When Mittens cried during his Meet the Press interview yesterday, I couldn’t help but wonder what kind of tears he shed… he never clarified.
He hates Gays this year. He would undoubtably cry if his Church accepted gays into the fold as well.. but I don’t think they would be tears of joy. I wonder if they were tears of joy for black men and women being allowed to worship under the Mormon faith.
Please share widely!
of learning horsemanship late in life there have been some side effects. Horses are prey animals so learning about their basic instincts I can apply it to another species, us, we are predatory animals.
<
p>The whole experience sort of grounds a person in the good old Yankee common sense type of way spiritually. That being said people who lack a human soul therefore lack the capacity to cry outside of it being a benefit to themselves personally.
<
p>I have seen the TV commercials of the mainstream right wing candidates and I can only equate all of these to another short lived period in the history of mankind which was relatively short lived. Adolph Hitler.
…on blacks JOINING the Mormon faith – merely a ban on serving in the priesthood, similar to that in the Roman church against women.
<
p>The Mormons lifted the ban 30 years ago; the Romans have theirs in place. But, since so many of the Democrats in the Legislature are Catholic, that makes it OK.
Where did you go to school again?
<
p>
<
p>When you compare like to like, they look very similar in these prejudices. Nice try tho.
those are black men i am speaking of, of course, that can become LDS or RCC clergy. both of these houses of worship ban women of all complexions from the clergy (that would be the apple topic again).
Both discriminate. Discrimination based on race or gender, it’s still wrong.
As I understand it, the “priesthood” for Mormons is not the same as for the Catholic church. For Catholics, of course, the priesthood is the clergy — the parish priests, bishops, and cardinals. You can’t be a priest without, you know, going to seminary and all. But for Mormons, admission to the priesthood (which begins with the Aaronic Priesthood as young as age 12) is a prerequisite for any significant role in the church. A better analogy to the Mormons’ barring blacks from the Aaronic Priesthood would be if the Catholic Church had barred blacks from being altar boys. (Incidentally, I believe that the Vatican relatively recently authorized “altar girls,” at the local bishop’s option.)
<
p>By the way, PP, I believe the Mormons still restrict the priesthood to men! So be careful about how forward-looking you make them out to be.
Being a member of the clergy is not a prerequisite for being a cardinal. As a layman I could be appointed to the College of Cardinals, though the last time this happened was in the 19th century, I believe. To be a member of the clergy is to be a deacon, a priest, or a bishop. The title ‘cardinal’ is just that.
though it doesn’t affect my major point.
There was a great novel with that premise.
I think there are guidelines that prohibit it (candidate should already be a bishop, hold certain educational credentials, etc), but if the Spirit moved them there is really nothing stopping the College from electing me Pope. I’d be ordained a deacon, a priest, and then a bishop (skipping over cardinal, David ;)), and then once bishop could be installed as the Bishop of Rome.
<
p>The only novel I know of with that premise was written by Ray Flynn, and it was lousy. He should stick to the mayoring and ambassadoring. We all have talents. Fiction writing isn’t one of his.
Now that I think of it, the man elected Pope in Flynn’s novel was already a priest, but living as a lay man, so it is slightly different.
…called Hadrian the Seventh, by Baron Corvo, which is about a British writer chosen Pope, who smokes on the holy throne and wants to re-design the Crucifix for more modern sensibilites.
It seems that all men are ordained into the LDS priesthood, and, as David points out, for children growing up in the Church, the priesthood is conferred on boys at age 12. This sounds closer in analogy to confirmation, but I am not an LDS expert. So in fact Black people may have been able to attend worship services, but they were denied any meaningful membership in the church.
<
p>So in 1978 12-year-old white boys could hold the most basic of membership in the LDS Church, but a grown Black man could not. What would have happened at your Church in 1978, Peter, if they did not allow Black people of any age to be confirmed?
…to this remark:
<
p>
<
p>…the inference being that they could not worship until 1978. Which is nonsense.
<
p>Case in point – I am an ordained lay speaker. But while I chose to participate more fully in services, that doesn’t make me any more or less a member of the congregation or worshipper than those who chose to remain in the pews.
The LDS priesthood is the most basic of membership for males in the church.
<
p>How long does it take to become a member of the Catholic Church? About a year is my understanding. Imagine telling Black people they can’t become confirmed Catholics? Imagine telling Black male children attending Synagogue they can’t have a Bar Mitzvah? I could worship at Saint Mark’s or Congregation Chai Odom, but I do not have membership conferred upon me. Would they prevent membership due to race 30 years ago?
<
p>Another thing is that not being allowed into the priesthood would deny Black people entrance into the Mormon Temple, you know, like the one in Belmont (weekly worship service is held in the wards or the meeting house). How does being denied entry into the temple make one feel as if they are fully a part of the congregation? People denied entrance into the temple also cannot get baptized or married.
<
p>You make it sounds as if the LDS policy was barely discriminatory at all, but Black people were denied the fulfillment of the basic rights of participating in a faith.
<
p>
What were YOU doing 30 years ago?
Were you even born?
<
p>I see a lot of passes being given to people for things that happened on 30+ years ago. Things that they may or may not have had influence or control over. Why the obsession with THIS one?
<
p>Are you willing to hold all of YOUR sacred cows to a 30+ year lookback?
<
p>Careful now.
<
p>Think about it.
…is with Peter’s insistence that the LDS Church wasn’t a structurally racist institution 30 years ago. Peter acts as if it was merely an inconvenience that Black people were marginalized from LDS instead of what it really was, a wholesale devaluation of their person-hood in the context of the Church.
<
p>
I think Mormons denied the priesthood to blacks, just like Catholics still deny the priesthood to women. They stopped, the Catholics continue. They were/are both wrong, IMO.
<
p>Are women marginalized in the structurally sexist Catholic church, de-valued in their personhood? If so, why no attack on Catholic politicians? Of course, here in MA they’re Democrats…
it doesn’t make it better. BOTH the Mormons and the Catholics deny women the priesthood or equivalent. Whereas, the Catholics long ago (19th century) opened the priesthood to black men. So in the case of skin color, the Catholics actually saw the light long before the Mormons ever did. So, to point fingers at the Catholics and not at the Mormons in this context is just plain stupid and obnoxious.
…this is not like Catholics denying the priesthood to women. In no way, shape or form is it like the RCC denying the priesthood to women. In no way, shape, or form does RCC priesthood resemble LDS priesthood.
<
p>Why is this so hard to communicate? Where have I or David failed to be clear?
so pretends not to hear you. or David. or me. it is childish and manipulative, but she is after all charged with defending Romney. if i had such a hill to climb, i might be tempted to plug my ears too.
…if, as an adult, you or I want to join a local RCC parish, we must participate in a year long Catholic adult education class before we are permitted to be baptized. If anyone knows better than I, please correct me.
“Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults”, a process that takes about 1-2 years before one is allowed first Eucharist.
“Membership” in the context employed here arrives at baptism, which for Ctaholics usually occurs in infancy.
It isn’t accurate to say that Catholics are members of “the Roman church.” If anything, with dioceses being the central unit of the Catholic Church, it would be more precise to say that we are members of the Boston Church. To call refer to it as the Roman church would be just as inaccurate as referring to the Southern Baptists as the Tennessean Church because they are headquartered in Nashville.
The word ‘catholic’ means worldwide and all-inclusive. We still us the Apostles’ Creed, which affirms belief in the ‘holy catholic’ church. We do not mean the ROMAN Catholic chruch, and in Protestant circles, it is not uncommon to call it the Roman church. That is a usage that is decreasing with time, so I date myself once again, but that is the genesis of that useage – to distinguish the ‘catholic’ community of Christian believers from the Roman Catholic denomination.
I was quite surprised the first time a heard it in a Methodist service. A lady who must have seen my face leaned over, winked, and whispered “Small ‘c,’ dear.”
<
p>Nevertheless, the phrase is reminiscent of the archaic “Romish” and tends to provoke a reaction among Catholics not unlike the reaction among Democrats to the phrase “Democrat Congress.”
In all my years in American Baptist and UCC churches, I never heard that term used. It was either “catholic” or “Roman Catholic”. Never “Roman Church”. So it may be a “protestant thing”, but it is in no way used or even known by all protestants.
<
p>just an fyi for no particular reason.
but as i said, i was in american baptist churches. i have no idea what terms other types of baptists might use. as i recall, “papist” was considered somewhat derogatory and this is why the term was not used. the churches i was involved with respected other christians even while disagreeing with them in fundamental ways. therefore, there was no room for such derogatory terms.