Mormonism, Catholicism, Or ???, In The Next Two Thousand Years

[Calm]

that the priesthood ban reflected God's will for the times

I think recent scholarship that has studied what church leadership has had to say on the issue over time and detailed the development have made a very good case the creation of the ban was a cultural response and not a revelatory one, even though the idea that it was became so entrenched once those involved were dead that it required a revelation to remove it.

 

(for those interested in details, see Paul Reeve's FM conference talk when it gets posted or read his book, Religion of a Different Color)

 

Otoh I see polygamy and homosexual marriage teachings as much more problematic to place in such a context.  Female priests...given our teachings of the priesthood being available to women in the temple, I don't see the same restrictions apply, this could be changed to a more expansive role outside the temple with continuing revelation.

 

I do think LDS view church tradition in a very different light than Catholics do.  In some cases it may amount to being almost the same if I understand correctly (Catholic tradition would be seen as founded ultimately in past revelation), but the connotation of the word means very different things to LDS.  There is no inherent authority in "Tradition" for LDS, imo.

 

 they have mostly lost a sense of belonging to one true church

 

I agree with this strongly (though I prefer the phrase "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased" as I love the implications of "living" and of course the Lord's blessing).  Our early members may have mostly come from a Protestant worldview, but the concept of a united faith of doctrine and authority (and not just a shared creed with various interpretations of other doctrines resulting in different churches with different leadership) connects with the Catholic faith much better imo.

Edited August 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[3DOP]

I think recent scholarship that has studied what church leadership has had to say on the issue over time and detailed the development have made a very good case the creation of the ban was a cultural response and not a revelatory one, even though the idea that it was became so entrenched once those involved were dead that it required a revelation to remove it.

 

(for those interested in details, see Paul Reeve's FM conference talk when it gets posted or read his book, Religion of a Different Color)

 

Otoh I see polygamy and homosexual marriage teachings as much more problematic to place in such a context.  Female priests...given our teachings of the priesthood being available to women in the temple, I don't see the same restrictions apply, this could be changed to a more expansive role outside the temple with continuing revelation.

 

I do think LDS view church tradition in a very different light than Catholics do.  In some cases it may amount to being almost the same if I understand correctly (Catholic tradition would be seen as founded ultimately in past revelation), but the connotation of the word means very different things to LDS.  There is no inherent authority in "Tradition" for LDS, imo.

 

 

I agree with this strongly (though I prefer the phrase "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased" as I love the implications of "living" and of course the Lord's blessing).  Our early members may have mostly come from a Protestant worldview, but the concept of a united faith of doctrine and authority (and not just a shared creed with various interpretations of other doctrines resulting in different churches with different leadership) connects with the Catholic faith much better imo.

 

Cal, hey...I can get on board with your preferred phrase..."the only true and living church upon the face of the earth, which I, the Lord, am well pleased." Yeah, I like it. Except for the brevity of one true church, yours is A-Okay with me.

[David Waltz]

Hi Rory,

 

Interesting thread. In this post, I am going to focus on your "Or ???", which I would like to expand a bit, and suggest that an "Or ???" need not (and/or should not) be exclusive to the future only.

 

In your opening post, you wrote:

 

==Maybe churches can survive five years, or even a hundred when they fail to identify with their fathers. But faithful fathers want to leave something for those who come after, and faithful children must be able to honor their fathers. I want generations of my children's children to remain Catholic.==

 

We should not forget the application of the above exhortation to the Jewish paradigm. One can argue that the faithful "fathers" and "children" of Judaism have carried out your exhortation for over 2,000 years now. A question I have asked myself for a number of years now is why so few Jews accepted the claims of Jesus. Some solid answers to my question were answered in David Klinghoffer's book, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus (https://books.google.com/books?id=XiiTdrFIwO4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false).

 

Now is not the time for me to go into detail why I think Judaism is wrong in it's assessment of Jesus, and shall merely state that I believe the evidence/s for accepting the claims of Jesus outweigh the objections raised by Jewish apologists and theologians.

 

With the above in mind, I would like to move on another "Or ???": Islam. Just as Christians argue that the Jewish dispensation had a 'shelf-life'—i.e. that the plan of God always had in mind the Mosaic covenant would eventually be replaced by a "better covenant"—Muslim apologists believe the same when it comes to the Christian dispensation; in other words, it too had a 'shelf-life'.

 

I am sure that most Christians will find such a claim to be absurd; but, in adopting such a view, have we perhaps fallen into the same mind-set as Judaism?

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

Edited August 10, 2015 by David Waltz

[Calm]

Does the heart good to see you, David.

[3DOP]

Hi Rory,

 

Interesting thread. In this post, I am going to focus on your "Or ???", which I would like to expand a bit, and suggest that an "Or ???" need not (and/or should not) be exclusive to the future only.

 

In your opening post, you wrote:

 

==Maybe churches can survive five years, or even a hundred when they fail to identify with their fathers. But faithful fathers want to leave something for those who come after, and faithful children must be able to honor their fathers. I want generations of my children's children to remain Catholic.==

 

We should not forget the application of the above exhortation to the Jewish paradigm. One can argue that the faithful "fathers" and "children" of Judaism have carried out your exhortation for over 2,000 years now. A question I have asked myself for a number of years now is why so few Jews accepted the claims of Jesus. Some solid answers to my question were answered in David Klinghoffer's book, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus (https://books.google.com/books?id=XiiTdrFIwO4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false).

 

Now is not the time for me to go into detail why I think Judaism is wrong in it's assessment of Jesus, and shall merely state that I believe the evidence/s for accepting the claims of Jesus outweigh the objections raised by Jewish apologists and theologians.

 

With the above in mind, I would like to move on another "Or ???": Islam. Just as Christians argue that the Jewish dispensation had a 'shelf-life'—i.e. that the plan of God always had in mind the Mosaic covenant would eventually be replaced by a "better covenant"—Muslim apologists believe the same when it comes to the Christian dispensation; in other words, it too had a 'shelf-life'.

 

I am sure that most Christians will find such a claim to be absurd; but, in adopting such a view, have we perhaps fallen into the same mind-set as Judaism?

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

 

Dave hey. Long time no see...around these parts anyway!

 

The "Or" that I had in mind was with regards to something unknown, what I have sometimes called on these boards "Restorationist-In-Waiting". But I would certainly grant that one should not overlook all present claims as well before one could conclude that there is no true church on earth.

 

Before we move away from what I have tried to focus on, the unity and divisions between what I will call Traditionalists and Progressives in both Catholic and LDS settings, I want to give this thread as it is another day. I have tried to draw attention to the inevitable repercussions of parting with tradition. Cal points out that we don't mean the same things by the word "tradition". I am using it in the way I have always understood it. Passing on that which one has received. It is so identified with Catholicism that it makes Protestants and LDS nervous. All of us are either traditional or not. To avoid being traditional should we make sure that we reject everything that we have been taught? No, or course not, and to a greater or lesser degree, even if the word make some uncomfortable, everybody embraces some traditions and rejects others, and they aren't necessarily even religious. I can't think of a word that would be inoffensive and as clear in meaning, so I am going with it. I hope that helps a little cal. I know I need to make the word less sinister. Tom (Hey TOm.) says that he has a unique view of the priesthood ban. Okay. But some Mormons are now saying that it was racism pure and simple. And there seems to be growing numbers of LDS who renounce the polygamist dispensation as wrongly practised and wrongly taught.  Even more critical is the future for Catholics and Mormons as they seem more and more comfortable with homosexual marriage and women priests and how that will affect their understandings of their church's histories. 

 

Does anyone else see the parallels that I do between what we may call progressives in these two "one true churches"? If yes, can you identify similar trends in any of the other, such as Islam, or its offshoots, Orthodoxy, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Adventists? Would you agree with me that if our churches have been wrong about these things, they are potential errors and sins of such magnitude as to make claims of one true church almost meaningless? I can't speak for how soft or hard the Latter-day Church has been towards homosexuals. But the Catholic Church has stated that "sodomy" (as they used to like to call it) was one of only four sins that cries to heaven for vengeance! What kind of one true church can be THAT totally wrong about something that is lovely according to the true law of God. If faithful homosexual unions are as potentially valid as heterosexual marriage according to God's law, then I wouldn't look to Islam or the Catholic Church, or to any one true church that is here on earth now. I would either stop believing in one true church, as I think most Progressives do, or become a Restorationist-in-Waiting, looking for the establishment of that religion which never persecuted or diminished homosexual love in any way. It isn't just about doctrinal error, it is about deeply engrained injustice against the good, the true, and the beautiful. I could not believe that such institutionalized injustice could be compatible with one true church. 

 

Rory

Edited August 11, 2015 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

I doubt it.  Believers in Jesus have been believing he would come for the past 2000 years.  Read your NT without a filter.  Jesus thought the end times would be very soon as did Paul. They were all wrong. Almost every generation of Christians believed they were in the end times.  Joseph Smith and the early LDS members believed Jesus was coming in their lives as well.

They were all wrong.

 

My guess is you are too.

Yeh, all of us have guesses, but so often based on faulty rationales.  Joseph, for example, believed that, if he lived to a ripe old age, he would see the second coming of Christ in person.  Notice the conditional status of that promise to him.  If, and only if certain premises are fulfilled . . .

 

Two thousand years is a long time, and plenty of Jews gave up believing that they would return to Jerusalem in triumph after all that time.  The Holocaust caused many to entirely lose hope in God.  And yet, there they are, the Jewish people solidly ensconced in their ancient heritage.  Who would have thunk it?  Well, Joseph actually did, and so he sent Apostle Orson Hyde to the Holy Land -- where, in 1841, he formally dedicated Palestine to the final gathering of the Jews.

 

One has to ask the hard question:  Are we really the Saints of the Last Days, and have crucial signs of our true function on behalf of God shown themselves?  Have the tokens already begun to appear?  I don't see how we can avoid the obvious.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Regarding the 2nd coming we should just worry about getting ready for it. I know I'm not ready for it yet but I doubt anyone is.

[TOmNossor]

Rory,

 

I will try to respond more, but I think this blog post has something to say that I want to channel when I respond.  And I do not know when I will be able to respond so ...

http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2014/06/one-does-not-simply-lose-ones-testimony-a-heartfelt-plea/3601/

 

Hey David!

 

Charity, TOm

Edited August 11, 2015 by TOmNossor

[Storm Rider]

Rory,

I saw no relative parallel within Islam.  Islam is not a centralized religion; it is just the opposite.  In addition, it is much more difficult to move into a new form or manner of interpreting the Qur'an.  The teaching of the Qur'an is far more literal than what we find within Christianity.  

 

As I write this I acknowledge that Islam is not a monolithic entity, but is a splintered group just as Christianity is splintered.  The issue is the smaller groups have not really grown much.  All the money, the holy sites are held in the hands of the two groups - the Sunni and the Shia.  Tradition reigns supreme among the Sunnis.  If Mohammad said it or if the Rightly Guided Caliphs - Abu Baker, Umar, Uthman, and Ali - then that is the law and all must obey.  It is extremely difficult to question or go against the words of the prophets.  

[mfbukowski]

 

I don't have a problem with the one true church being led by all-too-imperfect humans. Everything humans touch becomes messy, whether it's religion or anything else. To believe that there has been no embarrassing history or bigotry in the one true church is to assume that a human institution can be infallible, and I do not believe that. Yes, own the heritage, all of it, good and bad. Learn from the faith and foibles of those who came before us, but don't expect it all to be pretty or to make sense. A flawed, human history does not in any way invalidate the claim to be God's true church. The word of God lives in us as humans, despite our flaws, and maybe because of them. As George Herbert wrote centuries ago, we are brittle crazy glass, through which the light of God shines, and it is our flaws that make the light even more beautiful.

 

The Windows

BY GEORGE HERBERT

Lord, how can man preach thy eternal word?

    He is a brittle crazy glass;

Yet in thy temple thou dost him afford

    This glorious and transcendent place,

    To be a window, through thy grace.

But when thou dost anneal in glass thy story,

    Making thy life to shine within

The holy preachers, then the light and glory

    More reverend grows, and more doth win;

    Which else shows waterish, bleak, and thin.

Doctrine and life, colors and light, in one

    When they combine and mingle, bring

A strong regard and awe; but speech alone

    Doth vanish like a flaring thing,

    And in the ear, not conscience, ring.

 

 

OH

my

gosh.

 

We have no more worries about global warming because hell just froze over.

 

I actually agree with John.

 

...  well at least on one thing 

[mfbukowski]

I doubt it.  Believers in Jesus have been believing he would come for the past 2000 years.  Read your NT without a filter.  Jesus thought the end times would be very soon as did Paul. They were all wrong. Almost every generation of Christians believed they were in the end times.  Joseph Smith and the early LDS members believed Jesus was coming in their lives as well.

They were all wrong.

 

My guess is you are too.

For some, he is already here.

[mfbukowski]

Elder McConkie once told a stake conference I attended that he didn't expect the Second Coming in his grandchildren's grandchildren's lifetimes.

An unfortunate objectification and denial of what Christ himself said that the kingdom of heaven is within. 

 

Christ said

Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Mark 13:30

 

Was he lying?  The above is true for every single generation and every single person on earth who understands this.  Heck we have all already lived through "the tribulation" here just by being born!!

[mfbukowski]

"I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:

 

Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

 

I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.  I believe the coming of the son of Man will not be any sooner than that time."

.... for him as for all of us!

 

[Ahab]

To the main question raised: the only thing that could ever cause the one true church (in any dispensation) to become apostate is that church (as a whole, or what TOm referred to as corporately) rejecting revelation.

And anyone who accepts revelation is welcome to join the one true church which accepts all that has been revealed and all that will be revealed in the future.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Ahab

[David Waltz]

Hello Cal, Rory and Tom,

It is so good to 'see' all of you again in the same thread; it brings back fond memories of the old ZLMB and FAIR MB days...

Rory wrote:

==The "Or" that I had in mind was with regards to something unknown, what I have sometimes called on these boards "Restorationist-In-Waiting". But I would certainly grant that one should not overlook all present claims as well before one could conclude that there is no true church on earth.==

I was pretty sure that you held to the above, but the thread you started, as interesting as it truly is, seemed a bit too 'narrow' when one considers import of the issues involved. I did not mean to derail the thrust of the "Restorationist-In-Waiting" theme, but I did want to make sure that readers realized such a discussion is but a 'small peice of a very large puzzle'.

Grace and peace,

David

[mfbukowski]

I think Stephen Webb's contributions at the recent Fairmormon conference can go a long way toward closing the gap.  For me the issue of transubstantiation is huge and was huge in my leaving Catholicism and was "proof" of the apostasy.  Yet for me spiritually there is no discernible difference between receiving "The Eucharist" as I did as a faithful Catholic and taking the sacrament as a Mormon.

 

Now I am convinced that it is more a semantic difference than anything.

 

We believe that the people we represent as proxies are "really present" with us in the temple as we perform baptisms, and essentially that we become their bodies in their place.

 

I personally believe that Christ is "really present" when I take the sacrament.  "Body blood soul and divinity" present?  I don't know what that means, never did and never will.

 

Is the person sitting next to me present as "body blood soul and humanity"?  I suppose but what is the point of all those extra terms?  She is present in my experience or she is not.  For Mormons, we also possess a spark of "divine nature" so is the person next to us "present in divinity"?  I certainly think so.

 

Anyway I think this thread shows that between Catholics and Mormons, our hearts are pretty much one, but the vocabularies and arguing semantics gets in the way.  At least that seems to be the way it has happened between Rory and me.

 

So I don't know what transubstantiation means, I don't know what "truth" means but I know that we all can be one as God's children worshiping our Father.  One in purpose one as a family as my family personally is one both Catholic and Mormon.

 

Neither of us want to change our definitions of words but that is about all that separates us.  I am firmly convinced that a third new vocabulary will someday resolve these petty differences.  It is emerging as we speak.

[Gray]

Undoubtedly, the Mormons who are persuaded that there is a dark history of bigotry against blacks, women, and homosexuals are hoping for what they see as positive change now. The same is true for the Catholics who are arguing that the Church has been rigorously unmerciful for all of these centuries against divorced and remarried Catholics. However, these well-meaning souls in both of our churches, whether consciously or not, are pushing for agendas that would gain its goals, if accepted, only at the expense of any claims of being a one true church. Good developments can occur to the one true church without a repudiation of our fathers in the faith. But the way many seem to go about so-called "progress", one becomes embarrassed of church history, even if they like any changes that come about. This is too high of a price to pay.

 

 

I don't see the idea of the "one true church" as something worthy of preservation, regardless of what tradition we're talking about.

 

As Imam Jamal Rahman observed, "if we claim exclusivity or superiority, the simple point is, this is not religion speaking. This is our little ego speaking, and we have to be aware of that."

[TOmNossor]

Pretty good outline of how I have reasoned but I don't think my point is clear. It seems to me that Catholics and Mormons who want their churches to overturn previously held policies and/or doctrines once believed do not take much interest in how this might affect the positions of their churches in regards to exclusivist claims.

…

If a majority of those who are leading the charges for homosexual marriage and women priests in both of our churches have firm beliefs in the exclusive truth and validity of the their respective churches with the priestly offices so attached, I would be quite surprised. Am I being divisive? In a sense, but I am also striving for unity. I want to go to church with you, Tom. I want us all to go to church together. And in my opinion, to renounce the LDS past while remaining LDS, makes a mindset that is more and more incompatible with the Catholic faith. I would suggest that the imperfect unity between what I would call traditional Mormons and traditional Catholics is at its base deeper, and has more potential to last...for 2,000 years, (granting that the Lord may return at any time!) than the imperfect unity which unites us with non-traditionalists who happen to identify themselves as Catholic or LDS. Tom, this is what I could mean if I suggested that you are a better Catholic than the Cardinal Archbishop of __________.

Rory,

I would agree with you that many folks who desire to remake their faith by ceremoniously discarding past teachings (and present teachings) are often the same folks that no longer ascribe any truth to the idea that there is “one true church.”

I think some of this is born of the Liberal Democratic Mindset as the link I offered called it. When the Pope has no special authority to teach the Catholic faith because he stands as the successor to Peter, it is easier to deny the teachings. When the Prophet has no special authority to teach the faith of the CoJCoLDS because he stands as the successor to Peter, it is easier to deny the teachings.

Most of the first world has decided that one is granted authority because ones articulation of truth is superior to that available from others. This superiority is born of reason and the ability of one’s positions to convince ones compatriots. And indeed truth is the concept that is convincingly defended on the modern stage.

So this concept of the liberal democratic method places no authority on the past and no authority on an individual leader (monarch, prophet, pope, or even priest or bishop). It is all about how compelling ones case is being made today. As unconscious water we swim in (by this I mean the aspects of our culture that we do not even recognize impact us) prop up ideas like no difference between the sexes and marriage for all and … the arguments for these things are bolstered in ways that we almost cannot sense. I will offer my evolution on same sex marriage to illustrate (please do not talk too much about SSM.

As I dispassionately supported my church in its view of same sex marriage (because I still respect authority and still believe that I follow God’s prophet), I came to see SOME of my imbibing of this liberal democratic method. I felt drawn by the arguments for equality, I could not only see the rhetoric, “marriage equality” was better than the rhetoric “traditional marriage,” but beyond this much of the struggles I could empathize with experienced by our gay brothers and sisters pulled me toward their position. Why should two gay folks who love each other not be supported in their desire to live as a married couple just like my wife and I do. Who am I to condemn love? And haven’t I learned that you marry the woman you love and then live in joy with her for the rest of your life, for eternity? All of this neglects the idea that the either the prophet or the pope (not both) are God’s leader on earth and they are telling me that same sex marriage is not something society should support or allow. Had I recognized the AUTHORITY, the compelling-ness of the arguments would be of less value. After all I see through the glass darkly.

Now, I have yet to give up the idea that truth is the most compelling position when properly articulated. But when I say, “I see through the glass darkly,” I really mean it. I am now quite convinced that the strongest arguments are in opposition to same sex marriage. I have outlined this in the last year or so here. Much of it was outlined by Rabbi Sacks at the Vatican forum. What I came to realize is that sex for things other than procreation and marital union (to sell me products, to entertain me, for fun, for humor, for …) had so impacted my view of the question of marriage that I needed to reorient my view. When I did this, the position of the Pope and the Prophet aligned with the strongest arguments as I generally think truth should. I learned also that in this fallen world I might not see the end from the beginning. His ways will not always be my ways. As such following God’s servants is very important. I will still try to see the best arguments, but sometimes I will need to reserve judgment until I can better understand God’s ways.

I had at least one other thought about this, but fortunately it has escaped me else I might be tempted to type that too.

Charity, TOm