blueadept Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 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. If Romney does win the Republican nomination, the outrageousness of Maher will only increase. If he wins the presidency...........oh my!!
KevinG Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 If Romney does win the Republican nomination, the outrageousness of Maher will only increase. If he wins the presidency...........oh my!! IMO Romney is being treated no worse than any other candidate. It just so happens the most peculiar thing about him (and the one that gets picked on) happens to be his religion.
Pahoran 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.First time I read that, I thought you were referring to your Catholic grandfather. I was about to reply, "Not only should she not have been offended, she really shouldn't have done it if you weren't happy about it."Then I looked again.Blue, the notion that you somehow have some "right" to take offense about something she does on behalf of her own direct ancestor, that your feelings ought to be consulted and the dastardly deed never mentioned in your presence, and all that on no other basis than that he was a Catholic, is rather presumptuous on your part.Depending upon how you said it, it may also be seen as censorious and controlling.The impression it gives is that you regard her faith as second-class, and that you are merely tolerating it so long as you don't have to listen to the disgusting details, despite the fact that she is doing something that ultimately does not impact upon you.All that said, I agree that she shouldn't have taken offense over it.Indeed, it is possible that what she took offense over was not your request not to be informed of the details -- which are, after all, not really germane to you anyway -- but the indirect impressions to which your request might give rise.Please note that I am not judging between you and your wife. Marriages are always very complex things, and clearly a whole lot more went on than just that one conversation. Trying to say that one of you was "right" and the other one "wrong" on such scanty evidence would be like a doctor trying to diagnose an illness based upon a patient telling her, over the phone, "I've got a pain right here." I repeat that I don't think your wife should have taken offense at your request; but I do find it surprising that you saw the need to make it.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.Personal experiences can colour how we see things; and a marriage breakdown is one of the most horrendous personal experiences most of us are likely to go through. But I hope you will at least understand that that is always how Latter-day Saints intend to offer our vicarious Temple work.Regards,Pahoran
Calm Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) The impression it gives is that you regard her faith as second-classWhich is the same impression many nonLDS have of how LDS view nonLDS faiths due to our practice of baptism for the dead (not saying you are arguing that they don't, just making an observation).It can most definitely be looked at as LDS saying "the faith you shared with those now dead may be wonderful in and of itself, but it is not enough". This is the same message that our sending out missionaries to invite others to join us gives---"bring the good that you now have and let us add to it".But surely this is the same message any faith that teaches it has the authority or most truth/correctness or is the best path to God would give....all other faiths may be wonderful, but they are not as wonderful as our faith.I think it may be necessary to recognize that the other in any relationship may feel this way, but for any relationship to survive they need to come to terms how to do this without 'rubbing it in' to their loved ones and friends' faces. Edited February 8, 2012 by calmoriah
blueadept Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 As usual Cal, you seem to sum up my thoughts very well and deals with the issues that I constantly dealt with in my mixed-faith marriage. I'm fairly confident that she went into the relationship and figured that the clueless Catholic would figure it out and convert. Unfortunately for her, I went in the other direction and became an on-fire Cathoic. Not exactly what she wanted I'm sure.Pahoran, my wife went to a couple different Temples while we were together each year and fully endorsed her going to that just as she allowed me to go to weekly Adoration in my own church. I know the consistent talks about the blessings that one can receive in the Temple for couples didn't help our marriage. The mixed-faith issue was never a deal breaker for me while she obviously changed her mind. As with all marriages, there's always more issues that I know she discussed with her bishop in justifying the divorce she filed. In her opinion (and I'm assuming the LDS church), she's free to eventually get her desired Temple wedding.Of course the RCC recognizes the marriage and I believe I have no case for an annulment. So let's move on. We will see who is right in the next life as we both try to the best of our abilities to be Christ-like in this life.
Yirgacheffe Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 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. After reading all the posts directed at you I don't think staying here is condusive to the happiness God wants for you.
blueadept Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 After reading all the posts directed at you I don't think staying here is condusive to the happiness God wants for you.That's an interesting comment. I'm currently buried in church activities between being the Legion of Mary president, with being involved with elderly, teaching CCD, KoC and studying to be a permanent deacon in the church as well as my normal Sunday activities. Discussing religion on MD&D seems to complement my activities IMHO.
Storm Rider Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 That's an interesting comment. I'm currently buried in church activities between being the Legion of Mary president, with being involved with elderly, teaching CCD, KoC and studying to be a permanent deacon in the church as well as my normal Sunday activities. Discussing religion on MD&D seems to complement my activities IMHO.I am glad that you are here and I appreciate your posts. I don't know how this forum would take away from your happiness, but I hope you continue to participate and that it is enjoyable. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 After reading all the posts directed at you I don't think staying here is condusive to the happiness God wants for you.The original topic of this thread was baptism for the dead, not blueadept's happiness. I'd like to see it get back on topic. If we can't do that, I guess I'm done here. 2
Jeff K. Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Or perhaps, happines for the dead.Baptism for the dead is unique to our church (though hinted at scripturally), and some have raised the view that such uniqueness is itself offensive since it may touch upon those who have passed before. The living are unaware of the desires of the dead, and yet they feel they can make decisions for them. The church has accomodated in the best way they know how, by maintaining as policy that only those of lineage may make the decision as to whether or not their particular ancestors would like the choice (note it is a choice, the baptism for the dead does not baptise them anymore than a prayer for me is the equivalent of a prayer by me).I think at this point the issue is educating and public ignorant of the nuance. Some will continue to be offended, but then they choose to be at that point and there is little that we should care to do in order to mitigate their own disdain for the church. For those who are members and do not understand the nuance, some basic gospel doctrine classes should be in your future.
blueadept Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Or perhaps, happines for the dead.Baptism for the dead is unique to our church (though hinted at scripturally)I was trying to research this issue from a Catholic standpoint and it seems inconclusive since it seems only to be 'hinted' scripturally. For something that's only hinted at, it's a driving factor IMO that separates you from the rest of Christianity.My 2 cents
Jeff K. Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 It might be though Catholics would argue that trinatism is the bigger factor. Both are open to scriptural argument (hence the reason Catholics have a Pope and LDS have a Prophet, someone has to make the call for the church after consulting with God).
Scott Lloyd Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 I was trying to research this issue from a Catholic standpoint and it seems inconclusive since it seems only to be 'hinted' scripturally. For something that's only hinted at, it's a driving factor IMO that separates you from the rest of Christianity.My 2 centsWhat separates us from the rest of Christianity is continuing revelation, which obviates the need to limit our conception of God's word to what is contained in the Bible. 2
Jeff K. Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Catholics also believe the Pope receives revelation
Scott Lloyd Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Catholics also believe the Pope receives revelationMy point is that, unlike the rest of Christianity, we are not obliged to depend solely on Biblical authority for what we believe pertaining to baptism for the dead.
Jeff K. Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 That raises an interesting question for Catholics..... Can a revelation to the Pope contravene biblical authority? Luther said no....
blueadept Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 What separates us from the rest of Christianity is continuing revelation, which obviates the need to limit our conception of God's word to what is contained in the Bible. After my 3 week course in regards to Vatican II and the document in regards to revelation, I'll agree to disagree with your statement.
LeSellers Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) That raises an interesting question for Catholics..... Can a revelation to the Pope contravene biblical authority? Luther said no....Luther is not an authority on what Catholic Popes can do according to Catholic dogma.Catholics accept both scripture and "tradition". Tradition seems to fill a role similar to "folk (or unofficial) doctrine" among us Saints.Further, there have been several instances of papal statements (e.g., "The Immaculate Conception") where new doctrine appears from nothing (truly creatio ex nihil).So, the answer to your query is, "Yes."Lehi Edited February 8, 2012 by LeSellers
blueadept Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 That raises an interesting question for Catholics..... Can a revelation to the Pope contravene biblical authority? Luther said no....You have to think of revelation like a big present that seems to have all these hidden compartments that we just haven't found yet in scripture or Tradition yet. So who knows what the Pope will find.
blueadept Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Further, there have been several instances of papal statements (e.g., "The Immaculate Conception") where new doctrine appears from nothing (truly creatio ex nihil).So, the answer to your query is, "Yes."LehiHmmm.....I guess I need to throw out my scripture 'hints' in regards to the Immaculate Conception that I teach once a year in my CCD.
Jeff K. Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Luther is not an authority on what Catholic Popes can do according to Catholic dogma.Catholics accept both scripture and "tradition". Tradition seems to fill a role similar to "folk (or unofficial) doctrine" among us Saints.Further, there have been several instances of papal statements (e.g., "The Immaculate Conception") where new doctrine appears from nothing (truly creatio ex nihil).So, the answer to your query is, "Yes."LehiLuther was a priest when he made the statement, and even at that time of some reknown. It was an issue even at the early stages of his rebellion.
LeSellers Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 {Whether the Pope could receive revelation in contravention of the Bible] was an issue even at the early stages of his rebellion. [Emphasis added]So, he was not a faithful practicing Catholic, albeit a priest, when he disagreed with the Catholic Church, and yet was an authoritative source for what the Catholic Church believed in regards to the kinds of revelation the Pope could receive.Sorry, it don' wash.Lehi
Scott Lloyd Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Catholics accept both scripture and "tradition". Tradition seems to fill a role similar to "folk (or unofficial) doctrine" among us Saints.Except that folk doctrine among us does not have the stature that tradition presumably has in Catholicism. In fact, one of the tasks of priesthood correlation, as I see it, is to avoid the encroachment of folk doctrine.
thesometimesaint Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Jeff K.:Thought you might like this.http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=67
Jeff K. Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 So, he was not a faithful practicing Catholic, albeit a priest, when he disagreed with the Catholic Church, and yet was an authoritative source for what the Catholic Church believed in regards to the kinds of revelation the Pope could receive.Sorry, it don' wash.LehiOne could argue he was a faithful Catholic (ie faithful to the doctrine not necessarily the leadership) until such point that he lost faith in the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Recommended Posts