Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Is the Pope more Mormon than our current leaders?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TOmNossor said:

Charity, TOm

Thanks for the post and some more insight on Catholic insider baseball, I'm not familiar enough to know about all those debates, but it doesn't surprise me that there is a lot of controversy between the Pope and the traditionalists.  

Ultimately I don't believe in the standard prophet hierarchical paradigm of Mormonism, I think inspiration comes from many places, and it's up to leaders to be humble enough to recognize it when they see it.  I don't think they have special powers or insight, but they do have authority and I try to be respectful of that even when I disagree strongly with some of the current leadership.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm not so sure that he rejects continuing revelation:

 

Unless he has even more wild and non-Catholic ideas, he believes in "private revelation."  Individuals can receive revelation for there life and inspiration for things they do.  But church leaders including the Pope do not receive revelation to be delived to the entire body of the church.  That ended in the first century (though I can find no ECF who speak of this ending until the early 3rd century).

Charity, TOm

Link to comment
2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the post and some more insight on Catholic insider baseball, I'm not familiar enough to know about all those debates, but it doesn't surprise me that there is a lot of controversy between the Pope and the traditionalists.  

Ultimately I don't believe in the standard prophet hierarchical paradigm of Mormonism, I think inspiration comes from many places, and it's up to leaders to be humble enough to recognize it when they see it.  I don't think they have special powers or insight, but they do have authority and I try to be respectful of that even when I disagree strongly with some of the current leadership.  

I guess I believe in much of the “standard prophet hierarchical paradigm of Mormonism.”  Well, I believe in what I think it is, but that does include that the LDS leaders have a “stewardship” to receive revelation for the entire church or their quorum or those they visit teach or ….  Of course I also believe that inspiration comes from many places and leaders and all of us must be humble enough to recognize it.

 

Let me offer something from someone who I disagreed with a lot:

Quote

 

Surely, secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square,” he says. “Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. –indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — not only were motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue their causes. To say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public-policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it is grounded in the Judeo-Christian.

What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teaching of my church or invoke God’s will and expect that argument to carry the day. If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

 

 

This assessment is an excellent and appropriate way for the religious and non-religious to interact in our secular society.  I think however it is problematic for our interaction in our LDS religious society.  IMO the proper disposition for a LDS is to give the church leaders more than just the benefit of the doubt (though not blind faith necessarily).  As westerners (Americans or Europeans) we are taught that the BEST ARGUMENTS win the day and NOBODY (not professors or presidents) get to command intellectual assent based on their position.  But, I do not think this is the way the church is structured.

After we have hopefully both weighed the evidence for and against the church AND received a witness from God, we make a choice to accept our church leaders into a privileged place.  A place where they may or may not use rational argumentation to convict us of their position, but they do rely on our choice to accept their authority such that we make a place for their positions just the same.

 

I once thought the arguments for and against gay marriage were fairly neutral.  I currently do not think the arguments for and against female priesthood are overly strong either direction.  I found in the past and find in the present it easy to follow the prophet.  I think and hope that even if the arguments were more lopsided against the prophets that I would still give them my intellectual assent.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.  Of course I am a guy (and not gay).

Charity, TOm

 

 

Edited by TOmNossor
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Care to fit the priesthood ban into that?

Once upon a time there was a priesthood ban. Some thought Joseph Smith rescinded the priesthood to blacks while others were doubtful. For reasons not entirely known, the LDS Church, under Brighan Young, banned blacks from recieving the priesthood. Being confused the LDS leaders prayed to God for guidance. No explicit answer came to restore the priesthood to blacks until 1978 when the existing First and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles recieved the revelation at the exact same time to restore it.

The End.

Edited by Darren10
Link to comment
1 hour ago, TOmNossor said:

Unless he has even more wild and non-Catholic ideas, he believes in "private revelation."  Individuals can receive revelation for there life and inspiration for things they do.  But church leaders including the Pope do not receive revelation to be delived to the entire body of the church.  That ended in the first century (though I can find no ECF who speak of this ending until the early 3rd century).

Charity, TOm

I was under the impression (perhaps Rory can correct me) that the Pope speaking ex cathedra on morals and doctrine is infallible.  As the Vicar (deputy) of Christ, he has the authority to speak on Christ's behalf.  This in addition to the broad acceptance of revelation to ordinary church members, whose visions and messages from Mother Mary are regarded as sacrosanct -- and often result in Sainthood for those on the receiving end.

The LDS Proclamation on the Family as inspired would seem quite normal in a Roman Catholic context, since the Pope issues such declarations himself from time to time.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ahh you're specifically making a claim about cannon, but my OP is about doctrine.  I'd love an open cannon for all churches, but neither Mormons or Catholics seem very open to that in practice.  AoF # 9 is talking about revelation specifically, not necessarily cannon.  

Revelations without becoming canon? How does that work? 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

You talk about the pope's handling of statements and policies.

Then you talk about LDS leader's stance on doctrine.

Those are two very different things.  If you want to talk about doctrine, we can talk about Pope and LDS handling of doctrine.  Or if you want to talk policies/statements about the two groups, we can do that as well.  But you got to pick one thing to talk about.   

Catholic doctrine declares the Heavens to be closed and scripture cannot be added to by even God.    It's a stark contrast to LDS beliefs. 

Not to sound dumb, I may fit the bill, but what in the BoM is much different than what the Bible has? 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You say potato I say potaaaato.  The reality is Pope Francis is changing many long held doctrines, although some Catholic purists might dispute that claim, I think it's clearly evident.   

Well then, you sound silly when you say potato. :)

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not to sound dumb, I may fit the bill, but what in the BoM is much different than what the Bible has? 

I don't know if you will define these as "much different", but this may be what you are looking for:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/12/unique-insights-on-christ-from-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/10/plain-and-precious-truths-restored?lang=eng

Link to comment
4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Conservative Catholics are like conservative evangelicals or Mormons or you name the group, they don't like change.  

What's sad for conservative Mormons is that change should be our MO.  It's a fundamental doctrine of the restoration movement, yet that evolutionary tendency to be fearful of change is a powerful drive.  

No, conservative Mormons typically fully embrace change when it comes from the right channels, even if they do not fully agree with it. Liberal Mormons, from my observation, much more often cite  prophet’s “human weakness” when they disagree with the change the bring. 

Edited by Darren10
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In the past on this board we have had a number of threads in which the current Pope was admired for a variety of reasons, and I have been among those admirers.  Oddly enough, we have also heard from some Roman Catholics on this board who detest him.  Perhaps we need to convert him to the LDS faith and have him fill the current vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve, thus making both sides happy.  :pirate:

Nah. The pope is an old white man. He’d never blend in with the Quorum. ;)

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Once upon a time there was a priesthood ban. Some thought Joseph Smith rescinded the priesthood to blacks while others were doubtful. For reasons not entirely known, the LDS Church, under Brighan Young banned blacks from recieving the priesthood. Being confused the LDS lesders prayed to God for guidance. Not explicit answer came to restore the priesthood to blacks until 1978 when the existing First and Quorum of the Twevke Apostles recieved the revelation at the exact same time to restore it.

The End.

You'll need to address the scriptures in Moses and Abraham that infer the curse of Cain and the curse of Ham and justify withholding priesthood from those perceived to carry the blood of Cain/Ham. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

You'll need to address the scriptures in Moses and Abraham that infer the curse of Cain and the curse of Ham and justify withholding priesthood from those perceived to carry the blood of Cain/Ham. 

No I don’t. 

Edited. Ad: I did some grammar updates on my original post. 

Edited by Darren10
Link to comment
5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The idea that some doctrines will "never change" goes against AoF #9.  Also I think you're selling the Pope short, he's been changing the message significantly on many different issues that I've seen.  

Mormons for all practical purposes have a closed cannon too, how many revelations have been added since the days of JS?  

OD 1, OLD 2, Proclamation on the Family. Every Temple added since Nauvoo just to name a few.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was under the impression (perhaps Rory can correct me) that the Pope speaking ex cathedra on morals and doctrine is infallible.  As the Vicar (deputy) of Christ, he has the authority to speak on Christ's behalf.  This in addition to the broad acceptance of revelation to ordinary church members, whose visions and messages from Mother Mary are regarded as sacrosanct -- and often result in Sainthood for those on the receiving end.

The LDS Proclamation on the Family as inspired would seem quite normal in a Roman Catholic context, since the Pope issues such declarations himself from time to time.

Catholic doctrine is that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra concerning faith or morals he is infallible.  But that does not mean that he can provide new public revelation.  Rory’s position might be a little different than mine.  I have a vague recollection of this.  I will offer two quotes though.  First is from Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid in his book Pope Fiction:

 

From Apologist Patrick Madrid (Pope Fiction p. 140):

Quote

 

The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Simon Peter. After he went home to his heavenly reward, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashion way: They learned it.

 

 

 

The Online Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm says

Quote

Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of Bible or THAT ANY NEW REVELATION IS EMBODIED IN THEIR TEACHING.

(emphasis mine).
 

 

I am not sure how God ensures that the Pope is infallible.  It is also true that there is no accepted list of what the Pope has infallibly defined.  I actually think Pope John Paul II set out to infallibly define that woman could not receive the priesthood, but Cardinal Ratzinger the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (before he became Pope) claimed that the Pope was not exercising Papal Infallibility in his statement (because there was no need as that was already firmly established).

Anyway, Rory might have a somewhat different take on this, but I have remained quite convinced that the Catholic teaching (since the early 3rd century, but not before) is that public revelation has ceased.

Charity, TOm

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Church explicitly rejects all rationalizations for the Ban.

Yet they are still there in scripture - explicit justification for withholding priesthood or even all of the gospel from a specific lineage. Whether that can be linked to the modern priesthood ban can be a matter of debate, but their existence in JS' revelations are undeniable. You're either on board with that or you're not. I'm not.

Edited by Benjamin Seeker
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...