Desertknight

I agree with the poster above, that Seattle is a very friendly city. I have a close friend there and have visited a few times and really enjoyed it. Of course, it helps to love the rain, (which I completely do. i.e., I was born were it almost never rained.). It's a great city for books, food, culture. I've been to Houston many times, just for short stops. All I remember about it was that it was soooooooooooo........humid! Every time I went there. It was also much, much, bigger than I thought. I didn't get much chance to see it's good points, however.

That would be correct. :)

What the heck! OK, that has to go in my file of, "Stories that you would never expect to see in a million years." Ick.

If I were having lunch with the Pope and ordered a coke, he would say, "You're not having beer?" Just sayin...

I have a bit of a different perspective on China as my Church is still officially outlawed in that country and has had a long history of the communist government there, trying to eradicate it. The government went so far as to create a kind of fake catholic church, the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, complete with fake bishops, priests and deacons, fake churches and worship, all of which is directly controlled by the communist party. There are some 5 million members of the fake catholic church there and 12-14 million underground baptised Catholics. The real, previous, primate of the Catholic Church in China, (ranking bishop), Cardinal Kung, was imprisoned for over 30 years by the communist.

Well, 1. They aren't changing all that fast. Religion is still greatly repressed in communist China. 2. They are only changing because China has been slowly, surely, ceasing to be communist. They haven't been communist economically, for decades, and will hopefully one day, become democratic politically. In answer to the OP, socialism leans toward atheism because people of faith know that all rights, all responsibilities, come from God. Socialist want to make sure that people understand that it is the State that does that. They don't like religion because the socialist god of the all powerful state, is an angry god and will have no other before it.

It's always important to check the source. Dr. Boswell is not taken seriously by many historians or theologians. He is not an historian as much as a propagandist for a specific cause.

As a Catholic, of course I reject the idea of the 'great apostasy', (Hey, what do you expect.:)), and as a direct relation to the OP, the Catholic Church's belief on marriage has never wavered. One man + one woman, one time. No divorce and remarriage. No sexual acts outside of the bonds of marriage. Which applies to even non-Christians through the natural law. What is described in the OP is an old tradition in the Mediterranean world, of Adelphopoiesis and co-adoption. Kinship and friendship were much more highly valued before the modern age as they often involved life and death issues and family survival. The Adelphopoiesis ceremony cemented those relationships between men as 'brothers', not sexual partners.

I'm not familiar enough with nor qualified to comment, as to how this issue relates to LDS doctrine, so just take my post for what it is as a Catholic, and one that is just my own opinion and not that of my Church. As a Catholic, I am not required to hold to any opinion on the theory of evolution one way or another, but as truth is an absolute, no accurate scientific theory will conflict with God's truth. One idea is that while man may have descended from earlier primates, that does not mean that those earlier ancestors were necessarily "man". Adam & Eve in this theory, would have been the first two beings down the line of this evolution, that was given by God, true human nature. One would accept that when Genesis speaks of "days", it clearly is using it as a literary device as the sun was not even created until the forth "day", so how were there 24 hour days before then? As I said, that is just an opinion. There are other theories that may help explain it as well. Of course, I always accept that some things may continue to be a mystery. It does not affect my faith, however.

My 2 cents: We are primates. That is not exclusive of a literal Adam & Eve, however. I think you are creating a false dilemma for yourself, brother.

True, he is always the Pope, even when at private functions, but he can certainly speak at a friend's funeral, just as a friend. He is free to attend a funeral, for example, and say what he wishes, just as a friend, and not act as an officiating priest. I hope I will not cause offense but much of what you say here is not really correct. Papal infallibility is as "big" now as it has always been as the infallibility of the Church, (and therefore Her chief bishop) is one of the bedrock doctrines of the Catholic faith. Literally, as it derives from Matt. 16:18. It is inseparable from the Petrine Primacy of the Church. (The infallible and authoritative nature of the bishop of Rome.) It's first noteworthy exercise after St. Peter was when Clement the 1st, reversed a decision by the church in Corinth in A.D. 96, but there are numerous examples throughout the ages, of the saints who attest to it... "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" St. Irenaeus A.D. 189. For us Catholics, the Church, and therefore Her chief bishop who holds the Chair of Peter, was, is and always will be, the "pillar of truth" that Sacred Scripture says they are. (1 Tim. 3:15). Well, there are no doctrines that are declared "fallible" and no doctrine of the Church is ever subject to change as such, but through the development of doctrine, they will be more fully fleshed-out and explained in a more relevant way to the people of a particular age. Right, but again, I think you have an erroneous, (And I'm not picking on you as it is one that is frequently held by non-Catholics), idea as to what infallibility is. Infallibility, either the pope's or the bishops and Church as a whole, is not an ability to change doctrine without error or to declare a previous doctrine 'fallible' and a new one 'infallible'. No such procedure or charism exists with either Pope or the Church. I've never heard of such a thing. Infallibility is the promise that what is taught and adhered to, in matters of faith and morals, will be without error, will never be divergent from the objective truth that is the faith of the ages, as the Church and what She teaches, is protected by the Holy Spirit from ever doing so.

I remember reading that in a class on biblical history that I once took. It does make sense in an age when literacy was much more rare, and keeping records on parchment, a luxury of the rich. Such a device was s much surer way to pass family genealogies along.

As was mentioned above, I'm not sure where you were a student, but Melchizedek plays a large role in both Protestant and Catholic traditions. All Catholic priest, for example, are ordained within the “the Order of Melchizedek,” sharing in Christ's eternal priesthood.

Just a point of correction; that is false. The Pope is only speaking with his authority as chief bishop of the Church, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when he is speaking on a matter of faith and morals, in defining doctrine. The pope may have certain personal opinions on religious issues, that no Catholic is obliged to believe in. Nor are any other pronouncements he makes outside of faith and morals, anything other than his own opinion. As a secondary note, Popes are not prophets at all. They are always, nothing but men and sinners to boot. They function only as the chief bishop of the Church as St. Peter did, head of all the bishops who share Christ's authority.

Ha! I was expecting that one.

.......

Yes it is! I'm fortunate to be able to live here.

That.

.....

Pretty good answers from my fellow Catholics but I would add that there is a difference between what we Catholics refer to as, (and this is just an easy short-hand way of putting it.), 'Sacred Tradition' and small "t" tradition. Sacred Tradition is derived from the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium, and relates to matters of dogma or doctrine. "What is the nature of baptism, the Holy Trinity, grace?" Small "t" tradition can still be important, but is changeable and only has value as it serves the faith; i.e. why are vestments different colors? Why do we display the Stations of the Cross in our churches? Hope that helps illuminate the issue a bit more.

I've been researching my family genealogy for about a year now and am addicted to it! I download a free gen program that I am not very happy with and need to upgrade, but don't know what is best. Maybe I will check out Roots Magic. I'm not LDS but sent a GEDCOM to the Family Search folks anyway. What is the issue with GEDCOM's?

Hi, fellow Idahoan! I'm new to the board as well.