Morman baptism age/ceremony technicalities

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

This is vastly different from the Catholic Church. In the RCC people train and qualify to become priests, just as they train to become doctors or mechanics, and they choose it as a lifelong profession. If you sack a Catholic priest, he wouldn’t have anyway to live, because he won’t be much good at doing anything else! That is why it is so difficult for the Catholic Church to sack a miscreant priest. If I committed adultery, I wouldn’t expect to loose my job. But I would expect immediately to loose my standing in the Church, and be released from all my callings. But if my job and my calling were one and the same, the Church would be faced with a quandary. They couldn’t easily sack me, because it is my job, and keeping me would mean corrupting the whole system. The way the RCC has traditionally dealt with such cases has been either reprimand the person, but let him keep his post; or worse still, just cover it up and allow it to continue, thus corrupting the whole system. The Lord never intended it to work like that. I was personally acquainted with a bishop once who committed adultery. He was a police officer by profession, and a good one. He was a great guy to be with. He had this weakness I guess and yield to temptation. He was immediately released from his calling and excommunicated from the Church. He still continued to be a good police officer, but he lost his standing in the Church. Now if his job was the same as his calling, the Church couldn’t have exactly dealt with him in that way. That is how the Lord’s church was intended to be run.

So, it would be more correct to say that full time LDS clergy (GC’s) are paid a stipend and part time LDS clergy (bishops, stake presidents, etc.) are not paid.

This division between “fulltime” and “part time” is not accurate, and does not correctly portray the situation. It may not be a “fulltime” job in the sense that he does not go to his office at 9 and return home at 5, but it consumes an enormous amount of his time and resources. Being a bishop is a very demanding job in the LDS Church. He is on call constantly for a Church member who may require his assistance. I wouldn’t be surprised if he puts in as much time and effort into his job as a professional fulltime Catholic priest does in his.

It would also be correct to say that full time Catholic clergy (bishops, priests) are paid a stipend and part time Catholic clergy (deacons) are not paid.

The two systems are so vastly different that any attempt to equate them is going to be misleading. The way the two systems work are worlds apart. In the LDS Church everyone has something to do. The rate of member participation is extremely high, probably the highest of any church. The members run the whole thing. That is one reason why being a member of the LDS Church is such a satisfying experience for its members. You enjoy an activity far more if you participate in it and help to make it happen, than if you simply act as a spectator. I don’t want to be critical, but going to a Catholic Church is like going to the movie! The rate of member participation is almost zero. I went to a Catholic Church service a few weeks ago. I went towards the end, so I didn’t see the whole process. When the service had just ended, people couldn’t wait to get out! They were rushing out like mad as though they had just been forced to watch a very bad movie. There was hardly any socializing and interaction between the members. I could tell from the expression in their faces that it had been a burdensome, and not a terribly pleasant experience for them. It was also obvious from their expressions and behaviour that they were going to go home and not think about religion until they returned to church again the following Sunday, reluctantly, to watch the same bad movie once more. The two systems are just incomparable. They are worlds apart.

The determining factor here is that those being paid are devoting all of their time to their respective church and consequently have no time for a job. If being an LDS bishop was a full time job there would be a stipend. LDS wards are structured so that being an LDS bishop is NOT a full time job. Catholic parishes are structured so that being a priest IS a full time job.

No. That is a very simplistic way of looking at it, and misleading. See above.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Tmaque:

This is true but you mean different things when you say it.

LDS canon states that “we believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost,” which is a Trinitarian expression. LDS baptize in the name of the “Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” which is a Trinitarian formula. What we actually “mean” by it should not be an issue with the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church accepts baptism by almost anybody that I can think of, including by a non-Christian in an emergency. The main thing as far as they are concerned is that the correct formula is used; and in the case of the LDS, the correct formula certainly is used. Therefore their position vis-à-vis LDS is an inconsistent one. The LDS position you may disagree with, but you can’t argue that it is inconsistent.

All Christians believe in the Trinitarian formula …

I am not too sure about that. There are all kinds of Christians around who believe all kinds of things. Their baptisms as far as I know are accepted.

… of three persons one God.

This expression, “three persons in one God,” is not only unscriptural, and also nonsensical; but it is not even historically correct. It is a relatively recent invention. If you regard the Athanasian Creed to be the authentic expression of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, you will find that it does not say it like that. What it says is something different. As far as I know this expression is not even Catholic. I don’t recall coming across it in Catholic literature. It is a relatively recent invention of Protestantism. You are mixing up an awful lot of stuff here that should not be mixed up.

LDS believe don’t believe in one God, but rather, three seperate gods that make a up a godhead, a divine board of directors if you will.

So did Origen, and many other ECFs. Were their baptisms invalid too?

In LDS theology the Father and the Son are completely seperated by virtue of the fact that both possess physical bodies.

How the doctrine of the Godhead or the Trinity is to be understood has been a matter of disagreement among Christians since the first century. There is nothing unusual about that.

The Catholic church has decided that there is enough of a difference in belief to question the efficacy of the baptism.

Well, you can say that, but I have my doubts. The Catholic position is inconsistent. “Retaliation” may have been the wrong word to describe it, but I would say that their stance is a response to the LDS position. That is the most logical explanation for the inconsistency of their stance.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

Well, Amgid, I thought you said some outrageous things on the Mary forum,…

Such as?

…but this one tops them all! What are you thinking?

I did apologize. If that is not good enough, I will apologize again. Would you like me to?

Don’t you know that saying such things destroys any credibility you may have? Everything you write after a statement like this might as well be “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah” because your credibility is shot. Look, I think it’s great that we have some brave Mormons willing to converse with us here, but believe me, you are not helping their cause.

That tactic is shot! It destroys your credibility. My credibility, where it counts, rests in the strengths of my argument. Feel free to challenge that if you will.

amgid

 

[majick275]

…and it gets deeper.

The LDS church has a number of full time paid employees who perform a number of “professional” functions. Some of these people rise up through the ranks to leadership positions. Boyd K. Packer certainly fits that category.

To claim that any of these General authorities has given up anything is unverifiable. We simply don’t know what they are paid as a “living allowance” nor do we have information on perks or “related compensation”. (such as from inspirational books, etc. that are purchased because it is written by a GA) One can certainly question why the secrecy. One can NOT show that they are extravagantly paid NOR can it be shown that they receive only a minimal amount. The FACT is that the LDS church chooses not to disclose any of this.

Regarding claims to the “primitive church” on this, one might want to do a little research into the history of the LDS church to see the evolution of this. JS just prophesied who should sell, buy, trade what and “allocated” assets as he saw fit. during the BY years a number of systems were tried. These included patriarchs charging a fee per blessing, bishops taking 8% of the tithing and stake getting 2%, then patriarchs could only take tips and local authorities (bishops, etc.) received a “stipend” loosely based on tithing collected. Then patriarchs got a stipend and local authorities received a small stipend based on a general estimate of necessary expense in carying out their duties. General authorities drew from the Church according to their “needs”. Later GAs were often placed on Boards of Directors of the various LDS owned companies and received money from that in addition to their “living allowance”.

Now Patriarchs are not compensated and local authorities must submit expense reports and are reimbursed only for actual, approved expenses. General Authorities are no longer placed on boards anymore but still get living allowance and whatever they make off of writing books and other such “private” activities.

The amount of time that the local leaders spend varies greatly from one individual to the next. Usually they are “working” on sundays and wednesday nights (or another weeknight if sharing a building). They are free to schedule themselves as needed though.

“Sacking” clergy is being horribly misrepresented here. Priests are easily re-assigned and can in fact be “de-frocked” if necessary. LDS local leaders are called from lay persons and can easily decline callings, request a release or just not perform. There is nothing that can really be done to fill needs. No one can be “assigned” to be a bishop, etc. This often causes problems in small congregations outside of Utah where it can be hard to find willing individuals who are capable. While you may proclaim that the Spirit makes any and all training/education unnecessary, I don’t see the value in having a plumber provide marital counseling nor an accountant helping an alcoholic recover, etc.

I find the subjective description of Catholics frantically escaping the “burdensome” mass similar to the hilarious scene in the Mormon movie “the home teachers” where the guy is hurdling people to get home. The 3 hours spent in LDS services (especially on fast sundays) is “endured” by many who must overcame untrained people, many of whom are not good public speakers giving travelogues and thankimonies as well as classes taught by folks who are always speculating as they teach since there is no catechism. Really now, you can go to any church in the world and find poeple who are leave uplifted and edified and others who are glad to rush home and have no clue what happened in church that day.

LDS member participation is high for some and low for others. Attendance percentage is no higher than any other church. Our parish has fellowships in the parish hall after mass and we also have SSR with lots of participation. Just think of the LDS Temple… now that’s watching a movie… The mass is a sacrament it’s not supposed to be a social gathering or a Q&A. (although there are lay participants as servers, lectors, LEMs, etc.

Believe it or not, there are Catholics who love going to Mass and Mormons who can’t stand sacrament meeting. You will find these disparities in EVERY religion.

 

[PaulDupre]

amgid:

What we actually “mean” by it should not be an issue with the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church accepts baptism by almost anybody that I can think of, including by a non-Christian in an emergency. The main thing as far as they are concerned is that the correct formula is used…

Not really. There are three separate but equal criteria for a valid baptism:

1. The intent to do as the Church does - to baptise for the remission of sins.
2. The correct matter for the sacrament - water
3. The correct form - “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

If any one of these is missing, the sacrament is invalid.

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

Such as?

Such as that rediculous statement you made about celibacy leading to sexual abuse/homosexuality.

That tactic is shot! It destroys your credibility. My credibility, where it counts, rests in the strengths of my argument. Feel free to challenge that if you will.

What you’re failing to see is that making outrageous statements negates credibility. So no matter how strong your aruguments may be, when you say crazy things alongside them, your arguments become less credible. Look, people like Tom Nossor and Mormonfool are here doing their best at making rational arugments without lobbing rediculous anti-Catholic zingers. You have a habit of what you call “hyperbole” that really makes you look silly. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[chic_for_Christ]

majick275:

…and it gets deeper.

The LDS church has a number of full time paid employees who perform a number of “professional” functions. Some of these people rise up through the ranks to leadership positions. Boyd K. Packer certainly fits that category.

To claim that any of these General authorities has given up anything is unverifiable. We simply don’t know what they are paid as a “living allowance” nor do we have information on perks or “related compensation”. (such as from inspirational books, etc. that are purchased because it is written by a GA) One can certainly question why the secrecy. One can NOT show that they are extravagantly paid NOR can it be shown that they receive only a minimal amount. The FACT is that the LDS church chooses not to disclose any of this.

Regarding claims to the “primitive church” on this, one might want to do a little research into the history of the LDS church to see the evolution of this. JS just prophesied who should sell, buy, trade what and “allocated” assets as he saw fit. during the BY years a number of systems were tried. These included patriarchs charging a fee per blessing, bishops taking 8% of the tithing and stake getting 2%, then patriarchs could only take tips and local authorities (bishops, etc.) received a “stipend” loosely based on tithing collected. Then patriarchs got a stipend and local authorities received a small stipend based on a general estimate of necessary expense in carying out their duties. General authorities drew from the Church according to their “needs”. Later GAs were often placed on Boards of Directors of the various LDS owned companies and received money from that in addition to their “living allowance”.

Now Patriarchs are not compensated and local authorities must submit expense reports and are reimbursed only for actual, approved expenses. General Authorities are no longer placed on boards anymore but still get living allowance and whatever they make off of writing books and other such “private” activities.

The amount of time that the local leaders spend varies greatly from one individual to the next. Usually they are “working” on sundays and wednesday nights (or another weeknight if sharing a building). They are free to schedule themselves as needed though.

“Sacking” clergy is being horribly misrepresented here. Priests are easily re-assigned and can in fact be “de-frocked” if necessary. LDS local leaders are called from lay persons and can easily decline callings, request a release or just not perform. There is nothing that can really be done to fill needs. No one can be “assigned” to be a bishop, etc. This often causes problems in small congregations outside of Utah where it can be hard to find willing individuals who are capable. While you may proclaim that the Spirit makes any and all training/education unnecessary, I don’t see the value in having a plumber provide marital counseling nor an accountant helping an alcoholic recover, etc.

I find the subjective description of Catholics frantically escaping the “burdensome” mass similar to the hilarious scene in the Mormon movie “the home teachers” where the guy is hurdling people to get home. The 3 hours spent in LDS services (especially on fast sundays) is “endured” by many who must overcame untrained people, many of whom are not good public speakers giving travelogues and thankimonies as well as classes taught by folks who are always speculating as they teach since there is no catechism. Really now, you can go to any church in the world and find poeple who are leave uplifted and edified and others who are glad to rush home and have no clue what happened in church that day.

LDS member participation is high for some and low for others. Attendance percentage is no higher than any other church. Our parish has fellowships in the parish hall after mass and we also have SSR with lots of participation. Just think of the LDS Temple… now that’s watching a movie… The mass is a sacrament it’s not supposed to be a social gathering or a Q&A. (although there are lay participants as servers, lectors, LEMs, etc.

Believe it or not, there are Catholics who love going to Mass and Mormons who can’t stand sacrament meeting. You will find these disparities in EVERY religion.

Thank you I am one Catholic who loves going to Mass even when I wasnt able to attend Mass I always watched it on TV and when I say always I mean every single day.I also agree that Mass is a sacrament and not a social gathering just look at our churches we spend alot of time worshiping our Lord and as far as a Q&A goes dont we have places and time to go to ask questions so I personally dont think that a service anywhere should have Q&A there is a time and a place for that and that is certainly not during church. As far as Mass goes I dont think of it as burdensome. I totally agree with everything that is stated here.

 

[MEP]

PaulDupre:

Not really. There are three separate but equal criteria for a valid baptism:

1. The intent to do as the Church does - to baptise for the remission of sins.
2. The correct matter for the sacrament - water
3. The correct form - “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

If any one of these is missing, the sacrament is invalid.

As far as matter is concerned, isn’t oil also acceptable? I thought it was any of the traditional oblative fluids common to the Hebrew and Christian traditions (which would be water and consecrated oil).

 

[armywife]

All this is very interesting.

As far as the matter is concerned, it MUST be water that one is baptised with. If no water is available, spit will do. But it better be one big life or death situation.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

The LDS church has a number of full time paid employees who perform a number of “professional” functions.

The LDS Church certainly employs professional people and pays them a professional wage. They employ professional secretaries to work in Church offices, accountants to manage Church’s accounts, architects to design temples, academics to teach at BYU etc. So you classify all of these as “professional clergymen”?

Some of these people rise up through the ranks to leadership positions. Boyd K. Packer certainly fits that category.

Not sure what you are referring to here. Elder Packer, if I remember correctly, for a time served as commissioner of education, which is not a clerical office.

To claim that any of these General authorities has given up anything is unverifiable. We simply don’t know what they are paid as a “living allowance” nor do we have information on perks or “related compensation”. (such as from inspirational books, etc. that are purchased because it is written by a GA) One can certainly question why the secrecy. One can NOT show that they are extravagantly paid NOR can it be shown that they receive only a minimal amount. The FACT is that the LDS church chooses not to disclose any of this.

Trust me! You can tell a lot from their lifestyles. You can also tell something from the estate that they bequeath to their posterity when they die. Compare that with the ostentatious wealth of some charismatic Evangelical ministers of mega churches.

Regarding claims to the “primitive church” on this, one might want to do a little research into the history of the LDS church to see the evolution of this. JS just prophesied who should sell, buy, trade what and “allocated” assets as he saw fit. during the BY years a number of systems were tried. These included patriarchs charging a fee per blessing, bishops taking 8% of the tithing and stake getting 2%, then patriarchs could only take tips and local authorities (bishops, etc.) received a “stipend” loosely based on tithing collected. Then patriarchs got a stipend and local authorities received a small stipend based on a general estimate of necessary expense in carying out their duties. General authorities drew from the Church according to their “needs”.

And that proves exactly what? You are going back 150 years now. In those days conditions were vastly different from today. When the saints arrived in Utah, it was desert. They had to cultivate it and turn it into some kind of civilization. There were no roads and no cars. People were spread out into farms in vast distances. A bishop or a patriarch who wanted to tend to the needs of the people he was responsible for had to travel these vast distances by horse and buggy, at considerable expense. It would have been unfair to expect them to meet those costs themselves; therefore means were devised to reimburse them for that expense. Nowadays the situation is completely different. Bishops and patriarchs do not incur such high expenses to tend to their duties, and they usually meet the small expenses out of their own pockets. If a high expense is incurred, they can be reimbursed out of the Church funds. But I fail to see what relevance that has to the subject of a paid or professional clergy.

Later GAs were often placed on Boards of Directors of the various LDS owned companies and received money from that in addition to their “living allowance”.

And so?

Now Patriarchs are not compensated and local authorities must submit expense reports and are reimbursed only for actual, approved expenses. General Authorities are no longer placed on boards anymore but still get living allowance and whatever they make off of writing books and other such “private” activities.

Meaning exactly what?

The amount of time that the local leaders spend varies greatly from one individual to the next. Usually they are “working” on sundays and wednesday nights (or another weeknight if sharing a building). They are free to schedule themselves as needed though.

Most bishops have a lot of demand placed upon them by their callings.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

“Sacking” clergy is being horribly misrepresented here. Priests are easily re-assigned and can in fact be “de-frocked” if necessary.

Yes, but it is rarely practiced except in exceptional cases. You have forgotten what was in the news a couple of years ago.

LDS local leaders are called from lay persons and can easily decline callings, request a release or just not perform. There is nothing that can really be done to fill needs. No one can be “assigned” to be a bishop, etc. This often causes problems in small congregations outside of Utah where it can be hard to find willing individuals who are capable.

Then you have no understanding of how the LDS Church works. It is very rare and unusual for someone who is called to a position in the Church to decline to accept the call. Calls are nearly always accepted, and effectual service rendered.

While you may proclaim that the Spirit makes any and all training/education unnecessary, I don’t see the value in having a plumber provide marital counseling nor an accountant helping an alcoholic recover, etc.

I certainly do make such a claim. I would far rather be counseled in my marriage problems by a divinely appointed and inspired plumber, who is himself a family man, and has had personal experience of such problems, and has been ordained of God to that position; than by an uninspired, celibate, Catholic priest who has had no experience of family life. Remember what Paul wrote to young Timothy when he was called to be a bishop. “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” (1Tim.4:12.) To the plumber-bishop I would say, “Let no man despise thy plumbing!”

amgid

 

[amgid]

PaulDupre:

Not really. There are three separate but equal criteria for a valid baptism:

1. The intent to do as the Church does - to baptise for the remission of sins.

Which we do!

1. The correct matter for the sacrament - water

Which we do—by immersion, not by sprinkling!

1. The correct form - “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Which we do!

If any one of these is missing, the sacrament is invalid.

None of them are missing from the LDS baptism.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

Such as that rediculous statement you made about celibacy leading to sexual abuse/homosexuality.

There was nothing “ridicules” about that. I certainly stand by that statement, and don’t intend to apologize for it. It is a well known historical fact that homosexuality has been rife among Catholic priestly and monastic orders. It goes back for centuries. It is nothing new. And it is hard to escape the conclusion that the mandatory rule of celibacy, and the whole “culture” of priestly celibacy, has been a major contributing factor to it, if not the contributing factor.

Perhaps you are one of those people who are sympathetic to this evil practice. I wouldn’t be surprised. The whole world seems to be going that way. But I am not. I recognize it as a wicked thing, and a great evil, and an abomination in the sight of God, and I am not afraid to say so. I repeat the scriptural passages I had quoted earlier on:

Genesis 2:

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

D&C 49:

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

Tom Nossor and Mormonfool are here doing their best at making rational arugments without lobbing rediculous anti-Catholic zingers.

Tom and others are perfectly capable to look after their own interests. I don’t think they need your assistance for that .

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

Perhaps you are one of those people who are sympathetic to this evil practice. I wouldn’t be surprised. The whole world seems to be going that way. But I am not. I recognize it as a wicked thing, and a great evil, and an abomination in the sight of God, and I am not afraid to say so.

Wow. that’s a nasty personal attack even for you. Are you even aware of the headlines revealing the sex abuse scandals in your own church? a member of the bishopric in my last ward is still in prison for over 20 years of molestations all in church leadership positions. Inspired calling? a quick web search will reveal numerous LDS scandals of this type. Do you want to stick with it must be celibacy or shall we allow common sense to prevail and admit that evil men can be found in any church. That sometimes human leaders of Gods church mess up and make the situation worse.

The Catholic church has never forbidden marriage. LDS require it for exaltation in contradiction with what Jesus said:
Matt. 19
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

You might want to read the whole chapter too. It certainly is incompatible with Mormon doctrine on polygamy.

amgid:

Then you have no understanding of how the LDS Church works. It is very rare and unusual for someone who is called to a position in the Church to decline to accept the call. Calls are nearly always accepted, and effectual service rendered.

I don’t doubt that’s the norm in Utah. I can show wards and branches all over Texas that struggle with this. I still stand by the fact that LDS local callings are all volunteer and the Catholic clergy are under the leadership of bishops.

amgid:

I certainly do make such a claim. I would far rather be counseled in my marriage problems by a divinely appointed and inspired plumber, who is himself a family man, and has had personal experience of such problems, and has been ordained of God to that position; than by an uninspired, celibate, Catholic priest who has had no experience of family life. Remember what Paul wrote to young Timothy when he was called to be a bishop. “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” (1Tim.4:12.) To the plumber-bishop I would say, “Let no man despise thy plumbing!”

I’ll take the trained proffessional. Regarding Timothy… You might want to look at all of Paul’s teachings. He appears to be the Bible’s biggest advocate for celibacy. (1 Cor 7)

regarding “paid ministry”. I wanted to point out the facts (not all of which were negative) about LDS and compensation. I see nothing wrong with compensating folks for full time church work. I just point out that it is and always has been a part of LDS practice as well.

amgid:

me! You can tell a lot from their lifestyles. You can also tell something from the estate that they bequeath to their posterity when they die. Compare that with the ostentatious wealth of some charismatic Evangelical ministers of mega churches.

I agree completely.

• … For example, when Joseph Fielding Smith died at age ninety-five in 1972, he had worked nearly all his adult life at LDS headquarters, first as a paid employee in the Historian’s Office and then as a general authority with a church living allowance. At his death, President Smith had $245,000 in bank deposits, $120,000 in cash, $120,574 in stocks/bonds, and $10,688 in uncashed checks (including Deseret Book royalties of $9,636).*(Estate file #59189; Gibbons, Joseph Fielding Smith.)

I despise the extravagance of the “ChurchMart” televangelists. I am pleased that the Catholic church makes all of it’s financial information available to the members. Why is it that LDS finances are so secret?

A thorough study of LDS history shows many examples of early leaders making a good living from their church callings. Today they certainly don NOT show the ridiculous excesses of the Word Faith, prosperity preachers. However, they don’t seem to be doing too badly either and the honest truth is that we just don’t know how much they get because the LDS church refuses to say.

 

[chic_for_Christ]

majick275:

Wow. that’s a nasty personal attack even for you. Are you even aware of the headlines revealing the sex abuse scandals in your own church? a member of the bishopric in my last ward is still in prison for over 20 years of molestations all in church leadership positions. Inspired calling? a quick web search will reveal numerous LDS scandals of this type. Do you want to stick with it must be celibacy or shall we allow common sense to prevail and admit that evil men can be found in any church. That sometimes human leaders of Gods church mess up and make the situation worse.

Thank you majick you beet me to it. There are evil men in all churches. Coming from an RLDS church I should know this because well rape and other thing like it happened many times and hardly any actions were taken. At least in the Catholic church there is things that are done to get these people out of leadership poistion even putting them in prision. I dont personally think that it is a celibacy thing and I resent that remark for I know alot of priests that are nice caring people and they wouldnt do anything out of harm for their church.

majick275:

I despise the extravagance of the “ChurchMart” televangelists. I am pleased that the Catholic church makes all of it’s financial information available to the members. Why is it that LDS finances are so secret?

A thorough study of LDS history shows many examples of early leaders making a good living from their church callings. Today they certainly don NOT show the ridiculous excesses of the Word Faith, prosperity preachers. However, they don’t seem to be doing too badly either and the honest truth is that we just don’t know how much they get because the LDS church refuses to say.

I agree with this statement also I like knowing about the financial information at my church. In fact it is put in the bullitin every weekend. And with me doing research on the LDS church well I have also come to notice that finances are kept secret. So I also want to know why they are kept secret.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

amgid:

Perhaps you are one of those people who are sympathetic to this evil practice. I wouldn’t be surprised. The whole world seems to be going that way. But I am not. I recognize it as a wicked thing, and a great evil, and an abomination in the sight of God, and I am not afraid to say so. I repeat the scriptural passages I had quoted earlier on:

Genesis 2:

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

D&C 49:

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

Amgid;
There is nothing evil about celibacy per se. As Majick275 notes, Paul was a big supporter of celibacy for church leaders.

From the RSV;CE Bible:
[1] Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.
[2] But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
[3] The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
[4] For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.
[5] Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
[6]** I say this by way of concession, not of command**.
[7] **I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. ** [8] **To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. ** [9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. 1 Cor 7 1-9

I would add that the verses you cite speak of “marriage” and not of sexual celibacy. Catholic tradition understands that as a priest, a man is essentially “married” to the church. A priest is in a sense a living symbol of Christ among his people, and the Church is the bride of Christ. So, were a priest to marry, he would have two wives in direct violation of Paul’s entreaty, above.

Also, are you saying that one who refuses to marry is living in violation of God’s laws? If so, at what age is one sinning if not married? Is a 26 year old unmarried woman a sinner because she is single? What about a 25 year old man who wants to finish law school and get established in his career before getting married? Is he violating God’s command?

And are there no LDS members who choose to live a chaste life? What about members of the LDS church who suffer from same sex attraction? Are they encouraged to marry, or are they encouraged to simply live chaste and pious lives? If they choose the latter, are they disobeying God’s commands?

The discipline of priestly celibacy is the Church’s acknowledgment that devotion to the priestly life is a commitment in the order of marriage - to the Church. It is scriptural and reasonable.

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

There was nothing “ridicules” about that. I certainly stand by that statement, and don’t intend to apologize for it. It is a well known historical fact that homosexuality has been rife among Catholic priestly and monastic orders. It goes back for centuries. It is nothing new. And it is hard to escape the conclusion that the mandatory rule of celibacy, and the whole “culture” of priestly celibacy, has been a major contributing factor to it, if not the contributing factor.

I don’t expect an apology. I just hope that somehow you will see the error of your conclusions regarding priestly celibacy. You are sorely mistaken about this subject, so much so that I have to wonder how you have drawn such skewed conclusions.

Perhaps you are one of those people who are sympathetic to this evil practice. I wouldn’t be surprised. The whole world seems to be going that way. But I am not. I recognize it as a wicked thing, and a great evil, and an abomination in the sight of God, and I am not afraid to say so. I repeat the scriptural passages I had quoted earlier on:

Genesis 2:

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

D&C 49:

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

First of all, your Genesis quote has nothing whatsover to do with the subject of celibacy vs. marriage. You have completely wrenched that verse out of context in order to support your D&C verse. The Genesis verse is talking about how Adam needed a companion because the animals were not suitable. It has nothing to do with the celibacy issue.

Secondly, we have given ample scriptural support for the holiness of celibacy. You have chosen to ignore it. Your biblical support is poorly chosen and wrenched out of context in order to fall in line with LDS scripture, which we as Catholics don’t accept as scripture in the first place. In other words, your arguments are extremely weak, and you seem unwilling to listen to reason.

Tom and others are perfectly capable to look after their own interests. I don’t think they need your assistance for that .

You didn’t get the meaning here. I am appealing to their sense of reason to chime in and set you straight as fellow LDS, since nothing I say seems to be getting through.

 

[PaulDupre]

amgid:

Which we do!

Which we do—by immersion, not by sprinkling!

Which we do!

None of them are missing from the LDS baptism.

amgid

The problem is that your Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not the same as ours. Your “god the father” is just some guy who is just a human being like us only more advanced - an “ascended master”. He is not eternal, not omnipotent, not omniscient. Your “son” is a spirit-child of this ascended master - a polygamously married guy who had children whose descendants are Mormon prophets. Your “holy ghost” is another spirit-child of the ascended master who is still waiting to get his body.

BTW, how is it that your “holy ghost” is a god when the Mormon rule is that you have to have a body to become a god?

No comparison.
Paul

 

[amgid]

amgid:

Also, are you saying that one who refuses to marry is living in violation of God’s laws? If so, at what age is one sinning if not married? Is a 26 year old unmarried woman a sinner because she is single? What about a 25 year old man who wants to finish law school and get established in his career before getting married? Is he violating God’s command?

I was referring to the enforced celibacy rule of the clergy in the Catholic Church. In the RCC, priests are simply not allowed to marry. It is that simple. It is not even optional. You can’t be a Catholic priest if you want to be married. You have to choose between the two. That I believe is wrong. Nobody should be forced not to get married—unless there is something wrong with them. Unless they are mad, or psychopaths, or schizophrenics, or have a track record of murdering their wives … nobody should be forced not to get married. That is my sincere belief. You are free to disagree with that if you will.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

I don’t expect an apology. I just hope that somehow you will see the error of your conclusions regarding priestly celibacy. You are sorely mistaken about this subject, so much so that I have to wonder how you have drawn such skewed conclusions.

I stand by my opinions on that issue. I believe that my original evaluation of that was correct.

First of all, your Genesis quote has nothing whatsover to do with the subject of celibacy vs. marriage. You have completely wrenched that verse out of context in order to support your D&C verse. The Genesis verse is talking about how Adam needed a companion because the animals were not suitable. It has nothing to do with the celibacy issue.

The Genesis quote has everything to do with the celibacy vs. marriage issue. It categorically asserts that “it is not good that man should be alone,” meaning that it is positively “bad” for him to be alone! Then in order to get him out of his “aloneness”, God proceeded to create a “help meet” for him. That “help meet” was not the animals, nor a homosexual partner; it was the “woman” whom God created for him, saying, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” I think you are the one who is twisting and wrenching the scriptures to avoid admitting the truth.

Secondly, we have given ample scriptural support for the holiness of celibacy. You have chosen to ignore it. Your biblical support is poorly chosen and wrenched out of context in order to fall in line with LDS scripture, which we as Catholics don’t accept as scripture in the first place. In other words, your arguments are extremely weak, and you seem unwilling to listen to reason.

I have given appropriate answers to all of those, and don’t need to give it again.

You didn’t get the meaning here. I am appealing to their sense of reason to chime in and set you straight as fellow LDS, since nothing I say seems to be getting through.

You are beating a dead horse here I am afraid. I suggest you try to find a different line of attack. You run the risk of appearing rather silly otherwise.

amgid