LDS Revelations

[Marie5890]

So…

Following that.

If BYoung did not continue the same course of JSmith, who was, by Mormon standards, THE Prophet, did yet another apostasy happen?

IS there a need for another restoration, since all prophets, following JSmith, have not followed his teaching of the restored gospel?

Teachings have CLEARLY changed in Mormonism…

Did another apostasy happen since JSmith?

 

[dianaiad]

So…

Following that.

If BYoung did not continue the same course of JSmith, who was, by Mormon standards, THE Prophet, did yet another apostasy happen?

IS there a need for another restoration, since all prophets, following JSmith, have not followed his teaching of the restored gospel?

That depends upon which teachings you are referring to, Marie.

Does the fact that you, as Catholics, no longer are restricted to eating fish on Friday, using Latin in Mass, and other matters of practice mean that YOU have apostatized?

If you would, of your courtesy, show me where DOCTRINE has changed any, in the LDS church? I’d appreciate it.

Remember; doctrine, not practice. Changing the language of the Mass and the practice of dietary rules does not change basic Catholic beliefs, and it would be ludicrous for someone to accuse you of it. Changing what nuns wear, or:??? doesn’t change basic doctrine.

So…what has changed, Marie, that you can point to in the LDS church?

DOCTRINALLY???

 

[RebeccaJ]

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

Maybe you make that claim for Mormonism, but the Mormon Church explicitily teaches that it is led by prophets, seers and revelators.

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.”

Our arguments come from your leaders teach, about themselves. As I said, they explicitly claim to be prophets. That you don’t believe they are, doesn’t change what they are teaching.

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

This is how we see the argument:

Mormon: All Presidents are prophets, that’s what makes us unique.
Catholic: Not all Popes are prophets and we don’t expect them to all be prophets.
Mormon: Presidents who have prophesied in error, were giving opinion. They aren’t prophets, just like the Pope.
Catholic: But wait, your claim is that all your Presidents are prophets. Catholics don’t make this claim about our Popes.
Mormon: Neither do Mormons about our Presidents.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

In the upcoming October conference, please listen, and report back to us what is opinion that you are going to ignore and what is inspired by God.

Thanks.

 

[Marie5890]

That depends upon which teachings you are referring to, Marie.

Does the fact that you, as Catholics, no longer are restricted to eating fish on Friday, using Latin in Mass, and other matters of practice mean that YOU have apostatized?

If you would, of your courtesy, show me where DOCTRINE has changed any, in the LDS church? I’d appreciate it.

Remember; doctrine, not practice. Changing the language of the Mass and the practice of dietary rules does not change basic Catholic beliefs, and it would be ludicrous for someone to accuse you of it. Changing what nuns wear, or:??? doesn’t change basic doctrine.

So…what has changed, Marie, that you can point to in the LDS church?

DOCTRINALLY???

First, and again, Popes are not held up as prophets.

Was the ban on blacks and the priesthood doctrinal? Was how the BoA came about doctrinal? The BoM? The view of the ancestors of the Native Americans?

Was anything that JSmith taught as THE PROPHET of this dispensation doctrinal?
Maybe that should be our first point of origin.

Exactly what did JSmith teach that is considered doctrine and can never be changed?

What would Mormons say that, according to THE PROPHET of this Dispensation is unchanging and unalterable doctrine?

What LDS doctrines can never be changed? Never be altered?

Has an apostasy happened since JSmith?
Has an apostasy happened since BYoung?
What LDS doctrines can never, ever be changed, regardless of who is the prophet?

 

[TexanKnight]

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.

I provided the books and pages. They are actual quotes.

Not out of context. Hard to take THIS stuff out of context. You know that

 

[TexanKnight]

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.

Your prophets said it. They even claimed it was from God. Not sure how much spoon-fed you want to be

 

[dianaiad]

Maybe you make that claim for Mormonism, but the Mormon Church explicitily teaches that it is led by prophets, seers and revelators.

Yes. That’s what prophets, seers and revelators DO.

Our arguments come from your leaders teach, about themselves. As I said, they explicitly claim to be prophets. That you don’t believe they are, doesn’t change what they are teaching.

They claim to be prophets. I just told you what prophets do. You make the claim that your leaders do very much the same things mine do, but you don’t call them prophets.

I’m sorry, but you don’t get to insist that your definition of prophet…narrow as it evidently is…MUST trump mine, for my own beliefs.

This is how we see the argument:

Mormon: All Presidents are prophets, that’s what makes us unique.
Catholic: Not all Popes are prophets and we don’t expect them to all be prophets.
Mormon: Presidents who have prophesied in error, were giving opinion. They aren’t prophets, just like the Pope.
Catholic: But wait, your claim is that all your Presidents are prophets. Catholics don’t make this claim.
Mormon: Neither do Mormons.

Our claim is: all the members of the Quorum of the Twelve, pluss the Presidency (which makes a total of fifteen) are prophets, seers and revelators. That is their calling. That’s what they are supposed to be, and when they are acting in that role, that’s what they are.

They do not act in that role all the time, nor do we expect them to do so.

There really is no problem here…

Look at it this way: When Peter was called to be an apostle, he indeed filled that role.

…but was he doing so when he hid and denied Christ three times? Does that action define him, or take away from the inspired teachings he gave us?

Remember, if someone hadn’t deliberately included that episode in the gospels, we wouldn’t know about it now, would we? We wouldn’t know anything about him other than those things he wrote while he was acting in his role as leader and apostle…and receiver of revelations.

but now, we know everything about those men who lead us, just as Peter’s contemporaries may have known just how human he was. Is it really the distance…and the ignorance of his life…that makes him a prophet (in the definition we use)? Or is it the stuff he wrote while he was doing what he was called to do?

 

[dianaiad]

Your prophets said it. They even claimed it was from God. Not sure how much spoon-fed you want to be

A bit more ‘spoon fed’ than the above. Would you show me, in any of the quotes provided, where these men said ‘God told me’ or any variation thereof?

 

[RebeccaJ]

That depends upon which teachings you are referring to, Marie.

Does the fact that you, as Catholics, no longer are restricted to eating fish on Friday, using Latin in Mass, and other matters of practice mean that YOU have apostatized?

If you would, of your courtesy, show me where DOCTRINE has changed any, in the LDS church? I’d appreciate it.

Remember; doctrine, not practice. Changing the language of the Mass and the practice of dietary rules does not change basic Catholic beliefs, and it would be ludicrous for someone to accuse you of it. Changing what nuns wear, or:??? doesn’t change basic doctrine.

So…what has changed, Marie, that you can point to in the LDS church?

DOCTRINALLY???

What is Mormon doctrine? Really, not a rhetorical question.

 

[dianaiad]

What is Mormon doctrine? Really, not a rhetorical question.

I won’t take it as a rhetorical question, Rebecca. It’s a good one.

I’ll ask another in return before I answer: if you don’t know what Mormon Doctrine is, how can you claim that it has changed? Also a serious question.

As to the answer, here’s a pretty good basic explanation. Yes, it is from an official source, lds.org.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes. That’s what prophets, seers and revelators DO.

They claim to be prophets. I just told you what prophets do. You make the claim that your leaders do very much the same things mine do, but you don’t call them prophets.

As I said, being guided by the Holy Spirit can include the gift of prophecy. We make no claim that every single Pope and Bishop are prophets.

I’m sorry, but you don’t get to insist that your definition of prophet…narrow as it evidently is…MUST trump mine, for my own beliefs.

LOL. OK, you can define prophet to whatever you want. Why not make it broad, to include every decision ever made? Why narrow it down?

Our claim is: all the members of the Quorum of the Twelve, pluss the Presidency (which makes a total of fifteen) are prophets, seers and revelators. That is their calling. That’s what they are supposed to be, and when they are acting in that role, that’s what they are.

How convenient. A moving target. “I’m speaking as a prophet today.” …50 year later… “No, that was not a prophecy, that was an opinion.”

I guess it works for anyone who just wants to believe whatever, whenever. I like my Truth to be more solid than that. A rock for a foundation, not sand. To each their own.

They do not act in that role all the time, nor do we expect them to do so.

There really is no problem here…

Look at it this way: When Peter was called to be an apostle, he indeed filled that role.

…but was he doing so when he hid and denied Christ three times? Does that action define him, or take away from the inspired teachings he gave us?

I don’t understand your point. All people sin. We aren’t talking about sin, we’re talking about prophecy.

Remember, if someone hadn’t deliberately included that episode in the gospels, we wouldn’t know about it now, would we? We wouldn’t know anything about him other than those things he wrote while he was acting in his role as leader and apostle…and receiver of revelations.

but now, we know everything about those men who lead us, just as Peter’s contemporaries may have known just how human he was. Is it really the distance…and the ignorance of his life…that makes him a prophet (in the definition we use)? Or is it the stuff he wrote while he was doing what he was called to do?

Was Peter teaching us to turn away from Christ? Did he teach anyone, anywhere, that they should deny Christ. Scripture provides us examples of human frailty, usually, to show us GOD’s MERCY, as is the case with Peter, who was forgiven by the resurrected Christ. This story wasn’t included to teach us to deny Christ.

Mormon prophets teach specifically to guide people, but then, are guiding in error while pretending to be giving prophetic guidance.

I fail to see the comparison.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I won’t take it as a rhetorical question, Rebecca. It’s a good one.

I’ll ask another in return before I answer: if you don’t know what Mormon Doctrine is, how can you claim that it has changed? Also a serious question.

As to the answer, here’s a pretty good basic explanation. Yes, it is from an official source, lds.org.

Well, when I was a Mormon, what the prophet taught was considered doctrine. Period. No questions asked. That is what I base my arguments on.

Most internet Mormons deny this, and have varying degrees of adherence to what I was taught. In real life, Mormons (off the internet), I haven’t met one yet that would deny a Mormon prophet teaches anything but doctrine.

So. It helps to have a definition of what YOU think is doctrine.

 

[Marie5890]

I think this would be a helpful place to start from.

What, exactly, is doctrinal in LDS theology, and never, ever be subject to change, regardless of who the president is of the LDS Church.

Is that definable? In sincerity, what is known as LDS doctrine that will never ever change?

 

[iepuras]

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?

I thought these articles were very interesting. I found the beginning of the first article which discussed the definitions of the terms of prophets, seers and revelators (and translators) to be in line with what I heard taught in Gospel Doctrine classes when this was the topic of discussion. Of course, in Gospel Doctrine, we never discussed how Thomas Monson (or any LDS church president) did not meet those definitions.

The second article on silent revelations was also very interesting. I don’t accept that Joseph Smith was ever a prophet of God, but I do find the author’s perspective very valid in an LDS context. I think the silent revelations that LDS church presidents have are problematic in an LDS context. The revelation to give black men the priesthood wasn’t a real revelation in the way Joseph Smith or even Joseph F. Smith had revelations. It is simply a statement that a revelation was received. Don’t Mormons deserve to know exactly what this revelation entails? If God really does speak to LDS church presidents, shouldn’t the members of the LDS church know what He said exactly?

 

[Porknpie]

.and I will not talk about Catholicism with anybody but a Catholic…and if that Catholic corrects me on a point of doctrine, I’ll accept it.

Interesting that** this person **who converted to Catholicism, spoke with and gives much credit, to a Lutheran pastor for his conversion.

Here’s for the Lutheran Pastor.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think this would be a helpful place to start from.

What, exactly, is doctrinal in LDS theology, and never, ever be subject to change, regardless of who the president is of the LDS Church.

Is that definable? In sincerity, what is known as LDS doctrine that will never ever change?

Everything, as far as I can tell, is subject to change. Mormons call this open to revelation. There’s is a pardoxical view. Change is required, if it isn’t there it is an indication of apostasy. While simultaneously, change is an indication of apostasy.

What it comes down to is, what is taught and believed today is doctrine. Doctrines are subject to change. Doctrines of yesterday can be made null and void. New doctrines are expected and accepted as guidance by the Holy Ghost.

People in charge claiming to be prophets are the continuity in Mormonism, not what they teach.

 

[Porknpie]

I think this would be a helpful place to start from.

What, exactly, is doctrinal in LDS theology, and never, ever be subject to change, regardless of who the president is of the LDS Church.

Is that definable? In sincerity, what is known as LDS doctrine that will never ever change?

That was one of my first questions about LDS over a year ago. Joseph Smith says that Cumorah Hill was the site of a great battle. LDS prophets declared it to be true. Now it is not. Or is it? If it is true, excavate the hill. I’ll bring my shovel and help.

 

[iepuras]

Here is a link to a speech Ezra Taft Benson gave at BYU on the fundamentals of following the prophet when he was President of the Quorom of the Twelve Apostles. Mr. Benson was next in line to become president of the LDS church at the time and was sustained prophet, seer and revelator. So was he speaking as a prophet at that time? Or was he only speaking as a man? He supported his 14 points with scripture and the teachings of other prophets and apostles.

speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=88

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may be involved in civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the first presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

Mr. Benson concluded his talk by saying the following: “I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true.” Again, was Mr. Benson speaking as a prophet, seer and revelator or just as a man?

 

[Stephen168]

The book Mormon Doctrine. It was Mormon doctrine for only 12 years before it had to be changed and 32 years after that was no longer Mormon doctrine at all.