Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nuclearfuels

Sanhedrin and Apostasy?

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Dude. Relax. Putting things in Capital letters doesn’t suddenly make things clear.

It evidently doesn't make things clear for you. But, I didn't know that until I tried. I am using whatever strategies I can to help you grasp the seemingly simplest thing..

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

On what do you base the heavenly keys being taken from the earth?  Just because a record wasn’t included in the Old Testament (Post Malachi) doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

I base it, in part, on the quote from Christ I cited earlier. There is more scriptural evidenec, but it wouldn't make sense to move on if you can't grasp that first and very important piece of evidence.

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

So then, even if this apostasy happened (although you provide no details as to exactly how this happened), then how did John the Baptist get his authority to baptize Jesus?  @Robert F. Smith Indicates that John got this authority from his father, but you say it was taken from the earth?  Explain?

John got his authority to do various works, including baptism, from heaven  (hopefully bold will work if all caps doesn't) just as did Jesus. But, I repeat myself.... I will let Robert speak for himself.

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Why would you say that it’s best I don’t understand things?  In what context of someone trying to find the truth would you believe it better not to understand truth?

With understanding comes responsibility. The failure to understand certain things may give good indication whether one is capable of rightly accepting the attendant responsibility or not. Jesus alludes to this notion when he explained why he spoke in parables. (see Mt. 13:10-17)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Metis mentioned it earlier though didn't quote the whole scripture, so I was wondering if it satisfied you or not.  I was thinking you might have missed it...or just not really processed it as happens to me sometimes when stuff isn't spelled out.

Yeah- I didn’t see the reference. I just thought it was a guess for Métis.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, SouthernMo said:

Yeah- I didn’t see the reference. I just thought it was a guess for Métis.

Thanks for explaining.  I was having a hard time understanding where you were going because I was assuming you had realized it was a quote...then it finally occurred to me you weren't including that info in anything so may have missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

John got his authority to do various works, including baptism, from heaven  (hopefully bold will work if all caps doesn't) just as did Jesus. But, I repeat myself.... I will let Robert speak for himself.

Just saying “he got it from heaven” as the deepest reason you have isn’t very convincing.

What if I told you that I have power, but everyone else has power from earth?

You’d ask where I got that authority.

Using your logic, I’d say “from heaven.”

You’d (rightly ask) what do you mean? How?

Then I’d answer (using your logic): “From HEAVEN!  WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?”

This is where your argument fails me. All you have said is “from heaven” the same claim that any other religious leader can make (and many do).

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

John's priestly authority came from his father, down from Aaron.  However, he was also a prophet, with authority from the Divine Council in Heaven.

It was pointed out to me that D&C 84:27-28 indicates that John was ordained by an angel of God. @Wade Englund indicates that there was no priesthood on earth, and you say that John’s father gave him the authority.

How am I to understand all this?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I like it when someone has a real answer to a question I have. With your response, we could debate about whether or not that section of D&C comes from God or not, but at least it doesn’t contradict with anything I’m aware of.

I just assumed that you are familiar with the story in Luke 1:5-45,

Quote

 

When Herod was king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the division of priests named after Abijah. Zechariah’s wife Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron. Zechariah and Elizabeth had God’s approval. They followed all the Lord’s commands and regulations perfectly. Yet, they never had any children because Elizabeth couldn’t become pregnant. Both of them were too old to have children.

Zechariah was on duty with his division of priests. As he served in God’s presence, he was chosen by priestly custom to go into the Lord’s temple to burn incense. 10 All the people were praying outside while he was burning incense.

11 Then, to the right of the incense altar, an angel of the Lord appeared to him12 Zechariah was troubled and overcome with fear.

13 The angel said to him, “Don’t be afraid, Zechariah! God has heard your prayer. Your wife Elizabeth will have a son, and you will name him John. 14 He will be your pride and joy, and many people will be glad that he was born. 15 As far as the Lord is concerned, he will be a great man. He will never drink wine or any other liquor. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. 16 He will bring many people in Israel back to the Lord their God. 17 He will go ahead of the Lord with the spirit and power that Elijah had. He will change parents’ attitudes toward their children. He will change disobedient people so that they will accept the wisdom of those who have God’s approval. In this way he will prepare the people for their Lord.”

18 Zechariah said to the angel, “What proof is there for this? I’m an old man, and my wife is beyond her childbearing years.”

19 The angel answered him, “I’m Gabriel! I stand in God’s presence. God sent me to tell you this good news20 But because you didn’t believe what I said, you will be unable to talk until the day this happens. Everything will come true at the right time.”

21 Meanwhile, the people were waiting for Zechariah. They were amazed that he was staying in the temple so long. 22 When he did come out, he was unable to speak to them. So they realized that he had seen a vision in the temple. He motioned to them but remained unable to talk.

23 When the days of his service were over, he went home. 24 Later, his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and didn’t go out in public for five months. She said, 25 “The Lord has done this for me now. He has removed my public disgrace.”  ..........................

26 Six months after Elizabeth had become pregnant, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a city in Galilee27 The angel went to a virgin promised in marriage to a descendant of David named Joseph. The virgin’s name was Mary.

28 When the angel entered her home, he greeted her and said, “You are favored by the Lord! The Lord is with you.”

29 She was startled by what the angel said and tried to figure out what this greeting meant.

30 The angel told her, “Don’t be afraid, Mary. You have found favor[a] with God.
31 You will become pregnant, give birth to a son,
    and name him Jesus.
32 He will be a great man
    and will be called the Son of the Most High.
The Lord God will give him
    the throne of his ancestor David.
33 Your son will be king of Jacob’s people forever,
    and his kingdom will never end.”

34 Mary asked the angel, “How can this be? I’m a virgin.”

35 The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come to you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the holy child developing inside you will be called the Son of God.

36 “Elizabeth, your relative, is six months pregnant with a son in her old age. People said she couldn’t have a child. 37 But nothing is impossible for God.”

38 Mary answered, “I am the Lord’s servant. Let everything you’ve said happen to me.”  Then the angel left her.

39 Soon afterward, Mary hurried to a city in the mountain region of Judah. 40 She entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth.

41 When Elizabeth heard the greeting, she felt the baby kick. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit42 She said in a loud voice, “You are the most blessed of all women, and blessed is the child that you will have. 43 I feel blessed that the mother of my Lord is visiting me. 44 As soon as I heard your greeting, I felt the baby jump for joy. 

45 You are blessed for believing that the Lord would keep his promise to you.”

The authority comes direct from God.

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

It was pointed out to me that D&C 84:27-28 indicates that John was ordained by an angel of God. @Wade Englund indicates that there was no priesthood on earth, and you say that John’s father gave him the authority.

How am I to understand all this?

You need to read the D&C sections I cited carefully.  Both Judaism and LDS theology agree that Aaronic  priesthood authority is by lineal descent.  That means father to son, down through time.  John's father doesn't give him the authority.  It comes to him by lineal, inherited, genetic descent.  His father has it, so he has it.  It is automatic.  The D&C makes it clear that this lineal authority continues today among the tribe of Levi.  Among the Jews today, Aaronic priests continue to have authority to perform ordinances.  On the Day of Atonement, for example, a priest will bless the entire synagogue congregation.  At the birth of a firstborn male to a Jewish couple, an Aaronic priest will accept a redemption payment from the couple in exchange for the freedom of that baby (the rite is called Redemption of the Firstborn).  When the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, the Aaronides and Levites will begin blood sacrifices again, along with all other temple rites.  They have full authority from God to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You need to read the D&C sections I cited carefully.  Both Judaism and LDS theology agree that Aaronic  priesthood authority is by lineal descent.  That means father to son, down through time.  John's father doesn't give him the authority.  It comes to him by lineal, inherited, genetic descent.  His father has it, so he has it.  It is automatic.  The D&C makes it clear that this lineal authority continues today among the tribe of Levi.  Among the Jews today, Aaronic priests continue to have authority to perform ordinances.  On the Day of Atonement, for example, a priest will bless the entire synagogue congregation.  At the birth of a firstborn male to a Jewish couple, an Aaronic priest will accept a redemption payment from the couple in exchange for the freedom of that baby (the rite is called Redemption of the Firstborn).  When the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, the Aaronides and Levites will begin blood sacrifices again, along with all other temple rites.  They have full authority from God to do so.

So how did the apostasy happen if we’ve had many of the tribe of Levi who have continued to hold this priesthood?

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

So how did the apostasy happen if we’ve had many of the tribe of Levi who have continued to hold this priesthood?

Apostasy can happen to anyone, and it happened to the Jewish people as a group.  They have now found favor with the Lord, having returned from long Exile.  The Levites have continued to perform their required duties all during that Exile.  In 1841, on the Mount of Olives, Apostle Orson Hyde (dispatched by Joseph Smith) formally dedicated the Holy Land to the final gathering of the Jews, and to the rebuilding of their Temple.  His Prayer of Dedication can be found in both Hebrew and English in the Orson Hyde Garden on the Mount of Olives, if you care to visit it.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Apostasy can happen to anyone, and it happened to the Jewish people as a group.  They have now found favor with the Lord, having returned from long Exile.  The Levites have continued to perform their required duties all during that Exile.  In 1841, on the Mount of Olives, Apostle Orson Hyde (dispatched by Joseph Smith) formally dedicated the Holy Land to the final gathering of the Jews, and to the rebuilding of their Temple.  His Prayer of Dedication can be found in both Hebrew and English in the Orson Hyde Garden on the Mount of Olives, if you care to visit it.

Got it. Personal apostasies happened, but the priesthood of god never left the earth.

Share this post


Link to post

It is interesting that the LDS church still gives a nod to Aaronic lineage when it allows an LDS Bishop of that direct lineage to serve without counselors if he so desires. My uncle and his son are both of that lineage and the son served as a bishop in a nearby ward. He did choose to have counselors.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Just saying “he got it from heaven” as the deepest reason you have isn’t very convincing.

What if I told you that I have power, but everyone else has power from earth?

You’d ask where I got that authority.

Using your logic, I’d say “from heaven.”

You’d (rightly ask) what do you mean? How?

Ummmm... no I wouldn't ask that since the meaning of the very simple concept of "from heaven" isn't foreign to me.  And, you didn't ask me How? The issue of authority had to do with where it came from (heaven vs earth), not how.. Do you not understand the difference?

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Then I’d answer (using your logic): “From HEAVEN!  WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?”

This is where your argument fails me. All you have said is “from heaven” the same claim that any other religious leader can make (and many do).

You are failing to follow the explanatory dots and confusing "where" with "how " questions. You are also falsely assuming that my intent is to convincingly differentiate my claims from those of other religions leaders, rather than simply explain my own beliefs about where Jesus and John got their authority as opposed to the Jews.

Is there a point at which you just might correctly grasp anything I have said? 

By the way, I need to ask, are you inebriated?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

By the way, I need to ask, are you inebriated?

Does it make you feel better about yourself when you try to diminish others?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

@Wade Englund indicates that there was no priesthood on earth, ..

I said no such thing. There was priesthood on the earth. To me, the priesthood  of the Jews at the time of Christ, was in a state of apostasy. Their priesthood was thus of man, and not of God.. Similarly, there were priesthoods within the various Christian churches at the time of the latter-day restoration and even today. To me, those priesthoods were and are in a state of apostasy, and of man and not God.  That is why the keys and priesthood from heaven needed to be restored.

Is it starting to sink in yet?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Does it make you feel better about yourself when you try to diminish others?

I can't rightly answer your question because it presupposes something that is false. I am not trying to diminish others. Rather, I have exerted extreme patience trying to surmount your evident serious barriers in comprehending simple points.  Since I can't smell your breath through my monitor, it seems perfectly reasonable to kindly ask if alcohol may be one of those barriers. 

I note that you didn't answer my question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

By the way, I need to ask, are you inebriated?

No, you don't need to ask.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Got it. Personal apostasies happened,

The apostasy of the Jewish people was not a "personal apostasy."

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

but the priesthood of god never left the earth.

There is more than one priesthood of God.  The lineal Aaronic priesthood is a permanent priesthood for Israel.  Read Numbers 8.  The Melchizedek priesthood is another matter entirely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

I said no such thing. There was priesthood on the earth. To me, the priesthood  of the Jews at the time of Christ, was in a state of apostasy. Their priesthood was thus of man, and not of God.. Similarly, there were priesthoods within the various Christian churches at the time of the latter-day restoration and even today. To me, those priesthoods were and are in a state of apostasy, and of man and not God.  That is why the keys and priesthood from heaven needed to be restored.

Is it starting to sink in yet?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Read the D&C on the lineal priesthood of Aaron.  It is LDS doctrine that the priesthood of Aaron is in full force.  I am talking about the actual, lineal priesthood of Aaron, not the LDS substitute priesthood of Aaron, which is also valid in its own sphere.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The apostasy of the Jewish people was not a "personal apostasy."

There is more than one priesthood of God.  The lineal Aaronic priesthood is a permanent priesthood for Israel.  Read Numbers 8.  The Melchizedek priesthood is another matter entirely. 

The history of priesthood authority seems to be a complicated subject with twists, double meanings, vague statements, mixed with a lot of misunderstandings.

No wonder the simplified version today is: The LDS prophet is right, so follow him.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, you don't need to ask.

You don't speak for me. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Read the D&C on the lineal priesthood of Aaron.  It is LDS doctrine that the priesthood of Aaron is in full force.  I am talking about the actual, lineal priesthood of Aaron, not the LDS substitute priesthood of Aaron, which is also valid in its own sphere.

Yes, it is in "full force" (whatever that means) as an appendage of the Melchizedek priesthood, with the bishopric as its presidency and holder of the keys.  

However, as I understand tings, while the  lineage of Aaron do have a legal right to the office and keys of bishopric, that doesn't mean that they automatically hold the office and keys. The office and keys need to be conferred  under the hands of the First presidency of the Melchizedek priesthood.  (D&C 68:19-20)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by Wade Englund

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wade Englund said:

Yes, it is in "full force" (whatever that means) as an appendage of the Melchizedek priesthood, with the bishopric as its presidency and holder of the keys.  

However, as I understand tings, while the  lineage of Aaron do have a legal right to the office and keys of bishopric, that doesn't mean that they automatically hold the office and keys. The office and keys need to be conferred  under the hands of the First presidency of the Melchizedek priesthood.  (D&C 68:19-20)

..........................

You're thinking of an LDS context, instead of the Jewish context.  A lineal descendant of Aaron who is also an LDS convert can theoretically be an LDS bishop without counselors.  He need not even be a High Priest.  You are correct that he needs the approval of the LDS First Presidency to do that.  However, that is not my point:  My point is that LDS doctrine on the lineal priesthood of Aaron is very clear.  It is still in force, as in Numbers 8.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

The history of priesthood authority seems to be a complicated subject with twists, double meanings, vague statements, mixed with a lot of misunderstandings.

No wonder the simplified version today is: The LDS prophet is right, so follow him.

Good advice, if you are LDS.  If you are a Jew, another set of rules applies.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You're thinking of an LDS context, instead of the Jewish context.  A lineal descendant of Aaron who is also an LDS convert can theoretically be an LDS bishop without counselors.  He need not even be a High Priest.  You are correct that he needs the approval of the LDS First Presidency to do that.  However, that is not my point:  My point is that LDS doctrine on the lineal priesthood of Aaron is very clear.  It is still in force, as in Numbers 8.

As long as you understand that the office and keys of the bishopric (Aaronic priesthood) need to be conferred (i.e. designated, found worth, anointed, and ordained) under the hand of the First Presidency of the Melchizedek priesthood, even with the lineal descendants of Aaron, then we are in agreement.,

However, this condition is critical to whether the Aaron priesthood is or was  of heaven or of earth, of God or of man, at various times within certain dispensations. When the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood were taken from the earth, then logically the office and keys of the bishopric could no longer be conferred, and were likewise subsequently taken from the earth, and could only be restored through the restoration of the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood.   

I am of the belief that at the time of Christs mortal ministry, the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood had long been taken from the earth--at least in the Old World, which meant that the Aaronic priesthood functioning at that time, was in a state of apostasy.  And, while the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood were restored at the time of Christ, they, along with the keys of the bishopric (Aaronic priesthood) were eventually taken from the earth via the "Great apostasy," until they were restored in the latter days.

I believe that Christ and his disciples submitted to the apostate rituals and ordinances as a mater of form, but I think that much of what Christ preached not only differentiated the new law from the old, but legitimate authority vs. apostate--particularly in Christ's discussion with Nicodemus and John the Baptists' subsequent discussion with the Rabbi, in John 3.

But, I could be wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

In all church doctrines, it always seems to come down to whatever the people who are currently in positions of leadership say about something.

And while we would never claim that these leaders are infallible, no good Mormon would ever suggest that we might be doing baptisms wrong, or that leaders misunderstand priesthood authority.

The struggle continues...

There's definitely a burden of proof - made perhaps better by having multiple people and later figures can correct mistakes of earlier figures. So in theory over time even if there are mistakes they get corrected. Certainly we don't require infallibility.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By blueglass
      Why do members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood were taken from the earth? 
      1)  Not all apostles were killed, John an apostle who held Apostolic keys was granted "apower over bdeath, that I may live and bring souls unto thee. " according to D&Cov7 Joseph and Oliver use the seer stone and receive a vision of a parchment of John and given power to translate it that they may obtain an answer to their question.   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/7?lang=eng
      2)  Paul teaches immortal church that the gospel of Christ Jesus would be upon the earth "throughout all ages, world without end." Ephesians 3:21
      3)  The letter of 1Clement (first century dated 80 - 140AD) says the Apostles themselves instructed the bishops and ordained them with power to call and ordain other bishops to retain succession and authority.  1Clem 44:1 And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. 1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.
      4)  Brigham Young teaches robust quorum succession in the event of catastrophe (see Wilford Woodruff journal July 28, 1860) that if either the first presidency or the twelve or both are killed the seventy can recreate the church and can re-organize the higher quorums - which matches the letter of Clement. 
      Quote:  "The President of the Church holds the keys of the sealing powers & his Council act in Concert with him [in] all things.  Should the Presidency die The Twelve Could organize another Presidency & should the Presidency & Twelve all be slain the Seventies being Equal in power & Authority to the Twelve or first Presidency Could organize both Quorums.   He also taught that a high priest is a primal seed and can re-organize the church if all authorities are dead (nuclear holocaust, alien uprising, voyages to new planets etc). Quote: "The High Priest Could organize the Church in all its parts if all other Authorities were dead for they have the Melchizedek Priesthood out of which grow all of the Higher offices of the Church."
      5)  John Taylor teaches of revelations received during the time of "darkness" which coincides with Ephesians 3
      John Taylor, 7-Sept 1873 "Say some—'Oh, we are so enlightened and intelligent now. In former ages, when the people were degraded and in darkness, it was necessary that he should communicate intelligence to the human family; but we live in the blaze of Gospel day, in an age of light and intelligence.'  Perhaps we do; I rather doubt it. I have a great many misgivings about the intelligence that men boast so much of in this enlightened day. There were men in those dark ages who could commune with God, and who, by the power of faith, could draw aside the curtain of eternity and gaze upon the invisible world. There were men who could tell the destiny of the human family, and the events which would transpire throughout every subsequent period of time until the final winding-up scene. There were men who could gaze upon the face of God, have the ministering of angels, and unfold the future destinies of the world. If those were dark ages I pray God to give me a little darkness, and deliver me from the light and intelligence that prevail in our day;"
      Just to be clear I believe in restoration - these points arose as I studied the matter more closely when I served as a ward mission leader and the update of Preach my gospel released. 
    • By Navidad
      Good morning all: I have been absent from the board for a year and a half or so. I have a question with which I hope someone here can help me. I am wrapping up a book on Anglo influence on Mexican religion and have been reading a 1968 book by Ernest Lee Tuveson a former UC Berkeley professor on the history of the United States as a millenial kingdom. To my surprise I got to around page 150 and he has a whole section on LDS millenial beliefs as epitomizing the concept of the US and the future reign of Christ. In this section he talks about the LDS concept of the apostasy. He quotes the Pratt brothers in a way that is difficult to follow. Apparently in his writings, one of the brothers used the term "a terrible silence" to refer to the apostasy. I think that is a terrific phrase; one I would like to use. Dr. Tuveson doesn't provide a source for the quote. I am wondering if any of you gurus might have heard this term before and can help me with a citation? Is there a source where the writings of the Pratts could be searched to find that term?  I trust you all are doing well and that maybe someone has a way I might be able to track down this phrase?
    • By mfbukowski
      Mormons believe that the fall of Adam was "fortunate" and actually part of God's plan, since it gave us choice between good and evil and therefore able to merit praise for our actions and to overcome evil in our lives, or alternately follow a sinful path and cut ourselves off from our Father and make repentance harder, if not impossible in some cases.
      Without the choice to overcome temptation, we cannot overcome the "natural" or "carnal" tendencies within ourselves and attempt to become Christlike- many scriptures speak of "overcoming the world", and that is not possible without fully experiencing both the good and the bad within the world.
      The follower of Christ is to be IN the world but not OF the world.
      It appears that this idea varies from the view of Pope Francis in a recent interview.
      https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/deliver-us-from-dynamic-equivalence
      And at least from this article, it seems some scholars would come down more on the idea that we should be proactive in overcoming temptation rather than avoiding it.
      What do you think?
      Are there any defenders of Pope Francis here?
       
    • By mfbukowski
      When I was a nice little Catholic altar boy, I was taught that I should wear the "brown scapular" which on one side had some religious symbols, and on the other side it had some brown cloth.
      I was told that it represented a garment like the habit of Catholic "Brothers" ("monks" to non-Catholics though that is a very vague term which really doesn't grasp all the nuances) and Catholic "Sisters" ("nuns" to non-Catholics- but that is at least as vague as "monks" is, and barely scratches the surface of all that is entailed)
      I thought that was VERY cool that I could be a "kind of Brother" even as a kid and resolved to be extra good to live up to the promise I had made to God.
      Later I studied Mormonism and thought it weird that everyone called each other "brother" and "sister", then I found out that they too wore a special kind of garment like the habit of monks and nuns.
      Then suddenly it became reasonable.  Mormons also wore special clothing and were all kind of like monks and nuns who made covenants with God.
      So the parallels instead of being something "weird" suddenly became very comforting to me, and I could not wait to get to the temple to get my very own "garment"
      But I know that many here are not aware of scapulars, though I have mentioned them in passing before and since we have some Catholics who visit here,  I thought it might be fun to discuss.   No Protest-ants please.  (Just kidding  )
      Catholics also believe that scapulars offer a kind of spiritual protection for wearing them, which also parallels a Mormon belief about garments.
      http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/put-on-our-ladys-protection-with-the-brown-scapular#.WkwHvtWnHrd
       
       
       
       
    • By kiwi57
      It is something of a truism among Christians generally, and Latter-day Saints more specifically, that martyrdom has frequently been what Hugh Nibley (who the Church's enemies love to hate) called "a prophet's reward." The cases of Zechariah, Abinadi, Stephen, James the Just, most of the original 12 Apostles, not to mention Jesus himself, demonstrate that the world - not excluding the religious world - has little tolerance for any who have the temerity to remind them that God expects something better than the mere polite navigation of societal currents.
      While it is easy, with hindsight, to respond to such events with platitudes like "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church," in every case that I know of, those who followed a martyred prophet regarded the prophet's death as nothing less than tragic, if not outright disastrous. Authentic martyrs don't go out of their way to court martyrdom, and the followers of authentic martyrs don't seek to throw their prophets to the lions.
      We do not live in a time when the message delivered by the Lord's prophets is at all popular. As usual, that message runs counter to prevailing cultural winds. But we are blessed to live in a time - and long may it continue! - when they are able to deliver their message in relative safety.
      But as dreadful as the martyrdom of a prophet is, it isn't irrecoverable. After the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, a few dissenters and ambitious individuals left the Church, in some cases taking some followers with them; but the body of the Church recovered from the emotional shock, picked themselves up, and followed the legitimate leadership of the Twelve. And the Church, despite often-fierce opposition from various quarters, has survived and even thrived ever since.
      What is - and always has been - far more disastrous to the Church than the death of any leader, is the spectre of apostasy. Not apostasy from the Church - that always happens - but apostasy of the Church. Nibley, again, in arguing that the primitive Church was always expected to be taken from the earth, pointed out that its demise wasn't expected to be brought about by destruction, or even defection, but by the Church abandoning its faith. As he put it, the Church in that generation was faced with a choice between "saving its soul by remaining true to the faith, or saving its skin by coming to terms with the world." (Quoted from memory.)
      To those who see the Church as faced with the same choice in our generation, the lesson is clear. The martyrdom of Joseph the Prophet was in every sense a disaster - but a recoverable one. But if the Church in the latter days were to surrender to the world on matters of faith and morality, as the Church in former days did, then that would be a disaster from which the Church could never recover.
      That is why I, along with many others, am so frankly bewildered by those who claim to be Latter-day Saints, but who seem to be urging just such a surrender on a currently fashionable issue.
      There may be some who will interpret this as some kind of "slam" or insult. I assure you that it is no such thing. It represents my sober, calm and considered position. I have held it for a number of years now, and I have never been presented with any arguments that might make me reconsider that position.
      So the question for discussion is this: why should the Church's abandoning its doctrinal position on conjugal marriage, if such an abandonment were to happen, not be seen as a mere surrender to the shifting fashions of a fallen world?
×
×
  • Create New...