Latter-day Saint Prophet as Prophet Over All Christianity .

[mfbukowski]

On 7/2/2020 at 5:57 PM, The Nehor said:

That assumes other worlds fell like ours did which I doubt. I do expect the atonement vindicates and gives the opportunity of atonement to those who failed a possibly different trial on other worlds and possibly even some who failed before they were physically born.

And so then they do not have knowledge of good and evil and therefore no agency?

 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I agree on all points. Of course it refers to the office, but there is a man who occupies the position. 

"Lucky" him

 

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And so then they do not have knowledge of good and evil and therefore no agency?

 

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

[3DOP]

On 7/2/2020 at 11:43 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Billy Graham was a humble man who believed that he was called of God to preach the Gospel, and the results were extraordinary.  He never claimed spiritual authority over others, and he never established a church of Billy.  He earned worldwide respect, and justly so.  Those who came forward to give themselves to Christ were never shunted into any particular denomination.  He did urge people to find a good Bible-believing church to attend.

The hatred and intolerance of people like Spencer Smith is not so unusual in my experience.  And, yes, I was familiar with the Sword of the Lord before John Rice.

I don't recall any LDS members claiming that Pres Nelson is "the prophet to the world," nor making the claim that "he has spiritual authority over all other Christians."  Your claim that all the denizens of this board believe that is just silly.  A wide array of diverse views is held by the members of the board, many of whom are not even LDS.  No one appointed you as spokesman for this board.  Yet you arrogate to yourself the right to speak on everyone's behalf.  If you will bother to read the LDS "Proclamation to the World," you will find no claim there that the LDS Prophet "has spiritual authority over all other Christians."  Those are your bellicose words, based on your warped view of your fellows on this board.  You would do well to quote the actual words used by LDS leaders and by the members of this board -- the way I have done here in quoting you.  That is the only honest way to carry on such a conversation.

Perhaps you failed to read what I wrote about Pope Francis.  Maybe you thought I just made it up, and that the RC Church has no such claims.  Someone like yourself, who claims to have been trained in theology, would surely know those elementary facts.  Yet you are apparently in denial, perhaps for tactical reasons.

We have several Roman Catholic members on this board.  I'd be interested in their responses.

Robert, hi.

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.

Most non-Catholics understandably prefer a more inclusive form of Catholicism. Briefly, my problem with that is that if the Church was wrong about its exclusivity until the 1960's, you have proof of a great Apostasy as proclaimed by Joseph Smith and others. In the 90's, before I became Catholic, I read the complete extant English translations of the ante-Nicene Fathers up through most of Tertullian. I used one color to highlight texts that might favor LDS claims, another for Protestant claims, and another for Catholic claims. I think one of the most important texts for one who wishes to be associated with, or understand Apostolic Christianity, is found in the writings of St. Irenaeus, who was a bishop of Lyons (Gaul), and a martyr for the faith. Yesterday was his feast day. He writes:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem]."

---Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, para. 2 (Anglican translation)

I do not hold that Christians who are separated from Rome, (all those who "assemble in unauthorized meetings") are under the authority of the pope, or of Jesus Christ. The pope is the vicar (representative) of Christ to His Church, which is both Roman, and Catholic. Of course the question of baptism arises with the idea of Christians outside the Church. The Catholic Church teaches that baptism may be performed by non-Catholics, and that this is the one sacrament that may be conferred without priestly ministrations. And so Catholics have always believed that some Christians are outside the visible Church. Is this salvific? Certainly, until the age of reason. However, Catholics need the other Sacraments as well to be preserved in grace. It is the necessary outcome of belief in a sacerdotal priesthood, that those who do not receive sacramental graces are in the gravest danger. This would be how a Catholic must understand our Lord's words, "Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." (Jn. 6:54, 55), (bold mine)

Robert, I suppose such a view would necessarily draw comparisons with the unpopular ideas of the young man in the video that you provided. What I have hoped to do here is to briefly demonstrate why a faithful Catholic cannot compromise on the position taken by St. Irenaeus more than 1800 years ago. It isn't merely because we hate non-Catholics. On the contrary, it is because we believe our Lord Himself formed His Church in such a way that the Catholic faith is impossible to reconcile with hopeful beliefs about any kind of "unauthorized meeting". The missionary outreach of the Church prior to the late Council demonstrates this charity towards all in action. It is not charitable to pretend for sake of dialogue and popular feelings, that unauthorized church officials confer any kind of valid ministrations. We can believe that God can save anyone without the Sacraments, but seldom is it His will, and it is foolish to base a policy on the assumption that the Sacraments which Christ established, and for which untold martyrs have perished, are dispensable. 

I find it difficult to simply say my beliefs. I tend towards making an argument for them. But for the purpose of answering the question posed by you and Navidad, it is only necessary that you see WHAT we believe. Our exclusivist doctrine could be seen as prompted by a certain arrogance and disdain for other Christians as well as for infidels. Catholics have the burden, if you will, of pronouncing affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church to be, in the words of Irenaeus, "a matter of necessity". Our Lord and Head Jesus Christ died for all, because He loves all. If Catholics, while retaining the Apostolic Tradition, do not have the love of Christ for those outside our fold, we would find ourselves in danger of being cut off from Christ. We cannot claim unity with Christ if we fail in charity, any of those for whom Christ died. It is charity that forces faithful Catholics to never yield to the temptation to diminish the exclusive claims that the one true Church must make.  

Thanks for your consideration, and to all good Americans at home or away...Happy Firecrackers!

Rory

Edited July 4, 2020 by 3DOP

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's about stewardship, and taking the word to all in your jurisdiction as well as you can.

You probably do not have this experience where you live, but while I was bishop my wife and I were driving through a very rough part of an adjacent town- a corner of which is in our ward.

There was a guy standing on the corner looking to do some "business" on the corner, he had his pants down below his underwear in back,  was heavily tattooed including facial tattoos and prison tattoos indicating his membership in specific gangs.   He was eyeing every car that went by carefully, hoping for a signal that they also wanted to do business.

I quietly, but uncharitably said to my wife (the windows were down)- "Wow- check that guy out!  I wouldn't want to meet HIM in a dark alley"

With her usual quiet wisdom she said to me "Yes, and you are his bishop".

The implication was - "What could we possibly do to bring him to Christ?"

I lost sleep over that thought, and pondered it carefully.  She was completely right, as usual.

It is not about lording one's authority over others because they cannot "voluntarily submit to authority" and as we church members know that minute we exercise with that kind of attitude, we instantly use the authority.

Yes obviously it bothers you or you would not have said that.  It is about taking Christ to others, not submitting them to authority.  It is obviously that you repeatedly bring that up with resentment.  It is about attributing a negative view of LDS folks feeling superior to others which does not exist.

It is from our point of view, a desire to share the wealth the Lord has prepared for us, not to be prideful.

Pride is the fountain of every sin and as President Benson taught, is enmity toward God and man, and is the motivation for all sin.

HI my friend, the "us" in your last sentence of your second to last paragraph is limited to the LDS Christian, is it not? You hold the wealth, and only you. How is that not prideful, and perhaps by the terms of your last paragraph, perhaps not also possibly sinful? 

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Navidad said:

HI my friend, the "us" in your last sentence of your second to last paragraph is limited to the LDS Christian, is it not? You hold the wealth, and only you. How is that not prideful, and perhaps by the terms of your last paragraph, perhaps not also possibly sinful? 

No, God holds the wealth. We are his servants, his stewards in tending his work and building his glory through bringing more to him. 
 

The wealth that is shared with us at this point is all his, when it comes time when we truly become one with the Lord through full acceptance of the Atonement and Gospel, when we have shown full willingness to say and mean “Thy Will, not mine, be done” then he will bring us in as inheritors of all that he has...an inheritance for us that still remains fully his as it is a wealth that increases by sharing.  At that point all who have made his Will theirs will share in the infinite wealth. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Calm

[Rain]

Maybe I ought to answer since it is me you quoted to start this thread.

Quote

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? 

At various times I may have met some who do.  I can't remember specifics, just as I can't remember specifics of people who believe in the Book of Mormon, but don't belong to our church - for the most part.

Quote

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

No idea specifically, but in general if asked I believe most would say yes. It just makes sense. 

Quote

Is it a doctrine of the church, and if so, where is it spelled out in writing?

As I understand according to what Elder Bednar defines as doctrine I would say no, but would say, according to his definition, that it is a principle.

Where to find it specifically I don't know. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me enough to choose to look for it at this moment.

Like I said, it just makes sense.  If God calls a prophet, why would He limit him to just one church?  Especially in this day and age when his words could be spread to most of the world in hours and minutes?

Quote

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 do too.  That's why we have missionaries who actually teach (Preach My Gospel) what a prophet is.

 

Quote

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! 

I think most don't believe he is a prophet so they just don't care.

Quote

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?

 

Quote

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?

Now here is where I may differ from others.

We believe he is a prophet, but notice we call him "President" Nelson.

He is a prophet with pastoral authority over the world, but a president with administrative authority over the church.  

Quote

Does he actively teach this?

 

I have noticed that presidents and bosses of companies rarely actively teach they are the boss.  The only ones who do are usually those who seem to believe they lack power in being the boss - either because they really do or because they feel those under them don't agree they have power.  If they feel they have the power and the support there is just no need to actively and constantly teach it.

Also, prophets will recognize they are not the important one.  God is.  They are just the messenger 

For those reasons you rarely hear prophets say anything like, "I am a prophet". 

Now you do hear the apostles and many others testify that the prophet is a prophet.

 

Quote

Has any LDS president ever actually done or said anything in that role? 

Said that he is a prophet?  On occasion.

Done prophet things without specifying his calling?  All the time.  

Quote

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.

So what does it mean for you who is not a member of our church or for the Muslim man in Iran or the Hindu woman in India? 

It means he will invite you to come to Christ through the partaking of the covenants of the church. If you listen you will hear him and others who do this though they don't always specifically specify people outside of the church.  It will mean he sends out missionaries to do the same. 

He will teach people to use agency to find out Christ is our Savior. That His church is on the earth.  To use their agency in doing things that will truly make them happy and turn from things that won't. 

God commands us to follow Him.  The prophet invites us to follow God.  We use our agency to follow Him or not.

If you receive no inspiration that President Nelson is a prophet then it really doesn't mean more than maybe he is just a good man.  If, however, you receive inspiration that he is a prophet called of God then it means everything, because you then have to make the choice to follow him and Him or not.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Rain

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Nah, you gotta have some burning lust for something before you really understand it.    It's gotta be inside you sitting there next to the Kingdom of God in the same person.   Brrrrrr.  Gives me the creeps.   You gotta see it and know you need help to get rid of it.      

Of course I have just read about this stuff in books.      

 

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Of course.  But we don't see those ordinances as ones done with God's authorized Priesthood even if those who do them see it the same way.  So we would see such efforts as effectively prayers (which have great spiritual value, but not Priesthood authority) for someone, rather than spiritual ordainings under the power of the Priesthood.  

Simply because people do things the same way and even with the same understanding doesn't mean they are the same thing if one has authority and the other doesn't, even if they believe they do.

Which means if the Restored Gospel doesn't have the authority we Saints believe it has, our ordinances are not valid, just as we currently view others who we see as not having the authority even if they have the righteous desire.

HI Calm you are terrific! I would like to ask you several clarifying questions from your last paragraph. Please forgive me if I don't word them well. Does not God have agency to grant authority to speak with His voice and act in His name to anyone He desires at any time? Why is it not possible that God has granted authority to a Mennonite (just for example) bishop to ordain, baptize, or bless within the Mennonite church? Why could He not have smiled approvingly on August 23, 1973 when Baptist elders ordained, laid hands on, and consecrated a skinny young man to His gospel ministry? Agency is important to the LDS community. Why do they (you) believe that the God of the universe has no agency or is self-limited by his own agency? These are very real and very important questions to me. I hope they are not offensive. 

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It says the only person ON EARTH who has all the keys for the ordinances of salvation.

And the church, it is believed, is the only church on earth with these keys.  Therefore the prophet is the only one ON EARTH who holds the keys to salvation.

Clear as a bell to me!  

Clear as a bell to an LDS Christian! 

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Robert, I suppose such a view would necessarily draw comparisons with the unpopular ideas of the young man in the video that you provided. What I have hoped to do here is to briefly demonstrate why a faithful Catholic cannot compromise on the position taken by St. Irenaeus more than 1800 years ago. It isn't merely because we hate non-Catholics. On the contrary, it is because we believe our Lord Himself formed His Church in such a way that the Catholic faith is impossible to reconcile with hopeful beliefs about any kind of "unauthorized meeting". The missionary outreach of the Church prior to the late Council demonstrates this charity towards all in action. It is not charitable to pretend for sake of dialogue and popular feelings, that unauthorized church officials confer any kind of valid ministrations. We can believe that God can save anyone without the Sacraments, but seldom is it His will, and it is foolish to base a policy on the assumption that the Sacraments which Christ established, and for which untold martyrs have perished, are dispensable. 

I find it difficult to simply say my beliefs. I tend towards making an argument for them. But for the purpose of answering the question posed by you and Navidad, it is only necessary that you see WHAT we believe. Our exclusivist doctrine could be seen as prompted by a certain arrogance and disdain for other Christians as well as for infidels. Catholics have the burden, if you will, of pronouncing affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church to be, in the words of Irenaeus, "a matter of necessity". Our Lord and Head Jesus Christ died for all, because He loves all. If Catholics, while retaining the Apostolic Tradition, do not have the love of Christ for those outside our fold, we would find ourselves in danger of being cut off from Christ. We cannot claim unity with Christ if we fail in charity, any of those for whom Christ died. It is charity that forces faithful Catholics to never yield to the temptation to diminish the exclusive claims that the one true Church must make.  

Howdy, good to see you and happy 4th!

I am sorry that we have gotten to an uncomfortable point in our discussions, but lately it seems I am having trouble tolerating opinions other than my own, and I apologize for that.  

I don't know if you have followed any of these threads started by Navidad, but he finds our "exclusivity" troublesome, and often seems to believe (hope I am getting it right-) that other Christians do NOT accept that their particular denomination is the "one true" church of Christ

I wonder if perhaps you could post something about Catholic beliefs in that regard because 1- Catholicism definitely takes itself to be "the one true church" and 2- as you mention here in your post, takes it self to be "original" Christianity, unchanged from the times of the apostles.

Thanks, and I hope all is well with you and your family in these crazy times

[Navidad]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, God holds the wealth. We are his servants, his stewards in tending his work and building his glory through bringing more to him. 
 

The wealth that is shared with us at this point is all his, when it comes time when we truly become one with the Lord through full acceptance of the Atonement and Gospel, when we have shown full willingness to say and mean “Thy Will, not mine, be done” then he will bring us in as inheritors of all that he has...an inheritance for us that still remains fully his as it is a wealth that increases by sharing.  At that point all who have made his Will theirs will share in the infinite wealth. 

Hmmmm... I think your alls, us's, and we's only include LDS alls, us's and we's in this world and the next, right? So if not now, some time the cattle on a thousand hills will belong only to those who have accepted LDS teachings. Or does God have agency in that day to share His wealth with whomever He chooses? Just asking for a friend! 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Does not God have agency to grant authority to speak with His voice and act in His name to anyone He desires at any time?

Why do you think we don’t believe he has full agency?  Of course he does. If I always chose waffles when my grandmother offered to cook breakfast and if now my grandkids do the same (secret is adding a cup of whole milk yogurt or sour cream), does that mean I/we lack agency or just have great taste and intelligence enough to take full advantage of my opportunities to enjoy what we/I enjoy most?

God is a god of order (D&C). I assume that means, like me, he likes to see things working well in their place efficiently and without unnecessary redundancy (the last leads to clutter and confusion).  He may be rather creative as well and choose tools we would not see as that useful where in the end it turns out they accomplish a thousand times more (like unknown farm boys).

He even may grant more than one type of his authority to perform different tasks, having his servants take on different stewardships.  Such stewards may be aware of each other or not. There is no reason I can think of that requires God to tell all his plans to men. He has many vineyards and many laborers.  Saints believe there will be much more revealed to us. Perhaps part of that will be knowledge of spiritual stewards working in other ways of the Lord, in other fields. We may need to accept their authority at that time as much as others will eventually need to accept the authority God has placed in his Church.  
 

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. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hmmmm... I think your alls, us's, and we's only include LDS alls, us's and we's in this world and the next, right? So if not now, some time the cattle on a thousand hills will belong only to those who have accepted LDS teachings. Or does God have agency in that day to share His wealth with whomever He chooses? Just asking for a friend! 

Read my next post. Or rather the one above. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Why do they (you) believe that the God of the universe has no agency or is self-limited by his own agency?

Just to this question- I am sure you know the difference between seeing God as transcendent vs immanent.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence

Most of Christianity regards God as transcendent- of a nature above that of mankind- while we regard God as immanent- a part of this universe.   We are also materialist, since all that exists is "matter" in some form, even spirit it is said is "matter more refined"

Christians know that Jesus freely took upon himself immanence- simply by becoming an embodied God.

In discussions about liberty, one of the types of liberty is "self determination".   It is the belief that one can be seen as having liberty by voluntarily accepting rules and following the rules they have accepted.  Example of that might be traffic laws- do they make us more or less "free"?

We decide voluntarily in the US to all drive on the right side of the road- although that is an intrusion on our freedom to drive on the left side of the road, if one wants to see it that way.  On the other hand, obviously if people could decide to drive wherever they wanted to - on the left or right side, on sidewalks, over other people's lawns etc they would have more "freedom" than being restricted by traffic laws.

In another sense of course they would be less free because of the chaos that would ensue with people driving wherever they felt like- one could not safely drive down the street without being in a wreck.

So we voluntarily "self - determine" ourselves by accepting rules which we find just and necessary for some purpose, and these instances of "giving up freedom" are actually NOT giving anything up, but giving ourselves a higher kind of freedom- the freedom to drive down the road without being in a wreck

Christians completely understand this though perhaps do not articulate the idea- that accepting  the commandments, apparently a set of restrictions-  actually "set us free" to live a happier life knowing that someone's spouse is not coming after us with a shotgun, for perhaps immoral activity.  We maybe free to not lock our houses and night because no one would steal anything anyway.

We are also familiar with dieting- trying to lose weight.   

We may voluntarily self- determine our desire to eat a pint of ice cream every evening to become "more free" by having a healthy body, and run and not be weary, etc.

So to get to the nitty gritty-

I believe God self-determines himself to become immanent- as did Jesus too- and become like us, to be able to take care of and better understand his children.

So YES- to answer your question- that is WHY

".... the God of the universe has no agency or is self-limited by his own agency?"

This essential notion makes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints unique in Christianity and is an unspoken cornerstone of our faith.

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Howdy, good to see you and happy 4th!

I am sorry that we have gotten to an uncomfortable point in our discussions, but lately it seems I am having trouble tolerating opinions other than my own, and I apologize for that.  

I don't know if you have followed any of these threads started by Navidad, but he finds our "exclusivity" troublesome, and often seems to believe (hope I am getting it right-) that other Christians do NOT accept that their particular denomination is the "one true" church of Christ

I wonder if perhaps you could post something about Catholic beliefs in that regard because 1- Catholicism definitely takes itself to be "the one true church" and 2- as you mention here in your post, takes it self to be "original" Christianity, unchanged from the times of the apostles.

Thanks, and I hope all is well with you and your family in these crazy times

Mark, hi.

I erased a post I had written about LDS and Baptists. It is their doctrine, not some kind of pride or hatred that does not allow Baptists to consider Catholics as Christian. Faith alone, apart from priestly sacraments is essential, to qualifying as a Christian if you are a Baptist. I find it a reasonable position from the Bible alone. The faithful Baptist has no choice but to exclude Catholics. In principle, the same would apply to LDS, who like Catholics, cannot extend the priesthood to those outside. The Catholics can't because of our claimed apostolic origins. Laying of hands with a link to the very Apostles. You can't just give up the Apostles for something new without a claim to be one and true yourself. That is why Mormonism is more ecclesiastically credible than any non-Catholic community that refuses the title "one, true, visible church". Like the Catholics, LDS understand the consequences of compromising that title. The Restored Church loses all credibility if it extends a valid laying on of hands to religious communities that have not had the priesthood restored. It would be the end of LDS claims.     

-------------

So anyway, I have been satisfied with not posting. I think it has more to do with thread content than our verbal scuffling.

I am sorry as well for how you accurately describe our interactions. 

You are committed to a worldview which your fellows do not completely share, or in which they are making inconsistent applications . You have come to hold it through study and meditation and conviction that it is the way of the future for the CoJCoLDS. Opposing you in this philosophical question as I do, I enjoy seeing them frustrate you sometimes. Heh.

I have said almost everything I might want to say many times. But I will try to wait for questions before offering opinions. Okay, one opinion. I despise the new morality which makes the President of Boeing step down because thirty-eight years ago, as a naval officer, he heinously published a heresy for an obscure Naval journal which affirmed that women should be excluded from combat roles in the military. No mercy for old heretics, even after grovelling apologies for their ignorant disobedience to the one true spirit of the age. I wonder what somebody could find about what I believed once. What about what I still believe now? If losing your job is what happens to repentant heretics who claim to have been converted, what will the new morality take from people who are even now disobedient to the zeitgeist.

Thank you truly for your expression of good wishes to me and my family. I heartily return them to you and wish you all the best in these crazy times.     

Regards,

Rory

Edited July 4, 2020 by 3DOP

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

HI Calm you are terrific! I would like to ask you several clarifying questions from your last paragraph. Please forgive me if I don't word them well. Does not God have agency to grant authority to speak with His voice and act in His name to anyone He desires at any time? Why is it not possible that God has granted authority to a Mennonite (just for example) bishop to ordain, baptize, or bless within the Mennonite church? Why could He not have smiled approvingly on August 23, 1973 when Baptist elders ordained, laid hands on, and consecrated a skinny young man to His gospel ministry? Agency is important to the LDS community. Why do they (you) believe that the God of the universe has no agency or is self-limited by his own agency? These are very real and very important questions to me. I hope they are not offensive. 

Does not God have agency to grant authority to speak with His voice and act in His name to anyone He desires at any time? Yes, and in an eternally lawful, and not a fickle or-capricious way, lest he join those that "call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -- but with perfect knowledge and not in ignorance.

Why is it not possible that God has granted authority to a Mennonite (just for example) bishop to ordain, baptize, or bless within the Mennonite church? This is a doctrinal question over which you, as does God, have agency to choose to believe. Do you believe that He believes it? It seems that yes, you do (for now anyway  ). I believe God granted the Mennonite bishop agency to believe and act according to the light he possesses, which includes ministering within the Mennonite church.

Why could He not have smiled approvingly on August 23, 1973 when Baptist elders ordained, laid hands on, and consecrated a skinny young man to His gospel ministry? He would have, if both were acting in full accordance with the light they possessed, in good faith. Only He can judge that. But this has nothing to do with proper authority but with the exercise of their agency.

Agency is important to the LDS community. Why do they (you) believe that the God of the universe has no agency or is self-limited by his own agency? To be a slave to truth is to be free, and "because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself," and calls us to do the same: "For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant."

Edited July 4, 2020 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Robert, hi.

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.

Most non-Catholics understandably prefer a more inclusive form of Catholicism. Briefly, my problem with that is that if the Church was wrong about its exclusivity until the 1960's, you have proof of a great Apostasy as proclaimed by Joseph Smith and others. In the 90's, before I became Catholic, I read the complete extant English translations of the ante-Nicene Fathers up through most of Tertullian. I used one color to highlight texts that might favor LDS claims, another for Protestant claims, and another for Catholic claims. I think one of the most important texts for one who wishes to be associated with, or understand Apostolic Christianity, is found in the writings of St. Irenaeus, who was a bishop of Lyons (Gaul), and a martyr for the faith. Yesterday was his feast day. He writes:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem]."

---Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, para. 2 (Anglican translation)

I do not hold that Christians who are separated from Rome, (all those who "assemble in unauthorized meetings") are under the authority of the pope, or of Jesus Christ. The pope is the vicar (representative) of Christ to His Church, which is both Roman, and Catholic. Of course the question of baptism arises with the idea of Christians outside the Church. The Catholic Church teaches that baptism may be performed by non-Catholics, and that this is the one sacrament that may be conferred without priestly ministrations. And so Catholics have always believed that some Christians are outside the visible Church. Is this salvific? Certainly, until the age of reason. However, Catholics need the other Sacraments as well to be preserved in grace. It is the necessary outcome of belief in a sacerdotal priesthood, that those who do not receive sacramental graces are in the gravest danger. This would be how a Catholic must understand our Lord's words, "Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." (Jn. 6:54, 55), (bold mine)

Robert, I suppose such a view would necessarily draw comparisons with the unpopular ideas of the young man in the video that you provided. What I have hoped to do here is to briefly demonstrate why a faithful Catholic cannot compromise on the position taken by St. Irenaeus more than 1800 years ago. It isn't merely because we hate non-Catholics. On the contrary, it is because we believe our Lord Himself formed His Church in such a way that the Catholic faith is impossible to reconcile with hopeful beliefs about any kind of "unauthorized meeting". The missionary outreach of the Church prior to the late Council demonstrates this charity towards all in action. It is not charitable to pretend for sake of dialogue and popular feelings, that unauthorized church officials confer any kind of valid ministrations. We can believe that God can save anyone without the Sacraments, but seldom is it His will, and it is foolish to base a policy on the assumption that the Sacraments which Christ established, and for which untold martyrs have perished, are dispensable. 

I find it difficult to simply say my beliefs. I tend towards making an argument for them. But for the purpose of answering the question posed by you and Navidad, it is only necessary that you see WHAT we believe. Our exclusivist doctrine could be seen as prompted by a certain arrogance and disdain for other Christians as well as for infidels. Catholics have the burden, if you will, of pronouncing affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church to be, in the words of Irenaeus, "a matter of necessity". Our Lord and Head Jesus Christ died for all, because He loves all. If Catholics, while retaining the Apostolic Tradition, do not have the love of Christ for those outside our fold, we would find ourselves in danger of being cut off from Christ. We cannot claim unity with Christ if we fail in charity, any of those for whom Christ died. It is charity that forces faithful Catholics to never yield to the temptation to diminish the exclusive claims that the one true Church must make................

Thanks for your very thoughtful reply, Rory.  I always learn something valuable from you.  Also, I have always felt welcome in any Roman Catholic services I have attended, and I have been in many.  The music and the priestly homilies have always been uplifting.

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for the reply.  I am sure you are right!

That scripture, especially verse 35, really resonates with me. In fact, verse 35 causes my heart to burn within me.

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So we do then know that Christ is the savior and creator of all the worlds.

I am not entirely sure.  And as I wrote earlier, this is probably not the best thread to discuss this in.

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And we worry about the historicity of the Book of Mormon?  Just think about them worrying about the historicity of some alien named "Jesus" who died for them on another planet? 

Just a joke but another part of the problem with historicity used to confirm a spiritual belief

It's funny, yes. I get the joke.

But years and years ago I started to write a novel that took place on such a world, where the sacrifice of the Savior was promulgated as having occurred upon another world.  I only ever finished the first chapter (and the manuscript is long gone), but it was going to be a doozy.  I rarely finish things, and this was one of those things.

[Stargazer]

On 7/3/2020 at 1:57 AM, The Nehor said:

That assumes other worlds fell like ours did which I doubt.

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.

 

On 7/3/2020 at 1:57 AM, The Nehor said:

I do expect the atonement vindicates and gives the opportunity of atonement to those who failed a possibly different trial on other worlds and possibly even some who failed before they were physically born.

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. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Howdy, good to see you and happy 4th!

I am sorry that we have gotten to an uncomfortable point in our discussions, but lately it seems I am having trouble tolerating opinions other than my own, and I apologize for that.  

I don't know if you have followed any of these threads started by Navidad, but he finds our "exclusivity" troublesome, and often seems to believe (hope I am getting it right-) that other Christians do NOT accept that their particular denomination is the "one true" church of Christ

I wonder if perhaps you could post something about Catholic beliefs in that regard because 1- Catholicism definitely takes itself to be "the one true church" and 2- as you mention here in your post, takes it self to be "original" Christianity, unchanged from the times of the apostles.

Thanks, and I hope all is well with you and your family in these crazy times

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just to this question- I am sure you know the difference between seeing God as transcendent vs immanent.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence

Most of Christianity regards God as transcendent- of a nature above that of mankind- while we regard God as immanent- a part of this universe.   We are also materialist, since all that exists is "matter" in some form, even spirit it is said is "matter more refined"

Christians know that Jesus freely took upon himself immanence- simply by becoming an embodied God.

In discussions about liberty, one of the types of liberty is "self determination".   It is the belief that one can be seen as having liberty by voluntarily accepting rules and following the rules they have accepted.  Example of that might be traffic laws- do they make us more or less "free"?

We decide voluntarily in the US to all drive on the right side of the road- although that is an intrusion on our freedom to drive on the left side of the road, if one wants to see it that way.  On the other hand, obviously if people could decide to drive wherever they wanted to - on the left or right side, on sidewalks, over other people's lawns etc they would have more "freedom" than being restricted by traffic laws.

In another sense of course they would be less free because of the chaos that would ensue with people driving wherever they felt like- one could not safely drive down the street without being in a wreck.

So we voluntarily "self - determine" ourselves by accepting rules which we find just and necessary for some purpose, and these instances of "giving up freedom" are actually NOT giving anything up, but giving ourselves a higher kind of freedom- the freedom to drive down the road without being in a wreck

Christians completely understand this though perhaps do not articulate the idea- that accepting  the commandments, apparently a set of restrictions-  actually "set us free" to live a happier life knowing that someone's spouse is not coming after us with a shotgun, for perhaps immoral activity.  We maybe free to not lock our houses and night because no one would steal anything anyway.

We are also familiar with dieting- trying to lose weight.   

We may voluntarily self- determine our desire to eat a pint of ice cream every evening to become "more free" by having a healthy body, and run and not be weary, etc.

So to get to the nitty gritty-

I believe God self-determines himself to become immanent- as did Jesus too- and become like us, to be able to take care of and better understand his children.

So YES- to answer your question- that is WHY

".... the God of the universe has no agency or is self-limited by his own agency?"

This essential notion makes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints unique in Christianity and is an unspoken cornerstone of our faith.

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?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Mark, hi.

I erased a post I had written about LDS and Baptists. It is their doctrine, not some kind of pride or hatred that does not allow Baptists to consider Catholics as Christian. Faith alone, apart from priestly sacraments is essential, to qualifying as a Christian if you are a Baptist. I find it a reasonable position from the Bible alone. The faithful Baptist has no choice but to exclude Catholics. In principle, the same would apply to LDS, who like Catholics, cannot extend the priesthood to those outside. The Catholics can't because of our claimed apostolic origins. Laying of hands with a link to the very Apostles. You can't just give up the Apostles for something new without a claim to be one and true yourself. That is why Mormonism is more ecclesiastically credible than any non-Catholic community that refuses the title "one, true, visible church". Like the Catholics, LDS understand the consequences of compromising that title. The Restored Church loses all credibility if it extends a valid laying on of hands to religious communities that have not had the priesthood restored. It would be the end of LDS claims.     

-------------

So anyway, I have been satisfied with not posting. I think it has more to do with thread content than our verbal scuffling.

I am sorry as well for how you accurately describe our interactions. 

You are committed to a worldview which your fellows do not completely share, or in which they are making inconsistent applications . You have come to hold it through study and meditation and conviction that it is the way of the future for the CoJCoLDS. Opposing you in this philosophical question as I do, I enjoy seeing them frustrate you sometimes. Heh.

I have said almost everything I might want to say many times. But I will try to wait for questions before offering opinions. Okay, one opinion. I despise the new morality which makes the President of Boeing step down because thirty-eight years ago, as a naval officer, he heinously published a heresy for an obscure Naval journal which affirmed that women should be excluded from combat roles in the military. No mercy for old heretics, even after grovelling apologies for their ignorant disobedience to the one true spirit of the age. I wonder what somebody could find about what I believed once. What about what I still believe now? If losing your job is what happens to repentant heretics who claim to have been converted, what will the new morality take from people who are even now disobedient to the zeitgeist.

Thank you truly for your expression of good wishes to me and my family. I heartily return them to you and wish you all the best in these crazy times.     

Regards,

Rory

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.

[rpn]

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).

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That scripture, especially verse 35, really resonates with me. In fact, verse 35 causes my heart to burn within me.

I am not entirely sure.  And as I wrote earlier, this is probably not the best thread to discuss this in.

It's funny, yes. I get the joke.

But years and years ago I started to write a novel that took place on such a world, where the sacrifice of the Savior was promulgated as having occurred upon another world.  I only ever finished the first chapter (and the manuscript is long gone), but it was going to be a doozy.  I rarely finish things, and this was one of those things.

The believers in such a world would require a spiritual Area 51.

[The Nehor]

On 7/4/2020 at 2:40 AM, mfbukowski said:

And so then they do not have knowledge of good and evil and therefore no agency?

 

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