Are Mormon Apostles the Real Thing?

[ParkerD]

And yet I see Mormons consistently mocking our councils as the councils of men. Every single council is held up as an example of ridicule and how our church is wrong, yet it’s a virtue when done in yours. Just another example of "when Mormons do it it’s okay when Catholics do it it’s wrong.

Zaffiroborant,
You have made a pretty important observation here, as did Religio. I think holding a council meeting is a good idea, especially when there are strong differences of opinion. But a major difference in the process–the key difference–is that when unanimous agreement is reached in the case of the Mormon council meetings of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles, the Holy Spirit has born witness to each person that the truth has been brought out during the discussion process, so that the agreement is a wholehearted agreement–completely wholehearted, not a compromise. It is not a case of the primary leader “reigning in” various opinions or the others acceding to his views. There is complete, heartfelt, Spirit-inspired, unanimity, or the matter being discussed is not carried forward and they may wait until a later time or seek to gather more information.

Mormons speak of the process of personal revelation, which has for part of its foundation the need for “studying it out in your mind” which includes getting all of the facts that are available, all of the experiential knowledge that bears on the question, all of the scriptural knowledge also, and only then praying to ask whether a decision or an idea is confirmed by the Holy Ghost as being right and true. These Mormon council meetings follow this same pattern.

Someone brought up the M. M. massacre in this thread, a horrible tragedy that occurred because although council meetings at that local level hundreds of miles from Salt Lake City were held, there was not free and open discussion plus those in that council, although they had sent for the advice of Brigham Young, did not wait for his response on the matter. They acted hastily and without a unanimity of feeling at all as to what to do. This is a horrible example in terms of the consequences, but an example nonetheless of the tragic possibilities if a key leader thinks they have complete understanding but have not listened to the counsel around them and evaluated differences expressed openly and freely.

When a council meeting loses the Holy Spirit as a guide in the discussion process, then any decision made is a mortal decision and can be completely and utterly wrong. Joseph Smith warned the members and priesthood within the LDS church about “unrighteous dominion” because of the “nature and disposition of almost all men”, when they get a little authority, to “grieve the Spirit” because they may “aspire to the honors of men” or have “vain ambition.” (D & C 121:34-46)

 

[twopekinguys]

By the way since I received some criticism for saying that I am catholic and lds, how can you be catholic and protestant?

We are two separate individuals using one screen name.

One of us is Catholic, and the other is Methodist.

Quite different than your charade isn’t it?

 

[twopekinguys]

It is amazing that a methodist and a catholic can agree on so much when it comes to the lds church. Much better if they would look into each others faith and see their own differences. The catholic peking should be more concerned with converting the methodist peking to the true faith. By the way, Joseph Smith admired the methodist faith. And his mom and sisters joined the Presbyterians before the advent of the founding of the lds church.

You assume too much.

But hey, here you go with diveersion tactics again.

This thread isn’t about how I/we interact with each other because we share a screen name

.

 

[twopekinguys]

Read his profile:

“We are two guys sharing one computer. One is Catholic, One is Methodist.”

And you can’t validly claim to be Catholic and LDS. That is a complete contradiction. And of course you’re excommunicated latae sententiae. I hope you don’t blaspheme the sacraments by partaking.

Thank you Religio71, and yes, Why Me has stated previously that he partakes of both Holy Communion in the Catholic Church as well as the sacrament at LDS.

Supposedly the Nuns and Priests that he claims to associate with know about it and don’t see a problem.

It has been a while since he has said anything about that though.

 

[twopekinguys]

twopekinguys,
I noticed that your questions haven’t been answered.

The Quorum of the Seventy includes men who live in different parts of the world and help make sure the LDS church organizations in different places in the world have strong leadership even in the midst of growth that is happening in many places, such as in the Philippines and in Brazil and Mexico and Ghana. The Quorum of the Twelve meet with them often as well, to gain feedback and provide guidance.

There is a great deal more “counsel” given by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles than what one would call “revelation.” The “counsel” is just as important, because it guides members in modern-day preparation for world conditions such as the current recession.

“Revelation” would be when the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles have met many times in the Salt Lake Temple and discussed an issue seeking inspiration that is pertinent to major or minor changes in how the church carries out the mission statement, which includes proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, edifying the body of Christ (the members), and redeeming the dead by doing temple work in their behalf. They must reach complete unanimous agreement on a decision before it is presented to the members of the church for them to also vote in what is called a “sustaining vote” for acceptance of the “revelation.”

This process of “revelation” happened in 1978 when the change regarding blacks receiving the priesthood, which had always been known was going to happen someday, was brought about after many years of its having been considered by the church leaders.

Your question about “trust” among the presidency needs further explanation. These men meet together several times a week, with open discussion about many issues seeking the perspective and experience of each person, including having met with leaders of the women’s organizations of the church for added perspective. There is complete trust among them. One may bring insights that helps the others understand complex issues and perspectives on a decision being made.

I’m not aware of a recent example of an “overturned” decision, but polygamy would certainly be that kind of a case, “overturned” in the early 1900’s.

Thanks Parker,

From what you have described, it seems like the First Presidency looks more for a consensus among themselves more than Divine Intervention/Revelation.

You cited the example of Blacks and the priesthood, which happened in 1978 I believe. Don’t you find it somewhat coincidental that this “Revelation” happened at the same time that the US Federal Government was threatening the LDS with the loss of their tax exempt status?

Also, as I understand it, I believe JS ordained a black man to the priesthood, then BY had a revelation that they shouldn’t have it, now in 1978 they can have it again. Doesn’t this seem like two examples of overturning a previous revelation?

Now, when something goes for a “sustaining vote”, has anything ever been voted down? Or is it a given that the membership will automatically sustain whatever is presented to them?

When something is approved by a sustaining vote, does that make it doctrine?

Thanks again for your response.

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks Parker,

From what you have described, it seems like the First Presidency looks more for a consensus among themselves more than Divine Intervention/Revelation.

You cited the example of Blacks and the priesthood, which happened in 1978 I believe. Don’t you find it somewhat coincidental that this “Revelation” happened at the same time that the US Federal Government was threatening the LDS with the loss of their tax exempt status?

Also, as I understand it, I believe JS ordained a black man to the priesthood, then BY had a revelation that they shouldn’t have it, now in 1978 they can have it again. Doesn’t this seem like two examples of overturning a previous revelation?

Now, when something goes for a “sustaining vote”, has anything ever been voted down? Or is it a given that the membership will automatically sustain whatever is presented to them?

When something is approved by a sustaining vote, does that make it doctrine?

Thanks again for your response.

twopekinguys,
I hear about “loss of tax exempt status” every year over some thing or other, in the media or by people speculating. Blacks receiving the priesthood was going to happen, was prophesied to happen, it was only a question of when was the right time. It seems like an imperfect process from the world’s view of how it came about, but those men describing the Spirit’s promptings describe a real event in their lives. People not familiar with the Spirit’s promptings in their own lives would look askance at such a thing.

I don’t think BY had what would be called a “revelation” about blacks not being ordained. I don’t think he asked the question in prayer about it. But I guess you could call it an “overturning” of a practice within the LDS church.

The revelation on priesthood ordination did become doctrine after the sustaining vote in General Conference.

 

[twopekinguys]

twopekinguys,
I hear about “loss of tax exempt status” every year over some thing or other, in the media or by people speculating. Blacks receiving the priesthood was going to happen, was prophesied to happen, it was only a question of when was the right time. It seems like an imperfect process from the world’s view of how it came about, but those men describing the Spirit’s promptings describe a real event in their lives. People not familiar with the Spirit’s promptings in their own lives would look askance at such a thing.

I don’t think BY had what would be called a “revelation” about blacks not being ordained. I don’t think he asked the question in prayer about it. But I guess you could call it an “overturning” of a practice within the LDS church.

The revelation on priesthood ordination did become doctrine after the sustaining vote in General Conference.

Parker,

A well thought out response, although I don’t care for the insinuation about some people not being familiar with the Spirit’s prompting. It comes across like…If you don’t agree with it, they’re not listening to the Spirit.

So, back to your answer. JS ordained blacks, BY said no, but it wasn’t a divine “revelation”? Does that mean BY wasn’t familiar with the Spirit’s prompting? If it wasn’t divinely inspired, how do you reconcile that it held on for so long? Why do you think the rank and file membership went along with something that wasn’t divinely inspired? (See what I mean about insinuation?)

Back to the issue about tax exempt status. While the lds church itself may not have been a direct target, some of it’s schools and holdings were.

The IRS was putting pressure on private schools to stop discrimination with the US vs. Bob Jones University. This ruling would directly affect BYU, Ricks, CCH and other US Mormon owned schools. These schools are organized under separate nonprofit corporations which are owned by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As you can see from the following excerpts from case documents the Bob Jones University case was directed at educational nonprofits. This would have affected the Mormon organization, but not the core corporation.

On January 12, 1970, a three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IRS from according tax-exempt status to private schools in Mississippi that discriminated as to admissions on the basis of race. Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, appeal dism’d sub nom. Cannon v. Green, 398 U.S. 956 (1970). Thereafter, in July 1970, the IRS concluded that it could “no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status [under 501(c)(3)] to private schools which practice racial discrimination.” IRS News Release, July 7, 1970, reprinted in App. in No. 81-3, p. A235. At the same time, the IRS announced that it could not “treat gifts to such schools as charitable deductions for income tax purposes [under 170].” Ibid. By letter dated November 30, 1970, the IRS formally notified private schools, including those involved in this litigation, of this change in policy, "applicable to all private schools in the United States at all levels of education. (emphasis added) " See id., at A232.

A reasonable assumption could be that if BYU and other holdings were making decisions based solely on race, that the tax exemption question could ultimately land on the lds church’s doorstep so to speak. In other words, if BYU is discriminating on race, then is the church itself?

Right or wrong, with all of this going on, I can see why the leadership would change their position on blacks and the priesthood.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=461&invol=574 "

So you see, there is some truth to the possibilty of the church losing it’s tax exempt status.

 

[twopekinguys]

Parker,

I just want to make clear that I am not anti-mormon. I am merely an outsider looking in, and am trying to figure out how things work.

Am I wanting to become mormon?..mmmmmmmmmm…no.

Am i wanting to understand where mormons are coming from? Yes.

I just have a hard time getting my head around some of the things I know about the lds.

 

[Religio71]

the answer to this is, as it usually is: we don’t know.

So much for Prophets that are also apostles…

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
You have made a pretty important observation here, as did Religio. I think holding a council meeting is a good idea, especially when there are strong differences of opinion. But a major difference in the process–the key difference–is that when unanimous agreement is reached in the case of the Mormon council meetings of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles, the Holy Spirit has born witness to each person that the truth has been brought out during the discussion process, so that the agreement is a wholehearted agreement–completely wholehearted, not a compromise. It is not a case of the primary leader “reigning in” various opinions or the others acceding to his views. There is complete, heartfelt, Spirit-inspired, unanimity, or the matter being discussed is not carried forward and they may wait until a later time or seek to gather more information.

So basically what your are saying is your councils are spirit filled and ours are not.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

A well thought out response, although I don’t care for the insinuation about some people not being familiar with the Spirit’s prompting. It comes across like…If you don’t agree with it, they’re not listening to the Spirit.

So, back to your answer. JS ordained blacks, BY said no, but it wasn’t a divine “revelation”? Does that mean BY wasn’t familiar with the Spirit’s prompting? If it wasn’t divinely inspired, how do you reconcile that it held on for so long? Why do you think the rank and file membership went along with something that wasn’t divinely inspired? (See what I mean about insinuation?)

Back to the issue about tax exempt status. While the lds church itself may not have been a direct target, some of it’s schools and holdings were.

The IRS was putting pressure on private schools to stop discrimination with the US vs. Bob Jones University. This ruling would directly affect BYU, Ricks, CCH and other US Mormon owned schools. These schools are organized under separate nonprofit corporations which are owned by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As you can see from the following excerpts from case documents the Bob Jones University case was directed at educational nonprofits. This would have affected the Mormon organization, but not the core corporation.

On January 12, 1970, a three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IRS from according tax-exempt status to private schools in Mississippi that discriminated as to admissions on the basis of race. Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, appeal dism’d sub nom. Cannon v. Green, 398 U.S. 956 (1970). Thereafter, in July 1970, the IRS concluded that it could “no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status [under 501(c)(3)] to private schools which practice racial discrimination.” IRS News Release, July 7, 1970, reprinted in App. in No. 81-3, p. A235. At the same time, the IRS announced that it could not “treat gifts to such schools as charitable deductions for income tax purposes [under 170].” Ibid. By letter dated November 30, 1970, the IRS formally notified private schools, including those involved in this litigation, of this change in policy, "applicable to all private schools in the United States at all levels of education. (emphasis added) " See id., at A232.

twopekinguys,
Last to first for answers.
BYU had no racial discrimination in admissions policy. It is true that litigation tries to take a case and interpret it more broadly, but I personally think such a case could have been successfully argued since there was not racial discrimination going on regarding admissions.

I have no idea whether BY was aware of the ordination of blacks by JS–I just don’t know. It is apparent that BY brought his own biases into his thinking process on this subject. My point was that God doesn’t answer a prayer not asked. JS learned this repeatedly. I have not found evidence that BY received a “revelation” on the subject, but he evidently stated his opinion and I think the human element within his personality was involved when he did that.

Rank and file members either learn to trust the leaders or they question them on perhaps every decision. If questions are raised through normal channels, members can receive counsel that is helpful to understand an issue and perhaps the leadership receive feedback that is helpful to them also. I have found that that process works. This particular issue was a tremendously difficult one, and I think there is no good answer about why it took so long for the change, other than the time was fully right and the members and leaders were finally ready to accept a change that God was ready to make when all the people were ready to accept it. God does not work by force, ever.

 

[ParkerD]

So basically what your are saying is your councils are spirit filled and ours are not.

I can hope both are “spirit filled.” I disagree with some Catholic doctrine, as stated previously, and I base all of that disagreement on the Bible itself and its teachings. I think we probably don’t want to “go there” at this point, again. I think the unanimity element has been overlooked by several who have responded here, and it is absolutely essential for the council process to stay “inspired” by the Spirit.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I can hope both are “spirit filled.” I disagree with some Catholic doctrine, as stated previously, and I base all of that disagreement on the Bible itself and its teachings. I think we probably don’t want to “go there” at this point, again. I think the unanimity element has been overlooked by several who have responded here, and it is absolutely essential for the council process to stay “inspired” by the Spirit.

I disagree, but then I don’t see the Holy Spirit as one chased away by laughter, disagreement and so on.

 

[twopekinguys]

twopekinguys,
Last to first for answers.
BYU had no racial discrimination in admissions policy. It is true that litigation tries to take a case and interpret it more broadly, but I personally think such a case could have been successfully argued since there was not racial discrimination going on regarding admissions.

I have no idea whether BY was aware of the ordination of blacks by JS–I just don’t know. It is apparent that BY brought his own biases into his thinking process on this subject. My point was that God doesn’t answer a prayer not asked. JS learned this repeatedly. I have not found evidence that BY received a “revelation” on the subject, but he evidently stated his opinion and I think the human element within his personality was involved when he did that.

Rank and file members either learn to trust the leaders or they question them on perhaps every decision. If questions are raised through normal channels, members can receive counsel that is helpful to understand an issue and perhaps the leadership receive feedback that is helpful to them also. I have found that that process works. This particular issue was a tremendously difficult one, and I think there is no good answer about why it took so long for the change, other than the time was fully right and the members and leaders were finally ready to accept a change that God was ready to make when all the people were ready to accept it. God does not work by force, ever.

But are you absolutely sure that BYU never had a racial discrimination policy? I don’t know if there is any way to positively prove that one way or another. One thing is obvious though, in this day and age, they wouldn’t be very forthcoming in saying they did have the policy at one time. (Can you say paper shredder? ) Besides, discrimination doesn’t necessary have to be based on written policy. You get enough “good ol boys” together, in the right positions, and it can and has been accomplished quite frequently in the past.

Needless to say the church itself would not have wanted the negative publicity or cost involved in trying to prove they were being discriminatory, then or now.

I guess for me,the problem on this particular issue about blacks and the priesthood, is the flip flops that have been done on the issue. All done by the leaders at the time, and all of them sanctioned by the people in the pews. I really don’t believe the Holy Spirit (as Catholics define it) would even remotely condone any type of discrimination. I also don’t believe that God would change his mind on an issue merely because of where mankind has taken the world. We bend to God’s will, he doesn’t bend to ours.

Sorry, but for me, this is one issue that I cannot see any way of getting past it.

But thanks for trying to answer it to the best of your ability.

Sorry, i just can’t go with that.

 

[ParkerD]

I disagree, but then I don’t see the Holy Spirit as one chased away by laughter, disagreement and so on.

Then I would say we differ profoundly on how the Holy Spirit provides (or withholds) divine inspiration to people seeking to know and apply God’s will in leadership roles they may have.

 

[why_me]

We are two separate individuals using one screen name.

One of us is Catholic, and the other is Methodist.

Quite different than your charade isn’t it?

That is wonderful. However, since you guys speak with the same voice I have no idea when the catholic is speaking or when the methodist is speaking. I can’t tell the difference. And I don’t think that no one else can either.

 

[why_me]

Thank you Religio71, and yes, Why Me has stated previously that he partakes of both Holy Communion in the Catholic Church as well as the sacrament at LDS.

Supposedly the Nuns and Priests that he claims to associate with know about it and don’t see a problem.

It has been a while since he has said anything about that though.

I don’t think that they would care. The nuns know my mormon background and why I don’t drink coffee after their adoration. No problem. I do my bit for the catholic church. But one thing I can tell you, my catholic friends do not speak negatives about the mormon church around me because they know they will get an ear fill. And all have met my mormon children and admire them for their modesty and values.

 

[twopekinguys]

That is wonderful. However, since you guys speak with the same voice I have no idea when the catholic is speaking or when the methodist is speaking. I can’t tell the difference. And I don’t think that no one else can either.

Yet you are the only one who has ever voiced a concern.

 

[why_me]

Yes, if you actually read what the POPES have written you would understand clearly that ecumenism has nothing to do with your ideas of relativism and pluralism. If you had such an understanding you would be CATHOLIC. Period.

You know nothing about me or my life so a) you can stop pretending that you do and b) you can stick it where the sun don’t shine.

I understand. But I do think that you have a screen persona but your face persona would be quite different around the mormons. And that is fine. I don’t think that you understand relativism at all. In the catholic and mormon faith, mormons and catholics do fine together as they battle relativism and immorality. No problem at all. There is much that unites them. I have read no where where catholics have been cautioned about being with mormons as they fight same sex marriage together in California. But together they overcame a law that would have turned the concept of family upside down.

 

[why_me]

But he had no admiration for the Catholic Church. This is obvious from the BOM.

I have never heard anything negative that JS had said about the catholic church. Maybe he did say something…but I haven’t seen it.

You are better off fighting against the KKK who are anticatholic or extremist protestant sects who do battle against the catholic doctrine.