly because as an atheist I didn't know it at all.

If there has been any particular influence on my thinking, it has come from my life itself, my experiences. Religiously speaking, as a Catholic I have been greatly influenced by Pope Benedict XVI, and Msgr. Luigi Giussani. Not because they have something innovative and new to say, but because they speak well to my own experience. Especially Fr. Giuss.

Hope that helps.

Edited April 10, 2013 by saemo

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, it is what I see when I read anything from FAIR: spin. What is the purpose? To neutralize Christianity. I see no other reason for what I read there. Of course, as a Christian, I would (and should) view such an endeavor as evil.

You, spinning my words, to say I view all Catholics scholars, and Mormons as evil, is a good example of the springboard. Can't say I'm surprised.

If you can show me some sort of redeeming Mormon scholarship that could change my mind, I'd be willing to read it. So far, everything I've read supports what I've said here.

But, as usual, Mormons get to talking about me, and not about the subject. What does that say about you?

I think it says you are not willing to dialogue but prefer to go on and on about personal ideas of someone who doesn't agree with your point of view.

You refuse to engage the actual subject matter of these threads, Rebecca, preferring to cast aspersions. Then, when someone calls you on that bad behavior, you claim that they and not you are the offending party.

I don't have any trouble at all with people who disagree with me. That is the warp and woof of what goes on here on this discussion board. But you substitute name-calling for discussion. You don't back up your nasty claims by citation of sources. Not Mormon sources, not Catholic sources. Why? Probably because you don't have any. You'll note that 3DOP cited his source.

You say that FAIR does this same "spin" doctoring you allege is a typical Mormon ploy, but you don't provide an online source for it. Should be easy for you to find and cite such a source, since you seem to be saying that virtually anything on FAIR is spin. You state your belief that Catholic writers have spoken out against the Catholic faith, but you don't cite them -- and. mind you, I am not speaking about Catholic apostates (Mormons have apostates too), but rather highly regarded Roman Catholic priest-scholars who might for example teach at the Gregorian University in Rome or with the associated Pontifical Biblical Institute (I have used the research facilities of the branch of PBI in Jerusalem). Next thing you'll be telling me you hate Jesuits, but love Franciscans. Well, you now have a Pope who is a Jesuit and who loves St. Francis. Might be a good lesson for you not to spend so much time hating, but to try to spread a little love.

[3DOP]

You refuse to engage the actual subject matter of these threads, Rebecca, preferring to cast aspersions. Then, when someone calls you on that bad behavior, you claim that they and not you are the offending party.

I don't have any trouble at all with people who disagree with me. That is the warp and woof of what goes on here on this discussion board. But you substitute name-calling for discussion. You don't back up your nasty claims by citation of sources. Not Mormon sources, not Catholic sources. Why? Probably because you don't have any. You'll note that 3DOP cited his source.

You say that FAIR does this same "spin" doctoring you allege is a typical Mormon ploy, but you don't provide an online source for it. Should be easy for you to find and cite such a source, since you seem to be saying that virtually anything on FAIR is spin. You state your belief that Catholic writers have spoken out against the Catholic faith, but you don't cite them -- and. mind you, I am not speaking about Catholic apostates (Mormons have apostates too), but rather highly regarded Roman Catholic priest-scholars who might for example teach at the Gregorian University in Rome or with the associated Pontifical Biblical Institute (I have used the research facilities of the branch of PBI in Jerusalem). Next thing you'll be telling me you hate Jesuits, but love Franciscans. Well, you now have a Pope who is a Jesuit and who loves St. Francis. Might be a good lesson for you not to spend so much time hating, but to try to spread a little love.

Hi Robert,

I am a little uncomfortable with your evaluations of saemo and me. I hope you understand that we are ultimately united even though we seem to have a minor disagreement about what is fair game to the LDS apologist. I am not sure that she and you would even be talking about the same things if you discuss "Catholic sources" or "Catholic writings". Still, saemo writes:

"Using Catholic writings, of any kind, to do so strikes me as simply evil, as it is an evil work."

Hi saemo,

This is pretty strong. You can probably tell that I believe it is for the best that we allow that to use Catholic sources is fair game. Of course they will interpret them in ways that support what they believe. But we can't tell them to stay out of our primary sources or academic literature. Taking your principle to a logical conclusion, we would need to deny them the right to use the New Testament because it is a Catholic source too, is it not? Tertullian actually made that argument about heretics using the Scripture: "Why are you ploughing in our vineyards?", I think he asked, before he left the Catholic Church.

I am confident that we should show them good will, assuming that they have no desire to deliberately cloud the issues. We will have opportunities to explain why what they are pondering can be better understood to support why the Catholic Church is true. I will admit that I have become concerned that several individual LDS have had bad will here at this venue. But if so, that will become evident over time. It is possible that the mods here have removed those about whom I have had suspicions.

I seldom talk about LDS sources, not because it isn't fair game, but because I don't want to study that stuff much. Shoot, it they can't "plough in our vineyard", I don't know what I could possibly talk about here! I am more inclined to encourage them to read "truly" Catholic sources while explaining why we have misgivings with their interpretations. Trusting in the right and truth of our most worthy cause, we will always be able to find those who can defend our faith for us if we cannot do it ourselves. It seems to me that over time, even the stubbornest of non-Catholics can benefit from patient and persevering labor in defending Holy Mother Church. That is why I can't discourage it if they want to dabble in Catholic sources. As you said...one man...centuries. Cardinal Danielou as the be all and end all of discussion? Of course not. But we have to demonstrate why and how.

Please receive this with my kindest regards as I rejoice in our mutual beliefs.

3DOP

Edited April 11, 2013 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Nearly a half-a-century ago, I vaguely recall visiting the library at the University of San Francisco, which is a Catholic institution. I found some books kept under lock and key, apparently as part of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books). In the old days also, a Roman Catholic scholar could be silenced and prevented from publishing his views. I am much more appreciative of the openness of Catholic scholarship nowadays, which I do not think is a threat to the Roman Catholic faith. The thing which all Christians need to fear is rampant secularism and scientism. These new gods have come to the fore, and Satan is having a field day.

You probably are less discerning than me Robert, understandably, to appreciate scholarship that if true, would pose a threat to the the entire Roman Catholic faith. mfbukowski talks about how Catholicism can embrace what he calls "progress theology" in order to retain viability in the modern market place of ideas. I understand how this can seem generous from an LDS viewpoint. But I couldn't care less about a form of presentist viability that cannot endorse our Catholic past. I will never propose the Catholic Church as some benevolent institution that has happily adapted itself to modern philosophy and theology. To do so is to admit apostasy. Like bukowski, I would be LDS first.

3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

You probably are less discerning than me Robert, understandably, to appreciate scholarship that if true, would pose a threat to the the entire Roman Catholic faith. mfbukowski talks about how Catholicism can embrace what he calls "progress theology" in order to retain viability in the modern market place of ideas. I understand how this can seem generous from an LDS viewpoint. But I couldn't care less about a form of presentist viability that cannot endorse our Catholic past. I will never propose the Catholic Church as some benevolent institution that has happily adapted itself to modern philosophy and theology. To do so is to admit apostasy. Like bukowski, I would be LDS first.

3DOP

I meet Mormon progressive scholars and would-be scholars all the time. They have theories of neo-orthodoxy, post-christian thought, etc., with which I do not agree. But I don't get too exercised about them. Scholarship is, after all, a communal enterprise, and we mustn't fear the direction it might take. I trust that God's plan will not be frustrated, nor that He can be mocked with impunity. Man proposes, God disposes.

What we do here is explore some ideas which may be new to us (I do appreciate your contributions to that enterprise). Mark Bukowski comes up with some of the best, or at least some certainly worth considering.

[Ahab]

Ahab, my understanding is that Truth has a name: Jesus Christ. I believe Him.

I do too, and yet you and I don't agree on many things. Go figure.

All the writings surrounding the teachings of Christ can be helpful, but scriptures, prayer and Mass where I receive Him Body and Blood, is what matters to me. I trust Him.

Same for me too, and yet there is still a disconnect somewhere. Why do you suppose you and I do not agree with each other?

Beyond that, God created us as rational beings, able to reason. Reason and faith are not at odds, as God is the author of both. I see nothing inherently wrong with reading any particular writings, theological, philosophical or otherwise. They can all be measured, using reason, against what Christ taught, and the faith handed on, once for all.

So maybe one of us is better at reasoning than the other? Or maybe one of us has more faith than the other of us? What's going on here? Why can't I tell you something our Lord has taught me with your response just a matter of accepting that as something the Lord has actually taught? Like the many things he taught through Joseph Smith, for example. Why don't you see those teachings as teachings the Lord taught through Joseph who was speaking as one of his prophets? Something is missing. What could it be? It's not as if you're not aware of the teachings. It's just the simple fact that you don't believe what he taught. Why, though? Why don't you believe what the Lord has taught through Joseph Smith?

I guess you could say I am extra-cautious, even skeptical, regarding people who have made themselves their own authority, of any religious belief, or no belief at all. My faith does not rest in anyone but Jesus Christ. I don't believe someone's writings just because of their title, and I don't disbelieve someone because they lack a title. I'm more interested in scripture (the Bible), than any one writing, mainly because as an atheist I didn't know it at all.

What does this have to do with why you reject the teachings Jesus taught us through Joseph Smith, or any of his other latter day prophets? Where is the relevance?

If there has been any particular influence on my thinking, it has come from my life itself, my experiences. Religiously speaking, as a Catholic I have been greatly influenced by Pope Benedict XVI, and Msgr. Luigi Giussani. Not because they have something innovative and new to say, but because they speak well to my own experience. Especially Fr. Giuss.

Hope that helps.

Okay. That helps a little. Hopefully you'll eventually learn and accept more than you do now as you gain more experience and knowledge of the Lord's teachings. As it is now you simply reject many things he has actually taught. Edited April 11, 2013 by Ahab

[saemo]

I do too, and yet you and I don't agree on many things. Go figure.

Same for me too, and yet there is still a disconnect somewhere. Why do you suppose you and I do not agree with each other?

So maybe one of us is better at reasoning than the other? Or maybe one of us has more faith than the other of us? What's going on here? Why can't I tell you something our Lord has taught me with your response just a matter of accepting that as something the Lord has actually taught? Like the many things he taught through Joseph Smith, for example. Why don't you see those teachings as teachings the Lord taught through Joseph who was speaking as one of his prophets? Something is missing. What could it be? It's not as if you're not aware of the teachings. It's just the simple fact that you don't believe what he taught. Why, though? Why don't you believe what the Lord has taught through Joseph Smith?

What does this have to do with why you reject the teachings Jesus taught us through Joseph Smith, or any of his other latter day prophets? Where is the relevance?

Okay. That helps a little. Hopefully you'll eventually learn and accept more than you do now as you gain more experience and knowledge of the Lord's teachings. As it is now you simply reject many things he has actually taught.

Hello Ahab,

You hit the main difference squarely. Joseph Smith. I find no reason to accept his claims, and plenty of reasons to not. I don't believe he is a prophet any more than I would Ellen White or David Koresh. (I don't use Koresh to sensationalize. His followers believe as ardently about him as you do about Smith, is all.) Why anyone would follow Joseph Smith is to me a mystery at best.

Godwin's - Ares

Edited April 12, 2013 by Ares

[Ahab]

Hello Ahab,

You hit the main difference squarely. Joseph Smith. I find no reason to accept his claims, and plenty of reasons to not. I don't believe he is a prophet any more than I would Ellen White or David Koresh. (I don't use Koresh to sensationalize. His followers believe as ardently about him as you do about Smith, is all.) Why anyone would follow Joseph Smith is to me a mystery at best.

The reason I do is because the Lord has told me he spoke through Joseph Smith, so to believe Joseph Smith is to believe what Jesus Christ said or revealed (or revealed again) through Joseph Smith. And to not believe what Jesus said through Joseph would be to not believe Jesus Christ.

I'm sure you don't think you're rejecting the teachings of Jesus Christ, but as a point of fact, you actually are. Why? I don't know, but I suspect it's because you don't know enough about Jesus Christ or his true teachings to know that he spoke through Joseph Smith. Maybe all you need is to get to know Jesus Christ better than you already do, and I do believe you do, to some extent.