3DOP

Navidad hi. Ideally, I do not find plurality in religion something to celebrate in society. I profess to hope for unity instead. The first and most intimate society is the family. I think few would argue that it is best for families to disagree with each other about religion. It would seem peculiar to find it any way uplifting if the members of a family unit went their separate ways in order to observe different forms of worship and religious exercises. Do any object to my observation on the family? If not, why should we as an ideal, wish and pray for religious disunity in other social structures extending to the state? Is there any objection to my use of the word "disunity" in exchange for "pluralism" as a synonym? Perhaps I am too simplistic regarding "pluralism"?

It would be remarkably absurd if a Catholic were to oppose infant baptism using that expression "baby sprinklers". It was more about the recipient of baptism than the mode. "Sprinkler" sounded silly which was on purpose. But the key was "baby". I believed in believers baptism only at the time. Maybe you thought I was speaking as a Catholic? No, no, no. I was confessing the ignorance of my early Protestant years when I used that expression, assuming there was no biblical argument at all for infant baptism. Subsequently, I was humbled when I learned better and and stopped ridiculing those I did not understand...Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Catholics (!) and others.

InCognitus, hi. I will be brief as I said. First a clip from your latest reply to me. InCognitus "I don't see how Deuteronomy 10:17 is saying anything about the possibility of the lesser gods as doing things for personal gain. But you are right about the existence of "strange gods", which were the idols of the nations. But none of those false gods could be compared to the one true God." Deut. 10:17 "For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" Me I see a danger from the Israelites worshipping "gods" that are unworthy of comparison with the God of Deut. 10:17, made by men's hands like the Golden Calf fashioned by Aaron, or other such "gods" of the nations. I am not familiar with any reasons for why God should be warning them about worshipping a council of "less unworthy gods", when they are already worshipping created gods of clay, wood, or stone. Likewise living creatures whether animate or vegetative. Also no planets, stars, or mountains. No emperors or magistrates. I cannot make an exhaustive list. In short, no created object in existence is worthy of worship. As for magistrates called "gods" in certain translations, I could only think that the LORD was certainly referring to those, as opposed to "strange false gods", or a heavenly council of gods, none of whom one would suspect of being subject to bribery, or respecting persons in false judgment in Deut. 10. It would seem that you might admit this argument except that you hold that it is a mistranslation of the biblical text? I would be satisfied at this time if you could admit that if the translation which has guided my thinking on Deut. 10:17 were accurate, you too, would need to admit corruptible earthly civil authorities among those who are designated as gods in Scripture. I agree that no false gods are comparable to the one true God. But creatures that are made in His image, as I am sure you will agree, have attributes that are indeed similar, which give hope for exaltation and greater participation in God's incomparable nature. But when creatures which have such potential because of their similarities to the true God worship created things, it is a truly abominable demeaning of not only their own dignity, but especially that of the Creator. But this was what they did in ancient Israel, and I believe that this is what most of the Old Testament is talking about. Since you appear to be refraining from a definition of whom "the Heavenly Council" consists, or its function, I have no wish to oppose it. It could consist of men or angels. I could not conceive of its being an advisory body. Unless you would assign its function as a guide by which God discerns what He should do, or if you would teach that like God, the heavenly council are uncreated, I have no objection. Thanks, InCog, as usual, I appreciate the discussion with you here. ---------------------------- But theplains is GoCeltics? I thought GoCeltics was a questioning Latter-day Saint. I do not wish to offend by speaking to either of you in third person. So do you @theplains, or you @GoCeltics have a wish to admit or clear up any suspicions about your identities? Rory McKenzie

I am listening. I would regret to think you are missing something. Who here has ever heard of the Theravadan Buddhism? Granted that east is east and west is west, it seems like it might be okay to identify the US as a Christian nation, as a majority of the population or even among members of the US military. But the United States, as lawfully constituted now, and for a long time, cannot officially recognize anything as a state religion. Perhaps Thailand can? I dunno. Anyway my friend, just let's shake things up and be on different sides in love! Bash me...and me back at you. Let them see how we Catholics can think each other are stupid, but still ❤️ each other. Disclaimer: In my cups on the deck.

Heh. Maybe the words change meaning with such speed as I say above, because people like me change views fairly often. I am aware that my own college is very different today than it was forty years ago. Like me, it has softened. A lot of classmates have too. I can picture being anti-Mormon in those early days. Maybe we need to give these zealots of hatred a chance to let the Lord work on them a little. In twenty years, they will likely soften up too. Hateful Christianity often comes with an early bitter zeal built on ignorance. And if we will be fair, I think we can see ignorant representatives of this in all of our traditions. Above all, don't judge too early. God gives everybody a short life. But we can be thankful that every minute God is giving all of us graces to humble us...including those of us who might have been ignorantly arrogant towards those they did not understand.

A hundred years ago, to be fundamental meant that you believed in the Virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and other foundational Christian beliefs. Now it means a dangerous sect. A hundred years ago a cult was a particular belief. I have Catholic books that freely express belief in the cult of the Blessed Virgin. Now cult means a dangerous sect. I haven't kept up. When I was young, we talked about neo-Evangelicals as opposed to Fundamentalists like us. The neos were liberal. These words change meaning with such speed that it is hard to know what people mean by it. I agree with Navidad, that todays self-identified Evangelicals who have children that badger LDS children are wacky. They can call themselves what they want. I think they want to avoid being classified as what they are. But I truly do not know what word to use except non-Evangelical.

Thank you. Good job. I hope to answer with a brief rebuttal in the near future.

Right. It is customary for Catholics to say the Rosary on the vigil, the evening before the funeral while the body of the departed is resting in the chapel or church. I doubt this could be thought to be appropriate by LDS allowing their meeting house to be used by other faith traditions. Five Our Fathers? Maybe. Fifty Hail Marys? Probably not.

Heheh. Could be. Anyway...here are my results: Joseph (King Follett) 67% Joseph (Nauvoo) 67% Roberts 63% McConkey 63% Ostler 61% Givens 61% Progressive 52% Why look at that. I see little evidence that the "Hellenistic Fantasy" stops me from being LDS! HEH. Good one, longview. I would have given you one of those laughing things...but...have a great day longview. Thanks for the laugh! And congratulations for your McConkey score. Mine was disappointing. Regards, Rory

Catholics believe that in Holy Communion, the saints on earth are one in unity with Christ in the Eucharist. Excommunication occurs when a Catholic commits an act or obstinately professes a belief that is incompatible with that unity. It only means that the person is put on notice that the Church has judged that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion. The excommunicated party is welcomed and encouraged to continue assisting at Mass. It is no different than when one has committed a mortal sin. If one deliberately sins in a serious, or grave matter, it is sacrilege to receive Holy Communion, until we are reconciled with God by making a Sacramental confession of repentance wherein we intend to make reparation and have a firm purpose of amendment. Excommunication is an expression of mercy to the guilty party warning them that receiving Holy Communion sacrilegiously (not in unity with other communicants) must not be taken lightly, but with the knowledge that whenever there is desire to return, a priest will happily receive us back into unity in the Confessional. In the meantime, our fellowship at Mass is welcomed.

So sorry...but we can laugh...after a few hours.

Heh It froze on the 10th question. I might start over another time and sign in to save my answers. It's fun though.

Thoughts? Yeah. I wonder if I could be a Temple ready LDS doctrinally. I love these exercises anyway. I will answer as a Catholic. Anyway, here goes.

Hi InCog. I appreciate your patience. I do not hesitate to agree that there are interpretations to the texts you cite. But you say that you weren't trying to say that "the LDS interpretation is the only clear one". That more or less makes my point. How can there be multiple clear interpretations that differ from each other? Even only two "clear interpretations" of a text would make it impossible to make a clear choice without light from some other source. The question is about the identification of the gods spoken of. Are they all the same kind of gods? In Exodus, slaves who wished to stay with their masters after they had paid their servitude were instructed to go to the gods, and have them observe an ear being pierced to signify the status of this servant. These gods would seem to be civil magistrates of some kind. I would suggest that in the last text you quoted from Deuteronomy this is possibly about these civil magistrates. Does the heavenly council take bribes and have respect of persons? How do slaves who want to be free servants of their masters approach the heavenly gods? So nobody has to search around for it, here is Deut. 17:10: "For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" (Deuteronomy 10:17) Of course, there are also strange gods. We know that Israel was tempted all through through their history to take up worship of these gods that they had learned about from their neighbors. It is a constant problem to contend with. If it is an instruction to be aware of making a mistake about some inferior god in a Heavenly Council, it almost seems like those inferior gods were so inferior as to be susceptible to taking advantages of their positions for personal gain. Origin also believed, speculatively, that the stars and planets were actually alive. I can get that for you. It is in De Principiis. He argues from the fact that the Scriptures say that the heavenly bodies obey the Lord, and they praise the Lord. I take this anthropomorphically, but maybe these have been thought to be heavenly gods by mistaken parties over the centuries. Could the vast array of heaven be populated by gods? Sure, but what kind? In Colossians(?) we hear about angel worship. Could angels be called gods in the Old Testament and angels in the New? I don't know. I will try to do a little more research, but I don't think the Catholic Church has ever delved into these question either. Speculation is permitted when definitions are lacking. Regards, Rory

InCog. Hi. Unless I am physically unable, I intend to answer your question above, if only you can hold your breath a little longer.

Amen, cal. I think both of our churches are on the same page in this regard. In other ways, we are, to be honest, radically different. Still, a sign of hope, especially since "love believeth all things." Mr. Pollyanna

Hi Stargazer. I couldn't pass this up. I don't expect much interest. If the internet swallows it, okay. That wasn't a bad summary of the situation of the Society of St. Pius X. I won't bore you with all the corrections I would make. I will focus only on the issue of full and partial communion. At the Council, the Church wanted to recognize that in a certain respect, those groups which had broken away from Rome centuries before, have given evidence of fruitful graces of God, which should be recognized. The Council simultaneously expressed the ongoing responsibility of the Church to persuade these "separated brethren" to join in the unity of the Catholic Church. In my opinion, this is where the distinction between full and partial communion is legitimate. The Catholic Church has no wish to minimize the value of "mere Christianity". In the explanation of the truth about salvation only through Christ and His Church, the Church does not believe or teach and never has taught that only visibly enrolled members of the Catholic Church can be saved. Full communion is not necessary for a soul to be saved. Of course we think it is less likely, but partial communion is necessary. This idea has developed gradually over time as a means of recognizing two truths that have been proposed since ancient times. First, that we have hope for the salvation of all who have died; and secondly, that no one is saved outside of the Catholic Church. Written from my back deck, in clear view of the towers of the Immaculata, the largest SSPX church in the world, 3DOP

Hi InCognitus, I have only one qualm with your interpretation. If I were LDS, I would find your biblical argument satisfactorily plausible. But being familiar with other interpretations that are also satisfactorily plausible, according to other Christian traditions, I could not accept that the Scriptures "clearly teach" your interpretation on its own. The clincher would not be Scripture. The clincher would be LDS tradition. Believing that the LDS have the one true church, I would trust in a plausible Scriptural interpretation, WITH LDS Tradition. Even if I became LDS, I could never think that the Scriptures are ever so clear as to resolve doctrinal controversy. One of the reasons I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church is that she denies that the Scriptures are perspicuous, or clear. No sola scriptura. We love the Scriptures as a support to our beliefs, not as clear teaching as though everybody who reads the Bible should always believe what the Catholic Church teaches apart from Tradition. What do you think? Is my idea about Scripture compatible with LDS Tradition/Teaching? Thanks InCognitus. Rory

A fair question. I doubt it could have been of much influence. There might be a loose parallel between being "busted down on Bourbon Street", and "busted" for driving a car with a fake license advertising a Bible translation? I am sorry to say that I can understand how you thought I was talking about myself. I was not speaking in the third person. No worries. I see now how it reads that way. Happily, I have never been in jail. I worked with a guy for one day. He was complaining about his wife. She was a "goodie two shoes", and he found it irritating I guess. To prove his point to me he exclaimed, "She hasn't even been in the back of a police car!" Keep on Truckin', Miserere! 3

It was an environment of ultra-repressed physical safeguards against young people of the opposite sex being allowed to express their affection for another through physical contact. I know this was not prevalent, but it made a few young men, at least publicly, resort to another material object to "touch" the other affectionate party. I thought the symptom of some to satisfy their natural desires to hold hands or some other sign resulted from what I now consider an excessive policy. We were allowed to stare into eyes. Listen, cal, this is still embarrassing, I shouldn't have brought it up to respond to Navi's joke above about dancing. I saw the practice of using an ink pen, instead of one's hand to affectionately and tenderly stroke the cheek of the beloved. I disapprove of most public displays of affection among the unmarried. Of course, married people like me think it is disgraceful, undignified, and disgusting. I would rather see the use of a pen though, than the pawing I have seen at family gatherings as well as any public place. I would not say that about holding hands. "The pen" was cultural in a particular time and place that I observed with disapproval in that I could see it and, it seemed stupid and unsatisfactory. I am sure, that as with pawing, "the pen" fell into public disuse after marriage. Maybe some of you assume that they were using the pens to actually draw their love on each other? No. They used paint and brush for that. Just kidding. All this is something I RARELY think about. It is just opinion. Anyone who wants to try "the pen"? Fine. I will never argue against it if confonted. I have retained my virginity as regards that action, and cannot speak from experience. All in all, it doesn’t seem harmful enough to need to take a position about it as I have. To be honest, I probably should not have raised the question. Maybe I need to say again that it was not a prevalent practice. I was just trying to explain the reaction of a few to a repressive approach to pre-marital relationships that did not tolerate hand holding by engaged couples. I think it demonstrates something that strikes me, and me alone, as somewhat weird and disordered. But I don’t consider it worth further analysis! Cal, I wish you all could see me. I am laughing about making such a long post about something so unwarranted. I am okay with you asking about it. But, I have problems with avoiding giving full expression to my opinions on other trivial matters too. Cal, you are a great internet sister, but this time through my fault, you have brought out the stupid in me. Rory

I always had a soft spot and still do, for Br. Falwell. I think I was disappointed when he took Baptist off the name of the school. But by '89 I took Baptist off my church. All I knew previous to that was that Larkin and the dispensationalists knew the Scriptures and interpreted them in a consistent, coherent way. Then I discovered there were other ways that were also consistent. That was a crisis. At the end it came down to LDS or Catholic for me. I left the Protestant scene not because they all sounded bad. No! They all sounded good, from Lutheran to the Reformed. I even looked into Anglicanism. I never really knew much about Pentecostalism. I am sure they aren't stupid though. You and I disagree on a visible church and priesthood and that stuff. Ecclesiology. My wife's parents went to a good Baptist Church in Tennessee. Good man, with a good school too, was pastor. A mature Bob Jones guy my own father's age. Bob Jones guy. He let me preach there once when I was visiting. Next thing I hear the church was split. Do you remember a mid-trib rapture movement? This brother caught up with that and that is how serious people were about little distinctions. A good loving man with a strong ministry in the town. He shouldn't have even told anybody. How often do you need to preach on that. I don't know if you know, but by the late 70's Hyles NEVER spoke about eschatology. The college? I took a class Daniel and Revelation. The whole semester was moral stories from the first chapters of Daniel and the seven churches in Revelation. It was good but not what one expected. Same thing with Ezekiel. I have never known why they had that strategy. Maybe they had differing opinions on the staff? I think you shouldn't make the end time prophecy a deal killer. I never think about this stuff. It was so long ago...But you know Navidad. A few years ago you made a remark about how I had tended towards the far fundie side of things and implied I had done that as a Catholic. I had never thought about my journey that way before. There were other things but that observation made me look at myself. Anyway, I am getting less "out there". The Freemasons aren't in charge of the Church, but the Lord is. It belongs to Him. I even believe we went to the moon now! That stuff goes together. Anyway, I've never told you, but I appreciate you for that remark you made. I have pondered it many times.

Oh for the record I think everyone here has been respectful. I don't think the conference speakers were ridiculing like that quote in that history. I understand how the Trinity appears to outsiders. Nobody is obliged to understand everything about what they don't believe, an exception would be if you were conference speaker making an argument that an apparent absurdity is evidence of apostasy.

That is good one about pre marital sex leads to dancing. And yeah we perceived Falwell as less fundamental. Shoot...the day I arrived at our no dancing college, I was warned very nicely by a gal later that day, that I shouldn't have shaken her hand when we met. Dancing? Unless somebody of the opposite sex fell down or was having trouble on ice, no touching! I got engaged at that place and I obeyed. I also refused the holding an ink pen to my future wife's cheek as a form of intimacy. You'd see that now and again. My wife never gave the least indication that she would have liked that!

One can be confidently opposed to truth that has been misunderstood, and caricatured as something ridiculous. I have done that too in my life. I am as guilty as whoever wrote those irreverent words. It can be maddening to be on the receiving end. The practice is never going away because many people derive their confidence in what they believe from being convinced that what they disbelieve is absurd. There was a time when I used a derogatory expression, "baby sprinklers", while I was in complete ignorance of the theological and biblical support for the legitimacy of infant baptism. I don't hold that those arguments are conclusive alone, but they are far from deserving ridicule. Successful error has this in common with truth. It is never ridiculous, merely misunderstood by outsiders who want it to be not merely wrong, but stupid on top of that.