M
mrgloop
Guest
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
- Status
T
TexanKnight
Guest
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Well you’d think it was obvious that there have been orders of nuns for many centuries. But here you go The Order of St. Clare was established in 1212 and approved by Pope Innocent IV in 1253. As I understand it The Carmelite Order of nuns was established in 1452 and founded by Pope Sixtus IV in 1476 and the Ursulines were found n 1535 and formally approved by Pope Paul III in 1544. The Ursulines were the first nuns in North America, arriving in Canada in 1639 and in what is now New Orleans in 1727. They established one of the first hospitals in New Orleans an treated slaves flying in the face of the social norms of the time. During the Revolutionary War they treated both the British and American casualties in the same hospital.
Even earlier than all of these examples we have HIldegard of Bingen who became a nun at age 18 in 1116. So yes there were orders of nuns established long before the RS was established. One might even think that those who were there at the formation of the RS dreamed about doing what the Catholic nuns had been doing all along.
As to the number of Catholic nuns these days, there are currently about 710,000 nuns in the various orders these days. It may seem paltry when compared to your stated 6 million members of the RS. But then again if the Catholic church made all women 18 years or older automatically members of some Catholic women’s organization it would have about 333 million members.
The Boston Globe had an article about the contributions of Catholic nuns to American life here is some of what it had to say:
While I don’t mean to be snarky here, it seems that your huge RS membership making dinners for stressed members doesn’t really stack up to the Catholic sisters who built schools and hospitals.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
T
TexanKnight
Guest
correct. The LDS Church looks at Mary as someone who had sex with God. I have provided quotes from LDS “prophets” to support that.
That does not treat the Perpetual Virgin with very much respect at all
I
iepuras
Guest
Wow. I did not know that statements from Brigham Young qualified as anti-Mormon literature. Then why is the Mormon church’s flagship university named after him? Why did the LDS church use his teachings to publish an instruction manual?
Back to the topic. In Mormonism today, Mary may be respected to a small extent and probably more so today than in the early days of the church. Sorry, but the doctrine, which was not abandoned until fairly recently, that Heavenly Father had sex with Mary to make Jesus is highly disrespectful. It means that the Virgin Mary is not so virginal after all. Eve receives far more love and respect than Mary does for her role in the Mormon’s concept of the Fall. Eve is the only female featured in the LDS endowment ceremony. That gives her a level of importance that the Virgin Mary does not have.
Also, I have a lot of experience as a Mormon woman as I was one for 35 years. Women are second class citizens in Mormonism. A woman’s value hinges entirely on her marriageability and fertility. That makes them sex objects of a sort. Education that is not directly related to marriage and child rearing is not valued in a woman. Working moms are viewed at with pity that her husband doesn’t earn enough so she can stay home. It doesn’t matter if she doesn’t actually want to stay home. Single women are treated like children. Their contributions are not particularly valued except in a singles ward.
Many Mormon women are happy and do not realize they are in gilded cages.
Back to the topic. In Mormonism today, Mary may be respected to a small extent and probably more so today than in the early days of the church. Sorry, but the doctrine, which was not abandoned until fairly recently, that Heavenly Father had sex with Mary to make Jesus is highly disrespectful. It means that the Virgin Mary is not so virginal after all. Eve receives far more love and respect than Mary does for her role in the Mormon’s concept of the Fall. Eve is the only female featured in the LDS endowment ceremony. That gives her a level of importance that the Virgin Mary does not have.
Also, I have a lot of experience as a Mormon woman as I was one for 35 years. Women are second class citizens in Mormonism. A woman’s value hinges entirely on her marriageability and fertility. That makes them sex objects of a sort. Education that is not directly related to marriage and child rearing is not valued in a woman. Working moms are viewed at with pity that her husband doesn’t earn enough so she can stay home. It doesn’t matter if she doesn’t actually want to stay home. Single women are treated like children. Their contributions are not particularly valued except in a singles ward.
Many Mormon women are happy and do not realize they are in gilded cages.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
You are doing fine. You have been engaging in forthright, and honest dialogue.
We have been talking about invisible. He appears to be a poster who was here before, and was banned.
I apologize, I should have welcomed to CAF before. Welcome!!
P
Porknpie
Guest
LDS show respect to a man by naming a university after him who broke the law and the Ten Commandments…and never repented for what he did.
Not an example for anyone to follow.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Typical response we would expect from you why me.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Mary says in the bible that “all generations shall call me blessed”. Does the LDS Church call her blessed? Luke 1:48 below
48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
I
invisible_man
Guest
I have provided other quotations that say otherwise. I think that it is safe to say that there has been some speculation about it but I do not see any of it as LDS doctrine. I think that we need to be fair to the Mormons and give benefit of doubt where needed.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
So which one is right? Mormons are good at throwing previous prophets under the bus.
Along with the mormon god changing his mind so much on so many things, who is right?
I
invisible_man
Guest
I have come to realize something interesting now. No matter what quotations I provide from Mormon sources about what they think of the Virgin Mary, they go unrecognized and posters do not want to believe them. I don’t know why that is.
Now you are claiming that Mormon women are second class citizens in the Mormon faith but do not realize it. I have investigated this and I have looked at a book by Joanna Brooks, a Mormon feminist. I think that Mormon women who are feminists seem to want the LDS church to give them the priesthood. This is their biggest beef. However, I don’t see them complaining about other things. Your comments make me wonder why any woman would want to be Mormon. Maybe you are using some hyperbole in your statement.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
How do you feel about light cotton?
T
TexanKnight
Guest
and you have ignored the quotes FROM YOUR OWN LDS “PROPHETS”.
Seems you are of the new “pick and choose the teachings we like” Mormons
T
TexanKnight
Guest
I
invisible_man
Guest
I really don’t care one way or the other. I do see some problems here though. I think that Mormons have a lot of sources to draw from. They have their own website where they can discover certain things. They have the Joseph Smith Papers where they can discover more things. Some posters pull out quotations from Brigham Young’s Journal of Discourses. I put that in the search in lds.org and got this:
lds.org/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng
T
TexanKnight
Guest
lol…it was official until the LDS church realized how awful the things their “prophets” said really were.
Sorry…that will not fly here. You cannot claim your “prophets” were seers and revelators and spoke to God then run from the things they said because you dislike them
I
invisible_man
Guest
On the same page I also got this:
**
I’ve been reading the Journal of Discourses with a great deal of interest and pleasure, but I notice that they are not printed by the Church. Can you tell me how authoritative I should consider them to be?
Gerald E. Jones, director, LDS Institute of Religion, Berkeley, California Many queries come from students concerning these twenty-six volumes first published in England between 1853 and 1886. The original intent of their publication was to provide income for George D. Watt, their stenographer and publisher. Many Church members in England desired to read the sermons delivered by the General Authorities of the Church in Utah, and Brother Watt’s books filled that need. He obtained clearance from the First Presidency 1 June 1853. Addressed to Elder Samuel Richards, missionary printer in England, and to “the Saints abroad” this statement introduced volume one:
“Dear Brethren—It is well known to many of you, that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography [shorthand], which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve, and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward. Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these reports, in England, for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter. You will perceive at once that this will be a work of mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your cooperation in the purchase and sale of the above named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt.” (Signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards.)
The first four volumes were reported by Elder Watt, but after that other reporters are included—one a sister, Julia Young. Brother Watt reported through volume twelve, when David W. Evans became the prime reporter. He was followed by George W. Gibbs, a secretary to the First Presidency.
In considering the reliability of the Journal of Discourses, we should remember certain circumstances.
Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s which finally forced the cessation of publication.
We should remember that the times were different then. A major concern of the early Saints was physical survival. Sermons often dealt with the practical problems of the time and so may seem quaint in our day, even if much of the advice is still valid.
Doctrinally, members of the Church were growing and learning. Most adults were converts who had to unlearn and relearn many doctrines. They were learning things which our children learn in Primary and Sunday School. Remarks were frequently impromptu. Close, friendly audiences frequently invited informal discussion of varied topics. There was occasional speculation about doctrines which have since been determined unimportant or even misleading.
The general membership of the Church has progressed in knowledge of gospel principles, which is as it should be. In our organizations, we have been taught the gospel for more than one hundred years now. Because of modern revelation and because of “line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept” progression, we have answers that were not yet given when the Journal of Discourses was published.
We also should be aware of priorities in our studies. It seems to me that we should first become very familiar with the four books of Scripture accepted as standard works. The words of our current living prophet are also most valuable for us in our time. The official statements of the First Presidency are standards for doctrine and practice in the Church. We should be familiar with the manuals and courses of study provided for us in our day. For further inspiration and instruction by the General Authorities, we can study general conference addresses, beginning with the most current and moving back in time.
Even after digesting these materials, some persons may still have time and inclination to peruse the Journal of Discourses. We can be grateful that records of the early sermons were kept to help us understand the growth of the Church and the testimonies of our early leaders. If we find the time to read them, however, we should avoid getting caught up in their uniqueness and should concentrate on the inspiring thoughts and experiences related to us by choice men.
Having taught seminary and institute classes for more than twenty years, I have tried to follow my own advice. Because I also love to read, I have read the scriptures many times, all of the general conference reports, and finally, all volumes of the Journal of Discourses.
Frankly, one of the main reasons I read the Journal of Discourses was so I could answer students’ questions about them with some knowledge of what they were about. Though I enjoyed reading them, gained some new insights, and was inspired by the spirit of the early brethren, except for the needs of students, there was no practical benefit that I could not have obtained from current conference talks with less effort, much greater clarity and more economy.
For me, the most pertinent discussion of gospel doctrines and answers to life’s problems and source of spiritual inspiration in today’s world comes from the standard works and our living prophets.**
lds.org/ensign/1978/08/i-have-a-question?lang=eng
**
I’ve been reading the Journal of Discourses with a great deal of interest and pleasure, but I notice that they are not printed by the Church. Can you tell me how authoritative I should consider them to be?
Gerald E. Jones, director, LDS Institute of Religion, Berkeley, California Many queries come from students concerning these twenty-six volumes first published in England between 1853 and 1886. The original intent of their publication was to provide income for George D. Watt, their stenographer and publisher. Many Church members in England desired to read the sermons delivered by the General Authorities of the Church in Utah, and Brother Watt’s books filled that need. He obtained clearance from the First Presidency 1 June 1853. Addressed to Elder Samuel Richards, missionary printer in England, and to “the Saints abroad” this statement introduced volume one:
“Dear Brethren—It is well known to many of you, that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography [shorthand], which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve, and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward. Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these reports, in England, for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter. You will perceive at once that this will be a work of mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your cooperation in the purchase and sale of the above named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt.” (Signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards.)
The first four volumes were reported by Elder Watt, but after that other reporters are included—one a sister, Julia Young. Brother Watt reported through volume twelve, when David W. Evans became the prime reporter. He was followed by George W. Gibbs, a secretary to the First Presidency.
In considering the reliability of the Journal of Discourses, we should remember certain circumstances.
Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s which finally forced the cessation of publication.
We should remember that the times were different then. A major concern of the early Saints was physical survival. Sermons often dealt with the practical problems of the time and so may seem quaint in our day, even if much of the advice is still valid.
Doctrinally, members of the Church were growing and learning. Most adults were converts who had to unlearn and relearn many doctrines. They were learning things which our children learn in Primary and Sunday School. Remarks were frequently impromptu. Close, friendly audiences frequently invited informal discussion of varied topics. There was occasional speculation about doctrines which have since been determined unimportant or even misleading.
The general membership of the Church has progressed in knowledge of gospel principles, which is as it should be. In our organizations, we have been taught the gospel for more than one hundred years now. Because of modern revelation and because of “line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept” progression, we have answers that were not yet given when the Journal of Discourses was published.
We also should be aware of priorities in our studies. It seems to me that we should first become very familiar with the four books of Scripture accepted as standard works. The words of our current living prophet are also most valuable for us in our time. The official statements of the First Presidency are standards for doctrine and practice in the Church. We should be familiar with the manuals and courses of study provided for us in our day. For further inspiration and instruction by the General Authorities, we can study general conference addresses, beginning with the most current and moving back in time.
Even after digesting these materials, some persons may still have time and inclination to peruse the Journal of Discourses. We can be grateful that records of the early sermons were kept to help us understand the growth of the Church and the testimonies of our early leaders. If we find the time to read them, however, we should avoid getting caught up in their uniqueness and should concentrate on the inspiring thoughts and experiences related to us by choice men.
Having taught seminary and institute classes for more than twenty years, I have tried to follow my own advice. Because I also love to read, I have read the scriptures many times, all of the general conference reports, and finally, all volumes of the Journal of Discourses.
Frankly, one of the main reasons I read the Journal of Discourses was so I could answer students’ questions about them with some knowledge of what they were about. Though I enjoyed reading them, gained some new insights, and was inspired by the spirit of the early brethren, except for the needs of students, there was no practical benefit that I could not have obtained from current conference talks with less effort, much greater clarity and more economy.
For me, the most pertinent discussion of gospel doctrines and answers to life’s problems and source of spiritual inspiration in today’s world comes from the standard works and our living prophets.**
lds.org/ensign/1978/08/i-have-a-question?lang=eng
I
invisible_man
Guest
Why do members of the Mormon threads keep quoting from the Journal of Discourses when they are not looked upon as LDS doctrine by Mormons? It seems dishonest to portray these discourses as doctrine to make a point.
- Status