Catholic Popes and LDS Prophets

[TexanKnight]

LDS Prophets and Apostles declare eternal truths and doctrine contained in official statements, unlike Popes. I mean, just look at the latest official statement responding to same-sex marriage…

“Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society…”

It’s good to know civil law and social trends don’t influence God’s decisions and that he stands by difficult doctrines like polygamy and blacks and the priesthood

but what they said is true. Social trends and and civil law does not influence the lds god.

Money does.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

but what they said is true. Social trends and and civil law does not influence the lds god.

Money does.

Bingo. I bet if they were threatened with the loss of major property or statehood (UT) they would suddenly change their position to fit LGBT people in So much for convictions.

 

[TexanKnight]

Bingo. I bet if they were threatened with the loss of major property or statehood (UT) they would suddenly change their position to fit LGBT people in So much for convictions.

Agreed.

What I also think is, that if the federal ban on polygamy is ever lifted…and it might…then polygamy will once again be the rule for Mormons. After all, polygamy was NEVER banned by the LDS prophets. The PRACTICE of it was…

 

[RC_David333]

**the Catholic monk, brother Dimond, totally destroys the heretical arguments of the calvinist in this debate. Here is the link to that debate…

youtube.com/watch?v=Qn1vC1Ez-OI

To learn more about brother Dimond, his Monastery and the true teachings of our Lord, Jesus Christ, then please visit VaticanCatholic.com or MostHolyFamilyMonastery.com **

 

[taylorf]

Agreed.

What I also think is, that if the federal ban on polygamy is ever lifted…and it might…then polygamy will once again be the rule for Mormons. After all, polygamy was NEVER banned by the LDS prophets. The PRACTICE of it was…

I actually don’t believe it would come back, although I would love to see the ban lifted only to see the response from the church. I think the church has spent too much in PR/marketing over the past few decades to distance itself from this practice and make it look more mainstream Christian. Even if legalized, re-embracing polygamy would not help its missionary efforts within traditional Christianity. Also, this would require another “revelation.” Given the back and forth nature rulings on SSM, if the ban were reinstated, how would it look if they had to receive another revelation to re-ban the practice if the law is changed again? Too risky in my opinion. Plus, if it becomes a state’s issue, will the church receive a revelation that allows polygamy only for states that permit the practice? Makes the LDS god look a little…constrained by US law.

 

[TexanKnight]

I actually don’t believe it would come back, although I would love to see the ban lifted only to see the response from the church. I think the church has spent too much in PR/marketing over the past few decades to distance itself from this practice and make it look more mainstream Christian. Even if legalized, re-embracing polygamy would not help its missionary efforts within traditional Christianity. Also, this would require another “revelation.” Given the back and forth nature rulings on SSM, if the ban were reinstated, how would it look if they had to receive another revelation to re-ban the practice if the law is changed again? Too risky in my opinion. Plus, if it becomes a state’s issue, will the church receive a revelation that allows polygamy only for states that permit the practice? Makes the LDS god look a little…constrained by US law.

the only reason I believe it is because polygamy was never banned, just its practie. And it is still practiced in the LDS heaven…

 

[Tarquin]

LDS Prophets and Apostles declare eternal truths and doctrine contained in official statements, unlike Popes. I mean, just look at the latest official statement responding to same-sex marriage…

“Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society…”

It’s good to know civil law and social trends don’t influence God’s decisions and that he stands by difficult doctrines like polygamy and blacks and the priesthood

I do not see the need for a specially appointed person to declare eternal truths that have already been declared, and declared by higher authority.

Have the lds provided any significant distinction between “truths” and “doctrine”? Why should Prophets and Apostles declare eternal truths that are not doctrines. Or is this a compound word: things that are both “truths and doctrine.” But again, it seems unnecessary to distinguish them, since all doctrine declared by whomever would also be “truths.”

LDS Prophets and Apostles declare eternal truths and doctrine contained in official statements, unlike Popes.

This is just plain wrong. What do they think are in the official encyclicals and statements of Popes - private opinions, self-justification? One needn’t go too far to find such things in LDS Prophets’ statements, one prophet saying another (Brigham Young in particular) was just voicing his “opinion,” and excusing past injustice as just an error due to secular beliefs and relationships of the time - which I would accept if there were also an apology attached for having believed those erroneous secular beliefs and held them up also as divine truths, such as certain alleged divine judgments against certain races…

 

[taylorf]

I do not see the need for a specially appointed person to declare eternal truths that have already been declared, and declared by higher authority.

Have the lds provided any significant distinction between “truths” and “doctrine”? Why should Prophets and Apostles declare eternal truths that are not doctrines. Or is this a compound word: things that are both “truths and doctrine.” But again, it seems unnecessary to distinguish them, since all doctrine declared by whomever would also be “truths.”

This is just plain wrong. What do they think are in the official encyclicals and statements of Popes - private opinions, self-justification? One needn’t go too far to find such things in LDS Prophets’ statements, one prophet saying another (Brigham Young in particular) was just voicing his “opinion,” and excusing past injustice as just an error due to secular beliefs and relationships of the time - which I would accept if there were also an apology attached for having believed those erroneous secular beliefs and held them up also as divine truths, such as certain alleged divine judgments against certain races…

Apologies. I was being sarcastic in the post you quoted, but I did a poor job in conveying that.

 

[Tarquin]

Apologies. I was being sarcastic in the post you quoted, but I did a poor job in conveying that.

No, you did fine. At first I wasn’t sure, but then I caught on. I thought you were speaking in a previous post from the LDS point of view. I was trying to address that, with some objectivity, not perfect objectivity but some.