stemelbow Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 What's sad is that this issue marked the beginning to end of my marriage (civil divorce) that I still feel I need to honor regardless of her choice in finding a temple-worthy husband.That is sad. Sorry to hear it.
stemelbow Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 My peculiar beliefs claim I am providing you a way to heaven.Their peculiar beliefs claim I am going to hell (which is oddly never accopmanied by an invitation to worship with them and correct my errors).You chalk this up to semantics and equivocate our actions as comparably offensive?Wow.Its almost like, what's the point of even trying to discuss it.
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 That didn't really answer my question but I get the idea. Would you in good conscience restrict information about someones own ancestors from them because you didn't agree with how they would use that information?Please do realize that ALL of my father's side of the family IS LDS. So I avoid giving the information out. In good conscience, I would tell any Catholic the guidelines of our Bishops.You do know that the LDS are instructed to only do work for their own ancestors unless they have permission from descendents of those they do the work for.I realize the quidelines and simply question at how well that really is enforced in what is a total honor system.
stemelbow Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Jaybear:I saw a man once that grabbed a small child and ran across the street with it.What were his motives? Was it to kidnap the child for nefarious purposes? Was it to stop the child from being run over by speeding car?Why is it that you always assume the dishonarable intent when it comes to Mormons?Assign poor motivations to nearly anything anyone does and someone is bound to find offense. "you made me a cup of hot chocolate on this cold winter's night? Did you do it so you could turn off my show and play your video games? I don't want your silly hot chocolate. You don't want to help me you just want to do what you want to do."
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 By way of meaningful comparison when an Evangelical Christian or Muslim says they will pray for me or appeal to God in my behalf I thank them for exercising their faith for me. I also believe their faith is effective in my behalf.A prayer for someone of another faith or an ordinance for someone of another faith is a complement not an insult.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) The guidelines comes from our Bishop that was passed onto the priest to myself. Just as you follow the guidelines given by the 1st Presidency, I try to follow my own recognized priesthood authority given by our Bishops. I feel no need to question him 'where's the harm?' You either follow your recognized authority or you find your own church.I ask, because many people object to LDS practice on this matter without understanding the doctrine, intent, belief, etc. See my sig line, the part in blue.And your response was by way of offering evidence that Jaybear is right in saying people take offense. My point is that many, if not most, take offense because they lack understanding and, all too often, refuse to even try to understand.On one occasion, a Catholic poster on this board mentioned that her parish in Salt Lake City had prayed for the soul of LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley after his death. Rather than take offense at this because I thought it implied he "made a wrong choice," I was favorably impressed with the action and the sentiment that motivated it.An attitude of tolerance and goodwill in interfaith relations will take us a lot further than suspicion and misunderstanding. Edited February 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 If my local church authority told me to withold information from my spouse that she felt was important I'd tell him to go pound sand. In LDS theology our spouse is supposed to be second only to God. In practical terms if we have a disagreement over important issues we both pray continually unitl we both find common ground with God in the matter.It is sad that more couples (LDS, mixed or not) do not find this to be their practice.
wenglund Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Because to many, religion is an integral part of their personal indemnity. The idea that Mother Teresa's life was not complete because she was not a Mormon is offensive to many.Ironically, such offense is born of intollerance of differing views, Morther Teresa doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would be offended in that way. Her sensibilities tended to be otherwise focused. But, to each their own.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited February 7, 2012 by wenglund 1
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) I ask, because many people object to LDS practice on this matter without understanding the doctrine, intent, belief, etc. See my sig line, the part in blue.The fact that the RCC takes FOREVER to make a decision leads me to the fact that issue has been thoroughly thought out. The RCC originally took the safe position of recognizing LDS baptisms until it could be thoroughly researched into what LDS truly believe. Once they came to the understanding that we have a totally different understanding about the nature of God, the decision came about to not recognize LDS baptisms even though you were using the correct formula to baptize. Of course the RCC recognizes baptisms from many other faiths while LDS only recognizes their own baptism.I suspect their request for us in not cooperating with LDS members stems from this point in not recognizing your baptisms as they do with other faiths. Edited February 7, 2012 by blueadept
Jaybear Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Ironically, such offense is born of intollerance of differing views, Morther Teresa doesn't strick me as the kind of person who would be offended in that way. Her sensibilities tended to be otherwise focused. But, to each their own.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Right. They are "intolerant" of your sacredly held belief Mother Teresa life was incomplete because she was not a Mormon.
stemelbow Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Right. They are "intolerant" of your sacredly held belief Mother Teresa life was incomplete because she was not a Mormon.Can you at least try and demonstrate that anyone is saying anyone's life was incomplete? You are spinning it in a way that is misleading, I think.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 The fact that the RCC takes FOREVER to make a decision leads me to the fact that issue has been thoroughly thought out. The RCC originally took the safe position of recognizing LDS baptisms until it could be thoroughly researched into what LDS truly believe. Once they came to the understanding that we have a totally different understanding about the nature of God, the decision came about to not recognize LDS baptisms even though you were using the correct formula to baptize. Of course the RCC recognizes baptisms from many other faiths while LDS only recognizes their own baptism.I suspect their request for us in not cooperating with LDS members stems from this point in not recognizing your baptisms as they do with other faiths.Nothing about the LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead seeks to force anyone outside of our faith to recognize their validity. To think otherwise is pure misunderstanding.
thesometimesaint Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Jaybear: You are projecting motives on us that we don't have.
Jaybear Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Can you at least try and demonstrate that anyone is saying anyone's life was incomplete? You are spinning it in a way that is misleading, I think.If you believed she lived a full and complete life, why go through with the ordinance?
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Nothing about the LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead seeks to force anyone outside of our faith to recognize their validity. To think otherwise is pure misunderstanding. I fully understand that and would still prefer in not having my LDS relatives perform the ordinance even though I'm wasting my breath and know they WILL NOT honor it. That's the rub.
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 wenglund, on 07 February 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:Ironically, such offense is born of intollerance of differing views, Morther Teresa doesn't strick me as the kind of person who would be offended in that way. Her sensibilities tended to be otherwise focused. But, to each their own.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Right. They are "intolerant" of your sacredly held belief Mother Teresa life was incomplete because she was not a Mormon.An excellent illustration of critical thinking versus unthinking criticism.... Thanks, 1
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 There you again. Turning a perfectly civil discussion into a personal attack.Oh my and now an excellent illustration of irony
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 And thus, we've been jaybeared again.I was just about to post this.
thesometimesaint Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Jaybear:Even the esteemed MDB isn't my psychologist couch. So I have no way knowing others motivations. So for you to project motivations on a group that claims not to have those motivations is by defintion an attack.
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 If you believed she lived a full and complete life, why go through with the ordinance?Did she live her life perfectly? A full and complete life is a different issue.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 There you again. Turning a perfectly civil discussion into a personal attack.I did not know that projecting motives on to a whole group of people was "civil". 1
stemelbow Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 If you believed she lived a full and complete life, why go through with the ordinance?So you're not going to answer my question? The answer to yours is obvious isn't it? We all need the ordinance done, whether in this life or by proxy.
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 The fact that the RCC takes FOREVER to make a decision leads me to the fact that issue has been thoroughly thought out. Or they could be just like the LDS or any other large government and suffer from the inertia of bureaucracy.
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I fully understand that and would still prefer in not having my LDS relatives perform the ordinance even though I'm wasting my breath and know they WILL NOT honor it. That's the rub.Why should anyone refrain from practicing their religion because you ask them to and even put up barriers to their practice? Why do you equate this disrespect and opposition to honor in any way?I certainly don't tell the Catholics not to use wine in their sacraments becuase it may offend my Mormon sensibilities.
Recommended Posts