<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Frustrated by a Latin Mass Catholic</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nine-moons.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=101</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 04:57:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Comment Restore</title>
		<link>http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=101&#038;cpage=1#comment-92</link>
		<dc:creator>Comment Restore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:28:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=101#comment-92</guid>
		<description>Ok Ill give this topic a shot...
Sure we do! We rationalize alot of things here and there! But as far as a church-backed doctrine? I dont really think so.
BUT we do things on a case by case basis as it is, they&#039;re called Bishiops. One persons premarital sex can be &quot;punished&quot; by being x&#039;d while another just probabtion. It IS up to the Bishop and the &quot;sinner&quot;. 
We&#039;ve made a system that allows for us to still be doctrinly Just as well as exsemptionally so. I mean come on we ARE talkin about modern revaltaion here people.
Bryce &#124; Email &#124; Homepage &#124; 05.14.05 - 2:56 am &#124; #

I think that we are flexible in order to cover our bases. Look at children who die before the age of accountability, abortion, polygamy, etc.

Isn&#039;t this the complaint of most evangelicals against us - that we are to malleable?
J. Stapley &#124; Email &#124; Homepage &#124; 05.15.05 - 1:34 am &#124; #

Hey, we can give blessings in an emergancy with only one person instead of two. Of course that&#039;s not a saving ordinance...
Bret &#124; Email &#124; Homepage &#124; 05.20.05 - 3:02 am &#124; #

I investigated the LDS Church for a while, but I recently decided to join the Catholic Church instead. 

I think you raise a really interesting question, because it gets at one of the reasons I didn&#039;t become LDS -- I felt like there was no doctrinal center, as if the goalposts could always be moved.

I suspect that&#039;s the feeling you had when talking to your former coworker. Maybe it arises from a lack of understanding on each of our parts about the other religion. On some level I must not be &quot;getting&quot; something.

For example, I would find strange statements by earlier presidents of the church that didn&#039;t square with what I was presently hearing from Church (on issues like Adam-God or the behavior of Africans in the pre-mortal life) and I was told that when a prophet says something, you have to square it with the Scriptures and with what you feel from the Holy Ghost. If the GA&#039;s words conflict with the Scriptures, then you go with the Scriptures.

But on the other hand I was told that what sets the LDS Church apart from other churches is that they have a living prophet who can clarify how the Scriptures are to be properly understood and which interpretation is correct. So I felt like I was hearing circular reasoning.

Knowing that in Mormonism there&#039;s no creed, and that what makes it distinctive is a set of normative practices rather than a set of beliefs, helps me to make sense of it.

As far as the lady&#039;s statements about infant baptism go - without going into it too deeply - one thought I have is that Catholics and Mormons don&#039;t conceive of baptism in the same way. That may be why what she&#039;s saying doesn&#039;t make sense. For Mormons, it&#039;s a saving ordinance. For Catholics, it&#039;s a sacrament. To use a linguistic analogy, they&#039;re false cognates. They look the same (they both involve water and the invocation of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost) but they have different meanings.
Greg &#124; Email &#124; Homepage &#124; 05.25.05 - 10:04 pm &#124; #

Name: 

Email: 
 
 
Comment:  ?




Commenting by HaloScan.com


</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok Ill give this topic a shot&#8230;<br />
Sure we do! We rationalize alot of things here and there! But as far as a church-backed doctrine? I dont really think so.<br />
BUT we do things on a case by case basis as it is, they&#8217;re called Bishiops. One persons premarital sex can be &#8220;punished&#8221; by being x&#8217;d while another just probabtion. It IS up to the Bishop and the &#8220;sinner&#8221;.<br />
We&#8217;ve made a system that allows for us to still be doctrinly Just as well as exsemptionally so. I mean come on we ARE talkin about modern revaltaion here people.<br />
Bryce | Email | Homepage | 05.14.05 &#8211; 2:56 am | #</p>
<p>I think that we are flexible in order to cover our bases. Look at children who die before the age of accountability, abortion, polygamy, etc.</p>
<p>Isn&#8217;t this the complaint of most evangelicals against us &#8211; that we are to malleable?<br />
J. Stapley | Email | Homepage | 05.15.05 &#8211; 1:34 am | #</p>
<p>Hey, we can give blessings in an emergancy with only one person instead of two. Of course that&#8217;s not a saving ordinance&#8230;<br />
Bret | Email | Homepage | 05.20.05 &#8211; 3:02 am | #</p>
<p>I investigated the LDS Church for a while, but I recently decided to join the Catholic Church instead. </p>
<p>I think you raise a really interesting question, because it gets at one of the reasons I didn&#8217;t become LDS &#8212; I felt like there was no doctrinal center, as if the goalposts could always be moved.</p>
<p>I suspect that&#8217;s the feeling you had when talking to your former coworker. Maybe it arises from a lack of understanding on each of our parts about the other religion. On some level I must not be &#8220;getting&#8221; something.</p>
<p>For example, I would find strange statements by earlier presidents of the church that didn&#8217;t square with what I was presently hearing from Church (on issues like Adam-God or the behavior of Africans in the pre-mortal life) and I was told that when a prophet says something, you have to square it with the Scriptures and with what you feel from the Holy Ghost. If the GA&#8217;s words conflict with the Scriptures, then you go with the Scriptures.</p>
<p>But on the other hand I was told that what sets the LDS Church apart from other churches is that they have a living prophet who can clarify how the Scriptures are to be properly understood and which interpretation is correct. So I felt like I was hearing circular reasoning.</p>
<p>Knowing that in Mormonism there&#8217;s no creed, and that what makes it distinctive is a set of normative practices rather than a set of beliefs, helps me to make sense of it.</p>
<p>As far as the lady&#8217;s statements about infant baptism go &#8211; without going into it too deeply &#8211; one thought I have is that Catholics and Mormons don&#8217;t conceive of baptism in the same way. That may be why what she&#8217;s saying doesn&#8217;t make sense. For Mormons, it&#8217;s a saving ordinance. For Catholics, it&#8217;s a sacrament. To use a linguistic analogy, they&#8217;re false cognates. They look the same (they both involve water and the invocation of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost) but they have different meanings.<br />
Greg | Email | Homepage | 05.25.05 &#8211; 10:04 pm | #</p>
<p>Name: </p>
<p>Email: </p>
<p>Comment:  ?</p>
<p>Commenting by HaloScan.com</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
