Is the Pope more Mormon than our current leaders?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

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.  ---------------------------------------------------

So would you accept the notion I advanced that the LDS Proclamation on the Family does not materially differ from the Roman Catholic concept of restating in a papal declaration what is already contained within the Sacred Deposit of the Faith?  I was just reading through Pope Paul VI "Dei Verbum", and it seems to be in that class of document.  http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2revel.htm .

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Revelations without becoming canon? How does that work? 

Not all revelation is canon, and not all canon is revelation.  Sometimes the two cross paths though.  Oh, and its not all static either, its frequently changing, see AoF #9.  

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Darren10 said:

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. 

I'm not sure they embrace it, but reluctantly follow it anyway might be a better descriptor in some cases.  Thinking about the softening stance on immigration that the church has espoused in recent years in Utah.  I have many orthodox active believing family members who don't like the church's position on that subject, and think its misguided but will reluctantly tolerate it anyway.  

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

Extremely short list in the post JS era, and official declarations are kind of like scripture light. Family proclamation isn't canon, and I'm not sure what you mean by temples added, there isn't anything in the canon about temples.  I stand by my earlier statement that Mormon canon is essentially closed post Joseph Smith.  

[Atheist Mormon]

Quote

Is the Pope more Mormon than our current leaders?

One of the reasons for my conversion was when I discovered shameful, brutal, genocidal history of Christianity (i.e. Catholicism mostly). At first I was shocked when Prophet Joseph such harsh view towards Catholicism, I made a point to study the history... Well, I don't want to repeat what most of you already know. The Popes are figure heads who put the best spin on their convoluted/incomprehensible beliefs. This Pope looking better because he has better personality/social skills.

[Guest]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the Pope sounds more Mormon than many of our current leaders to, when it comes to espousing a foundational Mormon doctrine (Article of faith #9) about continuing revelation.  

Thoughts?  

Change for the sake of change, is seldom good. Change in "doctrine", for the same reasons, which involves the salvation of men and women, is even worse. When people "seek out teachers, having itching ears", jeopardizing their very souls, it is eternally deadly. When Jesus Christ needs to make changes in doctrine or policy, then he will. The point of Prophets and Apostles, is to have men who are both, ready and worthy to receive revelation. If they do so without being guided by the Holy Spirit, they can and will loose, the ability to hear or even recognize when and if God is speaking. It is a common theme, for such threads to emerge, after every General Conference, when members are disappointed that there is no "new" revelation, not knowing that there always is something new. "New" however does not mean "new" doctrine, or "changed" doctrine, but always "fine tuning", for those who have, or those who have tuned out, and have ceased listening. 

But the doctrines of our Faith, such as...

Jesus is the Christ...

That, in and through his "Holy" name that there is no the other way to salvation...

That families can be Eternal...

All of the Articles of Faith, are still in force...

That we all have "free will", and that God will not take it from us...

The gospel has been restored in it's "fullness", (which means their is seldom any need for doctrinal changes)...

That we (all of us) are His sons, and His daughters, both Heavenly Father's, and the Lord Jesus Christ's (see Mosiah 5:7)...

I could go on, but I hope this makes the point. 

 

 

[TOmNossor]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So would you accept the notion I advanced that the LDS Proclamation on the Family does not materially differ from the Roman Catholic concept of restating in a papal declaration what is already contained within the Sacred Deposit of the Faith?  I was just reading through Pope Paul VI "Dei Verbum", and it seems to be in that class of document.  http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2revel.htm .

 

Hello again!

The Proclamation on the Family does not present new doctrines with respect to past teachings already offered by LDS leaders and scriptures (IMO).  It would thus fit solidly within the type of statements that Popes regularly present in documents like Humane Vite (or Dei Verbum). 

I am not sure if there are any theological disagreements in LDS history that point to two different sides resolved in the Proclamation on the Family, but that would be something a Pope or Catholic Council could do as well (as I understand things), but that would likely be something that is more formally done.  As I mentioned earlier, I think the declaration that woman cannot be Catholic priests was done in a VERY formal way by Pope JPII, but was then declared by Cardinal Ratzinger not to be an exercise of Papal Infallibility because it was not truly a disputed question.  I take that to mean that before the Council of Chalcedon it is reasonable to debate dyophysite vs. monophysite when describing Christ, but after Chalcedon it is a decided point infallibly guarded by God through His church.  So, Ratzinger’s point is that it was not before nor after acceptable to believe or advocate a female priesthood is possible in Catholicism.  Thus there was no infallible decision needed, just a restatement of what has always and everywhere been held to be true.  If a Catholic scholar declares that Christ was not divine because of xyz, the Pope might condemn such a view, but would not need to exercise his Charism of Infallibility.

One key difference that I still think is important.  While Peter may have sealed the decision of what Catholics sometimes call the Jerusalem Council, I agree with Patrick Madrid.  Peter’s decision was inspiration/revelation based and other Catholic Papal or Conciliar decisions involve careful weighing of the historical teachings of the church not inspiration/revelation. So as a LDS, I claim that the genesis of the Proclamation on the Family and the contents of the Proclamation on the Family are a product of divine inspiration/revelation while still recognizing that there is not really NEW DOCTRINE in proclamation.  As a LDS, I also do not believe the Proclamation on the Family is infallible or irreformable, though it might be absolutely true and NEVER changed in any way.

Charity, TOm

 

I could have probably said, "I agree with you!"

 

Edited October 13, 2017 by TOmNossor

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

...........................  As I mentioned earlier, I think the declaration that woman cannot be Catholic priests was done in a VERY formal way by Pope JPII, but was then declared by Cardinal Ratzinger not to be an exercise of Papal Infallibility because it was not truly a disputed question.  I take that to mean that before the Council of Chalcedon it is reasonable to debate dyophysite vs. monophysite when describing Christ, but after Chalcedon it is a decided point infallibly guarded by God through His church.  So, Ratzinger’s point is that it was not before nor after acceptable to believe or advocate a female priesthood is possible in Catholicism.  ...................................

This is a speculative matter, of course, but do you consider the possibility of female priesthood more unlikely to ever be the case within Roman Catholicism than in the LDS tradition (the RLDS/CoC has female priesthood)?  I wonder about this particularly since LDS females conduct priesthood ordinances in temple rites, and Apostle Dallin Oaks has made a special point that the women are actually performing priesthood ordinances in that case -- aside from even more priesthood ordinances back in the earlier Relief Society.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Revelations without becoming canon? How does that work? 

The Scriptural canon is merely a selection of revelations.  Many revelations never make it into the canon, which includes only those items voted on by Church members.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm a big fan of Pope Francis, and it seems like he keeps making statements and implementing policies that are so important and prophetic for our time.  I really think he's an inspired leader, and sometimes he says something that just strikes me as so Mormon, its amazing.  I was thinking about this quote from a recent speech and I'm contrasting this with the statements that we hear from some of our church leaders recently about doctrines that will "never change". 

I think the Pope sounds more Mormon than many of our current leaders to, when it comes to espousing a foundational Mormon doctrine (Article of faith #9) about continuing revelation.  

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/10/11/pope_francis_the_dynamic_word_of_god_cannot_be_moth-balled/1342352

The Pope is leading the way in our troubled world.  Thoughts?  

I don't know that I would say more Mormon. I would say more leading in regards to the issues that trouble our world.  LDS leaders rarely if ever address such things. They seem focused on things LDS and that more from a practice stand point than doctrinal.  What we hear from the GC pulpit is really limited and focused on things and LDS person would be concerned about. The talks don't change much from year to year and don't seem to care much about the rest of the world at large.  Pope Francis seesm to me more a prophet to the world than to the LDS Apostles and prophets.

[RevTestament]

On 10/12/2017 at 4:18 PM, hope_for_things said:

I was thinking about this quote from a recent speech and I'm contrasting this with the statements that we hear from some of our church leaders recently about doctrines that will "never change". 

I think the Pope sounds more Mormon than many of our current leaders to, when it comes to espousing a foundational Mormon doctrine (Article of faith #9) about continuing revelation.  

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/10/11/pope_francis_the_dynamic_word_of_god_cannot_be_moth-balled/1342352

The Pope is leading the way in our troubled world.  Thoughts?  

Some of the recent pronouncements he has made certainly do sound rather Mormonish - he seems to have pronounced a form of universal salvation, and now there is this married men can become priests thing. Rather than being inspired though, I have suspicions it is a last ditch effort to save the Catholic Church. I'm sure most Catholics will disagree with me. No matter, he cannot undo what God will do. Is the Pontiff leading the way in our troubled world? No, absolutely not. IMHO the misleading teachings of the Catholic Church are a large reason why the world is in turmoil and has not reached a peaceful state yet. 

Doctrine and Covenants 78:18

18 And ye cannot ^abear all things now; nevertheless, be of good ^bcheer, for I will ^clead you along. The kingdom is yours and the blessings thereof are yours, and the ^driches of ^eeternity are yours.

 

[TOmNossor]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is a speculative matter, of course, but do you consider the possibility of female priesthood more unlikely to ever be the case within Roman Catholicism than in the LDS tradition (the RLDS/CoC has female priesthood)?  I wonder about this particularly since LDS females conduct priesthood ordinances in temple rites, and Apostle Dallin Oaks has made a special point that the women are actually performing priesthood ordinances in that case -- aside from even more priesthood ordinances back in the earlier Relief Society.

 

 

As a LDS, I believe God has a will concerning the female priesthood (and I do not claim to know what it is with certainty).

So your question is tough to answer, but I will try to offer some thoughts.

 

LDS believe in continuing revelations and we do not believe that the church is infallible such that it possesses all truth and must only develop it.  As such, the CoJCoLDS can claim that the restriction on female priests was an error, was for a time only, or ….  If God leads the church leaders to declare woman can be priests, that is not necessarily a denial of LDS truth claims.  Continuing revelation can correct past errors or add to past positions.

The Catholic Church I think has it much tougher path to female priests.  All the Catholic teachings I have been taught to respect indicate it is impossible.  Pope JPII’s ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS (https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html)

is clear that the Pope cannot change this.  The Catholic Church I know through Catholic Answers is also very clear.  “Since priests serve the bride of Christ in place of Christ, it is only appropriate for a man to be a priest.”

I think it would be much more difficult for the Catholic Church to make this change than for the CoJCoLDS to make this change.

 

But, again, I think God has a will that we are to try to find.  I anticipate that I will continue to believe that God’s will is the one that manifests itself from day to day and week to week and year to year in the CoJCoLDS.

Charity, TOm

 

Edited October 14, 2017 by TOmNossor

[Darren10]

 

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Scriptural canon is merely a selection of revelations.  Many revelations never make it into the canon, which includes only those items voted on by Church members.

There would be revelations given but to NOT reveal to the Church no doubt but are there known revelations not part of canon? 

[Sleeper Cell]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 7:35 AM, hope_for_things said:

Not all revelation is canon, and not all canon is revelation.  Sometimes the two cross paths though.  Oh, and its not all static either, its frequently changing, see AoF #9.  

 

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 7:45 AM, hope_for_things said:

Extremely short list in the post JS era, and official declarations are kind of like scripture light. Family proclamation isn't canon, and I'm not sure what you mean by temples added, there isn't anything in the canon about temples.  I stand by my earlier statement that Mormon canon is essentially closed post Joseph Smith.  

IOW,  even if the Proclamation (or anything else) were added to the canon,  it probably wouldn’t convince you (or others who don’t accept it as revelation) that it  really is a revelation.  

Perhaps this sort of thinking might have something to do with why “Mormon canon is essentially closed post Joseph Smith.”  

Do you accept Joseph F. Smith’s vision  as revelation?  If so, how many additional revelations would it take before you would say that the Mormon canon is “essentially open” post Joseph Smith

BTW, do you really regard OD 2 “kind of like scripture light?”  What about letters written by only one apostle, especially if they were only sent to the local church leadership of one congregation?  

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Darren10 said:

There would be revelations given but to NOT reveal to the Church no doubt but are there known revelations not part of canon? 

Of course there are many known revelations which have not made it into the Canon.  Not everything is deemed essential, and some of the entries in the D&C are not revelations.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said:

IOW,  even if the Proclamation (or anything else) were added to the canon,  it probably wouldn’t convince you (or others who don’t accept it as revelation) that it  really is a revelation.  

A number of items have gone into the Canon without being revelation, so adding the Proclamation on the Family to the D&C or other part of the Canon would not mean that it is revelation.

1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Perhaps this sort of thinking might have something to do with why “Mormon canon is essentially closed post Joseph Smith.”  

Do you accept Joseph F. Smith’s vision  as revelation?  If so, how many additional revelations would it take before you would say that the Mormon canon is “essentially open” post Joseph Smith

BTW, do you really regard OD 2 “kind of like scripture light?”  What about letters written by only one apostle, especially if they were only sent to the local church leadership of one congregation?  

Once the initial burst of revelation restoring all things has taken place, why would a continuing burst be required?  Wouldn't it be rather silly to continue with a multitude of published revelations just to prove that there is continuing revelation?  That is absurd.  As for Official Declaration 2, it is not a revelation, but merely states what were the results of an extraordinary revelation to all members of the Twelve and First Presidency -- following an initial private revelation to Pres Kimball.  Contrary to your monomaniacal approach, there are a great many things in Scripture which are not revelation.  At the same time, revelation continues unabated within the LDS leadership and general membership:

Duane Boyce, “A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse Regarding Prophets and Revelation? Part One,” Interpreter, 26 (2017): 1-48, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-lengthening-shadow-is-quality-of-thought-deteriorating-in-lds-scholarly-discourse-regarding-prophets-and-revelation-part-one/ . 

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't know that I would say more Mormon. I would say more leading in regards to the issues that trouble our world.  LDS leaders rarely if ever address such things. They seem focused on things LDS and that more from a practice stand point than doctrinal.  What we hear from the GC pulpit is really limited and focused on things and LDS person would be concerned about. The talks don't change much from year to year and don't seem to care much about the rest of the world at large.  Pope Francis seesm to me more a prophet to the world than to the LDS Apostles and prophets.

Apostle Ballard talked about the three great evils in our world today. Racism, Sexism, and Nationalism.

[The Nehor]

Yes, are you going to join the Mormon Catholic church now?

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course there are many known revelations which have not made it into the Canon.  Not everything is deemed essential, and some of the entries in the D&C are not revelations.

What would a few of those revelations be, that are publicly known but not canon?

[kiwi57]

On 10/14/2017 at 9:33 AM, Teancum said:

I don't know that I would say more Mormon. I would say more leading in regards to the issues that trouble our world.  LDS leaders rarely if ever address such things. They seem focused on things LDS and that more from a practice stand point than doctrinal.  What we hear from the GC pulpit is really limited and focused on things and LDS person would be concerned about. The talks don't change much from year to year and don't seem to care much about the rest of the world at large.  Pope Francis seesm to me more a prophet to the world than to the LDS Apostles and prophets.

Incidentally, His Holiness has cited, with approval, a little Mormon document called "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Incidentally, His Holiness has cited, with approval, a little Mormon document called "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

 

One would hope he caught less self-righteous backlash from having cited it than Elder Oaks did this month from making it a subject of his general conference sermon.

 

[california boy]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One would hope he caught less self-righteous backlash from having cited it than Elder Oaks did this month from making it a subject of his general conference sermon.

 

Elder Oaks did not get any self-righteous backlash from his sermon on the POF.  Some people are just questioning his claim that it came by revelation from God.  There are plenty of reasons why people have good reason to doubt that claim.  Not everyone buys into the concept that whatever an apostle says must be true and the thinking is now done on that issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

Elder Oaks did not get any self-righteous backlash from his sermon on the POF.  Some people are just questioning his claim that it came by revelation from God.  There are plenty of reasons why people have good reason to doubt that claim.  Not everyone buys into the concept that whatever an apostle says must be true and the thinking is now done on that issue.

CFR that anyone is saying in the context of Elder Oaks's address that "whatever an apostle says must be true and the thinking is now done on the issue."

As for your denial of there being backlash, here are a few representative specimens from the anti-Mormon Reddit page:

Quote

However, after Oaks' talk, I'm more than certain that I will soon be removing my name. Thanks, Oaks. Thanks for putting that last nail in the coffin for me.

Quote

The female speaker at the beginning put me on edge with her (what I consider to be) misguided point of view, but Oaks really felt like a complete shift. I didn't hear any compassion or attempts at understanding with him. He just came across as an elderly man struggling to deal with a changing society.

 

Quote

Today is a good day to resign. You will always know you resigned the day that talk was given, and you can point to that talk as the final straw if anyone asks.

There was another so vile and obscene I will not quote it here.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that anyone is saying in the context of Elder Oaks's address that "whatever an apostle says must be true and the thinking is now done on the issue."

As for your denial there being backlash, here are a few representative specimens from the anti-Mormon Reddit page:

Quote

However, after Oaks' talk, I'm more than certain that I will soon be removing my name. Thanks, Oaks. Thanks for putting that last nail in the coffin for me.

  Quote

The female speaker at the beginning put me on edge with her (what I consider to be) misguided point of view, but Oaks really felt like a complete shift. I didn't hear any compassion or attempts at understanding with him. He just came across as an elderly man struggling to deal with a changing society.

 

  Quote

Today is a good day to resign. You will always know you resigned the day that talk was given, and you can point to that talk as the final straw if anyone asks.

There was another so vile and obscene I will not quote it here.

Read half of the posts on this subject.  There are many that are saying if the 15 agree on something, then it is certain that it was a revelation.  Heck you are the biggest poster boy for whenever an apostle says something is a revelation then that should never be questioned and anyone who does question that claim is essentially  calling that apostle a liar.  

As far as the comments you posted, are you surprised?  The Proclamation on the Family was written as a stand against gay marriage.  Now decades later, the claim is that this stand came from God by revelation.  The criteria for what constitutes a revelation now is whenever a group of 15 men who pretty much think alike on most everything already all agree that they are right.  Some find that comforting.  But that kind of remark makes it easy for some to loose complete trust in church leaders and the claims that the church is run by Christ.  For some it makes the church simply a church run by a committee that continues to marginalize gays unless they need an occasional PR moment.  They find nothing Christ-like about that.

 If you no longer believed that the church was led by Christ, wouldn't you also leave the church?

[Kenngo1969]

Some random, anonymous anti-Mo as quoted by Scott Lloyd, above:

Quote

The female speaker at the beginning put me on edge with her (what I consider to be) misguided point of view, but Oaks really felt like a complete shift. I didn't hear any compassion or attempts at understanding with him. He just came across as an elderly man struggling to deal with a changing society.

"The female speaker at the beginning" would be ... Young Women General President Sister Bonnie L. Oscarson, who spoke on ... loving and serving others.  Yep!  I can certainly understand why such a "misguided point of view" would put someone "on edge."  I mean, the gall!  How dare she!  

Alas!, our poor, unfortunate, "on edge" correspondent very likely also would be put "on edge" by pictures of puppies, kitties, and small children, as well.  Whaddayagonnado?   

As for Elder Oaks, the old man who allegedly lacks "compassion," who doesn't "understand," and who is "strugg[ling] to deal with a changing society"?  He's the same guy who, on another occasion, said this:

Quote

 

On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should love all people, be good listeners, and show concern for their sincere beliefs. Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. Our stands and communications on controversial topics should not be contentious. We should be wise in explaining and pursuing our positions and in exercising our influence. In doing so, we ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion. We encourage all of us to practice the Savior’s Golden Rule: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12).

When our positions do not prevail, we should accept unfavorable results graciously and practice civility with our adversaries. In any event, we should be persons of goodwill toward all, rejecting persecution of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief or nonbelief, and differences in sexual orientation.

Source: Dallin H. Oaks (October 2014), "Loving Others and Living With Differences," address delivered at the 184th Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed on-line at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/loving-others-and-living-with-differences?lang=eng on October 15, 2017.

Yep!  Sure sounds as though he's "struggling to deal with a changing society" to me!  

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Kenngo1969