Another Question for you guys.

[TOmNossor]

Part of what I see going back and forth between Christ-WA and BJRumph may be a product of misunderstanding of what sustaining the prophet means when one knows that the prophet is not infallible.

For IWonder, I will also try to clarify how common consent does not reveal truth thus precluding some of the evil outcomes that she suggests LDS should fear.

And as is my way, I will contrast the way LDS came to define the limitation of prophets with the way Catholics came to define infallibility and what it means.

LDS sustain our leaders 2x per year. To sustain the leader is much more than to nod nicely toward them. We agree to accept their council. Were I a 200 year old member of the CoJCoLDS who joined in 1830, I am not convinced I would have ever been guided by the Holy Spirit to reject the teaching of my Prophet. As one who would sustain the prophet I would find room for council from him in my beliefs. I know that as a less than 200 year old member I have NEVER felt a need to address profound doubt associated with the teachings of the Prophets I have known (really only one).

We are counseled to read our scriptures daily. Knowing as I do that the scriptures accepted by common consent are the source of our binding doctrine it is not impossible that I might one day think the Prophet is teaching something contrary or beyond the scriptures. As one who has the “Gift of the Holy Ghost” I would apply prayer and pondering to such questions. As a default I suspect I would say as did the brilliant Bishop Hefele, “to tarry in the opposition party would have been inconsistent with my whole past. I would have set my own infallibility in the place of the infallibility of the Church.” (of course I would substitute the word “inspiration” or “revelation” for “infallibility”).

Now, the prophet of the world is President Hinckley not Brigham Young. I have great respect of the teachings of Brigham Young, but he as a fallible man who I do not sustain as prophet/seer/revelator does not have the same impact on my life as does the fallible man President Hinckley. The D&C, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others are quite clear that I am to believe and follow as I do not as you seem to be suggesting I should.

To tie a bow upon this and move on to IWonders comment let me quote Harold B. Lee who while Prophet said,
Harold B. Lee:
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

As I hope can be seen Supernatural Public Revelation for the whole church (even the whole world) can only come to the prophet. Common consent is the process through which the transmission of this revelation is sealed and made binding upon the members of the CoJCoLDS. This process is our closest thing to the declaration of a EC Canon or the making of an ex cathedra statement.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Here I want to briefly plug this thread. As a ZLOMBIE perhaps you have read it. It provides a number of quotes and comments that support HBL’s above statement. In addition to this, it does deal briefly with the Temple ceremony’s status.

http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm47.showMessageRange?topicID=89.topic&start=1&stop=20

On to why the CoJCoLDS position should not be ridiculed by Catholics. First, the simple truth that LDS should be able to define what we believe should be enough; but I will give you more.

The authority of the Pope is a developed authority. The primacy took many years to be accepted, but more pertinent to our discussion is the definition of infallibility. This of course was not defined/developed until Vatican I. It had only become a hot topic a decade or two before Vatican I. While it was a minority of Bishops who opposed the definition of infallibility, they were very vocal and supported by Dollinger who was probably the most accomplished Catholic historian then living. The efforts of Hefele and Strossmeyer resulted in a very restricted concept of infallibility (but the historical actions of the Bishops of Rome demanded this). Ultimately, at the council Hefele and Strossmeyer were not in support of the doctrine, but it passed. Later on they both submitted to the authority of the Church. Dollinger was ultimately excommunicated for his continued opposition to what he saw as a NEW development not supported by tradition or scripture.

This is the tortuous path of the infallible authority of the Roman Pontiff, finally sealed 1800 years or so after the first Bishop was ordained. We can contrast this to the fact that Joseph Smith has always professed to have faults. He explained that he does not always act as a prophet. The human-ness of prophets and their ability to err was a part of the CoJCoLDS from the beginning. The D&C explains many components of common consent and is clear that the agreement of the highest quorums is the test for truth. Brigham Young did lament the fact that members sometimes did not think for themselves. Scholars and prophets continued to explain the ideas behind common consent. It was mentioned in sacrament meeting just today. This is the path of the inspired but infallible authority that leads the CoJCoLDS. Dollinger I suspect would have less problem with this.

I do not deny that as children are taught to follow the prophet and as converts who carry into the church thoughts of inerrancy that they naturally link to the statements of modern prophets, the absence of infallibility is missed by many members. I do not feel it is important to emphasize such things. As many have demonstrated some link the fallibility of prophets with an excuse to reject the teachings of those they claim to sustain. It is better to err on the side of obedience to God through His prophet than it is to take undue liberties and rebel against God and His servants, but the ideal is that all have the Gift of the Holy Ghost and can KNOW for themselves.

Charity, TOm

 

[iwonder]

TOmNossor:

Here I want to briefly plug this thread. As a ZLOMBIE perhaps you have read it. It provides a number of quotes and comments that support HBL’s above statement. In addition to this, it does deal briefly with the Temple ceremony’s status.

http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm47.showMessageRange?topicID=89.topic&start=1&stop=20

On to why the CoJCoLDS position should not be ridiculed by Catholics. First, the simple truth that LDS should be able to define what we believe should be enough; but I will give you more.

The authority of the Pope is a developed authority. The primacy took many years to be accepted, but more pertinent to our discussion is the definition of infallibility. This of course was not defined/developed until Vatican I. It had only become a hot topic a decade or two before Vatican I. While it was a minority of Bishops who opposed the definition of infallibility, they were very vocal and supported by Dollinger who was probably the most accomplished Catholic historian then living. The efforts of Hefele and Strossmeyer resulted in a very restricted concept of infallibility (but the historical actions of the Bishops of Rome demanded this). Ultimately, at the council Hefele and Strossmeyer were not in support of the doctrine, but it passed. Later on they both submitted to the authority of the Church. Dollinger was ultimately excommunicated for his continued opposition to what he saw as a NEW development not supported by tradition or scripture.

This is the tortuous path of the infallible authority of the Roman Pontiff, finally sealed 1800 years or so after the first Bishop was ordained. We can contrast this to the fact that Joseph Smith has always professed to have faults. He explained that he does not always act as a prophet. The human-ness of prophets and their ability to err was a part of the CoJCoLDS from the beginning. The D&C explains many components of common consent and is clear that the agreement of the highest quorums is the test for truth. Brigham Young did lament the fact that members sometimes did not think for themselves. Scholars and prophets continued to explain the ideas behind common consent. It was mentioned in sacrament meeting just today. This is the path of the inspired but infallible authority that leads the CoJCoLDS. Dollinger I suspect would have less problem with this.

I do not deny that as children are taught to follow the prophet and as converts who carry into the church thoughts of inerrancy that they naturally link to the statements of modern prophets, the absence of infallibility is missed by many members. I do not feel it is important to emphasize such things. As many have demonstrated some link the fallibility of prophets with an excuse to reject the teachings of those they claim to sustain. It is better to err on the side of obedience to God through His prophet than it is to take undue liberties and rebel against God and His servants, but the ideal is that all have the Gift of the Holy Ghost and can KNOW for themselves.

Charity, TOm

So, Tom, may Catholics KNOW for themselves or does it require the laying on of hands by your Melchizedek or Aaronic preisthood? And does it require belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet?

 

[TOmNossor]

More things to reply to oh my.

I would suggest that you have encountered one whose view of the LDS church is more articulate than mine in AugustineH354. It is slightly problematic I suppose that he is a Catholic and not a LDS, but I doubt he would frame the CoJCoLDS exactly as I do even if he were a member (just as I would not frame the Catholic Church just at he does even if I was a member.

It seems very possible that my ward is comprised of a number of folks that you would consider enigmas in your previous wards. You spoke about God being once a man. My position on this as I have advocated on this board is that there is truth in this statement, but it most surely does not mean what our critics think it means. I was actually a little surprised at how little controversy was produced as D&C 20:17 was brought into contrast with this doctrine during Sunday School about 3 months ago. Perhaps I live in a extraordinary ward.

I truly do think there is a great deal of seemingly contradictory information one must seek to align in any belief structure. I am actually convinced that the alignment process is more difficult for a Catholic than for a LDS. The reason I have such respect for the Catholic Church is because I think it is possible to carry out this alignment process. I could not do this were I a Protestant or an Eastern Orthodox. The conflicts seem to not lend themselves to any solution.

It is true that my points of contact with the Catholic Church in real life are very unusual. The priest I grew up with and who still serves my parents parish recently gave the Eucharist to my Pagan brother-in-law and my Agnostic sister (my wife and I did not partake). He is a wonderful man, but I do not think this is a good representation of Catholic beliefs. The guy a few cubes over from me at work who I discuss Catholicism with more than any other person at work is a member of the SSPX. He does not believe in “Baptism of Desire,” he told me the CCC (1993 I think) could have some problems and I should be careful, and he thinks Vatican II should be entirely scrapped. I have sought to overcome this by letting intelligent articulate Catholics define what they believe on the internet. Within the limitations of my abilities I have sought to find the best the Catholic Church has to offer.

One of the better examples is this. Most Catholics on and off the internet I have interacted with seem to advocate for an understanding of the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins that Newman teaches us that we cannot hold. Instead of holding this view and discarding Catholicism as untenable I look to Newman to solve this problem.

I have searched for fatal flaws in many beliefs structures. As long as I allow for things like Newman’s developments and non-infallible Prophets, I see no fatal flaws in the CC or the CoJCoLDS. I think these allowances are critical for both of us.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

iwonder:

But they are willing to engage in hours of argument, claiming confusion, for instance in B.J.'s case , about whether we worship the Virgin Mary, when she has been told quite clearly, no.

Many Catholic Apologists would not say “no” just as you have. Having acted as a Catholic apologist before and with my best understanding of how I would behave were I a Catholic Apologist today, I would again not say “no.”

As a disclaimer I want to recognize both that you are the world authority on your beliefs; if you say that you do not worship Mary, you do not. In addition to this, you are in a better position to understand Catholic practices than am I. But here is what I would say.

Worship proper of the divine is reserves solely for the Blessed Trinity. In Latin this is called “Latria.” A lesser form of worship (that some Catholics will only call reverence) is given to the Saints. This is called “dulia” in Latin. Mary is afforded a “hyper-dulia” which is beyond that given to Saints, but does not encroach upon that worship reserved only for the Trinity.

I have gone to some length to show this (and it is not impossible that I have erred) in order to express why I think it is important to seek the best explanation and judge from this rather than content ourselves with less crisp concepts. Clearly the practice of many Catholics modern and through history witnesses a devotion to Mary that most other Christians find peculiar. Any non-Catholic or ex-Catholic who had spent time in a Latin American country would have a hard time swallowing IWonder’s statement, “No, we do not worship Mary.” I would suggest however that only those who are blinded by their desire to hold something against the Catholic Church could be too put off by the Latria vs. Dulia distinction.

When I say there is some truth to the concept that God was once a man, but that it is not binding and whatever the truth is must align with D&C 20:17 “There is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God…” I am giving what I think is the best so it can be compared to the Latria vs. Dulia distinctions. I do not understand why we should content ourselves to compare less than the best. If I ever became a Catholic I do not want to be a marginal Catholic, a semi-Catholic, a buffet Catholic. I would want to be the best Catholic I could be. Why not judge based on the best we can find?

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

iwonder:

So, Tom, may Catholics KNOW for themselves or does it require the laying on of hands by your Melchizedek or Aaronic preisthood? And does it require belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet?

To know what LDS believe and should believe, I think you need to believe as a LDS.

As was taught to me by a very wise man, when you are investigating a religion you should investigate it as if you belong to it. I try when I read apologetics of other religions to force myself to say, “That is why MY practice of prayers to Mary and veneration of her image is not idolatry.” I regularly fail in this attempt BTW.

But even when you do this to really know what it is to believe like a LDS one must believe like a LDS. I would suggest the same thing for a Catholic.

Now, if your question is about the “Gift of the Holy Ghost,” (which BTW is incredibly similar to the sacrament of confirmation – and there are solid parallels for all seven), it is looked to by LDS as a way to receive inspiration/revelation. But, our teachings/practices seem pretty clear to me. No one is denied sufficient witness from the Holy Ghost. If you truly seek and the answer is critical to your salvation, the Holy Ghost will reveal it to you.

Charity, TOm

 

[BJRumph]

The claim of the RCC, as I understand it, is that God is in control, not the singular pope, and it is God’s power that maintains the integrity of the deposit of faith. The LDS are caught in a hard place, they must rely on a prophet who, outside what they are willing to believe and approve, is allowed to believe all manner of heresey, and can teach such false doctrine at the pulpit! What blessed assurance is this that you hold to? How is this different that how non-lds religions are precieved?

I am not suggesting that JS or BY, or any of the other prophets, were infallible or perfect, clearly they were not. What is, and always has been, is how can you take HBL’s stance (only the 4SW) and reconcile it truthfully with the claims of those who wrote 3 of the 4 SW, who of necessity could not possibly have relied upon them. They were acted upon in parctice and belief of the church far sooner than they were canonized.

For example: How does this reconcile with the teachings of polygamy prior to its adoption? Were all of the participants commiting adultery because it was not yet a canonized practice? Or were they justified because they were following their prophet, despite it being in contradiction to the SW of the time? According to your SW view, this never should have happened; according to the history of the church, it did.

Also, if you do not believe that the church teaches institutional infallibility, then what is the purpose and message of the explanitory remarks always attatched to the canonized Official Declaration (One, IIRC) regarding the abandonment of polygamy?

How is this different form the RCC “Gates of Hell” proclamation? Easy, they proclaim and stand by it; they do not teach it to reassure their flock, then deny that it is an official teaching of their faith to outsiders. That is a material difference in my book. You don’t have to believe it is true, but you know that it is what the RCC claims.

If Hinkley is the only Prophet for you, then should not he be publishing the official doctrine for his reign, to replace the now “traditions” of the previous ones, including JS (I’d agree with that, I don’t see the continuing relevance of Harris’ mission call)?

If the utterances of the living prophet are more important to the membership than a dead one, as the SW explicitly teach, then how can you possibly maintain that only the SW are the only official doctrine? If you ignore what is not in the SW, as you should if you hold to HBL, then what is the point of your “more important” living prophet?

IN the end, it boils down to this question: Who is your prophet; “God told me so” Joseph Smith; or “I don’t know about that” Gordon Hinkley? I realize you will want to say “both”, but they do indeed teach very different and irreconcilable things about what they are as a prophet; therefore you will have to choose one of them. Are you a revelator lds (JS), or an inspriationist lds (GBH)?

It is not that “inspiration” is wrong, afterall, it is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that guides the RCC; the issue is that it is irreconcilable and incompatible to the lds faith. The LDS faith is founded upon having something better than mere collective inspiration, but honest-to-goodness Divine Revelation that cannot be mistaken for the ideas of man as inspiration (by comparison) can be. Once you make the case for “inspired prophets” over “revelatory prophets”, then you kill all claims that the lds church is founded on.

I realize you prolly won’t see the disconnect, as I know it is something beyond our reason, but I have endeavored to show it to you regardless. Perhaps someday you will be shown. Until then, God bless. Anyway, enough for tonight.

 

[iwonder]

BJRumph:

The claim of the RCC, as I understand it, is that God is in control, not the singular pope, and it is God’s power that maintains the integrity of the deposit of faith. The LDS are caught in a hard place, they must rely on a prophet who, outside what they are willing to believe and approve, is allowed to believe all manner of heresey, and can teach such false doctrine at the pulpit! What blessed assurance is this that you hold to? How is this different that how non-lds religions are precieved?

I am not suggesting that JS or BY, or any of the other prophets, were infallible or perfect, clearly they were not. What is, and always has been, is how can you take HBL’s stance (only the 4SW) and reconcile it truthfully with the claims of those who wrote 3 of the 4 SW, who of necessity could not possibly have relied upon them. They were acted upon in parctice and belief of the church far sooner than they were canonized.

For example: How does this reconcile with the teachings of polygamy prior to its adoption? Were all of the participants commiting adultery because it was not yet a canonized practice? Or were they justified because they were following their prophet, despite it being in contradiction to the SW of the time? According to your SW view, this never should have happened; according to the history of the church, it did.

Also, if you do not believe that the church teaches institutional infallibility, then what is the purpose and message of the explanitory remarks always attatched to the canonized Official Declaration (One, IIRC) regarding the abandonment of polygamy?

How is this different form the RCC “Gates of Hell” proclamation? Easy, they proclaim and stand by it; they do not teach it to reassure their flock, then deny that it is an official teaching of their faith to outsiders. That is a material difference in my book. You don’t have to believe it is true, but you know that it is what the RCC claims.

If Hinkley is the only Prophet for you, then should not he be publishing the official doctrine for his reign, to replace the now “traditions” of the previous ones, including JS (I’d agree with that, I don’t see the continuing relevance of Harris’ mission call)?

If the utterances of the living prophet are more important to the membership than a dead one, as the SW explicitly teach, then how can you possibly maintain that only the SW are the only official doctrine? If you ignore what is not in the SW, as you should if you hold to HBL, then what is the point of your “more important” living prophet?

IN the end, it boils down to this question: Who is your prophet; “God told me so” Joseph Smith; or “I don’t know about that” Gordon Hinkley? I realize you will want to say “both”, but they do indeed teach very different and irreconcilable things about what they are as a prophet; therefore you will have to choose one of them. Are you a revelator lds (JS), or an inspriationist lds (GBH)?

It is not that “inspiration” is wrong, afterall, it is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that guides the RCC; the issue is that it is irreconcilable and incompatible to the lds faith. The LDS faith is founded upon having something better than mere collective inspiration, but honest-to-goodness Divine Revelation that cannot be mistaken for the ideas of man as inspiration (by comparison) can be. Once you make the case for “inspired prophets” over “revelatory prophets”, then you kill all claims that the lds church is founded on.

I realize you prolly won’t see the disconnect, as I know it is something beyond our reason, but I have endeavored to show it to you regardless. Perhaps someday you will be shown. Until then, God bless. Anyway, enough for tonight.

Perhaps, more to the point, is why do the Mormons repeatedly uphold prophets whose teachings they then have to reject as living and true prophets? the scripture clearly says “You will know them by their works”. If the Mormon culture has to throw out or cover up a teaching of their Prophets such as BY because it is erroneous, what is their basis for upholding him as a true prophet of God? Is it because of their belief that God is actually man, therefore capable of mistake?

 

[Casen]

I don’t find prophetic infallibility in the scriptures so why should we impose it on modern prophets?

 

[tkdnick]

Thought I’d add a little personal comment about common consent…

My issue with this practice is that the LDS church is essentially a democracy. The prophet declares something and it is then “voted” on by the masses. Thus basically making the church a democracy.

 

[TOmNossor]

I am going to provide a somewhat muted answer to the post I am about to respond to. Anyone who is a LDS or desires to become a LDS is welcome to PM me and ask why and what I might add.

BJRumph:

What blessed assurance is this that you hold to? How is this different that how non-lds religions are precieved?

The big and underlying difference that I think all LDS can agree upon is that the LDS leaders have proper authority and others do not. In the end the Catholic Church says about the same thing.

Important to many and generally required by LDS thought is that the Prophet cannot lead the church into another apostasy. I personally look to history and see that every church thinks this is true. So when I look at the CoJCoLDS in a framework of past religions, I see that even this I will reserve judgment upon. But when other LDS merely paint a consistent picture of LDS teachings, they are free to hold this as an absolute.

BJRumph:

I am not suggesting that JS or BY, or any of the other prophets, were infallible or perfect, clearly they were not. What is, and always has been, is how can you take HBL’s stance (only the 4SW) and reconcile it truthfully with the claims of those who wrote 3 of the 4 SW, who of necessity could not possibly have relied upon them. They were acted upon in parctice and belief of the church far sooner than they were canonized.

There is an absolute truth. I have little doubt that Prophets have revealed absolute truth from God that has never been canonized. For example as I have already stated there is some truth to the Lorenzo Snow couplet (both parts, but the thought that man was once God is in no way binding upon LDS). If it had been critical for the church to understand it more fully, I believe the leaders would have hashed through it. Eventually some clarified statement may have been elevated for common consent. Truth would have generally been guaranteed by the agreement of all of the highest quorums, then the binding seal would be achieved through common consent.

So in the early CoJCoLDS members would follow the prophet and read the Bible and BOM. As revelations were elevated for common consent the beliefs and behaviors of the saints would not change because they already accepted those things. Those things that were believed but not sealed may latter be rejected (simply by being deemphasized or by being condemned as was Adam-God), but the early saints were not without truth to embrace.

BJRumph:

For example: How does this reconcile with the teachings of polygamy prior to its adoption? Were all of the participants commiting adultery because it was not yet a canonized practice? Or were they justified because they were following their prophet, despite it being in contradiction to

the SW of the time? According to your SW view, this never should have happened; according to the history of the church, it did.

Assuming God revealed polygamy largely as it was practiced as evidenced in some of the more positive historical records concerning the practice, then those who practiced Polygamy prior to its acceptance by common consent were embracing in a true practice that was not binding upon the members of the church. In fact those who rejected it before it was binding upon on the church were guilty of rejecting divinely inspired truth. To spiritually unite with God, one cannot blinding follow anyone. Ultimately it is our personal relationship with God that saves. It would be very interesting to review the different components of the reception of the Catholic Sacraments. Obedience is one part of the equation, but the embracing of truth is more important.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRumph:

Also, if you do not believe that the church teaches institutional infallibility, then what is the purpose and message of the explanitory remarks always attatched to the canonized Official Declaration (One, IIRC) regarding the abandonment of polygamy?

I addressed this above.

BJRumph:

If Hinkley is the only Prophet for you, then should not he be publishing the official doctrine for his reign, to replace the now “traditions” of the previous ones, including JS (I’d agree with that, I don’t see the continuing relevance of Harris’ mission call)?

If the utterances of the living prophet are more important to the membership than a dead one, as the SW explicitly teach, then how can you possibly maintain that only the SW are the only official doctrine? If you ignore what is not in the SW, as you should if you hold to HBL, then what is the point of your “more important” living prophet?

Hinckley is the only prophet I have known as a member of the church. This does not mean I am a disciple of Hinckley. I was merely telling you that I never had to deal with a prophet putting forth Adam-God and how I would align my beliefs with what the man I sustained taught. When I joined the church Adam-God was clearly not something we believed (BTW, I believe there is a foundation of truth that resulted in Adam-God, but I would not suggest that BY only believed the foundation truth and not the extended errors built upon this).

I think I have expressed how we must follow the living prophet. We must define our binding doctrine from the scriptures. I would even suggest the teachings of dead prophets should be used very similarly to the way the writings of the ECF are used by the Catholic Church.

The importance of the living prophet (which is in complete accord with the HBL statement) is the revelations from God come through him. When these are doctrinal, they will only be binding (beyond the meaning of sustain the prophet) when they are accepted by common consent.

In addition to this non-doctrinal orthopraxy results from having a prophet leader who interacts with the head of the church, God.

BJRumph:

IN the end, it boils down to this question: Who is your prophet; “God told me so” Joseph Smith; or “I don’t know about that” Gordon Hinkley? I realize you will want to say “both”, but they do indeed teach very different and irreconcilable things about what they are as a prophet; therefore you will have to choose one of them. Are you a revelator lds (JS), or an inspriationist lds (GBH)?

Both. And GBH is the prophet, seer, and revelator. And Joseph Smith was quite clear that he was not infalliable.

BJRumph:

It is not that “inspiration” is wrong

, afterall, it is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that guides the RCC; the issue is that it is irreconcilable and incompatible to the lds faith. The LDS faith is founded upon having something better than mere collective inspiration, but honest-to-goodness Divine Revelation that cannot be mistaken for the ideas of man as inspiration (by comparison) can be. Once you make the case for “inspired prophets” over “revelatory prophets”, then you kill all claims that the lds church is founded on.

I am unaware that I made the claim that LDS prophets did not/do not receive supernatural public revelation. What did you interpret as me saying this (assuming you think I have put forth this position)?

BJRumph:

I realize you prolly won’t see the disconnect, as I know it is something beyond our reason, but I have endeavored to show it to you regardless. Perhaps someday you will be shown. Until then, God bless. Anyway, enough for tonight.

Oh, I see the disconnect. I will even go so far to say that if I could demonstrate that every time the prophet spoke from the pulpit it was word for word a message from God, it would be a much stronger position than what I do demonstrate from LDS history.

In addition to this, I generally feel that the leaders of the church do not speak the way the former leaders of the church did because in many ways the world is not looking for “thus sayith the Lord.” But I would like to see more of such things.

Anyway, I see the disconnect. It is certainly not a fatal flaw though as it is explainable.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Thought I’d add a little personal comment about common consent…

My issue with this practice is that the LDS church is essentially a democracy. The prophet declares something and it is then “voted” on by the masses. Thus basically making the church a democracy.

Hello,
Here is something I posted long ago here or somewhere.

The CoJCoLDS is not a democracy either. Here is an excerpt from James Barker (a LDS scholar who wrote a number of our priesthood manuals in the 1950s). In truth, I think this is evidence of the divine authorship of our structure. Joseph Smith never seemed to be some kind of organizational wizard, but I believe the structure we see in the church meets some pretty amazing standards.

James Barker, The Divine Church:

CHAPTER IV –GOVERNMENT AND ORGANIZATION RESTORED

…

Divine authority and individual liberty reconciled …

While the President of the Church alone may receive a revelation for the Church, no doctrine, though revealed, is binding on the Church until accepted by the vote of the members. Our Father in heaven has always carefully safeguarded human liberty.

The government of the divine church is neither a democracy nor a theocratic dictatorship. It is not a democracy because no one may be a candidate for office nor advocate another for office. All officers are nominated by superior authority. It is not a democracy because no policy may be initiated and no new doctrine proposed except by proper authority.

It is not a theocratic dictatorship because, though all officers are nominated by superior authority, no officer may exercise the duties of his office in the Church until approved by the vote of the members over whom he is to preside. Even the General Authorities of the Church, in common with all other Church officers, are submitted twice a year to the members for their sustaining vote or rejection.

Thus, in a measure, every member of the Church is responsible for the officering and conduct of the Church. The Lord places responsibility on each member.

The Holy Ghost – the unifying influence

…

A priesthoodChurch

…

Opportunities for self-development

…

Opportunities for expressing and developing love of God and man

…

 

[tkdnick]

It is not a theocratic dictatorship because, though all officers are nominated by superior authority, no officer may exercise the duties of his office in the Church until approved by the vote of the members over whom he is to preside. Even the General Authorities of the Church, in common with all other Church officers, are submitted twice a year to the members for their sustaining vote or rejection.

So the nature of democracy is not at work here, but a form of democracy is. The church members vote twice a year on whether the church officers should continue. So maybe it would better be described as a democratic republic.

Is there an example of a significant church officer being rejected (President or 1 of the 12)?

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

So the nature of democracy is not at work here, but a form of democracy is. The church members vote twice a year on whether the church officers should continue. So maybe it would better be described as a democratic republic.

Is there an example of a significant church officer being rejected (President or 1 of the 12)?

In truth, I do not know what would be the closest form of government to the CoJCoLDS “government,” but it is what it is.
I do not know of any member of the 12 or First Presedency to be rejected.
I would be shocked if a local leader has not been “un-sustained” before, but I do not know what would have happened and have no knowledge of procedures in this case.

I have been in church when a redrawing of boundaries (ward splitting) was objected to by a family. As I understand it this family ultimately choose to make the best of the situation. If they had not, I really do not know what would occur.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

In truth, I do not know what would be the closest form of government to the CoJCoLDS “government,” but it is what it is.

I guess my point is that it bothers me that it is up to “the people” to decide if something is binding doctrine and from God. If the prophet receives direct revelation from God, then what he says should be binding. It should not have to go through a process where the average LDS has a say in whether it’s really supposed to be binding or not.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

I guess my point is that it bothers me that it is up to “the people” to decide if something is binding doctrine and from God. If the prophet receives direct revelation from God, then what he says should be binding. It should not have to go through a process where the average LDS has a say in whether it’s really supposed to be binding or not.

I would like to quickly offer how I would express “common consent” as opposed to how you just expressed it. You said, “I guess my point is that it bothers me that it is up to “the people” to decide if something is binding doctrine and from God.” It is my position that a form of charism is upon the people of the CoJCoLDS and through this charism God directs his church. This is about half the story, and the other half is the preservation of “agency.” No one will be told what they must believe, and so far as possible the faithful members will consent as a whole to beliefs and government decisions of the church.

On to the more challenging thoughts. Remember TOm is all wet and moreso probably in this example than in many others, finds things that agree with his premise and then presents them.

I have recently been pondering the idea of common consent. A couple of years ago I became acquainted with the ideas on Newman on the Arian heresy. An oversimplification of one of these ideas is that the overwhelming majority of Bishops were willing to walk down an Arian path, but the layman of the church would not have it. It was this demand of the layman that Christ was fully divine that kept the issue alive and aided the divine authority. Newman at one point clarified his view and said that he was not saying that the teaching authority of the magisterium was contained within the laymen, but nonetheless he did give laymen credit for a part of protecting orthodoxy.

Here is a little excerpt from some of Newman’s writings on the Arian controversy.
Historical Sketches (Westminster:
In the earliest age it was simply the living spirit of the myriads of the faithful, none of them known to fame, who received from the disciples of the Lord, and husbanded so well and circulated so widely and transmitted so faithfully, generation after generation, the once-delivered apostolic faith; who held it with such sharpness of outline and explicitness of detail, as enabled even the unlearned instinctively to discriminate between truth and error, spontaneously to reject the very shadow of heresy and to be proof against the fascination of the most brilliant intellects, when they would lead them out of the narrow way.

So as I was reading recently I came across some things that I will share with you concerning common consent and the Catholic Church. Or rather things that I would say concern common consent and the Catholic Church. I readily acknowledge that these things are an extract by me of some interesting things and in no way demonstrate that what I claim is a profound component of LDS authority was or is part of the Catholic Church.

Here are some words of Cardinal Newman:

Newman:
“Securus judicat orbis terrarum;” they were words which went beyond the occasion of the Donatists, they applied to that of the Monophysites. They gave a cogency to the Article which had escaped me at first. They decided ecclesiastical questions on a simpler rule than that of Antiquity. Nay St. Augustine was one of the prime oracles of Antiquity; {47} here then Antiquity was deciding against itself. What a light was hereby thrown upon every controversy in the Church! not that, for the moment, the multitude may not falter in their judgment,—not that, in the Arian hurricane, Sees more than can be numbered did not bend before its fury, and fall off from St. Athanasius,—not that the crowd of Oriental Bishops did not need to be sustained during the contest by the voice and the eye of St. Leo; but that the deliberate judgment, in which the whole Church at length rests and acquiesces, is an infallible prescription, and a final sentence, against such portions of it as protest and secede.

 

[TOmNossor]

The path that lead me to these ideas was reviewing the Vatican I decision on Papal Infallibility. Newman was quite concerned with the path that he thought was unhistorical, but unlike Dollinger and some others he was ultimately, “‘pleased at its moderation’; the ‘terms used’ were ‘vague and comprehensive’, and he personally had no difficulty in accepting it…” (quoted from Ker’ John Henry Newman: A Biography). Ian Ker goes on to say (quoting Newman in the ‘’ and unfortunately, I have not found which letter or letters of Newman he quotes),
Ian Ker:

‘If the definition is eventually received by the whole body of the faithful…then too it will claim our assent by the force of the great dictum, Securus judicat orbis terrarum.’ After all, ‘the general acceptance, judgment of Christendom’ was not only ‘the broad principle by which all acts of the rulers of the Church are ratified’, but also ‘the ultimate guarantee of revealed truth’

Now, the words, “Securus judicat orbis terrarium” come from Augustine in Contra epistolam Parmeniani (III, 24) or Against the Letter of Parmenian. They mean, “The verdict of the world is conclusive.” Some (Anglicans not Catholics I think have even suggested that these words mean, “Catholic consent is the judge of controversy.” They hit Newman with great strength and meant a lot to his conversion to the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox Church maintains a tradition of common consent to this day, calling it the “highest authority.” This is from http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7063.asp Entitled, “The Fundamental Teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church” By Rev. George Mastrantonis
Mastrantonis:

The “Conscience of the Church-Ecclesia” is the highest authority of appeal in the Orthodox Church. It is, in reality, the common consent of opinions of faith, hope and love by all communicants of the Church. This common consent is especially important for faith and morals, which are divine truths. The Conscience of the Church, truths indispensable for the faithful. The Conscience of the Church, introduces the ever-existing truths of the Revealed Word for formulation in the Ecumenical Synods and accepts those truths of salvation already formulated by the Ecumenical Synods. The common consent of all members of the Church accepting or rejecting a “formulated” truth by a synod, constitutes the Conscience of the Church. The synodic system and the function of the Conscience of the Church are also the fundamental characteristics of the democratic system of administration which prevails in the Orthodox Church.

There is actually some more stuff, but I hope that I have demonstrated that the LDS concept of “common consent” is not some crazy idea never before contemplated in Christianity.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

There is actually some more stuff, but I hope that I have demonstrated that the LDS concept of “common consent” is not some crazy idea never before contemplated in Christianity.

"Originally Posted by Newman, Chapter 3: History of my Religious Opinions from 1839 to 1841"

I read that excerpt and have NO IDEA what he was saying! :whacky:

I’m not saying that common consent is some crazy, new thing. Just saying that I have some issues with the idea that the people decide. Though I would say in reality they don’t really. Because isn’t it pretty much the case that whatever is put forth is sustained?