Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

Having the church make an apology would be an admission the ban was not from God.

"It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this 
has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it 
was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation 
in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible".

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Negro and the Priesthood, Improvement Era, April 1924.

Joseph Fielding Smith was much more ambiguous in earlier statements where he was unsure of where it came from or who it came from.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Why would one think that?  God certainly didn't lift a finger to alter the perceptions of the ancient civilizations of Rome and Egypt where slavery and servitude were prevalent, or in medieval Africa where societies like the Mali Empire had slaves, or Europe's not-really-race-based slavery resulting from the conflicts between Christians and Muslims during the Crusades and the Reconquista.  Or with God's chosen OT people and all the stuff they believed about slaves and ownership. 

It's almost as if God doesn't exist outside of human's made up perceptions.

[Calm]

I think we could use Elder Johnson (is Elder the correct title? Though he may still be President Johnson, though I believe MP service is 3 years?) as a guideline for timing of leadership movement as while he was not the first Black man to hold higher leadership positions, he was the first in an area where it is likely white men dominated the candidate pool in terms of numbers (in Brazil and most African countries, the candidate pool will be much more likely leaning towards persons of color as the majority).  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_M._Johnson#:~:text=Peter M. Johnson (born November,general authority in church history.&text=Southern Utah University (B.S.%2C M.S.,University (Ph.D.)

If women get ordained to the priesthood ever*** it will more likely parallel the American experience where their leadership is desirable, but not necessary as there will likely be many worthy males available as well unlike countries that lacked nonBlack priesthood holders needed to form branches and wards, etc.

 

***I would prefer not, I am hoping there is a uniquely female comparable ordination, though I still hope the female ordination would create equal access to authority positions as opposed to the mostly? all? advisory/teaching positions the higher female callings are today, I see parallel positions as possibly the best option, but separate but equal doesn’t always work out that way…and it’s not a power thing that I am wanting, it’s a needs based as I don’t believe women’s needs can be addressed as well when men are the sole decision makers even when extremely well intentioned and informed; I don’t believe solely Americans should be making decisions in a global church or solely one ethnicity or only lawyers or whatever).  I see a problem of baggage (not bad baggage, just expectations) attached to the current male priesthood that could lead women to be reluctant to explore what a female priest is supposed to do and many resistant to any changes where if an all new female ordination role was revealed, it would be uniquely female from the start without the debate of “should we just keep doing it the same way or having to explore the question “but how does a female priest look different to a male priest” though there still would be the problem of meshing the new with the old.

Edited July 11, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

Letting women give blessings of healing would not bother me- Joseph allowed it.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Why would one think that?  God certainly didn't lift a finger to alter the perceptions of the ancient civilizations of Rome and Egypt where slavery and servitude were prevalent, or in medieval Africa where societies like the Mali Empire had slaves, or Europe's not-really-race-based slavery resulting from the conflicts between Christians and Muslims during the Crusades and the Reconquista.  Or with God's chosen OT people and all the stuff they believed about slaves and ownership. 

Not to mention how God did nothing to try the faith of His male children in their thoughts and treatment of His female children until like the 1970's.

One would think that He'd change his tactics with 18-19th century Americans, would one?  Why would one think that?

Most of those civilizations did not have a prophet receiving the Word of God. Maybe the OT prophets but much of that history is shrouded in myth and revised for political and religious purposes before we got our hands on it.

Why would one think that the Restoration of the Gospel would impact the world for good? That the resumption of prophetic revelation would pour down blessings from heaven? Well, because we teach ourselves endlessly that that is the expected result of this level of revelation.

Arguing that the return of prophets and apostles should have no impact on developing a more enlightened morality is almost a negation of the Restoration as ‘same old same old’. If the abolitionists and the feminists and the Civil Rights Movement and the like all over the world are doing more good than we are what is the point? Especially since we were ambivalent to them and often actively opposed them.

This is a dark view of God.

[LoudmouthMormon]

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It's almost as if God doesn't exist outside of human's made up perceptions.

Yeah, I can't fault your belief system just because it's different from mine.    

I have an atheist buddy, we get together periodically and try to solve the world's problems together.  He gave me an understanding that I've since adopted.  Talking about belief/lack of belief/different mindsets, and how people change.  Folks grow into and out of belief systems over time.  And while we can influence our own belief, we certainly can't chose it, like flipping a switch.     When talking about his atheism, he reports that he couldn't change his lack of belief if he wanted to.  Regardless of the motivation or the desire.  He's come to the understanding that it's the same for me and mine.

I've seen slow evolutions resulting in a sudden awakening.  I've heard people say "I woke up one morning and just realized I didn't believe in God, and hadn't for a long time."   I've also heard people say "My testimony exploded on me in an instant, seemingly out of nowhere.  I now couldn't deny the reality of God if you threatened to end me if I didn't recant."   I said the first thing for the first half of my life, and I've been saying the 2nd thing for the 2nd half.   I guess you have sort of a reverse experience of some sort?

 

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why would one think that the Restoration of the Gospel would impact the world for good?

But that's not what you're saying.  You're saying something to the tune of "If the LDS perception of God were real, the saints wouldn't have their 1800-1970's cultural sensibilities, because God would have given them 2020's cultural sensibilities, because we all know ours are best."

In 100 years, everyone will be looking back at us and our day, shocked and aghast that we didn't just realize that arguing on the internet and exercising our human freedoms would cripple our abilities to live the best life.  "Can you imagine the barbaric practice of being able to chose your own friends, instead of having Amagooglezon assign our peer groups based on our genetic predispositions?"

Edited July 11, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

To me trying to get God to do things the way you think they should be done and on your schedule is not faith- it is arrogance.

There are things I would change if I had my druthers- but I don't posses those keys and it's not my job to steady the ark- that's God's job.

When one has the keys, he or she can make the changes, like Pres. Nelson has done during his presidency.

My advice: keep your head down, serve in the House of the Lord, and keep your Temple covenants. Activism may work in the kingdoms of man, but it doesn't in God's Kingdom.

I am convinced we got the “steadying the ark” thing wrong. The Torah is pretty clear about how the ark is to be transported. It was not supposed to be in a cart. The Priesthood leadership got it wrong and were doing it wrong and Uzzah died because they screwed up. It spooked David who was afraid to bring in the ark and parked it in someone else’s home. When David heard it blessed that guy’s home he had it continue back to Jerusalem and hopefully got the correct Levites to carry it with poles as the Law commanded.

Uzzah should have never had to try to steady the ark if those in charge were doing what they were supposed to be doing. There is a morbid irony that a story about the leadership failing is now a polemic that leaders use against the followers to not criticize them. Maybe if someone who knew the Law had criticized their leaders Uzzah might not have died.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I am convinced we got the “steadying the ark” thing wrong. The Torah is pretty clear about how the ark is to be transported. It was not supposed to be in a cart. The Priesthood leadership got it wrong and were doing it wrong and Uzzah died because they screwed up. It spooked David who was afraid to bring in the ark and parked it in someone else’s home. When David heard it blessed that guy’s home he had it continue back to Jerusalem and hopefully got the correct Levites to carry it with poles as the Law commanded.

Uzzah should have never had to try to steady the ark if those in charge were doing what they were supposed to be doing. There is a morbid irony that a story about the leadership failing is now a polemic that leaders use against the followers to not criticize them. Maybe if someone who knew the Law had criticized their leaders Uzzah might not have died.

Oh, I absolutely agree, I've pointed that out to others- but it wasn't Uzzah job to steady the ark, even though the priests were violating Torah instructions. God could've spared Uzzah and reprimanded the Priests, but He didn't. He let it happen to wake them up. (BTW, I don't believe Uzzah suffered any eternal consequences (which could mess with my argument, but anyhoo).

If we are on a wrong trajectory, hopefully the keyholders will correct it before we receive our own wake-up call.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, I can't fault your belief system just because it's different from mine.    

I have an atheist buddy, we get together periodically and try to solve the world's problems together.  He gave me an understanding that I've since adopted.  Talking about belief/lack of belief/different mindsets, and how people change.  Folks grow into and out of belief systems over time.  And while we can influence our own belief, we certainly can't chose it, like flipping a switch.     When talking about his atheism, he reports that he couldn't change his lack of belief if he wanted to.  Regardless of the motivation or the desire.  He's come to the understanding that it's the same for me and mine.

Yeah, the idea that “belief is a choice” is foreign to me. We can choose to exercise faith despite lack of belief, but I can no more believe the church’s truth claims than believe that an azure sky looks red. I suspect you could and would say the same perhaps. 

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

In 100 years, everyone will be looking back at us and our day, shocked and aghast that we didn't just realize that arguing on the internet and exercising our human freedoms would cripple our abilities to live the best life.  "Can you imagine the barbaric practice of being able to chose your own friends, instead of having Amagooglezon assign our peer groups based on our genetic predispositions?"

I have no doubt that in a hundred years people will look back in horror. If only there a group of far sighted seers to let us know in advance. 😜

Edited July 11, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[gopher]

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well I think your assumption that the LDS leaders were not racist is certainly not correct at all.  Granted, they were products of their time but based on many things they said about the ban and black people, they certainly came across as racist.  If God did not institute the ban  then it was racism that was behind it.   As there needing the be more non racist people inside and outside that church so the ban was needed till then, I don't agree at all.  Were the abolitionist and other pro equal rights persons ahead of God's prophets?  Seems like it?  Plus according the the history of plural marriage God sent an angel and threatened Joseph with death if he did  not implement it.  Polygamy was certainly outside the scope of an acceptable practice in 19th century America.  But the church leaders seemed quite able to roll it out, and became quite enthusiastic about it. So the same could have happened for the priesthood ban.  The cultural acceptance argument is  weak.

I'm not surprised you would find any defense of prophets weak.  My comments weren't directed to other LDS leaders.  But I was surprised to see members here believe that God allowed prophets to implement the ban without any divine approval.   And subsequent prophets continued the ban until 1978.  Unfortunately, none of those prophets are around to explain any of the comments attributed to them about race.  Like I wrote earlier, the priesthood ban is a winning issue for critics since we can't go back and get clarification from past prophets who repeated questionable comments about black people.

I don't expect you to agree, but I believe the priesthood ban never would have been implemented if there wasn't such strong racism inside and outside the church.  Fortunately times have changed.

I think polygamy is a great example, but in a different way than you stated.  From what I've read, JS and BY weren't enthusiastic about polygamy, but still obeyed God and implemented it.  Where was the angel threatening them with death if they implemented the priesthood ban without divine approval?

[smac97]

On 7/11/2024 at 7:21 AM, gopher said:

Personally, since I don't believe God and His prophets are racist, I think the ban was needed until there were enough non-racist white people inside and outside the church for black members to fully participate in all capacities. 

God is certainly not racist, but some past leaders of the Church clearly held racist views and/or endorsed racist sentiments.  Even setting aside presentism, I think we need to acknowledge that.  All of us, including past prophets and apostles, have flaws, even serious ones.

In its essay on Race and the Priesthood, the Church expressly "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

On 7/10/2024 at 10:24 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Maybe God allowed it to continue until 1978, so that in our present time those who accept the Restored Gospel through personal revelation will be more easily distinguished from those who believed it through tradition and had no firm foundation? Maybe he allowed to continue as a trial of faith, so folks would either turn to Him for confirmation of the Restoration or turn to today's presentism and worldly wisdom? A sifting. [emphasis mine]

Maybe that explains it. Maybe God is testing us to see if we will accept and stay quietly loyal to the church, warts and all. While we're speculating as to God's impenetrable purposes, I might suggest that maybe God is testing us to see who will have the insight to recognize error in the church and the courage to call it out. I forget whether it was associated with process theology or liberation theology, but there are theodicies out there that suggest that maybe God's purpose in causing/allowing evil and suffering is to spur believers to action to relieve the suffering, correct the injustice, and so on. Your advice to "keep your head down [while serving] in the House of the Lord and keep[ing] your Temple covenants" seems to run somewhat counter to that kind of "test." As @Senator suggested, I think there are problems with this idea that we have learned from scripture that God is some kind of test proctor constantly testing us in sometimes obscure ways. This illustrates one of the problems I see and that is the difficulty in discerning the nature of the test. It seems to me that, if one discerns the nature of the test incorrectly, they will incorrectly discern what pass/fail means for the test, and can easily make incorrect choices. Couple that with the scriptural assertion that failure often leads to some kind of divine violence (including death and/or eternal condemnation), and the consequences for failure seem rather significant. Or maybe, as we often invoke the idea that God will put us in some kind of re-education program in the next life when we fail to recognize truth, it doesn't really matter whether we pass or fail the test because God will re-educate and redeem us all in the next life (the universalist in me really likes this idea).

At the end of the day, I don't know. I think there are long conversations we could have, though.

Edited July 12, 2024 by MrShorty

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

God is certainly not racist, but some past leaders of the Church clearly held racist views and/or endorsed racist sentiments.  Even setting aside presentism, I think we need to acknowledge that.  All of us, including past prophets and apostles, have flaws, even serious ones.

In its essay on Race and the Priesthood, the Church expressly "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."  

Thanks,

-Smac

The disavowal (which was very much needed) does make a person wonder, if none of the theories put forth for the reason for the ban were true, then what would have been the reason for the ban?

If Black people are not cursed, and Black people were not unrighteous in the preexistence, and Black people are not inferior in any way to white people, then why were white people allowed temple blessings (and the men to hold and exercise the priesthood) while Black people (and men) were not?

We can't answer that definitively, but in my opinion it's another interesting tool at our disposal to use to gauge the likelihood of the ban being based on revelation from God.  Clearly the existence of the theories (which the church has confirmed came from the men themselves), and that they were taught over the pulpit as doctrine, are proof that many (probably most depending on the era) leaders and members were racist, including some prophets and apostles.

It's hard to argue that their racism was the cause of the theories for the ban, but not the ban itself.  

Edited July 12, 2024 by bluebell

[MrShorty]

On 7/11/2024 at 7:21 AM, gopher said:

Thanks, I think you've identified the problem.  Instead of trusting in prophets of God, people are instead looking to scholars and surveys to tell them the mind of God.

We have a long history in the church of claiming that each of us has the right and responsibility and opportunity to seek personal confirmation of prophetic claims. Cynics have a long history of claiming that we really don't believe it. When one claims to have not received a testimony of something, we are quick to claim that they must not have sought a testimony with a sincere heart and/or real intent. Or we will encourage such a person to remain loyal to the church in spite of that lack of testimony, while not speaking publicly of their lack of testimony in that principle. At the end of the day, it seems that the outcome of the process of seeking a testimony of a revelatory claim is supposed to be the same either way -- loyalty and obedience to the alleged revelation and promoting trust in the prophets and apostles. This seems like a problem to me. It seems to me that, if we really believe that we have the right and responsibility to seek confirmation of a principle, we ought to be able to talk about those principles where we don't have a testimony and why we don't believe what the prophets and apostles are teaching. I don't know how best to do it, but our current emphasis on just going along to get along doesn't seem quite right to me.

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

We have a long history in the church of claiming that each of us has the right and responsibility and opportunity to seek personal confirmation of prophetic claims. Cynics have a long history of claiming that we really don't believe it. When one claims to have not received a testimony of something, we are quick to claim that they must not have sought a testimony with a sincere heart and/or real intent. Or we will encourage such a person to remain loyal to the church in spite of that lack of testimony, while not speaking publicly of their lack of testimony in that principle. At the end of the day, it seems that the outcome of the process of seeking a testimony of a revelatory claim is supposed to be the same either way -- loyalty and obedience to the alleged revelation and promoting trust in the prophets and apostles. This seems like a problem to me. It seems to me that, if we really believe that we have the right and responsibility to seek confirmation of a principle, we ought to be able to talk about those principles where we don't have a testimony and why we don't believe what the prophets and apostles are teaching. I don't know how best to do it, but our current emphasis on just going along to get along doesn't seem quite right to me.

Another option is to examine those principles where we don't have a testimony in terms of hitching them to those principles of which we do have a testimony. This takes the focus off the “middleman” and brings it back to the companionship of the Holy Ghost. 

[MrShorty]

Re: the hypothetical where white men were denied ordination. Ever since Pres. Nelson's Spiritual Treasures talk and other ways that we have started to talk about women and the priesthood, I am becoming convinced that it wouldn't make any real difference to me. The way we are talking about how women exercise priesthood without ordination, we are starting to say that they can still serve in their families and communities, they can call upon God in prayer on behalf of sick or afflicted loved ones, and they can serve in the church (borrowing any necessary priesthood authority for that calling from whoever called and set them apart). If this line of thinking is correct, then I would still be able to do all of the things I currently do as an ordained Elder, so nothing would really change. Except for one thing -- every few years when it comes time to call a new bishopric, I would not have to worry as much about being called to one of those positions since I would be ineligible for those callings due to my unordained (and, in the hypothetical, unordainable) status.

If this hypothetical ban included ineligibility for a temple recommend and for temple ordinances, I think that would be a different, and more problematic, problem. I can't say for sure how I would respond if I were denied ordinances necessary for exaltation, especially if any promises that I would someday receive those ordinances (by proxy, most likely) were uncertain. It might seem to me that I am in the same boat as other Christians who may or may not receive those ordinances in some future way, so it may not matter whether I choose to worship with LDS or with other Christians, so my sense of loyalty to the church may not be as strong. I don't know. It's always so hard to know how I would respond to hypotheticals.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, gopher said:

But I was surprised to see members here believe that God allowed prophets to implement the ban without any divine approval.   And subsequent prophets continued the ban until 1978. 

Have you researched this issue?  If so, how much?  I ask because I am wondering about the context of your statements, such as prophets weren’t racist and I am wondering why you are so certain of this given some of the things they said….and then there is the example of Jonah in the Bible who had strong prejudice against the Ninevehites similar to racism it seems to me.

Edited July 12, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

If this hypothetical ban included ineligibility for a temple recommend and for temple ordinances, I think that would be a different, and more problematic, problem. I can't say for sure how I would respond if I were denied ordinances necessary for exaltation, especially if any promises that I would someday receive those ordinances (by proxy, most likely) were uncertain. It might seem to me that I am in the same boat as other Christians who may or may not receive those ordinances in some future way, so it may not matter whether I choose to worship with LDS or with other Christians, so my sense of loyalty to the church may not be as strong. I don't know. It's always so hard to know how I would respond to hypotheticals.

Well obviously the sealings and other temple ordinances would be automatically voided. I wouldn’t worry though. It will all be taken care of in the next life…..somehow.

[MrShorty]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

Another option is to examine those principles where we don't have a testimony in terms of hitching them to those principles of which we do have a testimony. This takes the focus off the “middleman” and brings it back to the companionship of the Holy Ghost. 

Perhaps. I find there's a tension between "do it yourself religion" where you develop your own relationship with God and determine what is right and wrong based on your private relationship with Deity and "being in communion" with a church/congregation/community where you try to blend your own sense of right and wrong with a community's sense of right and wrong. Perhaps it is one of those "contraries" that helps us understand truth as we try to "prove the contrary," but I think God wants both -- a private, personal relationship with each of us that has no middlemen, and a relationship of some kind with a community whose leaders represent some kind of middlemen. I sometimes think these kind of questions are at least somewhat about trying to figure out how God wants me to balance a private relationship with Him and a relationship with a community that also claims to have a group relationship with Him.

[Rain]

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Maybe that explains it. Maybe God is testing us to see if we will accept and stay quietly loyal to the church, warts and all. While we're speculating as to God's impenetrable purposes, I might suggest that maybe God is testing us to see who will have the insight to recognize error in the church and the courage to call it out. I forget whether it was associated with process theology or liberation theology, but there are theodicies out there that suggest that maybe God's purpose in causing/allowing evil and suffering is to spur believers to action to relieve the suffering, correct the injustice, and so on. Your advice to "keep your head down [while serving] in the House of the Lord and keep[ing] your Temple covenants" seems to run somewhat counter to that kind of "test." As @Senator suggested, I think there are problems with this idea that we have learned from scripture that God is some kind of test proctor constantly testing us in sometimes obscure ways.

I wonder how younger generations differ on this with older generations.  It's been quite awhile since I've heard we came to earth to be tested.

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

This illustrates one of the problems I see and that is the difficulty in discerning the nature of the test. It seems to me that, if one discerns the nature of the test incorrectly, they will incorrectly discern what pass/fail means for the test, and can easily make incorrect choices. Couple that with the scriptural assertion that failure often leads to some kind of divine violence (including death and/or eternal condemnation), and the consequences for failure seem rather significant. Or maybe, as we often invoke the idea that God will put us in some kind of re-education program in the next life when we fail to recognize truth, it doesn't really matter whether we pass or fail the test because God will re-educate and redeem us all in the next life (the universalist in me really likes this idea).

At the end of the day, I don't know. I think there are long conversations we could have, though.

 

[Rain]

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

We have a long history in the church of claiming that each of us has the right and responsibility and opportunity to seek personal confirmation of prophetic claims. Cynics have a long history of claiming that we really don't believe it. When one claims to have not received a testimony of something, we are quick to claim that they must not have sought a testimony with a sincere heart and/or real intent. Or we will encourage such a person to remain loyal to the church in spite of that lack of testimony, while not speaking publicly of their lack of testimony in that principle. At the end of the day, it seems that the outcome of the process of seeking a testimony of a revelatory claim is supposed to be the same either way -- loyalty and obedience to the alleged revelation and promoting trust in the prophets and apostles. This seems like a problem to me. It seems to me that, if we really believe that we have the right and responsibility to seek confirmation of a principle, we ought to be able to talk about those principles where we don't have a testimony and why we don't believe what the prophets and apostles are teaching. I don't know how best to do it, but our current emphasis on just going along to get along doesn't seem quite right to me.

I so feel what you are saying here. I'm grateful to have a group of active, believing friends who feel I still have a sincere heart and/or real intent, or at least treat me like I do.  A couple of weeks ago I was with my mom and finally shared with her many of my feelings and she still treats me that way. My husband knows all that I have been through and always felt my sincere heart. 

I am just so grateful to have these people in my lives, because I know so many others feel they have no one who trusts that they have sought the Spirit with sincerity.  If you are one of those who feel alone, I want you to know I feel you have been seeking as we were always taught to do. 

[Rain]

23 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps. I find there's a tension between "do it yourself religion" where you develop your own relationship with God and determine what is right and wrong based on your private relationship with Deity and "being in communion" with a church/congregation/community where you try to blend your own sense of right and wrong with a community's sense of right and wrong. Perhaps it is one of those "contraries" that helps us understand truth as we try to "prove the contrary," but I think God wants both -- a private, personal relationship with each of us that has no middlemen, and a relationship of some kind with a community whose leaders represent some kind of middlemen. I sometimes think these kind of questions are at least somewhat about trying to figure out how God wants me to balance a private relationship with Him and a relationship with a community that also claims to have a group relationship with Him.

I've felt that a lot, especially after reading Gregory Boyle's books.

[telnetd]

On 7/11/2024 at 11:49 AM, bluebell said:

It's important to note that when he made this statement above, he was not the prophet and president of the church.

It doesn't matter what position a person holds when he speaks something. What matters
is if its true or false.

[Tacenda]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

God is certainly not racist, but some past leaders of the Church clearly held racist views and/or endorsed racist sentiments.  Even setting aside presentism, I think we need to acknowledge that.  All of us, including past prophets and apostles, have flaws, even serious ones.

In its essay on Race and the Priesthood, the Church expressly "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Which throws everything into a tizzy when thinking that the prophets know more than your average member. 

[3DOP]

On 7/5/2024 at 2:31 AM, Calm said:

It makes sense to love Christ who was willing to sacrifice himself for us. But what is the reason from the view of Catholics that we should love the Father who allowed his Son to suffer so much assuming he could have found another way to achieve justice and for Christ to show his love?

Calm, hi. 

"God (the Father) so loved the world that..." You know the rest. I do assume with you that Christ could have achieved justice without the terrific sufferings that He underwent. The Precious Blood of Christ that was spilled at His circumcision was sufficient for that. But that was insufficient for demonstrating what love will make God do. As rational creatures made out of nothing by God, the Catholic is taught that every one of us are dependent on God for our very existence, and that if He were only a fierce and just God, that out of rational fear, we ought to obey His commandments. But by both word and action, the Son of God reveals to man, what His all beneficent Father is like. Speaking to some incredulous people among the Jews, Christ teaches us that His mission is to show all people that it is the will of the Father to reveal Himself to His rational creatures through His Son. Later, Jesus will even say that no man cometh unto the Father but by me!

"...in your law it is written, that the testimony of two men is true.  I am one that give testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me giveth testimony of me. They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also."  (Jn. 8:18, 19)

Many as we know, have despised the Son for this kind of talk. But all nations have had the Gospel preached to them and countless peoples have known the Father through the Son, and many have also loved and worshiped the Father in spirit and in truth.  

Before the Last Supper there is a discussion with His disciples wherein Christ explains the same truth to His future Apostles, who will be sent by Christ to tell the world about the Oneness of Christ with the Father (as well as of the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost if one prefers):

"No man cometh to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him. Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, shew us the Father?"  (Jn. 14:7-9)

As you also might know Calm, the Catholic is taught that those who come to the Father through Christ, are made heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ:

"God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: That he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father."  (Gal. 4:4-6)

In the Mass, when we pray the our Father, the priest says that "we make bold to say, Our Father..." It is a holy boldness that humbly acknowledges that the good God Who made us and "suffered for us so much" (your expression), did so for love of what we could become, gods. "The God of gods shall be seen upon Zion" (Ps. 83:8). We believe that there is infinite mystery in this love of the Father for His creation. To know more about the Father, we are asked to pray for this and all of our needs by the grace of God. But our greatest need is to know God and to love God and to keep His commandments. Love is an even better motivator than fear.

It is a rational act of the intellect that one should love this wonderful God who made us for this purpose. But we cannot love God in return without His help. Remember that Jesus says, "Without me, you can do nothing". The very most supreme thing that we ought to do, (love God with all of our hearts and our neighbour as ourselves) is impossible without God's help. The Catholic is taught that our prayer to the Father teaches that for His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, it must be carried out by His sons and daughters. How? The Father has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts! All praise and adoration be to Him when it is given to us to cry out with profound joy, "Abba Father".

But we have to imitate the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity, the Sender and the Two who have been Sent, who have come to us to reveal the Father's love. That means that acknowledging our unworthiness, realizing the depths from which He would exalt us if we will allow it. We must like the Father, "love the world", and every creature in it. When a member of the Body of Christ is "crucified with Him" as St. Paul spoke about, we "...fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church." (Col. 1:24) Christ is not crucified Himself anymore, but through His members sufferings we continue His work. We bear patiently with a fellow employee who is crude and rude because God loved us before we loved Him, when we were rude and crude, or worse. When we do not consent to hateful thoughts against those who have cheated and lied to us because we love God, and believe that God loves the cheat and the liar, and the rude, and the crude because they are potentially His children, it is impossible that we can do it without the Spirit of God in our hearts, crying  "Abba, Father". By doing these and other acts of charity towards everyone we imitate the Sender and the Two that are sent. As Christ sent His Apostles into the world to establish the Universal Church, so the Universal Church sends Her children to obediently imitate the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, to whom be all praise forever and ever.

Calm, thank you for prompting me into making these meditations about my faith. It is so easy to forget. This exercise has made me happy this Saturday morning!  As a Catholic, I have been taught that the love of God and His grace finds its way in to every human situation. We are all in the same human family and may we recognize in each member the good and true wherever it is found, especially in the hope that more and more separated souls will glorify God praising Him for making us one with each other, as Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are One with the Father and with His children.  

May you be blessed and happy forever,

3DOP       

 

Edited July 13, 2024 by 3DOP