blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I assume the reasoning is much like some of those who choose not to pray with those they don't believe are Christians in that they are concerned with giving the impression that it is okay to believe in false doctrines. Instead, by refusing they can teach that such actions or beliefs lead one away from God, not to Him.I don't believe the RCC or I see any harm in praying with anyone regardless of their beliefs. There's no ordinances that are being performed.I believe the intent of most LDS to collect geneology info is to eventually perform a proxy of baptism which in the eyes of the LDS church is an ordinance that I've been directed by proper authority in not cooperating with.
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I believe the intent of most LDS to collect geneology info is to eventually perform a proxy of baptism which in the eyes of the LDS church is an ordinance that I've been directed by proper authority in not cooperating with.Let me disabuse you of that notion. While we do the work for our own ancestors (with the noted and unauthorized exceptions already discussed) the vast bulk of LDS geneological research ends up in the International Geneological Index which is free and open to all people regarless of their intent or use. I worked voluntarily in one of our Geneological Libraries for a time and the use of the databases and facilities was 10-1 non-Mormon research.
Calm Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I suspect the nature of a former mixed Catholic/Mormon marriage ...It is not a former marriage in Catholic terms though. blueadept is choosing to keep his marriage covenant even if his wife is not. I do not know if there is an official term for the relationship on the Catholic side.
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Huh? I don't think you answered the question. We recognize covenants by other churches but not yours and you don't recognize our covenants......straight enough?Both sides should do what they want.Personally, I have taken offense that my LDS family members will not honor my wishes.......my issue.This is not an issue of tolerance and will NEVER be an ecumenical issue. Can we move on?
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 It is not a former marriage in Catholic terms though. blueadept is choosing to keep his marriage covenant even if his wife is not. I do not know if there is an official term for the relationship on the Catholic side.I suspect the term is marriage. Her agreeing to disagree with him doesn't change the fact that he feels married in the eyes of God and the Catholic church. I respect that position and imagine it is a very difficult one to bear.
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) It is not a former marriage in Catholic terms though. blueadept is choosing to keep his marriage covenant even if his wife is not. I do not know if there is an official term for the relationship on the Catholic side.The term is called being Married. The Church recognizes the marriage while the state does not. The civil divorce (which the RCC is fine with) took care of the separation of property and taking care of any children that was produced in the marriage. This doesn't cancel my vows made with her and HF.Not a state I suggest I would recommend for anyone in regards to marital relations (except in cases of abuse)hey daddyg, there's an echo in here Edited February 7, 2012 by blueadept
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Can we move on?Sure. I just want you to know I wouldn't be outraged or offended if a Catholic ever wanted to perform an ordinance in my behalf. I'd even see someone trying to give me last rites as a loving and charitable gesture. I'd probably even see that gesture made in faith being acceptable to Christ and a source of blessings for myself; even if I didn't recogize their priesthood authority. That probably makes it easier for me to move on.
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Sure. I just want you to know I wouldn't be outraged or offended if a Catholic ever wanted to perform an ordinance in my behalf. I'd even see someone trying to give me last rites as a loving and charitable gesture. I'd probably even see that gesture made in faith being acceptable to Christ and a source of blessings for myself; even if I didn't recogize their priesthood authority. That probably makes it easier for me to move on. In the RCC, there ISN'T any ordinances being performed for the dead regardless of what Scott says in regards to our prayers. I'm glad you won't take offense.
Calm Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I don't believe the RCC or I see any harm in praying with anyone regardless of their beliefs. There's no ordinances that are being performed.I believe the intent of most LDS to collect geneology info is to eventually perform a proxy of baptism which in the eyes of the LDS church is an ordinance that I've been directed by proper authority in not cooperating with.I did not mean to give the impression that the RCC viewed LDS or nonChristian faiths' prayers as ineffective. It was only an analogy.I also understand that you have not been given information about the 'why' for the refusal and are extrapolating that it is likely due to the policy regarding LDS baptism. My own speculation occurred before I read your comment.I don't think refusal to help someone participate in an ordinance they believe is false or ineffective has to automatically mean someone is offended by such an ordinance being done, though some who refuse may feel that way though it is not the cause of the refusal to help. I can understand why it might become offensive when it involves not just a private religious ceremony by a total stranger, but gets involved in personal family dynamics as occurred in your own family.
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are abaptized bfor the dead, if the dead crise not at all? why are they then baptized for the ddead?
Calm Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 The term is called being Married. The Church recognizes the marriage while the state does not. The civil divorce (which the RCC is fine with) took care of the separation of property and taking care of any children that was produced in the marriage. This doesn't cancel my vows made with her and HF.Not a state I suggest I would recommend for anyone in regards to marital relations (except in cases of abuse)hey daddyg, there's an echo in here I was thinking along the terms of describing the relationship as "married but separated", but it makes sense to not make a new category when the principle is the relationship hasn't changed in the first.
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I was thinking along the terms of describing the relationship as "married but separated", but it makes sense to not make a new category when the principle is the relationship hasn't changed in the first. At many times during my marriage, we were 'married but separated.'That is the reality that I'm now living. The bottom-line is that I KNOW HF wants me to still be happy. I just need to figure it out.
jwhitlock Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 That's not the point. LDS are offended that they are considered not Christian.Others are offended that you're performing the 'baptisms' for their dead and not honoring their lives (and choices they made). I'm totally aware that isn't the intention of Mormons and they do not see the harm in offering something that could be accepted or denied by the individual. But this IS the issue at hand.Like I told my wife, do what you need to do in the Temple. Just don't tell me about the relatives you've done the work for.LDS being informed that they are not Christian is nothing more than a small minded attack.LDS performing proxy work for others as a gift to them - without, mind you, passing ANY judgment on their lives - is a positive thing.Can you see the difference?
blueadept Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) LDS being informed that they are not Christian is nothing more than a small minded attack.LDS performing proxy work for others as a gift to them - without, mind you, passing ANY judgment on their lives - is a positive thing.Can you see the difference?So my LDS wife shouldn't have taken any offense at my request to not be informed when she performed a 'proxy baptism' for her Catholic grandfather in respect for my beliefs.A definite 'not positive thing' since it marked the beginnning to the end of my marriage.While I respect the LDS viewpoint in that other's should view the practice as 'a gift', please don't mind if I don't share that POV due to my personal experience. Edited February 8, 2012 by blueadept
Calm Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 LDS being informed that they are not Christian is nothing more than a small minded attack.Not in all cases. I know many who are primarily concerned with our salvation and refuse to call us Christians because they don't want us to think it is acceptable to God to believe in the false doctrines and ordinances that they believe we teach. It is a way for them to call us to repentance.
KevinG Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 This thread isn't going to help you make sense of a marriage where one person gave ultimatums to the other (in opposition to her beliefs) and the other crossed the line despite his feelings (in opposition to his beliefs). There were much deeper issues there obviously that go way beyond RCC/LDS comparative doctrines. Back to the OP - why is it even conceivably defensible for Mahr to do what he did, an intentionally vulgar and confrontational display, as a response to a sacred ordinance, done with love and good intent by the Saints?The equivocation of the two acts is laughable and yet we get sidetracked into discussing why the LDS practice of proxy ordinances is offensive to some?The defense is lame.
blueadept Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Not in all cases. I know many who are primarily concerned with our salvation and refuse to call us Christians because they don't want us to think it is acceptable to God to believe in the false doctrines and ordinances that they believe we teach. It is a way for them to call us to repentance. This falls back to the belief that Christians should share the same understanding of the nature of God for them. The belief that you teach false doctrine/ordinances falls from this agreement that you have a different understanding of what is deemed necessary (in their eyes) to be considered Christian.
KevinG Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 It falls back to word play on what "Christian" is in order to marginalize the Latter-day Saints and convince others we are a dangerous cult. It has nothing to do with a clear understanding of our belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer. Sorry I've been around the block too many times to believe the vast majority of people teaching "Mormons aren't Christian" are concerned for my soul. 1
Calm Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 This falls back to the belief that Christians should share the same understanding of the nature of God for them. The belief that you teach false doctrine/ordinances falls from this agreement that you have a different understanding of what is deemed necessary (in their eyes) to be considered Christian.I have no problem with this reasoning if it is presented because the person is concerned about our souls. If instead they are primarily concerned about keeping the right to be called Christian to a particular group....then I see that motivation as problematic. That is why I tend to ask 'why' if such a declaration is made in a conversation unless I am already familiar with the person's reasoning.
jwhitlock Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 So my LDS wife shouldn't have taken any offense at my request to not be informed when she performed a 'proxy baptism' for her Catholic grandfather in respect for my beliefs.A definite 'not positive thing' since it marked the beginnning to the end of my marriage.While I respect the LDS viewpoint in that other's should view the practice as 'a gift', please don't mind if I don't share that POV due to my personal experience.The issue seems not to be with the practice itself - because it's been explained as to what it really is - but with your particular situation. Since we have no way of knowing what he said / she said in this case, we can only fall back to what the official stance and counsel of the church is with regard to the practice.
blueadept Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Back to the OP - why is it even conceivably defensible for Mahr to do what he did, an intentionally vulgar and confrontational display, as a response to a sacred ordinance, done with love and good intent by the Saints?The equivocation of the two acts is laughable and yet we get sidetracked into discussing why the LDS practice of proxy ordinances is offensive to some?The defense is lame. You're trying to understand a person who produced 'Religulous' and had a field day in mocking all faiths especially Catholics. In his warped mind, he's performing the same ordinance (with the same weird respect) that LDS perform 'proxy baptisms.' While I didn't actually watch this, I'm fairly positive that I didn't miss anything.
KevinG Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 You're trying to understand a person who produced 'Religulous' and had a field day in mocking all faiths especially Catholics. In his warped mind, he's performing the same ordinance (with the same weird respect) that LDS perform 'proxy baptisms.' While I didn't actually watch this, I'm fairly positive that I didn't miss anything.You have an excellent point. I should not be outraged or surprised by his behavior given his history with religion or common respect in general.
jwhitlock Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Not in all cases. I know many who are primarily concerned with our salvation and refuse to call us Christians because they don't want us to think it is acceptable to God to believe in the false doctrines and ordinances that they believe we teach. It is a way for them to call us to repentance.I disagree. In every case where someone who claims to be concerned with my salvation makes a judgment that I have no relationship with Christ, that's a small minded attack. Fools rush in where the wise fear to tread, and making a judgment about someone else's relationship with Christ just because they are a Mormon is never, ever an appropriate thing to do. Where I live, I've had quite a bit of experience with this; in every case in my experience, such a person is not concerned with building me up, but tearing me (or my family) down. It goes both ways; I readily recognize the relationships with Christ of my Christian friends.In short, I very much doubt that someone who approaches me and tells me I'm not Christian in the context of I have no relationship or real knowledge of Christ, is "primarily" concerned with my salvation at all.
thesometimesaint Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 I'm willing to bet that all religions have some aspect to them that someone else of another faith finds objectionable. Neither should we nor they change religious beliefs just to please the other.See Article of Faith #11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Mudcat Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 I wonder if I would be sinning if I allowed you to enjoy a cigar and a stiff shot in proxy for me?I imagine that is one of those things that may wander off into the doctrinally speculative, so I would think it would get a free pass.Just don't die on the same day. Don't imagine my colon could handle a double as well as it did "back in the day".
Recommended Posts