Principles And Doctrines -- Changing?

[Grundelwalken]

I read an interesting quote from one of my favorite General Authorities today:

"The gospel's principles do require synchronization. When pulled apart from each other or isolated, men's interpretations of these doctrines may be wild." (Neal A Maxwell, Ensign, May 1993)

Considering some of the threads we have had over the past while, I thought this might be an appropriate little piece of knowledge to share. So many of those who want to change the Gospel of Christ to fit their own (or the world's) beliefs seem to forget that we are working on an eternal plan, not something that can be tweaked to the desires of the participants. God makes the rules and they are all interconnected so that we have safety from the sophistry of the adversary. When we begin to take each doctrine and try to mold it to our own desires, we forget that there are other doctrines or principles that also are part of that truth.

For instance, many discussions have been had about same-sex marriage and the possibility that the Church will soften its stance on the subject. But what other doctrines/principles would have to change in order to make that happen? Marriage and Family, Priesthood, The Plan of Salvation, the Law of Chastity!!

God knows the truths/principles that will make us happy. He has revealed them to us and gives us prophets to counsel on how to live them and receive exaltation. Isn't it a little presumptuous of us to think we can tell a GOD how to run His business? MW

[thesometimesaint]

The Devil can quote Scripture for his own ends.

[3DOP]

Grundelwalken Hi.

You raise an important point.

Here is another observation about what will happen if there is a softening on same-sex marriage. Look at how you guys (I am not LDS) get hammered for being supposedly late regarding opening the priesthood to all races. Outsiders don't believe it came by revelation but merely because the political climate made it popular. I never talk about it but as a non-LDS, as much as I respect you, I cannot help believing that is why that change came in the late 1970's. Being late to join the bandwagon for same-sex marriage would appear even worse from the outside.

I am Catholic. My Church has been torn by what I see as the de-Christianization of the West that has been gathering speed over the last generation or two. There are Catholics who support changing our church's doctrine to conform to the ever-changing morals of people who are unattached to any Christian tradition. One of the things I expect from the one true Church is continual opposition from the world. I expect for the true Church to be unpopular and persecuted. The great political battle that is being waged right now as we speak with the US executive branch of government has to do with the fact that Pope Paul VI, and all of his successors, to the dismay of almost all non-Catholics and many Catholics, affirmed the "archaic" concept of the purpose of marriage, to be fruitful and multiply. Now, Catholics, in the minority on this subject, are being pressured by the Obama administaration to stock and distribute artificial birth control devices in our medical institutions.

That the Church has so far refused to bend or waver on this, as on a female priesthood, and other teachings which place us at odds with the whims and fancies of the world, are part of the reason for my confidence in the Catholic Church. I truly want people of all faith traditions to be more assimilated to beliefs compatible with my own. For that reason, I endorse your suggestion publicly. To change beliefs for the sake of public pressure will only be perceived as weakness and bring along with it a long trail of further concessions to be asked for including a couple that you named, and more that you didn't. Unless you want to be just another liberal Protestant church that no longer looks anything like what the original reformers could have imagined, you should not budge. What would the Prophet have said, Brigham Young, and other great names from the past? To continue to be in the running for the one true church, for truth seekers who have no political agenda, who want to conform their minds to the sometimes unpopular Gospel of Christ, we must retain continuity with our Fathers in the faith.

That is why we mustn't see these issues solely through a 21st Century lens. We must prudently look backward to the past as well as forward to the future, knowing only the world can flippantly change its mind without censure. When it does, it will always be critical of those who must resist the temptation. In a hundred years there will be another issue. Stand fast now, and your children may have the opportunity to stand fast tomorrow.

3DOP

[MitoticSlime]

Hmmm. 3DOP, I'm not sure making a parallel to the Catholic church was the best way to make your point. Unlike the LDS church, Catholicism has a very long history and for much of it has wielded considerable power in the world at large. And many times it wielded its power to fight changes that we, with the benefit of hindsight, can see were extremely beneficial to humanity.

[Doug the Hutt]

edit

Edited June 27, 2012 by Doug the Hutt

[Grundelwalken]

The Devil can quote Scripture for his own ends.

??? Not sure what you mean. MW

[Deborah]

When we begin to take each doctrine and try to mold it to our own desires, we forget that there are other doctrines or principles that also are part of that truth.

The thing I have observed about apostates is that they seem to be hung up on one or two issues. They forget this very principle that the gospel isn't just one thing but contains many principles and doctrines which are intertwined. They lose sight of the big picture. They narrow their vision and in so doing lose their way. And this is why we follow the living prophets and apostles and why we need to open our minds to more than our own selfish little interests at the moment.

[Damien the Leper]

I read an interesting quote from one of my favorite General Authorities today:

"The gospel's principles do require synchronization. When pulled apart from each other or isolated, men's interpretations of these doctrines may be wild." (Neal A Maxwell, Ensign, May 1993)

Considering some of the threads we have had over the past while, I thought this might be an appropriate little piece of knowledge to share. So many of those who want to change the Gospel of Christ to fit their own (or the world's) beliefs seem to forget that we are working on an eternal plan, not something that can be tweaked to the desires of the participants. God makes the rules and they are all interconnected so that we have safety from the sophistry of the adversary. When we begin to take each doctrine and try to mold it to our own desires, we forget that there are other doctrines or principles that also are part of that truth.

For instance, many discussions have been had about same-sex marriage and the possibility that the Church will soften its stance on the subject. But what other doctrines/principles would have to change in order to make that happen? Marriage and Family, Priesthood, The Plan of Salvation, the Law of Chastity!!

God knows the truths/principles that will make us happy. He has revealed them to us and gives us prophets to counsel on how to live them and receive exaltation. Isn't it a little presumptuous of us to think we can tell a GOD how to run His business? MW

While faithfully I agree with you...I don't believe your argument provided logically sticks.

First, we as a church claim (critics will say assume) to know the mind and will of God through our prophets. But that is a claim and not a factual truth. Bearing testimony of such makes it no more truth than claiming so.

I also agree that GOD knows what makes us happy. But through our humanity we have interpreted what that is. Once again, we claim to know through prophets and scripture but in the end it is hearsay.

Finally, I do agree that it is presumptuous to think that we can tell God how to run His business. But to say that we as a church are not guilty of such shows a deep rooted flaw and a certain level of idolatry. By saying [insert Prophet] or [insert Scripture] tells us so is hearsay.

Let me clarify my position on the matter so that I can avoid being hounded by the Hasidic-like hounds of this board. I believe that the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles receive inspiration from God. I'm not arguing that belief. I believe that because the church is not perfect and is tainted by our humanity and that the church leaders are subject to this as well...they are doing the BEST they can. I believe they are being obedient and answering what they believe is God's call. Please let me humbly admit that I must always remember this and that I should heed their counsel because deep down, setting aside my pride, I do believe they are trying to teach and do what is best for not just the church as a whole but for me specifically as well.

[mosterlow]

We have had same sex sealings in the past, so perhaps there is more to this than any of us know at this point in time. I could care less if the Lord reveals His will to allow same sex marriage and sealings as it does not matter either way to me. I do know that there are many of our brothers and sisters that were born this way and would love the opportunity to enjoy full fellowship while still being able to have a partner in this life, but in the end, we all have things in this life we have to overcome and many that do not seem fair.

[3DOP]

Hmmm. 3DOP, I'm not sure making a parallel to the Catholic church was the best way to make your point. Unlike the LDS church, Catholicism has a very long history and for much of it has wielded considerable power in the world at large. And many times it wielded its power to fight changes that we, with the benefit of hindsight, can see were extremely beneficial to humanity.

Hi MitoticSlime.

Perhaps you are correct about the "best way".

But the discussion is about how doctrine may be changed. However you view the Church's behavior historically, I don't see how it has a bearing on questions of doctrinal continuity. I am aware that many Mormons disagree with the Catholic interpretation of our history (if they have even heard of it...heh.). But presumably that can be put to one side for the sake of discussions of unrelated topics?

I'll give you another example from long ago about how a church that has alleged historical atrocities, did not succumb to the strongest pressure to cave in on its beliefs. If only the pope would have changed the Church's teaching on divorce in the 1520's, King Henry and the entire island of Great Britain would have remained Catholic, Thomas More and John Fisher would have died with their heads on their necks, and wars would have been avoided. There was great pressure on Catholic churchmen to change doctrine for the sake of peace in England (since Henry needed an heir) and many churchmen did. They are now known as the first Anglicans and their spiritual children have divorce, female priests, and same-sex marriage.

I don't know anything about Grundelwalken's opinion of the various Crusades, Inquisitions, or Rome's relations with Germany in World War II. But I don't see why the Catholic Church should not be given credit for preserving beliefs in the face of political pressure anyway, even if he doubts whether the Church has been a model of good behavior. If the Catholic Church had changed its position on divorce in 1520 so Henry VIII could have a Catholic heir, who wouldn't be ridiculing us today for it, and rightly so? If my choice of parallels is not the best way to make my point, it is the best way to make my point with which I am familiar.

3DOP

Edited June 27, 2012 by 3DOP

[SamIam]

thesometimesaint, on 27 June 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

The Devil can quote Scripture for his own ends.

??? Not sure what you mean. MW

Original note deleted.

I had to put myself in the penalty box for unnecessary cynicism.

Edited June 27, 2012 by SamIam

[theplains]

We have had same sex sealings in the past, so perhaps there is more to this than any of us know at this point in time.

I have never heard of this but if it were true, then the church would have it recorded somewhere. If this ordinance was

later changed, I suppose a revelation was also recorded to overturn it. Was the principle changed because it was evil

in the church, deferred to another time, or it had already served its purpose? I don't know.

Regards,

Jim

[Calm]

He does not mean same sex sealings as in the way a man is sealed to a woman he is married to. There were same sex sealings in the sense of establishing a greater celestial family, sealing men to men in the sense that brothers could be seen as sealed together in the covenant or a father and son.

In fact it wasn't until 1890s or so IIRC, that it was made standard procedure to have sealing lines strictly to their legal parents. And yes it was a revelation. And it seems to reflect more of a line upon line process. The prophet asked for greater understanding and got it. It is possible that previous prophets made assumptions about sealings that weren't how the Lord wanted them done, but the Lord was okay knowing that such would be remedied in time and that good was still being done through the work just as how baptisms have been limited to a certain purpose now, while in the past faithful members use baptisms for expression of faith in additional ways, ways that have been replaced with other ordinances as greater understanding of those ordinances grew (such as blessings of healing and the sacrament for recommitment).

A related sealing:

http://en.fairmormon...sister_together

For the revelation:

For the next few decades, the Latter-day Saints knew that there was to be “a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children” (D&C 128:18). However, their procedures were not completely set in order; as President Woodruff observed, the Prophet Joseph had not lived long enough to “enter any further upon these things.”46 Acting according to “all the light and knowledge [they] had,”47 they often had themselves sealed, or “adopted,” to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or other Church leaders of their day rather than to their own fathers and mothers. As President of the Church, President Woodruff referred to this practice, saying: “We have not fully carried out those principles in fulfillment of the revelations of God to us, in sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. I have not felt satisfied, neither did President [John] Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received.”48

That additional revelation came to President Woodruff on April 5, 1894.49 Three days later, in a general conference address, he told of the revelation: “When I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to … , the Spirit of God said to me, ‘Have you not a father, who begot you?’ ‘Yes, I have.’ ‘Then why not honor him? Why not be adopted to him?’ ‘Yes,’ says I, ‘that is right.’ I was adopted to my father, and should have had my father sealed to his father, and so on back; and the duty that I want every man who presides over a temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. … That is the will of God to this people. I want all men who preside over these temples in these mountains of Israel to bear this in mind. What business have I to take away the rights of the lineage of any man? What right has any man to do this? No; I say let every man be adopted to his father; and then you will do exactly what God said when he declared He would send Elijah the prophet in the last days [see Malachi 4:5–6]. …

“We want the Latter-day Saints from this time to trace their genealogies as far as they can, and to be sealed to their fathers and mothers. Have children sealed to their parents, and run this chain through as far as you can get it. …

“Brethren and sisters, lay these things to heart. Let us go on with our records, fill them up righteously before the Lord, and carry out this principle, and the blessings of God will attend us, and those who are redeemed will bless us in days to come. I pray God that as a people our eyes may be opened to see, our ears to hear, and our hearts to understand the great and mighty work that rests upon our shoulders, and that the God of heaven requires at our hands.”50

http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-wilford-woodruff/the-life-and-ministry-of-wilford-woodruff?lang=eng Edited June 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

Outsiders don't believe it came by revelation but merely because the political climate made it popular. I never talk about it but as a non-LDS, as much as I respect you, I cannot help believing that is why that change came in the late 1970's.

I believe most people -- even inside the Church -- are not fully aware of the pressures to make that change and where they came from.

First of all several of the Apostles questioned this matter in the early 50's. Long before the civil rights movement. So, this was not something initially considered under any particular outside pressure.

Second, and more importantly, when that change did come to pass it was not the result of any outside pressure. Indeed, I have personally gone back and studied many newspaper articles discussing this issue from the mid 1960's up to 1980. I found that at this point in time, there was one might say a "lull" in what was a relatively low level but constant discussion of this in the news -- a low level discussion that would every once in a while, be punctuated by brief periods of intense focus. But the first half of 1978 was not one of those times.

No, the pressure actually came from *inside* the Church. And not exactly from the bottom up. What was going on was that we were baptizing huge numbers of people in Brazil. We were building a Temple there. And yet, *most* of the people we were baptizing and who were participating in the building of the Temple would not have been able to attend the Temple itself.

Furthermore, there were constantly issues where men, already ordained to the priesthood, would do their genealogy and determine that they had african ancestry. Quietly, these men were retained in the priesthood anyway, so in their cases the ban was already lifted. But this problem was constantly coming up and confronting the 12 Apostles and especially President Kimball. It was this that motivated the change. Not outside pressure of any kind and not really from the bottom (although perhaps eventually it would have got there) but the pressure was from the leadership itself.

FYI.

Here is the real cause of the pressure: http://www.ldschurch...s.com/saopaulo/

Incidentally, there was one somewhat remarkable spiritual manifestation at the time, and it has been talked about a bit, but it too is *mostly* kept quiet.

Edited June 27, 2012 by CASteinman

[Evangeline]

But I don't see why the Catholic Church should not be given credit for preserving beliefs in the face of political pressure anyway, even if he doubts whether the Church has been a model of good behavior.

I give the Catholic Church credit. That's why one of my sons goes to a Catholic school. We live in a predominantly non-LDS environment. I feel it's a safe place where my son can learn and talk about Jesus Christ and our common traditional morals and not be ostracized for it. His teachers have been nothing but loving and welcoming to us. Today was his last day of school, so I'm feeling a bit emotional about it right now. Yes, I am grateful for the Catholic church.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Evangeline

[3DOP]

I believe most people -- even inside the Church -- are not fully aware of the pressures to make that change and where they came from.

First of all several of the Apostles questioned this matter in the early 50's. Long before the civil rights movement. So, this was not something initially considered under any particular outside pressure.

Second, and more importantly, when that change did come to pass it was not the result of any outside pressure. Indeed, I have personally gone back and studied many newspaper articles discussing this issue from the mid 1960's up to 1980. I found that at this point in time, there was one might say a "lull" in what was a relatively low level but constant discussion of this in the news -- a low level discussion that would every once in a while, be punctuated by brief periods of intense focus. But the first half of 1978 was not one of those times.

No, the pressure actually came from *inside* the Church. And not exactly from the bottom up. What was going on was that we were baptizing huge numbers of people in Brazil. We were building a Temple there. And yet, *most* of the people we were baptizing and who were participating in the building of the Temple would not have been able to attend the Temple itself.

Furthermore, there were constantly issues where men, already ordained to the priesthood, would do their genealogy and determine that they had african ancestry. Quietly, these men were retained in the priesthood anyway, so in their cases the ban was already lifted. But this problem was constantly coming up and confronting the 12 Apostles and especially President Kimball. It was this that motivated the change. Not outside pressure of any kind and not really from the bottom (although perhaps eventually it would have got there) but the pressure was from the leadership itself.

FYI.

Here is the real cause of the pressure: http://www.ldschurch...s.com/saopaulo/

Incidentally, there was one somewhat remarkable spiritual manifestation at the time, and it has been talked about a bit, but it too is *mostly* kept quiet.

Hi CA Steinman,

I am sure I could be easily convinced that the decision came by revelation if were LDS. The late admittance of all races to the priesthood would never be a deciding factor in my potential conversion to a Restorationist point of view. My point was that you get more grief about it than credit. If you changed your doctrine on marriage, how do you think it would go? I applaud the late admittance of all races to the priesthood. It had little ripple effect on other traditional LDS teachings. As Grundelwalken points out, an approval of same-sex marriage implies other changes that I doubt I could reconcile with past teachings. That is why I suggested that the CoJCoLDS would become another liberal Protestant group when it backs down on traditional marriage. No anchor in the past, floating with wind and tide, believing and teaching what is popular, but never leading the way.

Regards,

3DOP

[Yep]

I read an interesting quote from one of my favorite General Authorities today:

"The gospel's principles do require synchronization. When pulled apart from each other or isolated, men's interpretations of these doctrines may be wild." (Neal A Maxwell, Ensign, May 1993)

Considering some of the threads we have had over the past while, I thought this might be an appropriate little piece of knowledge to share. So many of those who want to change the Gospel of Christ to fit their own (or the world's) beliefs seem to forget that we are working on an eternal plan, not something that can be tweaked to the desires of the participants. God makes the rules and they are all interconnected so that we have safety from the sophistry of the adversary. When we begin to take each doctrine and try to mold it to our own desires, we forget that there are other doctrines or principles that also are part of that truth.

For instance, many discussions have been had about same-sex marriage and the possibility that the Church will soften its stance on the subject. But what other doctrines/principles would have to change in order to make that happen? Marriage and Family, Priesthood, The Plan of Salvation, the Law of Chastity!!

God knows the truths/principles that will make us happy. He has revealed them to us and gives us prophets to counsel on how to live them and receive exaltation. Isn't it a little presumptuous of us to think we can tell a GOD how to run His business? MW

One of the purposes of the Apostles is to maintain the integrity of the gospel. This is one of the reasons we believe that the apostasy of the early Church occurred, the lack of divine guidance through Apostles.

Grundelwalken Hi.

You raise an important point.

Here is another observation about what will happen if there is a softening on same-sex marriage. Look at how you guys (I am not LDS) get hammered for being supposedly late regarding opening the priesthood to all races. Outsiders don't believe it came by revelation but merely because the political climate made it popular. I never talk about it but as a non-LDS, as much as I respect you, I cannot help believing that is why that change came in the late 1970's. Being late to join the bandwagon for same-sex marriage would appear even worse from the outside.

I am Catholic. My Church has been torn by what I see as the de-Christianization of the West that has been gathering speed over the last generation or two. There are Catholics who support changing our church's doctrine to conform to the ever-changing morals of people who are unattached to any Christian tradition. One of the things I expect from the one true Church is continual opposition from the world. I expect for the true Church to be unpopular and persecuted. The great political battle that is being waged right now as we speak with the US executive branch of government has to do with the fact that Pope Paul VI, and all of his successors, to the dismay of almost all non-Catholics and many Catholics, affirmed the "archaic" concept of the purpose of marriage, to be fruitful and multiply. Now, Catholics, in the minority on this subject, are being pressured by the Obama administaration to stock and distribute artificial birth control devices in our medical institutions.

That the Church has so far refused to bend or waver on this, as on a female priesthood, and other teachings which place us at odds with the whims and fancies of the world, are part of the reason for my confidence in the Catholic Church. I truly want people of all faith traditions to be more assimilated to beliefs compatible with my own. For that reason, I endorse your suggestion publicly. To change beliefs for the sake of public pressure will only be perceived as weakness and bring along with it a long trail of further concessions to be asked for including a couple that you named, and more that you didn't. Unless you want to be just another liberal Protestant church that no longer looks anything like what the original reformers could have imagined, you should not budge. What would the Prophet have said, Brigham Young, and other great names from the past? To continue to be in the running for the one true church, for truth seekers who have no political agenda, who want to conform their minds to the sometimes unpopular Gospel of Christ, we must retain continuity with our Fathers in the faith.

That is why we mustn't see these issues solely through a 21st Century lens. We must prudently look backward to the past as well as forward to the future, knowing only the world can flippantly change its mind without censure. When it does, it will always be critical of those who must resist the temptation. In a hundred years there will be another issue. Stand fast now, and your children may have the opportunity to stand fast tomorrow.

3DOP

Prior to going into this I would like to state that if I were not LDS and were to remain a Judaeo/Christian based religion I would be Catholic. If I were neither of these I would not remain within the Judaeo/Christian grouping. So, as to respect for the Catholic religion, I do have respect there.

While I can appreciate your concern over timing, it is perhaps something that has Biblical precedent. When the people of God desire something, God often gives it to them. We pray not because God does not know what we need, we pray because we need to ask for the things that are needed. The population of our country and the world wanted the African population to be treated equally and fairly. In my opinion this could have been the impetus needed for the change to be given. Perhaps Man as a whole needed to reach a point where this was desired before God would lift the ban.

I would question having confidence in the Catholic Church as it has changed a number of things. Baptism by immersion, infant baptism, prayers to individuals (e.g. Saints) not just to God and Christ, the near worship of Mary, etc. These leave me with no confidence in the Catholic Church. As to how the LDS Church is perceived as changing. We do not change anything. God modifies the temporal requirements he holds men to. We believe that God speaks to man still, the Catholic Church does not. I fail to see where the authority for such change is taken. I would quote the following in this regard:

　ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS - VOL 3, p. 174

　Catholic Faith and Biblical Doctrines

Question: "How can you claim that the Catholic Church is not the church established by the Savior when it is the only church which can substantiate a beginning from which it has never been separated? Every doctrine of Catholic faith has its source in the Bible, and it is the only church which has the trademarks of the church established by Jesus Christ."

Answer: Let us consider some evidences why we claim that the Catholic Church is not the church established by our Savior.

We will consider the question of continued revelation. There has not appeared in the Catholic world, nor in the Protestant world, one single divine revelation. John the Apostle, and successor to Peter, as he outlived Peter, was the only person recognized by the Lord since the death of Peter. No pope, since there has been a pope, has ever obtained a divine revelation from the heavens. In fact, Cardinal Gibbons declared that it was not the prerogative of the pope to receive revelations, but he was merely the interpreter of the scriptures, which have been given. To the contrary, the popes have closed the volume of scripture tightly and maintain that there can be no further scripture. Peter and Paul taught that the gift of prophecy—which would be scripture—is essential to the Church.

There are so many things connected with the Catholic religion that are concoctions without any warrant of revelation or scripture, there can be no other conclusion than that it is an apostate organization, fulfilling the predictions of Peter, Paul, and John as well as the old prophets.

[CASteinman]

I am sure I could be easily convinced that the decision came by revelation if were LDS.

Just so you know -- you would not need to be convinced of that.

if you changed your doctrine on marriage, how do you think it would go?

For me, it would go very badly. I would probably consider the Church to be in apostasy.

[3DOP]

One of the purposes of the Apostles is to maintain the integrity of the gospel. This is one of the reasons we believe that the apostasy of the early Church occurred, the lack of divine guidance through Apostles.

Prior to going into this I would like to state that if I were not LDS and were to remain a Judaeo/Christian based religion I would be Catholic. If I were neither of these I would not remain within the Judaeo/Christian grouping. So, as to respect for the Catholic religion, I do have respect there.

While I can appreciate your concern over timing, it is perhaps something that has Biblical precedent. When the people of God desire something, God often gives it to them. We pray not because God does not know what we need, we pray because we need to ask for the things that are needed. The population of our country and the world wanted the African population to be treated equally and fairly. In my opinion this could have been the impetus needed for the change to be given. Perhaps Man as a whole needed to reach a point where this was desired before God would lift the ban.

I would question having confidence in the Catholic Church as it has changed a number of things. Baptism by immersion, infant baptism, prayers to individuals (e.g. Saints) not just to God and Christ, the near worship of Mary, etc. These leave me with no confidence in the Catholic Church. As to how the LDS Church is perceived as changing. We do not change anything. God modifies the temporal requirements he holds men to. We believe that God speaks to man still, the Catholic Church does not. I fail to see where the authority for such change is taken. I would quote the following in this regard:

　ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS - VOL 3, p. 174

　Catholic Faith and Biblical Doctrines

Question: "How can you claim that the Catholic Church is not the church established by the Savior when it is the only church which can substantiate a beginning from which it has never been separated? Every doctrine of Catholic faith has its source in the Bible, and it is the only church which has the trademarks of the church established by Jesus Christ."

Answer: Let us consider some evidences why we claim that the Catholic Church is not the church established by our Savior.

We will consider the question of continued revelation. There has not appeared in the Catholic world, nor in the Protestant world, one single divine revelation. John the Apostle, and successor to Peter, as he outlived Peter, was the only person recognized by the Lord since the death of Peter. No pope, since there has been a pope, has ever obtained a divine revelation from the heavens. In fact, Cardinal Gibbons declared that it was not the prerogative of the pope to receive revelations, but he was merely the interpreter of the scriptures, which have been given. To the contrary, the popes have closed the volume of scripture tightly and maintain that there can be no further scripture. Peter and Paul taught that the gift of prophecy—which would be scripture—is essential to the Church.

There are so many things connected with the Catholic religion that are concoctions without any warrant of revelation or scripture, there can be no other conclusion than that it is an apostate organization, fulfilling the predictions of Peter, Paul, and John as well as the old prophets.

Hey Yep.

I appreciate the comprehensive reply. I am always happy to try to throw light on why I deny an apostasy. But there are two problems today. First is that this thread needs to focus on same-sex marriage and whether it is compatible with LDS teachings and I am getting heat (not just from you) for saying that you LDS can only change your doctrine on marriage at risk of seeming like you are pandering to the spirit of the times. I only care because it keeps you closer to the truth as I perceive it. But in another way, it just takes you out of the running for one true church as I see it. Since Mormons seem to want same-sex marriage, there isn't much I can do about it. The second problem is that I am leaving tomorrow for a little camping trip. I will be around until mid-day. You say that "there can be no other conclusion that that it is an apostate organization", in regards to the Catholic Church. But I HAVE reached a different conclusion.

So start a thread by tomorrow morning if you want and I'll try to explain how I think you might have some misunderstandings about infant baptism, Cardinal Gibbons on revelation, prayers to the saints, the queenship of Mary, or other teachings that you describe as concoctions.

You're new here I think. A belated "welcome" to you by the way. The administrators to their credit won't like it if you start a thread that appears to just attack the Catholic Church. Make sure you include something about how apostasy is a prerequisite for restoration. That way it will clearly tie in to matters critical to LDS thought. Anyway, I look forward to any further interaction we may have and wish you my best!

God Bless,

3DOP

[3DOP]

Just so you know -- you would not need to be convinced of that.

For me, it would go very badly. I would probably consider the Church to be in apostasy.

There you go Steinman...That was my main point. Me too. I made a comment on my latest post to somebody else about how Mormons seem to want sam-sex marriage. That was a little over-the-top I am sure, even though there seems to be a lot of sentiment in that direction at least oin the internet. All I am trying to do is encourage you all to keep the faith that you received from your fathers! In that respect (having regard for your fathers in the faith), it keeps you like us Catholics. That is the best I can reasonably hope for. Our age has almost no regard for the morals of past generations. I am not optimistic that dead generations are always wrong when they disagree with those now living.

3DOP

[Yep]

3DOP,

I cannot start topics yet. Perhaps you could start one comparing the two or perhaps you could just message me directly and we could discuss it privately... I am unable to be online too often, so I often fall behind on discussions on the boards. I will not be online until after you are offline tomorrow.

[CASteinman]

There you go Steinman...That was my main point. Me too. I made a comment on my latest post to somebody else about how Mormons seem to want sam-sex marriage. That was a little over-the-top I am sure, even though there seems to be a lot of sentiment in that direction at least oin the internet. All I am trying to do is encourage you all to keep the faith that you received from your fathers! In that respect (having regard for your fathers in the faith), it keeps you like us Catholics. That is the best I can reasonably hope for. Our age has almost no regard for the morals of past generations. I am not optimistic that dead generations are always wrong when they disagree with those now living.

I do not mind having new revelation and insights. I do not mind if those revelations and insights are radical and revolutionary.

But if they toss out every foundational aspect of belief that make us unique in our doctrines on deification, that would be a problem for me.

Before I was a member, I believed that if there was a God, there must be some sort of Deification available to men. It was the clearest thing to me before I knew anything else. The Doctrine of Deification as presented by the LDS Church has at its central core the concept of family -- father, mother and children. Even including God and His Consort.

The Church has committed to this again in the statement of the Apostles that is called The Proclamation on the Family. It is a VERY important document in the modern Church.

http://www.lds.org/family/proclamation/

[Evangeline]

There you go Steinman...That was my main point. Me too. I made a comment on my latest post to somebody else about how Mormons seem to want sam-sex marriage. That was a little over-the-top I am sure, even though there seems to be a lot of sentiment in that direction at least oin the internet. All I am trying to do is encourage you all to keep the faith that you received from your fathers! In that respect (having regard for your fathers in the faith), it keeps you like us Catholics. That is the best I can reasonably hope for. Our age has almost no regard for the morals of past generations. I am not optimistic that dead generations are always wrong when they disagree with those now living.

3DOP

Thank you for that. This reminds me of a thoughtful (as always) article by Dan Peterson in the Deseret news written back in January:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700216652/Preserve-or-abandon-tradition.html?pg=1

[SamIam]

You raise an important point.

Here is another observation about what will happen if there is a softening on same-sex marriage. Look at how you guys (I am not LDS) get hammered for being supposedly late regarding opening the priesthood to all races. Outsiders don't believe it came by revelation but merely because the political climate made it popular. I never talk about it but as a non-LDS, as much as I respect you, I cannot help believing that is why that change came in the late 1970's. Being late to join the bandwagon for same-sex marriage would appear even worse from the outside.

Hi MitoticSlime.

Perhaps you are correct about the "best way".

But the discussion is about how doctrine may be changed. However you view the Church's behavior historically, I don't see how it has a bearing on questions of doctrinal continuity. I am aware that many Mormons disagree with the Catholic interpretation of our history (if they have even heard of it...heh.). But presumably that can be put to one side for the sake of discussions of unrelated topics?

There are a few subtleties that seem applicable to this conversation. First can it be construed as a doctrinal change if from the beginning years of the church it was always known that at some time shortly prior to the return of Christ, the priesthood would be extended to blacks of African descent. This also references the fact that there are several populations of black skinned people that have always been permitted to hold the priesthood. It was not the skin per se but the African descent that was the delineator. Because blacks of African descent have been transported all over the world, that distinction may not weigh heavily just for the difficulty of how well integrated their people are throughout the world. However it is true that there have been blacks in the church who were of Jordanian descent as I knew a man many years ago. When clear descent was not of African origin they were given the priesthood.

That’s point #1 point number #2 is along the lines of quotes such as this one that follows. I’m not trying to equivocate that sometimes these types of quotes seem a bit insensitive for our times but looking beyond the generational differences there is an important point to be made:

And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood,

then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.

The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. He has placed life and death before his children, and it is for them to choose. If they choose life, they receive the blessings of life; if they chose death, they must abide the penalty. This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come. Every intelligent being must have the power of choice, and God brings forth the results of the acts of his creatures to promote his kingdom and subserve his purposes in the salvation and exaltation of his children. If the Lord could have his own way, he would have all the human family to enter into his church and kingdom, receive the Holy Priesthood and come into the celestial kingdom of our Father and God, by the power of their own choice.(Brigham Young,

Journal of Discourses,

26 vols. 11: 272.)

The point is that it has always been known that at one time the blacks would be given the priesthood. No one knew the time, or the circumstance but it was an anticipated event.

"When all the other children of Adam have the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead,

then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity”

(Journal of Discourses, 2:142-43, 3 Dec. 1854).

This quote simply adds that the timeframe would be “enough” thus perhaps an implication of towards the end but with sufficient time to accommodate the process.

Thus point #2 is that in addition to point #1, it was not the black skin but African descent that was the definition accepted, point #2 indicates we have always anticipated that the day would come when it would not be so.

Point number #3 is a scriptural pretense that illustrates what I consider the same situation as the blacks and priesthood but it deals with Jacob and Esau. This is relative to the story of how Jacob by deception it seems robs Esau of his father’s blessing. This is of course concerning the deception he and his mother cooked up to cover his skin with fur and the make a spiced goat dinner to trick the blind Jacob. The key point is these verses here.

(Genesis 27:35-36.)

35 And he (Isaac)said, Thy brother (Jacob) came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing.

36 And he (Esau) said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing.

Doesn’t it seem odd that there should be a binding of a blessing which is sought and gained through deception? In Jewish culture it is highly significant that Esau has previously sold his birthright for a bowl of legumes. So this turn of events in Esau’s situation is viewed as appropriate. However, I think that since this blessing is granted and received and unfolds according to the terms of the blessing that we have to accept that what occurred was perfectly according to God’s plan and had nothing to do with the acts of deception that appear to have influenced the events. After all it was God who provided the immediate blessing and saw to the continued receipt of the promises over all these generations.

My point is that men, (and mothers apparently) do what they do. There was no obligation on God’s part to honor Jacobs blessing unless it was according to his will. The facts of the dishonest enterprise that sought to connive the blessing are irrelevant to God. He operates according to his time frame and will, so what if men are working their machinations and it overlaps into seeming like it was the pressure of those machinations that appear to have been the factor upon which the blessing is achieved. It is irrelevant to God, he operates above reproach.

The fact that the mood and climate in the US was ripe for a change and race was a premium issue in society at the time may appear to have been the cause of the churches change in direction but if we consider these three other elements and weigh them into the mix it certainly opens potential to see something perhaps a little less superficial. The ban was lifted on only those blacks whom it affected, which was a majority, but nonetheless black was not the issue. It was known from the beginning that the day would come in the church, and finally the race issues of the 70’s may have been what they obviously were, a time when the yolk of the blacks was being broken.

“Cain slew his brother.... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race – that they should be the ‘servant of servants,’ and they will be, until that curse is removed; and Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, pp. 290-291;

Note, the conditions of change were predicated upon that they would no longer be the servant of servants. Wasn’t that what the entire issue was in the 70’s? The yolk was being removed and according to all we knew to expect the conditions appear to have been as they were prophesied. That it coincided with the events that precipitated the removal of that burden of servant of servants simply is the juxtaposition of God’s intent coinciding with his already in process planning to free the blacks from centuries of oppression. The process in play made then the appropriate moment to make the change. Men did not influence him so much as that he influenced men to remove the yolk of slavery for the black man’s time had come.

To finalize, there are very clear reasons for why the homosexual agenda is vastly different and why the church can only move so far in their behalf. It is no different for me as for them. I must live my life according to the bounds the Lord has set and morality is the basis of common issues we all share as challenges. We must all constrain ourselves to operate according to those boundaries. I agree with the churches effort to educate its members into genuine charitable behaviors that see beyond sexual orientation just as we have been working to improve our member’s response to welcoming the blacks with open arms into our ranks. However, once our traditional hearts have been tried to overcome inappropriate barriers of prejudice and harmful attitudes, at the end of the day, charitable as we may become there is no expectation according to any promises in the prophecies of the church or according to scriptural edict that will ever sanction the day that we can allow actively practicing homosexuals a place with all others that have confined their sexual behaviors to the bounds the Lord has set.

I cannot comprehend such a thing will occur though I have had close friends that were of a same gender persuasions. There is no such precedent in the black situation as it was anticipated. These are radically different situations with radically different potential outcomes. The Black priesthood situation was simply prophecy fulfilled - not a doctrinal change. Allowing same gender sexual transgression would be a doctrinal change, just as the sisters holding the priesthood would be and neither is going to occur based on any indications of which I am aware from the scriptural or prophetic record.

Edited June 28, 2012 by SamIam

[3DOP]

Samlam...Hi.

I think I may have not expressed myself clearly. I am not troubled by LDS opening of the priesthood to all races. I can see how, if I were LDS, I could defend it as compatible with LDS tradition, and even to be expected. I could not see a similar compatibility between your tradition and same-sex marriage. My ONLY reason for bringing up the priesthood issue was to highlight how your detractors hammer on you for being late about that. I was saying that for those Mormons who think that by accepting same-sex marriage, they will gain the favor of the same-sex marriage crowd, that they are mistaken. You will be despised by the same-sexers for being late and it will be noted that you have abandoned the faith of your fathers by people like me.

But whatever is true...do it. If you believe that the Scriptures of both former and latter day teach that same-sex marriage is good, then proclaim it from the housetops. If even newer revelation comes that says that same-sex marriage is beautiful, proclaim it from the housetops. But I would have a hard time taking it seriously. It would seem to me like caving in to the popular spirit of the day. I would have a hard time reconciling what you believed with what your founding prophets and apostles believed. That is all I am saying. I really don't have the proverbial "dog in this hunt". I think it would be a mistake for your church. The time will come when this thing isn't the big rage it is right now. You might not live to see it but your children will if you guys pander to the spirit of the age...and in the 22nd Century Mormons will become Catholics because of same-sex married LDS bishops and apostles...just like Anglicans are coming back to Rome because of homosexuallly married bishops in the 21st Century.

3DOP