Race, God, and the LDS Church

[dianaiad]

The problem here is that you can’t use the same standard for both beliefs, because they come out of two different contexts, with two churches that function differently.

The Catholic Church has never had a policy that blacks are not to be ordained to the priesthood. The Mormon church did have a policy that blacks are not to be ordained to the priesthood, right from the top of your church. There is no equivalent in the Catholic Church. You will find no doctrinal statements by a Pope or Ecumenical Council that blacks are to not be ordained to the priesthood, and that this is a “direct commandment from the Lord”. We do find a First Presidency statement that says just that.

The Catholic teaching has always been that the priesthood is open to men of all races. If a segment of the Church, such as USA Catholics, impeded blacks from being ordained, they were obviously going against the teaching of the Catholic Church. In fact, you yourself have brought up the fact that the first black American priest had to go to Rome to enter seminary. This clearly shows that the Church had no policy equivalent to the Mormon practice.

You are quite right. The Catholic church never had a dogma that restricted blacks from the priesthood, though it had a practical policy that so restricted them for many hundreds of years more than we did.

Also, the Mormons never had a policy OR a doctrine that allowed us to go out and conquer and enslave entire peoples, but the Catholics certainly did.

Again, your position that it is somehow OK for Catholics to have enslaved entire nations, begun the black slave trade and enforced such measures with promises of indulgences and punishments of up to torture and death—because such policies are not in scripture (even though they were declared and enforced by several Popes and the entire priesthood of the church) is outrageous.

That is what you are doing, y’know. You are excusing the history of your own church for violations of human rights that so far outreach anything that Mormons have EVER done as to be in another galaxy, but it’s ok by you…because everybody in the church, from the Pope on down, was acting against doctrine at the time (wait, isn’t that the definition of apostasy?) but that it is NOT OK for us, as LDS, to have a policy that doesn’t come even NEAR the sort of thing the Catholic church has been officially guilty of, but WE are the bad guys here?

No. I"ve gone over this too many times with y’all. The hypocrisy of this, from CATHOLICS, is more than I can handle.

I might accept such accusations from Quakers, or from other groups that do NOT have the history Catholicism does, but…not from Catholics.

But I’ll tell you what: again, when minority Catholic priests equal in representation the proportion of minorities to ‘whites’ in the general membership, then I will accept criticism of present racial policies from you…if there is anything to criticise.

You will never be able to criticise the CoJCoLDS for past racism without being guilty of the rankest hypocrisy possible.

 

[dianaiad]

For some reason I’ve been under the impression that if you are single and of a “certain age” you must attend the singles ward if there is one in your area. Also under the impression the “singles wards” are more common in heavily LDS areas.

The singles wards were designed mainly for college students, but there is no requirement that singles MUST attend singles wards. The are there as, frankly, a matchmaking service. The idea is to get 'em hitched and in ‘regular’ wards as quickly as possible.

 

[dianaiad]

Could you explain what the LDS church does so this doesn’t happen in their churches? How are many cultures incorporated in the sacrament meeting so your worship is not considered “white” and your prayers not considered “white” (I would think this could be tough with the the thee, thou etc. “language of prayer” espoused by the LDS church) from this man’s point of view? Because I’m a little bit lost over how drawing geographic boundaries enhances cultural diversity in a ward more than it does in a parish. Quite frankly I believe this gentleman would find the same problem in the LDS church.

I also don’t see why voluntary attendance at parish that suits you is so awful, I live in a suburb with a lot of Polish families. Their kids participate in the same school and area activities, we soccer, dance, cheer, baseball, softball, boy/girl scout (and so on and so forth) together. We are together on the PTA, volunteering at schools, the library, raising money and food for our local food bank, we see each other at all kinds of birthday parties, graduations, block parties. Some are members of the school, library, park and, village boards. But when it comes to church some of these families drive 45 minutes into the city to attend the churches they grew up in, in Polish speaking communities. Others attend Mass here but when it comes to baptism, First Communion and Confirmation they celebrate them at their old parish, while some simply attend here. What’s wrong with them choosing as they see fit? are LDS members allowed the same freedom?

OK, we divide our wards strictly by geography: if you live in a specific area, you attend the ward that services that area. That means that all the different cultures that live in a specific area attend church together, whether they are black, white, or purple with pink polka dots.

Those who are of different faiths, and choose to go to churches that are further away from their nearest one, are segregating themselves. Those Polish families you speak of are attending segregated congregations. IT doesn’t matter who does the choosing…it’s segregation. Remember, back during legal segregation of blacks from whites, it wasn’t just the BLACKS who were segregated. So were the white folks…and, again as I said, it wasn’t good for them, either, in spite of their preferences.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

You are quite right. The Catholic church never had a dogma that restricted blacks from the priesthood, though it had a practical policy that so restricted them for many hundreds of years more than we did.

What is a “practical policy”?

The fact of the matter is that if we’re comparing apples to apples, the LDS church had a clear teaching that blacks are not to be ordained to the priesthood. The Catholic Church on the other hand never had such a teaching. If Catholics went against the actual teaching of the Church by impeding the ordination of blacks, such as in the USA, they were going against the clear doctrine of the Church that men of all races can be ordained to the priesthood.

Also, the Mormons never had a policy OR a doctrine that allowed us to go out and conquer and enslave entire peoples, but the Catholics certainly did.

What is the purpose of this statement, to muddy the waters?

Again, your position that it is somehow OK for Catholics to have enslaved entire nations, begun the black slave trade and enforced such measures with promises of indulgences and punishments of up to torture and death—because such policies are not in scripture (even though they were declared and enforced by several Popes and the entire priesthood of the church) is outrageous.

Please cite when I or any Catholic ever said that it was OK for Catholics to do any of the things you mention above.

No Catholic here is excusing any of the negative parts of Catholic history, and if they are, then demonstrate it.

everybody in the church, from the Pope on down, was acting against doctrine at the time

(wait, isn’t that the definition of apostasy?) but that it is NOT OK for us, as LDS, to have a policy that doesn’t come even NEAR the sort of thing the Catholic church has been officially guilty of, but WE are the bad guys here?

Like I said, no one is excusing anything in Catholic history, and it is disingenuous for you to claim that we are. What we are doing here is noting that Mormonism had a clear teaching that blacks are not to be ordained to the priesthood, whether in America, Brazil, Nigeria, etc. In contrast, the Catholic Church has never taught that blacks are not to be ordained to the priesthood (if it has, then please demonstrate it with quotes, so that we can see if you understand what it means for “The Catholic Church” to teach something). What occurred in the USA Catholic Church is not the same as what occurred in the LDS church.

No. I"ve gone over this too many times with y’all. The hypocrisy of this, from CATHOLICS, is more than I can handle.

The funny thing is, you’ve gone over this so many times, yet you still want to confuse definitions of “policy”, “doctrine”, etc., as if they are the same in the Catholic Church and the LDS church. There is no hypocrisy since you are insisting on interpreting Catholic history and doctrine with Mormon eyes, and ignoring what we are telling you about Catholicism, which is something you seem to argue against frequently.

This is illogical. As I’ve said to you before, my college has never had a percentage of black students equivalent to the USA black population. Does this mean that it is a racist school?

You will never be able to criticise the CoJCoLDS for past racism without being guilty of the rankest hypocrisy possible.

Except for the fact that the Mormon priesthood ban finds no equivalent in the Catholic Church. And your continued citation of USA Catholicism shows that you are not familiar with how Catholicism defines doctrine/practices and what it means to compare what “The Catholic Church” teaches to what “The LDS Church” teaches.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

For some reason I’ve been under the impression that if you are single and of a “certain age” you must attend the singles ward if there is one in your area. Also under the impression the “singles wards” are more common in heavily LDS areas.

Nope, you aren’t forced into attending the singles ward from my understanding. You can attend the regular ward if you want.

In NYC, there are 4 singles wards. There is of course also a temple.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The singles wards were designed mainly for college students, but there is no requirement that singles MUST attend singles wards. The are there as, frankly, a matchmaking service. The idea is to get 'em hitched and in ‘regular’ wards as quickly as possible.

Yuk.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

To sum up my thoughts on this topic:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had a “policy” until 1978 to not ordain blacks to their priesthood. It seems that the LDS church teaches that the origin of the ban is unknown, and most Mormons online tend to agree with this.

The First Presidency of the LDS church released this statement in 1949:
**
"The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of* direct commandment from the Lord*, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin 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.”**

Here we have the First Presidency, the highest priesthood quorum of the LDS church, teaching that the priesthood ban was due to a “direct commandment from the Lord”. It seems as if Mormons today disagree with this, and claim that they do not know the origins of the ban, or that it was due to “the times”, and thus did not originate with God, but with man, and that God then decided to correct this in 1978.

Dianaiad attempts to find a comparable policy in the Catholic Church by pointing to USA Catholics impeding blacks from being ordained. This is of course comparing apples to oranges. In contrast to the LDS church, the Catholic Church has never taught that blacks are not to be ordained to the priesthood. We have never had a Pope or Ecumenical Council state that due to a direct commandment from the Lord, blacks are not to be ordained. The consistent teaching of the Catholic Church has been that men of all races can be ordained to the priesthood. This of course doesn’t deny that USA Catholics did impede blacks from being ordained to the priesthood. We can clearly and confidently state that they were really a product of “the times”, and that there was absolutely no teaching of the Catholic Church that blacks are not to be ordained. The first African American priest had to go to Rome to enter seminary, which is further evidence of this. This also ignores the existence of the Church in other countries, as well as the Ethiopian Catholic Church’s connection to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as well.

No Catholic here is ignoring the horrible things that have occurred in Catholic history, and it is disingenuous of dianaiad to claim that we are. What we are calling for is an accurate portrayal of Catholicism, specifically what Catholics mean by “doctrine”, as well as a logical comparison between the issue at hand, which is the restriction of blacks being ordained to the priesthood. We know that the LDS church taught that no blacks were to be ordained to the priesthood, and that you couldn’t just travel to another country or area to be ordained. In contrast, the Catholic Church never taught that no blacks were to be ordained to the priesthood, and when blacks were impeded from entering seminary in the USA (clearly a product of “the times”, and not any policy or doctrine of the Church), the first black American priest traveled to Rome to enter seminary. We do not deny our history or claim that it’s OK because it’s not part of Sacred Scripture or Tradition, or because it wasn’t infallible defined by a Pope or Council. No Catholic has done that here. Instead, we want such matters to be understood in their proper context, which is not the same thing as denying that they occurred or OK’ing their existence.

 

[Returning_Home]

Yuk.

And double-yuk to the things she left out: marriage is encouraged because within marriage occurs pregnancy and thus babies, whom, the LDS believe, are then imbued with the righteous spirits of those who fought on the side of God during the war in heaven. That’s the reason that Mormon families tend to be large, giving all of those souls in the ‘premortal existance’ bodies with which to be good Mormons so they can become gods.

 

[zaffiroborant]

OK, we divide our wards strictly by geography: if you live in a specific area, you attend the ward that services that area. That means that all the different cultures that live in a specific area attend church together, whether they are black, white, or purple with pink polka dots.

Those who are of different faiths, and choose to go to churches that are further away from their nearest one, are segregating themselves. Those Polish families you speak of are attending segregated congregations. IT doesn’t matter who does the choosing…it’s segregation. Remember, back during legal segregation of blacks from whites, it wasn’t just the BLACKS who were segregated. So were the white folks…and, again as I said, it wasn’t good for them, either, in spite of their preferences.

So you think these people are not capable of deciding what’s good for them but you are, got it. And of course in spite of all their involvement in the community they live in they are isolating themselves because they don’t know what’s good for them when they attend a church that from all appearances works for them. It seems to me from your reliance on “church attendance” as the only arbiter of “non-segregation” that actual involvement in your community is of no importance the only thing of importance is where you attend… I’ve seen this understanding from LDS, former LDS, and those who call themselves New Order Mormons. I’m grateful that where I live the Polish people (and pretty much all of us) that attend the church that works for them are out there working for/with and volunteering for/with Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentacostals, in our community. From what you’ve said here “church” is ultimate arbiter of whether or not someone is segregated, I don’t see why that is the case. How are people who are so heavily involved in the community segregating themselves, what is the problem with them choosing to live this part of their lives as they see fit?

In your response you don’t in any way address how the LDS sacrament meeting includes “cultural diversity” or how the “form” of your worship might meet approval from the man who had trouble with the “white” aspects of the Catholic church.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Nope, you aren’t forced into attending the singles ward from my understanding. You can attend the regular ward if you want.

In NYC, there are 4 singles wards. There is of course also a temple.

Well that seems to be quite analogous to say people who choose to attend a Polish parish or an African American parish. What is Dianas problem with like minded or similarly situated people worshiping together???

 

[LongJourney]

encarta world dictionary:

seg·re·ga·tion sèggrə gáysh’n ]

1.** enforced separation of groups: the practice of keeping ethnic, racial, religious, or gender groups separate, especially by enforcing** the use of separate schools, transportation, housing, and other facilities, and usually discriminating against a minority group

In Mormon culture, people are ASSIGNED to a ward. In Catholicism, people are free to attend Mass at whatever parish they choose. Segregation, in the dictionary sense of the word, means ENFORCED separation. Diana is following the usual Mormon tactic of redefining words to make her point.

 

[dianaiad]

What is a “practical policy”?

A policy that is practiced. For instance, I would say that a policy which is declared by the Pope along with offers of all enclusive indulgences for adherence, and threats of discipline for those who object to qualify for that, wouldn’t you?

I’m going to write a lot here, but please bear with me; I’m not going to participate in this thread after this post.
I know that I have been going off on my usual rant here, that looks very much like anti-Catholicism accusations, but before I go on with this post , I want to say something to all of you who are offended by my pointing out the…unfortunate…history of the Catholics in terms of racism. I only do so in one case and for one reason; when my own faith is attacked unfairly for a racist history, and when I perceive that the hypocrisy is too much for me to handle. I’m sorry, but when that happens I tend to explode “suddenly, violently and all over the place.” (three points to the geek who gets the reference…)

There have been many, many organizations who have ‘sinned’ far less egregiously in terms of bigotry and racism than Catholicism has, historically, and not done a tenth as much to repair the damage or repent that Catholicism has, either. The problem is, y’all have a billion members, and that’s a number that is very hard to ‘move.’ You have had to deal with many generations of people who are entrenched racists…as the world has been racist…and that’s a lot of people, cultures, languages and attitudes to change. This is to be praised and encouraged, and I deeply admire y’all for it. It is, frankly, an incredible accomplishment, where you are today.

I have nothing but admiration for the Catholic church and how far it has come in terms of race. From MY pov (remember, I’m the Mormon and think you are all a bunch of apostates …) you are doing it pretty much on your own, with individual inspiration from God, but without direct public guidance from Him. That makes your accomplishment even more admirable. If there are vestiges of racism in Catholicism (as evidenced by ‘black only’ congregations, the very anemic representation of black to white priests compared to black and white membership, and the perception of black members as seen in polls) it’s nothing to what it used to be, and is getting better all the time. I believe that you will eventually fix the last vestiges of this, given time and individual faith.

The problem is, you have no idea what my reaction was when I was looking through all those Papal Bulls and reading the texts, and comparing the history that went along with them. “Shock” doesn’t come close. When you consider that the reason I went LOOKING is because a few Catholics were looking down their noses at Mormonism and our not allowing blacks to have the priesthood for 138 years–and then getting even MORE insulting because that policy was changed in 1978, perhaps you can understand a little bit better about my reaction. It felt like…having Jeffrey Dahmer criticize me for not being a vegetarian. I know that this sounds shocking, but that was truly the level of my reaction, and my very deep seated anger…actually, ‘wrath’ is closer… when I read the Bulls of Popes actually beginning the black slave trade, and offering blanket indulgences to the men who went slave raiding. When I read about the history of the Catholic church in America and how long it took to have a black priest from HERE–and what the man had to go through in order to BECOME a priest (Fr. Tolton is up for sainthood as a direct result of what he went through. Were you aware of that?) I just sat there for a moment, stunned. I had no idea. None. I wasn’t expecting any of that–and believe me, I didn’t go to any anti-Catholic site for any of this.
The thing is, the hypocrisy of having a Catholic actually criticize Mormonism for withholding the priesthood from blacks of African descent for a whole 138 years, while claiming that his OWN faith was utterly innocent of such things, enraged me to the point that I actually got dizzy. I don’t do that often.

continued on next post…

 

[dianaiad]

continued…
I would like to present my POV here as simply as I can; perhaps this will settle the matter (not convince you that I’m right, just…explain the LDS POV here). Whether it does or not, in the interest of me not having a stroke, I’m done with it.

We have two arguments going; on the Catholic side, I see these arguments:

A; yes, we have been racist in the past, but when we were, we were going completely against doctrine, so you can’t blame ‘Catholicism,’ just ‘Catholics.’ Our leaders, not claiming to be prophets (since we claim that there is no more public revelation) are 'allowed" to exercise their free will and do evil things without abrogating Catholic doctrine or tarring Catholicism with their acts.

B. since Mormons claim to have public revelation, and your leaders are "Prophets, seers and revelators’ who claim to speak directly to God–and more importantly, have God speak directly to them, then anything they say from the pulpit, no matter who they are, MUST be seen as doctrinal. Therefore all LDS church policy is doctrinal, because it was declared by a church leader. Thus, withholding the priesthood from blacks was doctrinal, but it is ‘false doctrine’ and this proves that Mormonism is false, and all of us are evil racists. The proof is that we changed our policy on that in 1978 because the IRS was out to revoke our tax exemption and we caved under political pressure. (looking) yep, I think that covers it…

From MY POV, I see this:

A: Although Catholics disclaim the term ‘public revelation,’ they do adhere to “Holy Tradition” from which they derive doctrine and hold to be equal with Scripture in doing so. As well, they allow that at specific times, a Pope is 'infallible." This happens when he speaks ex cathedra (that is, he tells us that what he is about to say falls under this classification) and the topic is about 'faith and morals." There is only one way that any human being can be ‘infallible’ in terms of religion, and that is when God ensures it…makes it impossible for him to err. The Pope is telling the Catholics of the world what God wants them to hear, and God makes very certain that what he tells them is what God wants said, without error. THAT, my friends, is the very definition of ‘public revelation.’ Therefore, even though they don’t like the term, they DO claim a very impressive sort of public revelation. That means, of course, that they must use the same standards for our leaders as they do for yours; unless they make it very, very clear that what is said is revelation, and thus the same as scripture, then they are all allowed to screw up and be men. Who can sin, even, without altering doctrine.

B. Mormons claim to have public revelation, but (in spite of people who love to take things out of context) our leaders have made it rather clear that public revelation is very different from sermons from the pulpit. As important as those sermons are, as effective as they might be in setting policy and exhorting actions, they aren’t scripture unless the prophet involved SAYS it is, and then it is accepted and canonized as such. We don’t have ‘Sacred Tradition’ that we hold equal to scripture, we have an open canon.

What this means is this: The Catholic church, through its Popes, Cardinals and whole membership, has in its history been guilty of such horrific racism as to literally change the history of the world and of blacks, especially the blacks in the New World. If it were not for Catholicism, we wouldn’t HAVE African American descendents of slaves living here. If it were not for Catholicism, the continent of South America would be speaking languages other than Spanish and Portuguese, and we might even still have some of those ancient Mesoamerican cities still up and running. Perhaps not…but you can bet that there would be far fewer cathedrals built on top of burned out and ruined temples and worship places.

…continued once more…

 

[dianaiad]

last one, I promise…

It was the specific act of one Pope that did, in one declaration, more damage to blacks than any other one act of any man or group. He did it under color of his authority as Pope, and ensured cooperation by offering indulgences and issuing punishments. The entire church followed his lead, and believed…and so the international slave trade, comprising almost completely of black African slaves, was born.

He did not say 'I, Nicholas, a man who just happens to be Pope, think it would be a good idea if you Portuguese and Spanish would invade Africa and enslave all the “Saracens”(read, black Africans) in perpetuity." He wrote:

“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.”

Note: “Apostolic authority.” That, to me, is extremely important language. It means that the Pope is speaking AS the religious leader, whose words are supported by Heaven itself; ‘bound in heaven as it is on earth’ and all of that. You CAN NOT simply dismiss this by saying 'well, it’s not doctrine…" because if you define anything that an LDS leader says from the pulpit or in a magazine as doctrine, you MUST use the same standard for your own leaders.

While the full text of “Dum Diversas” is not available, the follow-up text of “Romanus Pontifex” of 1455 most certainly is…((when you go read “Romanus Pontifex” from the link, please read the intro…note the complaint–not that the provisions in it were evil, but that the Pope gave all this authority to PORTUGAL and left Spain out of the goody train!) …and it not only confirms, but expands the provisions of “Dum Diversas.” Both Bulls are quite clearly issued under the color of Papal Apostolic, i.e, religious, authority. In fact, the last paragraph is quite a list of penalties for those who object, including excommunication and interdiction. Now it seems to me that when someone is confident enough in his religious authority to expect Heaven to back him up on excommunications, he certainly figures that this is, well…you get the picture.

The Catholic church has OBVIOUSLY had a doctrine that made it allowable to enslave entire peoples. I would call that considerably more problematic than anything we have done, or not done. They have long had policies that restricted the priesthood so that at least American blacks need not apply until close to 400 years after Columbus showed up and the Spanish (specifically instructed to do so, authorized, encouraged and accompanied by the Church) started decimating and enslaving the South Americans.

In opposition to that history, we have…us. Joseph Smith ordained a black man. His priesthood was never revoked. For 138 years, under color of authority from leaders, we restricted giving blacks of African descent the priesthood. That is the sum total of our racist actions…and thirty two years ago that policy was changed, instantly and permanently.

We claim that this policy was changed as a direct result of public revelation. So…we all listened to it, and all but a very few welcomed it joyfully.

Can you see, then, that from where I stand, Catholics who criticize the CoJCoLDS are being hypocrites to an extreme degree? This, to ME, isn’t 'mote and beam." It’s “Chernobyl and firecracker.”

And that’s it from me.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

We have two arguments going; on the Catholic side, I see these arguments:

A; yes, we have been racist in the past, but when we were, we were going completely against doctrine, so you can’t blame ‘Catholicism,’ just ‘Catholics.’ Our leaders, not claiming to be prophets (since we claim that there is no more public revelation) are 'allowed" to exercise their free will and do evil things without abrogating Catholic doctrine or tarring Catholicism with their acts.

This is something that I brought up in the previous thread, which you did not address. You asked something to the effect of “why would God allow these leaders to do and say these things, if it is the true Church?” The problem with your statement is that it completely violates the heralded principle of “free agency”. Catholics firmly believe that we are all sinners, right up to the Pope (who confesses to a priest like the rest of us), and that we all have the free will to do what we want to do. I would hope that the ordained would know better, but they are very much human as the rest of us.

The fact here is that no Catholic excuses the negative events in our history. What we do understand, and which you ignore, is that we have a standard for knowing what is and isn’t doctrine/dogma/discipline/etc. Therefore, while we do not excuse these actions, we want them understood in their proper context.

B. since Mormons claim to have public revelation, and your leaders are "Prophets, seers and revelators’ who claim to speak directly to God–and more importantly, have God speak directly to them, then anything they say from the pulpit, no matter who they are, MUST be seen as doctrinal. Therefore all LDS church policy is doctrinal, because it was declared by a church leader. Thus, withholding the priesthood from blacks was doctrinal, but it is ‘false doctrine’ and this proves that Mormonism is false, and all of us are evil racists. The proof is that we changed our policy on that in 1978 because the IRS was out to revoke our tax exemption and we caved under political pressure. (looking) yep, I think that covers it…

The problem is that Gospel Principles teaches that in addition to the Standard Works, the inspired words of living prophets are also scripture. So, how do we know when we’re reading those “inspired words”? I believe I asked this earlier. The First Presidency stated that the priesthood ban was due to a “direct commandment from the Lord”. Were they correct or incorrect? Either way, when we are discussing the issue at hand, the restriction of blacks from the priesthood, there is simply no equivalent found in Catholicism. Your discussion of USA Catholicism does not find similarity with Mormonism, for the reasons I have brought up numerous times.

So, there needs to be some standard established for discerning the “inspired words of living prophets”, which we can apparently find at Conferences and in Church magazines. So, are all of their words at General Conference inspired? Do they remain inspired after they are no longer living? If a Mormon can answer this perhaps this will help in understanding.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

From MY POV, I see this:

A: Although Catholics disclaim the term ‘public revelation,’ they do adhere to “Holy Tradition” from which they derive doctrine and hold to be equal with Scripture in doing so. As well, they allow that at specific times, a Pope is 'infallible." This happens when he speaks ex cathedra (that is, he tells us that what he is about to say falls under this classification) and the topic is about 'faith and morals." There is only one way that any human being can be ‘infallible’ in terms of religion, and that is when God ensures it…makes it impossible for him to err. The Pope is telling the Catholics of the world what God wants them to hear, and God makes very certain that what he tells them is what God wants said, without error. THAT, my friends, is the very definition of ‘public revelation.’ Therefore, even though they don’t like the term, they DO claim a very impressive sort of public revelation. That means, of course, that they must use the same standards for our leaders as they do for yours; unless they make it very, very clear that what is said is revelation, and thus the same as scripture, then they are all allowed to screw up and be men. Who can sin, even, without altering doctrine.

It is very amusing to me, as I have said before, that you insist on Mormons defining Mormonism, and claim that Catholics should define Catholicism, yet here again you claim that Catholicism has public revelation in Papal Infallibility, despite our repeated claim that we believe that Public Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. It seems that you just don’t understand what Papal Infallibility is really about.

Whether we are talking about Papal Infallibility or the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils, Catholicism does not believe that these pronouncements are new revelations. Instead, we believe that, through the Holy Spirit, the Pope or the Council provides formal definitions and clarifications as to what has already been revealed in Public Revelation. The Bible is not a Catechism, for example, and therefore these avenues of infallibility define what is found in Scripture, as well as Tradition.

Therefore, to use your language, the Pope (or the Council) is telling the people what God has already said, but defining it in clear language, therefore making it binding on all Catholics everywhere to believe. We don’t believe that God is providing a new revelation that was never believed.

B. Mormons claim to have public revelation, but (in spite of people who love to take things out of context) our leaders have made it rather clear that public revelation is very different from sermons from the pulpit. As important as those sermons are, as effective as they might be in setting policy and exhorting actions, they aren’t scripture unless the prophet involved SAYS it is, and then it is accepted and canonized as such. We don’t have ‘Sacred Tradition’ that we hold equal to scripture, we have an open canon.

As I mentioned, Gospel Principles teaches that in addition to the 4 Standard Works, the inspired words of living prophets are also scripture. So, how can we know when they are speaking inspired words? This is the issue, and many Mormons, such as yourself (judging from previous posts in this thread) attempt to be “sola scriptura” and claim that if it isn’t in the Standard Works, it isn’t doctrine. The problem is that your church teaches, in Gospel Principles, that the inspired words of living prophets are also scripture, in addition to the Standard Works. So again, one has to be able to discern where we can find these inspired words, which Gospel Principles teaches are found in Conferences and Church magazines.

What this means is this: The Catholic church, through its Popes, Cardinals and whole membership, has in its history been guilty of such horrific racism as to literally change the history of the world and of blacks, especially the blacks in the New World. If it were not for Catholicism, we wouldn’t HAVE African American descendents of slaves living here. If it were not for Catholicism, the continent of South America would be speaking languages other than Spanish and Portuguese, and we might even still have some of those ancient Mesoamerican cities still up and running. Perhaps not…but you can bet that there would be far fewer cathedrals built on top of burned out and ruined temples and worship places.

…continued once more…

Uh LOL, but anyone who has studied African and Western history knows that this is exaggeration and, in relation to “we wouldn’t HAVE African American descendents (sic) of slaves living here”, just illogical.

And again, all of this is just distraction from the topic at hand.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

last one, I promise…

It was the specific act of one Pope that did, in one declaration, more damage to blacks than any other one act of any man or group. He did it under color of his authority as Pope, and ensured cooperation by offering indulgences and issuing punishments. The entire church followed his lead, and believed…and so the international slave trade, comprising almost completely of black African slaves, was born.

Funny, when we studied the slave trade, in high school and college, this isn’t how we were taught that it was born.

But again, this is just distraction.

He did not say 'I, Nicholas, a man who just happens to be Pope, think it would be a good idea if you Portuguese and Spanish would invade Africa and enslave all the “Saracens”(read, black Africans) in perpetuity." He wrote:

“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.”

Note: “Apostolic authority.” That, to me, is extremely important language. It means that the Pope is speaking AS the religious leader, whose words are supported by Heaven itself; ‘bound in heaven as it is on earth’ and all of that. You CAN NOT simply dismiss this by saying 'well, it’s not doctrine…" because if you define anything that an LDS leader says from the pulpit or in a magazine as doctrine, you MUST use the same standard for your own leaders.

No, we don’t. Each Church establishes the way that doctrine is defined, and you cannot use the same standard, since it isn’t the same. Your church claims that the inspired words of living prophets can be found in church magazines and Conferences. So, can they or can they not be? How do we know, and where is this defined by your church? That is the issue here. In contrast, what you post above does not meet the clear requirements of Papal Infallibility, and is therefore not a definition of doctrine, according to Catholicism itself.

While the full text of “Dum Diversas” is not available, the follow-up text of “Romanus Pontifex” of 1455 most certainly is…((when you go read “Romanus Pontifex” from the link, please read the intro…note the complaint–not that the provisions in it were evil, but that the Pope gave all this authority to PORTUGAL and left Spain out of the goody train!) …and it not only confirms, but expands the provisions of “Dum Diversas.” Both Bulls are quite clearly issued under the color of Papal Apostolic, i.e, religious, authority. In fact, the last paragraph is quite a list of penalties for those who object, including excommunication and interdiction. Now it seems to me that when someone is confident enough in his religious authority to expect Heaven to back him up on excommunications, he certainly figures that this is, well…you get the picture.

See above. We very much can say that they were a product of their times and the surrounding cultures. None of this is claimed to be due to a “direct commandment from the Lord”, nor are they instances of Papal Infallibility. This does not mean that they are excused, since no Catholic has claimed such. Instead, they must be understood in the proper context of Catholic teaching, and not a caricature or what you want it to be.

In contrast, the Mormon priesthood ban was claimed by the First Presidency as a direct commandment from the Lord. Were they right or wrong? Did this fall under “the inspired words of living prophets”? Why or why not (especially since Gospel Principles presents those inspired words as being in addition to the Standard Works, so there is no requirement for these words to be canonized)?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The Catholic church has OBVIOUSLY had a doctrine that made it allowable to enslave entire peoples. I would call that considerably more problematic than anything we have done, or not done. They have long had policies that restricted the priesthood so that at least American blacks need not apply until close to 400 years after Columbus showed up and the Spanish (specifically instructed to do so, authorized, encouraged and accompanied by the Church) started decimating and enslaving the South Americans.

The Catholic Church did not “OBVIOUSLY” have a doctrine on this. You keep insisting on defining what makes “doctrine” in Catholicism without allowing Catholics to do so. Again, you are quite fond of making sure that Mormons define Mormonism, and you do the same thing that you accuse others of doing. Mormons are also fond of claiming that the priesthood ban was due to “the times”, and you seem to not allow your references to Catholic history the same context.
Please provide the quotes from “the Church” that authorized and encouraged American Catholics to restrict the priesthood from blacks. You have yet to provide this, since it simply does not exist.

In contrast, we have clear statements from Mormon leaders stating that blacks everywhere cannot be ordained to the priesthood. We have a First Presidency statement claiming that this is due to a direct commandment from the Lord. You will not find any equivalent statements in Catholicism.

In opposition to that history, we have…us. Joseph Smith ordained a black man. His priesthood was never revoked. For 138 years, under color of authority from leaders, we restricted giving blacks of African descent the priesthood. That is the sum total of our racist actions…and thirty two years ago that policy was changed, instantly and permanently.

Oh yes, it’s quite easy to claim this, since the Catholic Church has existed for over 1000 years, while your church is 180 years old. I assume that the Protestant church formed last month could make similar claims about their relatively uncolored history.

We claim that this policy was changed as a direct result of public revelation. So…we all listened to it, and all but a very few welcomed it joyfully.

Wonderful. And we also have the First Presidency claiming that the ban itself was due to public revelation, but this is denied. Which brings us back to the issue of inspired words of living prophets.

Can you see, then, that from where I stand, Catholics who criticize the CoJCoLDS are being hypocrites to an extreme degree? This, to ME, isn’t 'mote and beam." It’s “Chernobyl and firecracker.”

And that’s it from me.

No, I don’t see it, for the above reasons.

 

[zaffiroborant]

OK, we divide our wards strictly by geography: if you live in a specific area, you attend the ward that services that area. That means that all the different cultures that live in a specific area attend church together, whether they are black, white, or purple with pink polka dots.

Those who are of different faiths, and choose to go to churches that are further away from their nearest one, are segregating themselves. Those Polish families you speak of are attending segregated congregations. IT doesn’t matter who does the choosing…it’s segregation. Remember, back during legal segregation of blacks from whites, it wasn’t just the BLACKS who were segregated. So were the white folks…and, again as I said, it wasn’t good for them, either, in spite of their preferences.

Catholic parishes are also geographically defined, so why is our method wrong when you use the same one?
LDS singles wards are segregated, so it’s okay when you guys self-segregate (so much so that you deny any segregation at all) yet when we have the same type of situation there is something wrong with it.

Could you explain what the LDS church does so this doesn’t happen in their churches? How are many cultures incorporated in the sacrament meeting so your worship is not considered “white” and your prayers not considered “white” (I would think this could be tough with the the thee, thou etc. “language of prayer” espoused by the LDS church) from this man’s point of view? Because I’m a little bit lost over how drawing geographic boundaries enhances cultural diversity in a ward more than it does in a parish. Quite frankly I believe this gentleman would find the same problem in the LDS church.

 

[Returning_Home]

The Catholic Church did not “OBVIOUSLY” have a doctrine on this.

Wonderful. And we also have the First Presidency claiming that the ban itself was due to public revelation, but this is denied. Which brings us back to the issue of inspired words of living prophets.

Do you know what she forgot to tell you about all of this? She conveniently forgot to mention that Utah was the only territory west of the Mississippi that held slaves.

Oops.

And I don’t believe that the ‘revelation’ that allowed blacks the priesthood has ever seen print, making it spurious at best.