Jump to content

PacMan

Contributor
  • Content Count

    862
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

266 Excellent

1 Follower

About PacMan

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,285 profile views
  1. I’m saying that the “authoritative opening” is not nearly as clear as you’re making it out to be and that the description that comes after is not particularly clear as to the authoritative succession of bishops. So unless we can date it, we really can’t say that it was authoritatively said prior to Clement’s resignation.
  2. Catholics don’t just talk about keys but hang their hats on it. Their problem is the history is murky. Peter didn’t ordain the first two popes, Linus or Cletus. That was Paul. And Peter didn’t establish the Roman church. Although he ordained Clement, Clement resigned. So why Roman primacy? The only thing Catholics can say is because that’s where Peter died. But does the Pope drop his keys wherever he dies?
  3. If a Bishop was actually a temporary stint and geographically limited as it is today in the CoJCoLdS, then sure. Why not?
  4. Careful - the Encyclopedia is discussing a timing issue (and the analysis doesn’t make particular sense). For whatever it is worth, the citation still stands that Clement resigned. How that plays into the ordering of the popes is a different issue of whether he quit. If we’re going to dive into the realm of antiquity, you’re often only going to have someone else’s editorials.
  5. Thanks for your comment. The history suggests that Clement did, in fact, resign. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: Further, St. Epiphanius says (loc. cit. 😞 “Whether he received episcopal ordination from Peter in the life-time of the Apostles, and declined the office, for he says in one of his epistles ‘I retire, I depart, let the people of God be in peace’, (for we have found this set down in certain Memoirs), or whether he was appointed by the Bishop Cletus after he had succeeded the Apostles, we do not clearly know.”
  6. A few points: (1) The apostasy occurred from a falling away of the truth. A result was that the priesthood was taken from - not off - the earth. It existed with John and others, but was hidden. (2) Was Clements quote about ordaining Bishops before or after he quit the job? And even if before, what evidence is there that he held the keys of the same?
  7. Agreed. I have also found that this narcissism manifests itself with these people in really believing they think they know something others don’t know. And they’re weird about it. Like it’s a hide and seek game of mysteries; and while they tell everyone about the game, only they know the rules.
  8. I attended a legal CLE he presented. I was both unimpressed and came away with the impression that he thinks much about himself - unjustifiably so. I also think he came off as a bit quirky.
  9. I’m open to discussing any reasonable analysis. One as blatantly, arrogantly, and recklessly incorrect as this one is not reasonable. She believes what she believes because she wants to believe it. And no amount of discussing facts will change her mind.
  10. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. It doesn’t make it right or credible. She made blatant factually and demonstrably incorrect statements. She’s wrong. And that reflects in the credibility of her sweeping opinions and conclusions. She has none. Now, you want to emphasize that she isn’t wrong in everything. That she got some things right. Let’s go with that. She is making wild accusations by extrapolating the unfortunate exceptions to something bigger than it really is. If she can irresponsibly paint the “church” based on the brush dipped in the paint of exceptions, then I, using her methodology, can note that her instances of error are representative of her analysis as a whole. Shes not credible anyway you cut it.
  11. She’s not just overstating things - she’s just wrong. I can think of a couple things. (1) The Primary President (a woman) is over both our Cub Scout leaders (and Cub Scout Committee Chair - a man) as well as our Boy Scout leaders (men) over the 11 year olds. This includes budgeting. (2) Our music chair (a woman) is over our other music callings, which include men. (3) The RS President is effectively “over” families needing certain welfare help - including men (not so for EQ). YM/YW is a wash, so what’s left is SS and Bishopric/Stake Presidency. But, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. I’d also suggest everyone stay tuned for conference....
  12. In our stake, I’ve heard the term “prophetic priority.” The concept makes sense to me. But, while we identify talks to “assign,” the invitation is to pick a principle in the talk that the speaker feels inspired to speak about. So while giving priority to prophetic messages, it generally avoids the re-hash problem.
  13. I’d deny the request. It’s actually not up to the Bishopric. It’s up to the ward council to plan sacrament meeting topics.
  14. I haven't passed any judgment on Louis Smart (if I were, it would be that she is 100% a victim that doesn't deserve any of the pain Ed is causing). But Ed's statement speaks for himself. This was Ed's decision. Do I think the real details will reveal that Ed is a disgusting philandering homosexual? Possibly. But my post has nothing to do with assumptions or jumping to conclusions. I am basing it solely off of what he wrote in his FB post. I'm giving Ed the benefit of the doubt that his culpability/disgustability is limited to what he wrote.
  15. Could someone please address the obvious? Ed Smart enters into a long-term committed relationship with a woman that he loves, that loved him, that was completely loyal to him, and with her has children. He then decides that he wants to pursue a gay relationship to be 'authentic,' 'true to himself,' or [enter any other lame justification here]. How is that any different than a man leaving his wonderful brunet wife for some hot-blond down the street? What if he was always truly attracted to blonds, ever since he was a child? But, for one reason or another, he decided to repress that feeling in favor of beginning a committed and loving relationship with someone that doesn't fit that mold. Should we applaud him for being 'authentic?' At the end of the day, Ed Smart made a decision. And it has nothing to do with being gay. He decided to abandon his integrity and wife for something else. In any event, I've always think he carried a major creep factor. Ironic how being gay has become the great justification for all sorts of immoral conduct.
×
×
  • Create New...