I agree that the pope is not all-knowing and all-seeing (and I don’t think I made any claims that he can predict trivial things like the outcome of baseball games). But, torture and war are nontrivial “matters of morals” so it seems to me that the pope’s guidance in these situations should be infallible.
Like Brigham Young?
Please, I don’t believe in either side in this matter (Catholic or Mormon) but at least try to be historically factual.
yet doctrinally it is not. these are not dogma and thus are outside the scope of the magisterium. If the pope says go to war that’s not binding doctrine.
If you read (non-Mormon) history of the incident, it is clear that if Young did not order the attack, and historians differ on that, at the very least he did create the environment and the culture of vengeance that caused it. When Young visited the site in 1861, he commented, as recorded by Mormon Apostle Wilfred Woodruff, “vengeance is mine and I have taken a little.”
No doubt he helped to create the atmosphere that led to the massacre. As you say, there is a dispute over whether Brigham Young ordered the attack. I studied the incident in a class once and came away thinking that he hadn’t. Anyway, he definitely was an accessory after the fact. My last post might have been a little hasty, but I am used to hearing people say things without any regard for historical accuracy in these types of discussions.
So what would happen if the Pope committed a sin. Not just a small one like telling a little white lie, but a real whopper like breaking his vow of chastity, or stole money from the church? Would he or could he be removed? How does that work? Or has it ever happened?
You know I’ve heard about this and don’t see any motive on Brigham Youngs’ part. He had power, he had wealth why would he do something so foolish and risk all he had over a few settlers?
The Pope has a confessor, just like every other Catholic. He is bound to confess, just as we all are. His sins are between himself, his confessor and God.
it has happened. sometimes they got away with their sins. (although they will have to face God now) it was a bit of a problem a few times. since the counterreformation it appears we have stopped that.
But if he did something serious, as I previously mentioned, would that not make him un-worthy to be the Pope? Shouldn’t he be replaced by someone who does not do those things?
Perhaps what you are looking for is here.
This has not been a problem since the renaissance. There is much debate about what would constitute an offense serious enough to warrant replacement of a reigning Pope. The prevailing thought seems to be that only material heresy or renunciation of the doctrines of Catholicism would make a Pope unfit to serve. There have been far more saints and holy men who have served the Church than rogues.
Perhaps you are confusing the Anglicans with the Catholics? The Tower of London was run by Anglicans.
Joseph Smith never denied mormonism because he was the author of it, not God. He would have been found out eventually if he had not met his end in a gunfight. If he had been brought to trial, the real story of his fraudulent “church” would have emerged and he would have been disgraced. The best thing that ever happened to the LDS “church” was the “martyrdom” of Joseph Smith. A perfect excuse for the persecution complex of the mormon organization and a perfect reason to remove the mormon “faithful” to Utah, out of the reach of Federal justice and to cement the control of Brigham Young over the people.
First of all, Andy, you were answering Majick’s post, not mine. And I’m sure I know more about Mormonism than you do. You seem to have a very shallow and naive view of Mormonism. You sound like a recently returned missionary, spouting lines from the missionary handbook. I served a foreign mission and was a leader in my ward for years. I taught Gospel Essentials and Gospel Doctrine for many years. I have an extensive library of LDS books and histories (including the JoD) and have read them all.
Remember this: Before Mormonism, Joseph Smith was a nothing; a nobody. He was a dirt-poor small-time conman with no future except poverty, obscurity and prison. With his new religion and his followers came power, veneration, and wealth. He went from being a pauper living in a shack to the mayor of a city and the leader of a personal army, living in the best house in town. He had absolute power over his people and their property. He could command any woman or girl (married or single) to his bed. His prophetic status made him a virtual king. It’s good to be the king!
your prophet is called by his seniority nothing more. I understand your church quite well from experience.
please…from layabout farmboy from a family of ne’erdowells to the monarch of a large prosperous city (nauvoo), general of his own militia and candidate for president of the US. He could take whatever he wanted (or whoever) from his followers by claiming God revealed to him he was supposed to have it (them). see D&C for this.
really? many of theme were LDS trying to do their job. what lies did they tell? how did they “make up” old LDS documents? of course the fact that most of these “non-faith promoting” documents have been sealed up in the archives and no one allowed to look in there anymore doesn’t mean thre’s something to hide now does it? real easy to claim historians are liars without presenting any facts. they at least provided documented evidence to support their claims.
really? yet how did the catholic church survive through it’s martyrdoms and imperial persecution prior to Constantine? Islam has been around longer than mormons does that mean it can’t be based on lies? what about mithraism? it was around for hundreds of years and faced persecution. was it based on truth then? look jim jones and david koresh amongst others showed us that people will believe a charismatic and controlling leader even when their lives are at stake. mormonism survived because Brigham young got the people out into a place where he had total control over them, they had nowhere else to go (or at least not the means to get there) and he could mold them into a mini-nation. once that was set for a few generations cultural inertia could carry them forward.(and a high birthrate)
except for those 300 years of imperial persecution which produced all those martyrs. or what about after the reformation when the protestant armies were “liberating” everyone. are you even aware that it was against the law to practice catholicism in most of the UK including the American colonies? yet those catholics persisted in their faith. their actions would seem to contradict your unfounded allegations.
they did. that’s why the council was successful.
if we applied that to LDS then it would seem that they had no valid priesthood since there a re many apostles and first presidency members in the early LDS days that left to start their churches because they felt the LDS church was following the wrong path. even in modern times they have had to distance from BY, orson pratt, mconkie. mark e petersen, etc. look at the controversy with Ezra benson.why even GBH said he didn’t know about various teachings and didn’t understand what BY meant. where is this perfect revelation you seem to expect in their cases?
and where does it say that all apostasy must be global? where do we see an example in the bible of the lord removing the priesthood authority form the entire earth for 1800 years? you might want to read more history and try reading the bible in the context of what was going on and who was writing at the time.