S
SedesDomi
Guest
Very interesting…
- Status
S
SteveVH
Guest
Follow the Prophet means that they speak the truth until another Prophet says they are wrong. Poygamy is a revealed truth from God until you get in trouble with the State and then polygamy is wrong. Blacks are not allowed to be included in the priesthood until you are accused of racism and then God changes His mind.
Far from infallibility, this seems to be just the opposite. The Catholic Church never changes a doctrine. The LDS change doctrines at the drop of a hat.
M
Marie5890
Guest
“Follow the prophet” pretty much means that the living prophet’s words carry more weight for the most part than what dead prophets words were.
The believe in what is termed “continued revelation”.
The example of polygamy is a good one. Blacks holding the priesthood is another.
The believe in what is termed “continued revelation”.
The example of polygamy is a good one. Blacks holding the priesthood is another.
B
Barbkw
Guest
Confused me for a second.
Web searched and found the answer:
Web searched and found the answer:
S
Stavros
Guest
Here’s an excellent article about what “Follow the Prophet” means for members of the LDS church [excerpted]:
Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
**Twelfth: **The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.
Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
As an ex-Mormon, raised in the church, let me see if I can give an example of “Follow The Prophet”. At a Young Adult Fireside, the prophet at the time said that women should only wear one pair of earrings at a time for modesty reasons. Girls were taking out their double-ear piercings as they were walking out of the chapel.
On the one hand, it’s actually a really smart system. All doctrine is run through the church headquarters, so every sunday school class, every scripture study has the exact same lesson plans at the same time. There’s even lesson plans so that lay people can teach the classes. (There is no paid ministry among rank-and-file Mormon churches). Unlike Catholic churches, there is no “liberal” Mormon churches, and “conservative” mormon churches. There is no “interpretation” of Mormon doctrine. It’s either cannon or it’s not.
A Mormon cannot even pick where they go to church - it is all dicated by the leadership of the church, so that each area has a certain amount of male priesthood holders. As a child, we drove 30 minutes to our ward, when there was an LDS church 10 minutes from our house, because that is where our ward was assigned.
On the other hand, that means that whatever the prophet says is essentially LDS cannon and doctrine, and it doesn’t matter what’s come before it. Sometimes it can be very small, like the prophet telling people don’t wear earrings. And sometimes it can be very large, like the official declaration condemning polygamy or admitting blacks to the priesthood.
A very good analogy would be to compare to the bible and the “tradition” of the church and the infallability of the Pope. Except the fact that instead of enriching current truths, the prophets can change doctrine and it’s perfectly okay because “The prophet will never lead the Church astray.”
.]
Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
**Twelfth: **The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.
Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
As an ex-Mormon, raised in the church, let me see if I can give an example of “Follow The Prophet”. At a Young Adult Fireside, the prophet at the time said that women should only wear one pair of earrings at a time for modesty reasons. Girls were taking out their double-ear piercings as they were walking out of the chapel.
On the one hand, it’s actually a really smart system. All doctrine is run through the church headquarters, so every sunday school class, every scripture study has the exact same lesson plans at the same time. There’s even lesson plans so that lay people can teach the classes. (There is no paid ministry among rank-and-file Mormon churches). Unlike Catholic churches, there is no “liberal” Mormon churches, and “conservative” mormon churches. There is no “interpretation” of Mormon doctrine. It’s either cannon or it’s not.
A Mormon cannot even pick where they go to church - it is all dicated by the leadership of the church, so that each area has a certain amount of male priesthood holders. As a child, we drove 30 minutes to our ward, when there was an LDS church 10 minutes from our house, because that is where our ward was assigned.
On the other hand, that means that whatever the prophet says is essentially LDS cannon and doctrine, and it doesn’t matter what’s come before it. Sometimes it can be very small, like the prophet telling people don’t wear earrings. And sometimes it can be very large, like the official declaration condemning polygamy or admitting blacks to the priesthood.
A very good analogy would be to compare to the bible and the “tradition” of the church and the infallability of the Pope. Except the fact that instead of enriching current truths, the prophets can change doctrine and it’s perfectly okay because “The prophet will never lead the Church astray.”
S
SteveVH
Guest
No offense, honestly, but I don’t see that the analogy is good at all with infallibility. The Mormon doctrine concerning their “Prophet” is just the opposite. While they may believe the living “Prophet” always speaks the truth (which, by the way, is not infallibility), when his statements conflict with earlier “Prophets” isn’t it evident to anyone with a hint of reason that one of them is or was wrong? If that is the case how can anyone have confidence that what their current “Prophet” is stating is, in fact, the truth? It could be changed tomorrow.
The Catholic idea of infallibility is that this only occurs when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, from the official chair of Peter. While we can be confident that the Pope will not lead us into error and will never make a public statement that is not well thought out and true, we do not and cannot consider it “doctrine”. This does not seem to be the case with the LDS when one can speak about earrings and it is as good as doctrine. I am sure you are aware of this but just wanted to state it for someone who maybe is not aware.
S
Stavros
Guest
Oh, I never meant to say that the Prophet was right. There’s a reason why I’m Catholic now and no longer Mormon. I’m just saying that when the Prophet speaks, he is right, and if he contradicts something that happened in the past, then the thing in the past becomes null and void.
But you are correct - small phrases can mean just as much as large ones, in the right context, when they come out of the mouth of an LDS prophet.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Thanks for the explanation. May I ask you, when you were Mormon how did you intellectually justify a former “Prophet’s” revelation being contradicted by another “Prophet”? Specifically the issues of polygamy and blacks in the priesthood. Did this make you question their legitimacy as true prophets?
S
Stavros
Guest
The “blacks in the priesthood” is one of the reasons I left the church. I was only a child when blacks were allowed the priesthood. The more I heard the horrible things that the prophets said about black people, the more I realized that there were distinctly racist elements in the leadership of the church.
You can read many of those quotes here:
exmormon.org/blacks1.htm
In a nutshell, either Joseph Smith is who he says he is, or he is not. Everything revolves around that one simple fact. Once the faith in Joseph Smith tumbles, everything else falls like dominoes. I remember in Seminary being taught that a testimony of Joseph Smith was the keystone of the church. Once I lost faith in Joseph Smith, the rest quickly followed.
G
Guitarjesus7
Guest
When I was a Mormon we were always taught this horrible concept, to “blindly believe” your priesthood leaders. Following the prophet is nothing more than truth to the fact that Mormons are brainwashed into believing whatever they are told by their priesthood leaders, no matter how absurd it might be.
P
pinay
Guest
Wow, I’m the first LDS poster on here too!
I think I’m starting to understand why…
Okay… Follow the Prophet is really very simple.
ONLY the prophets hold the Priesthood Authority to give instructions and revelations for the entire church. There are, technically, 15 prophets (small p), seers, and revelators in the LDS church… 1.) The president of the church (currently Pres. Thomas Monson) and his 2 councillors, 2.) The 12 apostles.
The Prophet with a capital P is the President of the Church.
This is the same relationship as Peter and Paul - both had prophetic authority to give instructions to the entire church with Peter as the head.
Therefore, if Brother Smith tells you that LDS are to move out of California, you don’t have to follow him. But if President Monson tells you that LDS are to move out of California, then yeah, you might want to follow that.
And - clarification: Eternal truths do not change therefore doctrines do not change. Man’s understanding of that eternal truth may change as Man gains wisdom. The practice that supports an eternal truth may also change.
For example - when God instructed the people of the O.T. that only the Levites can be priests and then changed it to include worthy members of the other tribes - the eternal truth did not change - that priesthood authority is given by the power of God and His own choosing. The application of the doctrine changed.
Or - another example - Mosaic Law was done away with to be replaced by a higher law. No, Moses was not mistaken/wrong to give the people that law. And no, the doctrine did not change. The application of the doctrine changed as man received new instructions from God.
No, we don’t always understand why God would tell some tribe to kill off a group of people. And no, we don’t always understand why God would only give priesthood authority to Levites or why God wouldn’t offer the same blessing to women. What we know is that when God commands it and we make the covenant to abide by it - we follow it.
And no, we don’t follow the prophet blindly. It is not possible. Because, the LDS faith is anchored on Free Agency. Every church leadership - from Prophet to Sunday School teacher is sustained by vote. The church is then organized as such: the prophet gives instructions through revelation from God, each individual member of the church prays about the instruction and receive their own personal revelation from God.
A stake (equivalent to a diocese) has it’s own stake leadership - they could receive instructions from God that are only applicable to the stake. The ward (equivalent to a parish) has a ward leadership - they can receive instructions from God that are only applicable to the ward. The priesthood leader of the home is, normally, the father. He can receive instructions from God for the family. Each invidual member can receive instructions for him/herself that is only applicable to him/her.
So yeah, following the Prophet blindly just doesn’t fit into that structure. Each person needs to search and ponder for their own selves not only to gain an affirmation of the words of the prophets but also because the prophets do not tell us everything - we are expected to govern ourselves according to our own understanding.
I think I’m starting to understand why…
Okay… Follow the Prophet is really very simple.
ONLY the prophets hold the Priesthood Authority to give instructions and revelations for the entire church. There are, technically, 15 prophets (small p), seers, and revelators in the LDS church… 1.) The president of the church (currently Pres. Thomas Monson) and his 2 councillors, 2.) The 12 apostles.
The Prophet with a capital P is the President of the Church.
This is the same relationship as Peter and Paul - both had prophetic authority to give instructions to the entire church with Peter as the head.
Therefore, if Brother Smith tells you that LDS are to move out of California, you don’t have to follow him. But if President Monson tells you that LDS are to move out of California, then yeah, you might want to follow that.
And - clarification: Eternal truths do not change therefore doctrines do not change. Man’s understanding of that eternal truth may change as Man gains wisdom. The practice that supports an eternal truth may also change.
For example - when God instructed the people of the O.T. that only the Levites can be priests and then changed it to include worthy members of the other tribes - the eternal truth did not change - that priesthood authority is given by the power of God and His own choosing. The application of the doctrine changed.
Or - another example - Mosaic Law was done away with to be replaced by a higher law. No, Moses was not mistaken/wrong to give the people that law. And no, the doctrine did not change. The application of the doctrine changed as man received new instructions from God.
No, we don’t always understand why God would tell some tribe to kill off a group of people. And no, we don’t always understand why God would only give priesthood authority to Levites or why God wouldn’t offer the same blessing to women. What we know is that when God commands it and we make the covenant to abide by it - we follow it.
And no, we don’t follow the prophet blindly. It is not possible. Because, the LDS faith is anchored on Free Agency. Every church leadership - from Prophet to Sunday School teacher is sustained by vote. The church is then organized as such: the prophet gives instructions through revelation from God, each individual member of the church prays about the instruction and receive their own personal revelation from God.
A stake (equivalent to a diocese) has it’s own stake leadership - they could receive instructions from God that are only applicable to the stake. The ward (equivalent to a parish) has a ward leadership - they can receive instructions from God that are only applicable to the ward. The priesthood leader of the home is, normally, the father. He can receive instructions from God for the family. Each invidual member can receive instructions for him/herself that is only applicable to him/her.
So yeah, following the Prophet blindly just doesn’t fit into that structure. Each person needs to search and ponder for their own selves not only to gain an affirmation of the words of the prophets but also because the prophets do not tell us everything - we are expected to govern ourselves according to our own understanding.
P
pinay
Guest
You are right in a way but not quite…
“Everything” revolves around the Book of Mormon, not Joseph Smith. If you believe that the Book of Mormon is a true testament of Jesus Christ - THEN, Joseph Smith is a prophet.
Yes, you can go on a circular reference on that. But, when you are investigating whether the LDS church is true, you don’t start with Joseph Smith. You start with the Book of Mormon.
S
Stavros
Guest
I think it could be an either/or, but if you’d like, sure, let’s start with the Book of Mormon. Have you ever heard of the Book of Mormon Challenge? [If one scoffs at the missionary’s explanation of the Book of Mormon, he is in so many words claiming it to be false: That it is a deceiving fraud formulated through the efforts and talents of a common man. What is produced by one man can always be duplicated by another. The challenge that the Book of Mormon makes to the world is that of duplication. Because the book complies with every one of the following conditions, in order to produce a similar record, one must comply with the same conditions. Here is the challenge: Can you accept it?]
Here’s a couple of refutes to that challenge:
Challenging the Book of Mormon
Book Of Mormon Challenge
Just because it looks like scripture doesn’t mean it is scripture. And if Joseph Smith was not a prophet, than the Book of Mormon is not a work of God. I’m not saying that it doesn’t have some beautiful writing (most of which was lifted from the KJV bible, translation errors and all), but what I am saying is that the people in the Book of Mormon did not exist. There is no hard archeological evidence that any of it ever happened. Yes, there are some vague similarities in some random things that were said in the BoM and ancient Native American culture. But not one iota of evidence that they were the same.
In addition, a huge controversy exists about the fact that for years, the Native Americans were considered to be descendants of the BoM characters in the eyes of the church, and now it’s been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the people of the Americas are of Mongolian descent, not Hebrew.
A
Auriel
Guest
Not that I am a Mormon in any way, shape, or form. But not all American Indians are of Mongolian descent.
In fact, what I find interesting is that there has been Jewish DNA found in a small percentage of the Cherokee tribes.
They also have their own legends of a Masada. israelinsider.net/forum/topics/missouri-cherokee-tribes
Have no clue where the timeline would fit in though with the Mormon theology.
Also would note that Drake dumped over 500 Turkish prisoners off in South Carolina in the 1500’s. Some may have been from Palestine. But it would not account for all of them.
There have always been ancient explorers and travelers, my own ancestors got around. lol
C
catsrus
Guest
.
The only ones with a “small percentage” of other DNA are desended from mixed race union; Indian and whomever landed here (on this side of the world) and was attempting to subdue them at the time. And what exactly is Jewish DNA?
B
Barbkw
Guest
ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtmlAnd what exactly is Jewish DNA?
P
pinay
Guest
Been there, done that. Not just for the Book of Mormon but for the Holy Bible as well. Faith requires diligent study and lots of prayer.
I can argue for or against the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
I can argue for or against evolution.
I can argue for or against the Flood.
I can argue for or against the divinity of Jesus Christ.
I can argue for or against the existence of the descendants of Lehi.
And where does that get anyone? Nowhere.
All these things are not something you take upon your own meager understanding. All these things you study through an appeal to the Holy Spirit.
S
Stavros
Guest
One of the biggest problems about using the “Holy Ghost” as the proof of the belief is the double-bind it puts a person in. If they pray about the Book of Mormon, and they receive a witness, than it is true. If a person prays and they do not receive a witness, maybe they didn’t pray enough, or maybe they are not sincere in their desire to hear from God, or maybe they are hiding sin, or maybe they don’t like someone in the church. It’s never not true because it’s not true. It’s not true because of a fault in the person praying.
Let me share a story that really hit home when I was converting. Once upon a time, there were 9 kids who lived with their father. The father covenanted with them that if they would clean their rooms, they could have a cookie. All of them went to their rooms and cleaned. All came back to receive the promised reward. All but little Johnny were given the promised cookie.
“Why don’t I get a cookie as I was promised?” little Johnny asked his father. He got no answer, so he asked his brother.
“Jimmy, why did father give you a cookie and not me?”
Jimmy answered, “Because when I cleaned my room, I was more diligent in cleaning it than you were. Go back and clean your room again with more diligence and I’m sure you will receive your cookie.”
So, little Johnny went back to his room and put his heart and soul into cleaning. He cleaned under his bed and he straightened his closet. Surely now father will give me my cookie.
He went to his father, who still refused to give him his cookie. When he asked why, father was still silent.
So, little Johnny went to his big sister Suzie.
“Suzie, why did father give you a cookie and not me?”
Suzie replied, “Oh, that’s because I was much more humble when I cleaned my room. I’m sure that if you clean your room again with more humility, you will receive your cookie.”
Little Johnny went back to his room and removed all the pride that he could. He did all the dirty work that he refused to do before. He scrubbed the walls and washed the windows. Surely now father will give me my cookie, little Johnny though!
He went to father, who still refused to give him his cookie. When he asked why, father was still silent.
So, little Johnny went to his big brother Mark.
“Mark, why did father give you a cookie and not me?”
“Well, you see little Johnny, sometimes you are not ready to get a cookie. I’m sure that if you wait father will give you your cookie eventually.”
“But, that’s not what father said. He said if I cleaned my room that I could have a cookie!”
“That’s right”, Mark said, “but he didn’t say WHEN you would receive your cookie, now did he.”
Little Johnny sighed, “No, I suppose not. I guess I will just wait then.”
And he waited, and waited, and waited some more.
Occasionally, he would return to father and ask if he could have the cookie yet? Always he was met with silence.
As the days and weeks went by, little Johnny wondered if he was ever going to get the cookie. “Just endure to the end”, said his brothers. “You must have more faith”, his sisters would say.
However, eventually, he started to realize that he would probably never get the cookie. To the shock and horror of those who had received the cookie, little Johnny actually started to disbelieve that his cookie would ever come.
There were whispers in the hall of little Johnny throwing all of his garbage under his bed when he cleaned his room and THAT’S why he wasn’t getting the cookie. Or that perhaps he had only used water to clean his window instead of using Windex and THAT was why he wasn’t getting the cookie.
Until, one day, little Johnny was visiting his friend Sam. Sam’s father came out and spoke to little Johnny. “Would you like a cookie?” Sam’s father asked.
“Sure!” little Johnny replied. This was all so new, to have a father actually speak to him. And when he actually received his cookie, he was overjoyed!
He told his brothers and sisters about his cookie. They were disgusted and afraid. Father would be furious and surely cast him out of his presence. They all knew that the small morsel of a cookie that he had received was merely but a taste of the cookie they had been given. After all, fathers gave out cookies all over the world, but they all knew that THEIR father’s cookies were by far the best cookies in the universe. If only everyone would open their eyes and come join their family so father could give them his best cookies.
Although it was hard for a while, little Johnny eventually moved in with Sam’s family. Their father treated him like a true son. He spoke with him and gave him cookies regularly. And although his brothers and sisters sneered at his decision, and hounded him constantly to come back to the family, little Johnny was finally where he belonged. He was happy.
S
Stavros
Guest
Also, it seems we have gotten to what tends to be the end of any argument about the truthfulness of the LDS religion with a believing LDS member - “I prayed about it and know it’s true.” Well, technically, any religion is based on faith. Even Alma 32:21 says “if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true”. However, Catholics are also encouraged to study history, all of their history, the good stuff and the bad stuff. They’re encouraged to learn about the lives of the saints, and they’re encouraged to face head-on the shorfalls of their leaders (The Fr. Corapi scandal is a very recent example of that).
While the belief in Jesus as the Christ is definitely the core of the issue of faith in any Christian religion, the Catholic religion also has thousands of years of evidence linking its beliefs and traditions to biblical historical sites and places. The Book of Mormon doesn’t have that history to back up the traditions of the church.
In addition, the LDS church is notorious for whitewashing their history. A very recent example is the changes to the introduction text in the Book of Mormon to edit both the Native American history as well as the racial undertones of the older text. Does the Catholic church do some whitewashing and changing with the times? Absolutely - heck, the English Missal is getting a revamp that goes live in Advent 2011. But there’s also centuries of text and historical proof of the traditions shared in the Catholic church, and the core of the Mass has stayed the same since the Last Supper. And there’s a difference between a retranslation of the original Latin and complete changing of meaning from the original text with the addition of a word or two.
Do Mormons get a witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, with the “burning in the bosom”? I have no doubt at all that they do. Is that burning from the Holy Ghost? In my opinion, no. I’ve had the same burning when I’ve met a cute boy, or had blissful joy from a really great experience.
Is this conversation going to convert either of us? Not so much, I’m sure. But it’s important to me to make sure that any Catholics reading this get a full picture of what it is that LDS people are saying in contect to their Catholic beliefs. I lived in the Mormon bubble for most of my life, and know enough about “Mormonspeak” to be able to translate it outside of the rote responses given to certain questions by most members of the church.
A
Auriel
Guest
Jewish genes aish.com/ci/sam/48937817.html.
The only ones with a “small percentage” of other DNA are desended from mixed race union; Indian and whomever landed here (on this side of the world) and was attempting to subdue them at the time. And what exactly is Jewish DNA?
- Status