MiserereNobis

Some possible next steps for state and/or federal legislatures: robust child support enforcement, including easy and simple ways for mothers to report delinquent dads free pre and post birth medical care, including options for therapy, parenting classes, etc. extended paid maternity leave free childcare free pre-K all of this with as little bureaucracy as possible, so it is easy to apply for and receive Let's make sure the message is clear to mothers that they and their child are wanted, loved, and will be supported and taken care of. Also, let's drop the "you made a bad choice, you live with the consequence of the child" messaging. That teaches mothers that a child is a negative consequence, a punishment. Not only is it false, it's also not emotionally healthy for the mother or for the child. Who wants to be raised by someone who views you as a punishment?

Which is materially distinguishable from Ash's Stool. I think there are substantial differences. The three "official" legs of Catholicism are scripture, the magisterium (the pope and bishops in communion with him), tradition. I say these are official because they are officially taught in catechisms, etc. I'm guessing Ash's stool is not officially taught by general authorities, but correct me if I'm wrong. The official legs do not contain reason and personal revelation, but that doesn't mean they are not part of Catholicism. Catholicism explicitly teaches that reason will lead you to truth and to God, and that God reveals Himself to humans. From the Catechism: Catholicism also explicitly accepts personal revelation (though sometimes the meaning behind the word "revelation" is lost in translation between our faith traditions). Catholics readily experience and accept personal revelation from God. In fact, we have no problem discussing visions, angelic visitations, miracles, etc. Except for Joseph Smith, I don't think there is much substantial difference between LDS prophets and Catholic popes. I've posted on this before, because it interests me. The words used may be different, but the function is pretty much the same. Both claim to be representatives of Christ on earth, to have the priesthood power of Christ to bind and loose, to lead Christ's church, to protect divine truth, and to receive "revelation" (again, sometimes lost in translation) to do so. When declaring the most recent dogma in the 1950s, the pope explicitly used the word revelation. I don't mean to derail from the gender discussion, but I wanted to clarify the Catholic position here and make sure no one had the wrong impression.

Thanks anyways!

I wonder if he showed her a certain Rorty video…

I’d like to read his newspaper interview. What was his name so I can search around for it? Thanks.

Yet protestants are doctrinally further away from your church than Catholicism, so the reformers actually did more harm, yes? Sola scriptura, no need for priesthood, no need for sacraments/ordinances, etc.

I don't need to say anything more after this post because it is a total derail, but c IS the upper speed limit, not just for most purposes and observations. Even quantum physics accepts this (included with entangled particles -- no usable information is passed, there is no way to communicate FTL with entangled particles). The expansion of the universe is happening FTL, but that's more semantics than physics. Those galaxies are not traveling FTL, the empty space between them is expanding, so nothing is moving FTL. Physics is pretty hard core certain about this. Anyways, have the last word if you'd like

You must be misremembering the conversation. Tachyons are hypothetical only (no evidence for their existence). Physics absolutely accepts c as a hard speed limit.

Don’t forget a monk is the father of modern genetics 😉

Hey, speaking of music, are you a fan of new grass? Sam Bush, Jerry Douglas, Bela Fleck, John Hartford, etc.? You know, Telluride Bluegrass Festival folk. Peter Rowan just released a new album that's pretty good: "Calling You From My Mountain"

Minus the LDS specific stuff, this is how I look at it, too. St. Augustine was a fan of reading the creation story allegorically, and as someone drawn to mysticism, it's what I like to do, too. The creation and fall is about my relationship with God: I fall and I need redemption. I left the paradise of union with God, but Christ offers the way back. "O fortunate fall that earned for us so great a Redeemer."

I don't know, I bet his sugar gliders need to be groomed sometimes.

So, I'm a bit lost and am skimming a bunch because I don't know the LDS context of a lot of this. I am going to say that there is a thread talking about the board being boring, so maybe a thread like this will keep you LDS folk talking about doctrine instead of social issues. I do think having Obeone and Obehave show up is a bit funny. I'm waiting for Obelieve next. Maybe the Prophet Shiloh will come back! I've heard many say that the LDS faith is more orthopraxis than orthodoxy. Can someone believe what Obeone is saying and still be in good standing? Or is his view too heterodox to get into the temple?

Ooo, the word heresy isn't tossed around here very often. Would you like the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition to lend you a hand in investigating this?

And you wonder why mainstream Christianity thinks y’all are weird 😁

I’m glad you do heartily endorse the Catholic Ecumenical Councils that compiled the Bible. If you are so certain we got it right then, perhaps you should join up with us now. If not, then you are just at the buffet line, picking and choosing which Ecumenical Council you would like to believe and discarding which ones you would not.

You need to read "Motel of the Mysteries." A motel from the 1980s is discovered by archaeologists in the year 4000. They excavate it like King Tut's tomb (if you know the story of that excavation, you'll notice the similarities). I was able to find a truncated version that's mainly the pictures here: https://www.plainlocal.org/userfiles/352/Classes/32796/Motel of the Mystery PDF Version.pdf

Correct.

The difference here would be LDS baptism vs. an LDS person performing a baptism. LDS baptism has been ruled invalid primarily because of the differences in belief of the nature of God, among other things. Mark also pointed out that an LDS baptism includes a commitment to the specific LDS covenant path. The Catholic Church didn't mention this as a reason for the baptism to be invalid, but it makes sense to me as an additional reason. So a standard LDS baptism is invalid. However, an LDS person could baptize someone validly outside of the LDS baptism paradigm. This is where intent comes in. The LDS person would have to think of the Trinity when saying "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." They wouldn't have to believe it, just have that as their intent. They would have to intend for the baptism to be Catholic and to wash away original sin, not be an LDS baptism. Again, they don't have to believe it. An atheist can validly baptize someone as long as they have the intent to do so.

Strange. I’ve taught for 16 years and that’s not been my experience at all. Of course we shouldn’t tell them what to believe, but we’re allowed to discuss our lives with them.

Since you used Catholicism as evidence for your claim that humans determine what is valid (saying “therefore” after mentioning Catholicism), I have to object. Catholicism firmly asserts that it is God who has set forth the criteria for baptism and the other sacraments, not man. God is not bound by the sacraments, but we are. Obviously you can believe what you want. I just wanted to make sure the Catholic position was clear. Sacraments, their “mode, manner, method,” are not man made, but divine.

Do you really want teachers teaching religion? Serious question. In our AP English program, we require our students to read the Bible during the summer. They are tested on the readings at the beginning of each school year. After 4 years, they will have read the gospels (some parts twice) and the major stories of the OT. We require them to use the KJV. I also teach atheistic existentialism, Native American mysticism, New England transcendentalism, Romantic spirituality, the tenets of Puritanism, the Holy Sonnets, metaphysical poetry, on and on and on, even including the Oxford comma (since it is divine dogma, right @Scott Lloyd? 😉) Now a specific question to you: How exactly am I, as a public school teacher, not allowed to talk about God? If I wasn’t allowed to, that would cut out 75% of my curriculum, since humans are always writing about God, spirituality, and the divine. But I am and I do without a problem. Perhaps you should actually physically look into a public school classroom before you denigrate teachers as “seeding” students and claim we can’t talk about God.

This is a classic list of Catholic folk, well done! 😂

If the Muslim used water, said the correct words, and had the correct intent (to do what the Catholic Church would do) then the Catholic Church would view that baptism as valid. Priesthood isn’t required for the minister of baptism, but it is highly highly preferred (other instances are pretty much on an emergency basis).

I think the spirit in this messaging doesn't well reflect the tone or tenor of Christ's ministry. I mean, pummeling wasn't his thing. I prefer the Grateful Dead's Wall of Sound to a wall of text. If I'm going to get pummeled, hit me with some Phil bombs!