Women recieving the priesthood

[LDS Watchman]

37 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

We all learn from mistakes,

The church has never said the ban or past teachings of blacks being descendants of Cain and under a curse were a mistake.

39 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Alot of people back then including them, thought 6 foot tall people who dressed like Quakers lived on the moon, do you believe that's still a possibility?

Can you please provide the quotes from Brigham and Joseph about moon people?

I don't have a problem with this anyway. We believe in a veil and things that are unseen to the naked eye don't we?

41 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I'm just offering my opinion in Hope's you can see these men weren't super heroes.

And I'm offering mine. I never said that Joseph and Brigham were infallible super heroes, but they were mighty prophets of God and their teachings on this subject square with the scriptures.

42 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Neither are the prophets of our time.

So is it okay to question the current teachings an actions of the brethren then, and believe they are in error for departing from the original teachings and doctrines of the church? Or is it only okay to question past dead prophets?

[AtlanticMike]

22 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

 

So is it okay to question the current teachings an actions of the brethren then, and believe they are in error for departing from the original teachings and doctrines of the church? Or is it only okay to question past dead prophets?

You can question whoever you want. I think the brethren often question past policies even things considered doctrine, just like the 1949 first presidency letter, today they say it was not correct to have those views. People make mistakes man, even prophets. A few post back you brought up the veil, let me share my view of how the veil works, I hope I can pull this off so you understand what I'm getting at. 

    Think of the veil as a long hallway in your brain with lots of doors. Before coming to earth we had many doors open so we could access information that isnt available to us while here on earth. God locked most of the doors so we could be tested in our mortal experience. Through personal study, experience and especially continuing revelation some of those doors are opened back up over time even while here on earth, not many, but some. In my opinion,  your following behind God down your hallway and everytime he tries to open a door your slamming it shut because you're resistant to change.

     I think we as mortals,  know 1% of what we understood while living with our Heavenly parents. Open some doors man, peek inside, it's not that scary.

[rongo]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ha! Do you mind if I offer some thoughts on the "Revelation and Non-Mormons" section? As far as Catholicism is concerned, it is a bit of a straw man. Then again, it appears LDS and protestants have contended with each other much more than LDS and Catholics, so maybe all those quotes are meant to be primarily directed at protestants.

Of course I don't mind! 

Most apologetic responses, as you noted, are directed at Protestants for the simple fact that Protestants have been much more aggressive historically against Mormon missionary work. Obviously, this is probably different in heavily Catholic countries, but for the most part, Catholics aren't really on Mormons' apologetic radars. 

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

For this first sentence here, I'll point out that if "Scripture" Wells means an addition to the canon, it's been quite some time for the LDS, too.

For the second sentence, this does not at all represent the position of the Catholic Church. We rely on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. The Bible alone is insufficient. And besides, we put together the Bible in the first place.

I am aware that these 19th century criticisms increasingly apply to the institutional Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 21st century as well. I think the truth of the statements still stand, regardless of the extent to which we are still good "poster children" for what Roberts, Wells, Cannon, et. al. taught. 

I also agree that the evangelical Protestant doctrines of sole fide and sola scriptura go far beyond both the narrow technical definition of papal infallibility, and the broader notion of papal infallibility as conceived by Catholics at large (there is a difference there). Bible infallibility can rightly be called "Bible-olatry," I think, and it stems from the human need to have constants and stability (things that can be relied on not to change). As you point out, Mormons aren't immune to this, either, even though we vigorously deny it. We just institutionally tend to keep the goalposts moving.  

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, at least the distinction here is made between protestantism and Catholicism. However, it grossly simplifies and overstates the Catholic position on the infallibility of the Pope. The Pope is only infallible in EXTREMELY limited cases.

Yes, only when he speaks ex cathedra. I think this is akin to how the institutional LDS Church keeps the goalposts moving on when its prophets are speaking as such, and when they are not (it's usually situational, with deniability baked in). 

When was the last ex cathedra declaration? Wasn't it the Immaculate Conception in the 1860s? Or has there been a more recent one than that? I think that it's more clear-cut when papal infallibility is being invoked (official declaration and process). 

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yikes! Childish credulity? You mean, like believing that Jesus' spit could cure blindness? This is a sectarian judgement by Roberts for sure.

Roberts was a colorful speaker/writer, and he could be excessive. I think that conservative believers in all churches believe in physical miracles that make the "sophisticated" co-religionists among them blush --- and I think that the "sophisticated" far outnumber the conservative believers. Increasingly so in our church as well. 

Obviously, you don't have statistics, but in your opinion, what relative percentage of the global Catholic Church do you think believe in "outstanding" miracles? e.g., Lourdes, Fatima, etc.? This probably varies regionally --- my parents were very impressed with the faith and religiosity of the Catholics in Poland when they served a mission there. Very different from our Catholic-dominated area we live in (nominal membership, usually don't even attend Mass on Christmas and Easter). 

Roberts believed in "outstanding" miracles and even experienced them. I think what he had in mind was the (in his view) devolution of faith to relics-worship and things like that.

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

There's lots of problems here. First of all, if someone venerates a relic and that produces a miracle, how is that puerile?

Relic veneration is really foreign to Mormons, but I personally don't ridicule or demean people with deep faith in things like that. The second best area of my mission in northern Germany was a suburb of Oldenburg called Krusenbusch that was "erzkatolisch" (arch-Catholic). Somehow, there was a pocket of observant Catholics in this (nominal --- and nothing is more nominal than a Lutheran) Lutheran center of NW Germany. Very nice people, willing to listen and talk with us (I even continued writing a family we taught after I returned home). I've always much preferred observant Catholics to lukewarm or ambivalent Mormons or Protestants. I wish my Catholic students' families knew their religion and that it meant something to them. 

Regarding your list of gifts of the spirit, I think Roberts's criticism of sectarian Christianity applies to Mormonism today as well:

"I apprehend that this Christian belief respecting the discontinuance of revelation came into existence as an excuse offered for the absence of revelation. Ministers . . . found themselves without communication with God, either through the visitation of angels or direct revelation. Finding themselves without these powers so abundantly possessed by the servants of God in the early age of the church, they attempted a defense of their own powerless state by saying these things were no longer needed. They were extraordinary powers only to be employed at the commencement of the work of God, in order to establish it in the earth, and afterwards to be put aside as childish things."

The institutional LDS Church doesn't outright say that these things are no longer needed, but it institutionally acts like this --- much like much of the rest of Christianity. I think that the conservative believers in all churches today blow on the coals of faith in the altars of their own families. Among my leisure reading projects is the encyclopedia (I have around 20 books on my nightstand, until my wife makes me tidy it up. It doesn't take long for it to need attention again.  ). I'm currently in "T" in the encyclopedia, but I remember reading in "K" about the "kakure karishitan" in Japan. What a story! The "hidden Christians" were Catholic converts who observed Christianity secretly and underground in their families for centuries when it was suppressed. While inevitable syncretism crept in, it is remarkable to me how "in-tact" Christian belief remained, handed down only generation to generation within families. I often wonder how well we Mormons would hand it down for centuries without any church structure. It would depend solely on the intensity of devotion within those families. 

I think in many ways, many of us are in the position of keeping the fire of faith alight on our family altars, even though we have institutional churches and no real persecution (some parts of the world have real persecution). 

[rongo]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I appreciate you, Watchman, answering my questions even though they may add to a possible banning.  

Why would @LDS Watchman be banned for answering your questions? What board rules or rules of civil discussion has he broken?

[MiserereNobis]

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, only when he speaks ex cathedra. I think this is akin to how the institutional LDS Church keeps the goalposts moving on when its prophets are speaking as such, and when they are not (it's usually situational, with deniability baked in). 

When was the last ex cathedra declaration? Wasn't it the Immaculate Conception in the 1860s? Or has there been a more recent one than that? I think that it's more clear-cut when papal infallibility is being invoked (official declaration and process). 

Yes, it is very obvious when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra. The latest one was November 1, 1950, by Pope Pius XII. Here is the declaration:

Quote

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

There's really no wiggle room or deniability there -- he is definitely pronouncing an infallible doctrine under the auspices of the First Vatican Council.

Thanks for responding to my post!

Edited February 3, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[HappyJackWagon]

21 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think I agree with @LDS Watchman and @JLHPROF here, which is funny for a Catholic to say, eh?

I've brought this up before, because it is an issue I have with the LDS church.

The LDS church makes pretty grandiose claims: a living prophet who guides the church by continuing revelation from God. Whoa!

But then when I look into how that actually manifests, it is no different than what the Catholic Church claims. It's just different words.

(of course, it actually boils down to which church is Christ's church, but I'm focusing on the claims here)

I'm told the amazing story of Joseph Smith and can read 100+ revelations he received from God -- God spoke to him! We can read what God said! Now, that at least looks like a prophet and looks like continuing revelation.

But now? Not so much at all. Policy changes. Tweaking with ordinances (after 8 years on this board I've got your terminology down, ha). The Pope does the exact same stuff, but we don't call him a prophet or claim that he is receiving revelation (of course, our churches use the word revelation differently). The Catholic Church claims inspiration from and protection by the Holy Spirit. It seems that the LDS church claims a lot more than that, but the appearance is that things operate much the same. In other words, it appears like false advertising to me. I know that might sound a little harsh, but I guess it just seems quite clear to me as an outsider that the words don't match up.

The same is true of the claim that the LDS church has an open canon. If I'm reading LDS Watchman correctly, the last time the canon was added to was in the mid 1800s. That doesn't seem like an open canon. For the vast majority of the LDS church's existence, there has been no addition to your scriptural canon.

It may just be an issue of semantics, but there is the sticky fact that the early LDS church appeared to be led by a prophet receiving God's words a lot more than the current LDS church is.

In other words, I'm going to go join some fundamentalist LDS sect now  

 

You nailed it.

PS- you totally won your debate with Ahab

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Can you please provide the quotes from Brigham and Joseph about moon people?

I don't have a problem with this anyway. We believe in a veil and things that are unseen to the naked eye don't we?

Joseph was the moon, Brigham was the sun and the moon.

The Joseph quote is probably wrong.  The Brigham one is probably accurate.

• As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph Smith] said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do -- that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.
  He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.  - Philo Dibble recorded in Oliver Huntington's Journal 1881.

3rd person, nearly 40 years after Joseph died.  I'm thinking not genuine.

• Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized. Every planet in its first rude, organic state receives not the glory of God upon it, but is opaque; but when celestialized, every planet that God brings into existence is a body of light, but not till then. Christ is the light of this planet. - Brigham Young JD 13:271

And honestly, who's to say the sun isn't inhabited by resurrected beings.  Nobody has been there to check that I know of.
The moon on the other hand...

 

 

[katherine the great]

12 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Abraham 1, Moses 7, Genesis 9, Genesis 10, and the statements by Joseph Smith linking blacks to the curse Noah put upon Canaan and his posterity and calling them the "sons of Canaan" and "sons of Cain."

Okay I'll play.

Abraham 1 says nothing about Sub Saharan Africans. It implies that Egyptians (a group of North Africans/Mediterranean people) descended from Canaan. Egyptians aren't banned from the priesthood are they?

Moses 7 says nothing about Sub Saharan Africans. Enoch said that the people of the land of Canaan (Middle East) had a blackness come upon them as a result of the heat.

Genesis 9 says that Canaan was cursed to be a servant (nothing about Sub Saharan Africa or priesthood or anything specific about the type or duration of the servitude)

Genesis 10 says nothing about Sub Saharan Africans.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were part of a culture who knew nothing about genetics, the antiquity of the earth or the migrations of ancient peoples. I have no doubt that if Joseph Smith had been born a century or two later, he would have embraced science. I can't see how any modern person can ignore all evidence and purposely hold to old racist ideas unless they are simply truly racist. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

But only those who look black, correct?  Even if blood relatives of the person who looks black, the nonblack appearing relative would not be a descendant of either Canaan or Cain. (Not trying to mock, mean to clarify as you are the first I have seen use this idea recently)
 

What of any descendants of Cain not through the Canaan line? Such as the brothers of Canaan?  Have they escaped the curse?

Is it possible to have what appear to be black features and not be cursed?  For example, I have a niece who has hair and skin when tanned that makes her seem possibly mixed race if I compare her to a friend of mine in high school, but when I see her parents and grandparents, it was just the random dna combo.  If my extended relatives from that side have any black ancestors, it is over 500 years ago I believe. 

Is dark skin enough or must there be other attributes to affirm “blackness” as I have another niece who goes “mocha” in summer as she describes it, but is Asian.

I am trying to follow the logic of your assumptions, what they imply and it doesn’t appear to be consistent with what is known. 

Just a comment on context- not on the above reply itself- though of course I agree with you- I am not sure if you are aware of the context of LDS "Watchmen" in contemporary times.  You probably are but I wasn't.  It appears to be something like a "movement".  It really opened my eyes.  Of course President Benson himself must have reversed his opinions, but obviously they survive.   But I have never met any actual member of the church who feels this way today.  I am not easily shocked, but this did it.  "Horrified" is perhaps a better word for this in the Church of Jesus Christ. 

 https://uofupress.lib.utah.edu/watchman-on-the-tower/

I think someone needed to say it.

I guess I need to keep out of the sun next summer or all my priesthood authority will disappear, and all the ordinances for whom I have officiated in the temple will be stamped "INVALID"

 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Nemesis]

Yea,  I’m not going to let this thread continue.  It’s the 21st century.  Racism is not going to be tolerated or promoted on this board.  There are living prophets who have discussed racism and have admonished it. Very recently in fact. 
 

Nemesis