Free Republic

Christ is the judge. John 5:22.

Thank you for posting.

I didn’t know that. Thanks for the information. However, in the short term before his election, he can plausibly deny having voted for it even if he sponsored the amendment.

DRTTV thread—no thanks.

No thanks. DRTTV thread.

It is unfortunate you continue to engage in personal and religious attacks and insults on an ecumenical thread. I had hope that you might actually embrace the true spirit of ecumenicalism ongoing between the Catholic and Mormon Churches and which I was able to enjoy with some on this thread.

Since you’re abandoning this thread, I will look for your own ecumenical thread celebrating the combined efforts of the Catholic and Mormon Churches to advance certain social causes based on their shared values. I hope I don’t have to wait too long.

P.S. Princess Bride is a great book and movie. Your conduct on this thread reminds me of Prince Humperdinck and I mean that in the absolutely kindest way.

If you consider my post antagonistic, my FRiend, it is only so because you self-identify as one of the narrow-minded Catholic parishoners. I don’t know you well enough, so I couldn’t personally say if you were and, frankly, even if I thought you were a narrow-minded Catholic parishioner, I wouldn’t state that to you because it wouldn’t a kind thing to do.

I simply commented on the narrow-mindedness that exists among some Catholic parishoners who seek to divide with their self-perceived pithy, but ignorant doctrinal statements whereas, fortunately, the leadership of the Catholic Church and other faithful Catholic parishioners are unified with the Mormon Church and its faithful parishioners in advancing social issues where values are shared. That is the ecumenicalism I celebrate.

It is tragic ecumenicalism is a foreign notion in the narrow minds of certain parishioners. It truly relfects a spiritual littleness which they are unable to overcome to join in a spirit of ecumenicalism in advancing social issues where values are shared.

Knowing of the vast doctrinal differences between the Catholic and Mormon Churches, I wholeheartedly embrace those areas where the two faiths are able to work together because of shared values in advancing certain social issues. I embrace the ecumenicalism between the two faiths despite knowing of the deep errors in Catholic theology.

I am also appreciative of the LDS parishioners who faithfully pay their tithes and offerings to the Mormon Church that it might financially aid the Catholic Church in its charitable activities. I must admit, I was surprised by the large amount of financial assistance provided by the Mormon Church to the Catholic Church for its charitable efforts. I wonder if there are some Catholic parishioners who fail to faithfully tithe to enable the Catholic Church to fully fund its charitable activities and whether these parishioners might be the same ones who are narrow-minded when it comes to ecumenical actitivies between the Catholic and Mormon Churches. In any event, I am thankful for those Catholic parishioners who do give to partially aid the activities of Catholic charities. I’m also grateful that the Mormon Church can help with the financial shortfall.

In response to your final inquiry, I have no stress at all and love to see the great ecumenical work occurring between the Catholic and Mormon Churches. I only have sorrow and prayers for those narrow-minded individuals whose lives are filled with negativity and sowing seeds of division because of their spiritual littleness, and therefore, are unable to fully embrace the ecumenicalism occurring between the Catholic and Mormon Churches.

Best wishes.

Predictably, the only individuals who find the long-standing ecumenical relationship between the Catholic and Mormon Churches “astounding” and “unexpected” are those who are ill-informed and/or uninformed. I’ve known about the ecumenical relationship between the two for many years. In fact, in my community, the Mormon Church has closely worked with the Catholic Church on a variety of social issues for many years.

Fortunately, the leadership of the Catholic Church isn’t narrow-minded and bigoted like some of its parishioners who incessantly seek to divide people of different faiths who have shared values and work together with the Catholic Church in advancing important social issues. Instead, many of these narrow-minded parishoners would rather waste their time making self-perceived pithy, but, in reality, ignorant statements attacking another faith. I truly pity the spiritual littleness of such parishoners and pray for them.

I’m sorry you’re unable to start your own ecumenical thread. I was confident it would have been entertaining.

All the sources I referenced involve reputable, respected Christian scholarship. Please provide references and/or links to “newer” views you claim exist.

Again, you err.

Here is a sampling of the analysis of 1 Cor. 15:29 by various biblical scholars/theologians wherein they recognize vicarious posthumous baptisms were being performed by early Christians in Corinth:

“The normal reading of the text is that some Corinthians are being baptized, apparently vicariously, in behalf of some people who have already died. It would be fair to add that this reading is such a plain understanding of the Greek text that no one would ever have imagined the various alternatives were it not for the difficulties involved.’’(Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989, pp. 763-64.)

“Again, the Apostle alludes to a practice of the Corinthian community as evidence for a Christian faith in the resurrection of the dead. It seems that in Corinth some Christians would undergo baptism in the name of their deceased non-Christian relatives and friends, hoping that this vicarious baptism might assure them a share in the redemption of Christ.’’ (From The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968, 2:273.)

“St. Paul then, almost in parenthesis, touches on what appears to have been a custom among the Corinthian Christians of baptizing by proxy on behalf of some, presumably members of the same family, who had died unbaptized and might therefore, it was thought, miss their chance of being incorporated into the fulness of Christ’s Kingdom at his Advent. This practice, says the apostle, makes as little sense as his own daily contempt for physical death, if there is no resurrection.” (William Neil, One Volume Commentary On The Bible, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973, p. 461)

“. . . the most natural meaning of the expression [used by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:29] is that some early believers got themselves baptized on behalf of friends of theirs who had died without receiving that sacrament.” (Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, London: Tyndale Press, 1964, p. 218)

“Close inspection of the language of the reference makes all attempts to soften or eliminate its literal meaning unsuccessful. An endeavor to understand the dead as persons who are “dead in sin” does not really help; for the condition offered, if the dead are not being raised at all, makes it clear that the apostle is writing about persons who are physically dead. It appears that under the pressure of concern for the eternal destiny of dead relatives or friends some people in the church were undergoing baptism on their behalf in the belief that this would enable the dead to receive the benefits of Christ’s salvation.” (James Moulten and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981, p. 651, original emphasis)

“Here Paul returns to his argument for the resurrection of the dead. There is a special difficulty in understanding v. 29 because we do not know the background of the words “baptized for the dead.” There are many interpretations, but it is difficult to find a satisfactory one. The present tense “baptize” suggests that the practice of baptizing for the dead was current and evidently well known to the Corinthians. . . .

. . . its [”huper’s”, the Greek word behind “for” in “baptized for the dead”] basic meaning with the genitive is “for,” “in behalf of,” or “in the place of.”

According to [H. A. W.] Meyer, this verse means that believers already baptized were rebaptized for the benefit of believers who had died unbaptized. This was done on the assumption that it would count for the unbaptized dead and thereby assure their resurrection along with the baptized, living believers. . . .(The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976, vol. 10, pp. 287-288)

“. . . whatever doubt some members of the Church had concerning it, there were others who were such firm believers in the resurrection that they submitted to this rite of vicarious baptism on behalf of certain of their brethren, probably catechumens, who had passed away before they had been baptized and received into full membership of the Church.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, New York: The Abingdon Press, 1952-1957, vol. 10, p. 240)

Among these various scholars and theologians, there is little dispute that vicarious posthumous baptism was a practice of early Christianity.

Your response is nonsensical. Christ plainly told Mary He had yet to ascend to His Father. 1 Peter 3:18,19 plainly states Christ was in the spirit world teaching His Gospel. Your efforts to equate paradise with heaven are scripturally unsupported.

And of course, you err in your assertion.

In Luke 23:43, Jesus told the thief on the cross: “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

Certain Christians mistakenly interpret “paradise” to mean heaven. It doesn’t.

In John 20:17, the Savior, after his resurrection, states to Mary: “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

If paradise were heaven where Christ told the thief he would be with Him, Christ wouldn’t have told Mary three days after his crucifixion outside the tomb that he had yet to ascend to his Father.

After Christ’s crucifixion and before his resurrection, he was in the spirit world teaching his Gospel. This is made plain in 1 Peter 3:18,19 where Peter teaches:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

You really don’t need to make personal attacks. I didn’t realize informing you that you were factually wrong about the long-standing relationship of ecumenicalism between the Catholic and Mormon Churches would result in your resorting to personal insults. The fact that such relationship has existed for a lengthy period of time seems to be a novel revelation to you and as your previous posts have indicated it was “astounding” given the difference in dogma between the respective faiths. It appears to be a source of angst for you that you might want to pursue with your ecclesiastical leaders. If I’m wrong, I’m sorry.

I didn’t receive a response from you to my inquiry about whether being informed about the long-standing ecumenical relationship between the Catholic and Mormon Churches which involves significant financial contributions to Catholic charities on social issues was “unexpected” and “astounding?”. Having now been so informed, do you also consider that “unexpected” and “astounding” given the differences in dogma? If so, why?

I am hoping you want to join with your Catholic Church leadership in working with the Mormon Church on an ecumenical basis in advancing conservative social issues. Can I count on your support?

I will be looking for your ecumencial thread. Please ping me when you post. Best wishes.

I ignored nothing. Your post made no new claims, and therefore was unremarkable. You claimed the joint activities of the Catholic and Mormon Churches on social issues was unprecedented:

“1. They haven’t done it in the past”

I very accurately showed how your foregoing factual assertion was erroneous and was a flawed fundamental premise to your posting. I’m sorry if you consider informing a poster that a factual assertion he made was wrong is antagonistic. I just consider it advising the poster that he was wrong, as you were.

The Mormon and Catholic Churches have a long-standing relationship of ecumenicalism. I’m sorry being made aware of that fact bursts your bubble as a Catholic. Perhaps if you are upset with the long-standing ecumenical relationship between the Catholic and Mormon Churches, you should express your angst to your ecclesiastical leaders.

For your edification since you appear to be either uninformed or ill-informed, the Salt Lake Tribune has no affiliation with the Mormon Church and has a long-standing history of antagonism in its articles dealing with the Mormon Church. Does that take away the angle that the article wasn’t trustworthy because it wasn’t written by a Mormon publication?

You’re probably right. You weren’t presumptuous. You were just uninformed. Now that you’ve been informed, are you okay with the Mormon Church giving millions of dollars to Catholic charities as part of its ecumenical relationship with the Catholic Church on social issues? Or do you consider it offensive that a “cult” would work jointly with the Catholic Church on social issues by donating millions to its charities?

By the way, when can I expect your ecumenical thread?

Regrettably, I find nothing remarkable about your post. Your portrayal of the combined efforts of the Catholic and Mormon Churches to work together to advance the conservative social agenda as being unprecedented falls flat.

The Catholic and Mormon Churches have a long-standing history of working together on social issues. For example, see the linked article: http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_13028300

Therein, it reports a “long-standing friendship between the two churches.” In regards to advancing social issues, the article also reports: “Mormon contributions to Catholic humanitarian programs, from refugee resettlement and meals for the homeless to $11.2 million in aid to Catholic Charities’ international relief projects.”

Your post starts with a flawed fundamental premise regarding the existing ecumenical relationship between the Catholic and Mormon Churches. Perhaps you should read more about the long-standing ecumenical relationship between the Catholic and Mormon Churches before presumptiously concluding this latest combined effort between them on conservative social issues is unprecedented. If you would like, I’d be happy to provide you with additional reading material to help you understand the goodwill between these two faiths and their prior combined efforts on other social issues. Just let me know and I’ll gather some of it for you.

Best wishes on your own ecumenical thread. Why don’t you ping me when you post it, okay?

As you know, this ecumenical thread was on the subject of the combined efforts of the Catholic and Mormon Churches to work together in furthering the conservative social agenda regarding families and abortion. Yet, you still keep trying to hijack it to a different subject unrelated to that of churches working together to advance the conservative social agenda. One last time, do you have anything additional which is relevant and substantive to add to this thread subject of the Mormon and Catholic Churches working together to advance the conservative social agenda? If so, I’d be happy to hear your thoughts.

If not, my polite suggestion remains for you to start your own ecumenical thread. Good luck and best wishes with your own thread.

Thank you for the humor of your post. It clearly establishes that you don't have anything additional which is relevant and substantive to add to the subject of the Catholic and Mormon Churches working together to advance the conservative social agenda. As a final aside, perhaps you should start your own ecumenical thread on the question you posit at the end of your post. Best wishes in your continued ecumenical efforts.

Why didn’t you address the scriptures I quoted and how they show Jesus made it clear that He is the Father?

“At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20)

“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” (John 17: 11,21)

So are the Father, Jesus and the apostles one?

LOL. My posts went “postal”? Obviously, you haven’t read the posts in the thread, my FRiend. The only posters going “postal” were part of your flying inman posse who had their posts removed for failing to comply with the ecumenical spirit of my thread. Like you, they just can’t bear the thought of the Mormon Church working with the Catholic Church to advance the conservative social agenda.

And the fact that you mischaracterize my posts only reflects poorly on your honesty. You’ve already posted that you are astounded the two groups are working together when they have different theological views. Do you have anything additional that is relevant and substantive to the thread to offer? If not, why are you here on an ecumenical thread? Don’t you think you should be looking for more fruitful fields to sow your discontent?