Talk On Sunday

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 24 2005, 10:41 AM

Actually my comparison is closer than you think.  Infallibility only applies to spiritual teachings on matters of faith and morals that are spoken officially.  All other matters of opinion in any area is not part of the Magesterium of the Pope.  Hence the term ex cathedra (from the Chair of St. Peter) means only that which is spoken in official capacity. 

Though Mormons have not defined this as precisely, I think they would generally agree on the definition.

←

I am familiar with the phrase ex cathedra as defined in the Vatican Council, Sess. IV., Const. de Ecclesia Christi, c. iv:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

That's a mouthful. I prefer to say in the LDS context simply that God will not allow the prophet of the LDS church to teach false doctrine regarding requirements for salvation. If he leads a soul away from God, the Lord will replace him. The Catholic parallel is an interesting one Jason.

[Snow]

Originally posted by seamusz@Oct 24 2005, 03:26 PM

Yet another post that has been hijacked by bickering and negativity.

←

So don't read.

What's it matter to you. I learn and share via argumentation. If you don't like it, fine, don't participate but it is a little hypocritical to complain about negativity by being negative.... kinda like shoveling the sidewalk by dumping more snow on it.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight@Oct 23 2005, 07:53 PM

Because I believe the church is true and we are led by a prophet of God, I will teach my children that. Then I'll teach them WHY I believe that (enter scripture reading). Then I'll teach them HOW I came to believe that (prayer/testing the doctrine by living it). Then I'll encourage THEM to find out for themselves whether it's true or not. If that's neo-naziism, I'm guilty as charged.

←

Good and agreed.

You said something like, "Of course you'll ask God if a prophet is speaking the truth, but you won't accept any answer that is out of line with the prophet's teachings."

The great thing is Snow, I don't have to worry about that possibility. I don't believe the Lord will ever let the prophet/president of the LDS church tell me to do or not do something THAT WILL ENDANGER MY SALVATION.

That's only cause you're not black. If you were black then you would have been in a bad shape. Their salvation and their happiness (the express purpose of God) is just as important as your's and should not be dismissed so cavalierly.

In that respect, whether I believe B.Young taught that Adam is God (and I do not, based on reading his statement, but I digress)

Now I am curious - which of his many statements on the matter are you referring to?

The prophet's role, in my mind, is as a guide in Zion as relates to eternal salvation. Whether they thought we would put a man on the moon or not doesn't concern me, UNLESS THEY SAID THAT ANYONE WHO BELIEVES MAN WOULD GET TO THE MOON IS GOING TO BE DAMNED. I really haven't found too many "pet doctrines" of the prophets that they combine with "believe it or you'll be damned" statements.

That's my point. I don't believe or expect prophets to be experts in biology, anatomy, political science, art, history, government, technology or psychology, et al. What I DO expect of a prophet of God is that he teach the specific requirements  for returning to live with God in eternal bliss. All else is unimportant to me, and if people think that prophets are correct about every field of knowledge they speak about, then yes, that is absurd to teach a child to "follow the prophet in art, science and history." But by all means, follow the prophet to salvation. That's my personal creed, Snow. Is that so extreme?

No - that is not extreme and I agree 100%. I just get bent where people you would expect to be rational and intelligent... you know, Mormons, think that prophets are never wrong about anything vis a vis the Church/gosel. Although I think you just summed it all up perfectly, I think that it is a much broader and rational position than what you have previously argued.

... for that matter, I typically argue a much more combative position than I actually hold. I think that generally the Brethrens counsel is excellent and should be followed... just that we should never abdicate the responsibility to think for ourselves so I take umbrage when the "follow the prophet" deal is pushed. I'd rather it be, "follow the light of Christ that is found within all of us."

[Snow]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight@Oct 24 2005, 03:49 PM

That's a mouthful. I prefer to say in the LDS context simply that God will not allow the prophet of the LDS church to teach false doctrine regarding requirements for salvation. If he leads a soul away from God, the Lord will replace him. The Catholic parallel is an interesting one Jason.

←

Do you limit that to salvation or do you also include exaltation?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Snow@Oct 24 2005, 10:26 PM

Do you limit that to salvation or do you also include exaltation?

←

You bring up an excellent point Snow, this as well as the comment about how blacks not being exalted without the priesthood (before 1978) is important and how I shouldn't dismiss that so cavalierly.

I don't think the Lord denied salvation or exaltation to blacks before or after 1978, priesthood or not. This is just my opinion, as a footnote, so this is not a position I'm telling other people they should believe. I personally think blacks weren't given the priesthood as a rule before 1978 because racists worldwide weren't ready (especially in 1830!). Again, this is how I read history so I'm really not interested in debating it, just letting you know I don't disregard the importance of exaltation to blacks. The one sister I baptized on my mission in Kentucky was the most faithful, patient black woman and I was blessed to have met her.

Here's my personal opinion on why blacks didn't have the priesthood before 1978. Again, no need to rip it apart because it is just opinion and my testimony isn't built on it. You are of course free to disagree with my views. :)

What I see is that the Lord of course foresaw the persecution of his church in the early 1800's after it was restored...imagine what Missouri would've done to a church that gave blacks equal rights with whites in 1830 or even 1900...I'm thinkin' it would've been "extermination order" to the second power. Without quoting lots of scriptures and getting into my view on it, I'll simply say I see a parallel in the way the Lord forbade his apostles from teaching the gentiles until after his death and the blacks receiving the priesthood after 1978 and civil rights for blacks wasn't a new concept.

My point is that I believe the Lord always intended to give gentiles the opportunity to hear the gospel and be saved by accepting it/him even though during his ministry he forbade it. Likewise, I believe he always intended to give blacks the priesthood even though it wasn't until 1978 when the world was apparently ready for it.

So how do I support my opinion? I mean, by definition an LDS member can't be saved/exalted (I use the terms interchangeably) without receiving their endowments, and if a man doesn't have the priesthood he can't be endowed, so how could blacks be exalted/saved before 1978?

Millions upon millions of blacks were judged worthy of exaltation before 1978. Not many people mention this however. One of the most basic and comforting doctrines in our church is that children who die before the age of 8 automatically receive a place in the Celestial Kingdom.

I had a younger adopted sister from Thailand who died before she was 8...she was also mentally handicapped and so I learned alot from her about this world and I'd like to think, the next world too.

I'm not a statistician, but I'm sure that from way before Christ's birth up until 1978, millions of blacks in Africa and elsewhere in the world died before they were 8 years old.

So people (past prophets included) who believe/d that blacks were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence are to me ignorant on that point based on the simple fact that statistically speaking, more blacks have died before the age of 8 than caucasians, and since I believe God chooses where and when we are born (rather than spin the wheel), it would seem blacks are more valiant spirits since more of them had merely to be born without being "tested" in the traditional sense like the majority of caucasians. But I usually don't bother myself with "who was more worthy when" discussions since we simply don't have pre-mortal report cards to verify the conclusions. :)

So it's not that I don't worry about whether blacks were saved (prior to exaltation hereafter) before 1978, because I'm sure that as a familiar doctrine states, those who were worthy of the priesthood would eventually receive it and every blessing available to righteous caucasian church members then or now. I don't cavalierly dismiss the salvation of others, I've always believed blacks would've had the priesthood if America and the world in 1830 was as culturally "advanced" in regards to equal civil rights as it was in 1978 (and that wasn't too advanced I have to say).

After all, rarely mentioned is the fact that Joseph Smith ordained at least two black men Elders, gave them patriarchal blessings and sent them on missions according to his account in the History of the Church. So it wasn't that blacks weren't worthy of the priesthood, it was that mortals weren't ready for them to be worthy, and as the apostasy shows, God doesn't force men to choose good, be just or do what's right. In a military sense the Civil War ended in 1865, but in a spiritual sense the Civil War didn't end until 1978, and even today of course there are bigots and racists who can't see past the ends of their noses in and outside of the LDS church.

Just wanted to clarify my view on that, since Snow made a good point about blacks/exaltation/priesthood/prior 1978 doctrines etc...

And I'm glad to know you argue a more combative position than you hold Snow, and I can understand why...given the broad spectrum of LDS members I've met.

[Snow]

Knight,

I think that you are on the right track. Initially the Church was more progressive towards blacks and then backed off in the face of opposition and repercussions, especially from pro-slavery angles.

That explains it culturally. It doesn't justify withholding the priesthood once to became reasonably feasible to extend it to them.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Snow@Oct 26 2005, 12:43 AM

It doesn't justify withholding the priesthood once to became reasonably feasible to extend it to them.

←

Fair enough and agreed.

[Snow]

... that's not to say that the ban wasn't God's will. I personally question that it was but I am not in a position to really know.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 24 2005, 05:34 PM

Based on the knowledge I have gained by talking with members of the Roman Catholic church, Roman Catholics believe God speaks only to the Pope and that they [the other members of the Roman Catholic church] can only come to know that through study and reasoning of the information they are given in the Roman Catholic church. 

Or in other words, they believe they can only know that through personal study of information given by members of church leadership.

Or in other words, they believe God speaks only to the Pope, and not to them individually, except through what has already been written in the Bible and what the Popes have had to say about the will of God.

Or in other words, they do not believe God speaks to anybody through personal revelation, except for the Pope.

Or in other words, they don't believe they can receive a personal testimony from God, aside from choosing whether or not to believe what they have been told by other members of their church.

Whereas we believe that every member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is or at least should be a prophet.

←

Must have been some dumb Catholics. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten them about the Saints? You can start with the ones that John Paul II made Saints and then work your way backwards 2000 years. You can also inform them that very few Popes are also considered Saints.