Former Stake President managing MormonThink

[_hobo1512]

Same thing. Catholics do not maintain membership records. You're a Catholic if you've been baptized and will always thereafter be one. But, you can be an excommunicant if some bishop has so declared. Can't take communion. You're still a Catholic. Nobody's there to police you if you take communion, or keep you out of a church. The church can excommunicate an entire nation, and has. Catholics who take communion in that nation are committing a mortal sin.

Hmmmmm...nope, not the same thing.

Catholics do keep membership records. How else would they know they have over 1 Billion members? Sorry, that's a no brainer. I'll even give you another hint. When you move into a new parish, you have to register.

You are right though, once you are baptized Catholic, you will always be Catholic, because it is a valid baptism. No other reason.

Yes, you can be excommunicated if it is declared by a Bishop, but official, or Ecclesiastical Excommunications are very rare. This is something totally different than what was discussed earlier.

What nation has the Catholic church excommunicated? I can't wait to see a reference for this because I have never heard of such a thing. I am sure you have that reference handy.

Any Catholic who receives communion in a state of sin, excommunicated or not is committing a mortal sin. That has never been disputed.

But getting back to your post, the position/comments made by the Catholic Church is out in the open and up front, whereas the Mormons have a history of hiding their involvement. Remember prop 8?

[_Chap]

What nation has the Catholic church excommunicated? I can't wait to see a reference for this because I have never heard of such a thing. I am sure you have that reference handy.

I think Yahoo Bot may be thinking of the 'interdicts' imposed on a number of groups (including some nations) for a variety of reasons in the past. But an interdict is not excommunication.

No nation has been placed under interdict since the 17th century. Interestingly for Mormons, the last time an interdict was applied in the United States was this:

In 1955, after white parishioners had refused to let a black priest enter a chapel situated about 20 miles from New Orleans, Archbishop Joseph Rummel placed the chapel under interdict.

It did not seem to matter to the archbishop whether the white parishioners were objecting to the priest on the grounds of race or on the grounds of descent - which as we know is a vitally important distinction, at least to those who want to claim that the LDS priesthood ban was not racist.

[_degaston]

One of the biggest challenges that the church faces in the 21st century is that their apologists look like fools and liars on the internet. And frankly with all the good things in Mormonism I think its vital to have strong effective apologetics online. Now I'm aghast that you think you actually answered the question that "Darth J" asked because its making you look really bad. What is it? Are you stupid that you don't understand what a "factual statement is"? Or are you a deceitful liar who thinks they can twist a question using cunning and deceive others into thinking you answered the question? You clearly did NOT give any example of a factual statement on Mormon Think. So are you going to actually answer the question? Or are you going to be deceptive and/or stupid on this? Sure you can pretend you satisfied this question and that you're a person in good standing. But anyone who reads your response here (unless you actually answer the question) will suspect that you are a fool and untrustworthy.

Darth J wrote:

"Why Me: Give an example of a factual statement on Mormon Think that is false. Alternatively, give an example of a conclusion drawn from factual statements on Mormon Think and explain why the conclusion is wrong."

You respond:

"Writing is about intent and bias and interpretation.In the case of MT the intent and bias is against the LDS church. And the interpretation that they give to doctrine and history betrays such intent and bias. Thus, the problem."

[_hobo1512]

What nation has the Catholic church excommunicated? I can't wait to see a reference for this because I have never heard of such a thing. I am sure you have that reference handy.

I think Yahoo Bot may be thinking of the 'interdicts' imposed on a number of groups (including some nations) for a variety of reasons in the past. But an interdict is not excommunication.

No nation has been placed under interdict since the 17th century. Interestingly for Mormons, the last time an interdict was applied in the United States was this:

In 1955, after white parishioners had refused to let a black priest enter a chapel situated about 20 miles from New Orleans, Archbishop Joseph Rummel placed the chapel under interdict.

It did not seem to matter to the archbishop whether the white parishioners were objecting to the priest on the grounds of race or on the grounds of descent - which as we know is a vitally important distinction, at least to those who want to claim that the LDS priesthood ban was not racist.

Thanks Chap!!

I found that very interesting and informative. There were a couple of things in there I was not aware of.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I think Yahoo Bot may be thinking of the 'interdicts' imposed on a number of groups (including some nations) for a variety of reasons in the past. But an interdict is not excommunication.

Under Catholic theology, interdict is the same as excommunication. One is not made an un-Catholic. One cannot received the Sacraments (marriage, communion, etc.) The lifting of the interdict is the same as the removal of excommunication. Some bishop says it is so and it is so.

[_Chap]

I think Yahoo Bot may be thinking of the 'interdicts' imposed on a number of groups (including some nations) for a variety of reasons in the past. But an interdict is not excommunication.

Under Catholic theology, interdict is the same as excommunication. One is not made an un-Catholic. One cannot received the Sacraments (marriage, communion, etc.) The lifting of the interdict is the same as the removal of excommunication. Some bishop says it is so and it is so.

This is not a matter of theology, but of canon law. As this part of an entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia illustrates, there are three disciplinary powers - excommunication, interdict and suspension - that are closely related, but distinct. Since Yahoo Bot is a lawyer, I would have thought he would have appreciated the importance of such distinctions.

Interdict differs from excommunication, in that it does not cut one off from the communion of the faithful or from Christian society, though the acts of religion forbidden in both cases are almost identical. It differs from suspension also in this respect: the latter affects the powers of clerics, inasmuch as they are clerics, while the interdict affects the rights of the faithful as such, and does not directly affect clerics as such but only as members of the Church. Of course, it follows that the clergy cannot exercise their functions towards those under interdict, or in interdicted places or buildings, but their powers are not directly affected, as happens in case of suspension; their jurisdiction remains unimpaired, which allows of a guilty individual being punished, without imperilling the validity of his acts of jurisdiction. This shows that an interdict is more akin to excommunication than to suspension.

Whereas excommunication is exclusively a censure, intended to lead a guilty person back to repentance, an interdict, like suspension, may be imposed either as a censure or as a vindictive punishment. In both cases there must have been a grave crime; if the penalty has been inflicted for an indefinite period and with a view to making the guilty one amend his evil ways it is imposed as a censure; if, however, it is imposed for a definite time, and no reparation is demanded of the individuals at fault, it is inflicted as a punishment. Consequently the interdicts still in vogue in virtue of the Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" and the Council of Trent are censures; whilst the interdict recently (1909) placed by Pius X on the town of Adria for fifteen days was a punishment. Strictly speaking, only the particular personal interdict is in all cases a perfect censure, because it alone affects definite persons, while the other interdicts do not affect the individuals except indirectly and inasmuch as they form part of a body or belong to the interdicted territory or place. That is also the reason why only particular personal interdicts, including the prohibition to enter a church suppose a personal fault. In all other cases, on the contrary, although a fault has been committed, and it is intended to punish the guilty persons or make them amend, the interdict may affect and does affect some who are innocent, because it is not aimed directly at the individual but at a moral body, e.g. a chapter, a monastery, or all the inhabitants of a district or a town. If a chapter incur an interdict (Const. "Apost. Sedis", interd., n. 1) for appealing to a future general council, the canons who did not vote for the forbidden resolution are, notwithstanding, obliged to observe the interdict. And the general local interdict suppressing all the Divine offices in a town will evidently fall on the innocent as well as the guilty. Such interdicts are therefore inflicted for the faults of moral bodies, of public authorities as such, of a whole population, and not for the faults of private individuals.

[_lulu]

I think Yahoo Bot may be thinking of the 'interdicts' imposed on a number of groups (including some nations) for a variety of reasons in the past. But an interdict is not excommunication.

Under Catholic theology, interdict is the same as excommunication. One is not made an un-Catholic. One cannot received the Sacraments (marriage, communion, etc.) The lifting of the interdict is the same as the removal of excommunication. Some bishop says it is so and it is so.

In general, you could think of an interdict as an injuction against a religious official(s) preventing the the performance of an ordinance(s). For example, you will not celebrate mass in this town. Whereas excommunication is a punishment directed at an individual preventing him/her from receiving an ordinance(s), that is, you will not receive communion.

If you can forgive me for "translating" "sacrament" into the more Mormoneque "ordinance."

Interdict = directed at what the priest can't do.

Excommunication = directed at what the person in the pew can't do.

[_Darth J]

Why Me:

Give an example of a factual statement on Mormon Think that is false.

Alternatively, give an example of a conclusion drawn from factual statements on Mormon Think and explain why the conclusion is wrong.

Writing is about intent and bias and interpretation.

"Semolina is a wheat product used to make dry pasta."

Tell me how the above sentence is about intent and bias and interpretation.

In the case of MT the intent and bias is against the LDS church. And the interpretation that they give to doctrine and history betrays such intent and bias. Thus, the problem.

Here is the part of my statement you are quoting that you left out:

Note: I mean logically wrong, not "because it says the Church isn't true" wrong.

I look forward to your response sans "it's bad to say the Church isn't true."

Perhaps I am mistaken, but if my memory serves me well, the board of MT was considering how to proceed after it was announced that Twede would have a church court appearance. One choice that the board had was to go to the media. And this is the choice they made when they approached the liberal media with a Romney angle for Twede's court appearance. Did the board mislead the media, if my memory is serving me well? I think so.

Now you are not even pretending to talk about things in context. I said that Yahoo Bot's "conspiracy" statement was a straw man in the context of whether Mormon Think actually said that the LDS Church would try to control Mitt Romney were he the President (Twede's conclusion was "possibly," not "it will happen for sure"). And your memory does not serve you well. Nor does your dogged insistence that adult human beings cannot rationally draw conclusions from evidence. Here is what Twede said: http://mormonthinkblog2012.blogspot.com ... -worn.html

There is nothing wrong with a church speaking out on political or social issues. In fact, a church has an obligation to do so. And the Mormon church is no different. The problem comes when these issues come up against members who have the opposite belief system. The LDS church is conservative on social issues and if a member is liberal on social issues, a problem develops. And when one is a critic of the LDS church, it becomes natural to become liberal on social issues to moan about the LDS church stance.

That is not responsive to what I said. I asked what the point is of the LDS Church speaking out on political issues if doing so is not meant to influence church members.

Anyway, why me, here is a Mormon Think article about your favorite talisman to ward off rational thinking: the "witnesses" to the Book of Mormon: http://www.mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm

Please tear apart the logic of this article. Show no mercy.

[_Fence Sitter]

Anyway, why me, here is a Mormon Think article about your favorite talisman to ward off rational thinking:

[_why me]

Anyway, why me, here is a Mormon Think article about your favorite talisman to ward off rational thinking: the "witnesses" to the Book of Mormon: http://www.mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm

Please tear apart the logic of this article. Show no mercy.

Your link is a good case in point and it makes my case very well. The link does not refute the fact that the witnesses had a profound experience with the plates. Nor does it refute their testimonies. In fact, left alone with just that information MT provided, it would be very faith promoting. But they coud not leave it there. They had to bring up other experiences of people who had nothing to do with the 11 witnesses. They need to attempt to sow doubt by offering other experiences of other people who had no relationship to the witnesses.

Such is the nature of the site: to cast doubt and to cause doubt to anyone who investigates the LDS church and its members. Again, the tone invokes bias and ill motives toward the church.