Quantcast

Comments about ‘Catholics told not to give LDS parish data’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, May 4 2008 12:30 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Religion

Wow! There are over 700 comments about this topic. When there are events in the real world needing attention, so many of you are discussing beliefs that aren't based on the real world.

I do not see how religion helps people. Doesn't it just create conflict? If there is a dispute about something in the real world, we can actually make reference to the world as we know it. Belief in things that can't be tested as real and talking in tones of certainty about them gets us nowhere.

G

"Ever try to get your personal medical records from the doctor?"

It's interesting that you mention that. I did this morning. No fee, no problem.


I can understand the Catholic Church's position on this matter. But privacy issues for people that lived a long time ago are different from those of the living. Especially when the family is involved.

Even the FBI can be petitioned to release surveillance files on people that have died at least 20 years ago, if a sufficient historical interest can be proven. And if you lived a really long time ago, anthropologists won't hesitate to dig up your grave, make a mockery of your religious beliefs, and put you in a museum. All with no outcry.
than that.

Records

"And you don't own the records."

From G: "Really? What records did Jewish groups hold over the church to get them to abandon proxy baptism? -- Who cares. We're talking about the Catholic Church here.

"Brigham Young would not have tolerated this." -- And he might have been driven out of Utah, too. Unfortunately, this issue, along with the FLDS issue, is going to cause great hardship to the LDS Church and its recruiting efforts in the years to come. Disrespecting Catholic folks in this way -- and on this forum -- is not a smart move.

RE: you might not care

"...The Baptists have a missionary program called the Great Commission, which targets LDS members as potential converts..."

Actually all Christians have a 'missionary program' called The Great Commission; it is found in the Bible,given in Matthew chapter 28, verses 19-20, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

This instruction was given by Jesus Christ to the apostles and all who followed them (Christians) to preach and teach what Jesus Christ has shown us in the scriptures and through the power of the Holy Spirit. We are instructed to evangelize to all unbelievers, all over the world. As Baptists, we believe that we are all 'missionaries' for Jesus Christ. Although many do, one doesn't have to go around the world or even around the country or attend an institutionalized program to preach and teach to unbelievers; all of us can look around in our own neighborhoods, where we work, every where we go and see unbelievers.

RE: RE: Erroneous how?

I shouldn't waste my time on 'born again doctrine, but....

1 Corinthians 15:29 - The Corinthian members were beginning to dispute the reality of the resurrection. He was pointing out that baptizing the dead would have no meaning if the resurrection were not real.

The Bible, as does the BofM, teach that those who hear the gospel preached while in mortality should 1) accept it, and 2) once accept it, live it.

How unjust would it be to condemn the millions of Gods children to hell because they did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel while they lived in the flesh. Of all born again philosophies, this saddens me the most.

Again

I ask the question because I don't understand, why are infants baptized into the church if they have no cognitive ability to make this choice? Isn't this a "forcing" just like the complaining on this board is? If someone could just explain the baby baptism and why it's done at such a young age?

G

"And he might have been driven out of Utah, too. Unfortunately, this issue, along with the FLDS issue, is going to cause great hardship to the LDS Church and its recruiting efforts in the years to come."



I thought one of the tenets of the religion was that God ran the church, and not some public relations department.

If it wanted, the LDS church could get LOTS of converts--just by changing doctrine sufficiently to be attractive to post-modern sensibility. We can drop the tithe and worthiness interviews. We could teach that there are many ways to truth and that different morals apply to different people, and that God doesn't expect anything of anyone.

Ask nothing, and tell people what they want to hear and the chapels will be full. This is a debate the Catholic church has been having too, isn't it?

If you think that's a good idea, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Believing Unbeliever

Yes, I'm an believing unbeliever; I believe we ought to engage in dialog concerning morality and whether or not a believe in a supernatural man makes you as a believer morally superior person by this very fact. As someone without religion and knowing family who are Christian, my conclusion that that religious belief does not make grant anyone religious supremacy. We know this to be the case if we open to people of all kinds during our day to day experience. Experiencing morality among people transcends all religions. Unfortunately, the problem begins with religious people often prefer their dogma over real people.

I believe morality is innate, that we all have the ability to agree on a moral system if we put aside religious authority, both person and scripture. This entire discussion about baptism is an example of where religions fail; in this light, when looking at the years and years of violence and destruction in the name of God, regard the conflict in this thread as an microcosm of the attitudes capable of full out war. Call it a tiny seed.

RE:RE:RE: Erroneous how?

"...How unjust would it be to condemn the millions of Gods children to hell because they did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel while they lived in the flesh. Of all born again philosophies, this saddens me the most..."

It is sad indeed that people hear the Gospel and turn from it. As for those that 'have not heard the Gospel', we cannot know the provision that Almighty God has made for them, although we are told in scripture that all of creation is a witness to God, even the heathen knows right from wrong because of this.
Anything that the Lord does is 'just'; who are we to question the design of Almighty God? We who are filthy sinners without hope, save for the grace of God and the atoning blood of Jesus Christ? Was The Flood, that killed nearly all who lived on the world 'unjust'? There are many examples throughout scripture that to the modern, human mind seem harsh, but God loves us and has always given us the knowledge required to escape sin and penalty; the Bible says nothing of second chances after death. Quite the contrary, in fact.

To Again:

To put it simply, infant baptism is a "we welcome this child into the Christian community rite." It is at an older age when these children make an adult commitment to Christ through either a "born again" experience (evangelical protestants), or a First Communion experience (Catholics and mainstream protestants) after studying and discerning.

To G 3:30 pm

That is exactly why the Roman Catholic Church chooses to protect the faith and avoid participating in heretical practices, even if it means making a few Mormons angry.

G

"That is exactly why the Roman Catholic Church chooses to protect the faith and avoid participating in heretical practices, even if it means making a few Mormons angry."

But what I don't understand is why so many think the LDS church should abandon proxy baptism to make Catholics and Jewish groups happy. Their opinions should be irrelevant.

To Again

"To put it simply, infant baptism is a "we welcome this child into the Christian community rite."

Then what is the entire "purgatory" thing all about?

The idea that a child who died in youth is going to Hell for not having Christian parents is not a Christian doctrine.

EndIgnorance

"The idea that a child who died in youth is going to Hell for not having Christian parents"

What sort of bigoted mythology do they teach you?? That's not a Catholic doctrine!

Re: To Again | 4:47 p.m.

Some real misunderstandings here!

Catholics believe that those who know about and believe in the sacrament of baptism must receive it. Official doctrine with respect to infants who have not been baptized, is that we have no clear teaching. The belief is that infants will attain heaven as God accepts each of us unless we have rejected Him by living in serious sin.

Infants are not baptized because they are viewed as sinful or unclean. Baptism sets up a new relationship with God for all of us who are born into a world that has been affected by inherent human weakness. It's a rite to welcome the child into the Christian community, but it is up to the parents and/or sponsors to see that the childs religious education follows.

Similarly, adults who desire baptism, were repentant and accepted God, but died before being baptized are saved through grace. Those who may not have had an opportunity to accept a personal God through no fault of their own, but are committed to following their conscience, also receive Gods grace-presence.

The Church does not believe heaven is reserved just for Catholics, and believe that God's judgement is always fair and loving.

Re: Re: To Again

Pope Benedict XVI might have something else to say about the matter. I respect the man for his refreshing policy against what he terms "relativism". You might see the doctrine in that light, but that is not the way the doctrine is taught or practiced in the Catholic Church as a whole. Baptism of infants, as explained to me by a Catholic priest in Argentina, is to cleanse the infants of the "Original Sin" caused by Adam and Eve. Mormon doctrine/philosophy teaches that the "original sin" of Adam and Eve, though necessary, does not taint each person born into this world and that "men shall be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgressions."

What about

simple respect. Why is it the LDS church is so offended that the Catholic church won't give it records? Why does the LDS church fell it is their right to have them? Why does the LDS church believe it's their right to do "proxy" baptisms?
How about a little respect, the same respect I would afford you.

Re: Re: Re: To Again

From the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" -- 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' (MK 10"14;cf. 1 Tim 2:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism..."

Spoiled Child

A spoiled child thinks it has the right to get whatever it wants and is offended when told 'no'. When spoiled children get smart, in order to get what they want they use any which excuse they can to get around whatever reasoning the parent gives them. What this article is basically saying is that the Mormon Church should have the right to Catholic diocesan records but that the Catholic Church shouldn't really have the right to deny its access - or that at least the excuses the Church is giving isn't good enough or is lacking. The Church has rights to those records but that isn't good enough - because the Mormon Church WANTS THEM! NOW! What a bunch of whiny, spoiled little children.

Re: Re: To Again | 10:38 p.m.

>>You might see the doctrine in that light, but that is not the way the doctrine is taught or practiced in the Catholic Church as a whole. Baptism of infants, as explained to me by a Catholic priest in Argentina, is to cleanse the infants of the "Original Sin" caused by Adam and Eve. Mormon doctrine/philosophy teaches that the "original sin" of Adam and Eve, though necessary, does not taint each person born into this world and that "men shall be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgressions<<.

My information is correct. Taken from the Catechism and the RCIA.

You misunderstand the Catholic concept of original sin. It is the accumulated affect of the sin of the first humans plus the sin of all humanity. In otherwords, we are all PRONE to sin as mortals on this earth. We develop pridful, unloving attitudes. We adopt the values of society and we are always subject to temptation.

As Paul said, In one man all have sinned. We are all affected by this sin and turn to sin ourselves. I am not "punished" for your sins, anymore than you are "punished" for mine.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments