<p>Motherdear - no one is commenting on the qualifications of Mitt Romney to be President or expressing a “fear” that he might become president. It is being noted that the Mormon Church seems to be reversing itself, or at least going out its way, in order to make things a little easier for the first Mormon presidential candidate with a decent shot at the White House.</p>
<p>hh - aggravated that the discussion continues on, with or without you? ;)</p>
<p>I believe my point was clear, ldmom. Just ■■■■■■■■, as usual. :)</p>
<p>Btw, no one asked me, I know, but I think your insinuations about the LDS church and Romney are rather disturbing, ldmom. Just mho, of course. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ldmom…that’s a good thing! i think we dirty liberals (or maybe its just me) should be happy that democracy is liberalizing the church! lol.</p>
<p>hh: what’s wrong with drawing a comparison between the popes and Joseph Smith, both of whom are considered to have some degree of infallibility by their respective religions?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Sorry, this isn’t true. The equivalent of a temple divorce can be obtained and a woman would be able to be sealed to another man in the temple.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess it’s a difference of quantity. The doctrine of Papal infallibility didn’t arise till 1870 and Popes are still only infallible on matters they specifically make infallible pronouncements. So infallibility thus far has been very limited. Since 1870, the pope has made only one infallible pronouncement (about the assumption of the Blessed Mother). </p>
<p>It’s been determined that other statements issued prior to 1870 were infallible even though there was no formal mechanism, but again it’s very limited, things that go to the basis of Catholicism, like Christ having both a human and a divine nature, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, etc. </p>
<p>So a Catholic can’t really disagree with the Pope about whether Mary went to heaven in physical form or if she was conceived without Original Sin on her soul, but a Catholic can disagree about many other things Popes did and said, even in their role as pontiff.</p>
<p>Joseph Smith left a much larger body of work that he claimed was direct revelation (and therefore infallible if we use that word), including polygyny. A Mormon who disagrees with that is in the position of a Catholic who disagrees with the Assumption of Mary, not a Catholic who disagrees with the Spanish Inquisition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hadn’t heard that, thanks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is snide and ridiculous. I know that you enjoy stirring the pot and insulting posters you perceive as non-dominionist at every opportunity. That’s all this is, plain and simple. </p>
<p>It’s not a question of “restraint” as though the Catholic Church were so dirty it’s something that can’t be mentioned in polite society. How humans process information when observing a phenomenon to compare and contrast it with other known phenomenon. </p>
<p>Part of how you know what an apple tastes like is that it doesn’t taste like an orange or a lemon. The Roman Catholic church is arguably the oldest and one of the largest Christian denominations. So it makes sense for Catholic-background posters to use it for comparison purposes when discussing other religions, particularly Christian religions, just as it makes sense for a Lutheran like Idmom to bring in information about her faith.</p>
<p>Is it showing poor restraint to mention American law when discussing European law? A lapse in etiquette to talk about the admissions policies of your child’s school when trying to understand the admissions policies of another U? </p>
<p>The idea is ludicrous and it makes your little false flag operation–if that’s what this is–less credible rather than more so. Actual Catholics are actually interested in discussing Catholicism with interested people. None of them hate the Church so much they don’t think it bears discussion.</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification, conyat. You seem to be much better educated on the subject of papal infallibility than my parents were back in the 1960s-70s.</p>
<p>Thanks, lealdragon.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s ever been very well understood. Not even all Catholic scholars agree on which pronouncements prior to 1870 should be considered infallible and which shouldn’t. </p>
<p>And the changes of the 60s-70s era probably made it worse. I had two great aunts who never did accept Mass in the vernacular. Fortunately, this wasn’t an infallible proclamation; there was always an option for a parish to petition the bishop to have a Latin mass every so often, so even at their funerals in the late 1990s, the mass was in Latin. Now Pope Benedict is talking about making the option more widely available.</p>
<p>ellemenope–Thanks for the clarification. </p>
<p>Is a temple divorce the same as getting your sealing cancelled?
Do Women have to have their sealing cancelled to be sealed to someone else?
Do men?
Can a woman be sealed to more than one man?
Can a man?
Is it harder for a woman to get a sealing cancelled then for a man?</p>
<p>The impression I got from my mormon friend was that it was a very chauvenistic system. He was very open about it and very unapologetic.</p>
<p>Now that I think of it, I remember him saying something about how they are reluctant to cancel a woman’s sealing unless a sealing to another man is iminent. Is that true?</p>
<h2>“Btw, no one asked me, I know, but I think your insinuations about the LDS church and Romney are rather disturbing, ldmom. Just mho, of course.”</h2>
<p>HH - I wasn’t aware I was insinuating anything. I believe I was pretty straightforward in my statements. I believe the Mormon Church is going out of their way to be verbal, in an unprecedented way, to clarify, or comfort if you will, those who have reservations about LDS tenets, past and present…to make sure those reservations don’t cost Mitt Romney any conservative votes. </p>
<p>Why is me mentioning it more disturbing than the possibility of the Mormon Church doing it?</p>
<p>“conyat - I believe there was a new ‘proclamation’ on the ‘Seed of Cain’ doctrine in early 2007…for the purpose of clarifying that while the Church membership does believe in the contents of the Book of Mormon, it does not agree with racism (say what?)…and for purpose of smoothing things a bit for Mitt Romney.”</p>
<p>Idmom - are you sure they weren’t just smoothing the way for Harry Reid? Or just maybe they were smoothing the way for the Mormom church which has done an incredile amount of proselytizing and recruiting in South America, Africa and other third world countries. They have also been astoundingly successful at it and have also een very successful recruiting minorities in this country. I live around the corner from a major Mormon temple not in Utah and I can attest it is visited by a virtual United Nations of faces and tongues.</p>
<p>The charitable work of the LDS Church both in the US and the underdeveloped world has also been of staggering proportions. I can find a lot of things about Mormomism that would require way more faith than I could ever muster but they have unquestionably done more charitable work per-capita than any other organized faith group and have done it without regard to the race creed or color of the recipient. John Smith, Brigham Young, and the LDS Church were creatures of their time and place. Nearly every organized religion was as bigoted or more bigoted than the Mormom Church and I think it it is really unfair to suggest that today’s Mormoms are bigots.</p>
<p>I am not a fan of the Mormom Church but having been a 10 year old Irish-American Catholic kid in 1960 I am a little sensitive to folks who mix their political disagreements and their religious disagreements and I don’t care if the guy being picked on is named Kennedy, Liberman, Carter, Romney, or Harry Reid for that matter.</p>
<p>higherlead - show me where I state I have a political disagreement with Mitt Romney. </p>
<p>I can show you where I clearly state I am not addressing whether Romney is fit, or not, for the White House. Rather, I am addressing the very interesting (in content and timing) actions of the Mormon Church in last few months regarding clarification of their current position on such issues as racism.</p>
<p>Btw…“picked on”?? My, you do a lot of reading between the lines don’t you? Please, try not to re-word my thoughts into something they are not. I would greatly appreciate that.</p>
<p>Idmom06 - and I am telling you that the actions of the Church of Latter Saints over the last three decades have been more clarification than any reasonable person needs to determine if they are racists. The answer is an emphatic No.</p>
<p>Now if you want to ask if they are a nutag cult that is another question entirely 
Like I say I am not a fan but I don’t believe in attacking any person or group for stuff they are not guilty of and truth be told pretty much any religion sounds pretty nutty at times, my own included.</p>
<p>okaaaay…again…where have I attacked the LDS church for ‘stuff they are not guilty of’. I posted two excerpts from the Book of Mormon…facts. I posted a reference to the recent proclamation about the Seed of Cain tenet…facts. (I also posted a personal story of a friend who was Mormon…again facts.)</p>
<p>I do think it is difficult to reconcile what is actually stated repeatedly in their Book of Mormon about the inferiority of Native Americans, blacks, Jews and other minorities…with their relatively new and enlightened position. I applaud the ‘new and enlightened position’, but what I want to know is are they renouncing those parts of the Book of Mormon. This is a question that has been asked and will NOT be directly answered by the Church for some reason. They will state the ‘old ways’ were wrong, the ‘old leaders’ were wrong…but will they state the Book of Mormon is wrong? Simple question…the answer to which would go a long way in determining sincerity imho.</p>
<p>Again, don’t jump to conclusions. Asking a question is NOT an attack, nor is it wrong. Quashing discussion or condemning those who ask uncomfortable questions…now perhaps THAT is an attack.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree! This is why I find these religion threads posing “innocent” “questions” very aggravating. No matter how each person tries to deny their intent, it’s always about criticizing one religion or another. One has a bone to pick with the Catholics on the gay issue (one of many), one has a bone to pick with the Mormons on the minorities issue, or the feminist issue and on and on and on. </p>
<p>It never resolves anything and it simply hurts the feelings of the people whose religion is presently being picked apart by the various cc experts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is, in my book, an insinuating statement, which, btw, has veered far off course from the OP, which I predicted around 100 posts ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You typed that with a straight face?</p>
<p>Unlike Romney, Reid was no stranger to the national spotlight prior to 2007 or even 2006. He had already been Minority Whip of the Senate and Senate Democratic Leader, and there was even a movie made about his efforts to fight corruption in the Nevada gaming industry.</p>
<p>sara, I did some research into your questions. In general, though a woman can be sealed to more than one man, only one of these sealings will be recognized in the afterlife. She will have only one husband, but her husband will likely have more than one wife. He will have as wives any woman he was sealed to during his lifetime, as well as any women who die unmarried that might be assigned to him later. Since 1999, it is no longer a hard and fast rule that a woman can only be unsealed if she has another husband imminent. Some sources indicate that a woman can be unsealed only if her husband agrees, and all sources agree that a man never needs his wife’s permission to be unsealed. The temple leadership has a great deal of discretion in granting unsealings. More specifics here: <a href=“http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm[/url]”>http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>HH, I didn’t realise that the Lord had granted you the gift to look into another’s mind and know his or her intent. Again, I think this is just another chance to try to take a cheap shot at the non-dominionists.</p>
<p>A little fun from Stanley Kurtz (which even references your favorite site--religioustolerance.org):</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp</a></p>
<p>Good night and good luck.</p>