Latter-day Saint Prophet as Prophet Over All Christianity .

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Something about just doing what has been done on other worlds....?

Who usually tells the inhabitants they should eat the fruit?

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I invite you to reflect upon the Endowment presentation, specifically when Lucifer is called on the carpet and is asked what he is doing there.

IF that exchange is literal and true doctrine (as opposed to a teaching tool not intended to be taken literally), then there are other worlds which have experienced The Fall in their own time. And I bring Moses 1:33-35 into the argument as additional support:

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

This is all written in support of Moses 1:39, expressing what is the work and glory of the Father, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. From v. 34 we understand that there are, have been, and will be many Adams, upon the many worlds that the Father has created. From the Endowment presentation we understand that there are, have been, and will be many Lucifers, doing what Lucifer does: inducing a Fall of Man upon each of these worlds where Father has placed his children in order to bring that immortality and eternal life to pass.

I realize that this is somewhat "out there." It is something that has intrigued me much. I won't insist upon it, but bring it up as an interesting thought experiment.

We are really only concerned with the history and the affairs of this world where we find ourselves. What happens elsewhere and elsewhen is for us at this time unimportant.

 

I've vacillated between this idea and its rejection many times.  Do we really only get one shot at this?  Are we really sufficiently tested by only one go-through?  Some of us show up and play on the mortal stage for a few minutes and we're gone, while others hang around on it for many decades. Are we all adequately tested? Or do some of us need additional proofing?

I'm 68, and the idea that maybe I haven't quite proven who I am, and need another go, kind of makes me tired.  I think I've done it fairly well this time, but will I totally hose it if I have to do it again?  

Well, it's non-doctrinal, so it won't be on the pop-quiz. 

There are worlds where the fruit (or its equivalent) were eaten and that it is a necessary step is made pretty clear. At the same time though if that is the standard procedure why did Satan think he was screwing up the plan? Is a Fall required? Was it the fruit that caused the Fall or did they fall because they disobeyed and ate it when they were commanded not to? Also, if the Fall is a choice then how come it was in essence forced on the descendants? Unless they had already fallen?

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Who usually tells the inhabitants they should eat the fruit?

Yep, that's the one.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There are worlds where the fruit (or its equivalent) were eaten and that it is a necessary step is made pretty clear. At the same time though if that is the standard procedure why did Satan think he was screwing up the plan? Is a Fall required? Was it the fruit that caused the Fall or did they fall because they disobeyed and ate it when they were commanded not to? Also, if the Fall is a choice then how come it was in essence forced on the descendants? Unless they had already fallen?

Archetypes.  My reading of Nibley tells me that archetypes are important storytelling devices intended to teach us important principles and help us remember them. For example, the Genesis story may be an archetype, not literally true but is given to us in order to teach important principles, just like the Endowment presentation.

Your last sentence is a brilliant question.  I'm glad we have you around, my lad!  You provoke thought.

 

[3DOP]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Rory: I am very interested in your post and might even have some questions for you. First a comment - My father was a Baptist minister - ordained by several Baptist groups. I went to two different Baptist seminaries to prepare for the ministry, and a Baptist graduate school in religion. I was licensed and then ordained in a Baptist church. I was a professor in two different Baptist colleges. I served on the pastoral staff of at least four Baptist churches, including a Chinese Baptist Church in Los Angeles. I have preached in scores of Baptist churches. Never once in any of that have I heard, been taught, read, preached (myself), heard any Baptist preach, or via any other form of communication heard that Catholics are not Christians by virtue of them being Catholics. The only thing I vaguely remember was a kooky guy who had a series of Chick or Chik tracts who was pretty anti-Catholic. That was fifty years ago. I have no idea if he was Baptist or not. He and his stuff had zero credibility. So, I am not sure where you have gotten the idea you expressed in your above post. Certainly in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century there were Baptist preachers among others, who were rather anti-Catholic. I have been active in ministry in Mennonite and Baptist congregations since the late sixties and I have not ever been taught that. As an Evangelical I would completely condemn such a perspective as well.

Here are some questions, if you would care to respond. I think the question herein being discussed is related to the official position of the Catholic Church post Vatican II.  In that spirit here are my questions. Thanks in advance for you answers and know as a Baptist/Mennonite I certainly consider you my brother in Christ:

Are people saved outside of the visible communion of the Catholic church? Is exclusivism (only in the Catholic church can people find salvation) the current teaching of the Church?

Doesn't the Catholic Church accept baptisms from some other Christian groups, in addition to appropriate catechism for membership in the Catholic Church?

While the Catholic Church has maintained its position as being the "mother church" the "repository of truth" for the Christian community (those are my words), hasn't the Church gone through some significant changes in its communion and relationships with non-Catholic Christian groups since the mid 1960s via various declarations, statements, etc? Aren't these changes considered as too progressive by some so some Catholics aren't particularly happy with them and resist them in various manners?

Thanks for your input.

 

 

 

 

 

Navidad, hello. Thank you for your interest. 

Let me begin with repeating what I said in the first line of my first post to Robert on the thread:

Quote

I take the position that the teachings of the Catholic Church from the times of the Apostles is what the Catholic Church teaches. New teachings and novelties cannot qualify. Neither an ecumenical council, nor a pope can change what Catholics believe to have been passed down from the Apostles.

With what is said above in mind, I must dissent from your suggestion that "the question herein being discussed is related to the official position of the Catholic Church post Vatican II."

I cannot answer the rest of your questions at this time. I hope I can get to them soon, but I thought it would be important at the outset to note that the Catholic Church does not have the authority to alter her teachings. Development? Yes. Alter? No. More later hopefully.

 

[Rain]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

 

That's all pretty complicated for a country boy like me! Let me simply ask, does the LDS God have agency so that He could choose to grant non-LDS Christians authority to ordain, perform ordinances, and preside within their own Christian group? Could my ordination in 1973 be an accurate reflection of God's desires and purpose for my life at that time and place? Was he smiling or frowning that Sunday afternoon?

Or are you saying in the above, that God decided to only grant authority to the LDS Church in the early nineteenth century and has chosen by his agency to limit Himself to only LDS spokespersons for some reason for the last almost two hundred years? I am guessing I know the answer. You can't allow for exceptions or the whole thing collapses, right?

He always has agency, but he always chooses what is right. I suspect, but cannot point to anything that this is part of what makes Him God.  I do know one of our leaders said that personal righteousness and covenants gives access to priesthood power so I would suspect that would be part of what makes Him God.

How he feels about what happened with you none of us can truly tell. He loves you just and He loves when you try to do right so He may feel pleased by those choices.  I think He smiles any time we move closer to Him.

He is a God of order though.  Everything I know of our doctrine says you gain power through your personal righteousness, but miss some through a lack of of ordinances and covenants through His line of authority.  

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

He always has agency, but he always chooses what is right. I suspect, but cannot point to anything that this is part of what makes Him God.  I do know one of our leaders said that personal righteousness and covenants gives access to priesthood power so I would suspect that would be part of what makes Him God.

How he feels about what happened with you none of us can truly tell. He loves you just and He loves when you try to do right so He may feel pleased by those choices.  I think He smiles any time we move closer to Him.

He is a God of order though.  Everything I know of our doctrine says you gain power through your personal righteousness, but miss some through a lack of of ordinances and covenants through His line of authority.  

 

I think this gets to an important point: No one can have authority over another's agency, even God over ours. He gave us our agency which entails the authority to use it for ourselves. God does have authority over the estate or scope in which we exercise that agency, and the keys to advance us from one estate into the next. Similarly, the prophet has no authority over how all Christians (and non-Christians) exercise their agency, but he does have authority to expand the scope in which they exercise their agency by exercising the keys, which he often does through delegation.

By examining the elements of agency, we can see where and how the authorized use of the keys can expand anyone's agency, and in this way he is the prophet for the whole world. It doesn't guarantee that everyone knows or chooses to accept that, not should it.

Edited July 5, 2020 by CV75

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, rpn said:

And just to boogle your mind a little more, OP, the bishop  in each geographical area is bishop to everyone who lives in that geographical area.   He is authorized to help anyone from the bishop's storehouse, or invite them to fast and contribute fast offerings (note: the only time I've heard a bishop doing the latter is in a few places that have high lds populations and also lots of members who don't attend church but remain on the roles, and when done, it has been mostly for community service projects donations or actual labor).

I understand that. We were told early on in our attendance that we cannot tithe as non-members, but we can share in fast offerings. So we have done so. We also share our tithes with the local Catholic church. They certainly have no issue with accepting them! Ha! 

[Navidad]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think this gets to an important point: No one can have authority over another's agency, even God over ours. He gave us our agency which entails the authority to use it for ourselves. God does have authority over the estate or scope in which we exercise that agency, and the keys to advance us from one estate into the next. Similarly, the prophet has no authority over how all Christians (and non-Christians) exercise their agency, but he does have authority to expand the scope in which they exercise their agency by exercising the keys, which he often does through delegation.

By examining the elements of agency, we can see where and how the authorized use of the keys can expand anyone's agency, and in this way he is the prophet for the whole world. It doesn't guarantee that everyone knows or chooses to accept that, not should it.

Thanks for your thought provoking post. I do not think it is wise to ask a question if I think I know the answer in advance. That might lead to the question appearing to be disingenuous. Failure to ask however might also lead to not learning something! That is a conundrum for me on this forum. Here is my question then. Could, in the proper use of his agency, either God or President Nelson grant authority to a non-church member to administer an ordinance, perform a healing, prophesy, speak in tongues, or the like? I wonder if a key has to be granted for a non - member to love with a Christ-like love since that is a gift, perhaps thee gift of the Spirit? Can a non-member love with a Spirit - filled Christ-like love? 

[Rain]

35 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your thought provoking post. I do not think it is wise to ask a question if I think I know the answer in advance. That might lead to the question appearing to be disingenuous. Failure to ask however might also lead to not learning something! That is a conundrum for me on this forum. Here is my question then. Could, in the proper use of his agency, either God or President Nelson grant authority to a non-church member to administer an ordinance,

Well Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery baptized each other before the church was organized so I would say, yes, He could.  Would He do that on more than a rare occasion is something we don't have knowledge of.

Quote

perform a healing, prophesy, speak in tongues, or the like?

Could He?  Yes, if it was a correct thing to do.   

Quote

I wonder if a key has to be granted for a non - member to love with a Christ-like love since that is a gift, perhaps thee gift of the Spirit? Can a non-member love with a Spirit - filled Christ-like love? 

No key has to be given to anyone to love. (Few church members even have keys of any kind).   Yes, pure love of Christ, is a gift. And YES!  Anyone can be filled with that love. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Rain

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your thought provoking post. I do not think it is wise to ask a question if I think I know the answer in advance. That might lead to the question appearing to be disingenuous. Failure to ask however might also lead to not learning something! That is a conundrum for me on this forum. Here is my question then. Could, in the proper use of his agency, either God or President Nelson grant authority to a non-church member to administer an ordinance, perform a healing, prophesy, speak in tongues, or the like? I wonder if a key has to be granted for a non - member to love with a Christ-like love since that is a gift, perhaps thee gift of the Spirit? Can a non-member love with a Spirit - filled Christ-like love? 

As with the question about the Mennonite bishop here Posted 22 hours ago (edited) , this is a question of doctrine. 

Keys pertain to the authority to do things in the kingdom of God on earth in God's behalf. But God grants many gifts and blessings to His children even when they do not belong to this kingdom, or when the kingdom is not established upon the earth at all. A "Spirit-filled Christ-like love" is probably the greatest of these gifts, but they also include many other things that are included among the Gifts of the Spirit in the kingdom of God on earth (some you mentioned), plus the moral sense of right and wrong, instinct, etc. 

God grants the keys at the beginning of each dispensation and grants more as the dispensation rolls on,. Not all dispensations are created equal, either, which is why we need a dispensation of the fulness of times to gather all things in one before the Lord's second coming. But every child born into the world irrespective of living during a dispensation or belonging to the kingdom when it is upon the earth is endowed with the light of Christ, which, absent membership in the kingdom of God on earth, serves as "the Spirit" for them. Thus, scriptures like Mark 6:16-18 and I Corinthians 12 tell of gifts that can be gotten in connection with authorized baptism when the keys are on the earth, or in connection with faith or the light of Christ absent a dispensation or membership in the kingdom of God on earth.

Baptism (and other ordinances) require authority, but the various gifts not necessarily. When the Gifts of the Spirit come by way of baptism and the gift and constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, it is by authority. When spiritual gifts come by some other way, at best it is by the light of Christ. Sometimes the light of Christ leads to an expression of the power of the Holy Ghost which leads one into the kingdom of God on earth.

[RevTestament]

On 7/2/2020 at 10:37 AM, Navidad said:

A few days ago, one of the members of our forum posted the following. I found it to be utterly fascinating and have thought a lot about it ever since. Here is what was said, referring to President Nelson:

“I realize that not all people feel this way, but we believe he is the prophet for the whole world and not just members. . .” 

(emphasis mine)

I think this is a very interesting and important comment that certainly garnered its share of likes from the members of this forum. That is of course, no surprise. I have never heard this before, nor do I ever remember reading this in any LDS writings.

Four questions:

Does anyone on this forum know any non-LDS Christians who accept or acknowledge President Nelson as their Prophet (I am capitalizing the word because it seems to me it deserves capitalization if he is thee Prophet for all Christianity in this dispensation? 

Do all or the vast majority of LDS Christians believe this to be true?

Is it a doctrine of the church, and if so, where is it spelled out in writing? If it is a doctrine of the church, I think it is very important that the non-LDS Christian community is aware of this. I have a feeling that 99% of the 99% of Christians who are not LDS, are not aware of this doctrine or belief. Or maybe I have just missed it in all my study!

My last question is a bit harder to word. If he is thee Prophet for all of Christianity, what does that mean? How does that play out in the real world? How does he fulfill that role on a day to day basis? What is his pastoral or administrative authority as such, in and over the non-LDS portion of Christianity? Does he actively teach this? Has any LDS president ever actually done or said anything in that role? Or is it something assumed by the faithful, but never actually taught? I must admit I have never thought of this before. It is very interesting.

To the Catholic folks on the forum, do Catholics believe and teach that the Pope is thee Prophet for all of Christianity in the world, including LDS Christians, or is he the head and Prophet of the Roman Catholic church? Does the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Community, I believe his name is Bartholomew, believe and teach that he is the Prophet or Patriarch for all of Christianity in the world, including the LDS, Baptist, Pentecostal Christians of the world? Are there any such competing claims in the rest of Christianity? This kind of claim really floats my boat. I find it fascinating to think about. Thanks to all for your thoughts.

If God speaks through a person as a prophet or seer, it has always been to all followers. This does not mean that all the world accepts that message. Many often don't. It doesn't make the message any less relevant to all those who believe or even don't believe. It is relevant to non-believers too because they will be held to the standards God set forth in the messages. 

Do I care that the Catholic Church considers the teachings of the Roman pontiff to be authoritative. No. I do not feel bound by them, nor consider them authoritatively received by God, but they clearly do. So it is the same with members of the CoJCoLDS. Why should you feel slighted if we believe our prophets to be authoritative to all who will listen? Is it because you believe God does not speak through prophets or seers anymore? That belief does not seem consistent with Rev 11 which tells us two witnesses shall prophesy. Will God limit their prophesying to one Church? I don't think so.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Well Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery baptized each other before the church was organized so I would say, yes, He could.  Would He do that on more than a rare occasion is something we don't have knowledge of.

Could He?  Yes, if it was a correct thing to do.   

No key has to be given to anyone to love. (Few church members even have keys of any kind).   Yes, pure love of Christ, is a gift. And YES!  Anyone can be filled with that love. 

In relation to my response, Joseph and Oliver were given the keys in a new dispensation following their obedience to light of Christ, faith, and the power of the Holy Ghost they had enjoyed up to that time, all of which culminated in an authoritative establishment of the kingdom of God on earth and their becoming the first to be given the keys in these times.

The correct thing for people to do is to follow the light of Christ in good faith, which may be manifest in any of these gifts. But there are imitations, so when faith is compromised so can the source and nature of the gift be compromised.

Without the light of Christ manifest as the love of Christ, no mother would nurture her child and Adam and Eve would have never have had a surviving generation.

[3DOP]

 Navidad

Here are some questions, if you would care to respond. I think the question herein being discussed is related to the official position of the Catholic Church post Vatican II.  In that spirit here are my questions. Thanks in advance for you answers and know as a Baptist/Mennonite I certainly consider you my brother in Christ:

Are people saved outside of the visible communion of the Catholic church? Is exclusivism (only in the Catholic church can people find salvation) the current teaching of the Church?

Doesn't the Catholic Church accept baptisms from some other Christian groups, in addition to appropriate catechism for membership in the Catholic Church?

While the Catholic Church has maintained its position as being the "mother church" the "repository of truth" for the Christian community (those are my words), hasn't the Church gone through some significant changes in its communion and relationships with non-Catholic Christian groups since the mid 1960s via various declarations, statements, etc? Aren't these changes considered as too progressive by some so some Catholics aren't particularly happy with them and resist them in various manners?

Thanks for your input.

3DOP

1a.) There are people who are possibly saved outside the visible communion of the Catholic Church. The teaching is usually identified as "baptism of desire". 

1b.) Exclusivism is the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesiam/No Salvation Outside the Church, means that in some respect, any saved soul will be identified with the Bride of Christ, the Catholic Church. Jesus is not a polygamist.

2)    The Catholic Church teaches that baptism may be performed by anyone who is broadly "intending to do what the Church does." The Catholic Church does not teach that Protestant churches have any authority to baptize greater than Hindus or Jews or atheists. To be precise, non-Catholic "churches" are nothing more nor less than the "unauthorized meetings" to which St. Irenaeus referred as quoted above. It would be grave mistake to interpret the fact that Catholics accept Protestant baptisms as a sign that the Catholic Church believes that the Protestant churches have some kind of authority that is lacking among Mormons, whose baptisms have been deemed invalid. From the Council of Florence:

"In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or a woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so as long as he preserves the form of the Church (the verbal formula) and has the intention of doing what the Church does."

---Decree for the Armenians, Exultate Deo, Nov. 22, 1439

For what it is worth, I believe that LDS baptisms meet this criteria, or at least do so potentially. I would advocate the pre-Vatican II rule by which LDS converts are baptized conditionally, there being doubt as to whether there has been a valid baptism. Our Creed says that we "believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". This is why it would be sacrilegious to knowingly administer baptism twice. Not that the subject of baptism would suffer for it. The blame would lie elsewhere. I would not want to be the one to declare that every LDS baptism is invalid, which is what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (headed by the future Benedict XVI) effectively pronounced.     

3a)  The post-conciliar Church has gone beyond what the Council ever advocated or authorized with regard to our beliefs about our own faith and the beliefs of others. There is a novel tendency towards doctrinal indifferentism and universal salvation.  

3b) Catholics are as subject to the decrees of eternal Rome in our own age as ever before. Catholics today are faced with the choice of resisting eternal Rome or resisting conciliar Rome. I resist the Francis church of the pachamamas. I resist the Benedict XVI church of the hermeneutic of continuity. I resist the John Paul II church of kissing the Koran, and praying for world peace with every false religion, while their sacrilegious idols lay on the altar of the Holy Sacrifice in the basilica of St. Francis of Assisi. I resist the Paul VI church which gives us a Mass that violates the norms allowed by the Second Vatican Council, and gives us seminaries that completely ignore the norms prescribed by the Second Vatican Council. I resist the church of John XXIII who instead of consecrating Russia to our Lady's Immaculate Heart to achieve the conversion of Russia and world peace, connived with the KGB to have some of their agents (bishops) present at the Council, presumingly to achieve what could have been accomplished in about ten minutes instead of four years.

There are well over 250 popes that one is forced to resist if we would follow and advocate the lead of our current prelates. G. K. Chesterton wrote in happier times, that Catholics are subject to "the democracy of the dead". Catholics always need to consult what the vast majority of our fellow saints, and what our fathers in the faith, always believed, unless we are happy to be bastards, denying our lineage to the past. Obedience to the spirit of Vatican II is taken for granted by the majority of the bishops and priests. Many resist without fail, and with all of their strength, the Catholic Church for over 1,900 years. At best, they are "not particularly happy" with Catholic history.  At worst, they openly despise Traditional Catholicism. All Catholics are placed in a position where they must resist "in various manners". It is a simply a question of whether Catholics will resist a very long and venerable yesterday or a very short, and novel present, as it appears today.

Navidad, I would welcome an attempt to show that the late Council consistently observed and preserved traditional Catholic teaching. I have discovered that non-Catholics often combine a strong preference in favor of the novelties with a strong dislike for traditional Catholicism. I have never seen the preferences based on which position would be more or less likely to fulfill the qualifications for having become apostate with the need for a complete restoration of the Church on earth. I cannot defend Vatican II to the LDS. It is in part through my interactions with LDS over these many years that force me to realize that if the Church was so wrong for so long, it would have to have been apostate. 1965 is too late to finally get things right, and the LDS know it better than the Protestants and many blind Catholics!  I sometimes doubt that interested people today are even thinking in terms of what is true and what is false, but rather of what is liked and not liked. One bishop blithely remarked of one document of Vatican II that it was an "anti-syllabus", referencing the Syllabus of Errors promulgated by Pope Pius IX which explicitly condemns some of the teaching of the late Council. Another prelate went even farther calling it "1789 in the Church" in reference to the French Revolution. I agree with them. Rupture, not development. 

Gotta go. I can't post much on weekdays. But I will peek in to see any thoughts you might have. May God bless and guide you on your journey of faith, Navidad.

Rory  

Edited July 5, 2020 by 3DOP

[CV75]

On 7/2/2020 at 12:37 PM, Navidad said:

“I realize that not all people feel this way, but we believe he is the prophet for the whole world and not just members. . .” 

(emphasis mine)

I think the difference between the thread title and the person you quoted is in the preposition is very telling ("for" vs "over"). I should have pointed this out at the beginning which probably would have settled the whole matter

 

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

If God speaks through a person as a prophet or seer, it has always been to all followers. This does not mean that all the world accepts that message. Many often don't. It doesn't make the message any less relevant to all those who believe or even don't believe. It is relevant to non-believers too because they will be held to the standards God set forth in the messages. 

Do I care that the Catholic Church considers the teachings of the Roman pontiff to be authoritative. No. I do not feel bound by them, nor consider them authoritatively received by God, but they clearly do. So it is the same with members of the CoJCoLDS. Why should you feel slighted if we believe our prophets to be authoritative to all who will listen? Is it because you believe God does not speak through prophets or seers anymore? That belief does not seem consistent with Rev 11 which tells us two witnesses shall prophesy. Will God limit their prophesying to one Church? I don't think so.

 

I don't feel slighted at all. Not anymore. Nor do I get offended. I am over all of that. I am simply an interested non-LDS historian interested in the nuances of the LDS faith. My aspirations for anything more in relation to the LDS Church is gone.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Navidad

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

 Navidad

Here are some questions, if you would care to respond. I think the question herein being discussed is related to the official position of the Catholic Church post Vatican II.  In that spirit here are my questions. Thanks in advance for you answers and know as a Baptist/Mennonite I certainly consider you my brother in Christ:

Are people saved outside of the visible communion of the Catholic church? Is exclusivism (only in the Catholic church can people find salvation) the current teaching of the Church?

Doesn't the Catholic Church accept baptisms from some other Christian groups, in addition to appropriate catechism for membership in the Catholic Church?

While the Catholic Church has maintained its position as being the "mother church" the "repository of truth" for the Christian community (those are my words), hasn't the Church gone through some significant changes in its communion and relationships with non-Catholic Christian groups since the mid 1960s via various declarations, statements, etc? Aren't these changes considered as too progressive by some so some Catholics aren't particularly happy with them and resist them in various manners?

Thanks for your input.

3DOP

1a.) There are people who are possibly saved outside the visible communion of the Catholic Church. The teaching is usually identified as "baptism of desire". 

1b.) Exclusivism is the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesiam/No Salvation Outside the Church, means that in some respect, any saved soul will be identified with the Bride of Christ, the Catholic Church. Jesus is not a polygamist.

2)    The Catholic Church teaches that baptism may be performed by anyone who is broadly "intending to do what the Church does." The Catholic Church does not teach that Protestant churches have any authority to baptize greater than Hindus or Jews or atheists. To be precise, non-Catholic "churches" are nothing more nor less than the "unauthorized meetings" to which St. Irenaeus referred as quoted above. It would be grave mistake to interpret the fact that Catholics accept Protestant baptisms as a sign that the Catholic Church believes that the Protestant churches have some kind of authority that is lacking among Mormons, whose baptisms have been deemed invalid. From the Council of Florence:

"In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or a woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so as long as he preserves the form of the Church (the verbal formula) and has the intention of doing what the Church does."

---Decree for the Armenians, Exultate Deo, Nov. 22, 1439

For what it is worth, I believe that LDS baptisms meet this criteria, or at least do so potentially. I would advocate the pre-Vatican II rule by which LDS converts are baptized conditionally, there being doubt as to whether there has been a valid baptism. Our Creed says that we "believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". This is why it would be sacrilegious to knowingly administer baptism twice. Not that the subject of baptism would suffer for it. The blame would lie elsewhere. I would not want to be the one to declare that every LDS baptism is invalid, which is what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (headed by the future Benedict XVI) effectively pronounced.     

3a)  The post-conciliar Church has gone beyond what the Council ever advocated or authorized with regard to our beliefs about our own faith and the beliefs of others. There is a novel tendency towards doctrinal indifferentism and universal salvation.  

3b) Catholics are as subject to the decrees of eternal Rome in our own age as ever before. Catholics today are faced with the choice of resisting eternal Rome or resisting conciliar Rome. I resist the Francis church of the pachamamas. I resist the Benedict XVI church of the hermeneutic of continuity. I resist the John Paul II church of kissing the Koran, and praying for world peace with every false religion, while their sacrilegious idols lay on the altar of the Holy Sacrifice in the basilica of St. Francis of Assisi. I resist the Paul VI church which gives us a Mass that violates the norms allowed by the Second Vatican Council, and gives us seminaries that completely ignore the norms prescribed by the Second Vatican Council. I resist the church of John XXIII who instead of consecrating Russia to our Lady's Immaculate Heart to achieve the conversion of Russia and world peace, connived with the KGB to have some of their agents (bishops) present at the Council, presumingly to achieve what could have been accomplished in about ten minutes instead of four years.

There are well over 250 popes that one is forced to resist if we would follow and advocate the lead of our current prelates. G. K. Chesterton wrote in happier times, that Catholics are subject to "the democracy of the dead". Catholics always need to consult what the vast majority of our fellow saints, and what our fathers in the faith, always believed, unless we are happy to be bastards, denying our lineage to the past. Obedience to the spirit of Vatican II is taken for granted by the majority of the bishops and priests. Many resist without fail, and with all of their strength, the Catholic Church for over 1,900 years. At best, they are "not particularly happy" with Catholic history.  At worst, they openly despise Traditional Catholicism. All Catholics are placed in a position where they must resist "in various manners". It is a simply a question of whether Catholics will resist a very long and venerable yesterday or a very short, and novel present, as it appears today.

Navidad, I would welcome an attempt to show that the late Council consistently observed and preserved traditional Catholic teaching. I have discovered that non-Catholics often combine a strong preference in favor of the novelties with a strong dislike for traditional Catholicism. I have never seen the preferences based on which position would be more or less likely to fulfill the qualifications for having become apostate with the need for a complete restoration of the Church on earth. I cannot defend Vatican II to the LDS. It is in part through my interactions with LDS over these many years that force me to realize that if the Church was so wrong for so long, it would have to have been apostate. 1965 is too late to finally get things right, and the LDS know it better than the Protestants and many blind Catholics!  I sometimes doubt that interested people today are even thinking in terms of what is true and what is false, but rather of what is liked and not liked. One bishop blithely remarked of one document of Vatican II that it was an "anti-syllabus", referencing the Syllabus of Errors promulgated by Pope Pius IX which explicitly condemns some of the teaching of the late Council. Another prelate went even farther calling it "1789 in the Church" in reference to the French Revolution. I agree with them. Rupture, not development. 

Gotta go. I can't post much on weekdays. But I will peek in to see any thoughts you might have. May God bless and guide you on your journey of faith, Navidad.

Rory  

Rory: I appreciate and value your time. I understand you much better now. Thanks a lot. I believe our LDS friends here will find a great affinity with you in your beliefs. My questions were more related to what the Catholic church officially teaches today, especially in light of the flood of declarations from the mid and late 1960's and forward. For virtually all Catholics, church polity changed from that point forward. A careful read of Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom of 1965), Unitatis Redintegratio (1965, I think, almost unanimously passed), Missio Ad Gentes (1965 - fascinating), and the many documents of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (over many years) are breathtaking in their reading. I hear you indicating you are not an advocate of much of this work, but it all is in the church's perspective authoritative, is it not?

I spent three hours with our local priest yesterday discussing all the changes in the church in the time of his service. He probably is 70 years old or so. Then we discussed his very practical struggles with advocating for spirituality and competing with the machismo and popular Catholicism of our local culture. Please don't share this with anyone else on this forum, but I also got an earful of his opinion of the Latter-day Saints in our area! 😇 I have meetings promised (if the quarantine ever is over) with the Archbishop of Chihuahua and his counterpart in Sonora. I hope to learn a lot from them. I am currently researching the Second Cristiada in northern Mexico in the 1930s. I would love to hear much more from you. I value your perspective and knowledge. best, Phil

Edited July 5, 2020 by Navidad

[Navidad]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the difference between the thread title and the person you quoted is in the preposition is very telling ("for" vs "over"). I should have pointed this out at the beginning which probably would have settled the whole matter

 

The "over" is my word. I tried to change it to "for" but couldn't figure out how!

[mfbukowski]

On 7/4/2020 at 10:26 AM, Calm said:

I don’t know if God has limited all his keys of spiritual authority to the Restored Church or only a limited set including temple ordinances and what we define as Priesthood.  But whatever he did, God did it because he desires the best for his children in love. If love can be said to constrain agency, I suppose one might say he has limited agency, but I believe love frees agency so I believe his agency is unbounded by all, but his own Will and that which he has accepted to govern his life as we might accept to take on a project that needed to be done in a certain season and therefore make choices according to how to be successful in our work.

In a philosophical context this is called self-determination.  One is not completely "Free" in one sense because one is constrained- but constrained by rules she has chosen for herself.  Again, as one on a diet who chooses not to eat a pint of ice cream in honor of the rule she has made for herself, making her "self - determined".   She has voluntarily chosen to determine- or in a sense lessen - her freeedom- to actually increase her freedom by achieving her goal of becoming more healthy, and therefore live longer etc.

On the other hand, this idea that rules and laws actually increase our freedom is the whole basis for the 10 commandments.  If one is obeying the commandments, one is honest and does not have to worry about which lies one has told which person, worrying about if THIS false story goes with this person or another to whom one has told another false story.  If one is sleeping around complications get multiplied etc, and one might become a target for a spouse or significant other.

I hope you don't mind that I chose to answer this here in hopes that it would be clearer to Navidad, since he implied he did not understand my answer because he is a "country boy" and yet he understood you well.

[mfbukowski]

On 7/4/2020 at 2:40 PM, Navidad said:

 

That's all pretty complicated for a country boy like me! Let me simply ask, does the LDS God have agency so that He could choose to grant non-LDS Christians authority to ordain, perform ordinances, and preside within their own Christian group? Could my ordination in 1973 be an accurate reflection of God's desires and purpose for my life at that time and place? Was he smiling or frowning that Sunday afternoon?

Or are you saying in the above, that God decided to only grant authority to the LDS Church in the early nineteenth century and has chosen by his agency to limit Himself to only LDS spokespersons for some reason for the last almost two hundred years? I am guessing I know the answer. You can't allow for exceptions or the whole thing collapses, right?

Well I think that is fairly obvious that he had that agency when he exercised it and called for a Restoration while simultaneously condemning "non-LDS Christians".  You know about the first vision, right? 

It's hard to understand why that is even a question.

On the other hand, I am sure He was grinning from ear to ear when you accepted a call to dedicate your life to your understanding of the gospel!   

He knew and  also provided a way for all non-LDS Christians to hear the gospel, and accept ordinances even on the other side after they have had the experience of "waking up dead"    and seeing what happens on the other side, and deciding for themselves who was "right"  THAT will be an interesting experience for all! 

And of course they will not be penalized for doing all they were able to do during their lifetimes and now go on to their progression toward exaltation if they want.

[Navidad]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I hope you don't mind that I chose to answer this here in hopes that it would be clearer to Navidad, since he implied he did not understand my answer because he is a "country boy" and yet he understood you well.

Well yeh! I was playing with you! You are one of one people on this forum I can play with!

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If the fruit being eaten is necessary for agency then the choice to eat the fruit could not be a choice at all.

An excellent point with vast implications for the LDS interpretation of the Eden story.  Since I take it as figurative, I had never given it much thought, but that is a humdinger of a question for the story itself. 

EDIT:

On the other hand , after thinking a bit, I think it makes less difference than at first glance.

They had agency at the time of the council of the Gods, obviously, so according to the story they must have come to earth with agency.

Eve's insight was that it was all a test, and it was better to "surely die" to be able to experience evil- than never to experience it at all.  It was a decision about education, as it were, and the test was "Is it better for people to understand evil through experience or never fully understand it at all?"

I think for a God it is necessary to fully understand evil, and that is a common theme in many religions.

In Buddhism for example, it was necessary for Siddhārtha Gautama to experience evil in order to eventually become a "Buddha" or enlightened one.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Good Sabbath afternoon - Thanks for your reply. I would like to clarify something for several of you. I no longer feel slighted or am offended at LDS beliefs as expressed on this forum. I am much more likely now to read the posts, shake my head in wonderment (is that a word?) and move on. Almost three years ago when I came to this forum I was a different person. I wanted to somehow belong in and to the LDS community. I wanted to understand how to join without having to forsake all that I have known beforehand. I wanted to reach out and cling to my beliefs at the same time. Sometimes I was offended, sometimes I rebelled, sometimes I fought back. But always I wanted to belong.

Not any more. Many of the folks here on this forum have contributed to the hardening of my heart. Step by step, mock by mock, lecture by lecture, you have removed my desire to belong;

I have been at times frustrated with how you are treated on this board.  I have tried to treat you with kindness as have a number of others. 

Despite my frustration over others treating you unfairly, your statement in bold tied to blaming others bothers me. 

You wanted to belong...but didn't want to do what was required.

I mean I get not wanting to belong because of how someone treats you or because you don't believe. I get not wanting to do what was required.  I get not being sure if you want to belong or not.  But if you were not willing to forsake your beliefs for something possibly better then how can you blame others "for the hardening of [your] heart"?

Quote

now I simply want to understand as I would if you were all members of the Bahai faith. I am a student of religion; all religions interest me. Mormonism did so in very very special way. I always thought I was not like John Turner or Jan Shipps, outsider historians who study Mormonism but who have no real desire to "connect" with Mormons personally or as a matter of faith. Turner is a Presbyterian and Shipps a Methodist. They study Mormonism from the outside in . Nothing personal. They don't care. They aren't offended. I wasn't like that. I cared deeply about understanding Mormonism, even to the point of living on the edge of the inside. I found great friendship and support in the LDS Church History department. I considered many there , including the general authority in charge to be my friends. I thought I would find friends here.

I was wrong. Sometimes I stayed away from months at a time. Sometimes I stayed engaged for days at a time. Yes, sometimes I was hurt and offended and most likely at times I hurt and offended back. That is what often happens when sometimes tries to establish a relationship across boundaries. It is hard and rarely likely to succeed. So I failed and many of you failed, or never really cared about who I was as a person. I was always the other. So now I am John Turner and Jan Shipps. I am still desirous to learn and understand, but not as I once was. Now I want a platonic relationship; not one that will ever be loving. This forum has taught me that the latter will never be.

 

 

Quote

In fairness to Brother Smith's comment of the other day, I did desire to do a dissertation on Mormon history for my terminal degree in history. I had a number of topics in mind, mostly centered around LDS and non-LDS conflict. I didn't (and still don't) understand exactly why Mormons and non-Mormons are so mean to each other, but I have some really good thoughts on the subject and thought I could start in the early 1830's and walk through the decades to find the answers to the whys. I thought that would be a great contribution to the literature, because no one has really studied that without bias or sacred prejudice. About five months ago when I really had to decide, you all helped to change my mind. The subject had become too personal.

I have a built a love for the history of religion and of Mexico. So I changed my mind and found a supervisor who was willing to guide me through a dissertation on an almost invisible and certainly hidden subject, The Second Cristiada or Second Cristero War in the 1930's here in northern Mexico. This was a terrible time of iconoclasm and anticlericalism.  The faithful Catholic folks of Mexico suffered terribly. It was complex and resisted easy answers, so it was analogous to my recent LDS experience. It also was safe. Both Mennonites and Mormons were engaged in it; but only on the periphery.

My wife and I no longer have long chats about joining the church. We don't know if we will either go back or be allowed by the leadership to go back after the quarantine. Our presence has been disruptive on several fronts. Never intentional - but our very presence is something of an offense.

Your mere presence has never been an offence.  

Quote

I am sure you all understand that.

No, I really have no clue why your presence would be an offence.

Quote

 

No need to go into that now.

Long way of saying, please don't worry about me being offended or slighted by you any more. I need to focus on my dissertation and much less on Mormonism. I realize I have different beliefs, but perhaps not in the traditional sense. My personal faith is very important to me. But the single most important thing to me is my belief that absolute certainty is more a sin than an attribute.

I suspect you may be certain that Christ is our Savior and/or suffered for our sins and/or is God.  Are you "certain" our doctrine is wrong?

Certainty is not a sin - it is pride that often comes with certainty which is a sin.  Humility partnered with certainty is a good thing.

Quote

Not all of you are absolutely certain; many of you are.

Peter Enns has said it much better than I:

"Rather than focusing on the badges that define our tribal identity (our church, denomination, subdenomination, doctrinal convictions, side of the aisle, whatever), a trust-centered faith will see the world with humble, open, and vulnerable eyes---and ourselves as members and participants rather than masters and conquerors. We will see our unfathomable cosmos and the people in our cosmic neighborhood as God’s creation, not as objects for our own manipulation or unholy mischief."

 

 

Yes, humble! Humility and certainty can coexist.

Quote

 

Many here in this forum believe themselves to be the masters and conquerors of faith. I am not there. I would much rather be faithful to Christ than be assured of who is in and who is out. Thats about it. I will hang around a bit - but please you can't offend, hurt, or slight me anymore.

 

And many here also want to be faithful to Christ.  Why judge the church on those who are not following what the church teaches?

I'd be happy if you stayed, but understand if you felt it was time to leave.  

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Good Sabbath afternoon - Thanks for your reply. I would like to clarify something for several of you. I no longer feel slighted or am offended at LDS beliefs as expressed on this forum. I am much more likely now to read the posts, shake my head in wonderment (is that a word?) and move on. Almost three years ago when I came to this forum I was a different person. I wanted to somehow belong in and to the LDS community. I wanted to understand how to join without having to forsake all that I have known beforehand. I wanted to reach out and cling to my beliefs at the same time. Sometimes I was offended, sometimes I rebelled, sometimes I fought back. But always I wanted to belong.

Not any more. Many of the folks here on this forum have contributed to the hardening of my heart. Step by step, mock by mock, lecture by lecture, you have removed my desire to belong; now I simply want to understand as I would if you were all members of the Bahai faith. I am a student of religion; all religions interest me. Mormonism did so in very very special way. I always thought I was not like John Turner or Jan Shipps, outsider historians who study Mormonism but who have no real desire to "connect" with Mormons personally or as a matter of faith. Turner is a Presbyterian and Shipps a Methodist. They study Mormonism from the outside in . Nothing personal. They don't care. They aren't offended. I wasn't like that. I cared deeply about understanding Mormonism, even to the point of living on the edge of the inside. I found great friendship and support in the LDS Church History department. I considered many there , including the general authority in charge to be my friends. I thought I would find friends here.

I was wrong. Sometimes I stayed away from months at a time. Sometimes I stayed engaged for days at a time. Yes, sometimes I was hurt and offended and most likely at times I hurt and offended back. That is what often happens when sometimes tries to establish a relationship across boundaries. It is hard and rarely likely to succeed. So I failed and many of you failed, or never really cared about who I was as a person. I was always the other. So now I am John Turner and Jan Shipps. I am still desirous to learn and understand, but not as I once was. Now I want a platonic relationship; not one that will ever be loving. This forum has taught me that the latter will never be.

I was using "you" in the general sense, as to non-members. Your response shows you took that very personally. Yet, you respond very generally as if you do not consider me a friend. I take that very personally, as if I have done something to you to hurt you. If I have, I am quite sorry. I still consider you as a friend. I, however, do realize that your communications with others on this forum has been strained at times, and I have sympathized with you, and I feel I understand your hurt to some degree. I believe you came here to try to understand us, and feel you have been accused and not welcomed at times. On my part I have always tried to engage your questions seriously, as I feel I did in this instance. However, you did not respond to my points, but it seems to me you have responded with your aggravations - somewhat pent up. 

Quote

In fairness to Brother Smith's comment of the other day, I did desire to do a dissertation on Mormon history for my terminal degree in history. I had a number of topics in mind, mostly centered around LDS and non-LDS conflict. I didn't (and still don't) understand exactly why Mormons and non-Mormons are so mean to each other, but I have some really good thoughts on the subject and thought I could start in the early 1830's and walk through the decades to find the answers to the whys. I thought that would be a great contribution to the literature, because no one has really studied that without bias or sacred prejudice. About five months ago when I really had to decide, you all helped to change my mind. The subject had become too personal.

I have a built a love for the history of religion and of Mexico. So I changed my mind and found a supervisor who was willing to guide me through a dissertation on an almost invisible and certainly hidden subject, The Second Cristiada or Second Cristero War in the 1930's here in northern Mexico. This was a terrible time of iconoclasm and anticlericalism.  The faithful Catholic folks of Mexico suffered terribly. It was complex and resisted easy answers, so it was analogous to my recent LDS experience. It also was safe. Both Mennonites and Mormons were engaged in it; but only on the periphery.

My wife and I no longer have long chats about joining the church. We don't know if we will either go back or be allowed by the leadership to go back after the quarantine. Our presence has been disruptive on several fronts. Never intentional - but our very presence is something of an offense. I am sure you all understand that. No need to go into that now.

Long way of saying, please don't worry about me being offended or slighted by you any more. I need to focus on my dissertation and much less on Mormonism. I realize I have different beliefs, but perhaps not in the traditional sense. My personal faith is very important to me. But the single most important thing to me is my belief that absolute certainty is more a sin than an attribute. Not all of you are absolutely certain; many of you are.

Peter Enns has said it much better than I:

"Rather than focusing on the badges that define our tribal identity (our church, denomination, subdenomination, doctrinal convictions, side of the aisle, whatever), a trust-centered faith will see the world with humble, open, and vulnerable eyes---and ourselves as members and participants rather than masters and conquerors. We will see our unfathomable cosmos and the people in our cosmic neighborhood as God’s creation, not as objects for our own manipulation or unholy mischief."

Many here in this forum believe themselves to be the masters and conquerors of faith. I am not there. I would much rather be faithful to Christ than be assured of who is in and who is out. Thats about it. I will hang around a bit - but please you can't offend, hurt, or slight me anymore.

I will again try to respond using your impressions of Peter Enns. My answer did not rely on our Church versus the world. It was not based on a badge named The Church of Jesus Christ. It was based on scriptural principles that God does not consider his words through prophets to apply to solely one group. Sometimes He does speak to specific peoples, but that is when He says so. Yeshua's words through prophets apply to all who will hear it. The words received through Joseph Smith rang true to me. That, ultimately, is why I consider them authoritative. I believed he was a prophet of God. I saw truth in the principles taught.  That, I believe, will hold true for any of God's prophets, seers, and servants. His words are for all - not just a specific denomination. That is how LDS Christians look at GAs. I am not saying that LDS authorities are always right, but they are authorized by us to speak to us on God's behalf, therefore, it behooves us to listen - at least. Do we believe all that authority applies to other denominations? Of course not. We lack authority to excommunicate a Mennonite from his/her denomination. But, we do believe God's words through our GAs usually apply to all, without reservation or contrition. That is where I was coming from in my response - not whether I was offending you personally by stating our beliefs. I was just trying to explain our beliefs, and how we believe they apply to others.

[Navidad]

30 minutes ago, Rain said:

And many here also want to be faithful to Christ.  Why judge the church on those who are not following what the church teaches?

I'd be happy if you stayed, but understand if you felt it was time to leave.  

Hi Rain: Thanks for your kindness. I basically deleted the post sometime after posting it. I felt badly about it and what I had said. It does no good to blame or say anything negative. Many of you have been very kind. Thanks again.

 

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I was using "you" in the general sense, as to non-members. Your response shows you took that very personally. Yet, you respond very generally as if you do not consider me a friend. I take that very personally, as if I have done something to you to hurt you. If I have, I am quite sorry. I still consider you as a friend. I, however, do realize that your communications with others on this forum has been strained at times, and I have sympathized with you, and I feel I understand your hurt to some degree. I believe you came here to try to understand us, and feel you have been accused and not welcomed at times. On my part I have always tried to engage your questions seriously, as I feel I did in this instance. However, you did not respond to my points, but it seems to me you have responded with your aggravations - somewhat pent up. 

I will again try to respond using your impressions of Peter Enns. My answer did not rely on our Church versus the world. It was not based on a badge named The Church of Jesus Christ. It was based on scriptural principles that God does not consider his words through prophets to apply to solely one group. Sometimes He does speak to specific peoples, but that is when He says so. Yeshua's words through prophets apply to all who will hear it. The words received through Joseph Smith rang true to me. That, ultimately, is why I consider them authoritative. I believed he was a prophet of God. I saw truth in the principles taught.  That, I believe, will hold true for any of God's prophets, seers, and servants. His words are for all - not just a specific denomination. That is how LDS Christians look at GAs. I am not saying that LDS authorities are always right, but they are authorized by us to speak to us on God's behalf, therefore, it behooves us to listen - at least. Do we believe all that authority applies to other denominations? Of course not. We lack authority to excommunicate a Mennonite from his/her denomination. But, we do believe God's words through our GAs usually apply to all, without reservation or contrition. That is where I was coming from in my response - not whether I was offending you personally by stating our beliefs. I was just trying to explain our beliefs, and how we believe they apply to others.

Hi Rev - As I wrote, I deleted 95% of my post. I regret what I said. I am simply discouraged and a bit overwhelmed. You have always been a friend and kind to me. I guess I didn't delete in time! Sorry!

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

The "over" is my word. I tried to change it to "for" but couldn't figure out how!

At any rate, I did answer your other question in case you missed it: Posted 5 hours ago