SteveVH

It's a great article with one flaw. It has never been a law of the Church that only men have their feet washed. Traditionally this has been the case because of the symbolism of the washing of the twelve Apostles feet, who were men. At our Holy Thursday Mass last night we washed the feet of seven women and five men. We have been doing this for as many years as I remember in every diocese in which I have been. It may be a break in tradition (with a small 't') and I think it is a wonderful gesture, not just that there were women involved, but that he did it in a detention facility. That is more striking to me. I love this guy. Thanks for the post! :)

Does anyone know if "Martha Barlow, RN, APRN, CNM" is actually a credible person? Anyone that starts throwing around titles such as a "Registered Nurse", et al, as some sort of measure of crediblity makes me nervous. Why is an RN more credible than a ditch digger? The fact than she even brings it up is telling.

While I am still becoming familiar with lds.net, is it not at least a rule of thumb that one should stay on topic? This thread has taken a very strange turn from one concerning polygamy and polyamory to lesbianism. Just my opinion, but the entire conversation is based upon nothing more than complete and utter speculation and it is akin to gossiping on a personla level. To paint the wives who were engaged in polygamy as having sexual relations with each other, with not a shred of evidence, is to me, just bizarre. Why anyone's mind would go there in the first place is the question.

Because with polyamory you don't have to be married, you can just... okay, this is getting way to wierd.

The way things are going, we're probably not far from it.

Just for clarification, "polyamory" is not the same thing as "polygamy". Polyamory involves more than one intimate relationship (if one can call it that) but does not require marriage to more than one. It's basically a philosophy that allows one to give into lust and to cheat on their spouse while feeling good about themselves. The only rule is that it is consentual between those participating and they believe that this one rule makes it a moral act. This line of thought, of course, is a complete fallacy. If two adults consent to having an affair with each other, that consent does not mitigate the sin, it just means they agreed to sin with each other.

Thanks for this. That seems to be a very level approach. Of course, it goes without saying that this is an LDS site and thererfore you should be promoting the LDS faith with the hope of drawing others to your faith. Anyway, you seem to have a very reasonable outlook on the issue.

First of all, sorry that you got banned. I had no idea that we have had discussion on CAF. I'm trying to guess who you are (were). I have to agree with you that I have a difficult time understanding what constitutes proselytizing, other than just a blatant attempt at converting another. If one gives a credible, well thought out justification for their beliefs; one good enough to sway people to their position, is that proselytizing? I don't know. Would a moderator be kind enough to inform us as to what you consider "proselytizing" on this forum? It would seem to me to be a difficult thing to measure unless it is just blatant.

Let me try another approach in answering this. Grace, while free, requires a response evidenced by the manner in which we live our lives. Grace is God's love poured out on us. We must respond in love which includes getting to know the One who loves us, worshiping him, and loving God and our neighbor by keeping God's commands. But it all begins with love, both the grace poured out by God and our response to that grace. Without love everything else is worthless, including all knowledge.

If you were to go to CAF you would see that I defend Mormons on a number of occasions and chide those who are being uncharitable to them. I think it is natural to wonder what one's agenda is when they come from a different faith tradition. Don't get me wrong. I certainly have my moments in the midst of a heated debate, but I have learned to remember that I am speaking with a human being, not a computer. On lds.net I have found that debate is pretty much frowned upon, which I wish was not the case. Not only does one learn much about their own faith when called upon to defend it, but much about the other's faith as well. Debate does not have to be nasty. Argumentation has gotten a bad wrap. It is actually a noble exercise when those involved are intellectually honest and always charitable toward each other. But I am a guest here; I'm on your turf and am therefore happy to comply with the forum rules and standards.

Not a problem. Nearly everyone, understandably, thinks of the Latin Rite when speaking of the Catholic Church and it does comprise the great majority of Catholics. :)

Its not a doctrine. It is just self-evident to anyone who has been around these folks. They truly love unconditionally and yes, that is a better example than one who does not. Spiritual discipline is a requirement for those of us who are tempted by our own pride; by the world; by the flesh. This applies to most of us. Those who are mentally challenged are spared much of the temptation that requires spiritual discipline in order to overcome. Because if one loves God he will do what God commanded. Again, love comes first. If we are following the commandments without love, they are nothing more than empty practices. Why do you believe that Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments in the first two? It doesn't bother me if you object. If you didn't you would be Catholic, right? I'm happy to answer any question you might have and my skin is getting thicker all the time, so ask away or give your opinion. I'll make sure to set you straight. :) Here's the bottom line, Traveler, when it comes to your ascertion that love is a learned behavior. I don't know or remember whether or not you are a father. But I would ask any parent: Did you have to learn to love your children? (For the sake of argument, lets leave out the teenage years, okay? )

Thanks for your advice. I don't come here to insult Mormons or their faith. While it is obvious to me that there are some on this forum who pretty much disdain my presence here, I have come to enjoy and look forward to discussions with most members who seem to be very fair and charitable. :) Others are just waiting for me to stub my toe and are suspicious of anything I post.

They are paid at a subsistance level. Obviously they have to eat and have a roof over their head and clothes to wear. They certainly aren't in it for the money. As I have said previously, most orders of priests take vows of poverty. No one gets into this because they are paid. That is one of the tough decisions made by each seminarian. Am I willing to give up those things that another career would give me? Spend just one week with a priest and you will change your view, I promise. And the money used for this is money that would not get to the poor and needy or used to train seminarians, or to build hospitals, or to provide counseling... the list goes on and on.

In the Latin Rite, only, not in the Eastern Rite. Granted, that includes most Catholic priests but it says a lot about the nature of the discipline. It actually developed over time until it became an official practice early in the 4th century. The Church was going into lands all over the world and the chance that one would be martyred was great. It began with those certain orders of priests who were going into harms way, so to speak. It also became evident that those who were unmarried were much more free to carry out the duties of their ministry. From my own personal experience with the priests who have pastored our parish, I cannot imagine any of them being married and doing their job as well. They are on 24 hour call. I can call my priest in a time of need and don't have to be concerned if this is going to interupt his family. His entire life is devoted to serving Christ by serving those in the Church and out of the Church in a singular manner. The scriptural basis for the practice comes directly from Paul: "I would that all men were even as myself; but every one hath his proper gift from God .... But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment." (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35)

Keep in mind that this is not a doctrinal issue, therefore we are not looking for God to tell us that it is now okay or not for priests to be married. Its already okay for priests to be married (as evidenced by the fact that we have married priests); there is nothing wrong with it, from a doctrinal standpoint, rather it is simply a discipline that the Church, for about the last 1700 years, has found to work better in spreading the Gospel and ministering to the flock. We do not believe that God will ever change doctrine. It would mean that he is changing truth, which is an impossibility. 2 + 2 will always equal 4. Catholic doctrine has remained the same for 2000 years. Practices and disciplines within the Church, however, can and have changed during that time.

The laity, while it can do many things to help our priest, cannot in any way take over duties which can only be administered by an ordained priest. We actually have a surge in vocations to the priesthood here in America and a huge surge in priests from Africa. It takes a lot of priests to minister to 1.3 billion people and yes, we need more. It is reasonable that one might come to this conclusion but in reality celibacy is really not the issue among seminarians considering the priesthood and believe it or not, most priests will tell you that they consider celibacy to be a great gift. Most cannot imagine having a family and still being able to carry out their duties. Being a Catholic priest is a full time job and one that pays at about the poverty level, maybe $1500/month, certainly not sufficient to raise a family. Most orders of priest take vows of poverty which does not work well with a family. It would definitely altar the way in which priests perfrom their duties, however it would not alter the fundamental nature of the priesthood. It would just make it more difficult to carry out. Paul, while desiring that his disciples remain unmarried, as was he, didn't require celibacy for those who burned with desire, but it was his preference simply due to the nature of the mission to which he was called. Great observation.

You couldn't be more correct.

Correct. Not only is it low on the radar, I don't think it even shows up as a blip. This is not an issue the Church is in the least concerned about.

Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. We have had many married priests, bishops and even a few popes, in our history. Even today, those who have converted from the Anglican faith and are already married priests within that faith tradition are allowed to become Catholic priests and remain married. Also, in the Eastern rite Catholic Church as well as the Eastern Orthodox, priests are allowed to be married. This is not a fatih issue, so to answer your question it would not affect the beliefs of Catholics in any way. This is a discipline, however, that works very well and I can pretty much guarantee you it will not change. I think the person reporting this was probably ignorant of the Catholic stance on this issue and, being surprised to learn that it is something that could change, misinterpreted that to mean that it was being considered for change.

I have deleted the post. I wasn't trying to upset anyone. Site Rule #1 "Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere." What in the world did I say that was in the least bit derogatory toward your Church? This is what I said: Talk about having to walk on egg shells.

John tells us that God is love. We are made in the image and likeness of God, therefore we are made in the image and likeness of love; it is a part of who we are. That is why even a mentally challenged human being who is not capable of learning past a very elementery level, is, nevertheless, capable of loving and in many cases, loving better than those with higher intellectual capacity. Yes, love is an act of the will. Even when we do not like someone, we can will to love them; indeed, we are commanded to love them. I would not agree that love is an acquired taste, as if it is something at first repulsive or distasteful. Keeping the commandments is something we will do because we love. The commandments are love in action and if we do not keep them it is because we do not love God. Jesus didn't say keep my commands in order to learn how to love me. He said those who love him will keep his commands. Love comes first, not last. Spiritual discipline is absolutely necessary. I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot say that we love God while breaking his commandments. This is the entire reason that Jesus could sum up all of the commandments in the first two; Love God and neighbor and you will keep all of the commandments.

Okay, I see where you're coming from. :)

It is only a simple response to the assertion that Christians outside of the Mormon faith somehow believe that Christ is dead. This is exactly a question concerning "larger Christian Belief". I didn't bring the subject up. I'm just trying to make sure that innacurate statements of others beliefs (including my own) do not go unanswered. I do this by giving the other side of the story. Is there a rule against clearing up misconceptions one may have about another's faith? That doesn't seem very fair to me.