Mormon Christ "pretty close" to Christ of the Bible

[Caprica]

If you read further you would have read that those who were vitandi are those who encourage the faithful to do crimes (and are thus a really really really bad influences) or those priests who knowingly give the Eucharist to those who are excommunicated (vitandi or tolorati) and thus betray the entire faith community. These must be publicly declared by the Pope or the Bishop and their names must be declared. I must involve a judge, and a trial.

Thank you TheQuestioner.

 

[tundramom]

Yes, several of us have stated we were “shunned” but Why just ignores our comments and claims he has never known anyone who was shunned

Thanks Sir Thomas. I know. I’ve been on this board a few years and it seems that whyme is a tad bit shy of calling all of us liars.

Steph

 

[twopekinguys]

But this is not true. It may be a hindrance, but it does not officially exclude them of anything. By your own admission you have stated that nothing in the manual tells them to shun. Therefore any assertion that “shunning” is implicit is only speculation. And although not all speculation is unwarranted in this case it would seem that in the end, it is just not officially part of Mormon rules. You may say the rule can be abused, and this is true, but to assert the rule was created to be abused is speculation and conspiracy theory.

If the question about associating with apostates carries no weight, and the person will end up getting their recommend, why ask the question. The question is there to see if they are dealing with apostates, which would affect their ability to carry out whatever they do in the temple. If their ability to function properly in the temple is in jeopardy, they are going to tell people to stay away from that apostate. So it is in fact implied.

Now, the real issue is, how strictly that is enforced. I have heard from many a mormon about how strict their bishop is in the interview process, and I have also heard how liberal some are. If you have a bishop that dots every I, and crosses every T, then he is going to give someone who associates with apostates a hard time, and recommend that they don’t associate with them. That is a simple fact.

But pinay just told you that he himself has access to the temple even though he admits to sympathize with apostates and those who are not part of the Mormon Church. He received a recommend.

This also goes back to whether or not the bishop is overly strict, overly liberal, or somewhere in between. Pinay also mentioned that 60% of their ward had recommends. That is an extremely high number compared to the average. The last figure I read was that less than 20% of current mormons hold a valid recommend. That is quite a disparity don’t you think?

I think someone suddenly asserted that he only went to Catholic Mass to convert others, which cannot be proven and is simply an unfounded accusation.

I must have missed this somewhere. Do you have a reference?

'm not to judge obviously, but it would be nice, if you will, to apologize to pinay. Catholics on this forum give other Catholics a bad name quite often, and I feel you may have been a bit uncharitable in this instance.

Obviously that is your opinion, but that is strictly a matter between Pinay and myself, and I will apologize only when I feel it is appropriate.

 

[twopekinguys]

Is it me, or has anyone noticed that when Diana disappears, Caprica starts posting again.

Coincidence?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Hello MelanieAnne, Greetings and peace.

If your conclusion of Mormon culture is true then I will have to say that Catholics shun members who leave the Catholic church.

The years after I left the Catholic church was one of the hardest in my entire life. My family did not speak to me for 2 years, my friends left me. I gravitated towards my distant cousins and several friends who had the same experience with the Catholic church (leaving them for Born Again Christianity).

So, if I was to judge the Catholic church from my experience like you have, then I would say that it is Catholic doctrine to shun Catholics who leave the church. But, none of us - not me, nor any of my cousins and friends - believe this of the Catholic church.

We all understand that this is just a product of the human condition. For my family, it was a kind of betrayal - one of their most devout leaving the faith. For my friends, they just couldn’t understand my decision and hence did not feel they know me anymore.

Therefore, for you to make that conclusion of the LDS church because of your experiences show a non-Christlike charity for your fellowmen to refuse to see that this is not a Mormon-thing but a human-thing. I apologize if this sounds harsh. But it is fact.

Peace be unto me as it be unto you.

I have never personally witnessed what you describe. If you say it happened, then I have no reason to disbelieve you. However, my experience, and the experience of those whom I have had contact with, is that shunning is only a widespread practice among Mormons for those who have left the Mormon faith. Yours may be an unfortunate experience, but may not be typical. For Mormons who leave the Mormon faith, it is virtually the rule. As such, it may not be comparable.

Cheers.

 

[MelanieAnne]

And I can give you a huge pile of accounts - my experiences included - about Catholics shunning ex-Catholics. That doesn’t make it a POLICY of the Catholic Church. See my previous post for examples.

As for the inteview questions - you cannot be a PART of an apostate group and be an LDS member at the same time. That doesn’t mean that you shun non-LDS people! It means, you cannot partake of the Catholic Eucharist and be an LDS at the same time. It doesn’t mean you cannot attend a Catholic Church baptism of your nephew or attend Catholic Mass with your family on Mother’s Day or some such.

It surely doesn’t mean you have to SHUN anybody. The story of the Samaritan is taught in LDS just as much as it is in Catholicism.

Gosh Pinay are you sure about this? Because WhyMe claims to go to Catholic Mass AND to Mormon Sacrament meeting. SO… ??? Exactly what does that mean??

 

[why_me]

In terms of this “shunning” issue, I actually think pinay did a good job. He was very rational. His point was not to prove that shunning never happened, but to show that it is not an official teaching to shun. He also made a good point about people no longer meeting because of the lack of Church events. This would also factor into some of the “shunning”. At the end of the day it seems that the LDS church does not officially seek to shun anyone, apostate or not. It is a human action.

I think that it was me that you are referring to. However, Pinay could have said the same thing somewhere on the thread.

The lds church does not shun individuals. And shun is the wrong word anyway when it comes to mormons. People who leave the lds church may not want lds people to visit them, assiociate with them etc. I would suppose that this would be shunning lds members. But I would call to disassiociate. Now apostates who are vocal in their hatred of the lds church may find that lds friends may want to shy away from them. Can you imagine a mormon assiociating with some members of this forum who hound the mormon church daily? It would be difficult. But the lds church never teaches in any class that former members should be shunned or abandoned. Rather they should be loved.

But if you check exmormon sites, they are always complaining how the former bishop or their former home teachers still want to bother them. The lds just can not win on this issue. And in fact, these exmormons threaten law suits against the lds church if they are continued to be bothered.

 

[why_me]

Gosh Pinay are you sure about this? Because WhyMe claims to go to Catholic Mass AND to Mormon Sacrament meeting. SO… ??? Exactly what does that mean??

I think that pinay is a little wrong here. The lds bishop of my ward does not mind if I attend catholic mass at all. And the former lds bishop did not mind either. And neither do my mormon acquaintances. We all have our free agency.

 

[twopekinguys]

I think that it was me that you are referring to. However, Pinay could have said the same thing somewhere on the thread.

The lds church does not shun individuals. And shun is the wrong word anyway when it comes to mormons. People who leave the lds church may not want lds people to visit them, assiociate with them etc. I would suppose that this would be shunning lds members. But I would call to disassiociate. Now apostates who are vocal in their hatred of the lds church may find that lds friends may want to shy away from them. Can you imagine a mormon assiociating with some members of this forum who hound the mormon church daily? It would be difficult. But the lds church never teaches in any class that former members should be shunned or abandoned. Rather they should be loved.

But if you check exmormon sites, they are always complaining how the former bishop or their former home teachers still want to bother them. The lds just can not win on this issue. And in fact, these exmormons threaten law suits against the lds church if they are continued to be bothered.

Here is the definition of the word shun.

–verb (used with object), shunned, shun·ning.
to keep away from (a place, person, object, etc.), from motives of dislike, caution, etc.; take pains to avoid.

I also find it amazing that you can only see people who have left the church that want to avoid lds members. You can’t admit that lds members do this? I have personally witnessed it.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Hi twopekinguys,

The LDS Temple is a very sacred place. Not all LDS members can go there. In my ward, only 60% of the adult members have temple recommends.

The LDS Temple is where one receives higher ordinances. It’s not for the willy-nilly Mormon. It is for those who are living their lives in such a way for them to be ready for more ordinances. How can you receive a higher ordinance (for example - being sealed to your spouse) when you can’t even meet your baptismal covenants?

An apostate cannot and should not have a temple recommend. The interview is the only place that we can prevent that. Now, there are apostates that have entered the temple by lying on interviews. It is pretty easy for somebody who doesn’t really have faith in the gospel to not have a stirring of conscience when they answer the interview questions. I can’t do it - it’s just like a Catholic lying to a Catholic priest during confession - it’s a very difficult thing to do. So, the bishops and stake presidents (who sign the recommend) are taught to prepare themselves for interviews by getting to know each LDS member of their ward individually. My family is Catholic. It’s something that my bishop asks me about on my interviews - because he knows I go to Catholic mass with my family sometimes. He needs to make sure I still sustain the restored gospel. Nothing in the manual, the interview, or anything of the sort tells me I cannot go with my family to Catholic mass as long as I don’t partake in the Catholic sacraments.

Least of all, nowhere in any of that does it say - apostates are shunned. NOWHERE. If a member of the LDS church cannot even get a temple recommend, how much more for apostates.

Wait a minute, are you saying there is a tiered system of salvation for Mormons and that the rich people that can afford to tithe are somehow better people? Especially when some people are taxed in societies to over 50% to 70% of their income? So the Mormon Celestial Kingdom is for the rich? Not the “willy nilly” Mormon who can’t afford it? I’m disappointed.

 

[twopekinguys]

I think that pinay is a little wrong here. The lds bishop of my ward does not mind if I attend catholic mass at all. And the former lds bishop did not mind either. And neither do my mormon acquaintances. We all have our free agency.

Bring it up to your Catholic Bishop, and see what he says about it.

 

[why_me]

All this talk about shunning and the Catholics don’t realize that their own church has done shunning:

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

"Public excommunication in foro externo has two degrees according as it has or has not been formally published, or, in other words, according as excommunicated persons are to be shunned (vitandi) or tolerated (tolerati). A formally published or nominative excommunication occurs when the sentence has been brought to the knowledge of the public by a notification from the judge, indicating by name the person thus punished. No special method is required for this publication; according to the Council of Constance (1414-18), it suffices that “the sentence have been published or made known by the judge in a special and express manner”.** Persons thus excommunicated are to be shunned (vitandi), i.e. the faithful must have no intercourse with them either in regard to sacred things or (to a certain extent) profane matters**, as we shall see farther on. All other excommunicated persons, even though known, are tolerati, i.e. the law no longer obliges the faithful to abstain from intercourse with them, even in religious matters…**As to the vitandi, now reduced to the two aforementioned categories, they must be shunned by the faithful as formerly.
**

…

Civilia jura, i.e. the ordinary relations between members of the same society, outside of sacred and judicial matters. This privation, affecting particularly the person excommunicated, is no longer imposed on the faithful **except in regard to the vitandi. **The medieval canonists enumerated the prohibited civil relations in the following verse:

* Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur,

namely:
(a) conversations, exchange of letters, tokens of benevolence (osculum);
(b) prayer in common with the excommunicated;
(c) marks of honour and respect;
(d) business and social relations;
(e) meals with the excommunicated."

Even if the Roman Catholic Church no longer does this, I don’t see how Catholics can be saying what they say in this thread when their own church has stated that a certain type of excommunicated people are to be shunned.

Oops! lol

I think that you will be finding the more critical of mormonism catholics will be shunning this post. A couple of posters will make an excuse here and there, but this post will be shunned. I always find it amazing just how simplistic it all is on this section of the forum: We, catholics are right and you, whatever, are wrong.

In the past, some catholics would disassiociate with someone who was commiting certain mortal sins especially when it came to women having intercourse before marriage but this was long ago and it really wasn’t RC policy but moral judgements. But you would have seen that with people of all faiths back in the day.

 

[SirThomasMore]

The point is clear, but it is pointless here because your goal was to show this was official Mormon teaching. It’s not. Its a human thing, not a Mormon thing.

nope…my point was to show that just because the manual does not say it does not mean it is not done

I am pretty sure I know what my own points were

 

[why_me]

Here is the definition of the word shun.

–verb (used with object), shunned, shun·ning.
to keep away from (a place, person, object, etc.), from motives of dislike, caution, etc.; take pains to avoid.

I also find it amazing that you can only see people who have left the church that want to avoid lds members. You can’t admit that lds members do this? I have personally witnessed it.

I haven’t know any lds who do this. But like I said, it is not church policy. What individual members do is quite different. The recommendation is that such people who leave the lds church or who are excommunicated should be shown love, especially the excommunicated member. Now I would say that vocal apostates who hate the lds church may find that members may not want to disassiociate with them but…I can not blame such members. Would you want to be friends with a catholic church hater who mouths off against the pope constantly? Perhaps not.

The use of the word shun but mormon focused catholics is used for affect. The word implies something terrible and is used that way. But disassiociate is much better and more true to what is happening with vocal apostates.

 

[MelanieAnne]

In terms of this “shunning” issue, I actually think pinay did a good job. He was very rational. His point was not to prove that shunning never happened, but to show that it is not an official teaching to shun. He also made a good point about people no longer meeting because of the lack of Church events. This would also factor into some of the “shunning”. At the end of the day it seems that the LDS church does not officially seek to shun anyone, apostate or not. It is a human action.

It may not be official policy. It is a widespread occurrence. Is it an informal policy? Merely a human action? Hard to say and no one on the inside is talking.

I guess that’s what happens when you run a secret society, even if only part of it is secret.

In contrast, the Catholic faith is practiced in public and everyone can see.

 

[why_me]

Wait a minute, are you saying there is a tiered system of salvation for Mormons and that the rich people that can afford to tithe are somehow better people? Especially when some people are taxed in societies to over 50% to 70% of their income? So the Mormon Celestial Kingdom is for the rich? Not the “willy nilly” Mormon who can’t afford it? I’m disappointed.

How did you get this post from what pinay said? I see no connection at all. Mormons are expected to pay an honest tithe but I do not see this in Pinay’s post. Maybe you left something out when you quoted from it.

 

[SirThomasMore]

How did you get this post from what pinay said? I see no connection at all. Mormons are expected to pay an honest tithe but I do not see this in Pinay’s post. Maybe you left something out when you quoted from it.

actually, they are expected to buy their ticket for heaven.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Folks, I submit we need to give TheQuestioner a break. He/she may not be all that familiar with the details of Mormonism and so does not have the intimate knowledge that many of the other posters to this thread may have.

I’m just sayin…

 

[why_me]

Bring it up to your Catholic Bishop, and see what he says about it.

The catholic priest would be better than the bishop. The priest would know the parish member more than the bishop. The priest would certainly not mind depending on the circumstance. If a priest would disencourage me from attending mormon meetings to see my children, he would be encouraging shunning the lds service and my children. Or if he would encourage me to shun the mormons, he would be doing a disservice too.

But opus dei members and priests may see it differently and be very strict about such things.

 

[twopekinguys]

actually, they are expected to buy their ticket for heaven.

I think the actual recommend question is “are you a full tithe payer?”