Posted on 04/05/2019 8:52:38 AM PDT by aimhigh
Children of LGBT parents can now be blessed or baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, church officials declared in a new policy on Thursday, dramatically reversing a 2015 decision that excluded those children from the rituals until they were 18. The church will also update its handbook for leaders, removing the label of “apostasy” for same-sex marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
Great response.
It does help to have a background in the Greek language. In seminary I didn’t have Greek classes (was in the church music program), but my fiance had both Hebrew and Greek. I helped him study all the time, and learned a lot.
My dad’s sermons also were chock full of the Greek and Hebrew foundations of Bible language. (Is it even possible to find a pastor who gives deep and pithy sermons? Haven’t found any lately.)
Call me crazy, but I think that getting information directly from the Scriptures trumps mutable bloviatings from mere mortals in goofy hats
Show me a list not published by the Catholic Church that does have Peter as the first pope It is not a fact as much as you would like it to be The Catholic Church did not even exist until hundreds of years later
This is what you base your knowledge upon, greymattr? A “fluid” history with around 200 changes each year?
Yeah, you don’t know anything...
Which is mere bombastic propaganda that even your cousins the EO's reject , and Rc sophistry has been exposed for what it is for years here, by the grace of God.
I see that you are new here, but the reality is that distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
And the NT church Never taught that Peter was the "rock" upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself.
For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
The literal quote from the Bible says nothing like you are making it out to say. I see no quote that says Peter is pope of a denomination that did not exist at the time. This conversation is going nowhere have a nice afternoon
“You are a very sad soul indeed: every nasty attack you make against us is as unchristian as you get.”
A response that deflects instead of informs. If ConservativeMind’s statement is incorrect, then you should explain why, in detail, with Scriptural references. Just throwing out, “sad soul”, “nasty attack”, and “unchristian” is deflecting, doesn’t address the issue, and is what Democrats do.
Which is simply begging the question, assuming the very thing that needs to be established as if it were, which is that the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 is Peter. Thus see my last post above .
Next, bestiality with be just hunky dory with all religions. How much further do we need to fall before a global Sodom and Gomorrah?
Actually this isn't correct. According to Acts 15 James was the head of the Jerusalem Council. Please consider the following scripture:
16 ‘After these things I will return, And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, And I will rebuild its ruins, And I will restore it,
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
18 Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.
19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 and they sent this letter by them,
This is also carried out in Galatians chapter 2 where Paul states that "prior to the coming of certain men from James, he (sic: Peter) use to eat with the Gentiles, but...." Paul opposed Peter (whose mission was to the Jews) to his face because he retreaded from the Gentiles-much against what James and Paul were preaching. Peter recanted of his grievous error.
Peter's mission was agreed upon to be to the Jews. Paul's mission was agreed to be to the Gentiles. What is documented is James as the one who actually oversaw the early operations of the church.
BTTT.
I hadn’t heard this explained in this manner before, but it makes sense.
MayflowerMadam is absolutely right. Responses 54 and 57 are uncalled for. Personal attacks are unwarranted. Let’s keep to the issues.
Children should not be punished by the sins of adults, especially when it comes to The Sacraments themselves.
HOWEVER, blessing a same-sex union ??? That is heterodox
#anathema
{Well.... all of Mormonism is heterodox ... so, all this is moot.}
#poorconfusedkids
Were they not God's Apostles then?
Was Jesus--Our Lord, King, and God--wrong?
Why does +St. Paul call Peter “Cephas” — clearly ‘a rock’ in Hebrew?
I was thinking the parents were Mormons
Caths will argue that merely bowing down does not necessarily constitute worship, and it does not, but it often does, and would be considered to be so as part of what many Catholics exhibit.
One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing supernatural attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them.
Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?
Which manner of "adulation" would constitute worship in Scripture (Words for worship in the NT), yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
And despite the Spirit inspiring the recording of about 200 prayers in the Bible, and of this being a most basic practice, the only prayers or offerings in Scripture to anyone else in Heaven is by pagans, including to the only Queen of Heaven see therein, by souls who were as adamant as many Catholics in defending their blasphemous practice:
As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.