Do You Think The Pope Was Foreordained?

[Nofear]

I use as a reference the Gospel Topics for foreordination on the lds web site

 

"The doctrine of foreordination applies to all members of the Church, not just to the

Savior and His prophets. Before the creation of the earth, faithful women were given

certain responsibilities and faithful men were foreordained to certain priesthood duties.

As people prove themselves worthy, they will be given opportunities to fulfill the

assignments they then received".

 

Since the pope does not have a valid priesthood (no authority or power to act in God's

name) and he is not a member of the 'Church' (which I assume is The Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints), can foreordination apply to him?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

I think of the quote on foreordination is correctly read as using priesthood ordination as an example of foreordination and not the limit to it (as I've seen many advocate in this thread). Case in point D&C 101 verse 80: "And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood." It sounds very much like our forefathers were ordained/given/charged/tasked with a calling to establish our United States from before mortality. They were not members of the Church. I believe Pope's can also be raised up to accomplish a measure of good. Not every human is ready for the Gospel but that doesn't mean the Lord ignores them or their needs and so God charges instruments, even from before the beginning of the world, to effect his purposes (e.g. Cyrus).

Edited December 20, 2013 by Nofear

[JAHS]

According to Abraham:
"Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born." (Abr 3:22-23)

The term "noble and great", as used here more specifically refers to those who were to help create the earth and serve as prophets during the various dispensations (D&C 138:53-56). God said, "These I will make my rulers."

Joseph Smith said of these "noble and great" ones:
"Rulers in the Kingdom of God were to exercise authority by the power of example and by the attraction of the truth which they taught. God's rulers were to be His prophets—those to whom He would commit the priesthood and its keys. By the proper exercise of the priesthood, their sceptre would become an unchanging sceptre of righteousness and truth, and their dominion an everlasting dominion that, without compulsory means, would flow unto them forever and ever." (DHC, III, p. 387)

However, considering that the term "many" was used in the scripture describing the noble and great ones who were foreordained to be rulers, it certainly could mean that foreordination could apply to some degree to more than just the few prophet leaders we have had on the earth so far, including both men and women. In our latter-day dispensation the term has acquired a broader more inclusive meaning that can be applied to any active faithful latter-day saint who may have been foreordained to do something in this life to further the kingdom of God on this earth. 

Joseph Smith also explained. 
"Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was. I suppose that I was ordained to this very office in that Grand Council." (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 365.)

 

In my opinion those who were "foreordained" were anyone who would be associated with the ministration and advancement of God's church on earth, be they men or women. I doubt that anyone not so engaged, such as a pope, would have been foreordained to such positions. 

Edited December 20, 2013 by JAHS

[3DOP]

Stone holm

I can see where that could be offensive, and I apologize.

 

3DOP

I accept and appreciate your apology. 

 

Stone holm

There are certain Prophets that I am not particularly crazy about, but the world tends to either ignore or condemn our Prophets. So am trying to imagine a Prophet who gained the type of popular acclaim that Pope Francis has. The last time I recall a Pope getting this much approval he died rather quickly. Unfortunately, I can't keep their names straight. Having spent three years as a full time graduate student at Notre Dame you would think I would be better at Papal names.

 

3DOP

Benedict is still alive. John Paul II reigned for about a quarter of a century. His predecessor was John Paul I and he was barely pope for a month. I suppose you are thinking of him. I have no recollection as I wasn't Catholic at the time. This would have been 1978.

 

Stone holm

What I am hearing from my sons about this Pope is basically, "Wow, a religious leader actually teaching and practicing what Christ taught." Which is very high praise coming from my sons, don't recall them ever saying that about a GA in our Church.

 

3DOP

I see. On the other thread, I have expressed my willingness to re-evaluate my own previously held economic positions. Even if I disagree ultimately, it would be because I don't think Christ taught very clearly any specific economic system. My enthusiasm for the Catholic faith is detached from economics. Prior to becoming Catholic, I was a little bit of a crusader for the free market, having studied extensively from the works of Ludwig von MIses, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, and others in the 80's. When I became Catholic in 1995, I stopped caring very much about things that seemed irrelevant in light of union with God on earth and heaven through cooperation with grace in prayer and the Sacraments. I can't imagine ever praying hard that any particular economic system would get accepted. I care so little that I am willing to change if I can be persuaded that Christ taught us economics. I believe that He taught us principles of justice and of loving our neighbor. But these principles are practically universal. You don't have to be a follower of Christ to know that you should clothe the naked instead of stealing what little they do have.

 

You cited the Good Samaritan as though an alternative form of economy than what you advocate destroys the value of what is taught with that story. A rich young man inquires about who is his neighbor. The truth for all of us is not that we are all called to give up all of our resources, as I think the rich young man was, but that everyone we meet is our neighbor. I am hoping, though not with much confidence that Pope Francis' economic views are more about individual generosity than about having the state do it.

 

My concerns about Pope Francis have little or nothing to do with politics and I have shared a little bit why already.

 

Stone holm

So I find it curious that conservative Catholics are not particularly enthusiastic about this Pope who is inspiring so much interest in Catholicism and religion in general by non-Catholics. A Prophet who achieved such public acclaim, would have Mormons dancing in the streets.

 

3DOP

You would be mistaken to categorize me as a conservative Catholic. Traditionalists have liberal leanings that conservatives despise. Conservatives don't acknowledge that we sometimes have the right or even the duty to disobey our spiritual superiors in a spirit of fraternal charity. Conservatives, according to how I distinguish them from Traditionalists, would have to find a way to make the words of a pope mean what they want them to mean. They can't believe that a living pope is wrong about anything except maybe sports and the weather. They see in every initiative of the pope, the certain will of God. Since I do not, I can not be a good reflection of what conservative Catholics are thinking about a living pope. 

 

I have been waiting for a certain conservative Catholic to arrive here, but so far she hasn't. She and I would agree about many of the most important things, but I am afraid she would be very dismayed with my honest appraisal of the pope, especially on a Mormon forum. It is possible that I have been imprudent by sharing my misgivings with non-Catholics, but my conscience is at ease. I meant well, and I hope this has been a time where I could perhaps share with non-Catholics a balanced look at how a Catholic might think with regards to a pope with whom we have serious misgivings. Ultimately, our peace lies in the knowledge that no one on earth, not even a pope, can change the truths that have been once revealed by the Apostles and repeatedly taught by the One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church. That is why I could never be enthused about a pope who "finally" taught the teachings of Christ. I am suspicious of the probability that the pope's popularity is media driven and it is because the media thinks, whether rightly or wrongly, that he is one of them politically.

 

Thank you again for your apology.

 

Regards, 

 

Rory

 

Edited for posterity: "When I became Catholic in 1995, I stopped caring very much about things that seemed irrelevant in light of union with God on earth and heaven through cooperation with grace in prayer and the Sacraments."

 

I have three rep points the way it is, but I need to make a correction. It isn't like I am Mr. Prayer. What I should have said was that I became aware that there were things to learn and pursue that made my studies in economics pale in importance. It doesn't even mean I studied or pursued those more important things as I should have. I certainly have not taken advantage of many spiritual opportunities that have been available to me..

Edited December 21, 2013 by 3DOP

[Stone holm]

Stone holm

I can see where that could be offensive, and I apologize.

 

3DOP

I accept and appreciate your apology. 

 

Stone holm

There are certain Prophets that I am not particularly crazy about, but the world tends to either ignore or condemn our Prophets. So am trying to imagine a Prophet who gained the type of popular acclaim that Pope Francis has. The last time I recall a Pope getting this much approval he died rather quickly. Unfortunately, I can't keep their names straight. Having spent three years as a full time graduate student at Notre Dame you would think I would be better at Papal names.

 

3DOP

Benedict is still alive. John Paul II reigned for about a quarter of a century. His predecessor was John Paul I and he was barely pope for a month. I suppose you are thinking of him. I have no recollection as I wasn't Catholic at the time. This would have been 1978.

 

Stone holm

What I am hearing from my sons about this Pope is basically, "Wow, a religious leader actually teaching and practicing what Christ taught." Which is very high praise coming from my sons, don't recall them ever saying that about a GA in our Church.

 

3DOP

I see. On the other thread, I have expressed my willingness to re-evaluate my own previously held economic positions. Even if I disagree ultimately, it would be because I don't think Christ taught very clearly any specific economic system. My enthusiasm for the Catholic faith is detached from economics. Prior to becoming Catholic, I was a little bit of a crusader for the free market, having studied extensively from the works of Ludwig von MIses, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, and others in the 80's. When I became Catholic in 1995, I stopped caring very much about things that seemed irrelevant in light of union with God on earth and heaven through cooperation with grace in prayer and the Sacraments. I can't imagine ever praying hard that any particular economic system would get accepted. I care so little that I am willing to change if I can be persuaded that Christ taught us economics. I believe that He taught us principles of justice and of loving our neighbor. But these principles are practically universal. You don't have to be a follower of Christ to know that you should clothe the naked instead of stealing what little they do have.

 

You cited the Good Samaritan as though an alternative form of economy than what you advocate destroys the value of what is taught with that story. A rich young man inquires about who is his neighbor. The truth for all of us is not that we are all called to give up all of our resources, as I think the rich young man was, but that everyone we meet is our neighbor. I am hoping, though not with much confidence that Pope Francis' economic views are more about individual generosity than about having the state do it.

 

My concerns about Pope Francis have little or nothing to do with politics and I have shared a little bit why already.

 

Stone holm

So I find it curious that conservative Catholics are not particularly enthusiastic about this Pope who is inspiring so much interest in Catholicism and religion in general by non-Catholics. A Prophet who achieved such public acclaim, would have Mormons dancing in the streets.

 

3DOP

You would be mistaken to categorize me as a conservative Catholic. Traditionalists have liberal leanings that conservatives despise. Conservatives don't acknowledge that we sometimes have the right or even the duty to disobey our spiritual superiors in a spirit of fraternal charity. Conservatives, according to how I distinguish them from Traditionalists, would have to find a way to make the words of a pope mean what they want them to mean. They can't believe that a living pope is wrong about anything except maybe sports and the weather. They see in every initiative of the pope, the certain will of God. Since I do not, I can not be a good reflection of what conservative Catholics are thinking about a living pope. 

 

I have been waiting for a certain conservative Catholic to arrive here, but so far she hasn't. She and I would agree about many of the most important things, but I am afraid she would be very dismayed with my honest appraisal of the pope, especially on a Mormon forum. It is possible that I have been imprudent by sharing my misgivings with non-Catholics, but my conscience is at ease. I meant well, and I hope this has been a time where I could perhaps share with non-Catholics a balanced look at how a Catholic might think with regards to a pope with whom we have serious misgivings. Ultimately, our peace lies in the knowledge that no one on earth, not even a pope, can change the truths that have been once revealed by the Apostles and repeatedly taught by the One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church. That is why I could never be enthused about a pope who "finally" taught the teachings of Christ. I am suspicious of the probability that the pope's popularity is media driven and it is because the media thinks, whether rightly or wrongly, that he is one of them politically.

 

Thank you again for your apology.

 

Regards, 

 

Rory

 

Yeah, when John Paul I ascended to the Papacy, as I recall there was a reaction to him similar to the reaction that has been occurring with Pope Francis -- although not as prolonged obviously.  I remember several Mormons at the time praising him and then bam he was gone.  John Paul II didn't attract much praise or condemnation amongst Mormons as I remember -- he was the Pope, I believe while I was at Notre Dame, don't remember him being talked about much on campus -- although I do remember some positive comments about Vatican II in the comparative American religions class.  Before I became a Mormon in 1976, I flirted for a time with Catholicism mainly because of what the Jesuits were doing leading the anti-Vietnam War movement -- but ultimately didn't.  Pope Benedict was, well, Pope Benedict.  I have no real memories or thoughts about Popes before these as Catholicism and Catholic thought was far from my mind, although I water skied in the summer with a lot of Catholics and always thought those medals they used to wear were cool.  I also remember eating lunch with them at the local burger joint on Fridays and them flicking water at their burgers and saying "swim d--- it swim" before eating them.  As far as Christianity is concerned, I tend to agree with LeGrand Richards that either the Catholics have it nailed, or we have it nailed.  Have actually from College onwards always held the Catholics in high regard as a community -- but most of my encounters have been with liberal North American Roman Catholics including several nuns who were fellow graduate students at Notre Dame with me -- it was a little disconcerting to me that they didn't wear habits and some I did not realize were nuns until after months associating with them.  I was treated well, but something akin to a curiousity in the Notre Dame graduate history and American Studies departments.

[Robert F. Smith]

Do not deny a thing there but ordination involves Priesthood. Many were given diverse assignments and responsibilities on earth and were placed in specific circumstances for important reasons and will do great things. Many of them are much greater in importance and do more service to the building up of God's kingdom then many priesthood holders but they were not ordained to do that in the LDS sense.

I see that you persist in your narrow and inaccurate definition of "ordain."  You could have consulted learned discussions online as to the various meanings of the English word, and how many Greek and Hebrew words it translates, and how they differ from one another in meaning.  You might have looked at the Scripture I cited, and given some thought to St Paul's use of the term applied to secular powers.  But you didn't.  Instead, you sought to foreclose the discomfiting fact that you have no idea of the semantic range and breadth of use of the word.

 

Rabbis get ordained too, but it has nothing to do with priesthood (within Judaism, a very different group of men hold the priesthood).

[Robert F. Smith]

Git is like "jerk" but is stronger and also implies stupidity. It is a wonderful British word.

 

Gandhi was the personification of the caricature many conservatives draw of liberals. That they profess their love of mankind but are horrible people in private and are basically pretty hateful.

 

Gandhi wrote quite a bit about his wife.....mostly comparing her to a cow. He also recorded how he beat her regularly and admitted that he was an adulterer. He referred to his first son as a "mistake" and forbid him to go to law school despite going himself. His first son died penniless trying to survive as a male prostitute. His wife died when Gandhi refused on moral grounds to let her have penicillin. Remarkably when Gandhi grew ill this prohibition no longer applied for some reason.

 

He wrote two letters to Hitler praising him and asking him to ease off a little while assuring Hitler he did not believe Hitler was the monster his opponents made him out to be. He wrote this in 1940 after the war started. He also wrote to the Jews encouraging them to go to their deaths peaceably under German rule.

 

Gandhi was big on tempting himself to sin to prove his virtue. He did this by having middle-school aged girls sleep with him every night nude including his grandniece. He also had a thing for enemas, both for them and him. Admittedly he insisted nothing ever happened. I don't want to think about the psychological damage he caused to the girls though.

 

He was probably gay. He had a live-in male German Jewish bodybuilder friend. Their letters are full of homoerotic tension including one of them being "upper house" and the other "lower house". Yeah, not very subtle.

 

He was also a disgusting racist. He fought for Indian Rights but despised the kaffirs. This word is not known to all Americans. It basically means "nigger" in other parts of the world with all the racism we put into the word. He was pleased when it was made clear they had no right to ride the tram (would not have gotten along with Rosa Parks), he complained that Indians were lumped in with the "degenerate kaffirs" and constantly made comments about how lazy and smelly they are. Mr. NonViolence even argued that violence against Black Africans didn't count.

 

Gandhi's campaign of nonviolence came into full swing during World War II when there was a real chance India could be conquered by the Japanese. Gandhi encouraged submission and weakened the war effort. While I do not want to defend Britain's occupation of India they were more moral on a rough level. Gandhi would have been shot had the Japanese been allowed to move in whereas the British left him alone.

 

Gandhi's campaign for independence was opposed by many British on moral grounds. The caste system was largely repressed under British rule and the upper classes could not torment the lower at will. The fear was that if the British pulled out the upper classes would take vengeance. Gandhi may have been dedicated to nonviolence but the end result of his campaign was the Indian Civil War where the untouchables (who he called brothers) were killed in large numbers by those he supported in their quest for independence. At least they got called brother I guess. Not like the black people he despised as uncivilized savages undeserving of equal rights.

 

India has been running a successful PR campaign to make Gandhi into some kind of quasi-Christian saint. He was more of a hypocritical misogynistic idiotic pervert by western standards. That movie about Gandhi a few years back that makes him seem so wonderful was mostly funded by the government of India. Cute huh?

 

Oh my, CFR. I think I'm going to be sick, if this is true. I want to throw up when I think about ever quoting that @$&, if true.

Nofear said:

I tend to hold such sensationalistic accounts with a bit of skepticism. http://www.hoaxorfac...out-gandhi.html

speaks to many of the points and suggests that they are rather skewed presentations at best. That is not to say Ghandi is by any means a saint by contemporary standards... but that's all off topic.

For an anthropologist who is familiar with the religious and social practices of Hindus, the drinking of one's own urine, Bapu sleeping naked with his nieces, and like practices, seem well within the normal range of behavior, and Westerners do seem shocked when confronted by those realities. The Western makers of the epic film "Gandhi" (it was not made by India) left a good deal of that out as too exotic for Western consumption. Clearly too exotic for you.

But the rest of your list of the horrid things Bapu is supposed to have done reads like the notorious medieval blood libels against the Jews, and it just isn't true. Those, like William L. Shirer, who lived with Gandhi in India for years and wrote books about him knew him as a very different and saintly man.

 

[The Nehor]

For an anthropologist who is familiar with the religious and social practices of Hindus, the drinking of one's own urine, Bapu sleeping naked with his nieces, and like practices, seem well within the normal range of behavior, and Westerners do seem shocked when confronted by those realities. The Western makers of the epic film "Gandhi" (it was not made by India) left a good deal of that out as too exotic for Western consumption. Clearly too exotic for you.

But the rest of your list of the horrid things Bapu is supposed to have done reads like the notorious medieval blood libels against the Jews, and it just isn't true. Those, like William L. Shirer, who lived with Gandhi in India for years and wrote books about him knew him as a very different and saintly man.

Unfortunately for that theory most of the basis for these stories is found in Gandhi's own writings and correspondence. Comparing them to made up stories written to vilify Jews is unfair.

[The Nehor]

I see that you persist in your narrow and inaccurate definition of "ordain."  You could have consulted learned discussions online as to the various meanings of the English word, and how many Greek and Hebrew words it translates, and how they differ from one another in meaning.  You might have looked at the Scripture I cited, and given some thought to St Paul's use of the term applied to secular powers.  But you didn't.  Instead, you sought to foreclose the discomfiting fact that you have no idea of the semantic range and breadth of use of the word.

 

Rabbis get ordained too, but it has nothing to do with priesthood (within Judaism, a very different group of men hold the priesthood).

Actually I just have a narrow definition of the word "foreordain".

So I am not going to bother to read the rest of whatever you are going on about.

[Tacenda]

I tend to hold such sensationalistic accounts with a bit of skepticism. http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Politics/untold-truths-about-gandhi.html

speaks to many of the points and suggests that they are rather skewed presentations at best. That is not to say Ghandi is by any means a saint by contemporary standards... but that's all off topic.

I'm so happy, I ran along a quote by the Dalai lama, and realize I got him and Ghandi mixed up! Yay, I can keep on quoting the Dalai whenever I see fit, whew. Edited December 22, 2013 by Tacenda

[saemo]

The Catholic Church holds that "continuing revelation" can expand on what has been taught before, but it will always compliment what was said previously. (I speak qualifiedly when I use the expression "continuing revelation". I have argued elsewhere that for sake of discussion with LDS, it is misleading for us to say that we are without continuing revelation. To speak more would be for another thread.)

I asked if you think Pope Francis' popularity stems from his firm adherence to Catholic Tradition. I don't think anybody would like him for that reason. In my opinion, his extremely popularity with all kinds of people is because he gives the appearance of loosening Church teachings that non-Traditional Catholics and non-Catholics dislike.

1) There has been speculation about female cardinals.

2) There has been speculation about encouraging the divorced and remarried (which has always been considered adulterous) to receive Holy Communion, even if they can't get an annulment.

3) There has been an authoritarian crackdown against an order of Franciscans attached to the Traditional Mass.

4) The pope has observed that the Church overemphasizes sexual sin.

5) The pope has observed that the Church overemphasizes the abortion holocaust.

6) The pope seems to think he is unqualified to judge whether homosexual acts are sinful.

It seems like every time the pope speaks, it gives rise to the encouragement of some new orientation in the Church that can't be acceptable without condemning our Fathers in the faith. He does very little to squelch most of the wild speculations. I did see this weekend where he finally said that it wouldn't be happening that we would have female cardinals saying something about how that would be a form of clericalism. I think he meant that women need to be leaders in the Church while bypassing the clerical offices, diminishing the importance of the cardinalate. I suppose that is a little better, but not much.

I don't see that in anything that Pope Francis has said. Every time a media outlet interprets him saying something "new and improved" I can point to the very same teaching in the Catechism.

I read what he says, as a Catholic says them and hears them, not as the secular media hears and reinterprets.

That being said, the secular media is fickle. It won't take long for Pope Francis to be hated by non-Catholics. It turns on a dime, and enforces a totalitarian view of everything. They are enforcing an unrealistic view of him. But, I cringe at putting clergy on pedestals. Especially those built by a secular media who hate God. In short, the hypocrisy is killing me.

I miss Pope Benedict XVI, for the simple reason that I loved his encyclicals. He had a gift for teaching and was a major influence for my becoming Catholic. I'm much more comfortable with an underdog Pope. A man who genuinely seeks holiness, but is still, just a sinful man. A Pope on a media pedestal has me on pins and needles,waiting for it to be kicked out from under him. It is only a matter if time.

What I am suspicious about is pride, that can masquerade as humility. Is forsaking something humility, or pride? I'm waiting to see what happens next, but always, pray for our Papa.

Edited December 22, 2013 by saemo

[Stone holm]

I don't see that in anything that Pope Francis has said. Every time a media outlet interprets him saying something "new and improved" I can point to the very same teaching in the Catechism.

I read what he says, as a Catholic says them and hears them, not as the secular media hears and reinterprets.

That being said, the secular media is fickle. It won't take long for Pope Francis to be hated by non-Catholics. It turns on a dime, and enforces a totalitarian view of everything. They are enforcing an unrealistic view of him. But, I cringe at putting clergy on pedestals. Especially those built by a secular media who hate God. In short, the hypocrisy is killing me.

I miss Pope Benedict XVI, for the simple reason that I loved his encyclicals. He had a gift for teaching and was a major influence for my becoming Catholic. I'm much more comfortable with an underdog Pope. A man who genuinely seeks holiness, but is still, just a sinful man. A Pope on a media pedestal has me on pins and needles,waiting for it to be kicked out from under him. It is only a matter if time.

What I am suspicious about is pride, that can masquerade as humility. Is forsaking something humility, or pride? I'm waiting to see what happens next, but always, pray for our Papa.

 

I am obviously not a Catholic, and am obviously a fan of Pope Francis, but what I see is more of a change in emphasis than a change in your doctrine.  One thing that I think cannot be denied is that he has changed the focus of the media away from the anti-SSM crusade and the pedophile scandals, to something more appealing.  Whether he can keep up the momentum is hard to say, but he certainly has been dominating the news and mostly with positive press.

[Bob Crockett]

Git is like "jerk" but is stronger and also implies stupidity. It is a wonderful British word.

 

Gandhi was the personification of the caricature many conservatives draw of liberals. That they profess their love of mankind but are horrible people in private and are basically pretty hateful.

 

Gandhi wrote quite a bit about his wife.....mostly comparing her to a cow. He also recorded how he beat her regularly and admitted that he was an adulterer. He referred to his first son as a "mistake" and forbid him to go to law school despite going himself. His first son died penniless trying to survive as a male prostitute. His wife died when Gandhi refused on moral grounds to let her have penicillin. Remarkably when Gandhi grew ill this prohibition no longer applied for some reason.

 

He wrote two letters to Hitler praising him and asking him to ease off a little while assuring Hitler he did not believe Hitler was the monster his opponents made him out to be. He wrote this in 1940 after the war started. He also wrote to the Jews encouraging them to go to their deaths peaceably under German rule.

 

Gandhi was big on tempting himself to sin to prove his virtue. He did this by having middle-school aged girls sleep with him every night nude including his grandniece. He also had a thing for enemas, both for them and him. Admittedly he insisted nothing ever happened. I don't want to think about the psychological damage he caused to the girls though.

 

He was probably gay. He had a live-in male German Jewish bodybuilder friend. Their letters are full of homoerotic tension including one of them being "upper house" and the other "lower house". Yeah, not very subtle.

 

He was also a disgusting racist. He fought for Indian Rights but despised the kaffirs. This word is not known to all Americans. It basically means "nigger" in other parts of the world with all the racism we put into the word. He was pleased when it was made clear they had no right to ride the tram (would not have gotten along with Rosa Parks), he complained that Indians were lumped in with the "degenerate kaffirs" and constantly made comments about how lazy and smelly they are. Mr. NonViolence even argued that violence against Black Africans didn't count.

 

Gandhi's campaign of nonviolence came into full swing during World War II when there was a real chance India could be conquered by the Japanese. Gandhi encouraged submission and weakened the war effort. While I do not want to defend Britain's occupation of India they were more moral on a rough level. Gandhi would have been shot had the Japanese been allowed to move in whereas the British left him alone.

 

Gandhi's campaign for independence was opposed by many British on moral grounds. The caste system was largely repressed under British rule and the upper classes could not torment the lower at will. The fear was that if the British pulled out the upper classes would take vengeance. Gandhi may have been dedicated to nonviolence but the end result of his campaign was the Indian Civil War where the untouchables (who he called brothers) were killed in large numbers by those he supported in their quest for independence. At least they got called brother I guess. Not like the black people he despised as uncivilized savages undeserving of equal rights.

 

India has been running a successful PR campaign to make Gandhi into some kind of quasi-Christian saint. He was more of a hypocritical misogynistic idiotic pervert by western standards. That movie about Gandhi a few years back that makes him seem so wonderful was mostly funded by the government of India. Cute huh?

Interesting.   I wonder how much of this is true?  i'll have to look for a good bio.  As far as I'm concerned, Ghandi certainly accomplished much for his country.  I'm not really impressed with the charge of homosexuality or racism . Racism is so endemic with Indian culture; I represent Indians today and can see that the caste system still has great power.  I don't believe that a homosexual is a bad person; I reject that notion.  Should we ignoreT.H. Lawrence's accomplishments on that basis?

 

It was also interesting how a prominent poster on this board tried to discredit your post with a totally irrelevant violation of Godwin's law -- Jews and Hitler and all that.  Really not acceptable.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[saemo]

I am obviously not a Catholic, and am obviously a fan of Pope Francis, but what I see is more of a change in emphasis than a change in your doctrine.  One thing that I think cannot be denied is that he has changed the focus of the media away from the anti-SSM crusade and the pedophile scandals, to something more appealing.  Whether he can keep up the momentum is hard to say, but he certainly has been dominating the news and mostly with positive press.

 

In a conversation I had with one of our Deacon's once several years ago, he sited the pastoral approach, which goes to the needs of people. Some women get abortions because they see it as the only or best alternative, so, address the woman's needs. Supporting the poor, caring for the homeless, supporting a woman in her pregnancy and afterwards, etc. go towards supporting what a person needs, so the choice for abortion is reduced.

 

The two, doctrines and approach, are tied together. Each person needs to be addressed individually. This is what I see in Pope Francis, a call to get off our behinds and do something for people who are in need. His is a pastoral and evangelizing approach. He sees the person.

 

Interesting enough, the Diane Rehm's show this morning on NPR was on this topic. http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-12-23/pope-francis-and-his-global-reach

[saemo]

Do you think that say Pope Francis or Pope John Paul ll or really any of them were foreordained to do that? When I say foreordained to me that means God wants them to do that role or calling and sets up their life to make it so-thank you!

I understand your question is from an LDS POV.

 

But, just to add the Catholic POV, I recommend Dr. Peter Kreeft's "Fated and Free" lecture. Free, online, here:http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/29_lotr_fated-free.htm  And the introduction to "Freewill and Predestination", here:  http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/freewill-predestination.htm

 

"Let's look first at the side called destiny. Predestination is a misleading word, I think, for it concedes too much to our temporal way of thinking. God is not pre or post anything. He is present to everything. God does not look down rows of dominoes or into crystal balls. He does not have to wait for anything. Nor does he wonder what will happen. Nothing is uncertain to him, as the future is uncertain to us. There is not predestination but destination, not predestiny but destiny. This follows from divine omniscience and eternity.

 

But our free will follows from the divine love. To love someone is to make them free. To enslave them is always a defect of love."

 

It is Catholic doctrine that all are destined for God. The reason He created us was for life with Him. So, as BlueDreams already stated, we all have one vocation, that is, to build the Kingdom of God. Each is given gifts of the Holy Spirit towards this end, none is greater, or lesser than an other. All are for God.

Edited December 23, 2013 by saemo

[Stone holm]

I understand your question is from an LDS POV.

 

But, just to add the Catholic POV, I recommend Dr. Peter Kreeft's "Fated and Free" lecture. Free, online, here:http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/29_lotr_fated-free.htm  And the introduction to "Freewill and Predestination", here:  http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/freewill-predestination.htm

 

"Let's look first at the side called destiny. Predestination is a misleading word, I think, for it concedes too much to our temporal way of thinking. God is not pre or post anything. He is present to everything. God does not look down rows of dominoes or into crystal balls. He does not have to wait for anything. Nor does he wonder what will happen. Nothing is uncertain to him, as the future is uncertain to us. There is not predestination but destination, not predestiny but destiny. This follows from divine omniscience and eternity.

 

But our free will follows from the divine love. To love someone is to make them free. To enslave them is always a defect of love."

 

It is Catholic doctrine that all are destined for God. The reason He created us was for life with Him. So, as BlueDreams already stated, we all have one vocation, that is, to build the Kingdom of God. Each is given gifts of the Holy Spirit towards this end, none is greater, or lesser than an other. All are for God.

Some LDS struggle with free will and predestination, I don't because I neither believe in the everything present theory you espouse, nor do I believe in omniscience since it negates free will.

[Damien the Leper]

Absolutely. The Papal Office is meant to lead Gods Church on earth. Any other position is least in authority.