LDS Revelations

[dianaiad]

…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.

You have Popes who, you claim, are being guided by the Holy Spirit and who, when they are acting in their role as Pope, are infallible. The only difference is the name, and frankly, a dog by any other name still barks and wags its tail.

A prophet, to us, is someone who receives revelation and guidance for the world from God. A man whose proclamations to the world are considered infallible because God ensures it definitely fits that category, at least to me.

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.

Would you like me to return the favor? Trust me on this one. You don’t. Do I deny that some of our leaders have said some nasty things about blacks? Nope. I will note, however, that none of them supported slavery or the buying and selling of humans; JS ran for president on an abolitionist ticket.

What I do have a problem with is your insistence that everything any of our leaders have ever said HAS to be taken as ‘the word of God’ when WE don’t. Our leaders have not been perfect. Yours haven’t.

Come to think of it, the bible has made it pretty clear that none of the prophets described therein were perfect. It makes quite a production of letting us know that they had flaws, come to think of it; if more than a verse or two is devoted to the teachings of a prophet in the Old or New testament, his humanity…his flaws…are also mentioned. Some of those flaws were pretty major, too. One would think the bible writers thought it was important for us to remember, and understand, that prophets were fallible human beings.

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.

Texanknight, where in the above could you POSSIBLY get the idea that I ‘admit’ any such thing?

(edited to fix my goofs with the quotes)

 

[TexanKnight]

because, for you to compare, means you agree they are the same. Since the Popes do not claim to be prophets…and you know that, then you, by your actions, are putting them on the same level in order to compare

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Diana, maybe you forgot I was LDS before 1978, when we were taught that the priesthood ban was based on revelation from God. I know you were taught the same thing, so why pretend?

NOW, the Mormon church teaches that isn’t the case, but that is NOT what it taught before the change in 1978. I have no quarrel that you believe what your church teaches. Personally, I don’t see this as an example of revelation, but I haven’t found any example of revelation in Mormonism.

Maybe Mormonism keeps you from understanding Catholic teaching?

 

[Stephen168]

Maybe Mormonism keeps you from understanding Catholic teaching?

I’ve always thought it was a blind irrational hate for the Catholic Church, which she has invented in your mind, combined with being a Mormon which can not be defended.

Her only defense of Mormonism is to bash what she believes is Catholicism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’ve always thought it was a blind irrational hate for the Catholic Church, which she has invented in your mind, combined with being a Mormon which can not be defended.

Her only defense of Mormonism is to bash what she believes is Catholicism.

Diana can speak for herself, but I surmise she sees it as hypocrisy, as she views Catholicism the same as Mormonism. There is no recognition of something different, even when we explain the differences in doctrines, beliefs, approaches, etc. ten times in ten ways.

We do have similarities, but the nuances are not being understood.

 

[dianaiad]

because, for you to compare, means you agree they are the same. Since the Popes do not claim to be prophets…and you know that, then you, by your actions, are putting them on the same level in order to compare

Labels are all very nice, but they aren’t really helpful. What is helpful is the definition.

What is a prophet, to us?

Someone who receives revelation in order to publicly guide the world.
Sometimes a prophet prophecies the future. Sometimes he doesn’t.

However, his role and purpose is to guide the church (and the world, if it listens) through the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and through revelation.

Are you telling me that the Catholic church does not claim this as the role of the Pope, especially when making declarations that the church considers to be infallible?

It doesn’t matter what label you PUT on the above description; you could call someone who does this a ceiling tile, if you want to, but if the purpose and role of your definition of ‘ceiling tile’ and my definition of ‘prophet’ is the same, then ‘ceiling tile’ and ‘prophet’ would be synonyms.

However, if it makes you feel better, we can use the definition rather than the short form.

We believe that our leaders, when acting in their positions as ‘prophet, seers and revelators’ may receive inspiriation and revelation in declaring that some point of doctrine or belief is true. The Holy Ghost guides them.

From Catholic Answers regarding Papal Infallibility:

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.

In other words, (and if I get this wrong, please correct me) when the pope…along with all the bishops…makes a declaration regarding a specific doctrine and belief, God will see to it that it is absolutely correct: irreformable…infallible. God will not allow the pope to say anything wrong in this matter…it’s settled.

I don’t know about you, but that’s ‘revelation.’ At least, to me it is. So why criticize us for claiming what you claim for yourselves?

Yes, I can understand an argument that the Mormons cannot have prophets because they are not prophets, or are wrong, or something…

but an argument that they cannot be prophets because there aren’t any and God ‘doesn’t do that’ any more? No, that I won’t grant…not from a Catholic, not when Catholicism is all about God still guiding the church and revealing things to people.

You guys know better. You KNOW that God is still ‘doing that.’ For Catholics, then, the question isn’t whether there is revelation; the question is who’s getting the revelation…you, or us, or someone else?

It’s why, if I ever came to believe that Mormonism isn’t true, I’d head straight for the nearest catechism class.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, maybe you forgot I was LDS before 1978, when we were taught that the priesthood ban was based on revelation from God. I know you were taught the same thing, so why pretend?

NOW, the Mormon church teaches that isn’t the case, but that is NOT what it taught before the change in 1978. I have no quarrel that you believe what your church teaches. Personally, I don’t see this as an example of revelation, but I haven’t found any example of revelation in Mormonism.

Maybe Mormonism keeps you from understanding Catholic teaching?

I repeat; please show me the references. I was not only a member before 1978, I was a MISSIONARY before 1978 and had to explain this to people. It wasn’t easy. Indeed, I couldn’t ever find anything, and it was a big problem for me.

So again. References, please?

 

[Marie5890]

My points to the “ban” on the priesthood in Mormonism.

It was a widely held belief that blacks were banned in holding the priesthood AND admittance to the temple based on a lack of being valient in the pre-existance.

Yes or no , Diana? Was this a widely held belief amongst the lay LDS faithful (not even going to quote whether or not LDS leadership expressed such views. We know they did. Doctrine or not, it WAS a widely held belief. And yes, the upper LDS leadership expressed such beliefs.

The Official Declaration #2 ended that ban.
If God never intended the ban on blacks and the priesthood…Why did it take until 1978? In Smith’s time there were some blacks who were ordained. SO which “prophet” post Smith screwed up what Smith, THE PROPHET of this dispensation had already put forth…

Mormons practices are hapharzard at best. Who in the world knows what to believe and when, based on which man is the “president” at any given time…

There is little continuity.

 

[dianaiad]

I’ve always thought it was a blind irrational hate for the Catholic Church, which she has invented in your mind, combined with being a Mormon which can not be defended.

Her only defense of Mormonism is to bash what she believes is Catholicism.

Please show me any reference; any post from me, which ‘bashes’ Catholicism.
Please show me any reference, any post from me, which presents Catholic doctrine incorrectly…and if you can find one, and I can’t show you where I took correction immediately, I’ll humbly apologize right here.

 

[dianaiad]

My points to the “ban” on the priesthood in Mormonism.

It was a widely held belief that blacks were banned in holding the priesthood AND admittance to the temple based on a lack of being valient in the pre-existance.

Yes or no , Diana? Was this a widely held belief amongst the lay LDS faithful (not even going to quote whether or not LDS leadership expressed such views. We know they did. Doctrine or not, it WAS a widely held belief. And yes, the upper LDS leadership expressed such beliefs.

Yes, it was a widely held belief. That didn’t mean that this widely held belief was supported by revelation. THAT is what I have been asking for, y’know.

The Official Declaration #2 ended that ban.
If God never intended the ban on blacks and the priesthood…Why did it take until 1978? In Smith’s time there were some blacks who were ordained. SO which “prophet” post Smith screwed up what Smith, THE PROPHET of this dispensation had already put forth…

Brigham Young did. He did have his flaws. Buckling under to common cultural ideas in this matter, evidently, was one of them.

Mormons practices are hapharzard at best. Who in the world knows what to believe and when, based on which man is the “president” at any given time…

There is little continuity.

Odd, I don’t have a problem with it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Not all revelations can be called prophecy. The guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the Church, and in our lives, is a type of revelation, but it is not prophecy.

Prophecy is a specific type of revelation, and some Popes have indeed made prophetic statements, as have, Catholic Saints who are not Popes. The gift of prophecy is not required to be a Pope, and a Pope who does not have the gift of prophecy is not considered to be an illegitimate Pope. The Pope, and all of our Bishops, are given extra gifts of the Holy Spirit, that are for the purpose of guiding the Church. Some may be given the gift of prophecy for this purpose, but we don’t believe that prophecy is the only gift of the Holy Spirit.

Prophetic statements can present future knowledge, or present a mystical knowledge of the present that can’t be known or acquired via human faculties of learning, observation or deduction. Prophets can be tested, to determine if they are in fact prophesying, or giving an opinion based on what has been deduced, observed or learned via human faculties. Scripture encourages us to test anyone who is proclaiming a prophetic gift, as, anyone can claim the gift of prophecy. Just because someone says they are a prophet, doesn’t mean they are a prophet.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I repeat; please show me the references. I was not only a member before 1978, I was a MISSIONARY before 1978 and had to explain this to people. It wasn’t easy. Indeed, I couldn’t ever find anything, and it was a big problem for me.

So again. References, please?

Diana, I don’t have the intention of bashing your own so-called prophet’s teachings over your head. I’m sure you’ve seen and read them multiple times.

You and I were taught that the priesthood ban was revealed by God to his prophets. You know that this is what taught, even though you can’t find a scripture or something canonized, it was taught. The reality was, the priesthood ban was in place, and people asked why, and the answer to why is because God revealed to his prophets: that’s how it is.

Some prophets added additional teachings, such as pre-existing failings, heavenly servants in the life to come, etc. ALL taught to me before the summer of 1978.

That you didn’t personally believe these teachings gives us something in common. I didn’t believe them either.

 

[iepuras]

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.

The purchase of a car is very important. Physical life hangs in the balance. Third party analysts have their biases too. It’s not as bad of an analogy as you think it is.

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.

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.

Maybe you should not act so uncharitable towards me. I was a member of the LDS church for 35 years. So these Mormons who were telling me all these “incorrect” things include my parents, Primary teachers, Sunday School teachers, YW teachers, seminary and institute teachers (who are paid employees of CES), bishops, stake presidents, and BYU religion professors (also paid employees, ultimately, of the LDS church). I know what the LDS church has taught and now teaches.

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.

Are you sure you really want to go there? There was a thread that discussed this issue a few months ago. Link here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11497447#post11497447

Another link of a lot of quotes: mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm#full

I’m sure you will find fault with the quotes on the second link. Many are from the Journal of Discourses, which you will claim are not revelation or the equivalent of scripture. The problem with that is that much of the Journal of Discourses are General Conference talks. I cannot tell you how many times I was taught that General Conference talks should be considered scripture. If modern conference talks are to be considered scripture, than earlier ones should be too. Mormons cannot have it both ways.

Here are some actual scripture verses that are insulting to Native Americans (if you accept that Native Americans are the descendants of the Lamanites) and really to anyone who is not white.

2 Nephi 5:21

‘And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.’

Alma 3:6

‘And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.’

2 Nephi 30:6

“…their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.” [Please note that the word ‘white’ was changed to ‘pure’ in 1981.]

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.

As I said before, I was LDS for a long time, 35 years in total, most of my life actually. Since I was LDS for so long, shouldn’t I know when I believed Mormon prophets were acting in their role as prophets and not ordinary men when I was Mormon?

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?

Never. Of course you can. Lots of people make predictions about that. Lots of people want it. Even nuns have asked the pope about it but they weren’t excommunicated over asking for it, talking about it or even publicly supporting it.

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.

Certain LDS women are ordained as priestesses. It is just that very few Mormon women even know about it. Women who receive the second anointing are anointed and ordained as queens and priestesses. Granted, they are not ordained in the same manner as the men, but they are ordained to a priesthood (or should I say ‘priestesshood’?) and bestow a blessing upon their husbands as part of the second anointing ordinance. So what you said is not entirely accurate. As a Mormon woman, you do need the second anointing and to be anointed and ordained a priestess to enter into the celestial kingdom whether on this side of the veil or the other.

 

[Stephen168]

Please show me any reference; any post from me, which ‘bashes’ Catholicism.
Please show me any reference, any post from me, which presents Catholic doctrine incorrectly…and if you can find one, and I can’t show you where I took correction immediately, I’ll humbly apologize right here.

All your bashing against a Catholic Church you invented was explained to you four years ago yet you repeat it over and over and now you do it again. Your hate does not allow you to take correction. Mormonism does not allow you to defend it without bashing the Catholic Church which only exists in your mind.

To prove me wrong try to defend Mormonism without ever talking about the Catholic Church…I don’t think you can.

Start by answering TexanKnights questions.

 

[dianaiad]

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

Thank you.

Now. Would you provide the references I actually asked for? NONE of the above statements (some considerably out of context, by the way) qualify.

 

[Marie5890]

Yes, it was a widely held belief. That didn’t mean that this widely held belief was supported by revelation. THAT is what I have been asking for, y’know.

Brigham Young did. He did have his flaws. Buckling under to common cultural ideas in this matter, evidently, was one of them.

Odd, I don’t have a problem with it.

When it comes to one’s spiritual being, shouldnt continuity and trust in one’s spiritual leaders matter?

Smith, most would adamently agree, has been tauted as THE prophet of THIS dispensation, and is of pre-imminent importance sans Jesus Christ Himself…

If Mormons believe this, really believe this, shouldnt all prophets who follow him, at least, at the very minimum, continue on with his teachings?

If they should, if they themselves are truly prophets, following in the footsteps of THE prophet of THIS dispensation, the one and only Joseph Smith, THE one that the Son AND the Father showed themselves to, shouldnt they continue in the footsteps of THE Prophet Joseph Smith

Or did yet another so-called great apostacy happen again?

If Joseph Smith THE PROPHET sent to RESTORE the Church and the Gospel in the Last dispensation of time wasnt followed by his successors, then were is the so-called restoration?

If BYoung failed to followed the teachings THE PROPHET sent in the Last Dispensation of Time to "Restore the Gospel*, then why should any prophet be believed? or followed?

It so just fails the smell test, IMV.

 

[Stephen168]

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

Clearly there was a ban on blacks from the Mormon priesthood. Your quotes confirm what I was told for the reason for it. Then suddenly it all didn’t matter in 1978. Kind of like how revelation keeps changing who God is, in Mormonism.

 

[dianaiad]

Not all revelations can be called prophecy. The guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the Church, and in our lives, is a type of revelation, but it is not prophecy.

Thank you. That’s what I said. A prophet, to us, is someone who receives revelation for the purpose of guiding the church…and the world if it will listen. It does NOT, as I have also mentioned, always include prophesying the future.

So, when you see a Mormon claim that our church is led by prophets, it does NOT necessarily mean that we claim that each and every prophet predicts the future. Some do. Most don’t.

Prophecy is a specific type of revelation, and some Popes have indeed made prophetic statements, as have, Catholic Saints who are not Popes. The gift of prophecy is not required to be a Pope, and a Pope who does not have the gift of prophecy is not considered to be an illegitimate Pope. The Pope, and all of our Bishops, are given extra gifts of the Holy Spirit, that are for the purpose of guiding the Church. Some may be given the gift of prophecy for this purpose, but we don’t believe that prophecy is the only gift of the Holy Spirit.

then we pretty much make the same claims for our own leaders.

Prophetic statements can present future knowledge, or present a mystical knowledge of the present that can’t be known or acquired via human faculties of learning, observation or deduction. Prophets can be tested, to determine if they are in fact prophesying, or giving an opinion based on what has been deduced, observed or learned via human faculties. Scripture encourages us to test anyone who is proclaiming a prophetic gift, as, anyone can claim the gift of prophecy. Just because someone says they are a prophet, doesn’t mean they are a prophet.

I agree.

I am simply pointing out that there is a very big difference, especially in the eye of the one getting criticized, between “You can’t have prophets because there aren’t any,” (when it’s obvious, at least to us, that Catholics…if nobody else…believe that their church is indeed currently guided by the Holy Ghost and by God in a very personal manner, with the Pope and the Bishops getting special gifts in order to do so…and to us, that is the definition of ‘prophet’ as we use it) and “well, it’s possible for a church to be guided by revelation and the guidance of the Holy Ghost…it’s just that yours isn’t.”

The first argument drives us nuts, since it makes no sense.

To us, it’s like an ostrich telling a penguin that it can’t be a bird like it, because all birds fly.

As for the second? Well, while we might disagree, it is at least logical and fair.

 

[dianaiad]

When it comes to one’s spiritual being, shouldnt continuity and trust in one’s spiritual leaders matter?

Smith, most would adamently agree, has been tauted as THE prophet of THIS dispensation, and is of pre-imminent importance sans Jesus Christ Himself…

If Mormons believe this, really believe this, shouldnt all prophets who follow him, at least, at the very minimum, continue on with his teachings?

If they should, if they themselves are truly prophets, following in the footsteps of THE prophet of THIS dispensation, the one and only Joseph Smith, THE one that the Son AND the Father showed themselves to, shouldnt they continue in the footsteps of THE Prophet Joseph Smith

Or did yet another so-called great apostacy happen again?

If Joseph Smith THE PROPHET sent to RESTORE the Church and the Gospel in the Last dispensation of time wasnt followed by his successors, then were is the so-called restoration?

If BYoung failed to followed the teachings THE PROPHET sent in the Last Dispensation of Time to "Restore the Gospel*, then why should any prophet be believed? or followed?

It so just fails the smell test, IMV.

OK, THAT is an argument that actually makes sense. I disagree with it, of course, but at least you aren’t dismissing the idea that men can receive revelation and inspiration in order to guide the church out of hand!
(grin)

 

[dianaiad]

Clearly there was a ban on blacks from the Mormon priesthood. Your quotes confirm what I was told for the reason for it. Then suddenly it all didn’t matter in 1978. Kind of like how revelation keeps changing who God is, in Mormonism.

Clearly there was a ban.
You have quoted some things that show why.

What you have NOT done is provide the quotes I actually asked for.

You know, scriptural quotes? OFFICIAL church 'thus saith the Lord" stuff that explains exactly why blacks could not hold the priesthood…like that?

NOT diatribes from men who were not, at the time, acting in their roles as prophets?

See, that’s the thing; the only such revelation that can be pointed at is the one we all prayed about so hard and for so long; the one that ended the ban.