Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
Y'all know that lesson with the cups?
12 Disciples of Jesus - pics of them on one side - pics of the current 12 Apostles on the other side.
Then you build the cups up into a pyramid / tower and the cups have labels on them like priesthood, tithing, scriptures, fasting, Temple, etc.
Been wonderin' about the Sanhedrin - read somewhere that they were the literal/genealogical descendants of the quorum of the 70 from the time of Moses
Was the Sanherin apostate?
Seems like they practiced what they were supposed to / followed the rules they had in place.
If they got the Levitical priesthood from their elders (did they?), as did John the Baptist who followed his own path, clearly not the Sanhedrin's path.
Seems like if the Sanhedrin didnt have authority , then how did John?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?