And This Pope Rocks On

[why me]

 All my life in the church, I was told by teachers and church leaders alike the God was once a man and had a father, who had his own Heavenly Father, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

This is still taught. God was once a man is still taught in sunday school.

 

Is President Lorenzo Snow’s oft-repeated statement—“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”—accepted as official doctrine by the Church?

Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System. To my knowledge there has been no “official” pronouncement by the First Presidency declaring that President Snow’s couplet is to be accepted as doctrine. But that is not a valid criteria for determining whether or not it is doctrine.

Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.

In her biography of her brother, Eliza R. Snow explains the circumstances which led Lorenzo Snow to pen the famous couplet: “Being present at a ‘Blessing Meeting,’ in the Temple, previous to his baptism into the Church; after listening to several patriarchal blessings pronounced upon the heads of different individuals with whose history he was acquainted, and of whom he knew the Patriarch was entirely ignorant; he was struck with astonishment to hear the peculiarities of those persons positively and plainly referred to in their blessings. And, as he afterwards expressed, he was convinced that an influence, superior to human prescience, dictated the words of the one who officiated.

“The Patriarch was the father of Joseph, the Prophet. That was the first time Lorenzo had met him. After the services, they were introduced, and Father Smith said to my brother that he would soon be convinced of the truth of the latter-day work, and be baptized; and he said: ‘You will become as great as you can possibly wish—EVEN AS GREAT AS GOD, and you cannot wish to be greater.’” (Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, Salt Lake City: Deseret News Co., 1884, pp. 9–10.)

Lorenzo Snow was baptized a short time later and began his service in the Church. In the spring of 1840 he was called to serve a mission in the British Isles. Before his departure he was in the home of a Church member who was preaching a sermon on the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. (See Matt. 20:1–16.) According to Elder Snow, “While attentively listening to his explanation, the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me, and explains Father Smith’s dark saying to me at a blessing meeting in the Kirtland Temple, prior to my baptism. …

“As man now is, God once was:”

“As God now is, man may be.”

“I felt this to be a sacred communication, which I related to no one except my sister Eliza, until I reached England, when in a confidential private conversation with President Brigham Young, in Manchester, I related to him this extraordinary manifestation.” (Eliza R. Snow, pp. 46–47; italics added. Brigham Young was President of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time.)

President Snow’s son LeRoi later told that the Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the validity of the revelation Elder Snow had received: “Soon after his return from England, in January, 1843, Lorenzo Snow related to the Prophet Joseph Smith his experience in Elder Sherwood’s home. This was in a confidential interview in Nauvoo. The Prophet’s reply was: ‘Brother Snow, that is a true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you.’” (LeRoi C. Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, p. 656.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, pp. 345–46.)

Once the Prophet Joseph had taught the doctrine publicly, Elder Snow also felt free to publicly teach it, and it was a common theme of his teachings throughout his life. About ten years before his death, while serving as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, President Snow incorporated his original couplet into a longer poem. He addressed the poem to the Apostle Paul, who had written the following to the Philippian Saints:

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Philip. 2:5–6.)

Part of the poem reads:

The boy, like to his father grown,

Has but attained unto his own;

To grow to sire from state of son,

Is not ’gainst Nature’s course to run.

A son of God, like God to be,

Would not be robbing Deity.

(As cited in LeRoi C. Snow, p. 661.)

Numerous sources could be cited, but one should suffice to show that this doctrine is accepted and taught by the Brethren. In an address in 1971, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said:

“I think I can pay no greater tribute to [President Lorenzo Snow and Elder Erastus Snow] than to preach again that glorious doctrine which they taught and which was one of the favorite themes, particularly of President Lorenzo Snow. …

“We have been promised by the Lord that if we know how to worship, and know what we worship, we may come unto the Father in his name, and in due time receive of his fulness. We have the promise that if we keep his commandments, we shall receive of his fulness and be glorified in him as he is in the Father.

“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’

“After this doctrine had been taught by the Prophet, President Snow felt free to teach it also, and he summarized it in one of the best known couplets in the Church. …

“This same doctrine has of course been known to the prophets of all the ages, and President Snow wrote an excellent poetic summary of it.” (Address on Snow Day, given at Snow College, 14 May 1971, pp. 1, 3–4; italics added.)

It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today.

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

 

This was back at a time when the ensign was a wonderful tool to learn church history. It needs to get back on track and be so again.

[why me]

So godhood is a calling, a reward for good behavior?  Godly powers go with the office?  Who or what bestows/removes the office and powers upon beings recognized as 'just', the intelligences who 'are not gods'?   All my life in the church, I was told by teachers and church leaders alike the God was once a man and had a father, who had his own Heavenly Father, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

And then we have this:

 

God has taken these intelligences, given to them spirit bodies, and given them instructions and training. Then he proceeded to create a world for them and sent them as spirits to obtain a mortal body, for which he made preparation. And when they were upon the earth, he gave them instructions on how to go about developing and conducting their lives to make them perfect, so they could return to their Father in heaven after their transitions. Then came the periods of time when souls were to be placed upon the earth and born to parents who were permitted to furnish the bodies. But no parent has ever yet on this earth been the parent of a spirit, because we are so far yet from perfection. Remember what was said a while ago, that “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.”They came with the definite understanding that they could return to become like God and go forward in their great development and progress.

Could you produce a spirit? Has anyone whom you know ever produced a spirit? This is a power not given to mortal man, so there is much for us to learn.

“We have not the power in the flesh to create and bring forth or produce a spirit [with all the vaunted knowledge of the experts in the world, this has not been given to man]; but we have the power to produce [with the help of God] a temporal body [for our children]. The germ of this, God has placed within us. … Herein, brethren, you can perceive that we have not finished, and cannot finish our work, while we live here [on the earth], no more than Jesus did while he was in the flesh.” (JD, 15:137.)

Let me mention one more thing. While we are in the mortal body we cannot “fashion kingdoms [or] organize matter, for [that is] beyond our capacity and calling, beyond this world. In the resurrection, men who have been faithful and diligent in all things in the flesh, [who] have kept their first and second estate, and [are] worthy to be crowned Gods, even the sons of God, will be ordained to organize matter. How much matter do you suppose there is between here and some of the fixed stars which we can see? Enough to frame many, very many millions of such earths as this, yet it is now so diffused, clear and pure, that we look through it and behold the stars. Yet the matter is there. Can you form any conception of this? Can you form any idea of the minuteness of matter?” (JD, 15:137).

Can you realize even slightly how relatively little we know? As Paul said, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” (1 Cor. 2:9.)

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/05/our-great-potential

 

With the internet every tom, bob, harry and jane are coming up with their own doctrine. The church has not said that the above is not true. Back in the day, we members had knowledge. Today...with the internet, knowledge is going out the window. People are skimming here and there and we are ending up with many empty minds. 

Edited December 30, 2013 by why me

[why me]

  How god became god; justifications for the priesthood ban; explanations for the atonement; certain oaths and gestures in the endowment ceremony.  So many things have changed.   It's a completely different church from the one I was raised in in Utah.  I don't remember a time when there was such wild speculation among church members.  Crazy.  I suppose it follows naturally from the realization that prophets have been and can be extremely fallible and opinionated.  Everyone's their own authority now. 

Nothing has really changed that much, except for the internet and how members are being led here and there by church members and ex church members. But what has the church said that changed the game. Nothing. I don't think that the church is different at all except for the fact that it is larger now. Also, if we go by change it is basically changes in the articles in the ensign and other church publications. Hopefully, the magazines and church educational manuals will go back to real knowledge as they once did.

[Stone holm]

Not really. Saemo needs to address the problems in their own church when it comes to secrecy. Also, one can use the Mathew verses to be critical of the pope. When the pope prays in public as he does in front of the world media and when he attempts to show his holiness before the media, it tends to go against mathew as I quoted above. It is obvious that certain things should be done in secret and not before the public or the media. But I don't think saemo will address the contradictions of his or her posts.

 

I have seen this from other catholics who engage with members of the lds church. They criticize this or that and when someone brings up the catholic church and its history or secret nature they usually call foul or ignore it and continue with their criticism of the lds church.

If we are talking about secrecy in the selection of their religious leader, I don't think either of us should be casting stones. It is a very secret process as to the calling of an Apostle and the order in which they are presented at Conference. Pres Kimball and Pres Benson were sustained, I believe at the same conference. Can anyone here say why Pres Kimball was sustained first? General Church members have no clue.

[Yirgacheffe]

If we are talking about secrecy in the selection of their religious leader, I don't think either of us should be casting stones. It is a very secret process as to the calling of an Apostle and the order in which they are presented at Conference. Pres Kimball and Pres Benson were sustained, I believe at the same conference. Can anyone here say why Pres Kimball was sustained first? General Church members have no clue.

Yours is more valid comparison, comparing how each religion chooses leaders.  I also don't see criticizing the pope for praying in public, don't LDS leaders pray in public at conferences and such?

[why me]

If we are talking about secrecy in the selection of their religious leader, I don't think either of us should be casting stones. It is a very secret process as to the calling of an Apostle and the order in which they are presented at Conference. Pres Kimball and Pres Benson were sustained, I believe at the same conference. Can anyone here say why Pres Kimball was sustained first? General Church members have no clue.

I wasn't casting stones. But I don't think that it is fair for someone who is not mormon to be critical of a supposed 'secret' ritual in the temple and yet, overlook the secrecy in their own church. That was my point with saemo. If one casts stones, the same stones can be thrown back.

[why me]

Yours is more valid comparison, comparing how each religion chooses leaders.  I also don't see criticizing the pope for praying in public, don't LDS leaders pray in public at conferences and such?

You are right. However, one must be careful that one is not praying or doing an act of kindness for a photo op. It could be very tempting to do things in public for the glory of oneself and not for god. The pope is not only person of year for time magazine but now also is best dressed man of the year for esquire magazine.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-wins-unexpected-honor-best-dressed-man-2013-article-1.1561340

 

Not sure how this may fit with his humility and humbleness. Maybe he should decline such awards.

[why me]

Both churches claim that the Holy Spirit is part of the process in verifying who their new leader will be and there really is no point in having the media witnessing this.  In regards to the election of the Pope, there's plenty of documentation after the fact.

I understand this blue very well. But when a catholic comes to the forum being critical of the lds church for having something sacred done not in the public eye, I must counter such hypocrisy by bringing up various rituals that are done in secret in their own church. Maybe I am just sensitive having been a veteran of a cathoic discussion forum where mormonism is routinely criticized. .

[Yirgacheffe]

You are right. However, one must be careful that one is not praying or doing an act of kindness for a photo op. It could be very tempting to do things in public for the glory of oneself and not for god. The pope is not only person of year for time magazine but now also is best dressed man of the year for esquire magazine.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-wins-unexpected-honor-best-dressed-man-2013-article-1.1561340

 

Not sure how this may fit with his humility and humbleness. Maybe he should decline such awards.

So is there an award ceremony at Esquire with something presented that a person can refuse?  I really don't see why in the world the pope would be even nominated for best dressed man of the year let alone win, guess I'll have to look elsewhere for nicely dressed men while waiting in line at the grocery store.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Yirgacheffe

[Yirgacheffe]

I understand this blue very well. But when a catholic comes to the forum being critical of the lds church for having something sacred done not in the public eye, I must counter such hypocrisy by bringing up various rituals that are done in secret in their own church. Maybe I am just sensitive having been a veteran of a cathoic discussion forum where mormonism is routinely criticized. .

Maybe you should make a point of comparing things that actually deserve comparison like Stone Holm did.

[blueadept]

I understand this blue very well. But when a catholic comes to the forum being critical of the lds church for having something sacred done not in the public eye, I must counter such hypocrisy by bringing up various rituals that are done in secret in their own church. Maybe I am just sensitive having been a veteran of a cathoic discussion forum where mormonism is routinely criticized. .

Participation over there has hardened you and made you over-sensitive for sure.  You shouldn't have cast so many pearls amongst the swine.  The LDS apologists that have survived over there were more selective than you were IMHO.

[why me]

Maybe you should make a point of comparing things that actually deserve comparison like Stone Holm did.

It really isn't about comparing. It is about having something done in secret. When a catholic claims that the temple ritual should be public and that christ did his ministry in public, one is free to bring up something that is done in secret in the catholic church. And that was my point all along. I don't care if the pope is chosen in secret or under the public eye. But one must  be careful with ones logic or criticisms.

[why me]

Participation over there has hardened you and made you over-sensitive for sure.  You shouldn't have cast so many pearls amongst the swine.  The LDS apologists that have survived over there were more selective than you were IMHO.

I did post a lot and was attacked a lot. Being selective would not have helped. But I have seen catholic posters on other related mormon boards They criticize the lds church without understanding that their own church can also be duly criticized over history, secrecy etc. They seem to ignore their own skeletons in their own closets. This is what amazes me about it all.

[why me]

So is there an award ceremony at Esquire with something presented that a person can refuse?  I really don't see why in the world the pope would be even nominated for best dressed man of the year let alone win, guess I'll have to look elsewhere for nicely dressed men while waiting in line at the grocery store.

The pope has gotten wonderful photo ops and good press and he is seen to be a person who is now on the correct side of the coin when it comes to social issues. Of course, he would receive such awards. But one must be careful with media adulation. It could go to one's head and the catholic PR department can become corrupted with such publicity and begin a series of public appearances by having the pope do wonderful photo ops for the press.

 

After having been on the discussion boards for years the one thing that I do know is this: if the lds leaders were doing what the pope is seen doing and receiving good photo ops and if any of them were elected person of the year for the press that they have received and for their work in public or were elected best dressed man of the year...the accusations of worldly pursuits and photo op phoneyisms would be far and wide. I think that most lds apologists would agree with this my opinion.

Edited December 31, 2013 by why me

[Stone holm]

You are right. However, one must be careful that one is not praying or doing an act of kindness for a photo op. It could be very tempting to do things in public for the glory of oneself and not for god. The pope is not only person of year for time magazine but now also is best dressed man of the year for esquire magazine.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-wins-unexpected-honor-best-dressed-man-2013-article-1.1561340

 

Not sure how this may fit with his humility and humbleness. Maybe he should decline such awards.

The world is a better place for the Pope to be doing photo ops for this kind of thing, than sound bites for wedge issues. Better to have symbolic humility in doing away with gilded thrones and fancy robes, than the opposite.

[saemo]

And where is the lds church doing this? When they preach, they do so in public by sending missionaries out into the world. And no lds leader is walled up in a building. And lds churches are opened for the pubic as are lds temples before the dedication.

However, you still have failed to address the secretive nature of your own church, the catholic church when a pope is chosen and other things that are done within the vatican walls. Where is the public? For your own creditability you will need to address this before you continue your criticism of the lds church.

You seem to be working fairly hard and diminishing the importance of LDS temples. Fine by me, but not how I remember the LDS view.

As I said, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in a conclave that is necessary for my salvation. Zero. Zip. There isn't anything going on in a conclave that indicates the Bishops are further progressed towards godhood than anyone who is not in the conclave.

I am not against private devotions, or Bishops in a conclave.None of these are judged as required by God for me to be saved or "exalted". Do you understand the difference? Because I'm not getting in this thread that people understand my POV. (My fault, I'm sure.)

I am all for sacred spaces. I reject the notion that secrecy is required for salvation, or "exaltation". No one has yet to come up with any thing that would indicate otherwise. Your argument, to my view, is a red herring.

Edited December 31, 2013 by saemo

[saemo]

Mathew 6:5

 

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full!

6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

16 “When you fast, do not look sombre as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full!

17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face,

18 so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

 

Maybe you can read the bible with an open heart and you can also see the wonders of having things done in private and not to be seen by others.

Maybe you should show me how this has anything to do with "exaltation".

Thanks.

As for knowing your Bible, please, I know passive aggressive ad hominems can be fun, but they are pointless.

[saemo]

When Jesus was executed his followers were not to be found. And if he were not resurrected, the jesus movement would be dead. The apostles were hiding, afraid for their lives. In other words, their testimonies seemed to be rather weak. His resurrection and his appearance to the apostles was a big event but it was in secret. And it gave the apostles the needed incentive to believe that jesus was who he claimed to be.

 

The followers of jesus in the lds church are also spreading the good word, discussing, teaching etc. But for mormons certain things are sacred. Nothing wrong with that. Instead of mocking it, it should be respected. And I do believe that lds members are taught about the temple before they go. Much is discussed and the reasons why.

Do you really believe that hiding in fear is the same as Mormon temples?

You have an odd view. Jesus appeared resurrected to those hiding in fear, and the first thing he said is, " peace be with you". I see the love of God, drawing them out of their fear and towards the joy of Christ resurrected.

[why me]

As I said, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in a conclave that is necessary for my salvation. Zero. Zip. There isn't anything going on in a conclave that indicates the Bishops are further progressed towards godhood than anyone who is not in the conclave.

 

This is not true. How catholics are led does have something to do with their version of

'exaltation'. If catholics are wrongly led, they may find themselves not doing what god wishes for them to do. If the parish priest gives wrong counsel, he may lead his parishioners away from god. And salvation does not just depend on ourselves alone. For example, in my local parish church many people are receiving holy communion who are living with someone. Back in my day it was called 'living in sin'. The priest knows this but still gives the communion to them. It can affect the spirituality of others who attempt to live the commandments. Is the priest doing any favors by giving it to people who are knowingly sinning? should he not give a homily about this? And if not, who is responsible for these people's souls?

[why me]

Do you really believe that hiding in fear is the same as Mormon temples?

You have an odd view. Jesus appeared resurrected to those hiding in fear, and the first thing he said is, " peace be with you". I see the love of God, drawing them out of their fear and towards the joy of Christ resurrected.

No, not hiding in fear. But he did visit his apostles in secret. He administered to them in secret. He didn't come down on a cloud and showed the general public that he was actually resurrected. Why not? Much was taught in secret and done in secret. If christ was a such a public person, he should have appeared to all the people in that area to lead them out of their fear. But he didn't.

 

Also, we have no idea what he did in secret. If he did anything in secret, who would know? I am sure that he administered to people in secret. Not all was in the public view. We only have a record of his public life but not his more less public life.

Edited December 31, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

This is not true. How catholics are led does have something to do with their version of

'exaltation'. If catholics are wrongly led, they may find themselves not doing what god wishes for them to do. ?

I suspect that what is meant is that Catholics can observe others doing whatever they themselves might eventually go through one day in regards to the Sacraments and other necessary salvific events in their lives.

A Catholic can get to the highest heaven or however the fullest blessings of the afterlife are described without ever being aware of how the Pope is chosen, let alone being there. That there are things that influence their lives that are done in secret is irrelevant to the fact that what they need to do personally in a ritual sense is done before the public. There are other aspects of a believer's life that would be private such as personal prayer, charitable works etc. but those can also be done by nonbelievers, there is nothing 'official' about them.

Edited December 31, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

You seem to be working fairly hard and diminishing the importance of LDS temples. Fine by me, but not how I remember the LDS view.

As I said, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in a conclave that is necessary for my salvation. Zero. Zip. There isn't anything going on in a conclave that indicates the Bishops are further progressed towards godhood than anyone who is not in the conclave.

I am not against private devotions, or Bishops in a conclave.None of these are judged as required by God for me to be saved or "exalted". Do you understand the difference? Because I'm not getting in this thread that people understand my POV. (My fault, I'm sure.)

I am all for sacred spaces. I reject the notion that secrecy is required for salvation, or "exaltation". No one has yet to come up with any thing that would indicate otherwise. Your argument, to my view, is a red herring.

 

You seemed to have lost what little you knew about LDS Theology. My participation in the Temple isn't required for my Salvation. Even the devils will receive salvation from death.

 

So if a Catholic refused to believe that a Pope is the Vicar of Christ it won't effect their salvation? Interesting.

 

If you are not against Catholic private devotions. Why are you against LDS private devotions?

 

If so why is the Pope always elected in private?

[why me]

You seemed to have lost what little you knew about LDS Theology. My participation in the Temple isn't required for my Salvation. Even the devils will receive salvation from death.

 

So if a Catholic refused to believe that a Pope is the Vicar of Christ it won't effect their salvation? Interesting.

 

If you are not against Catholic private devotions. Why are you against LDS private devotions?

 

If so why is the Pope always elected in private?

I don't think that Saemo has an answer to your questions. My experience with conversing with catholics on the internet is that they can be critical of lds culture, history, doctrine etc but yet, overlook problems or contradictions in their own catholic faith. I will give you a hypothetical situation. If the lds prophet would be out and about kissing babies, people with tumors on their faces, and hugging lepers in front of the media, the catholics on the internet would exclaim that the lds prophet is doing this for publicity and he is playing to the world. The internet catholics would be highly critical.

[ChristKnight]

You seemed to have lost what little you knew about LDS Theology. My participation in the Temple isn't required for my Salvation. Even the devils will receive salvation from death.

 

So if a Catholic refused to believe that a Pope is the Vicar of Christ it won't effect their salvation? Interesting.

 

If you are not against Catholic private devotions. Why are you against LDS private devotions?

 

If so why is the Pope always elected in private?

 

Perhaps you're misunderstanding what saemo is saying (which was clarified in calmoriah's post directly above yours).  Perhaps this is also because there seems to be some confusion as to how you're understanding saemo's usage of "salvation" (sorry if I'm wrong).  Although Catholics do accept that all will be resurrected, salvation per se means, for Catholics, eternal life in the eternal presence of God in Heaven (i.e. the "beatific vision").  This can be contrasted with the LDS usage, which makes a distinction between "salvation" and "eternal life" or "exaltation" (Catholics do not make such a distinction).  So, LDS esoteric temple rites, the Endowment and Sealing, are required for eternal life/exaltation (what a Catholic would refer to as simply "salvation", which is how saemo was using it).  In contrast, the Catholic sacramental rites ordinarily necessary for salvation, Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist, are performed publicly (at least today they are).

[Calm]

I have yet to find a person who is not in some ways blind to their own group's faults that mirror the faults they see in other groups....even some who are intent on finding fault in their own group miss some obvious ones in my experience.

Edited January 1, 2014 by calmoriah