The Nehor Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Yet this is not how I see it manifesting on this board at all. The apostles are called prophets and seers and faithful Mormons defer to their judgement. They are given the right to declare God's word to the whole church (I can't remember the exact phrase I've heard a few times, right of revelation? parents have it for their children, etc). It seems like you (not you personally, but LDS) want to have it both ways: no magisterium yet prophets and apostles who reveal God's will. I still don't see what I am missing but maybe Mark's links will help clarify. The magisterium is the ultimate teaching authority in the Catholic Church (the bishops in communion with the pope). Who has the teaching authority in the LDS church? Isn't it the apostles? The ultimate magisterium would be the prophet with diminishing levels of authority going down the chain.
MiserereNobis Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The ultimate magisterium would be the prophet with diminishing levels of authority going down the chain. That's how I see it working (from the outside), but Mark and Pogi seem to disagree with you.
pogi Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Yet this is not how I see it manifesting on this board at all. The apostles are called prophets and seers and faithful Mormons defer to their judgement. They are given the right to declare God's word to the whole church (I can't remember the exact phrase I've heard a few times, right of revelation? parents have it for their children, etc). It seems like you (not you personally, but LDS) want to have it both ways: no magisterium yet prophets and apostles who reveal God's will. I still don't see what I am missing but maybe Mark's links will help clarify. The magisterium is the ultimate teaching authority in the Catholic Church (the bishops in communion with the pope). Who has the teaching authority in the LDS church? Isn't it the apostles? The prophet is the only one with the keys and authority to declare God's word for the entire church, but it does not become officially binding doctrine until it is accepted by the law of common consent. The thing is that the prophet can only be a prophet by the law of common consent. Not only are the scriptures (doctrines of the church) accepted and given authority by the law of common consent of the general membership, but so is the prophet. He holds all the keys of priesthood authority. Through ordination, each priesthood holder receives certain keys to perform in their respective roles. In other words, a 12 year old deacon's quorum president holds the same keys to preside over his quorum that the president of the church holds. Thus, the president presides over the entire church (by the law of common consent, the keys of the priesthood, and the Holy Spirit) and each priesthood holder presides over their individual quorums by the same means. They are also accepted by common consent, given keys, and are entitled to the inspiration of the "ultimate teaching authority" - the Holy Spirit. This might help explain it more clearly then I have done: Quote D&C 26:2. The Law of Common Consent Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.) Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2). https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng Edited April 20, 2018 by pogi
Marginal Gains Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Translated correctly? The same criteria Joseph used. I do not understand the sentence about workflow. What was Joseph’s criteria? You said you’d dictated a post and I wondered how you’d gone about it, that was all I was asking.
mfbukowski Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 5 hours ago, pogi said: The 15 can only submit documents for approval by the general membership via the law of common consent. They don't actually have the authority to canonize anything without our approval. It only becomes binding when we consent to it. The scriptures only have authority because we give them binding authority through the principles of free agency and covenant. This helps to explain how there doesn't seem to be a magisterum in the LDS chruch. If there is, then we are as much a part of it as the 15. Yep, agree. Catholics have this idea of "sensus fidelium" which we take much more seriously. Some may see it as bowing to social pressure, but I see it as the community itself defining truth, which is actually what truth is anyway. That is what happens in science and law as well. Communities define contexts for changing truth Look at the blacks in the priesthood for Mormons or limbo for Catholics. The status quo could just not be sustained any longer
mfbukowski Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 58 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: What was Joseph’s criteria? You said you’d dictated a post and I wondered how you’d gone about it, that was all I was asking. Joseph's criteria was what the spirit told him what was right. We MUST all be prophets for ourselves that is the message of 1James, Moroni 10 and Alma 32, or we are koolaid drinking brainless robots Using my phone, I hit the microphone key and speak what I want and the phone transcribes it, just like a voice text, etc
mfbukowski Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Yet this is not how I see it manifesting on this board at all. The apostles are called prophets and seers and faithful Mormons defer to their judgement. They are given the right to declare God's word to the whole church (I can't remember the exact phrase I've heard a few times, right of revelation? parents have it for their children, etc). It seems like you (not you personally, but LDS) want to have it both ways: no magisterium yet prophets and apostles who reveal God's will. I still don't see what I am missing but maybe Mark's links will help clarify. The magisterium is the ultimate teaching authority in the Catholic Church (the bishops in communion with the pope). Who has the teaching authority in the LDS church? Isn't it the apostles? Making a Sunday school curriculum is not creating doctrine Think sensus fidelium on steroids Links probably tonite
Stargazer Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 On 19/04/2018 at 3:14 PM, bluebell said: Some things to remember if you're going to have this conversation with a believer. 1) God can't commit murder. He has complete authority to decide when someone is born and when someone dies. 2) death to us is not death to God. His perspective is completely different and that must be acknowledged. 3) We all die. No one gets out of this life alive. Death, itself, is not a tragedy. Yeah, God commits murder every day. Possibly millions of time per day! Because he doesn't act to stop the deaths! To the barricades! We must protest! Your point 3 made me suddenly think of poor Jim Morrison's biography, "No One Here Gets Out Alive". Which I've never read, but thought the title was interesting. 1
mfbukowski Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 5 hours ago, snowflake said: Would it be fair to say "philosiphically speaking" Mormonism, Atheism, Islam and Christianity are all equally "true"? One could say that but It would be fairer to say that all of them believe they're right but there's no philosophical way to determine if there if it even is a "right" It would be just as accurate to say they're all equally wrong. There is no way to define the concept of Truth in this context, in the context of being able to decide between them.
The Nehor Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: That's how I see it working (from the outside), but Mark and Pogi seem to disagree with you. I would probably disagree because we do not use the word and it has all those great and abominable papist implications but it does have similarities. 1
clarkgoble Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 20 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Thought IS reality. How can you know anything about reality without thinking it? Dualism. 😜 Depending upon how broadly you're willing to define thought I'd agree.
clarkgoble Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 22 hours ago, Sevenbak said: Why do you think this teaching originated with Joseph Fielding Smith? “The Eternal God hath declared that the great deep shall roll back into the north countries and that the land of Zion and the land of Jerusalem shall be joined together, as they were before they were divided in the days of Peleg. No wonder the mind starts at the sound of the last days!” -Joseph Smith I'm not sure I'd interpret that as land masses moving but of course you're free to 22 hours ago, Sevenbak said: CFR? I just look at what's published. Compare the publications (many of which you quote) from the 50's through early 90's with those after Pres. Hinkley was prophet. (It's odd that you quote a lot written prior to 1990 as a rejoinder since it more or less makes my point)
Atheist Mormon Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 On 4/19/2018 at 11:47 AM, snowflake said: Evolution....the atheist's religion, or magic wand, fantasy, wishful thinking...total nonsense, but I know we have been down this road before. No, actually you haven't been on this road before....Ask people who had a life_saving brain operation or any other medical procedure that saves life.....None of those medical principles are founded on creationist wishful thinking. It was Charles Darwin who laid down the principles of Evolution which modern medicine is based today...
mfbukowski Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Yet this is not how I see it manifesting on this board at all. The apostles are called prophets and seers and faithful Mormons defer to their judgement. They are given the right to declare God's word to the whole church (I can't remember the exact phrase I've heard a few times, right of revelation? parents have it for their children, etc). It seems like you (not you personally, but LDS) want to have it both ways: no magisterium yet prophets and apostles who reveal God's will. I still don't see what I am missing but maybe Mark's links will help clarify. The magisterium is the ultimate teaching authority in the Catholic Church (the bishops in communion with the pope). Who has the teaching authority in the LDS church? Isn't it the apostles? Here you go https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Official_or_core_doctrine#.22Official.22_Mormon_doctrine https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism Quote The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants use the word "doctrine" in the same way. In the singular it always refers to the "doctrine of Jesus Christ" or to the "points of his doctrine" and means "that which will ensure the salvation of those who accept and act upon it." In the plural, it refers to the false teachings of devils or others (2 Ne. 3:12;28:9; D&C 46:7). The Book of Mormon uses "doctrine" in this special sense as the "doctrine of Jesus Christ" or the gospel (twenty-eight times). Jesus attributed his teaching to the Father: "This is my doctrine,…that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God" (3 Ne. 11:32-33). Later he declared, "This is the gospel which I have given unto you-that I came into the world to do the will of the Father,…and my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; …that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before the Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world" (3 Ne. 27:13-16; cf. D&C 76:40-42). Thus, the "doctrine of Jesus Christ" is the only teaching that can properly be called "doctrine." It is fixed and unchanging. It cannot be modified or contradicted, but merely amplified as additional truths that deepen understanding and appreciation of its meaning are revealed. It is the basis on which the test of faith is made, and the rock or foundation of all other revealed teachings, principles, and practices. Articles of Faith Quote In 1842, in response to a specific request from John Wentworth (editor of the Chicago Democrat ), Joseph Smith sent a succinct overview of his own religious experiences and the History of the Church over which he presided (see Wentworth Letter). At the end of the historical sketch, he appended a list summarizing the "faith of the Latter-day Saints." Later titled "Articles of Faith," these thirteen items were first published in the Nauvoo Times and Seasons in March 1842 and were later included in the 1851 British Mission pamphlet The Pearl of Great Price, compiled by Elder Franklin D. Richards. That pamphlet was revised in 1878 and again in 1880. In 1880, a general conference of the Church voted to add the Pearl of Great Price to the standard works of the Church, thus including the thirteen articles. The Articles of Faith do not constitute a summation of all LDS beliefs, and they are not a creed in the traditional Christian sense, but they do provide a useful authoritative summary of fundamental LDS scriptures and beliefs. What is popularly believed to be doctrine quite honestly has grown in local wards and stakes as traditions and is actually not taught as doctrine and is largely unscriptural. Ideas like the infallibility of prophets is one outstanding example, which is counter-intuitive when examined. One is supposed to confirm that the church is true by testimony and yet one is supposedly also supposed to obey prophets without confirmation by testimony. How absurd is that? The foundation of the church is having one's own testimony and yet one is supposed to forget that when a prophet speaks and one is to accept it unthinkingly? The very idea is absurd. And then it gets extended to conference. Now is it not only prophets for whom we get to waive our privileges of receiving testimony, now it is every 70 or organization president who speaks at conference. That entire way of thinking- that ANYONE who teaches is above the Holy Spirit as revealing truth is totally absurd. THAT is why there is "no doctrine" which is immune to verification by testimony. THAT if anything is the prime directive in Mormonism. You can't have it both ways. Either God can reveal "the truth of all things" to each of us or we have to wait for a prophet to tell us? How can those two propositions be compatible??!! They cannot. Yes prophets teach, but each teaching must be confirmed in our hearts. Edited April 21, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
mnn727 Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, pogi said: In other words, a 12 year old deacon's quorum president holds the same keys to preside over his quorum that the president of the church holds. That sentence is very poorly stated. The 12 year old deacon's quorum president does NOT hold the same keys as the Prophet, the 12 year old deacon's quorum president holds the keys he needs to preside over his quorum. I know what you meant but some of our non-LDS friends may not. Edited April 21, 2018 by mnn727
pogi Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, mnn727 said: That sentence is very poorly stated. The 12 year old deacon's quorum president does NOT hold the same keys as the Prophet, the 12 year old deacon's quorum president holds the keys he needs to preside over his quorum. I know what you meant but some of our non-LDS friends may not. I think yours is worded poorly too . I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder, but I know what you meant. You make it sound like he holds different keys from the President, but he doesn’t. He doesn’t hold all the keys that the President holds, but he holds the exact same specific keys “to preside over his quorum” that the president holds. Perhaps I should have added the word “specific” in the same original sentence. Edited April 21, 2018 by pogi
snowflake Posted April 23, 2018 Author Posted April 23, 2018 On 4/20/2018 at 7:39 PM, mfbukowski said: One could say that but It would be fairer to say that all of them believe they're right but there's no philosophical way to determine if there if it even is a "right" It would be just as accurate to say they're all equally wrong. There is no way to define the concept of Truth in this context, in the context of being able to decide between them. Thanks MFB, i appreciate your take!
snowflake Posted April 23, 2018 Author Posted April 23, 2018 On 4/20/2018 at 10:51 PM, Atheist Mormon said: No, actually you haven't been on this road before....Ask people who had a life_saving brain operation or any other medical procedure that saves life.....None of those medical principles are founded on creationist wishful thinking. It was Charles Darwin who laid down the principles of Evolution which modern medicine is based today... That's funny..... how does evolution have anything to do with medicine? I know many doctors and professors believe in the fantasy of evolution simply because they have been taught it since elementary school, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with research and development of modern medicine.
Marginal Gains Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, snowflake said: That's funny..... how does evolution have anything to do with medicine? I know many doctors and professors believe in the fantasy of evolution simply because they have been taught it since elementary school, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with research and development of modern medicine. Why can’t you take the theory of evolution just on faith? Edited April 23, 2018 by Marginal Gains
cinepro Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 On 4/20/2018 at 3:08 PM, pogi said: The thing is that the prophet can only be a prophet by the law of common consent. Not only are the scriptures (doctrines of the church) accepted and given authority by the law of common consent of the general membership, but so is the prophet. He holds all the keys of priesthood authority. I'm a little confused. On January 16 of this year, there was a press conference where it was announced: Quote On Sunday, January 14, in the upper room of the Salt Lake Temple, President Russell M. Nelson was set apart by the Quorum of the 12 Apostles as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.lds.org/church/news/president-russell-m-nelson-named-17th-president-of-the-church?lang=eng When was the "common consent" received for this ordination?
pogi Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 2 hours ago, cinepro said: I'm a little confused. On January 16 of this year, there was a press conference where it was announced: https://www.lds.org/church/news/president-russell-m-nelson-named-17th-president-of-the-church?lang=eng When was the "common consent" received for this ordination? It happened here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/solemn-assembly?lang=eng It is interesting that the setting apart of the President happens before the sustaining vote. Does that happen with any other position? Whichever order it happens, the way I see it is that the one act (ordination) is ratified by the other (common consent). Usually the ordination is deferred until after the sustaining vote however.
cinepro Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, pogi said: It happened here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/solemn-assembly?lang=eng It is interesting that the setting apart of the President happens before the sustaining vote. Does that happen with any other position? Whichever order it happens, the way I see it is that the one act (ordination) is ratified by the other (common consent). Usually the ordination is deferred until after the sustaining vote however. If a Prophet can only be "Prophet" with common consent (as you said), then how was Russell M. Nelson a "Prophet" before common consent was given in April? The Doctrine and Covenants manual actually has a lesson on common consent with some interesting quotes. Again, if you read these quotes and remember that President Nelson was ordained in January but received a vote of consent in April, it leads to some interesting questions... Quote Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.) (Emphasis added) Quote “No man can preside in this Church in any capacity without the consent of the people. The Lord has placed upon us the responsibility of sustaining by vote those who are called to various positions of responsibility. No man, should the people decide to the contrary, could preside over any body of Latter-day Saints in this Church... (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:123; see also D&C 20:65.)
Exiled Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 21 minutes ago, cinepro said: If a Prophet can only be "Prophet" with common consent (as you said), then how was Russell M. Nelson a "Prophet" before common consent was given in April? He had been sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator many times in past conferences.
cinepro Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 1 minute ago, Exiled said: He had been sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator many times in past conferences. But he was set apart as the "President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", not just the "Prophet" (or "a Prophet"). When it was presented in General Conference, this was also the office to which he was sustained: Quote It is proposed that the First Presidency sustain Russell Marion Nelson as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
rongo Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 42 minutes ago, pogi said: It happened here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/solemn-assembly?lang=eng It is interesting that the setting apart of the President happens before the sustaining vote. Does that happen with any other position? Whichever order it happens, the way I see it is that the one act (ordination) is ratified by the other (common consent). Usually the ordination is deferred until after the sustaining vote however. Have any of you had "for ratification purposes only" after-the-fact sustainings of ordinations that have taken place? They happen all the time at the stake level. Not any stretch at all to apply that to setting apart the President of the Church. 1
Recommended Posts