Waters, I think you've been looking for religious direction on this

[SeattleUte]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/wo...prod=permalink

[MikeWaters]

Yes, I do respect the Catholics for taking these things very seriously, and looking at them in a very thoughtful way, and disseminating their views in a forthright manner.

As I sit here at my keyboard, I wonder if Mormondom even has the intellectual/organizational capability to tackle this. I wonder what ad hoc committees these subjects would fall to. I suppose many of them would have institute and seminary teachers as well as BYU religion instructors.

It's times like these that when I wonder "why doesn't the church have a voice on these matters" or "why don't we get more 'thus saith the Lords'" that I think of Bruce McConkie, a well-meaning good man, and my insistence drops off precipitously.

[MikeWaters]

SU, your friends are very upset about this:
http://community.nytimes.com/article...13vatican.html

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

SU, your friends are very upset about this:
http://community.nytimes.com/article...13vatican.html

The vatican plays a useful role as foil to secularism. I respect that role. As you suggest it is one that must be played with extreme artistry and intelligence to be respected.

[Levin]

The Catholic committee that issued this document, Dignitas Personae, was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Cardinal Ratzinger headed prior to becoming Pope Benedict.

The Catholics have the cream of their professional clergy rise to the top -- like Cardinal Ratzinger, a brilliant man.

In the LDS Church, it seams that "by study" gets short shrift to "by faith" -- perhaps even in leadership, if one is to judge such things by the books they publish. I'd love to hear about Pres. Monson taking a two week vacation, as Benedict does, to read and write, and when he emerges to have a beautiful sermon on love, as Benedict did last year.

Also, it would be great if we could get more thoughtful pieces out of Conference, but that isn't the forum for these types of edicts to come from. They're all too scared (except for Oaks, Packer, and Nelson on occassion) to say something authoritative akin to binding the church to a position on an issue.

I think this is one area where the Catholic church benefits from a professional clergy that is trained at first-rate seminaries. They instill rigor and "by study" early on, and the brilliant (but conversvative under Pope John Paul and Ratzy) rise to the top, and are able to issue such edicts. In our Church, it's the moneyed and successful administrators, for the most part, that rise to the top. You may get an effectively run organization, but you won't get a 32-page Dignitas Personae.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

The Catholic committee that issued this document, Dignitas Personae, was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Cardinal Ratzinger headed prior to becoming Pope Benedict.

The Catholics have the cream of their professional clergy rise to the top -- like Cardinal Ratzinger, a brilliant man.

In the LDS Church, it seams that "by study" gets short shrift to "by faith" -- perhaps even in leadership, if one is to judge such things by the books they publish. I'd love to hear about Pres. Monson taking a two week vacation, as Benedict does, to read and write, and when he emerges to have a beautiful sermon on love, as Benedict did last year.

Also, it would be great if we could get more thoughtful pieces out of Conference, but that isn't the forum for these types of edicts to come from. They're all too scared (except for Oaks, Packer, and Nelson on occassion) to say something authoritative akin to binding the church to a position on an issue.

I think this is one area where the Catholic church benefits from a professional clergy that is trained at first-rate seminaries. They instill rigor and "by study" early on, and the brilliant (but conversvative under Pope John Paul and Ratzy) rise to the top, and are able to issue such edicts. In our Church, it's the moneyed and successful administrators, for the most part, that rise to the top. You may get an effectively run organization, but you won't get a 32-page Dignitas Personae.

The LDS church has a professional clergy-type. It's called CES. And they have their own version of a seminary as well. It's called FARMS (or was called that, can't remember if the name has changed).

You can't truly be thoughtful about anything when you can't even admit your founder practiced polygamy in your official literature.

That's the level where we are at. Not honest with ourselves.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Levin

The Catholic committee that issued this document, Dignitas Personae, was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Cardinal Ratzinger headed prior to becoming Pope Benedict.

The Catholics have the cream of their professional clergy rise to the top -- like Cardinal Ratzinger, a brilliant man.

In the LDS Church, it seams that "by study" gets short shrift to "by faith" -- perhaps even in leadership, if one is to judge such things by the books they publish. I'd love to hear about Pres. Monson taking a two week vacation, as Benedict does, to read and write, and when he emerges to have a beautiful sermon on love, as Benedict did last year.

Also, it would be great if we could get more thoughtful pieces out of Conference, but that isn't the forum for these types of edicts to come from. They're all too scared (except for Oaks, Packer, and Nelson on occassion) to say something authoritative akin to binding the church to a position on an issue.

I think this is one area where the Catholic church benefits from a professional clergy that is trained at first-rate seminaries. They instill rigor and "by study" early on, and the brilliant (but conversvative under Pope John Paul and Ratzy) rise to the top, and are able to issue such edicts. In our Church, it's the moneyed and successful administrators, for the most part, that rise to the top. You may get an effectively run organization, but you won't get a 32-page Dignitas Personae.

Good post. For me, Merrill Bateman is kind of the prototype GA that you describe. I'm sure he's a good man (despite the plagiarism thing), but his background is in management. He doesn't seem like the type of person who is likely to produce anything remotely scholarly or even have a nuanced view on any spiritual topic.