quote:I mis read the quote, its funny I can actually identify how I misread it too.
Your logic still does not make sense. Mormons are also baptized in the same names. If our concept of who those 3 entities are is different and therefore thats a problem, that makes sense to me.
Sorry, Blade, I understand now.
Anyway. The earlier quote (which is theology, not dogma, so it may not be official church position) said it was because Mormon baptism doesn't relate to the Trinity, and 2 other things (qv). Now, I'm Catholic and I don't get why that's so significant, but that does seem to be the reason here.
---
It really does seem that when we get down to drawing distinctions, we'll find LDS/non-LDS putting qualifications (either "I don't go with the Catholic/LDS/whatever position entirely" or "That's not exactly the position.") Now, I don't know so much about LDS, but I know a lot about Catholic and Protestant, and it's clear to me that the biggest differences there aren't between Catholic and Protestant, any more; it's between liberal Catholics and Protestants on one side and conservative Catholics and Protestants on the other. (By "liberal" here I mean "not believing in miracles, especially the Resurrection," and by conservative I mean the opposite.) There are differences; they don't rise to the level of basics of the faith.
So the question is: is there such a thing as a liberal Mormon? Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is one of what I think is one of the most interesting quotes from Early Church History - as in, Late 1st Century/early 2nd Century Church History.
quote:"I therefore, yet not I, out the love of Jesus Christ, “entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind,and in the same judgment.” For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and “corrupting the word” of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death.
One of the ancients gives us this advice, “Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil.” For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection.
They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists.
Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son,and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power."
-Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians VI (Ante-Nicene Fathers vol I, pg 68)
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taalcon, would you mind elaborating on why you find it interesting? I do, as well, but am curious to hear your take on it.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: So the question is: is there such a thing as a liberal Mormon?
There are few liberal Mormons, in the sense of disagreeing to some degree with accepted LDS interpretations of biblical events, and they often don't stay Mormon for long. The church, particularly in the last 50 years, has veered away from religious pluralism in favor of doctrinal uniformity. My perception is that the latitude for dissent is significantly less than in other major Christian denominations.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: (By "liberal" here I mean "not believing in miracles, especially the Resurrection," and by conservative I mean the opposite.)
Whoa. I have never heard a liberal Christian say they don't believe in miracles, especially the Resurrection. I don't believe that is anywhere near an accurate description of liberal theology. I agree that there's a big split between conservative and liberal Christians, but that ain't it.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe EXTREME liberalism ("Jesus was a great moral teacher, but not divine) vs. EXTREME fundamentalism ("The Bible is one big hunka literal!")
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yikes! I am with ElJay. That is not how any liberal Catholic I know (including myself) defines liberal. I cannot fins words to express how vital the Resurrection is to me.
In my experience, liberal Catholics tend to be very concerned with social justice matters and less concerned with a rigid adherence to rules or obedience to strict authority.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Taalcon, would you mind elaborating on why you find it interesting? I do, as well, but am curious to hear your take on it.
Those who believe firmly that they have the Truth, and that this Truth is important, have always found correction more important than diplomacy.
There are most likely very many for whom this letter was not recieved happily.
The biggest problems in the Church at this time were problems of division. In this letter and in his others, Ignatius warns people not to remove their righteous Bishops that were either appointed directly by the Apostles, or by those the apostles had appointed. He warns against hearkening more to popular opinion and philosophy than the words of those who have been appointed (and taught by those) with authority. 'Hiring' their leaders based on popularity of what they were saying was a big no-no.
Many of the points he makes are still brought up in theological debate today, as evidenced here in this thread: "They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten...Some of them say ...that the Father, Son,and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power."
In reading through the writings of the Apostolic Fathers/Ante-Nicene fathers, it's interesting how firmly non-Trinitarian they were, making firm that the Son is literally distinct from the Father, and subject to Him.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the folks who study the history of theology, the liberal-conservative split began around 1800 and had to do with reactions to “modernity,” including modern science and philosophy. Those who believe that theology should be in dialogue with science and philosophy are “liberal,” those who believe theology should ignore science and philosophy are “conservative.” Obviously the terms have evolved somewhat since then, and they were never completely absolute to begin with (otherwise everyone who took Galileo seriously and conceded that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth would be “liberal”) but they still have a lot more to do with theological method than with particular beliefs about miracles or the resurrection.
And it’s complicated by the fact that the words “liberal” and “conservative” are used for so many different axes. In the same way you can be an economic liberal and a social conservative, (or the reverse) you can be a theological conservative and a social or economic liberal (or other combinations). So the term “liberal Christian” isn’t really particularly descriptive. Does it mean a Christian who votes Democrat? One who favors National health insurance? One who follows Tillich’s method of correlation in theological dialogue? One who supports keeping abortion legal? All of the above or any combination thereof?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
FWIW, I find the part about "the same person" to be rather telling myself, but in the opposite direction. Probably a function of our respective churches' present positions Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Liberal" and "conservative" are just words, of course, but let's not be confused: I wasn't referring to political liberalism/conservatism. I was using them in the theological sense. (And I know "liberal Catholic" means something different, but I used it in the Protestant sense.)
posted
I need more sleep. I couldn't figure out why philosophy would be different to people with LD's... Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: This is one of what I think is one of the most interesting quotes from Early Church History - as in, Late 1st Century/early 2nd Century Church History.
quote:"I therefore, yet not I, out the love of Jesus Christ, “entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind,and in the same judgment.” For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and “corrupting the word” of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death.
One of the ancients gives us this advice, “Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil.” For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection.
They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists.
Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son,and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power."
-Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians VI (Ante-Nicene Fathers vol I, pg 68)
A very interesting read, I admit I am partial because it confirms my own personal beliefs,
Early Christian literature to me is very interesting. I remember watching a movie called "The Mission" and there is a cardinal inspecting the Christians and he asks the native american priest how much he is making on one of their farming projects and the priest responds "oh, I don't make anything, we have everything in common" and the cardinal responds "ah yes, there is a radical sect in France trying that out." and the priest responds "oh no sir! it was a practice of the early christians."
Its funny how ideas such as socialism and a progressive church that adapts to the needs of the modern man seem like liberal ideas, when they in fact hail back to antiquity.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Liberal" and "conservative" are just words, of course, but let's not be confused: I wasn't referring to political liberalism/conservatism. I was using them in the theological sense.
As was I, as should be evident from my first paragraph. I added the second because Kate seemed to be using it more in the sense of social liberalism, although they are related.
The article from wiki is not bad, although I can't see how you got from that to "doesn't believe in miracles, especially the resurrection."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: "Liberal" and "conservative" are just words, of course, but let's not be confused: I wasn't referring to political liberalism/conservatism. I was using them in the theological sense. (And I know "liberal Catholic" means something different, but I used it in the Protestant sense.)
Nobody else was talking in the political sense, either. Nobody responding to you is confused. We are telling you that liberal theology does not mean what you are saying it means. In fact, that wiki article you linked doesn't say "doesn't believe in miracles, especially the resurrection" either. You are severely mischaracterizing liberal theology. And I'm also talking from a Protestant viewpoint.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will, I was using them theologically, too, although not historically (as dkw pointed out). I was referring to the way liberal Catholics (at least as the term is commonly meant today) tend to view their relationship with the hierarchy, the role of the laity, ecumenicism, liturgy, the relationship between Church and State and all matter of other theological issues.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I pointed out I wasn't talking about political viewpoints because dkw gave a paragraph on them.
And, as I said, they're just words. To say I'm mischaracterizing liberal Christianity here is like saying I'm mischaracterizing flefnobium, before defining flefnobium.
I didn't use Wikipedia as a source, but it's surprising to hear that miracles have nothing to do with this split *based* on that source.
Liberal: "... willingness to question supernatural elements of biblical stories (e.g., the virgin birth)"
Conservative: "The resurrection of Christ is seen as a historical event."
Liberal: "the rejection of biblical literalism and the inerrancy of the Bible" -- which allows for disbelieving Biblical miracles; I suppose liberal Christians could keep the miracles and discard, say, the moral teaching, but I've never heard of it happening
Conservative: "A belief in the authority of the Bible and a belief that it is an incontrovertible source of God's revelation to humankind. Bible prophecy and Bible inerrancy are typically affirmed."
Again, Wikipedia isn't the sacred writ, but I have to wonder how someone can read that and conclude that these articles draw no link between belief in miracles and the two terms in question.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably based on the first point in the list "internal diversity of opinion ." So for you to conclude that one point later in the list is definitional is mischaracterization.
Added to which, any summary list of "characteristics" is going to be the least accurate part of the article. Have you read works by any of the theologians listed? Particularly the historical ones -- since theiy're who destinguished "liberal" theology -- Schleiermacher, Bultmann, von Harnack, Tillich, Niebuhr . . .?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are few liberal Mormons, in the sense of disagreeing to some degree with accepted LDS interpretations of biblical events, and they often don't stay Mormon for long. The church, particularly in the last 50 years, has veered away from religious pluralism in favor of doctrinal uniformity.
But do they just become Mormons who are no longer affiliated with the church? Or do they give up their beliefs entirely because the LDS church won't let them disagree? It seems kinda strange to me to give up one's religion just because a church says you need to either take all of it or leave all of it. If the Methodist Church insisted that I accept everything, to the letter, that the church proclaimed to be true, then I'd leave the Methodist Church but I wouldn't stop believing what I do. So, is it possible there are more liberal Mormons out there that are simply pushed out of the church but that still hold their Mormon beliefs?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But are they Mormon beliefs? In your hypothetical, do you have Methodist beliefs, or a set of beliefs that resemble Methodist beliefs in some ways, and diverge in others?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will, I am going to assume you are asking about Protestant liberal/conservative here. As you know, Biblical literalism is not a characteristic of even conservative Catholicism.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a characteristic of all conservative Protestantism either, no matter what Wiki thinks.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the LDS church is not as strict in its enforcement of doctrinal unity as some apparently think. There is a great deal of divergence of opinion on many important beliefs, and neither disciplinary action nor excommunication is used to enforce one stance or the other. There is a certain core set of beliefs which are essential to Mormonism without which one may be kicked out of the church- but only if one insists in proselytizing their views. These include things like the obvious beliefs that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture.
There are people who go to church, for the social aspect I suppose, who do not believe these things. And yet they may remain members of the church as long as they do not actively try to convert people to their views.
The LDS church has room for a great deal of varied opinion, but as with any community, there are certain required views without which it is absurd for one to consider oneself a "mormon".
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But do they just become Mormons who are no longer affiliated with the church? Or do they give up their beliefs entirely because the LDS church won't let them disagree?
There are certainly both types of individuals. I think there are many of the second type whose de-conversion occurs like this: they become enamoured of doctrine X. They introduce it in church and are told it is incorrect. They think, "Doctrine X is true. Our prophets should know it's true. If they don't, they must not be true prophets. Therefore, the church they lead is false." Whether this is logical or not, I think it's the way many people lose their testimonies. Their beliefs come into contradiction and they choose to sacrifice a belief in "Mormonism" (based on the doctrinal infallibility of prophets) in order to maintain their doctrine X.
My original point, though, was slightly different. I believe it's probably more difficult to find doctrinal diversity in a discussion between active (i.e. regular church-attending) Mormons than in a similar discussion between church-going Catholics, or Methodists, or what have you.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
But if someone in Mormon Sunday School lesson were to, for instance, express doubt about the reality of Christ's miracles, how would the class react? Uncomfortably, I think. Or if someone were to claim Abinidi was a trinitarian (as a hat-tip to MattB)? I believe the structure of the church discourages diversity of expressed opinion, even about non-core beliefs (e.g. the literalism of the Bible).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are three main reasons a person is excommunicated from the Church (this doesn't count those who just leave), starting with the most common. The first is behavioral, such as adultery. A distant second is challenge to authority, such as a belief that the Church really isn't divine and therefore priesthood authority is false. The third reason is so rare that I can't even think of an example; theological differences. Usually, however, the people with the third reason leave the Church on their own either to form a new religious group or more commonly join another or none at all.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think doubt is fine, and I think that Sunday School, ideally, would be a place that is safe enough that people could share how they feel about the beloved collective religion.
I do think that there is a definite culture of only-Sunday-school-answers here in classes sometimes, but I've also seen it where it was otherwise. I'm thinking of that Relief Society where everyone went around saying how knowing that they'll see family members again makes grief easier to bear, and I disagreed strongly. That wasn't a problem at all.
I think a lot of it is in presentation sometimes. If the dissenter thinks of and treats the other people in the class as well-intentioned fellow seekers, I think that comes across, and the unorthodox views are more acceptable than if the dissenter feels aggrieved.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is better to teach people to think critically in Sunday School rather then push your own personal agenda.
Teaching about say the reality of Christ's miracles is not something open to debate because Mormons accept that Jesus was the literal son of God empowered to do all the the Bible/Book of Mormon says he did. The whole system collapses if Jesus was not of divine nature.
I have been to many Sunday School classes were contraversial topics have been debated, such as The Word of Wisdom "A health code with some strict guidelines." There was alot of debate as to a literalist interpretation was more in line with the spirit of the law, or if the law was in fact a system for examining ones lifestyles and therefore implied that certain things were good and bad.
Mormons believe in a concept of gradual education as in "line upon line, precept upon precept." It is believed that by obeying the principles you have learned to be true through the Holy Ghost, you will be entrusted with greater knowledge. This then obligates you to live your life according to that increased knowledge in order to obtain more. This is the method of happiness, eternal increase in knowledge and power.
Debate is fine in Mormon culture, but it does take on a more subdued role seeing as how everyone listens to the same Holy Ghost, certain precepts and docterines simply are not neccesary to debate for that reason.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Debate is fine in Mormon culture, but it does take on a more subdued role seeing as how everyone listens to the same Holy Ghost, certain precepts and docterines simply are not neccesary to debate for that reason.
I imagine that this assumption, in and of itself, suppresses much debate.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Debate is fine in Mormon culture, but it does take on a more subdued role seeing as how everyone listens to the same Holy Ghost, certain precepts and docterines simply are not neccesary to debate for that reason.
I imagine that this assumption, in and of itself, suppresses much debate.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Teaching about say the reality of Christ's miracles is not something open to debate because Mormons accept that Jesus was the literal son of God empowered to do all the the Bible/Book of Mormon says he did. The whole system collapses if Jesus was not of divine nature.
This is exactly the sort of reasoning I meant when I said the structure of our church discourages dissent. In your view, if I read it right, if the miracles didn't happen then "the whole system collapses." If you became convinced (hypothetically) that the miracles didn't in fact happen, you'd find it hard to continue being a Mormon, because of the implicit integrity we assume about everyone being capable of ascertaining and understanding the same truths.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, kmbboots, I didn't mention Biblical literalism, but you're right in that I wasn't using liberal/conservative in a Catholic context (despite being Catholic).
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Liberal: "the rejection of biblical literalism and the inerrancy of the Bible" -- which allows for disbelieving Biblical miracles; I suppose liberal Christians could keep the miracles and discard, say, the moral teaching, but I've never heard of it happening
Conservative: "A belief in the authority of the Bible and a belief that it is an incontrovertible source of God's revelation to humankind. Bible prophecy and Bible inerrancy are typically affirmed."
However, it's not that conservative Protestants identify with Biblical literalism (although I'm sure some do), but that liberal Protestants identify themselves as rejecting it. (I consider this a change of topic from the miracles distinction, but that's what Internet's for ...) Thing is, I can't see this as a real point of contention, because *nobody* is a Biblical literalist, even if he claims to be. Jesus said he was the gate to the sheepfold; nobody asks where the hinges are installed.
One interesting bit from Catholics is this point: that conservative Protestants who do call themselves literalists (by misunderstanding the word "literal," IMJ) don't take John 6 literally. Unless you eat my flesh and drink by blood ...
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They might consider themselves literalists more in the vein of, "Jesus actually said this" or, "Jesus actually did that." Jesus was dead for literally the course of 3 seperate days, then actually rose from the dead. Judas literally kissed Jesus as a signal to the Romans of who Jesus was. You can agree that Jesus often used metaphors and symbolism rather than straight lecturing to articulate his gospel. That does not mean you have to believe His acts, as chronicled, did not happen the way they are literally written.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There needs to be a term for what you describe, BlackBlade. "Inerrantist" is clunky, but seems to fit the bill.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So the question is: is there such a thing as a liberal Mormon?
Well, using dkw's definition of "those who believe that theology should be in dialogue with science and philosophy are 'liberal,'" I am a liberal Mormon.
I see no reason why God could not have created man through evolution.
I think that as time goes on, and we discover more about the way the world works, science and religion will come closer and closer to agreeing.
I think that there are reasonable, rational, scientific explanations for miracles, even if we do not know what they are yet.
I believe that the universe operates under certain natural laws which even God has to abide by. He just knows more about those laws than I do, and therefore some of His actions appear to be miraculous and unexplainable. For example: the marriage at Cana and turning water to wine. Now, we know that there is a natural way to do this. Grapevines turn water into grape juice all the time. I believe that Christ knew enough about this process to be able to change the water to wine instantaniously, without the intermediaries of grapevines and winepresses. It is just the fact that none of the rest of us know how to do such a thing that makes it miraculous.
However, I don't know that any of these beliefs are out of line with official Church doctrine. So I don't know how liberal of a Mormon that makes me.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is the rub. Mormons are pretty much stuck in the middle of the liberal/conservative religious discussion. You look at some things and a majority of Mormons can seem extremely conservative. Yet, a closer look at something else and you find them to be liberal. So, before you can answer the question is there such a thing as a "liberal" Mormon, you have to answer the question of what you mean by conservative and liberal.
As an example: Mormons are literalists in that they believe the events portrayed in the Scriptures really happened. Yet, at least philosophically even if not in practice, that doesn't mean that the Scriptures are the literal explanation of events or that there aren't other viewpoints or information that could be added. Mormons would be perfectly fine with a scientific explanation of the plagues of Moses. Just as long as the scientific and social explanations aren't used as an attack on the divine reality.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's only a problem if you someone insists that the entire theology and practice of millions of people can be summed up in one word.
People are complex. It shouldn't be a surprise that millions of people do not fit into fascilly-defined categories.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not sure what the best way for dividing Mormons is. Liberal and Conservative just doesnt do it for me.
There are the Mormons who think on the fringe and try to figure out the answers to questions not yet revealed. As long as they don't get swallowed up in the confusion that often attends such an effort thats perfectly fine.
On the opposite end of the spectrum there are the Mormons who say "Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was a prophet, President Hinckley is the prophet today, and The Book of Mormon is the word of God, everything else does not pertain to my salvation so I do not worry about it."
Those people can live happy lives so long as when the prophet reveals something radical comes along that rocks the boat, they do not get bent out of shape because they didn't learn it as the gospel growing up. One interesting point is that Mormons all believe that a law of consecration (a sort of eutopian socialism) will be instituted one day before Jesus comes again. It will be VERY interesting how many people actually embrace it when it is instituted as it was tried once and failed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about a Mormon who drinks Coke? I have a friend who does. He interprets the "hot drinks" thing as a warning against addiction. Sounds iffy to me, but then I don't know the text.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that as time goes on, and we discover more about the way the world works, science and religion will come closer and closer to agreeing.
I think that there are reasonable, rational, scientific explanations for miracles, even if we do not know what they are yet.
My Father, as a young medical student, could not reconcile his studies with the teaching of a resurection. It just wasn't possible. So, he "put it on a shelf" and didn't worry about it. Years later, when DNA was discovered, and we started to understand how genetic information is stored and utilized by Nature. He took it "back down off the shelf" shined it up and was very happy to accept a literal resurection as a thological and scientific fact for him. I think many, of not most, of us do that kind of thing all the time.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would add a couple more categories to BlackBlade's spectrum.
There are those who try to expand their knowledge primarily through secular sources of information, such as history, archaeology, physics, genetics, etc. I tend to spend at least some of my time in this category
There are those to try to expand their knowledge by examining the scriptures with a fine-toothed comb and reading everything written on a subject by General Authorities both old and new. Personally, I think this method has its limits, since everyone, even General Authorities, has his own take on the specifics of arcane doctrine and speculation, and it is far too easy to read meanings into a text that were never intended to be there. But I think I'm in the minority
Then there are people who believe that the best way to learn and understand the doctrines of the gospel is to live them. The arcane details out on the fringes are far less important than the practical realities of trying to put the gospel to work. I try to spend as much of my time as I can in this category.
Then there are people who really don't care I try to stay out of this one
Just what does it take for someone to get excommunicated from the Catholic Church? What does he have to do to warrent that?
For that matter, what about the various Protestant churches and the Muslim religion?
I got curious about this a while back during the news media feeding frenzy over the pedophile priests scandals. It seemed amazing to me at the time that there was even any question about a guy remaining in the priesthood or even maintaining his membership in the church. Of course I realize that the Catholic Church does things differently than I'm used to. And then again the news media doesn't always condescend to report the full story. So maybe those guys did get the boot and I just didn't hear about it.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
If this were going to be the basis for a decision you're going to make, more research is needed. As a guide to the curious, it's adequate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seemed amazing to me at the time that there was even any question about a guy remaining in the priesthood or even maintaining his membership in the church.
The Catholic Church is very big on forgiveness. Even those things on the automatic list can be forgiven and the excommunication removed, although it likely requires public acknowledgment of correction.
Edit: Please don't interpret my statements to be comparative to any other church's emphasis on forgiveness. I'm not sayong the Catholic Church empahsizes it more or less than others.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Kat
