Desertknight

For what it's worth, Soulsearcher, one of the things I was trying to was offer a perspective that might show it in a different light and although I may oppose gay marriage, posit the idea of why it is a bit more complicated than what it may seem. I often hear people say they defend "traditional" marriage of one man + one woman, and so ask them define what "tradition" they mean. As I pointed out, around 50% of all American marriages contracted today, are not true marriages by the actual Christian tradition going back 2,000 years and would have never even been possible before the second half of the 20th century. I posted a link in an earlier post that details British divorce law history to offer that even in Protestant countries, divorce and remarriage are a relatively new phenomenon dating back only to the 19th century. It was inconceivable before that. If the answer to such history is, "Well, my Christian tradition changed from that historic one and allows divorce and remarriage.", then they are not arguing that the state support traditional marriage, but a much newer, more narrow and sectarian idea of marriage, as they or their religious tradition has now defined it. If that is the standard, then why should their religious perspective prevail over that of say, President Obama's church? He is actually a Johnny come lately among his co-religionist as his church has endorsed and performed same-sex marriages for some years now. I don't know what answer would be acceptable to modern society and my personal view as a Catholic, is to try to hang on to what we can of the moral law, but I also can see why same-sex couples can become incensed, as with the example I gave, of a Rush Limbaugh railing against their efforts to push acceptance of "gay marriage" while he is on his fourth "marriage" that is a modern invention of the State he benefits from, that would have been considered a mortal sin and scandalous, by virtually every Christian tradition just a few short decades ago.

So if two men "marry" in the State of Iowa, (along with six other states.), are they actually.....married?See the problem with that? It does point out however, the very dilemma that I am referring to.

So if I don't believe that killing my neighbour is a sin....it isn't? I'm not trying to "get your goat", I'm just pointing out that the moral law applies to all. When Our Lord declared, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” He was not speaking only to Christians. Indeed, his comments were specifically made to those who were not. The issue btw, is not separation, (whether called "divorce" by the state or not). The issue is the idea that one can "re-marry". No major branch of Christianity permitted it until the modern era. Indeed, it wasn't even legal until "state" marriages came into being during the Enlightenment. Edit: This is an interesting link on the history of British divorce law, which illustrates my point.

Note: we will of course, have differing beliefs on the nature of baptism and original sin, so bear with me. No one is saying (Let alone my Church.) that un-baptised children may not be saved. But in regards to the issue of suffering, Did not the children of Adam and Eve suffer even in their first hour of life? First minute? Suffering is a condition of life itself from the moment of birth, since the fall of man in the garden. Indeed, the very fact that any child can suffer death, is a result of that fall. "To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children ; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field ; By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken ; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return." Gen. 3:16-19. Suffering takes many forms, and yes, can come from our actions in sin, but the suffering that I was referring to in my previous posts, is the result of how we use suffering. It can be destructive or it can be redemptive. When we join it to the cross, it becomes redemptive.

Oh, that's good! Yes.

It isn't the state that contracts it. It isn't the priest who contracts it. The only ones who can contract a marriage is the bride and groom, whether civil or sacramental. They cannot do so however, if it is contrary to the moral law.

Unfortunately, what constitutes 50% of all "straight" marriages in America, are totally against the commandments. Once marriage was turned into a government contract and government redefined it through divorce and remarriage, it was only a matter of time before same-sex marriage was going to occur. As I posted on another related thread, "It becomes problematic, when Rush Limbaugh rails against gay marriage, while he is in a state sanctioned adulterous relationship with "wife" #4. IOW, he benefits from the very thing, (the state redefining marriage) that will inevitably lead to what he opposes.

Well, if the child dies with only one day of life...they did suffer. Even if they were not conscious. Suffering is not necessarily physical pain. Secondly, if they can really "know" of the price paid for salvation, then they did suffer with Christ. Suffering is a condition of life, whether lived from one day to +90 years. All have suffered since the 'fall of man'. But, related to your statement below... I believe all do. Now that not all may suffer to the same degree or in the same way is true, but we must all do so, according to God's will, in order to have life eternal. "Now if we are children, then we are heirs —heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." Rom. 8:17.

Certainly what you do with suffering is the key, but as far as not causing it, even then, (if correctly engaged in), it is beneficial. Do Mormons fast? In my tradition, fasting and abstaining for penitential reasons is done for that benefit. Part of being more "Christ like" is to know more completely, His suffering. If you get a hankering, you might try this. It is on my bookshelf and was reminded of it from your quote. It has deep meaning for me. Most certainly, if that be God's grace. Again, I'm not sure what LDS theology may correspond, but we are all called to be saints. It is what our baptism does. Life is about that rebirth (baptism), then that often painful but ultimately joyous unshackling from "self" and partaking of the Divine Nature, every day (theosis). If you reach heaven, you will most certainly be a saint. They are the only ones there.

Oh, I don't think the prodigal will simply get "a portion". I think the father was pointing out the ingratitude of the dutiful son by saying to him, "all that I have has always been yours.", in essence. i.e., don't be ungrateful but understand that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (Lk. 15:7).

For me, the Prodigal Son is less about the son than about the father. It is representative of God's boundless love and forgiveness for all of us, no matter how much we may have sinned or strayed. As far as spiritual growth, better not to sin may be, but without suffering, I don't think our faith really grows. Suffering, (and I don't mean just any suffering), is akin to athletes who say, "No pain, no gain". Some of the greatest saints were people who underwent great spiritual suffering, and yes, some were even prodigious sinners before returning to the Father, head bowed.

From my religious perspective; It was primarily forensic. We are not required to because we are not Jews. Only those circumcised were considered "under the Law". The debate was, "must non-Jewish Christian converts be circumcised before joining the Body of Christ?" The Magisterium said "no". We are under the moral law as is every other human regardless of their religious beliefs, but we are not under the Old Law except as it has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

I am not taking you on. I am not scolding you as a child. You did not insult me and I most certainly did not insult you. I am not telling you that you should not question. I am telling you that if you post things that I know to either be wrong, or clearly bigoted by the way that you have written them, then I will correct that, as best and as civilly as I can. I did just that, making a clear, unemotional, factual and logical response to those issues that you raised in your earlier post.

Look, I know this is an LDS board and I do try not to be defensive when I read some occasionally provocative comments, but I must respond when someone posts about my faith as you have, Hala. It is the Holy Spirit who, "established what should be in the Bible". If it was not, then I plan on going golfing this Sunday and wont grace the door of a church again because it's all hooey. The Bible is either God's divine Word, or the Christian faith, (restored or not), is nothing but fairy tales. It is that same Bible which directed that, "An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs —how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife and his interests are divided." Cor. 7:32-34. Those celibate priests are married to their congregations. They are celibate because their vocation is to imitate their chief priest, Jesus Christ, who lived His life in celibacy, in complete service to His flock. The idea of transubstantiation was come up with by Our Lord, Jesus Christ, who stated, "This is my body. This is My Blood." and in passage after passage of the Gospels, tells us that, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:54. St. Paul even castigating the Corinthians for not understanding that partaking of Holy Eucharist was not simply symbolic, but actually doing just that, "For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." 1 Cor. 11:29. It has been so believed by the Christian faith from the earliest days, "For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" -St. Justin Martyr, First Apology AD 150. Transubstantiation was universally held by the Christian faith for over 1,500 years until the Protestant reformation began to abandon it.

There is much truth to that, especially in the type of warfare we have been engaged in, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Right, Combat Engineer is also restricted to men as well.I looked about and there really isn't just one good link of info. Wiki has this for what it's worth.

Women are now assigned to virtually every MOS except the front line infantry positions of the army and marines. They serve actively in U.S. Army artillery batteries, as Air Cav pilots, etc. In both the USAF and in the US Navy, there are no longer any restrictions in any field. I've worked with female fighter pilots and women serve on active combat vessels of every kind. Indeed, the navy only restricted them from submarines until 2010, but that restriction was removed and they are serving on those vessels as well.

I guess it would depend on size/strength of the soldiers, male and female. I tend to agree with your earlier post, but I have worked with some very fine women soldiers. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of women in combat though, but that boat has sailed. Women are barred from very few combat assignments except things like front line infantry, but have served by the tens of thousands, in our decade of war, actively engaged in direct combat in almost every other capacity.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Always a good idea.

Got it, and I see that really is where the debate is. Related to C. vs. A., however. I would agree with "both", Reverend. Even in our cooperation, it's prime cause is still the work of the Holy Spirit. We don't save ourselves...at any step of that salvation. We only cooperate with that grace freely given and must have grace to even do that.

I believe that is correct. I remember hearing a story like that on the news, anyway.

Personally, I think it would be a good idea for Mormons to have study concerning the conventional Christians traditions (and vice versa, of course.). There is a great degree of misunderstanding and from my experience, there is a tremendous "lost in translation" problem as well, due to the very different ways of looking a spirituality. An example of that runs like this... Conventional Christian: "Mormons cannot truly be considered Christians because LDS theology is polytheistic, or at best henothiestic, and that is a deal-breaker." Mormon: "But we believe in Christ so we ARE Christian." I've witnessed that exchange at least half a dozen times in life. It is a lost in translation problem because both sides are speaking the truth, not disagreeing.

prisonchaplain & Traveler, sounds like the classic debate between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Thank you, Loud. I appreciate it. Catholic tradition also holds it that the sweating of blood was literal and not figurative. It is the basis for Holy Hour devotion for Eucharistic adoration.

You may have not intended it, but that made me laugh. Letters to her dead dog?