Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
dande48 wrote:
-Bishops, Priests, and all clerics were barred from marriage in 305AD.-St. Anthony established monasticism for the Church in 305AD.
-The Nicean Creed was made in 325AD.
…and pretty much tossed the idea of celibate clergy. As a result, it was generally ignored for another 800 years before finally being codified in 1139.
Rumin8 wrote:Watching the church build lavish temples, malls, and huge office buildings while we have giant holes in our parking lot and the members do all the janitorial is making this much harder to justify. My biggest issues are that I’m not great with WoW or core belief in the church.
Well, next F&T Sunday, have something worked up in the style of Ron White, and give it just the way he would.
[img width=200]http://mm-group.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/RonWhite_05.jpg [/img] That should settle all their concerns.
nibbler wrote:
Here’s a song to act as a mnemonic to help you remember the principle.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQTW7Pd1vqchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQTW7Pd1vqc” class=”bbcode_url”>
LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:You’re right, everything I’ve read so far indicates that the laws vary by county, but here in California (it is covered under Family Law) anyone over 18 can perform the marriage. Without ordination, you can pay a fee to be deputized for the day, or do an online free ordination and skip the fee. The main legal function is that of having each person declare their intent to marry (so coersion could still happen without the officiants knowledge), have witnesses and couple sign documents, and be the paperwork filer. I found nothing (or California at least) about additional documents for the incompetence/coersion, but as I dig deeper I’ll find out.
Sometimes the stringency of the requirements is a function of how hard it is to get an annulment after the fact; in places where it’s quick and easy, they’re less concerned about vetting everything beforehand.
LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:Essentially most States and counties do not require a lot of background from the officiator, but they do require the proper licensing and paperwork (and fees) from the couple.
This. IIRC, at least a few places the only requirements from the officiant are being of age to sign the paperwork, and signing a second document affirming that the officiant will not sign if there is any indication that either party is incompetent to enter into marriage or being coerced.
Katzpur wrote:My whole complaint is that it shouldn’t matter which comes first, the legal unifying of a couple or the sealing of that couple, and there shouldn’t be a waiting period for the sealing if the civil ceremony is conducted first.
This. As far as I can tell, the year wait is purely punitive, and strikes me as extremely petty. After all, if the couple is committing to eternity, making them prove it’ll last a year is just petty, especially given the number of people I’ve met who divorced within a couple years of being sealed. (And a fair number of them weren’t 18-21 year old kids, but adults in their 30s and beyond, often in a second or even third marriage, so the claims of youthful inexperience don’t hold water.)
dande48 wrote:The second was on a guy who testifies on how we died and went to the spirit world, and came back. It was riddled with all kinds of… untraditional doctrine. And he said he was writing it down as scripture for future generations.
Get friendly with him just in case: being in on the founding of a new religion can be quite the opportunity.
dande48 wrote:In the SP’s mind, since the wife “repented”, she was free of the sin of adultery, which means her husband was wrong to divorce her.
I wonder if said SP would so quickly welcome someone who had violated his most sacred trust back into his own life just because they claimed to repent. (And did so only after being caught.)
DarkJedi wrote:But the handbook is very clear on how disciplinary councils are supposed to work. Unfortunately, most (but not all ) of that is included in Handbook 1 and is unavailable to most.
Not unavailable, but somewhat inconvenient for some; my former bishop was quite open about handing over CHI1 and letting you read for yourself what the exact text was. In visiting other wards, I’ve occasionally pulled bishops aside for a question and gotten the same about 30-50% of the time when there was something in 1 that was relevant to my question, so as long as you have other wards in visiting range it’s highly likely that asking around will get you a look at the text reasonably easily.
SamBee wrote:But in the LDS we do things like this all the tme without realising it.
That’s a really pathetic excuse for not working to change the behavior.
Minyan Man wrote:My wife has friends in the Lutheran church & they told her that they developed a plan where after the services start, all exits are locked & posted by men who open the doors for anyone who comes in late.
Don’t know of any that lock the doors, but most churches tend to have greeters who physically block the inner doors during prayers and such, more to prevent someone just inattentively strolling in, banging the door open. Since they tend to be large men, (they also end up being the ones to fetch stacks of chairs when the pews fill up, hold the doors when it’s windy, help injured folks up the stairs, etc.) it’s also a de facto security detail. At least at the local Methodist church, I recognize one of them from tactical pistol competitions; I’d bet he’s carrying, and I know he’s better with it than the vast majority of armed guards.
Roy wrote:Also I believe that most bishops are not good therapists.
I just wish more of them would realize that. When my grandma died, a Baptist minister granddad had known for years invited many of the family to one-on-one meetings even though none of us were Baptist. The first thing he said in the meeting was “I’m not a grief counselor or therapist, though I can recommend a good one if you want. I”m a pastor and a friend: I’ll listen as much as you need, discuss what the Bible says about it if you want, and pray with you and for you. If you want a personal opinion, I might offer one, but that’s all it is.”
Here’s an interesting one; pain spinning. There’s nothing that particularly resembles a trance state, and yet the result sure looks like a negative hallucination (i.e. getting the mind to not perceive something that does exist) to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAYlt1OSUH8 Obviously this one picks up after the initial explanation, so if you poke through some of Snyder’s other videos, you can find the whole thing with intro, but there’s nothing that I would call a real induction either. Of course, in this case, it’s something the client wants very much, so the mind is more cooperative from the start, but still, it’s an effect generally associated with deep trance, happening in a fully aware state.
Roy wrote:I had just assumed that tobacco had veterinary uses.
It’s mainly used as a dewormer for horses and cattle. Rolled up in some meat, it can be used on dogs too.
