Odd question for Mormons

[RebeccaJ]

Thanks for the link Porknpie. I know almost nothing about Catholic church hierarchy, so it’s good to see a link to stuff. So, Cardinals and Bishops are all over the world, and reflect all nationalities. That would also be true of LDS Stake Presidents and Bishops.

I guess what I’m asking, is what does the senior hierarchy look like? Does it go from Pope to Cardinal, or are there levels in between?

Bishops, being the successors to the apostles, are the leaders of the Catholic Church. The Pope is a Bishop, Cardinals are Bishops. Pope and Cardinal are offices. That is the point with pointing out the Bishops. They come from everywhere, because they are everywhere.

I don’t think you can make a comparison to Mormonism, because the hierarchal organization is so different.

Bishops head their church, in every sense. As a lay-person, I am obligated to follow my Bishop before I follow the Pope. All of the Bishops of the Church are in communion with each other, and lead the Church as one body. The Pope holds a prime position, but it isn’t the same as the Mormon President, as a top-down type of structure. More like a circle, with the Pope having a designation as the one who facilitates and leads all those in the circle with him.

 

[pablope]

Bishops, being the successors to the apostles, are the leaders of the Catholic Church. The Pope is a Bishop, Cardinals are Bishops. Pope and Cardinal are offices. That is the point with pointing out the Bishops. They come from everywhere, because they are everywhere.

I don’t think you can make a comparison to Mormonism, because the hierarchal organization is so different.

 

[twopekinguys]

SteveVH, I see the first black Pope came at 186 AD. It looks like someone might want to go to wikipedia and edit his page - the picture shows him as white, and the article claims only “there are some who suggest that he was the first black African pope.”

Anyway, my church was organized in 1830, so if Pope Victor looked like his wikipedia photo, the next Pope you mention was Pope Saint Miliades 1 311 A.D. So if we don’t have a black Prophet by somewhere around 2110, then I’ll have to conceed the point to you.

You realize that Daguerreotype, Polaroid, and Kodak weren’t around or invented yet right?

They are artistic representations, just like the paintings we see of Christ, Mary, Peter, etc.

Really? You didn’t have that part figured out?

Had you actually read the Wiki article, you would have read ““The Oxford Dictionary of Popes” and “The Original Catholic Encyclopedia” list him as being native to Africa.” During that time frame the “white”, or “european” influence had not occurred yet.

Good try though.

 

[maltmom]

The pope leads with love and charity…and with sacrifice…it is quite a heavy burden…not an easy one.

 

[twopekinguys]

With regard to paid clergy in the mormon church, I found this to be quite interesting.

It is from the Mission President’s Handbook (©2006 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc), which i am quoting as “fair use” under copyright law.

“While you are serving as mission president, the Church reimburses the **necessary **living expenses for you, your wife, and your dependent children.”

further in, we read:

These “necessary” living expenses include: “food, clothing, household supplies, family activities, dry cleaning, personal long-distance calls to family, and modest gifts (for example, Christmas, birthdays, or anniversary).”

Household expenses include:

includes hiring a gardener
one part-time housekeeper-cook
Medical expenses (dental, eye care and medically necessary orthodontia)
Support for children serving full-time missions
One round trip fare for each child under age 26 to visit the parents’ mission
Elementary and secondary school expenses for tuition, fees, books, and materials
Undergraduate tuition at an accredited college or university (Tuition is waived at Church-owned schools.)

I really liked this part:

** “should not open a local bank account for personal funds received from the Church . . . especially if the account would produce interest (and thus raise income tax questions).”** Instead of allowing mission president control over their personal funds, “a joint personal bank account at Church headquarters is established for you and your wife.”

Not only does this sound like paid clergy, it sounds like sneakily paid clergy.

More can be read here.

 

[SteveVH]

You realize that Daguerreotype, Polaroid, and Kodak weren’t around or invented yet right?

They are artistic representations, just like the paintings we see of Christ, Mary, Peter, etc.

Really? You didn’t have that part figured out?

Had you actually read the Wiki article, you would have read ““The Oxford Dictionary of Popes” and “The Original Catholic Encyclopedia” list him as being native to Africa.” During that time frame the “white”, or “european” influence had not occurred yet.

Good try though.

Yes, kind of like the crass blue-eyed, blonde-haired Jesus we see sometimes. Someone looking back 500 years from now might deduce that Jesus was from Denmark.

 

[TexanKnight]

He intentionally misses the point. It isn’t a matter of just excluding. It is also all the horribly racist comments by alleged prophets. He keeps dodging that point. Understandably dodging it.

 

[SteveVH]

He intentionally misses the point. It isn’t a matter of just excluding. It is also all the horribly racist comments by alleged prophets. He keeps dodging that point. Understandably dodging it.

You have a point there.

 

[zaffiroborant]

With regard to paid clergy in the mormon church, I found this to be quite interesting.

It is from the Mission President’s Handbook (©2006 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc), which i am quoting as “fair use” under copyright law.

“While you are serving as mission president, the Church reimburses the **necessary **living expenses for you, your wife, and your dependent children.”

further in, we read:

These “necessary” living expenses include: “food, clothing, household supplies, family activities, dry cleaning, personal long-distance calls to family, and modest gifts (for example, Christmas, birthdays, or anniversary).”

Household expenses include:

includes hiring a gardener
one part-time housekeeper-cook
Medical expenses (dental, eye care and medically necessary orthodontia)
Support for children serving full-time missions
One round trip fare for each child under age 26 to visit the parents’ mission
Elementary and secondary school expenses for tuition, fees, books, and materials
Undergraduate tuition at an accredited college or university (Tuition is waived at Church-owned schools.)

I really liked this part:

** “should not open a local bank account for personal funds received from the Church . . . especially if the account would produce interest (and thus raise income tax questions).”** Instead of allowing mission president control over their personal funds, “a joint personal bank account at Church headquarters is established for you and your wife.”

Not only does this sound like paid clergy, it sounds like sneakily paid clergy.

More can be read here.

That’s a well paid clergy they have there and I don’t think tax evasion is being honest in you dealings with your fellow man.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So true. Correct me for this…but I learned from someone that a catholic’s understanding of a bishop is quite and very different from the mormon concept of a bishop…

Yes, a Mormon bishop is a lay person who serves as a bishop for a short time, typically five years. Equivalent in some ways to a Catholic pastor. Once released as bishop they are then called to a new position, everything from scoutmaster to stake president.

They have no trained clergy. No seminaries for their clergy. Nothing like that. It is more of a second, unpaid job, that takes lots of hours and time away from home. They learn on the job.

 

[Khalid]

So would God, Jesus (x2) and the Virgin Mary appearing to me be mystism? It is not something I asked for but ive been blessed, and humbled by their appearences. Also, would it be a revelation by God and Jesus when God said "You know my Son died for your sins? and Jesus saying “Go out and protect this Rock, it is sacred”

Not to mention Elias out of the Vulgate and Elijah out of the Masoretic text appearing to JS at the same time.

(They’re the same man, his name is transliterated differently.)

 

[Khalid]

Not so, mon frere.

FIRST PRESIDENCY
Thomas S. Monson - Advertising, Printing
Dieter F Uchtdorf - Aviator
Henry B. Eyring - Educator

QUORUM OF 12 APOSTLES
Boyd K. Packer - Educator
L. Tom Perry - Businessman
Russell M. Nelson - Heart Surgeon
Dallin H. Oaks - Law Professor, University President, Utah Supreme Court Justice
M. Russell Ballard - Businessman
Richard G. Scott - Nuclear Engineer
Jeffery R. Holland - Educator
David A. Bednar - University Professor, College Dean, University President
Quentin L. Cook - Corporate Attorney, Businessman, City Attorney
D. Todd Christofferson - Corporate Attorney
Neil L. Anderson - Businessman

I only see about 6 of 15 that are full blown businessmen. You may be right on the “successful” part.

Those look like ten successful businessmen and a couple of professors to me. If a corporate attorney or a lawyer who becomes a law professor is not a businessman - even in the strict sense of the word - I don’t know what is. The word “businessman” is used as a generic, when they’re either executives or have done too much of everything to be named for one field.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Bishops, being the successors to the apostles, are the leaders of the Catholic Church. The Pope is a Bishop, Cardinals are Bishops. Pope and Cardinal are offices. That is the point with pointing out the Bishops. They come from everywhere, because they are everywhere.

I don’t think you can make a comparison to Mormonism, because the hierarchal organization is so different.

Bishops head their church, in every sense. As a lay-person, I am obligated to follow my Bishop before I follow the Pope. All of the Bishops of the Church are in communion with each other, and lead the Church as one body. The Pope holds a prime position, but it isn’t the same as the Mormon President, as a top-down type of structure. More like a circle, with the Pope having a designation as the one who facilitates and leads all those in the circle with him.

Thanks for the explanation, RebeccaJ. That helps. Moving around wikipedia was just confusing me with talk of the College of Cardinals and Ecumenical councils and Pontiffs and Archbishops and all. Catholicism is very truly a worldwide organization - I find it’s richness and history fascinating. And I’d much rather come to a bunch of Catholics to learn about it, than internet searches. It’s one reason I’m here.

Anyway, Texan is accusing me of dodging accusations about racism in my church. My short answer, is that the early decades of the church was indeed a mostly-U.S. phenomenon, with converts from other countries tending to migrate here. And the U.S. of that time was undergoing all sorts of tumultuous social change over slavery - cumulating in the Civil War and aftermath. Our story has always been that humans aren’t perfect, and humans serving in church leadership positions don’t suddenly become perfected. So you have all sorts of quotes from church leaders speculating about things, using terminology of the day, that we just find embarassing by 21st century standards.

What can I say? Judging people in the past by today’s standards isn’t too helpful. For example, the book of Ezra shows an occasion that even sons of priests were denied the priesthood apparently because they could not prove they were of the proper ancestry. If you read the book of Daniel, chapters 11 and 12, you’ll find some uncomfortable language about saints being made white. Lamentations is the hardest to read - "Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets. Do I think groups of righteous followers of God in Biblical times were racist? I guess so - I mean the word hadn’t been invented yet, and that’s how things were. I don’t go around accusing the Bible of racism though, that would just be silly.

I understand the organizations are different, and it’s difficult to draw direct comparisons.

 

[Stephen168]

Judging people in the past by today’s standards isn’t too helpful.

We are not judging people, we are judging the Mormon Church.

There is a difference between Catholics and Catholic Church teaching/practice.
There is a difference between Mormons and Mormon Church teaching/practice.

While there are racist Catholics, the Catholic Church has never barred people from the priesthood because of their race; the Catholic Church has never been racist.
While there are Mormons who are not racists, the Mormon Church barred people from their priesthood because of their race; the Mormon Church was racist.

 

[TexanKnight]

Anyway, Texan is accusing me of dodging accusations about racism in my church.

Wrong. I made no accusations. I have posted, as have others, direct quotes from your leaders within last 150 years that were absolutely horrendous. You have dodged THOSE

My short answer, is that the early decades of the church was indeed a mostly-U.S. phenomenon, with converts from other countries tending to migrate here. And the U.S. of that time was undergoing all sorts of tumultuous social change over slavery - cumulating in the Civil War and aftermath. Our story has always been that humans aren’t perfect, and humans serving in church leadership positions don’t suddenly become perfected. So you have all sorts of quotes from church leaders speculating about things, using terminology of the day, that we just find embarassing by 21st century standards.

Wrong. Your leaders were not mere humans. They were prophets who allegedly talked to God. People who claim to be prophets and speak for God do not talk that way.

What can I say? Judging people in the past by today’s standards isn’t too helpful. For example, the book of Ezra shows an occasion that even sons of priests were denied the priesthood apparently because they could not prove they were of the proper ancestry. If you read the book of Daniel, chapters 11 and 12, you’ll find some uncomfortable language about saints being made white. Lamentations is the hardest to read - "Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets. Do I think groups of righteous followers of God in Biblical times were racist? I guess so - I mean the word hadn’t been invented yet, and that’s how things were. I don’t go around accusing the Bible of racism though, that would just be silly.

ah…the typical fall back position. Bash the folks in the Bible and try to compare people who lived 6000 years ago in a different country and culture with your leaders within the last 150 years. That excuse and defense is old and useless. Try something new.

 

[TexanKnight]

We are not judging people, we are judging the Mormon Church.

There is a difference between Catholics and Catholic Church teaching/practice.
There is a difference between Mormons and Mormon Church teaching/practice.

While there are racist Catholics, the Catholic Church has never barred people from the priesthood because of their race; the Catholic Church has never been racist.
While there are Mormons who are not racists, the Mormon Church barred people from their priesthood because of their race; the Mormon Church was racist.

This

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thanks for the explanation, RebeccaJ. That helps. Moving around wikipedia was just confusing me with talk of the College of Cardinals and Ecumenical councils and Pontiffs and Archbishops and all. Catholicism is very truly a worldwide organization - I find it’s richness and history fascinating. And I’d much rather come to a bunch of Catholics to learn about it, than internet searches. It’s one reason I’m here.

You’re welcome. As a convert to Catholicism, it took me a while to figure it out. The one that threw me for the longest time was “Nuncio”. (Just another name for “ambassador”.)

Anyway, Texan is accusing me of dodging accusations about racism in my church. My short answer, is that the early decades of the church was indeed a mostly-U.S. phenomenon, with converts from other countries tending to migrate here. And the U.S. of that time was undergoing all sorts of tumultuous social change over slavery - cumulating in the Civil War and aftermath. Our story has always been that humans aren’t perfect, and humans serving in church leadership positions don’t suddenly become perfected. So you have all sorts of quotes from church leaders speculating about things, using terminology of the day, that we just find embarassing by 21st century standards.

What can I say? Judging people in the past by today’s standards isn’t too helpful. For example, the book of Ezra shows an occasion that even sons of priests were denied the priesthood apparently because they could not prove they were of the proper ancestry. If you read the book of Daniel, chapters 11 and 12, you’ll find some uncomfortable language about saints being made white. Lamentations is the hardest to read - "Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets. Do I think groups of righteous followers of God in Biblical times were racist? I guess so - I mean the word hadn’t been invented yet, and that’s how things were. I don’t go around accusing the Bible of racism though, that would just be silly.

I understand the organizations are different, and it’s difficult to draw direct comparisons.

Yes, I agree that what is taught/believed is in a context of culture and social norms. “Race”, is a social distinction that didn’t exist until the 17th century. The Bible has a lot of symbolic language in it. “White” has always been a symbol of holiness. It doesn’t have anything to do with the color of a person’s skin. That is your Mormon reading of it.

I don’t know how long you’ve been LDS. But the problem for me, that I had even as a young child (I was BIC Mormon), is that race was taught as an indicator of one’s status with God. It wasn’t taught to me as an opinion of a leader in SLC. It was taught to me as divine fact.

I can clearly remember sitting in primary/Sunday school, being taught that dark skin was a curse, that those of African descent could not hold the priesthood because of the color of their skin. There were explanations of God cursing Cain, and people descended form Cain means they were under this curse. Compared to going to elementary school during the same time, where I was taught about melanin and natural selection. Light skin being a genetic trait that evolved over time in the northern latitudes, to enable people to absorb more sunlight.

I remember that being the first time I really thought that what I was being taught in church was wrong. It was the beginning of my questioning everything.

So, when people like yourself, today, say it was opinion. I can only think that you are very naive. Sorry, but that is the way I see it. I was taught in LDS church settings, at a chapel, several times over my childhood what you are calling opinion.

If we are in agreement that those were wrong teachings, then it is only logical that you should agree that I was taught false doctrine. Doctrine that came from LDS leaders. But you have been practicing explaining it all away. It can’t be explained away for me, because I remember.

In 1978 I remember all the LDS, including myself, being very happy, even joyful, over the removal of the priesthood ban. I also heard of a few LDS who left Mormonism over it. It was racism, without any question, insitutionalized as a divine order of things. I don’t know how it is possible for anyone to see it as anything else but that.

In the end, the real crux of the problem is that any sort of teaching like this, is a denial of Jesus Christ. Jesus equalized everything, for all of us. Rich, poor, slave, free, Jewish, Gentile. Even if you can’t bring yourself to call racism, racism, it is at the very least un-Christian, and not something that came from Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ.

 

[RebeccaJ]

NeuroTypical, to further the thought. In 1978 it was never taught that the lift on the priesthood ban changed anything regarding the reasons that were given for the priesthood ban. Everyone understood that dark skin still had associated to it all the things it did before. Less valiant in the pre-existence, descended from Cain, etc. I have never seen where the LDS Church officially repudiates any of these teachings. No apology for putting out false teachings to generations of Mormons. I see this as an indicator that they are all still viewed as valid teachings. Just teachings that no longer have any relevance.

 

[twopekinguys]

NeuroTypical, to further the thought. In 1978 it was never taught that the lift on the priesthood ban changed anything regarding the reasons that were given for the priesthood ban. Everyone understood that dark skin still had associated to it all the things it did before. Less valiant in the pre-existence, descended from Cain, etc. I have never seen where the LDS Church officially repudiates any of these teachings. No apology for putting out false teachings to generations of Mormons. I see this as an indicator that they are all still viewed as valid teachings. Just teachings that no longer have any relevance.

To the outsider looking in, it makes it look like mormon theology is driven by current events.

With the 1978 ban being lifted so close to the time other schools were boycotting BYU because of racial policies.

All of the hard line statements regarding prop 8, not to mention their financial involvement that they tried to hide, and now a softening in the language toward the LBGT community, it just reinforces that much of the mormon “theology” is current event based.

I have said it before, I think sooner or later we are going to see a shift in mormon “theology” to be accepting of “gay marriage”.

It may not be right away, but it’s gonna happen.

 

[armyross]

Mormonism is rooted in American transcendentalism, not mysticism.

very well put Rebecca