Also the Inquisition was used to solidify the power of Ferdinand and Isabella and the unification of Aragon and Castille. Most "inquisitions" have at their foundations a political necessity that is covered with a veneer of saintliness.
... and since back then, there was no separation between church and state, the church also had their applications of political necessities (read: total control) covered with the 'veneer of saintliness'.
This is why I would dread "the Word over the world" in a religious sense.
The church at that time, married itself to the world, so to speak. Civil and religious law were one. Hey, if one's going to burn in hell anyway, why not torture him now - who cares, we're doing God a favor.
I also note, 3/4s of the people killed or tortured were women.
It was a disgraceful time in Christian religious history. But I must ask myself, were these "leaders" really Christians? I suspect not.
The adversary using religion to kill those who were.
The reformation finally threw off the yoke of this so-called "christianity."
This is why the religious right scares so many americans, including Christians.
What really can you say about the inquisition? The same evil behind it, I almost think in our modern time is behind the extremist Islamic movement - I really see no difference between the two.
Well, I, for one, fully support the concept of the Inquisition. (you do know what that concept is, right?)
I don't support the excesses of the Inquisition in Spain. But, on the other hand, I also don't support thousands of English Catholics being executed for not giving supporting the Anglicans. I don't support thousands of German Catholics being put to death for not converting to the Lutheran Church. I also don't support the Puritans in this country burning alleged "witches" at the stake.
And, by the way, I wish that the modern-day equivalent, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, would act a little more "inquisitive" than it does.
Sure, a lot of us understand the concept of 'inquisition' (ie., the church inquiring as to what one believes, whether remaining true to orthodoxy or to turning heretical).
Problem is, Mark, is that it never really remained at 'just inquiring', particularly when you have an organization, integrated with the enforcement power of the state, to make sure that everybody 'stays on the straight and narrow path' of the church's authority. And, as you have correctly pointed out, this isn't just limited to the Catholic Church, but extends to (at least) the Protestants as well.
One point has been brought up earlier, humorously illustrated by that Monty Python skit, is that no one 'expects the inquisition'. Which means that it could come from anywhere, and from anyone. Particularly if no one is looking to actively prevent it.
Frankly, I don't see why it shouldn't be up to the individual to determine how orthodox they need to be, or which doctrine they want to follow. .....
..... then there would be no institutional abuse to be afflicted upon anyone.
Frankly, I don't see why it shouldn't be up to the individual to determine how orthodox they need to be, or which doctrine they want to follow. .....
..... then there would be no institutional abuse to be afflicted upon anyone.
I absolutely agree with the above.
And if a person doesn't agree with Catholic doctrine...then don't be Catholic.
And if a person doesn't agree with Baptist doctrine...then don't be a Baptist.
And if a person doesn't agree with Wiccan doctrine...then don't be a Wiccan.
And if a person doesn't agree with Atheist doctrine...then don't be an Atheist.
Regardless of the group, if you don't agree with the doctrine of the group, then don't be a part of that group. Whatever you do, don't pretend to be a 'believer' and then work to undermine the core tenets of that group's beliefs...
See, Garth, GSC is a pluralistic society. We don't have a set doctrine except for don't attack others. If you violate that one doctrine, then you'll likely end up (at best) shunned (i.e., the 'ignore' button) or at worst exiled (banned).
Any societal group has its norms (doctrines) to which people are expected to adhere. And those societal groups have the right to defend themselves against those who would violate those norms. I don't care if you're talking about a community, an Elks lodge, a bridge club, or a church. Hopefully those groups have some sort of a judicial process to assure that the accused is not wrongly sanctioned. Because if you don't, you just have lynchings. (Or the TWI equivalent: M&A)
And that was (and is) the purpose of the Inquisition: to provide that eccleastical court to deal with accusations. And, by the way, it exists in every Catholic diocese to this day in the form of the diocesan tribunal (the guy you have to go to in order to have a marriage annulled). And it exists in a lot of other denominations in varying forms.
Regardless of the group, if you don't agree with the doctrine of the group, then don't be a part of that group. Whatever you do, don't pretend to be a 'believer' and then work to undermine the core tenets of that group's beliefs...
Not to derail anything here but this is an awsome point! My mind automatically went to the many discussions that we have had on this board concerning folks that stayed or stay in TWI to try and change it, myself included. How fundimentally incorrect was that? (hypothetical) Hmmm...something more for me to think on.
And that was (and is) the purpose of the Inquisition: to provide that eccleastical court to deal with accusations.
I agree that this is the purpose of an inquisition, but I am not so certain that this was the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition. I think that it may have been initially introduced this way to sell the idea to the faithful but I think that the core reason was more political in nature than it was for the purity or defense of the church/faith.
With a limited number of churches to choose from, it seems a reality that no one will fully agree with any one of them, unless they are willing to simply submit to what they are told. There are large amounts of compromise, and huge amounts of pretending to believe, while clearly displaying by lifestyle that real belief is contrary to the Sunday persona. (with MarkO seeming to be a notably unpretentious exception)
I don't see the pretenders as trying to undermine doctrine so much, more just a desire to be part of the group for moral or social reasons, without accepting all the beliefs ... (in some cases apparently, there is some concerted effort to introduce new doctrines, like the homosexual "Christian" advocates, but I'm thinking of the average Joe)
So am I correct to understand that these inquisitions are sort of setting a minimum standard to maintain membership? I guess the church sets official doctrine, and these modern day "inquisitions" are really only setting lines that can't be crossed if you want to continue in that faith. And of course some churches seem to have almost no lines that would actually expel one from the church (excommunicated?).
If you get a divorce that is not accepted by the church, what happens? Is there some sort of scarlet letter? Or do the boards of inquisition mostly enforce standards with preaching and peer pressure?
Actually, Wicca is a religion more about practice than about doctrine since it is not a revealed religion like Christianity—which is hard for Christians to grasp, I think. Wiccan groups don’t (in general) expect everyone to believe or practice the same jot and title. There is no central authority.
Groups are more an agreement to practice certain rituals in certain ways at certain times using certain symbols etc—not because other ways are ‘wrong’ but because the shared symbolism/experience is more powerful in the group setting.
Not to derail anything here but this is an awsome point! My mind automatically went to the many discussions that we have had on this board concerning folks that stayed or stay in TWI to try and change it, myself included. How fundimentally incorrect was that? (hypothetical) Hmmm...something more for me to think on.
Don't take the wrong point here...
Were you trying to correct corruption or were you trying to change fundamental doctrines?
(e.g., teach TWI that they were in error with their JCNG doctrine...)
If, by saying "change TWI," you mean something along the lines of the latter, then you're agreeing with what I am saying. If you are talking about correcting the behavior of certain leaders who were abusing their posistions, then that is not at all the same thing.
With a limited number of churches to choose from, it seems a reality that no one will fully agree with any one of them, unless they are willing to simply submit to what they are told. There are large amounts of compromise, and huge amounts of pretending to believe, while clearly displaying by lifestyle that real belief is contrary to the Sunday persona. (with MarkO seeming to be a notably unpretentious exception)
I don't see the pretenders as trying to undermine doctrine so much, more just a desire to be part of the group for moral or social reasons, without accepting all the beliefs ... (in some cases apparently, there is some concerted effort to introduce new doctrines, like the homosexual "Christian" advocates, but I'm thinking of the average Joe)
So am I correct to understand that these inquisitions are sort of setting a minimum standard to maintain membership? I guess the church sets official doctrine, and these modern day "inquisitions" are really only setting lines that can't be crossed if you want to continue in that faith. And of course some churches seem to have almost no lines that would actually expel one from the church (excommunicated?).
If you get a divorce that is not accepted by the church, what happens? Is there some sort of scarlet letter? Or do the boards of inquisition mostly enforce standards with preaching and peer pressure?
By and large, excellent point Rhino! And excellent questions.
I agree that this is the purpose of an inquisition, but I am not so certain that this was the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition. I think that it may have been initially introduced this way to sell the idea to the faithful but I think that the core reason was more political in nature than it was for the purity or defense of the church/faith.
You are right that the Spanish Inquisition had some unique characteristics. The fact that the Inquisitors were under control of the National government, vice directly under the control of Rome, some of the corruption with which it was plagued (from time to time), etc.
But I wonder how many of the tales of horror were the result of fact and how many of them are just part of the 'Black Legend.'
Were you trying to correct corruption or were you trying to change fundamental doctrines?
(e.g., teach TWI that they were in error with their JCNG doctrine...)
If, by saying "change TWI," you mean something along the lines of the latter, then you're agreeing with what I am saying. If you are talking about correcting the behavior of certain leaders who were abusing their posistions, then that is not at all the same thing.
No, I was referring to the doctrines. Not at all referring to trying to change a person. That is a tough one and they have to want to change themselves. You can only help them if they want it.
First an historical correction: In the colonies ,which later became the United States of America, no one was ever "burned at the stake" for practicing withcraft. Hanging was the preferred method, Gilesl Corey was killed by being pressed to death by stones piled on a board across his chest, and, if memory serves, there were some who drowned while being dunked in water to see if they floated --but no burnings
Now back to the question
There is a difference between a churches Canon of beliefs and behaviors which certain groups within the church have adopted as "correct"
For example within the LDS faith the canon of beliefs, called the Articles of Faith, says, in part:
That we believe in God, the Eternal father and in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
That Men will be punished for their sins and not the transgression of Adam.
That all men may be saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ by obeying the principles and commandmets of the Gospel
That the first 4 principles of obiedience [sic] are, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and the recieving of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.
other parts of the canon call for accepting that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God, we are required to obey the laws of our government, we are to adhere to the principles of chasity, kindness, charity ......
You get the idea
This is the canon-- If you don't agree with the canon you have several options:
you can attend LDS services, parties etc and enjoy the fellowship without ever becoming a member.
You can renounce your membership, and still attend LDS Services, parties , etc and enjoy the fellowship.
BUt what the church will not sanction, nor should it be expected to, is you retaining your membership in the church, while declaring or behaving in such a manner that suggests that all or part of the Articles of Faith are not true or preaching doctrine contrary or undermining to the Articles of Faith all the while declaring yourself to be LDS thus giving the impression that this is what the LDS Church represents.
How long would any organization survive if it's membership were allowed to go about spreading lies about what the organization stands for or denouncing what they believe?? Clearly those persons who engage in such practices should not expect that the organization they are thus maligning should be required to permit them to retain their membership in said orgainization.
That said, denouncing the canon of a faith is not the same as not accepting, which for lack of a better word, I call "home grown ideaology".
For example there are groups of individual LDS in this country who feel that playing any card game with the face cards (JQK) is of the devil and avoid people who do. Is this canon? No. Does the church care which side of this issue you are on? No. There are LDS who will tell you that keeping the Sabbath holy means that you are not allowed to watch any TV on Sunday. Is this canon? No? Does the church sanction you for watching TV on the Sabbath? No.
So if you are talking about the church intervening or watching out for these "home grown Ideaologies" That is not what an "inquistion" is about UNLESS said "home Grown Idealogies" threaten or undermine the canon.
An inquistion, or as markomalley put it an "inquiring", is done when it is brought to the attention of the bishopric of a ward that someone is commiting adultry, breaking the civil law by commiting robbery, rape etc., spreading doctrince contrary to the LDS canon and, so forth and so on.
When that happens all parties are questioned by the bishopric and inquiries are made as to the truth of said allegations. Once it has been established that the allegation is true, a member may be "punished" in several ways all the way from a repremand [sic] to excommunication.
This is not done because hurting the individual so punished is something the church desires but rather so that a clear messaage is sent that the church will not tolerate the destruction of the Canon that it is founded upon.
Why anyone would want to associate with a group on a regular basis with whom they disagreed with is beyond me, rather like choosing to spend time with your abusive ex husband IMO.
But I wonder how many of the tales of horror were the result of fact and how many of them are just part of the 'Black Legend.'
That is a very good question Mark. In Siouxzahn's first post she made this quote:
"Supposedly only about 3000-5000 were actually put to death through the Spanish Inquisition specifically, and for that relatively small number Spain and the Spanish (Catholic) Church want to be better thought of than they have been, since during the same time period, some 150,000 were put to death across Europe for heresy and witchcraft...."
So I wonder how many of those 150,000 are still attributed to the "Spanish" Inquisition? So often I hear of the Spanish Inquisition and the heresy trials and the witchcraft trials of Europe all spoken of in the same breath as if they were all part of the one i.e. the Spanish Inquisition. Obviously some of the other "trials" took place in Spain, but all of them cannot and should not be placed at the feet of the Spanish. Hmmmm....time to do some research.
He wanted the Jewish and Muslim religions wiped out in his domains and - for him - the Purpose Of Spanish Inquisition was a means of achieving that aim.
Why anyone would want to associate with a group on a regular basis with whom they disagreed with is beyond me, rather like choosing to spend time with your abusive ex husband IMO.
Thanks TL,
that makes sense, though to me when doctrine made a difference, I would want "my own" interpretation, even if I found the church I mostly agreed with. I wouldn't feel a need to make waves or teach mine though.
But I think of people I knew that were raised Catholic and went to Catholic school, their social life revolved around the church maybe, but their acceptance of church cannon certainly seemed widely varied. I'm not sure it would be socially acceptable to hang out, while denouncing your membership because you didn't accept every item of the canon. It seems much of what came down from Rome was disregarded ... the rules on birth control come to mind.
Actually, Wicca is a religion more about practice than about doctrine since it is not a revealed religion like Christianity—which is hard for Christians to grasp, I think. Wiccan groups don’t (in general) expect everyone to believe or practice the same jot and title. There is no central authority.
From reading your posts, I understand a whole lot more about Wicca than I did a couple of years ago.
But one point: for those Wiccans who practice their faith in groups (covens or whatever), you are saying that there are no norms? In other words, a person could be a member of a group (again, coven, or whatever) and then spout Southern Baptist doctrine about witchcraft? And trying to convince others within that group that the Southern Baptist view is the correct view? There would be no sanction against such a person? The person would be able to continue as a member of that coven or whatever?
Rhino, you said:
I don't see the pretenders as trying to undermine doctrine so much, more just a desire to be part of the group for moral or social reasons, without accepting all the beliefs ... (in some cases apparently, there is some concerted effort to introduce new doctrines, like the homosexual "Christian" advocates, but I'm thinking of the average Joe)
The average Joe wouldn't be the one gone after by an inquisition of whatever kind. Those who are trying to undermine the faith are those who are (or at least should be) the ones that are the subject of inquiry.
Eyesopen, you said:
So I think I got the right point...yes?
Bingo!
You then said:
So I wonder how many of those 150,000 are still attributed to the "Spanish" Inquisition? So often I hear of the Spanish Inquisition and the heresy trials and the witchcraft trials of Europe all spoken of in the same breath as if they were all part of the one i.e. the Spanish Inquisition. Obviously some of the other "trials" took place in Spain, but all of them cannot and should not be placed at the feet of the Spanish. Hmmmm....time to do some research.
Research is a good thing.
Particularly if you use a diversity of sources in accomplishing that research.
Templelady (Maureen), you said:
Why anyone would want to associate with a group on a regular basis with whom they disagreed with is beyond me, rather like choosing to spend time with your abusive ex husband IMO.
I would intuitively think the same as you, but for some unknown reason there are those groups who feel that it is their mission to do so and to, imho, undermine the group with which they are associating. In the Catholic Church, included are those groups who want the Church to change her position on abortion, those who want the Church to change her position on female ordination, those who want the Church to change her position on any number of items...none of which are possible even if the Church was inclined to do so (as they would require a change in fundamental dogma that goes FAR beyond the change that those heretics want). Why they just don't join a group that they agree with is beyond me.
To ALL:
The bottom line is that a group has the right to establish norms and then to apply some sort of sanction against those who seek to undermine that group through violation of those norms. That's a fact. Whether you talk about a religion, a non-relgious social gathering, a nation-state, an educational institution, or whatever.
You may not like interrogation techniques of the past. I sure don't. But they were used. By almost all groups...if not literally all groups. Is that a function of the specific group? Or is that a function of the time in which those techniques were used?
Recommended Posts
George Aar
"What's your take on all this?"
Superstition is B.S. no matter what form it takes, or how holy or loving it tries to behave.
Sooner or later, obeisance to mindless nonsense will bite one in the posterior.
Religion will be the death of us all...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
What's my take on it?
Mostly surprise.
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!
(somebody had to
)
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Also the Inquisition was used to solidify the power of Ferdinand and Isabella and the unification of Aragon and Castille. Most "inquisitions" have at their foundations a political necessity that is covered with a veneer of saintliness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... and since back then, there was no separation between church and state, the church also had their applications of political necessities (read: total control) covered with the 'veneer of saintliness'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
This is why I would dread "the Word over the world" in a religious sense.
The church at that time, married itself to the world, so to speak. Civil and religious law were one. Hey, if one's going to burn in hell anyway, why not torture him now - who cares, we're doing God a favor.
I also note, 3/4s of the people killed or tortured were women.
It was a disgraceful time in Christian religious history. But I must ask myself, were these "leaders" really Christians? I suspect not.
The adversary using religion to kill those who were.
The reformation finally threw off the yoke of this so-called "christianity."
This is why the religious right scares so many americans, including Christians.
What really can you say about the inquisition? The same evil behind it, I almost think in our modern time is behind the extremist Islamic movement - I really see no difference between the two.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Well, I, for one, fully support the concept of the Inquisition. (you do know what that concept is, right?)
I don't support the excesses of the Inquisition in Spain. But, on the other hand, I also don't support thousands of English Catholics being executed for not giving supporting the Anglicans. I don't support thousands of German Catholics being put to death for not converting to the Lutheran Church. I also don't support the Puritans in this country burning alleged "witches" at the stake.
And, by the way, I wish that the modern-day equivalent, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, would act a little more "inquisitive" than it does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Oh, by the way, you weren't expecting to hear that answer on this board, were you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sure, a lot of us understand the concept of 'inquisition' (ie., the church inquiring as to what one believes, whether remaining true to orthodoxy or to turning heretical).
Problem is, Mark, is that it never really remained at 'just inquiring', particularly when you have an organization, integrated with the enforcement power of the state, to make sure that everybody 'stays on the straight and narrow path' of the church's authority. And, as you have correctly pointed out, this isn't just limited to the Catholic Church, but extends to (at least) the Protestants as well.
One point has been brought up earlier, humorously illustrated by that Monty Python skit, is that no one 'expects the inquisition'. Which means that it could come from anywhere, and from anyone. Particularly if no one is looking to actively prevent it.
Frankly, I don't see why it shouldn't be up to the individual to determine how orthodox they need to be, or which doctrine they want to follow. .....
..... then there would be no institutional abuse to be afflicted upon anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I absolutely agree with the above.
And if a person doesn't agree with Catholic doctrine...then don't be Catholic.
And if a person doesn't agree with Baptist doctrine...then don't be a Baptist.
And if a person doesn't agree with Wiccan doctrine...then don't be a Wiccan.
And if a person doesn't agree with Atheist doctrine...then don't be an Atheist.
Regardless of the group, if you don't agree with the doctrine of the group, then don't be a part of that group. Whatever you do, don't pretend to be a 'believer' and then work to undermine the core tenets of that group's beliefs...
See, Garth, GSC is a pluralistic society. We don't have a set doctrine except for don't attack others. If you violate that one doctrine, then you'll likely end up (at best) shunned (i.e., the 'ignore' button) or at worst exiled (banned).
Any societal group has its norms (doctrines) to which people are expected to adhere. And those societal groups have the right to defend themselves against those who would violate those norms. I don't care if you're talking about a community, an Elks lodge, a bridge club, or a church. Hopefully those groups have some sort of a judicial process to assure that the accused is not wrongly sanctioned. Because if you don't, you just have lynchings. (Or the TWI equivalent: M&A)
And that was (and is) the purpose of the Inquisition: to provide that eccleastical court to deal with accusations. And, by the way, it exists in every Catholic diocese to this day in the form of the diocesan tribunal (the guy you have to go to in order to have a marriage annulled). And it exists in a lot of other denominations in varying forms.
And, as I said earlier, it's a good thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Not to derail anything here but this is an awsome point! My mind automatically went to the many discussions that we have had on this board concerning folks that stayed or stay in TWI to try and change it, myself included. How fundimentally incorrect was that? (hypothetical) Hmmm...something more for me to think on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I agree that this is the purpose of an inquisition, but I am not so certain that this was the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition. I think that it may have been initially introduced this way to sell the idea to the faithful but I think that the core reason was more political in nature than it was for the purity or defense of the church/faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
With a limited number of churches to choose from, it seems a reality that no one will fully agree with any one of them, unless they are willing to simply submit to what they are told. There are large amounts of compromise, and huge amounts of pretending to believe, while clearly displaying by lifestyle that real belief is contrary to the Sunday persona. (with MarkO seeming to be a notably unpretentious exception)
I don't see the pretenders as trying to undermine doctrine so much, more just a desire to be part of the group for moral or social reasons, without accepting all the beliefs ... (in some cases apparently, there is some concerted effort to introduce new doctrines, like the homosexual "Christian" advocates, but I'm thinking of the average Joe)
So am I correct to understand that these inquisitions are sort of setting a minimum standard to maintain membership? I guess the church sets official doctrine, and these modern day "inquisitions" are really only setting lines that can't be crossed if you want to continue in that faith. And of course some churches seem to have almost no lines that would actually expel one from the church (excommunicated?).
If you get a divorce that is not accepted by the church, what happens? Is there some sort of scarlet letter? Or do the boards of inquisition mostly enforce standards with preaching and peer pressure?
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Actually, Wicca is a religion more about practice than about doctrine since it is not a revealed religion like Christianity—which is hard for Christians to grasp, I think. Wiccan groups don’t (in general) expect everyone to believe or practice the same jot and title. There is no central authority.
Groups are more an agreement to practice certain rituals in certain ways at certain times using certain symbols etc—not because other ways are ‘wrong’ but because the shared symbolism/experience is more powerful in the group setting.
What someone actually believes is their business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think that is what scares some people. More freedom than a lot of them can handle..
plus more freedom than some would afford others..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Don't take the wrong point here...
Were you trying to correct corruption or were you trying to change fundamental doctrines?
(e.g., teach TWI that they were in error with their JCNG doctrine...)
If, by saying "change TWI," you mean something along the lines of the latter, then you're agreeing with what I am saying. If you are talking about correcting the behavior of certain leaders who were abusing their posistions, then that is not at all the same thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
:B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You are right that the Spanish Inquisition had some unique characteristics. The fact that the Inquisitors were under control of the National government, vice directly under the control of Rome, some of the corruption with which it was plagued (from time to time), etc.
But I wonder how many of the tales of horror were the result of fact and how many of them are just part of the 'Black Legend.'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
No, I was referring to the doctrines. Not at all referring to trying to change a person. That is a tough one and they have to want to change themselves. You can only help them if they want it.
So I think I got the right point...yes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
First an historical correction: In the colonies ,which later became the United States of America, no one was ever "burned at the stake" for practicing withcraft. Hanging was the preferred method, Gilesl Corey was killed by being pressed to death by stones piled on a board across his chest, and, if memory serves, there were some who drowned while being dunked in water to see if they floated --but no burnings
Now back to the question
There is a difference between a churches Canon of beliefs and behaviors which certain groups within the church have adopted as "correct"
For example within the LDS faith the canon of beliefs, called the Articles of Faith, says, in part:
That we believe in God, the Eternal father and in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
That Men will be punished for their sins and not the transgression of Adam.
That all men may be saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ by obeying the principles and commandmets of the Gospel
That the first 4 principles of obiedience [sic] are, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and the recieving of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.
other parts of the canon call for accepting that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God, we are required to obey the laws of our government, we are to adhere to the principles of chasity, kindness, charity ......
You get the idea
This is the canon-- If you don't agree with the canon you have several options:
you can attend LDS services, parties etc and enjoy the fellowship without ever becoming a member.
You can renounce your membership, and still attend LDS Services, parties , etc and enjoy the fellowship.
BUt what the church will not sanction, nor should it be expected to, is you retaining your membership in the church, while declaring or behaving in such a manner that suggests that all or part of the Articles of Faith are not true or preaching doctrine contrary or undermining to the Articles of Faith all the while declaring yourself to be LDS thus giving the impression that this is what the LDS Church represents.
How long would any organization survive if it's membership were allowed to go about spreading lies about what the organization stands for or denouncing what they believe?? Clearly those persons who engage in such practices should not expect that the organization they are thus maligning should be required to permit them to retain their membership in said orgainization.
That said, denouncing the canon of a faith is not the same as not accepting, which for lack of a better word, I call "home grown ideaology".
For example there are groups of individual LDS in this country who feel that playing any card game with the face cards (JQK) is of the devil and avoid people who do. Is this canon? No. Does the church care which side of this issue you are on? No. There are LDS who will tell you that keeping the Sabbath holy means that you are not allowed to watch any TV on Sunday. Is this canon? No? Does the church sanction you for watching TV on the Sabbath? No.
So if you are talking about the church intervening or watching out for these "home grown Ideaologies" That is not what an "inquistion" is about UNLESS said "home Grown Idealogies" threaten or undermine the canon.
An inquistion, or as markomalley put it an "inquiring", is done when it is brought to the attention of the bishopric of a ward that someone is commiting adultry, breaking the civil law by commiting robbery, rape etc., spreading doctrince contrary to the LDS canon and, so forth and so on.
When that happens all parties are questioned by the bishopric and inquiries are made as to the truth of said allegations. Once it has been established that the allegation is true, a member may be "punished" in several ways all the way from a repremand [sic] to excommunication.
This is not done because hurting the individual so punished is something the church desires but rather so that a clear messaage is sent that the church will not tolerate the destruction of the Canon that it is founded upon.
Why anyone would want to associate with a group on a regular basis with whom they disagreed with is beyond me, rather like choosing to spend time with your abusive ex husband IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
That is a very good question Mark. In Siouxzahn's first post she made this quote:
"Supposedly only about 3000-5000 were actually put to death through the Spanish Inquisition specifically, and for that relatively small number Spain and the Spanish (Catholic) Church want to be better thought of than they have been, since during the same time period, some 150,000 were put to death across Europe for heresy and witchcraft...."
So I wonder how many of those 150,000 are still attributed to the "Spanish" Inquisition? So often I hear of the Spanish Inquisition and the heresy trials and the witchcraft trials of Europe all spoken of in the same breath as if they were all part of the one i.e. the Spanish Inquisition. Obviously some of the other "trials" took place in Spain, but all of them cannot and should not be placed at the feet of the Spanish. Hmmmm....time to do some research.
love ya
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Siouxzahn
God loves you my dear friend
this makes me sad that things like this still happen today
the way they Torture has changed today we call it "mark and avoid" or name calling which the Way did to us
it read - from your link
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These punishments ranged from public shame to burning at the stake - dead for those who repented, alive for those who didn´t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they tried to puvlic shame us and they would of burn us if they could of so they got our friends to "mark and avoid" us
next I read from your link
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was also a strong financial motive
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of us were teaching against tithing which would of destroy there financial income
I also read - from your link
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He wanted the Jewish and Muslim religions wiped out in his domains and - for him - the Purpose Of Spanish Inquisition was a means of achieving that aim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they wanted people who could not be controled or that looked for truth in Grease Spot Cafe to be wiped out of the household of God
next I read - from your link
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
every Jew in the King´s states had been either baptized or expelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
while we are not Jews our crime was thinking differ than they wanted us to think - so we either became robots or were expelled from the Way
I just had to put this in a today life happen because its sad but it still happens today
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Thanks TL,
that makes sense, though to me when doctrine made a difference, I would want "my own" interpretation, even if I found the church I mostly agreed with. I wouldn't feel a need to make waves or teach mine though.
But I think of people I knew that were raised Catholic and went to Catholic school, their social life revolved around the church maybe, but their acceptance of church cannon certainly seemed widely varied. I'm not sure it would be socially acceptable to hang out, while denouncing your membership because you didn't accept every item of the canon. It seems much of what came down from Rome was disregarded ... the rules on birth control come to mind.
Anyway ... thanks for the clarifications ...
Oh, and thx Garth :)
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Time for a bulk reply ;)
Bramble, you said:
From reading your posts, I understand a whole lot more about Wicca than I did a couple of years ago.But one point: for those Wiccans who practice their faith in groups (covens or whatever), you are saying that there are no norms? In other words, a person could be a member of a group (again, coven, or whatever) and then spout Southern Baptist doctrine about witchcraft? And trying to convince others within that group that the Southern Baptist view is the correct view? There would be no sanction against such a person? The person would be able to continue as a member of that coven or whatever?
Rhino, you said:
The average Joe wouldn't be the one gone after by an inquisition of whatever kind. Those who are trying to undermine the faith are those who are (or at least should be) the ones that are the subject of inquiry.
Eyesopen, you said:
Bingo!You then said:
Research is a good thing.
Particularly if you use a diversity of sources in accomplishing that research.
Templelady (Maureen), you said:
I would intuitively think the same as you, but for some unknown reason there are those groups who feel that it is their mission to do so and to, imho, undermine the group with which they are associating. In the Catholic Church, included are those groups who want the Church to change her position on abortion, those who want the Church to change her position on female ordination, those who want the Church to change her position on any number of items...none of which are possible even if the Church was inclined to do so (as they would require a change in fundamental dogma that goes FAR beyond the change that those heretics want). Why they just don't join a group that they agree with is beyond me.
To ALL:
The bottom line is that a group has the right to establish norms and then to apply some sort of sanction against those who seek to undermine that group through violation of those norms. That's a fact. Whether you talk about a religion, a non-relgious social gathering, a nation-state, an educational institution, or whatever.
You may not like interrogation techniques of the past. I sure don't. But they were used. By almost all groups...if not literally all groups. Is that a function of the specific group? Or is that a function of the time in which those techniques were used?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.