Has Our Church Made Mistakes?

[LittleWyvern]

A closed canon does not mean that the Catholic Church is absent revelation. This is a common misconception of the Catholic Church by LDS members. What a closed canon implies is that there will not be any new doctrine that will be revealed before the coming of Christ. Therefore, in Catholic belief, the LDS Church cannot possibly be true because it introduces doctrines that are not present in existing canon - such as Pre-mortal existence and baptism of the dead.

A closed canon does not prevent revelation through the Holy Spirit in the same manner that the presence of a living Prophet in the LDS Church does not prevent revelation through the Holy Spirit directly to its members. The Catholic faith stands on 3 legs - Sacred Scripture (Bible), Sacred Tradition (Catholic beliefs that were orally handed down from Jesus Christ through the Apostles and the faithful that are not present in the Bible such as the organization of the Church), and the Magesterium (teaching authority of the Bishops headed by the Pope). The pope, therefore, has the authority to correct mis-interpretations of mis-applications of canon (such as the belief that the earth is the center of the universe) or clarification of existing canon (such as the fate of babies who die before baptism), etc.

I'm sorry for the misconception. The point I was trying to make is that the comparison may not be entirely helpful because we can change things by simply receiving new doctrine or teachings, while other churches must change things by making an appeal to tradition or commentaries by those in authority to do so. The process by which corrections to past practices are handled is different between the two.

Edited June 11, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[Guest]

I'm sorry for the misconception. The point I was trying to make is that the comparison may not be entirely helpful because we can change things by simply receiving new doctrine or teachings, while other churches must change things by making an appeal to tradition or commentaries by those in authority to do so.

It doesn't matter if we, as LDS, can receive new doctrine or teachings because new doctrine/teachings does not make existing doctrine/teachings false.

[Just_A_Guy]

That isn't quite true. Holocaust victims, as I understand, may still be baptized by proxy so long as their names are submitted by a direct descendant. In other words, if my grandfather had been a holocaust victim and I had converted, I would still be permitted to do his work.

Point taken. So it's a priesthood ban directed at Jews who happen to be dead and who--through no fault of their own--have no living progeny.

[Wingnut]

Point taken. So it's a priesthood ban directed at Jews who happen to be dead and who--through no fault of their own--have no living progeny.

I see your point, though I don't think it's a fair or accurate classification. It's not an imposed priesthood ban so much as it's a petitioned exclusion. The Jews have requested that we not perform baptisms for their Holocaust dead. In complying with that, the priesthood "ban" is an extension. But it's something they've requested, and we have respectfully acquiesced.

Also, it would be more accurate to say that it's those who have no living LDS progeny.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Wingnut

[Just_A_Guy]

How is my summary not fair or accurate, Wingnut? LDS policy prevents Person A from receiving the priesthood or temple ordinances--or even baptism (something the original priesthood ban never did). But for Person A's ethnicity, (s)he could receive those ordinances. The policy is in place because of pressure from Person B, who styled himself an interested party and believed himself to be acting for Person A's own good.

Let's imagine, for a moment, that tomorrow the Church announces that it has found, deep in its archives, a letter from Frederick Douglass to Brigham Young dated sometime in 1846. The letter states, in pertinent part, "your religion is hooey; and you'd better quit proselytizing among my fellow African Americans". Would that make you look more charitably on the historical priesthood ban? I doubt it. You would, I daresay, ask what right any one man--even a universally-acknowledged secular leader of a group--would have, to come between a worshipper and God in such a manner.

It shouldn't matter if Person B is Frederick Douglass (hypothetically), Brigham Young (historically), or Simon Wisenthal (recently). The bottom line is that there is a policy which denies LDS ordinances to a particular group of people based on nothing more than their ethnicity. If the Lord accepts, or even institutes, one policy--however hurtful--as a necessary and temporary sop to public opinion; then it stands to reason that He may well have accepted, or even instituted, the other policy as well. On the other hand, if the one policy was a wholly unjustifiable and un-approved violation of a core Gospel principle than the other must be as well; and it is incumbent upon us as members of the Church to get it changed--right?

Edited June 11, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[selek]

I see your point, though I don't think it's a fair or accurate classification. It's not an imposed priesthood ban so much as it's a petitioned exclusion. The Jews have requested that we not perform baptisms for their Holocaust dead. In complying with that, the priesthood "ban" is an extension. But it's something they've requested, and we have respectfully acquiesced.

Now, Wingnut- let's not demagogue this issue along racial lines too enthusiastically, now shall we?

If we're going to be "fair and accurate" shouldn't we acknowledge that the Church received a request from SOME Jews, NOT the Jewish people or culture as a whole?

We received complaints from a tiny minority inflamed with ignorance and indignation and set upon by a dishonest rabble who sought to exploit them as a weapon against the Church.

Also, it would be more accurate to say that it's those who have no living LDS progeny.

So- because of the machinations of a militant few, we are going to delay the eternal blessings of many.

To be blunt, I don't believe you've thought the ramifications on this one through, or that you're applying the same standards consistently to all involved (and I speak as someone who would have been denied the Priesthood before 1978).

Under normal circumstances, I would expect you to be among the first to remind us that "Justice delayed is justice denied" and that "Justice denied to one man is justice denied to all".

Critics of the Priesthood Ban argue that men and women were "denied" blessings to which they were otherwise entitled, because of the allegedly racism of others.

Isn't that exactly what we are doing to our deceased brothers and sisters of Jewish extraction? Why is it okay to deny blessings to "Jews" based upon the wrong-headed opinions of a few, yet inexcusable to have done exactly the same thing people of African-American descent?

In an eternal sense, no one is being denied anything to which they are entitled, but JAG is right: the "wait-your-turn, get-to-the-back-of-the-bus" rationalizations used to delay these blessings to deceased Jews would be rightly denounced loudly and at length in nearly any other context.

In that same vein, however, I think you've struck on the one point that I might agree is a mistake made by the Church (and even then, I chalk it up as "Not My Stewardship" and trust both the Brethren and the Lord to handle things in justice and mercy).

We should never allow our service to our God or to our brethren (living or dead) to be vetoed by the tantrums of the pomp of Babylon, no matter their race, color, creed, or religion.

Edited June 11, 2013 by selek
Softened tone, more coherent.

[Wingnut]

All I'm saying is that this so-called ban on the priesthood for deceased Jews exists not because the Church imposes it, but because it's a result of the Church respecting the wishes of the still-living descendants of the Jews in question. Not sure why that's at all controversial.

[skippy740]

So- because of the machinations of a militant few, we are going to delay the eternal blessings of many.

Not necessarily.

For the short term... yes. Because there have been those who are overzealous of doing work for the dead that they are doing names for anyone/everyone that has a death certificate. We are encouraged to do OUR family history and temple work... not those of whom we have no relation.

Also, it is part of our mission and testimony to help those of other faiths to learn of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Those who are of Jewish descent converted to the LDS faith can then do the family history work... including those who have been in the holocaust... as long as they are related.

In short... we have a lot of missionary work to do. :)

3 Nephi 29:8

8 Yea, and ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor any of the remnant of the house of Israel; for behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn.

[selek]

All I'm saying is that this so-called ban on the priesthood for deceased Jews exists not because the Church imposes it, but because it's a result of the Church respecting the wishes of the still-living descendants of the Jews in question. Not sure why that's at all controversial.

Emphasis mine.

It's controversial because- in whole or in part- it's a misrepresentation of the facts on the ground.

If there were living descendants who complained, they are a tiny minority of those complaining (who are themselves a tiny minority of the Jewish population).

And spin it how you like, we are delaying the blessings of millions because of the wrong-headed agitation of a tiny few.

[skippy740]

Uh... Selek, have you spoken to anyone of Jewish descent?

I don't know that many myself. But the one who was extremely Orthodox had a real problem with it... and I don't consider her to be the "tiny few".

She told me that her people have been hunted during their existence... and now they're being 'hunted' in death through proxy baptism. I did explain our faith and our beliefs of this practice... that no one is baptized against their will. It is simply offered as a gift to feely accept or reject in the afterlife.

But she was rather agitated about the practice.

And she was one of the very few Orthodox Jews that I've ever talked to about the LDS faith.

[selek]

Not necessarily.

For the short term... yes.

These statements are contradictory, as I'm sure you know.

As I noted above, ultimately (and in the eternal sense), no one will be denied any blessings to which they are entitled.

In the short term, however, that is precisely what we are being asked to do.

"Justice delayed is justice denied." Exactly the same argument can be made for priesthood and other proxy blessings.

Exactly the same argument HAS been made ad nauseum in explaining why the pre-1978 Ban was "a travesty".

If one is wrong- then so is the other.

Because there have been those who are overzealous of doing work for the dead that they are doing names for anyone/everyone that has a death certificate. We are encouraged to do OUR family history and temple work... not those of whom we have no relation.

I understand the policy and the rationale behind it, and I agree- we need to do the work for our own families first.

That having been said, why should one man wait for his blessings because a stranger whom he never met is offended that he might receive it?

Isn't that punishing him because of the pride and sin of another?

If I am in a hospital ward administering a Priesthood blessing to my relative, what shall I say to the man in the next bed who requests one?

Shall I deny him because a stranger three rooms down is offended that he might receive it?

Shall I also refuse to pray for my neighbor because an athiest might be offended at the notion?

At what point do you draw the line?

At what point do you stop allowing others to restrict your calling and commission in order to accomodate the pride and prerogatives of Babylon?

At what point do you stop hiding your light under a bushel for fear of offending those who despise light and truth?

[Maureen]

...And spin it how you like, we are delaying the blessings of millions because of the wrong-headed agitation of a tiny few.

selek, you see them as blessings. But those who are not interested in what you see as a blessing, have every right to practice their own faith, and reject what they don't believe or practice themselves.

M.

[Vort]

She told me that her people have been hunted during their existence... and now they're being 'hunted' in death through proxy baptism.

It's a stupid argument. Period. It's based purely on unreasoned emotion. I can argue for literally anything -- prostitution, murdering my neighbor, homosexual "marriage" -- based purely on emotion. Such arguments are meaningless. Shame on this woman for embracing her inner stupidity rather than actually thinking through the issue.

[selek]

Uh... Selek, have you spoken to anyone of Jewish descent?

I have. I've also read a number of statements from Jewish leaders who emphasize that since our ordinances hold no power, that we cannot be doing any harm (except, perhaps, to ourselves).

I don't know that many myself. But the one who was extremely Orthodox had a real problem with it... and I don't consider her to be the "tiny few".

Parse that sentence and tell me what is wrong with it.

You have a single anecdote involving one person.

But she was rather agitated about the practice.

That she believes strongly does not make her representative of her people as a whole.

And she was one of the very few Orthodox Jews that I've ever talked to about the LDS faith.

With respect, this sounds like old joke about "All Indians walk single file. I saw one do it once."

I am not suggesting that no one is offended, nor am I suggesting that they are not sincere in their beliefs or feelings.

I DO, however, question their authority to speak on behalf of "all Jews, everywhere, and at any time", and I DO question their authority to dictate terms to the rest of us based on their own prerogatives.

Shall I let my children starve because YOU* are offended by the idea of hunting for food?

Shall I refuse to vaccinate my children because YOU* are caught up in the epilepsy/vaccine conspiracy theories?

Shall I forego refrigerated food, air conditioning, and the internet because YOU* are convinced that "electricity is the devil's farts conducted through copper wire"?

At what point does YOUR* eccentricity and foolishness STOP impinging upon my rights and liberties?

For all the tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth. For all the ash thrown in the air, for all the wailing, crying, foot stomping, and pouting- no one has demonstrated that proxy baptism for Jews has caused any genuine harm.

There is no Constitutional or human right to not be offended at any time or in any place.

Before you can abridge my rights, you have to show that I am harming (or at least threatening) others by exercising them.

"But I don't like it!" should be left on the second grade playground where it belongs.

* Rhetorical "you".

[selek]

selek, you see them as blessings. But those who are not interested in what you see as a blessing, have every right to practice their own faith, and reject what they don't believe or practice themselves.

M.

Yes, they do.

They do not, however, (with very limited exception) have the right to reject on behalf of someone else.

If I offer you a blessing, you have the right to decline.

If I offer Vort a blessing, your feelings on the matter are utterly irrelevant, no matter how strongly you feel about it.

[Anddenex]

Uh... Selek, have you spoken to anyone of Jewish descent?

I don't know that many myself. But the one who was extremely Orthodox had a real problem with it... and I don't consider her to be the "tiny few".

She told me that her people have been hunted during their existence... and now they're being 'hunted' in death through proxy baptism. I did explain our faith and our beliefs of this practice... that no one is baptized against their will. It is simply offered as a gift to feely accept or reject in the afterlife.

But she was rather agitated about the practice.

And she was one of the very few Orthodox Jews that I've ever talked to about the LDS faith.

I have relatives who are Jewish, also the lineage of Judah, that don't appreciate this. My father was at a family reunion when he was personally asked not to baptize any of my Jewish Grandparents. My father said, "No." I agree with my father's actions.

I would never ask another individual not to practice their religion because I dislike something about it, and I expect the same respect.

[skippy740]

It's a stupid argument. Period. It's based purely on unreasoned emotion. I can argue for literally anything -- prostitution, murdering my neighbor, homosexual "marriage" -- based purely on emotion. Such arguments are meaningless. Shame on this woman for embracing her inner stupidity rather than actually thinking through the issue.

And that's your opinion... calling it stupid. That doesn't show respect for the other person's faith and opinions too.

The dead are dead. Let their progenitors work it out. It will also be worked out in the Millenium. We, the living, have to figure out how to live and work together.

Calling people's opinions 'stupid' is not a good start on peaceful inter-faith relations.

[Just_A_Guy]

Uh... Selek, have you spoken to anyone of Jewish descent?

Skippy, that question strikes me as irrelevant because living Jews are not the group that the policy targets. It would be like saying you can never understand the true impact of the priesthood ban until you've spoken to a Maori.

The question is whether we have spoken to anyone of Jewish descent who are victims of the Holocaust, and the answer to that question is obvious.

selek, you see them as blessings. But those who are not interested in what you see as a blessing, have every right to practice their own faith, and reject what they don't believe or practice themselves.

M.

There seems to be a certain amount of irony in this statement, since those who try to stop Mormonism from doing proxy ordinances for various subsets of people are essentially denying those deceased people the exact same choice.

The dead are dead. Let their progenitors work it out. It will also be worked out in the Millenium. We, the living, have to figure out how to live and work together.

With all due respect, Skippy, if this were 1977 and I wrote "the blacks are black. Let their descendants work it out. It will also be worked out in the Millennium. We, the blood of Israel, have to figure out how to live and work together."--how would you react?

As per our theology the dead are still there, still conscious, still waiting, and still learning. And droves of them are as anxious for the blessings of the gospel as Darius Gray and his predecessors ever were.

***I do want to clarify that I'm not saying the Church should immediately change the proxy-temple-work policy. I am saying that it's more analagous to the pre-1978 priesthood ban than many people here seem to be willing to admit; and that there's a certain incongruity in writing off one policy as man-made and contra the will of God while embracing the other as divinely inspired.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

Yes. The difference between the policy on Blacks and the policy on deceased Jews is simple:

One was an internally sourced practice. (Blacks and the Priesthood)

The other was from external sources. (Holocaust Jews and the Jewish leadership)

One is for us to correct INTERNALLY.

The other, is for us to live in peace with our neighbors.

[Vort]

And that's your opinion... calling it stupid. That doesn't show respect for the other person's faith and opinions too.

The dead are dead. Let their progenitors work it out. It will also be worked out in the Millenium. We, the living, have to figure out how to live and work together.

Calling people's opinions 'stupid' is not a good start on peaceful inter-faith relations.

I said the argument is stupid. And it is. It is an unreasoned, alogical, and emotion-driven argument.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes. The difference between the policy on Blacks and the policy on deceased Jews is simple:

One was an internally sourced practice. (Blacks and the Priesthood)

The other was from external sources. (Holocaust Jews and the Jewish leadership)

One is for us to correct INTERNALLY.

The other, is for us to live in peace with our neighbors.

Surely you don't mean to imply that it's OK for the Church to violate the will of God so long as we're only doing it because a non-Mormon asked us to?

[skippy740]

Skippy, that question strikes me as irrelevant because living Jews are not the group that the policy targets.

Actually, it is the LIVING Jews that the policy targets... why? Because it's the living Jews that have a problem with it. (The dead can't object, now can they?)

The question is whether we have spoken to anyone of Jewish descent who are victims of the Holocaust, and the answer to that question is obvious.

Well, I am of Jewish descent and I have ancestors who are victims of the Holocaust. And yes, we do their work regularly.

[skippy740]

Surely you don't mean to imply that it's OK for the Church to violate the will of God so long as we're only doing it because a non-Mormon asked us to?

I would ask that question to the general authorities who were serving the Lord who allowed this restriction to take place.

That's not my question to answer.

[Just_A_Guy]

Actually, it is the LIVING Jews that the policy targets... why? Because it's the living Jews that have a problem with it. (The dead can't object, now can they?)

So what of the dead Jews? They're in no position to object--so let 'em wait?

You know, blacks weren't really in a position to object for a while, either . . .

Well, I am of Jewish descent and I have ancestors who are victims of the Holocaust. And yes, we do their work regularly.

Then you violate policy.

If you are 100% Jewish and the Holocaust wiped out every single one of your ancestors who was alive during World War 2 (which would mean you'd never been born, but work with me for a second :) ), then depending on how the generations played out you'd be looking at a maximum of four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and sixteen great-great-grandparents covered under the policy. That's a grand total of 28 individuals. That'd keep you busy for a little while; but I think it would be a stretch to say you do their work "regularly". Unless you're also bringing the lines back down and doing collaterals, which I understand to be a violation of the Church's direct-line-ancestors-only policy exception.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

I would ask that question to the general authorities who were serving the Lord who allowed this restriction to take place.

That's not my question to answer.

I'm not aware of any general authorities who are condemning the pre-1978 priesthood policy as spurious.

But if you don't fall into the category of people who thus condemn the pre-1978 policy upholding the Holocaust policy as divinely inspired, then I agree--it's not your question to answer. :)

Otherwise, I'm very interested to know why God would never deny something to a black that He seems to be currently denying to about six million Jews.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Just_A_Guy