LDS Revelations

[TexanKnight]

We believe that God is the Creator of all things, as well.

No… in the temple ceremony, Jesus and Michael created the earth.

In many ways, yes. In some ways, no. I have no problem with honest disagreement with beliefs we actually hold. I have a problem with strawman arguments. I would prefer to talk about what our beliefs actually are, y’know?

Therein lies the rub. What are they? They change all the time. I can show you, and have shown, the teachings of YOUR prophets…but now the teachings are unknown and/or rejected. I have a real problem with alleged prophets speaking to God and then what God told them is later rejected when it is proven they are wrong. Either they are prophets, or they are not. And if they are, their teachings should be valid. Adam/God, anyone?

 

[LivingWaters7]

I would appreciate a response to this post:

Did prophets like Moses, Noah, and Abraham need to have their revelations confirmed by others before they were accepted as such? Aren’t LDS prophets claimed to be prophets like them?

As to the continuing off-topic discussion, this will be my last post on that, since it is nothing more than a distraction, and a derailing of this thread:

I think that everyone would agree that the best person to go to to learn the beliefs of any faith is a believer of that faith, including the authoritative sources of that faith. However, the arguments being advanced by dianaiad to dismiss out of hand the two articles I posted completely miss the point. In religious discussions, we all have different perspectives and viewpoint, whether on our own faith or others that we are interested in. When I was in college, I took a course on Hindu theology offered by a non-Hindu professor. There are plenty of examples of such things around the world. In addition to presenting Hindu teaching from Hindu sources, he also presented his own thoughts on various Hindu practices and beliefs (he has written multiple books on the subject).

The point is that I value all perspectives on all things, as they add to my own perspective. I never dismiss out of hand writings by non-Catholics about Catholicism, whether positive or critical, and have found that they add to my own personal understanding of Catholicism, as well as where others are coming from in their view of the Catholic faith (again, whether positive or negative). Amusingly, there are plenty of LDS examples of LDS attempting to expound on orthodox Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity, infant baptism, baptism by pouring, Evangelical belief in faith alone, sola scriptura, etc, usually in the context of the supposed great apostasy, and why these doctrines are wrong. “Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest” is certainly not unique in doing such things, and I own a large number of these books, as well as various articles put out by LDS-related organizations. This often occurs in official LDS church settings as well, such as General Conference or CES devotionals.

dianaiad says:

If I am going to be a critic of a religion, I’ll use sources from the religion. If I am going to comment about Catholic law or doctrine, I will go to canon law or the catechism; I won’t go to a third party to have it tell me where to look.

That is exactly what the author of the two articles did. He clearly cites LDS sources in advancing his own [critical] perspective on an LDS teaching. The reason why I posted the two articles is not because they are an articulation of LDS beliefs, but because they are a perspective on an LDS teaching that I agree with, and I would like the thoughts of others on that perspective, whether LDS or not. Dianaiad’s continued posturing on this frankly is not logical, and even more, is not relevant. We all have perspectives on all things, and such articles (more like blog posts) are not offered as authoritative pronouncements on what LDS believe over the LDS website or official LDS publications, but are offered as a viewpoint on an LDS belief, a viewpoint which I happen to agree with, and instead of posting a long post about it (which I hope dianaiad wouldn’t disagree with), I posted two articles that I believe give my view (which obviously accomplishes the same thing as if I did post a long post saying the same thing). I fail to see any valid criticism of such a thing.

I will note that many posts have been spent attempting to cast doubt on a person (which is off topic), and none have been spent actually addressing the content of the two articles (which is on topic).

Can we get back to the actual topic of the thread or not?

 

[iepuras]

That would be post #61.
The problem is, and it’s something I’ve found everywhere and with every viewpoint, that the non-member ‘critique’ of religion is almost always a strawman. They claim a viewpoint, or a doctrine, for the target system and attack that, and nine times out of ten they are attacking something that is either misrepresented or downright wrong.

Now…why should anybody have to defend positions they don’t actually hold? Because that’s what happens: there are all these attacks against beliefs and positions that aren’t actually a part of the belief system. The conversation generally goes “we ACTUALLY believe this…” “NO you don’t, You believe THAT and it’s evil/apostate/wrong!”…at which point the conversation goes downhill. The other option is that the reader, seeing the strawman, simply refuses to participate and the critic will crow “you aren’t answering…see, I’m right and I win!”

I don’t see a real upside to things for the apologist, when the critic gets his information from an untrustworthy source.

…and yes, I would call an LDS source claiming to teach the doctrines of another faith ‘untrustworthy.’

And you’d get yourself in a lot of trouble that way. You remember the old advertisement about the Republicans 'throwing Granny off the cliff?" THAT was the Democrat party giving you information about the Republicans. I have seen Republican ads that make Democrats look like evil incarnate.

I would go to the Democrats to find out what their platform is, go to the Republicans to fins out what there platform is, and not ask either one about the ‘platform’ of the other.
Of course, politics isn’t an exact match here, because political parties are supposed to be contending with each other for power. Religions aren’t supposed to be doing that. As well, with religion, it’s not really a case of finding new information about a new situation, politically, and choosing sides. Everybody already HAS ‘a side’ in religion; his own. Even if that ‘side’ is pretty nebulous, everybody already has an opinion about deity and religion.

…and everybody is quite capable of comparing what a belief system has to say for itself with his own beliefs, and making up his own mind.

Let’s try another imperfect analogy. When you go to buy a car, do you only talk to the car dealer or manufacturer for information? If you do, that is very unwise. One should also gather information from 3rd party sources - Edmunds, Kelly Blue Book, Consumer Reports, etc. Instead of only looking at Fords, one should also look at Chevy, Toyota, Honda, etc. Kick the tires. Talk to mechanics who have experience as to which cars they see all the time for repairs. The ultimate questions are “Is the car as good as the manufacturer claims it to be? And is it the best compared to others?” Sorry, but when I looked at Catholicism, I got a lot of information from Catholic sources, but I also looked at Orthodox and Protestant arguments and determined that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus Christ. And actually, before I even got to Christianity, I looked at the arguments for and against the existence of God and whether or not Jesus is God.

I have only been on this forum for about a year, but one of the things I have noticed is that some Mormon posters claim that we are beating a straw man rather than criticizing actual teachings and beliefs of Mormon prophets and the LDS church. The reality is that we actually are criticizing the actual teachings and beliefs of actual Mormon prophets and the LDS church, while these Mormon posters point to their straw man and claim that we should be beating the straw man.

Either Mormon prophets are real prophets of God or they are not. If they really are prophets of God as Mormons claim, then Mormons should stand by their prophets’ teachings rather than simply claim the prophets were speaking as men as soon as those teachings are embarassing or inconvenient. Brigham Young and other Mormon prophets were speaking as prophets (and even said so) before 1978 when they said really horrible things about blacks. Now that these prophetic statements are embarassing and inconvenient, the prophets are simply “speaking as men”.

I am not a prophet, but here is my prediction of what will happen when women are ordained to the LDS priesthood. All of the LDS prophets and apostles who are speaking as prophets today when they state that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood and that is it not part of God’s plan for them will all be thrown under the bus. Future Mormons will say that they were simply speaking as men and not as prophets.

 

[dianaiad]

Let’s try another imperfect analogy. When you go to buy a car, do you only talk to the car dealer or manufacturer for information? If you do, that is very unwise. One should also gather information from 3rd party sources - Edmunds, Kelly Blue Book, Consumer Reports, etc. Instead of only looking at Fords, one should also look at Chevy, Toyota, Honda, etc. Kick the tires. Talk to mechanics who have experience as to which cars they see all the time for repairs.

You are absolutely correct; this IS an imperfect analogy. When you buy a car, you can go to third party analysts because they don’t have a ‘dog in the hunt.’ They may have personal preferences for their own vehicles, but their eternal salvations aren’t on the line there, and if some other manufacturer does a better job, mechanically, there is no social or familial…or eternal…consequence to the change. In other words, it’s possible to be objective about a car.

It is NOT possible to be objective about a religion.

The ultimate questions are “Is the car as good as the manufacturer claims it to be? And is it the best compared to others?” Sorry, but when I looked at Catholicism, I got a lot of information from Catholic sources, but I also looked at Orthodox and Protestant arguments and determined that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus Christ. And actually, before I even got to Christianity, I looked at the arguments for and against the existence of God and whether or not Jesus is God.

I have only been on this forum for about a year, but one of the things I have noticed is that some Mormon posters claim that we are beating a straw man rather than criticizing actual teachings and beliefs of Mormon prophets and the LDS church.

I dunno, but…if that many Mormons are telling you that, could it be because, well, you ARE 'beating a strawman rather than criticizing actual teachings and beliefs of Mormon prophets and the LDS church?"

Just a thought.

The reality is that we actually are criticizing the actual teachings and beliefs of actual Mormon prophets and the LDS church, while these Mormon posters point to their straw man and claim that we should be beating the straw man.

I see. So you have a lot of Mormons who all claim to know what their beliefs are better than you, a non-Mormon, do. How dare they.

Either Mormon prophets are real prophets of God or they are not. If they really are prophets of God as Mormons claim, then Mormons should stand by their prophets’ teachings rather than simply claim the prophets were speaking as men as soon as those teachings are embarassing or inconvenient. Brigham Young and other Mormon prophets were speaking as prophets (and even said so) before 1978 when they said really horrible things about blacks.

Really? Could you provide the references for this, including the context, where this happened…where any of them claimed that God told them this thing or that thing about blacks?

Oh, and while you are at it, could you show us where those things occur in publications that Mormons consider to be scripture? Thank you.

Now that these prophetic statements are embarassing and inconvenient, the prophets are simply “speaking as men”.

Actually, that’s the strawman right there. YOU don’t get to decide for us when a prophet is speaking as a prophet or not. We get to tell you when we think he is. For Mormons, that’s pretty easy to identify, actually: if it’s in a book we accept as scripture, then we consider the writers to have been acting in their role as prophets. If it isn’t, they MAY have been…but then again they may not have been. The point is, you don’t get to decide which in order to accuse us of changing our minds. We get to do that deciding. And we get to tell you. THEN, of course, you can criticize all you want to; at least you’ll be criticizing something that actually exists.

I am not a prophet, but here is my prediction of what will happen when women are ordained to the LDS priesthood.

Tell me; are women going to be ordained to the priesthood in the Catholic church?

May I make a prediction of what will happen when they are?

All of the LDS prophets and apostles who are speaking as prophets today when they state that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood and that is it not part of God’s plan for them will all be thrown under the bus. Future Mormons will say that they were simply speaking as men and not as prophets.

Now that is about as classic a case of begging the question as I’ve ever seen. You can make those sorts of predictions all you want to, and feel all comfortable and justified in them, but…women aren’t going to be ordained to the priesthood. We don’t need it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There is a difference between what all churches teach and what its members believe. Mormonism particularly has no orthodoxy, right belief, so inquiring into Mormonism via its adherents will result in a wide range of beliefs. Each Mormon poster here expresses their personal belief, which may or may not reflect a majority of what every Mormon believes.

So, back to the OP, and Mormon beliefs regarding revelation, the ONLY orthodoxy in Mormonism is that Mormon leaders are prophet, seers, and revelators. What an individual Mormon believes about this will have a wide range.

As an example, “Thus saith the Lord” is believed by some Mormons to be the test for prophetic teachings. Other Mormons will point to Mormon leaders who have specifically said that this is not the test for determining prophetic announcements.



Pointless to argue with a single Mormon, as any single Mormon is expressing their personal belief. Whether or not a personal belief aligns to what every Mormon leader has taught can of course be argued.

Mormons argue what constitutes official revelation among themselves, and have no agreement from person to person.

 

[TexanKnight]

Actually, that’s the strawman right there. YOU don’t get to decide for us when a prophet is speaking as a prophet or not. We get to tell you when we think he is. For Mormons, that’s pretty easy to identify, actually: if it’s in a book we accept as scripture, then we consider the writers to have been acting in their role as prophets. If it isn’t, they MAY have been…but then again they may not have been. The point is, you don’t get to decide which in order to accuse us of changing our minds. We get to do that deciding. And we get to tell you. THEN, of course, you can criticize all you want to; at least you’ll be criticizing something that actually exists.

I see. So when Brigham said he was giving scripture, YOU know better than him? Interesting. We are not allowed to know better than you (even though I was a Mormon) but YOU are allowed to know better than Brigham. Let me ask you this…since you claim only Mormons can determine when a prophet speaks as a prophet, does the fact I was once Mormon give me that right if I tell you what I believed and was taught WHEN I WAS MORMON?

 

[dianaiad]

There is a difference between what all churches teach and what its members believe. Mormonism particularly has no orthodoxy, right belief, so inquiring into Mormonism via its adherents will result in a wide range of beliefs. Each Mormon poster here expresses their personal belief, which may or may not reflect a majority of what every Mormon believes.

So, back to the OP, and Mormon beliefs regarding revelation, the ONLY orthodoxy in Mormonism is that Mormon leaders are prophet, seers, and revelators. What an individual Mormon believes about this will have a wide range.

As an example, “Thus saith the Lord” is believed by some Mormons to be the test for prophetic teachings. Other Mormons will point to Mormon leaders who have specifically said that this is not the test for determining prophetic announcements.



Pointless to argue with a single Mormon, as any single Mormon is expressing their personal belief. Whether or not a personal belief aligns to what every Mormon leader has taught can of course be argued.

Mormons argue what constitutes official revelation among themselves, and have no agreement from person to person.

The church is entirely made up of 'single Mormons."

Indeed, in my experience, every church is made up of ‘singles,’ in that everybody has their own take on things. Even Catholicism.

Personally, I think that means that one should, when getting into a conversation with a member of a different faith, you should deal with what that person believes. There is nothing more insulting and irritating than to be told ‘you REALLY believe’ something, or 'your church teaches" if that other person has a different opinion of what his ‘church teaches.’

After all, if you are attempting to lead others to truth, you have to go from where they actually are, not from where someone’s preacher’s neice’s babysitter told you they ‘really’ are.

The problem here, as far as my experience goes, is that when non and anti folks get told that they are incorrect about what a belief actually is, that they don’t want to deal with it. They don’t like their perceptions changed…and frankly, that’s their problem, not mine. I know what my beliefs are. Really. I do.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The church is entirely made up of 'single Mormons."

Indeed, in my experience, every church is made up of ‘singles,’ in that everybody has their own take on things. Even Catholicism.

Personally, I think that means that one should, when getting into a conversation with a member of a different faith, you should deal with what that person believes. There is nothing more insulting and irritating than to be told ‘you REALLY believe’ something, or 'your church teaches" if that other person has a different opinion of what his ‘church teaches.’

After all, if you are attempting to lead others to truth, you have to go from where they actually are, not from where someone’s preacher’s neice’s babysitter told you they ‘really’ are.

The problem here, as far as my experience goes, is that when non and anti folks get told that they are incorrect about what a belief actually is, that they don’t want to deal with it. They don’t like their perceptions changed…and frankly, that’s their problem, not mine. I know what my beliefs are. Really. I do.

I don’t disagree. I also don’t disagree with getting information from non or anti sources. Both can be taken into account and weighed against what an actual church teaches.

BTW, welcome back.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Also, in Catholic to Mormon dialogue, there is a different approach to truth. For Catholics, truth is unchanging, and circumstance doesn’t change what is true or not. Catholics are not pragmatic in the approach to truth. Doctrines cannot change because truth cannot change.

Mormonism is pragmatic, doctrines can change according to what is perceived as true today but not true 100 years ago.

So one Mormon leader to the next can and does teach different things, and it is perceived as aligning to what is true today.

For example, it is true today that all worthy Mormon males can be ordained, while this wasn’t true 40 years ago. It’s works, on the surface, for a pragmatic view of truth that changes with circumstance.

Catholic arguments mainly boil down to, truth, like God, because truth is from God and God is truth, does not change. Mormons hold no belief that God does not change, but specifically believe that God does change and must change in order to continue progressing.

The two beliefs have no meeting point, and the best there is (short of conversion), is to understand where the other person is coming from, and then agree to disagree.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Actually, that’s the strawman right there. YOU don’t get to decide for us when a prophet is speaking as a prophet or not. We get to tell you when we think he is. For Mormons, that’s pretty easy to identify, actually: if it’s in a book we accept as scripture, then we consider the writers to have been acting in their role as prophets. If it isn’t, they MAY have been…but then again they may not have been.

Can you please point to an official LDS source on where this standard is defined? Thanks.

 

[LivingWaters7]

?

Did prophets like Moses, Noah, and Abraham need to have their revelations confirmed by others before they were accepted as such? Aren’t LDS prophets claimed to be prophets like them?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Can you please point to an official LDS source on where this standard is defined? Thanks.

Ha, yes, the Mormon doctrine on what is doctrine…good luck with that one!

 

[zaffiroborant]

I cannot, of course, deny your perceptions and your experiences. They are what they are. I can only say that, as a 'True Believing Mormon" of 65 years, I have never come across an example of this sort of anti-other religion bashing that was NOT immediately squashed.

Will new converts bash their old religion? Sure. That’s what their old religion taught them to do to Mormons and others. However, they don’t do it more than once in public, because as soon as they try it, they get told to cut that sort of thing out.

BTW, I was a missionary myself and my daughter was. I am very familiar with what missionaries are supposed to be doing, and what they DO actually do.

Your description of what LDS missionaries do is incorrect. True, that description (in my experience, anyway) applies to the Baptists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses that come to my door, and to pretty much every fundamentalist who has ever discovered that I’m a Mormon. The conversation instantly turns to 'what’s wrong with Mormonism." It took me years to find out what some of 'em actually believe when ‘they are at home,’ because when they talk to me, they define their beliefs by what they think mine are. You know “You believe this and that and we don’t.” Which, I suppose, would be fine if I actually DID believe ‘this and that,’ and in most cases, I don’t.

Which makes the whole experience fairly useless.

My missionary experiences seem to be standard: we explain what we believe. We figure that the non-member already knows what his or her beliefs are much better than we ever could; they can compare what we say to what they believe and make up their own minds.

I have never been in, nor do I remember any conversations about, LDS missionaries going in and bashing other religions before teaching ours. That’s not only useless, it’s counter productive. There’s no time.

I have experience on the receiving end of LDS missionaries, and it is what I describe. People must believe in the great apostasy or there is no reason to join, in order to prove this apostasy and get someone to convert you need to show how other churches are wrong. That other churches are wrong, that their creeds are an abomination is part of your beliefs, part of your canonized writings.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The whole point of a religion or any other group is for like minded people, or people who believe in the same things, to be together in fellowship. If you don’t agree with the things the group does, you don’t belong in the group.

I don’t think this is the point to religion, certainly not the point to the Catholic church.

 

[dianaiad]

Also, in Catholic to Mormon dialogue, there is a different approach to truth. For Catholics, truth is unchanging, and circumstance doesn’t change what is true or not. Catholics are not pragmatic in the approach to truth. Doctrines cannot change because truth cannot change.

Mormonism is pragmatic, doctrines can change according to what is perceived as true today but not true 100 years ago.

So one Mormon leader to the next can and does teach different things, and it is perceived as aligning to what is true today.

For example, it is true today that all worthy Mormon males can be ordained, while this wasn’t true 40 years ago. It’s works, on the surface, for a pragmatic view of truth that changes with circumstance.

Catholic arguments mainly boil down to, truth, like God, because truth is from God and God is truth, does not change. Mormons hold no belief that God does not change, but specifically believe that God does change and must change in order to continue progressing.

The two beliefs have no meeting point, and the best there is (short of conversion), is to understand where the other person is coming from, and then agree to disagree.

…and yet the Catholic church allowed clergy to marry until 1139, at the Second Lateran Council, and in the Americas no black held the priesthood until Father Tolton in 1886, and he had to be ordained in Rome (the Father’s Healy were mixed race, and ‘passed’ as Irish when they were ordained in 1854 and 1964, respectively). Now the Catholics had been in the Americas for…oh…close to three hundred years by that time.

The Mormons ordained a black man, Elijah Abel, to the priesthood in 1836, and Walker Lewis was ordained in 1843. No black man was ordained again until 1978, a time lag of, what… 134 years. Less than half the time it took you guys to do the same thing.

One difference…a rather big one, at least to me, is the reception of the resumption/beginning of black men to the priesthood: with us, it was instant and greeted with joy. We already have at least two black men who are in the line to be in the Quorum of the Twelve, which means that we could quite easily have a black man as President of the church within the next twenty to thirty years, and it won’t even cause a ripple.

When was the last time y’all had a black pope? What happened to Father Tolton? HOW long did it take to begin ordaining black Americans to the priesthood? Does the priesthood, after over a hundred and fifty years since Father Tolton was ordained, evenly represent the black Catholic population?

Actually…er…it doesn’t even come close. According to the National Black Catholic Congress, Catholics of African Descent account for 25% of all Catholics, world wide…though according to the National Catholic Register, only 3% of Americans are black Catholics.

I can’t seem to find decent (read…Catholic sources) statistics on the percentage of black Catholic priests in the clergy world wide, though I strongly suspect it is much higher than in the USA, but here there are only 250 black priests among the 40,000 priests. That’s .6%. Not “six percent,” but POINT six percent. If the black catholic priesthood were to match the black catholic population, there should be 1200 black Catholic priests, not 250.

Why am I pointing all this out?

I honor the Catholic church greatly for its longstanding fight for equality, but it has been a fight, and you are still fighting it. We simply fixed it, and it remains fixed. No fighting, no demonstrations, no problems with representative numbers; it’s fixed. I don’t know how other Mormons as humans react, but for my family, at least, it was considered a completely done deal; ‘mixed’ marriages (we don’t consider them ‘mixed,’ they are just marriages) are common with us.

You claim that the Catholic church never changes in terms of the priesthood…I just showed you two pretty big ones, and in the same category as the change you criticize in us.

Again, I am not criticizing Catholicism for this; you are all fighting the good fight. I am only pointing out the inconsistency in your criticism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

…and yet the Catholic church allowed clergy to marry until 1139, at the Second Lateran Council, and in the Americas no black held the priesthood until Father Tolton in 1886, and he had to be ordained in Rome (the Father’s Healy were mixed race, and ‘passed’ as Irish when they were ordained in 1854 and 1964, respectively). Now the Catholics had been in the Americas for…oh…close to three hundred years by that time.

The Mormons ordained a black man, Elijah Abel, to the priesthood in 1836, and Walker Lewis was ordained in 1843. No black man was ordained again until 1978, a time lag of, what… 134 years. Less than half the time it took you guys to do the same thing.

One difference…a rather big one, at least to me, is the reception of the resumption/beginning of black men to the priesthood: with us, it was instant and greeted with joy. We already have at least two black men who are in the line to be in the Quorum of the Twelve, which means that we could quite easily have a black man as President of the church within the next twenty to thirty years, and it won’t even cause a ripple.

When was the last time y’all had a black pope? What happened to Father Tolton? HOW long did it take to begin ordaining black Americans to the priesthood? Does the priesthood, after over a hundred and fifty years since Father Tolton was ordained, evenly represent the black Catholic population?

Actually…er…it doesn’t even come close. According to the National Black Catholic Congress, Catholics of African Descent account for 25% of all Catholics, world wide…though according to the National Catholic Register, only 3% of Americans are black Catholics.

I can’t seem to find decent (read…Catholic sources) statistics on the percentage of black Catholic priests in the clergy world wide, though I strongly suspect it is much higher than in the USA, but here there are only 250 black priests among the 40,000 priests. That’s .6%. Not “six percent,” but POINT six percent. If the black catholic priesthood were to match the black catholic population, there should be 1200 black Catholic priests, not 250.

Why am I pointing all this out?

Two reasons: mote and beam. you do not have the right to criticize us for our race relations, or for our ‘pragmatism,’ when, if ‘truth is truth,’ you would HAVE 1200 black priests in the USA and you would have had black priests from the time Catholics got here.

You don’t, and you didn’t.

While you are making great strides in this, and I absolutely honor the Catholic church for it’s fight against slavery and for equality, the fact is…Mormons had a problem for 150 years or so, and when we fixed it, it was fixed completely. You may have a problem with how it was done, but it was done, and it worked.

When you can introduce me to Father somebody, 1200 African American priest, then I’ll figure you have some standing in the race thing. Until then?

Not so much.

Like I said, come to an understanding. You’re not there yet, regarding Catholic understanding of revelation, truth, and doctrine. And as far as I can tell, haven’t tried to, otherwise, you wouldn’t be making the exact same arguments you were four years ago, which were addressed then.

Keep on keepin’ on.

 

[dianaiad]

Like I said, come to an understanding. You’re not there yet, regarding Catholic understanding of revelation, truth, and doctrine. And as far as I can tell, haven’t tried to, otherwise, you wouldn’t be making the exact same arguments you were four years ago, which were addressed then.

Keep on keepin’ on.

You can look at this two ways: first, that I don’t think they were addressed then, and second, that it HAS benn four years. I’d like to see if those points can be addressed any better now.

After all, if I thought they had been ‘addressed then,’ I wouldn’t bring them up now, would I?

BTW, I HAVE asked that someone show me the prophecy, the revelation, where one of our prophets/leaders said "God told me’ that blacks could not hold the priesthood, and where, in our scriptures, this could be found.

Because THAT is the ultimate test. Again, you don’t get to tell me when I have to see a statement by a prophet as 'in his role as prophet, seer and revelator." We get to tell you.

Really. Just like you get to tell me when something a Pope says is infallible and when it’s not, when something is scripture for you and when it’s not.

 

[TexanKnight]

…and yet the Catholic church allowed clergy to marry until 1139, at the Second Lateran Council, and in the Americas no black held the priesthood until Father Tolton in 1886, and he had to be ordained in Rome (the Father’s Healy were mixed race, and ‘passed’ as Irish when they were ordained in 1854 and 1964, respectively). Now the Catholics had been in the Americas for…oh…close to three hundred years by that time.

So? Red herring! We do not have prophets. You do. To compare them is fallacious. Now admit your prophets are not prophets and we can compare all day.

The Mormons ordained a black man, Elijah Abel, to the priesthood in 1836, and Walker Lewis was ordained in 1843. No black man was ordained again until 1978, a time lag of, what… 134 years. Less than half the time it took you guys to do the same thing.

Really…want me to post the horrible things your prophets said about blacks?

One difference…a rather big one, at least to me, is the reception of the resumption/beginning of black men to the priesthood: with us, it was instant and greeted with joy. We already have at least two black men who are in the line to be in the Quorum of the Twelve, which means that we could quite easily have a black man as President of the church within the next twenty to thirty years, and it won’t even cause a ripple.

Ah…so you ADMIT your leaders are not prophets! I say that, because I want to make sure you are being intellectually honest and comparing apples to apples.

 

[Stephen168]

Like I said, come to an understanding. You’re not there yet, regarding Catholic understanding of revelation, truth, and doctrine. And as far as I can tell, haven’t tried to, otherwise, you wouldn’t be making the exact same arguments you were four years ago, which were addressed then.

Keep on keepin’ on.

Exactly as I said earlier.

 

[TexanKnight]

ok…Popes are not Prophets. They do NOT talk to God face to face like LDS Prophets have claimed to do.

Here are quotes from the mouthpieces of God!

Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805 – 1844):

“I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall… the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible… And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it [slavery] remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude.” - Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 2, p. 438;

“Thirteenth – ‘Are the Mormons abolitionists?’ No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the negroes free.” - Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v.3, p. 29

“You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham.”

• Prophet Brigham Young, New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p. 56

“The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction, - we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed.” - Prophet Brigham Young, Brigham Young Addresses, Feb. 5, 1852, LDS historical department

“Cain slew his brother… and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and tehn another curse is pronounced upon the same race – that they should be the ‘servant of servants,’ and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.”- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, pp. 290-291

“Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. He has placed life and death before his children, and it is for them to choose. If they choose life, they receive the blessings of life; if they chose death, they must abide the penalty. This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come.” - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 272