WhyMe and others: Can you Be Catholic and LDS at the same time?

[xixxvmcm85]

Actually, that’s only in the United States; the church is appealing that decision. It IS a registered trademark in many other countries.

Ah Sheesh! My American ethnocentrism is showing again. Thanks for the correction.

In one way, I understand it: after all, when the polygamous compound in Texas was raided last year, even though that group is not affiliated in any way with the CoJCoLDS, we certainly got tarred with the same brush the critics were painting that group with.

I remember that well. Similar to the smaller scale where Sedevacantists like Mel Gibson were being called “Catholics” as if their own fringe beliefs were representative of the Church as a whole. Like I said in my previous post, I certainly understand the desire to keep tight reigns over a label.

That would be very much like having some Lutheran do something dumb–and having everybody blame the Catholics. Having “Mormon” restricted as a trademark for the CoJCoLDS would go a long way in preventing that.

Indeed, though I still prefer my Sedevacantist analogy

However, I have some problems with the idea. “Mormon” is too generic, I think, and I also think that those offshoots that qualify for the name as it was originally applied should still be allowed to claim it. Fair is fair.

Indeed. I’ll likely get flamed for saying this here, but in the end I do think Sedevacantists, Old Catholics, SSPX, and the members of the “Liberal Catholic Church of America” have genuine ties to the label “Catholic”.

…by the way, I got myself into a great deal of trouble last year when I defended that SLDS compound in Texas. EVERYBODY was mad at me.

So did I! (Well, not in Texas at least). My criticism wasn’t so much a defense of the compound’s lifestyle, but skepticism of the alleged claim made by one disgruntled former member. In hindsight it seems my skepticism was right

All we can do, and what we should do, is simply add the adjectives until the identification is accurate. I am a Christian, a Mormon and a Latter-day Saint.

Another person might be a Christian and Eastern Orthodox. Or a Christian and Roman Catholic. Or a Christian, a Lutheran, and a member of the Missouri synod. (shrug) It’s a classification drill down.

Indeed. And who knows!? The time may come in a few generations where the dynamics of the labels completely change. What’s in a name, right?

I still remember the time when the RLDS desired to call themselves Mormon. Then they completely disavowed the name but retained the whole “Latter Day” motif, and now even that has been relegated to the closet. The time may come where FLDS steer away from the term “Mormon”, Mormons steer away from the term “Christian”, or who knows… the Mainline Churches might forfeit the term to the Fundamentalists / Evangelicals.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I don’t think so. But the use of your words does portray mormons to be demons since only demons can demonize others. Such loaded vocabulary belies your intentions as a former mormon. It is unfortunate that you use such hateful adjectives but…such is the way it is. I hope that catholicism has not done that to you: to write such words. Catholicism is about love and understanding. It is about bringing peace between people. The Sacrament of Reconciliation asks: Do I judge without mercy in deeds and in words? Am I intolerant…? Do I speak ill…? and more importantly: **Do I despise those of another creed…? ** (your words show this leaning as do the words of other catholic members on these threads)

I have seen catholics break the Sacrament of Reconciliation wíthout thought. And it is sad for me to see it on these threads.

I have never seen ‘mormon demons’ demonize people for using tobacco or alcohol. In terms of tobacco, mormons would rather see people stop the habit since it is harmful. And mormons who know of mormons who do not keep the word of wisdom may feel compassion for them because they should be living their religion.

It quite possibly could be my being a relatively new Catholic, but I’m not comprehending you when you say “break the Sacrament of Reconciliation without thought.”

What does this mean? The penitent refuses to do his penance? I don’t get it.

Oh, and since you’re the famous object of this thread, could you tell me who it is you sustain as the successor of St. Peter: Thomas S. Monson or Joseph Ratzinger? I’m sure anyone if given enough time can find ways to fuse the theology of the two religions making some form of bastardized hybrid which hardly resembles the original two religions, but the most difficult part of your position is the issue of authority.

Both Catholicism and Mormonism believe in a visible, viable Church and Priesthood. It’s the nature of Catholicism and Mormonism that will ultimately cause you to choose either church or none, but not both.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Both Catholicism and Mormonism believe in a visible, viable Church and Priesthood. It’s the nature of Catholicism and Mormonism that will ultimately cause you to choose either church or none, but not both.

This conflict gets in the way of the Nice theology of whyme. So, I’m thinking he goes with choice c) who has authority, or not, does not matter.

 

[dianaiad]

Ah Sheesh! My American ethnocentrism is showing again. Thanks for the correction.

I remember that well. Similar to the smaller scale where Sedevacantists like Mel Gibson were being called “Catholics” as if their own fringe beliefs were representative of the Church as a whole. Like I said in my previous post, I certainly understand the desire to keep tight reigns over a label.

Indeed, though I still prefer my Sedevacantist analogy

Me too! I’m not all that familiar with the Sedavacantists. In fact, this is only the second time I’ve ever seen the word. However, if this is what Mel Gibson is, I am a little bit familiar with some of his beliefs and claims, so yeah; your example is closer.

Indeed. I’ll likely get flamed for saying this here, but in the end I do think Sedevacantists, Old Catholics, SSPX, and the members of the “Liberal Catholic Church of America” have genuine ties to the label “Catholic”.

So did I! (Well, not in Texas at least). My criticism wasn’t so much a defense of the compound’s lifestyle, but skepticism of the alleged claim made by one disgruntled former member. In hindsight it seems my skepticism was right

It wasn’t even a disgruntled ex-member. It was someone who had never BEEN a member, a nut case and a fraudulent 911 call that the raiders knew was fraudulent BEFORE THEY WENT IN. It’s one of the reasons the courts landed on the agency as hard as they did. I got to examine the court cases really closely; it happened just as I needed a contemporary event to analyze for a post graduate class in rhetoric; it was perfect. I learned a lot more about the workings of the Texas Child Protective Services I ever wanted to know. Dang, that was a complete and utter cluster–never mind.

Indeed. And who knows!? The time may come in a few generations where the dynamics of the labels completely change. What’s in a name, right?

Everything—if, that is, you can get everybody to agree on the meaning.

I still remember the time when the RLDS desired to call themselves Mormon. Then they completely disavowed the name but retained the whole “Latter Day” motif, and now even that has been relegated to the closet. The time may come where FLDS steer away from the term “Mormon”, Mormons steer away from the term “Christian”, or who knows… the Mainline Churches might forfeit the term to the Fundamentalists / Evangelicals.

I’ll keep my eye on the OED…

 

[dianaiad]

This conflict gets in the way of the Nice theology of whyme. So, I’m thinking he goes with choice c) who has authority, or not, does not matter.

There is nothing wrong with being nice. We should be nice. It’s possible to be nicely disagreeable.

 

[Religio71]

There is nothing wrong with being nice. We should be nice. It’s possible to be nicely disagreeable.

I agree, we should all be nice. But I think that the difference comes when niceness is all that matters, forgetting about the importance of dogma.

 

[why_me]

And if you don’t see some Mormons on this forum mocking the Church, you should open your eyes.

You still haven’t answered the question: have catholics broken the sacrament of reconciliation on this thread and others related to mormonism? So far, you have ignored the question.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

This conflict gets in the way of the Nice theology of whyme. So, I’m thinking he goes with choice c) who has authority, or not, does not matter.

Well if that’s the case, I’d prefer to hear it from WhyMe. Humoring the concept, though, I think it raises the question of how one can say one’s simultaneously in communion with Rome and Salt Lake considering that both churches reserve the right to determine the criteria for communion.

As stated earlier, I guess one could make the argument that they are simultaneously “Catholic” and “Mormon” considering the loose definition of the terms, and the lack of either hierarchy being able to regulate them; but I’m more interested in knowing if folks like WhyMe and Tsuzuki believe they are members of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in good standing and how they reconcile the competing claims of authority.

 

[why_me]

I agree, we should all be nice. But I think that the difference comes when niceness is all that matters, forgetting about the importance of dogma.

Dogma kills, it always has. Many people have died because of dogma. When people put dogma above the human, the human beings suffers at the hand of others. On this forum, catholics bash mormons about their dogma. And who benefits? No one. Contention is of the devil.

 

[Religio71]

You still haven’t answered the question: have catholics broken the sacrament of reconciliation on this thread and others related to mormonism? So far, you have ignored the question.

Please read our comments. I have asked twice, and someone else has asked, what does it mean to “break the sacrament of reconciliation???” That doesn’t make sense.

 

[Religio71]

Dogma kills, it always has. Many people have died because of dogma. When people put dogma above the human, the human beings suffers at the hand of others. On this forum, catholics bash mormons about their dogma. And who benefits? No one. Contention is of the devil.

Ok thank you. Dogma kills apparently. Therefore we should remove all dogmas, as in, what defines religions. It doesn’t matter, because it kills.

 

[paulp1002]

Please read our comments. I have asked twice, and someone else has asked, what does it mean to “break the sacrament of reconciliation???” That doesn’t make sense.

I think what WhyMe is referring to is “Do I despise those of another creed…?”

I don’t think anyone has despise anyone because of what they believe. They have questioned people on what they believe. I think there is a difference.

WhyMe, to say that any of the Catholic (or Non LDS) members on these thread has despised anyone based on their creed, would be the same as saying that Dianaiad and ParkerD has broke the 11th Article of Faith. Neither has happened.

People from both religions have questioned and challenged the truth behind the other’s religion. But they have never scorned anyone for what they believe.

 

[Religio71]

I think what WhyMe is referring to is “Do I despise those of another creed…?”

I don’t think anyone has despise anyone because of what they believe. They have questioned people on what they believe. I think there is a difference.

WhyMe, to say that any of the Catholic (or Non LDS) members on these thread has despised anyone based on their creed, would be the same as saying that Dianaiad and ParkerD has broke the 11th Article of Faith. Neither has happened.

People from both religions have questioned and challenged the truth behind the other’s religion. But they have never scorned anyone for what they believe.

Thank you. And the “Do I despise those of another creed” is not “breaking the sacrament of reconciliation”. That question is part of someone’s examination of conscience, but is not “breaking the sacrament of reconciliation”, as that phrase doesn’t make any sense.

Why me does not think that dogma is important, and thinks that those that believe in dogma are wrong, and that it leads to intolerance. I don’t know what definition of “dogma” he’s using, but without dogma, there is no religion. More precisely, there is no uniqueness of a religion.

 

[PaulDupre]

I see your point. The problem is that the Word of Wisdom was given as advice, not as a commandment, and thus was not considered ‘sinful’ to ignore. Indulging in the things it warned against didn’t mess up your Temple going privileges, just the floor or your health. Therefore it’s not like we were making a virtue of giving up, oh, drinking hemlock tea.

Therefore, we also were giving up ‘pleasures’ that were not intrinsically sinful in and of themselves.

In Joseph’s day that was true, but since the 1920s, when the WoW was interpreted as banning coffee and tea, and then was made a commandment and a constraint (even though section 89 of the D&C says “To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint”), alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea have morphed in the LDS mind into the very devil himself. Most LDS will condemn a coffee drinker, but go about gossipping in the most foul manner and imagine that they are more righteous than that person who drinks coffee but would never utter an idle word. That is a very twisted morality.

Jesus said

11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
…

17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies

• Matt 15:11, 17-19

 

[PaulDupre]

Originally Posted by why me
Dogma kills, it always has. Many people have died because of dogma.

Yes, one of them was named Jesus.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree, we should all be nice. But I think that the difference comes when niceness is all that matters, forgetting about the importance of dogma.

My karma just ran over your dogma.

…
…sorry, brain fade.

 

[dianaiad]

Ok thank you. Dogma kills apparently. Therefore we should remove all dogmas, as in, what defines religions. It doesn’t matter, because it kills.

I’m really having a bad day today. I just channeled the NRA; dogma doesn’t kill, people do.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

My karma just ran over your dogma.

…
…sorry, brain fade.

Dude! Awesome bumper sticker!

 

[dianaiad]

In Joseph’s day that was true, but since the 1920s, when the WoW was interpreted as banning coffee and tea, and then was made a commandment and a constraint (even though section 89 of the D&C says “To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint”), alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea have morphed in the LDS mind into the very devil himself.

Ah, but that raises the question; do we abstain from them because they are intrinsically evil (which you have acknowledged that they were not, before we made abstaining from them an official policy/promise) or are they considered evil because we have promised to abstain from them?

I think that an argument may be made that at least early Catholic leaders demonize sex in all aspects of life…perhaps because they promised to abstain from it. It’s a psychological defense mechanism; one is less likely to be tempted by a bad thing than he is by a good thing that he just happened to promise not to do.

Most LDS will condemn a coffee drinker, but go about gossipping in the most foul manner and imagine that they are more righteous than that person who drinks coffee but would never utter an idle word. That is a very twisted morality.

Oh? and your evidence that most Mormons are evil gossipers is, what, precisely?

Jesus said

11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
…

17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies

• Matt 15:11, 17-19

And Jesus ALSO praised marriage, and talked about a man and a woman being one flesh and together in God’s eyes. Yet that doesn’t affect the fact that Catholic priests promise not to get married, does it?

 

[dianaiad]

Dude! Awesome bumper sticker!

Yeah, or a T-shirt…I stole it. I’m feeling strange today, not creative.