"What does it mean that this is the true Church?"

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

With respect, how do we know that God has intended what you describe? 

He allowed us to make choices and expected us to use our brains...do you disagree?

[Navidad]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I allowed in my post (see above) that they can have multiple applications. I’m saying they can’t have true but conflicting interpretations, as truth does not contradict itself. 

Perhaps another perspective ----- The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth - Neils Bohr

[Navidad]

46 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Yep. I am one of those "rebellious Mormons" I suppose who claims that Church Presidents have erred, so I do not exclude our Church. Indeed, I believe Pres Kimball's presidency disavowed Brigham Young's "Adam-God Doctrine," which I am somewhere in the middle on. Past Bishop's of Rome have called prior Pontiffs "anti-popes" and disavowed their teachings and office so as to claim they were never true Bishops of Rome. If Protestants are in such agreement, how come there are so many different denominations each teaching different things? 

I have been on the web some 20 years now. I have experienced most Christian forum sites try to pigeon hole me as a "Mormon." If I register as such, then I am not allowed to post on their Christian-only forums. There is nothing like personal experience to bring home the full extent of that prejudice. Some require you to avow the Nicene Creed, as their delineating line as whether you can register as a Christian for purposes of posting on their forums. One of the last I was on Christianforums.com  booted all LDS Christians off their controversial Christian theology forum because they ruled we were not Christians. One of the reasons given us is we are not Nicene Christians. You will find LDS posting there on the World Religions forum, because they are not allowed on the other Christian forums.  No offense, but you seem a bit oblivious to the extent of prejudice against LDS Christianity we experience. You, however, are a breath of fresh air, and I imagine, most Mennonites are similar to you.

Hi amigo ...... I just spent time on Christianforums.com. This is not an evangelical site in any way shape or form. You are correct that it demands adherence to the Nicene Creed, that is why even I couldn't join it either as a non-Creedal evangelical.  It is a very hardcore fundamentalist site.  I don't think you would have any trouble differentiating between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the LeBaron Church of the Firstborn folks who live just south of us here in Chihuahua. Therefore to be fair, you should be able to distinguish between mainline Evangelicals, fundamentalists,  and their radical fundamentalist cousins as well. You aren't just painting us with a broad brush, but with a huger roller.

I am aware of anti-Mormon prejudice in fundamentalist Christianity. I will speak against it. But I beg you to shed the blind spot that keeps you from seeing the reason for much of it. Twice today, LDS folks on this forum have said to me "I hope you aren't offended......but you are wrong, your baptism is wrong, you have no authority, no keys and on and on. That doesn't come from your fundamentalist crazy cousins. It comes from your Church. And similar to what you have indicated, that offends me deeply as well. The LDS church has so much to offer and has so much room to grow which it is not doing now. If only you would join the Christian family as one branch on the tree. I believe your growth would explode. Yes, what you say if offensive. . . . deeply offensive. I have to overcome it every Sunday as I listen to sacrament testimonies. Mormon exceptionalism is the huge blind spot of mainstream Mormonism in this day. I hope and pray every day (no exaggeration) that soon an LDS prophet will overcome this and welcome me and other Christians in the words of the great invitational hymn "Just as I am."

Edited September 3, 2018 by Navidad

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Correction: A prophet’s words can have one and one only <true> interpretation (though they can have multiple applications).  Truth does not conflict with itself. 

Perhaps - but it seems like you are claiming that your interpretation is correct. I have a hard time with that.

To be clear - I think you should decide what it means to you and live by that revelation, but I don’t think you’re in a position to declare to me what the prophets mean.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

He allowed us to make choices and expected us to use our brains...do you disagree?

That does not prevent there being one authorized Priesthood that is the only one allowed to perform certain ordinances, does it?

The United States allows for a lot of varied choices and thoughts in how we live.  When it comes to citizenship though, it only allows authorized representatives to hand it out according to a specified process.  If you refuse to follow such a process, you cannot partake of the advantages of citizenship.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think you are missing at least two points here- the most important is that it is of NO consequence of the salvation of mankind that the "true church" has been on this planet such a short time if one understands that true doctrine will be taught to ALL in the afterlife anyway, so what they believed here becomes pretty irrelevant!  No harm, no foul.

Secondly in the days before world wide communications if you read the epistles again and again we see their writers admitting again and again that even in their lifetimes the doctrines were being lost.

The objective I believe of Catholicism, and I am sorry if this is offensive, is to preach a "preparatory" message - and is a mission it fulfilled admirably.  Without even printing presses or communications, the message got out that 1- Jesus is God 2- Jesus is the savior 3- Prayer for the dead is efficacious.  Those simple 3 points spread throughout the world in preparation for a time when a pure message could be disseminated properly.

No one was harmed because they learned the true gospel in its fullness on the other side.

God the Supreme Teacher knew EXACTLY what he was doing in getting out a worldwide message during a period of primitive communications through mouth-to-mouth advertising of the benefits of believing in Christianity and overthrowing the Roman Empire and enshrining Christian morality in its place- a miracle by any measure, with no communications tools but the Holy Ghost!

Then even the so-called "Reformation" carried forward the same simple message- "through the atonement of Jesus we are saved."

When the time came for the deep stuff- He saw what needed to be done:  Teach that-   God has a body and is in some sense immanent in the universe.  Exaltation- because we are already like God in a small way- we are of the same species.  Work for the dead., and therefore virtually universal salvation. Guided leaders are necessary but one must confirm them for oneself and not follow blindly, as one would follow an Emperor because disobedience in that case is instant death.  Essentially a "democratic" way of seeing religion as an individual responsibility.

Just as in Alma 32, the seeds were planted and the tree was growing awaiting the full fruit.  And then it came.  Alma 32 suddenly explained itself in the second installment of the Plan of Salvation- in the Second Witness.

Of course they are.  They are the worldwide foundation for taking the gospel farther, and all part of the plan in times less primitive, which allows a more complex explanation to survive.  Literacy.  Printing. Internet.

Not by a long shot!  Joseph himself is the one who hated creeds- and I can look up that quote if you insist.  He essentially wrote a summary of our doctrine in a letter to the editor of a newspaper who wanted to know what we believed.  It is not exhaustive by any means and since Joseph hated "Creeds" then why would he write a letter that was eventually taken to BE one?  Obviously that was not his intent.

Actually when you read it, it is written to be "politically correct" for his day and skirts the most important doctrines- that might have been controversial.  There is NOTHING about God being the Father of our Spirits or the pre-existence.  There is nothing about God having a physical body.  There is nothing about exaltation or the temple!

To me it is more like a billboard ad to bring in interested people than anything like a "Creed".  Nothing controversial and VERY Protestant in doctrinal explication.  "Hi everybody!  We are just like you!  Come check out our church! " is what I see when I read it.  Honestly I have never memorized it nor do I think it should be.  It is terribly elementary and clearly designed to be such.

There is no excuse for vilifying Catholics even if the DO believe in the abominable doctrine of substance.  (JUST KIDDING!!) 

Without Catholicism Mormonism would not exist. 

Can you imagine "selling" the Book of Mormon when no one had even heard of a teacher named Jesus who worked miracles and was alleged to have forgiven sins by dying on a cross??

Imagine- no one has heard the name "Jesus" because there was no Catholicism.  There never WAS "Christianity".  Now Joseph comes along with the Book of Mormon:

"Ok, so here you have gold plates from a civilization for which we have no evidence, delivered by an angel, about some prophet who came to the Americas who cured people, claimed to be the son of God and who DIED to forgive  MY sins, today,  and all this happened you say, thousands of years ago, and this person flew here from Palestine, right?  Just rose up into the sky and flew here from Palestine and he was Jewish, right?  A flying rabbi?  And you are serious, right?  Go look for some UFO's- they have a far more believable story"

Without 2000 years of Christianity, Mormonism would not even be a starter. And we owe it all to the Catholics who did the impossible and passed down the Message through two-thousand years of darkness via a primitive game of "telephone".  Thank you Catholics for working a Miracle that saved the world!!

Hey Mark,

Thank you so much for this post -- both for the time taken to write it and the sentiments expressed (and no Rorty video! ). This is not offensive at all; on the contrary, it is probably one of the most sympathetic ideas I've ever seen about the Catholic Church in relation to the great apostasy. I really appreciate it.

Peace,

Jesse

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Perhaps - but it seems like you are claiming that your interpretation is correct. I have a hard time with that.

To be clear - I think you should decide what it means to you and live by that revelation, but I don’t think you’re in a position to declare to me what the prophets mean.

On the contrary, if I believe I’m privy to a true understanding, not only am I entitled to say so, it is my divinely given mandate to declare it to you — just as I would expect you to do if you believed you were in possession of the truth. 

You are free to reject what I declare; that is your privilege. But it does not impact my right — and what I deem as my duty — to say it. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

22 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The same scriptures you would use in the Bible to justify priesthood leadership and organizational structure.

My point was that it was a semantical difference (magisterium and prophet/quorum of apostles). We both claim a leadership authorized by God to protect, transmit, clarify, and interpret doctrine and scripture. 

My justification is in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. There is far more revelation in those books pertaining to the Priesthood and church organization. 

I would like to see scriptures that describes the magesterium and power of the collected bishops in the Catholic Church. I really would appreciate knowing how this came to be.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

He allowed us to make choices and expected us to use our brains...do you disagree?

I don’t understand your answer so I don’t know if I agree. 

You said

Quote

There is no one true church with authority to rule out you own conscience.  No priesthood in the world can replace or love, carin and gratitude to the nature of God's laws..He will do what He does...but how we conform to HIs understanding depends on us...not on church.

You make a statement about God, and I ask how do you know the mind, laws, and will of God if there is no church or priesthood?

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am aware of anti-Mormon prejudice in fundamentalist Christianity. I will speak against it. But I beg you to shed the blind spot that keeps you from seeing the reason for much of it. Twice today, LDS folks on this forum have said to me "I hope you aren't offended......but you are wrong, your baptism is wrong, you have no authority, no keys and on and on. That doesn't come from your fundamentalist crazy cousins. It comes from your Church. And similar to what you have indicated, that offends me deeply as well. The LDS church has so much to offer and has so much room to grow which it is not doing now. If only you would join the Christian family as one branch on the tree. I believe your growth would explode. Yes, what you say if offensive. . . . deeply offensive. I have to overcome it every Sunday as I listen to sacrament testimonies. Mormon exceptionalism is the huge blind spot of mainstream Mormonism in this day. I hope and pray every day (no exaggeration) that soon an LDS prophet will overcome this and welcome me and other Christians in the words of the great invitational hymn "Just as I am."

Phil (you seem to be OK with me using your name), 

I generally do not speak of priesthood, keys and authority. I normally just discuss biblical interpretation, and let the spirit do the rest. I converted to the Church based upon the Bible, and believe others can as well too, so that is the truths I discuss. Debating about "authority" generally just won't do it. People get put off, etc, as you note.

How would we "join the Christian family as one branch on the tree?" As I just discussed with you, other Christians do not accept us as Christian. The Church is small as prophesied. However, the time is coming when that will begin to change, and the presumptions of "orthodox Christianity" will be turned on their heads. Nevertheless, I am intrigued. What specific suggestions do you have to include ourselves on the "tree of Christianity." You speak of being offended, but do it even yourself in your speech - like we are not on the tree of Christianity already. I do consider Mennonites to be Christian. I just believe they haven't accepted all the truth available to them. Other Christians often do not return the favor. I do not need to welcome you as Christian, since you already are. But it sounds to me to do what you are suggesting is to stop ordaining members into the priesthood, and stop calling them to church positions in order to accept them just as they are. That just won't happen. It is not because we think ourselves better than others, but because we would no longer be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS if we did that - the Church as we know it would dissolve. We will not change in order to conform to the world. The world will eventually be changed to conform to Christ. That won't happen with the body of Christianity as it is now. Nevertheless, I do value my friendship with you, and the open outlook of Mennonites, and happily embrace you as brothers in Christ. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Scott - you seem disingenuous here.  You have shifted your position from the priesthood never being taken from the earth to now claiming (after I share scripture with you) that it won’t be taken before the second coming.

You seem to be moving the goalposts, and your credibility is waning.

I'm not moving goal posts. The scripture (and the attendant account from Oliver Cowdery in the footnote in Joseph Smith HIstory) does not say the priesthood will be taken from the earth. It says it will remain until the sons of Levi offer an offering to the Lord in righteousness (an event attendant to the Second Coming).

[SouthernMo]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On the contrary, if I believe I’m privy to a true understanding, not only am I entitled to say so, it is my divinely given mandate to declare it to you — just as I would expect you to do if you believed you were in possession of the truth. 

You are free to reject what I declare; that is your privilege. But it does not impact my right — and what I deem as my duty — to say it. 

If you feel that teaching me is what God wants you to do, then please do it. But know this - you are ineffective, and thus not fulfilling your duty.

Why are you ineffective?  I have asked you for explanations for your position, which is how how I learn. Your response has been to explain that there is only one way to understand a scripture, and you allegedly know it. You have offered no reasons for me to take you seriously; your arguments are unreasonable.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

How can we use the scriptures in ways that would be very different from the original context then in your view?

I think I do this with John 12:23-25. While the original context was Jesus speaking of Himself (death, resurrection, and the universal fruits of that, our resurrection and salvation), the pattern can be used to describe the destruction and restoration of anything else connected with Him. This is why I see it it as a principle for why there had to be a Great Apostasy and then a Restoration prior to His Second Coming.

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Phil (you seem to be OK with me using your name), 

I generally do not speak of priesthood, keys and authority. I normally just discuss biblical interpretation, and let the spirit do the rest. I converted to the Church based upon the Bible, and believe others can as well too, so that is the truths I discuss. Debating about "authority" generally just won't do it. People get put off, etc, as you note.

How would we "join the Christian family as one branch on the tree?" As I just discussed with you, other Christians do not accept us as Christian. The Church is small as prophesied. However, the time is coming when that will begin to change, and the presumptions of "orthodox Christianity" will be turned on their heads. Nevertheless, I am intrigued. What specific suggestions do you have to include ourselves on the "tree of Christianity." You speak of being offended, but do it even yourself in your speech - like we are not on the tree of Christianity already. I do consider Mennonites to be Christian. I just believe they haven't accepted all the truth available to them. Other Christians often do not return the favor. I do not need to welcome you as Christian, since you already are. But it sounds to me to do what you are suggesting is to stop ordaining members into the priesthood, and stop calling them to church positions in order to accept them just as they are. That just won't happen. It is not because we think ourselves better than others, but because we would no longer be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS if we did that - the Church as we know it would dissolve. We will not change in order to conform to the world. The world will eventually be changed to conform to Christ. That won't happen with the body of Christianity as it is now. Nevertheless, I do value my friendship with you, and the open outlook of Mennonites, and happily embrace you as brothers in Christ. 

Hi Rev - Let me  clarify a few things in my thinking and then I need to back off a bit, for my own emotional well-being. You see, I take these conversations very seriously. They are draining. This isn't a hobby, an avocation or me, trying to find something to do. As far as I am concerned these conversations are about nothing less than practicing the presence of God for eternity. If that isn't of vital concern, I don't know what is. I also know I don't always say things well or the way I intend. That is getting a bit worse with age. How would you join the Christian family? I think there are two paths to that. Certainly there will always be some fringe groups who don't accept you. That is inevitable and will never change. Extremely conservative Mennonites will never accept me as a Mennonite because of their culture, customs, and endogamy. There will always be fundamentalists in every faith (including the LDS faith) - please remember, I interact with the Mormon fundamentalists almost on a daily basis as I do with the members of the LDS Church. The Lebaron folks are very powerful in our area.

Two things - First try and have a broader, less polemic view of Protestants. Just in this last post you said "other Christians do not accept us as Christian." The actuality (and I know this because I travel speaking and have a good handle on what is happening in evangelical circles today) is that there is a significant movement to accept Mormons as fellow-Christians as the evangelical movement moves more to discuss and discover the essentials of faith and Christianity. The attacks and broad stereotypes on evangelicals in the US today  (partly because of the whole Trump thing) are causing us to understand what it means to be marginalized, lessened. There also has been an attempt on the part of LDS theologians and some LDS leaders to bridge the divide. Whole books have been written jointly by Mormon and evangelical authors on the subject. They are required texts in evangelical colleges. There is a movement happening here, I am a living witness and testimony to it. I engage in it with MHA and Church History folks, as well as in my other speaking engagements. I take what I hear and learn on this forum and reflect on it as I travel and write. So my counsel is change the tune and the tone in discussing Protestants. I think many LDS folks are stuck in the 50s and 60s when Walter Martin reigned supreme in forming the evangelical opinions of Mormonism. He is dead now - long gone. I remember him well from times he spent in our home with my father. It is funny how folks now characterizing evangelicalism as a cult changes attitudes. I can assure you that most mainstream Christians are moving into a desire for a better understanding of the LDS church. Folks with impeccable evangelical credentials are visiting wards, some are curious, some are skeptical, some are very interested. I want to write an "Evangelicalism for Dummies" book. Not that I think there are lots of Evangelical dummies out there - yes I do!

Second, and this it in the words of Don Quixote, "the impossible dream." My metaphor of a tree is this; something similar to Christ's use of the vine and the branches. It seems to many other Christians, and to me as well, that LDS folks, when you really get down it, believe they are the whole tree - the roots, the trunk, the branches, the leaves, the fruit and the bark (especially the bark - hah!). The "only true and living tree." All other trees are mere weeds - some are pretty, some are nice, some have medicinal value, yet they still are weeds. So, no matter anything in my life: my life lived honoring Christ and His atonement, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, my own personal walk and talk with God, seeking revelation (His will) and answered prayers I have felt, my ministry of bringing healing through counseling and comfort, my years of commitment to Christ, and all and everything else included, I will never practice the presence of God and Christ for eternity without climbing the LDS tree. God in his infinite wisdom according to LDS folks has decided to limit his presence to a tiny tiny percentage of his children, and not because they are the only ones who believe and kneel before him, but because of some amorphous "authority" that is unknowable, untouchable, not-discernible, and unexplainable. I ask my Mormon friends who I have known for years; "Ok, you know me; you have seen me and walked with me for years; how am I different from you, spiritually?" It is an uncomfortable discussion for them. Without reverting to keys and authority, they have no answer. No keys in the OT, very few mentions of a key in the NT, none in BOM - yet that is the key - pun intended. Sorry I am going on too much. So if the LDS folks could begin to move towards a concept that Christianity is the tree, Christ is the soil, the wind, the water that nurtures that tree. He is the vine, we are the branches. The LDS church is a branch, a wonderful branch a fruitful branch, one of many that make up the tree. Then I think the fellowship between us all would be amazing. The kingdom of Christ would be blessed and enlarged, and yes I think God would anthropomorphically smile! Would that destroy the LDS Church? I am sure some or perhaps many faithful Saints would struggle terribly with that. I don't think the LDS faith would have to change anything else; just this one thing. Open up eternity to Christians without the need of any Mormon sealing, endowment, or sacrament - without denying the Saints the practice of the same. When I was a boy footwashing was so very important in my faith. It was a sacrament and in some Mennonite groups, still is. No one asks the Mennonites and Amish and Brethren who still practice it to give it up. It is a unique practice of their faith. The other restorationist groups out of which the LDS Church grew and arose such as the Disciples of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Christian Church all have practices and polity that vary from others, as do most Protestant groups. However there is zero pressure for them to change those things. I think Saints look at the diversity of polity and ecclesiology among Protestants and say, "My what a mess." We look at it and say "My, what a strength."  No kidding, if Mormonism dropped the "only" word, how would it change? What would be better, what would be worse?" I have a dozen books by sociologists of religion, some LDS, some not who have explained the LDS need to create  an identity as the "other" and " their own "otherness" along with the extreme need to define others as "outsiders." "enemies,"  "gentiles," etc. In a way, I understand that. Mennonites and Mormons are the two Christian groups who I know identify themselves as "a peculiar people." There is a whole history of journeying, exodus, and persecution that has created that self-concept. We have created the image and then sometimes get upset when we are viewed through that lens by "others," even other Christians. Christians like me want to join you; but you won't allow it. I am not referring to membership, but fellowship, brotherhood in the atonement of Christ, not in the pre-existence of Spirits as is meant the Presidency's proclamation in 1978 - the other proclamation about brothers and sisters.

I am finishing up a book this week  and I need to get the index done. That is a huge job and I have been putting it off. I am creating a three volume set (about 1000 pages) on the history of religion in Mexico. The first volume is out, I hope to finish the second this week and send it off, and the third will take a few years. It is hard for me to focus on that, when my mind and heart are so troubled with these conversations.  best, Phil
 

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Navidad

[Thinking]

On 9/1/2018 at 9:09 AM, mfbukowski said:

No other Christian churches I know of have a open Cannon.

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Thinking

[Navidad]

7 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Perhaps a more helpful way to think about it is that almost all, if not all Christian groups believe in both general and special revelation. They believe that believers may experience either. Special revelation (supernatural events) are rare, few are far in between.  But general revelation, the ministry of the Holy Ghost, the sense of closeness to God, what Saints call a prompting, etc. are available to all via the Holy Spirit. I am unaware of a special revelation in the life of an LDS prophet perhaps since Woodruff. I may, of course be wrong. The canon for most of us is closed. That doesn't mean God doesn't manifest Himself, speak to, or guide us as both groups and individuals.  Phil

 

[Thinking]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps a more helpful way to think about it is that almost all, if not all Christian groups believe in both general and special revelation. They believe that believers may experience either. Special revelation (supernatural events) are rare, few are far in between.  But general revelation, the ministry of the Holy Ghost, the sense of closeness to God, what Saints call a prompting, etc. are available to all via the Holy Spirit. I am unaware of a special revelation in the life of an LDS prophet perhaps since Woodruff. I may, of course be wrong. The canon for most of us is closed. That doesn't mean God doesn't manifest Himself, speak to, or guide us as both groups and individuals.  Phil

I think you misunderstood my post. I was having a little fun with mfbukowski's misspelling of canon as cannon.

ETA: Nice job replying before I changed the picture.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Thinking

[MiserereNobis]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

My justification is in the Book of Mormon and the Dipoctrupine and Covenants. There is far more revelation in those books pertaining to the Priesthood and church organization. 

I would like to see scriptures that describes the magesterium and power of the collected bishops in the Catholic Church. I really would appreciate knowing how this came to be.

The Catholic Church is not sola scriptura. We also accept Tradition (the doctrines and practices handed down) as authoritative. There are no verses in the Bible that directly lay out how the magisterium works -- that has been developed and clarified by the authoritative teaching arm of the Church: the pope and bishops in communion, especially during the Great Ecumenical Councils. There are hints and mentions of the magisterium in the Bible, of course, such as bishops, deacons, teachers, the Council of Jerusalem, etc.

Wikipedia has a fair and concise article on the magisterium, including the history of its development:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

 

[Jane_Doe]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Catholic Church is not sola scriptura. We also accept Tradition (the doctrines and practices handed down) as authoritative. There are no verses in the Bible that directly lay out how the magisterium works -- that has been developed and clarified by the authoritative teaching arm of the Church: the pope and bishops in communion, especially during the Great Ecumenical Councils. There are hints and mentions of the magisterium in the Bible, of course, such as bishops, deacons, teachers, the Council of Jerusalem, etc.

Wikipedia has a fair and concise article on the magisterium, including the history of its development:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

 

This stance ^ is actually something I really appreciate out of the RCC.  While I personally don't share it, I do find it to be a well thought out stance.  

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Catholic Church is not sola scriptura. We also accept Tradition (the doctrines and practices handed down) as authoritative. There are no verses in the Bible that directly lay out how the magisterium works -- that has been developed and clarified by the authoritative teaching arm of the Church: the pope and bishops in communion, especially during the Great Ecumenical Councils. There are hints and mentions of the magisterium in the Bible, of course, such as bishops, deacons, teachers, the Council of Jerusalem, etc.

Wikipedia has a fair and concise article on the magisterium, including the history of its development:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

 

Thank you. If I understand you correctly, this has no direct justification in the scriptures , but derives from councils and decrees. Is it the Catholic position that this is direct revelation from God?

In my opinion the LDS position is the stronger one because it has more scriptural basis and support from the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

What do you think of the current attempts to remove Pope Francis? Do you give sustaining votes to your leaders?

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Jane_Doe]

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi amigo ...... I just spent time on Christianforums.com. This is not an evangelical site in any way shape or form. You are correct that it demands adherence to the Nicene Creed, that is why even I couldn't join it either as a non-Creedal evangelical.  It is a very hardcore fundamentalist site.  I don't think you would have any trouble differentiating between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the LeBaron Church of the Firstborn folks who live just south of us here in Chihuahua. Therefore to be fair, you should be able to distinguish between mainline Evangelicals, fundamentalists,  and their radical fundamentalist cousins as well. You aren't just painting us with a broad brush, but with a huger roller.

I am aware of anti-Mormon prejudice in fundamentalist Christianity. I will speak against it. But I beg you to shed the blind spot that keeps you from seeing the reason for much of it. Twice today, LDS folks on this forum have said to me "I hope you aren't offended......but you are wrong, your baptism is wrong, you have no authority, no keys and on and on. That doesn't come from your fundamentalist crazy cousins. It comes from your Church. And similar to what you have indicated, that offends me deeply as well. The LDS church has so much to offer and has so much room to grow which it is not doing now. If only you would join the Christian family as one branch on the tree. I believe your growth would explode. Yes, what you say if offensive. . . . deeply offensive. I have to overcome it every Sunday as I listen to sacrament testimonies. Mormon exceptionalism is the huge blind spot of mainstream Mormonism in this day. I hope and pray every day (no exaggeration) that soon an LDS prophet will overcome this and welcome me and other Christians in the words of the great invitational hymn "Just as I am."

I think there can be a middle ground here.   I hate the extreme of ChristianForums (and similar places) where there is institutional persecution of of "others", denial of another's love of Christ, and failure to show the love of Christ themselves.  I also strongly dislike the other extreme of "same difference" stance --- that differences in theology, searching for Truth, etc totally don't matter-- that it's all "same difference".  Or the false idea a true bond with Christ doesn't change a person--- rather a bond with Christ should change a person, not just once but many many times.  

My personal stance in in the middle: yes, I am going to acknowledge other people's love of Christ and going to celebrate it.  I'm going to stand alongside you as a sister in Christ.  But I'm also still going to still believing Truth matters and delve into that faith/knowledge development.   

[MiserereNobis]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

What do you think of the current attempts to remove Pope

Palace intrigue. A conservative Cardinal who dislikes the Pope's liberal views is using the scandal to further his own ideas. It's politics.

Canon law currently recognizes Papal supremacy, which means that only the Pope can remove himself. There is no legal method for others to have him removed.

I think the Pope is acting prudently by mostly ignoring this Cardinal (whom he could have removed from the College of Cardinals, put under interdict, shuttled off to some remote monastery, or any other thing he wants since he has supreme canonical control).

I do wish the Pope would say a lot more about the abuse scandal directly, though.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Rev - Let me  clarify a few things in my thinking and then I need to back off a bit, for my own emotional well-being. You see, I take these conversations very seriously. They are draining. This isn't a hobby, an avocation or me, trying to find something to do. As far as I am concerned these conversations are about nothing less than practicing the presence of God for eternity. If that isn't of vital concern, I don't know what is. I also know I don't always say things well or the way I intend. That is getting a bit worse with age. How would you join the Christian family? I think there are two paths to that. Certainly there will always be some fringe groups who don't accept you. That is inevitable and will never change. Extremely conservative Mennonites will never accept me as a Mennonite because of their culture, customs, and endogamy. There will always be fundamentalists in every faith (including the LDS faith) - please remember, I interact with the Mormon fundamentalists almost on a daily basis as I do with the members of the LDS Church. The Lebaron folks are very powerful in our area.

Two things - First try and have a broader, less polemic view of Protestants. Just in this last post you said "other Christians do not accept us as Christian." The actuality (and I know this because I travel speaking and have a good handle on what is happening in evangelical circles today) is that there is a significant movement to accept Mormons as fellow-Christians as the evangelical movement moves more to discuss and discover the essentials of faith and Christianity. The attacks and broad stereotypes on evangelicals in the US today  (partly because of the whole Trump thing) are causing us to understand what it means to be marginalized, lessened. There also has been an attempt on the part of LDS theologians and some LDS leaders to bridge the divide. Whole books have been written jointly by Mormon and evangelical authors on the subject. They are required texts in evangelical colleges. There is a movement happening here, I am a living witness and testimony to it. I engage in it with MHA and Church History folks, as well as in my other speaking engagements. I take what I hear and learn on this forum and reflect on it as I travel and write. So my counsel is change the tune and the tone in discussing Protestants. I think many LDS folks are stuck in the 50s and 60s when Walter Martin reigned supreme in forming the evangelical opinions of Mormonism. He is dead now - long gone. I remember him well from times he spent in our home with my father. It is funny how folks now characterizing evangelicalism as a cult changes attitudes. I can assure you that most mainstream Christians are moving into a desire for a better understanding of the LDS church. Folks with impeccable evangelical credentials are visiting wards, some are curious, some are skeptical, some are very interested. I want to write an "Evangelicalism for Dummies" book. Not that I think there are lots of Evangelical dummies out there - yes I do!

Second, and this it in the words of Don Quixote, "the impossible dream." My metaphor of a tree is this; something similar to Christ's use of the vine and the branches. It seems to many other Christians, and to me as well, that LDS folks, when you really get down it, believe they are the whole tree - the roots, the trunk, the branches, the leaves, the fruit and the bark (especially the bark - hah!). The "only true and living tree." All other trees are mere weeds - some are pretty, some are nice, some have medicinal value, yet they still are weeds. So, no matter anything in my life: my life lived honoring Christ and His atonement, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, my own personal walk and talk with God, seeking revelation (His will) and answered prayers I have felt, my ministry of bringing healing through counseling and comfort, my years of commitment to Christ, and all and everything else included, I will never practice the presence of God and Christ for eternity without climbing the LDS tree. God in his infinite wisdom according to LDS folks has decided to limit his presence to a tiny tiny percentage of his children, and not because they are the only ones who believe and kneel before him, but because of some amorphous "authority" that is unknowable, untouchable, not-discernible, and unexplainable. I ask my Mormon friends who I have known for years; "Ok, you know me; you have seen me and walked with me for years; how am I different from you, spiritually?" It is an uncomfortable discussion for them. Without reverting to keys and authority, they have no answer. No keys in the OT, very few mentions of a key in the NT, none in BOM - yet that is the key - pun intended. Sorry I am going on too much. So if the LDS folks could begin to move towards a concept that Christianity is the tree, Christ is the soil, the wind, the water that nurtures that tree. He is the vine, we are the branches. The LDS church is a branch, a wonderful branch a fruitful branch, one of many that make up the tree. Then I think the fellowship between us all would be amazing. The kingdom of Christ would be blessed and enlarged, and yes I think God would anthropomorphically smile! Would that destroy the LDS Church? I am sure some or perhaps many faithful Saints would struggle terribly with that. I don't think the LDS faith would have to change anything else; just this one thing. Open up eternity to Christians without the need of any Mormon sealing, endowment, or sacrament - without denying the Saints the practice of the same. When I was a boy footwashing was so very important in my faith. It was a sacrament and in some Mennonite groups, still is. No one asks the Mennonites and Amish and Brethren who still practice it to give it up. It is a unique practice of their faith. The other restorationist groups out of which the LDS Church grew and arose such as the Disciples of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Christian Church all have practices and polity that vary from others, as do most Protestant groups. However there is zero pressure for them to change those things. I think Saints look at the diversity of polity and ecclesiology among Protestants and say, "My what a mess." We look at it and say "My, what a strength."  No kidding, if Mormonism dropped the "only" word, how would it change? What would be better, what would be worse?" I have a dozen books by sociologists of religion, some LDS, some not who have explained the LDS need to create  an identity as the "other" and " their own "otherness" along with the extreme need to define others as "outsiders." "enemies,"  "gentiles," etc. In a way, I understand that. Mennonites and Mormons are the two Christian groups who I know identify themselves as "a peculiar people." There is a whole history of journeying, exodus, and persecution that has created that self-concept. We have created the image and then sometimes get upset when we are viewed through that lens by "others," even other Christians. Christians like me want to join you; but you won't allow it. I am not referring to membership, but fellowship, brotherhood in the atonement of Christ, not in the pre-existence of Spirits as is meant the Presidency's proclamation in 1978 - the other proclamation about brothers and sisters.

I am finishing up a book this week  and I need to get the index done. That is a huge job and I have been putting it off. I am creating a three volume set (about 1000 pages) on the history of religion in Mexico. The first volume is out, I hope to finish the second this week and send it off, and the third will take a few years. It is hard for me to focus on that, when my mind and heart are so troubled with these conversations.  best, Phil
 

If I understand you in a nutshell, Phil, you are saying that as LDS we exclude ourselves from the tree of Christianity rather than Christians doing it. I think it is both. I have for years emphasized calling myself LDS Christian rather than Mormon so as to try to bridge that gap. I definitely appreciate what you are saying. I don't use those terms "outsiders," "enemies" or "gentiles." I consider all Europeans to be gentiles including myself. Even the Book of Mormon speaks of the Church as "the Gentiles" saying He will bring the fullness of His gospel from among the Gentiles. So to me, it is not a valid distinction although Brigham Young liked it. I definitely do not refer to other Christian churches as "enemies," but in the days of Joseph Smith when other Protestants were burning LDS properties, killing LDS members, and driving us away, Joseph Smith did refer to them as enemies. While I believe other Christians make significant errors in their interpretation of scripture, I do not refer to them in disparaging ways. Those who know me in this forum know I have criticized the Catholic Church, but that is not a criticism of individual Catholics. I have made Catholic friends in the past while attending a Catholic school even while being a fresh LDS convert, and I considered them to be close, Christian friends. I did not debate religious issues with them. I just enjoyed their company. I am sure I would do the same with you. However, if we talk about scriptural issues, I will present my interpretation of scripture, and my beliefs, and some of my experiences, as they make up who I am as a Christian. I leave it up to you whether to include me in your Christian "circle" or box.  

I have stopped speaking about the "only true Church" but we are the only Church -even among offshoots - which retains all the structure of the original Church and practices baptism for the dead. I speak about the truth of the restored gospel though, so I don't know if that would be off-putting to non-LDS Christians. I don't think it would to say... Seventh Day Adventists. Don't anabaptists view themselves as a restorationist movement? So, it seems we have at least that much in common.

D&C 18:41 And you must preach unto the world, saying: You must repent and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ;

42 For all men must repent and be baptized, and not only men, but women, and children who have arrived at the years of accountability.

43 And now, after that you have received this, you must keep my commandments in all things;

Those who repent, are baptized in His name, and who keep His commandments are Christians in my book. However, I no longer see one level of salvation for in His Father's house of Elohim there are many rooms. So if I am saved to one room and you another, does that mean one of us is not Christian? Is it possible one of us embraced more truth than the other? I fully recognize that you feel the workings of the spirit in your life. What does the Spirit tell you about this?

Good luck on your books. All the best

Rev

[Jeanne]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t understand your answer so I don’t know if I agree. 

You said

You make a statement about God, and I ask how do you know the mind, laws, and will of God if there is no church or priesthood?

I know it is hard to understand my thinking.  But we are all able to receive personal revelation and faith in that revelation.  With prayer we can heal many things...as earlier women did in your church in early days.  Why would a priesthood be withheld from any of us who continue to grow and understand the Savior as we live accordingly. ?

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you. If I understand you correctly, this has no direct justification in the scriptures , but derives from councils and decrees. Is it the Catholic position that this is direct revelation from God?

The magisterium pre-dates the scriptures. It is the magisterium that compiled the Bible. Remember, the magisterium is the pope and bishops in communion with him. These existed as soon as the apostles began ordaining bishops. The first Ecumenical Council is in Acts 15. It was later Councils that decided on the Biblical Canon. So, justification for the magisterium is not necessary to be found in the Bible, because it was by the magisterium's authority that the Bible was compiled.

And yes, the magisterium is (to use the LDS term) direct revelation from God, given by Christ Himself to the apostles.

Quote

Do you give sustaining votes to your leaders?

No such formal practice exists in the Catholic Church, but we are asked to give assent to our leaders when they act in certain capacities (the wikipedia article covers this). I pray for my "leadership hierarchy" daily as part of my Rosary: my parish priests, my bishop, the pope.