As we have shown on a few other recent threads, direct comparison between Mormon prophets and popes is easily misleading, since the claim to being a prophet carries a higher degree of infallibility than papal claims do.
Possibly, and possibly not. Personally I take a much more nuanced view of it all. I guess it depends on the lengths to which one is willing to ascribe that supposed infallibility, and having been a Mormon for the first 23 years of my life and now being a (howbeit infantile) Catholic, I think I have a pretty decent grasp on the positions of the respective organizations concerning their figurehead
as well as the oft oversimplified external perception thereof.
It seems to me that there are far too many Mormons out there who think that with Papal Infallibility comes the incapacity to sin or pronounce any error in any of life’s paths. Similarly it has been my experience that far too many Catholics believe that Mormons revere their prophets
in the capacity of prophets 24/7. Both of these are wrong. As Catholics we know infallibility extends to only the sphere of faith and morals, and only applies when His Holiness is explicitly attempting to do so! Similarly, Latter-day Saints know that not everything that is uttered from the lips of the General Authorities is etched in stone gospel-worthy material (otherwise there’d be no use for the Church sponsored magazines or conference talks… everything spoken of would immediately be appended to the Doctrine and Covenants and made part of the Standard Works).
Now I
do think there’s a conversation to be had concerning the level of (one might say blind) devotion a Mormon pays to the words of his prophet versus the comparable level a Catholic pays to the words of his pope, though such a conversation would be seriously marred by gross subjectivity and thus would be doomed to a fate of childish bickering. Nonetheless, I do think the line between the actual prophetic words of the LDS GAs and their “mere mortal opinions” is much more blurred in Mormonism than they are in Catholicism (with respect to the words of a Pope or council of bishops). Still to this day I admit I don’t know how Mormons distinguish between a prophet’s “mere opinion” and his prophetic utterances, and to be certain I highly doubt any Mormon today really knows either. It seems to me all an active Mormon can do is “follow the prophet” in every and all aspects and hope later generations are easy in judging his character in hindsight. At least in Catholicism we have what appears to many to be a form of extreme legalism, but in reality is a secure protocol, if you will, by which earnest members of the Church (through a properly informed conscience, and possibly a little bit of theology up their sleeves) may judge and determine the level of authority magesterial documents possess.
Having said that, you make a good point here.
Nota bene: The bit on slavery that you quote is often taken out of context. When it is says “this form of slavery” it refers not to the racial slavery familiar to us, but to another circumstance called “just title servitude.” What it really means is what we would refer to as indenture, as when, in earlier America, immigrants would pay their way by signing on to work for an employer for a set amount of years. Think of Jacob and Laban and you understand the sense of “slavery” the pope has in mind. This is a very important distinction to remember when reading about Biblical slavery, because the word “slave” is not univocal; people often misunderstand it by importing modern assumptions about what “slavery” designates.
Thank you, but I was well aware of the type of slavery spoken of. No matter the case,
all forms of slavery are considered reprehensible to our 21st century sensibilities and even this biblically sanctioned form has since been condemned by the Church during the 2nd Vatican Council (one of many contentions held by many Sedevecantists and other extreme Traditionalists). My point was that even when it comes to some of our own (howbeit NON-infallible) papal pronouncements of faith and morals, the contemporary church has changed course and actually distanced itself from those previous teachings.
Edited to add:
I feel compelled to mention that my own personal opinion of Brigham Young is that he was a power hungry, evil racist, and I cannot think of any Pope in history who has “taught” so much alleged “error” and has needed “future correcting” as he, so in this fashion I agree with you that the comparison of him to papal errors doesn’t work well
tit for tat. Hell, I cannot even think of any other LDS GA who could fit the bill for that matter. He certainly is a strange outlier in the list of LDS First Presidents.
