Comparing Best to Best.

[TOmNossor]

The concept of comparing best to best was first introduced to me through Lutheran Bishop Krister Stendahl. The underlying idea is that we often compare the best in our tradition with the worst in the tradition of another. This is neither fair nor productive if growth and learning are desired. It may serve to “protect the faith,” but it will never truly educate the faithful.

It is possible to compare the “worst to the worst.” This may have its place if you are merely trying to decide for yourself which religious tradition will best suit you. I personally have formulated what I call the “fatal flaw.” This is an error that I cannot find explained to my satisfaction that so undermines the foundation of a particular belief structure that I personally could not embrace it.

But, if you are comfortable in your religion AND you are not trying to create real or artificial barriers to protect your faith or the faith of those who might turn to a faith you have dismissed, I do not think undue focus on the worst a religion has to offer is productive. I have been lifted up by the knowledge I have gained from Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Bahais, and even some non-Christian Eastern religions.

In addition to this if you are truly SEEKING to know if another belief structure is for you, “the best” is again where to focus. This focus on “the best” is important because nobody strives to embrace a religion so they can commune with racists or pedophiles. Ultimately we should be embracing a particular religion because it is TRUE, but in evaluating it undue focus on the negative will only provide us with no options on where to worship.

With this in mind I would like to mention a little about Mormonism and Catholicism. It has been suggested by critics of both of these religions that members (generally acting in a role where they are defending/explaining the faith) do not honestly represent the beliefs of their traditions. Some are quite bold in that they suggest that not only is the lack of truth evident, but that dishonest intents are at the heart of such folks. I doubt the later of these two has any place in religious discussions, so I will just address the former.

Why is it that self appointed (or beyond self appointed) defenders of Mormonism or Catholicism are sometimes accused by exMormons and exCatholics (or anyone who feels personally informed enough to make such claims) of misrepresentation of true Mormonism or true Catholicism?

The first answer I wish to offer is that former members or non-members by definition do not see the TRUTH within the tradition they do not belong to in the same way that members do. I am not one to suggest that the ideas of critics have no place in the understanding of a religion, but I will suggest that if a religion is true you will NEVER be able to figure this out if you only engage with critics. While it may not of logical necessity be absolutely true, it certainly seems likely that critics will never paint a picture of the most true religion for if this picture was part of their vocabulary they would be members not critics. The words of Catholic apologist Karl Keating seem pertinent here:
Karl Keating:
Now it may well be that a man leaving one religion for another can write fairly, without bitterness, about the one he left behind. But it stands to reason that most people who suddenly think they have an urge to write about their change of beliefs just want to vent their frustrations or justify their actions. Their books should be read and used with discretion, and they should not be used at all as explanations of the beliefs of their old religion if the books betray the least hint of rancor.

Above I think I have gone a step farther than Mr. Keating in that I suggest there are difficulties discovering the truth of a religion from even the most kind and non-rancorous individuals so long as those individuals have conclusions that truth is absent. Those who do not embrace a particular religious structure for any reason will never be able to present the case for its truth as fully as some of the folks who actually believe it to be true.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

The most important answer to this question I think is often overlooked. The practice of a religion is a far cry from the systemization of a religion. In his excellent book, Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God, Blake Ostler makes this observation:
Blake Ostler:

Yet in many ways rational exploration of the meaning of “God” is inevitable for the thoughtful believer, even though it is also strangely irrelevant, irreverant and even “irrevelant.” Rational exploration of God is strangely irrelevant to religious belief because what the believer seeks is a personal relationship with God rather than an intellectual grasp of his nature and attributes. To the believer who stands in God’s presence, the proofs of God’s existence derived from natural theology must seem quite absurdly superfluous.

Every day in LDS and Catholic pews sincere believers seek to (and I believe do) commune with God. These folks are not interested in Aquinas and Molina on free will. Or Pratt and Ostler on the attributes of God. They desire to express their love to God and move closer to Him.

In the pew you will find people who at their present place feel they can only commune with God through His agents. Some of these people may have an over inflated view or reliance upon those through whom we may receive assistance in knowing God. These people may say or believe inappropriate things about Joseph Smith or St. Christopher.

In the pew you will find people who do not understand the intricacies of the Trinity. I have explained to Catholics that what they told me they believed was modalism. I have explained to LDS that in my opinion there is a lot more oneness to God then they seem to have allowed. How is God one and yet three also. These are questions for systematic theology to answer and seldom will they be the topic of worship practices. Thousands of bits of information have gone into the formulating of systematic ways to explain the Catholic concept of God. Less but still a great volume has been written by LDS believers. But very little from these rational explanations finds its way into Sunday worship services.

In the pew you will find many concepts of how faith and works interplay and what the role of Grace is. Some Catholics I have spoken too sound quite Protestant (sola fide) in their formulation. Some Catholics speak as Pelegians. The average point in the LDS spectrum is not at the same place the average point in the Catholic spectrum (and the average point in the Protestant spectrum is in yet another place), but in truth the spectrums in my experience cover almost the same ground. One day in the pew you might hear about the importance of faith, the next of works, and then hopefully Grace; but it is very few believers who in the pew learned of systematized understanding of the interplay of these three things.

The experiences in the pew and among the faithful form our sacred communion with God, but they seldom form our systematized representation of our own tradition. The Bible is filled with contradictions as are most theological points upon which significant numbers of people disagree. The contradictions are of much less concern for the average believer than for the student of comparative religion. To compare the understanding gleaned in the pew to the understanding developed by the author of a systematic theology is almost purposeless.

This I believe is the MAIN reason those who speak of another’s faith feel bold enough to declare that the faithful are being deceptive. In many instances the contradictions led to the departure or rejection of the faith being discussed. Emotionally these things become very important to the ex-believer, but probably more importantly they are REAL and impassible. For the faithful who have grappled with the contradictions there are FAITHFUL solutions. To reject these solutions as lies or … is not to compare the Best to the Best.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

All of the above I think deals with things that are common to both Catholicism and Mormonism (together with other religious too). I think it is important to mention however that there is a significant difference in the way LDS and Catholics approach these issues of belief and orthodoxy. The history of the Catholic Church from the mid second century shows a very strong focus on orthodoxy or the correctness of belief. One is in fact a Catholic because one embraces ALL of those beliefs that are Dogma (and is baptized and confirmed). One technically forfeits their membership when they absolutely reject any dogma. The CoJCoLDS is very different. Some beliefs AND PRACTICES are necessary to be baptized and confirmed, but to cease to be a member one must be excommunicated or have their name removed. There is a very limited group of beliefs that one needs to hold to be in effective communion with the CoJCoLDS, but there is very little systemization on an official level. In the Catholic Church there are many Dogmas and a somewhat systematized official beliefs structure in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). There is no such thing in the CoJCoLDS. So while I still maintain that in the pew there are great spectrums of non-systematized beliefs and I further assert that the CCC does not do a perfect job of systematizing Catholic beliefs, there is still a significant difference between the degree of official systematizing done in these two churches. This is a product of a different emphasis, Orthodoxy vs. Orthopraxy, not the fact that LDS desire to be freer to deceive.

If you want to participate in comparative religion with a LDS (or a Catholic or anyone), I think the above ideas are quite important. Of course if you want to build a wall around your faith, justify your departure, or shake the faith of others; then the above ideas will be of little value. I think the majority of people enter into comparative religion in a way that is less than productive. I wish to suggest that when one compares the Best to the Best one may just find beauty they never thought they would. The world in some instances becomes more complex, but in all instances it becomes more beautiful. Or at least as I have TRIED to do these things, that has been my experience.

Charity, TOm

I think I will add some more on the “Best for an Individual” later, but this is surely long enough now.

 

[catholic-rcia]

“I wish to suggest that when one compares the Best to the Best one may just find beauty they never thought they would. The world in some instances becomes more complex, but in all instances it becomes more beautiful. Or at least as I have TRIED to do these things, that has been my experience.”

The best that I have found in the catholic faith would be Christ and his Mercy towards us. (The Church being Christ Himself / not a separate identity) Then it would be those who have given everything up to God in order to help others find their creator. The best in the Catholic Church would be to die to pride and self attainment in all ways that are not of God. To know that only Christ is great, that we can only attain greatness centered in Him who created us, greatness being in the Love of God eternal. To place God above all things including family, friends and achievement of any kind, including bringing one single soul to him for all eternity. Because all Glory is His forever and forever.

**Humility is best found at the center of the Eucharistic table. That is if one is truly searching. **

Humility is a supernatural virtue whereby one is enabled to make a true and just estimate of himself and is inclined to hold himself and his accomplishments in contempt in recognition that all good arises from God alone. It is said “dependence on God gives wings to prayer” St. Ignatius terms it a relinquishment of “self-will, self-love, and self-interests.” It is positive in not seeking honors and esteem of others, and self-condemning because man knows evil is his own doing. Humility is exercised toward God and neighbors: toward God who as the Creator gives man whatever he possesses, and toward one’s neighbors by recognizing their worth in the eye’s of God. This virtue is the opposite of pride and self pursuit, which is the root of all evil; hence humility is basic to the practice of all the virtues. It is fundamental of prayer, notably the prayer of simplicity, for Christ rewarded the Syro-phoenician women for her humility (Mk 7:26-30); it is likewise to be found in Christ’s example (Phil 2:1-11)

"We should pray to the divine Spirit for the grace to be genuinely self denying. In this is a release like know other, a treasure found in heaven.

And once more…There will true Glory be, where no one will be praised by mistake or flattery; true honor will not be refused to the worthy, nor granted to the unworthy; likewise, no one unworthy will pretend to be worthy, where only those who are worthy will be admitted. Their true peace will reign, where no one will experience opposition either from self or others. God himself will be virtue’s reward; he gives virtue and has promised to give “Himself” as the best and greatest reward that could exist…“I shall be their God and they will be my people…” This is also the meaning of the Apostle’s words: “So that God may be all in all.” God himself will be the goal of our desires; we shall contemplate him without end, love him without end, and praise him without weariness. This gift, this state, this act, like eternal life itself, will assuredly be common in all…Catholic ecyclopedia

---

I became Catholic because my pursuit in life was distorted, it came out of the actual fall of our first parents. I became Catholic so that I could end this pursuit and find peace on earth in Him. The pursuit has ended in my confessions, I have found home in God here on earth, I await heaven knowing that all will be very good.

 

[mormon_fool]

Excellent posts, TOmN. You are like a mentor to me on how to conduct inter-faith dialogue. I continue to learn a lot from your example and knowledge.

TOmN has recently got me hooked on reading from Catholic sources and influential thinkers. You know, the “best” stuff.

I just ran across a brief review of Stendahl’s comparison of the Sermon on Mount to the Book of Mormon’s rendition of it. The man is definitely no slouch, intellectually. He shows that people can be analytical and charitable at the same time.

later,
fool

 

[BJRumph]

Honestly, I can see what you are trying to say, TOm; however, in a practcal matter, the only conclusion that can be drawn from your proposition is the same one I have voiced several times here; dialog is not being made here, and that there cannot be any.

The catholic here wish to discuss Doctrine, and the differences between that of the RCC and the LDS. This is a somewhat different focus than on other lds discussion forums, such as a ZLMB, wherin history and personality plays a much larger role than in the discussions here.

However, as you admit in you proposition, there is little for an lds to provide a rational basis for a doctrinal discussion, as they are not expected to form a rational or critical belief in their church’s doctrines. I agree with you on this simply from my own memory of the “style” used in the missionary program. Rather than “do you understand this” or “Do you believe this”, you get “try this out for a week” or “you will get a testimony of this principle if you do it” from the missionaries.

I agree that there is a spectrum of beliefs within every religion; it cannot be otherwise as each person has their own way of internalizing what they are hearing.

HOwever, I think that an important distinction between the RCC and the LDS has been pointed out by others; the RCC has a clear “norm for instruction”, the Catechism. The lds have a catechism that is largely defined by where the believer sits in the lds spectrum.

Some Catholics will disagree, and as a defence mechanism claim to not understand, various doctrines, like birth control; but the church provides them with both a firm source of what beliefs are expected, and reinforced by clergy trained in interpreting any “difficult” questions. In contrast, look at these boards, and you will see lds, like amgid for example, arguing from a “sola scriptura” doctrinal base; while mormonfool, as another example, is presenting us with a complex formulae to determine the relative weight of various sources of church doctrine. This “spectrum” is a far cry from the spectrum you will find in a catholic pew.

From this base alone, I agree, there is a wide spectrum of belief, causing a minor point of friction amongst the problematical discussions here. But is not the largest, and by comparison of the real issues, it is miniscule.

The first problem I see that is a mutual issue was pointed out by someone else; there is a lot of miscommunication going on. Despite useing similar lingo, both faiths utilize the lingo in distinct manners that invalidate their definitions in the context of the other faith. Even when distinctive terminaology is utilized (such as Godhead vs Trinity), the distinctiveness of the differences are marginalized to a point that no rational discussion can be made regarding the subject, some even taking it so far as to suggest that there is no difference, even when different terms are used.

An important example of this is that lds are used to discussing their faith from a personal point of view. As I stated elsewhere, it is a rare catholic here that is asking a question that they expect the answer deriving from a personal belief. The Catholics want to cut through the errors of an individual (who is not likely able to provide a definitive answer) beliefs, and address the actual doctrines defined by the Church. Catholics are very aware of the dangers of relying on an individual’s beliefs in defining the doctrine of their religion. And yet, time and again, this is precisely what certain lds here demand (that they, as an individual, has the right to define their doctrine, irrespective of what their religion defines their doctrine as). This is a fundamental difference in expectations that are making any attempts at dialog futile frustrations. I doubt you consider your position “less”, so I will assume that you recognize that this is an observation of mutually agreed upon fact, not a condemnation of either position.

Your “best and best” cannot occurr if there is not a basic aknowledgement of doctrine. If you want to know a doctrine of the RCC, you can find an official document stating such. Is not the frustration understandable for someone who has such sources available for themselves when they ask for such a position from someone who is only willing to provide their own, personal, interpretations of doctrines which do not have any reliably documented sources? Or when none can agree as to what is a reliable source of that doctrine?

As you seem to imply, rational discussion isnt going to bring about the “truth” of the doctrine, to which I can agree to a point. However, this point doesn’t make any contextual sense in a forum that is meant for the rational discussion of doctrine. And if discussion, not conversion, is truly the goal, then why would the inherent inability to transmit Truth matter?

 

[BJRumph]

This “spectrum” is a far cry from the spectrum you will find in a catholic pew.

Ok, my point got lost in post-retreat haze.

The point I was trying to make is that the starting pont, or basis, of the spectrum is far wider in the lds belief system than that of the rcc; which, again, is the result of the wide divergence of source doctine.

I would also like to reiterate, that while my personal bias has leaked throug in places, I am not trying to assert a dominate position at this point. Clearly the lds feel that the loose requirements of “orthodoxy” are more desireable than the tight orthodoxy required by the RCC.

It is no judgement to to recognize this very real difference in the two points of veiw, and it is not intended as such. Indeed, you cannot have (yes again!) a meaningful or forthright discussion without aknowledging these types of differences.

 

[Tmaque]

Tom,

I’m all for comparing “best to best”. My real problem however, lies in the fact that the best I’ve seen in LDS thought(in my opinion) isn’t the 24 years I spent as a LDS learning, teaching, and actively participating in the faith. The best I’ve seen is right here in this forum and it looks quite different than what I was taught and believed before I left the LDS Church. If I had thought or known, when I was younger, that there was room for the type of LDS belief that you seem to possess, it’s possible that I would still be LDS. So, there’s the real dilemma. What is really the best of LDS thought? To many LDS(my family and friends) some of your beliefs are heretical. They simply do not believe what you believe. The LDS Church leadership won’t come out and say with clarity where it stands on issues of misunderstanding, such as the nature of God. How can we compare “best to best” between faiths when there is no clear doctrine on some issues? Indeed, when we compare “best to best” with you, are we comparing best LDS to best Catholic? I simply do not know if your take on LDS doctrine is orthodox. While I respect Tom’s “best”, it means little when comparing religions if your “best” isn’t in line with official teaching. Or, at least in line with the majority of LDS.

On another note, you mentioned your “fatal flaw” test. I’m curious as to where you think Catholicism’s fatal flaw(s) lie(s). I do not want to debate the point(whatever it is). It’s just that I respect your reasoning and would like to know specifically how the Church has failed your test.

 

[flameburns623]

Tom:

Great post but I’m sort’ve like Tmaque. Where would one find books by LDS members whose approach to the faith is similar to yours?

 

[PaulDupre]

If anyone remembers their statistics classes from college (mine were 30+ years ago)…

One way to assess the validity of any comparison between two groups is to perform an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This statistical analysis measures whether the difference in results between the control group and one of more experimental groups is greater than the diferences in results within any of the groups. A greater variance within any group renders the entire comparison invalid.

While I doubt one could perform actual statistical analysis on this…

It has become clear, from the LDS posters on this forum, that the differences within Mormonism on beliefs regarding the nature and purposes of God the Father and Jesus may be as great as the differences between RCC and LDS, thus nullifying any attempts to compare the two faiths.

Some (I suspect younger) LDS claim an almost-Christian view of God as unchanging, always God, the only God - creator of the entire universe, with Jesus being eternally divine (ignoring the obvious problems with the pre-existence and the spirit-child status of Jehovah/Jesus, which nullifies any Christian notion of eternity). I say almost-Christian because they still hold fast to the idea that God the Father has a body (though they don’t address where he got said body or why) and that Jesus is a separate god, subordinate to the father. They hope for exaltation but claim not to know what said exaltation entails (no plural goddess-wives, no spirit children, no organizing and populating their own planets, etc.) As GBH stated “We don’t know much about that”.

Other (I suspect older) LDS hold fast to the view of God all of us ex-LDS learned in previous decades - that God the Father was not always a god, but lived as a mortal man on another planet, worshipped his god, worked out his salvation with fear and trembling, and climbed the ladder to godhood. Only later was Jehovah/Jesus born in the spirit world and appointed to the role of a lesser god and a savior. As Jesus saves us, we move up in glory, and all of our up-line move up in glory as well. The LDS god we learned about did not create the universe (the universe in this older LDS view is the only thing that has always existed, though there is no explanation of how). This LDS god does not have the power to create worlds, he just “organizes” them out of existing matter. They hope for exaltation wherein they become gods, sire spirit children with their plural goddess-wives, organize and populate planets and send a savior (their first-born spirit son) to redeem them.

Furthur aggravating this problem is the fact that there is no longer any clear source of doctrine in Mormonism. When I was LDS, the writings of prophets and apostles that were published by the church with the approval of the 1st presidency were considered authoritative. If two Mormons were debating a point of doctrine that was not clearly defined in scripture, one merely had to find the relevant explanation from JF Smith, James Talmadge or another GA and the discussion was settled. Now those writings are considered within Mormonism to be mere personal opinion and not dispositive.

I no longer see any basis for discussion, because Mormon doctrine is such a moving target that the discussion always seems to devolve into a debate on what is and what is not Mormon doctrine. The Mormons are going to have to figure out what they believe and practice, and condense it into an authoritative format they can present to the world (a catechism?). Then perhaps they can engage in dicussions of comparative religion with non-Mormons.

Regards,
Paul

 

[catholic-rcia]

That was well Said Paul. As to the Catholic side of things I must say that while I was going through the RCIA I was amazed at the solidness of this Church. If I do not have an answer I can find it, and it always makes perfect sense. I have not found myself up against a wall trying to defend something that I personally could not accept. If I think I came up with something new I find that it is not new. I attribute all of this to Christ and His Church, to the Holy Spirit found in weakness to give light to us sinners. When I see sin in our Church I can focus on the Crucifix and come to accept it. When I see Christ in others I can focus on the crucifix and understand it.

The RCIA Classes are beginning in a few weeks, maybe some have already begun. If you want to make a transition from this Forum to face to face let us know. Most of us have an RCIA gather in our Parish’s.

Catholic RCIA – An Open Invitation to Come and See!
Do you or someone you know have questions about the 2000 year old Catholic Apostolic Faith? Have you ever wondered what Catholics truly believe? Has God been calling you to seek him in the Catholic Church? The Rite of Christian Initiation of adults is much more than a class, it is a learning and loving process in which conversion of the heart brings one to Jesus Christ. The first gathering will take place …

 

[TOmNossor]

Catholic-RCIA:

It is said “dependence on God gives wings to prayer” St. Ignatius terms it a relinquishment of “self-will, self-love, and self-interests.”

This very much resonates with what I know to be true. I regularly fail to KNOW this is true, but it makes a great deal of sense to me.

Beyond this, the Eucharist continues to be one of the great and beautiful things in the Catholic Church.
mormon fool:

I just ran across a brief review of Stendahl’s comparison of the Sermon on Mount to the Book of Mormon’s rendition of it. The man is definitely no slouch, intellectually. He shows that people can be analytical and charitable at the same time.

Thank you for the kind words.

Stendahl is a very amazing fellow. If I understand correctly he was Truman Madsen’s professor at Harvard. They have had a great relationship ever since. I have only read parts of his essay on the Sermon on the Mount, but he is quite sharp.

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

…Inspired by Galatians all chapters

I believe the Eucharist (Christ) really brings the best out in His people. I could not imagine my life without it. The quote below seems to resonate with what I have found to be true in the Church. I have come face to face with my own pride, my own sin, my own quest for glory apart from God (the fall).

Receiving the Eucharist keeps my feet to the fire and reminds me of this battle daily. I can go foreword knowing that I a sinner, am loved and saved. That nothing I can do, that no works of any kind will save me. Lest the cross be emptied of it’s power. There is a Jewish way to live out salvation, and then there is a Christian way to live in salvation. One applies pressure; the other offers an easy yoke, one that is very gentle.

So I guess I am saying that the Eucharist brings about honest humility. Our works are a result of our faith in Him. It comes by way of the cross, the journey to the Cross, entering into His suffering, His death, going along with Him. In the end It has nothing to do with being saved and everything to do with just loving others. Your concern for others far out weighs your own ambitions. As being saved is no longer a question. Not when you have faith, not when you have the Love of Christ in your daily life. The big word here would be MERCY.

“And once more…There will true Glory be, where no one will be praised by mistake or flattery; true honor will not be refused to the worthy, nor granted to the unworthy; likewise, no one unworthy will pretend to be worthy, where only those who are worthy will be admitted. Their true peace will reign, where no one will experience opposition either from self or others. God himself will be virtue’s reward; he gives virtue and has promised to give “Himself” as the best and greatest reward that could exist…”

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRough:

Honestly, I can see what you are trying to say, TOm; however, in a practcal matter, the only conclusion that can be drawn from your proposition is the same one I have voiced several times here; dialog is not being made here, and that there cannot be any.

Wow. That was certainly not the conclusion for which I was shooting. I will try to address what you are saying in a number of ways and hopefully show that in only a very few ways is there merit to this.

• There are real differences between Catholic thought and LDS thought. While LDS thought may be far more fluid than Catholic thought, I have never met a LDS who advocates Creation ex Nihilo and all Catholics must accept this after the 4th Lateran Council. The concept of infallibility in LDS and Catholic thought can be compared and contrasted. The concept of common consent in LDS and Catholic thought can be compared and contrasted. There are many strictly doctrinal things that the fluid LDS doctrinal structure will still allow exploration.
• The whole concept of Orthopraxy vs. Orthodoxy can be reviewed. To what extent are Catholic orthopraxic in light of their very structured rituals? Would Orthoproxy or Orthodoxy be more important in the early church? Has the CoJCoLDS ever done things that betray our focus on Orthopraxy?
• There are hosts of similarities that can be plumed. Things like parallels for the seven sacraments. Authority structures and how they relate to the priesthood of all believers.
• Since we both accept the Bible as the word of God it seems that there are Biblical passages that can be discussed. I have generally suggested that the Bible has been interpreted in so many ways (and it is not a systematic theology) that this is less than productive, but there are some who really enjoy doing these things.
• One of the topics I find more interesting are the similarities and differences between LDS and Catholic deification. Of course this might be troublesome because unlike Isaiah Bennett, I will not accept the title hyper-pelagian godmaker or a number of other things Mr. Bennett feels it is appropriate to hoist upon his former church (of a handful of months). In any case there is at least one difference demanded by LDS and Catholic beliefs AND probably a number of other differences that Catholic will impose despite no authoritative restrictions placed upon them.

That is probably enough of that list. How about this list.

• I suspect that no general authority is likely to post here. If they did it would absolutely be in an unofficial capacity. So no, you will not get an elaboration of LDS theology that is any more authoritative than the one you might get from your 10 year old niece. This authoritative view would certainly make it easier to prove to yourself that the CoJCoLDS has “fatal flaws,” but if the CoJCoLDS is fatally flawed (and horribly so as most here seem to suggest) it should be detectable through a sampling of some of its most thorough systematic theologies. These can certainly be explored on this message board. In addition to this, I have seldom thought that the Catholics here or the exLDS here have felt the need to prove to themselves that the CoJCoLDS was fatally flawed.
• So perhaps you desire to prove to the LDS here that they must become Catholics. I suspect that if I was Catholic I would feel a stronger need to do this than I feel as a LDS, but I am seldom upset by folks who care enough about me that they want to save me. This simply must be done in response to the beliefs that are actually held by the LDS in question. So while you do not need to address your personal best view of the CoJCoLDS, you do need to address the beliefs of the person you are trying to save. I am the world authority on what I believe. And I believe what I do in communion with the CoJCoLDS not despite the CoJCoLDS like some less committed LDS (or less committed Catholics for that matter).

I guess for your statement, “dialog is not being made here, and that there cannot be any,” must be explained for me. I can only see some very narrow purposes that must be encompassed in the term “dialog” for your statement to be true. Am I mistaken?

cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRough:

However, as you admit in you proposition, there is little for an lds to provide a rational basis for a doctrinal discussion, as they are not expected to form a rational or critical belief in their church’s doctrines.

No, LDS thought is quite deep and really amazing, and while I would not agree with all of it very little of it is irrational. Thinkers like the Pratt Brothers, B.H. Roberts, John Widsoe, Eugene England, and Blake Ostler have dealt with what LDS scriptures teach in varied and interesting ways. That this is seldom the message of Sunday services is true, but I think it is also true in the Catholic Church. I strongly doubt more than 2% of Catholics hold a doctrine of God that is very close to what Aquinas taught in Summa Theologica (I didn’t when I was Catholic and I wouldn’t, despite being aware of it now, if I became Catholic tomorrow either).
BJRough:

Rather than “do you understand this” or “Do you believe this”, you get “try this out for a week” or “you will get a testimony of this principle if you do it” from the missionaries.

As I understand it, Catholics suggest that first you develop an orthodox concept of who, what, … God is (some Catholics would say you must develop an orthodox concept of who, what, … God is not instead, but the important idea is orthodoxy). After this, you may approach God and develop a relationship with Him. LDS tend to say that if we seek a relationship with God first, He will reveal Himself to us. When LDS say we must KNOW God to be saved we mean that we must enter into a loving relationship with Him not that we must understand what His spirit is like or if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son or just from the Father. Again I think these words are quite powerful from a LDS persective:
Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God:

Yet in many ways rational exploration of the meaning of “God” is inevitable for the thoughtful believer, even though it is also strangely irrelevant, irreverant and even “irrevelant.” Rational exploration of God is strangely irrelevant to religious belief because what the believer seeks is a personal relationship with God rather than an intellectual grasp of his nature and attributes. To the believer who stands in God’s presence, the proofs of God’s existence derived from natural theology must seem quite absurdly superfluous.

It seems we may have found something we could dialogue about. If you are interested we could move this to another thread and discussion what it is to KNOW God.
BJRough:
In contrast, look at these boards, and you will see lds, like amgid for example, arguing from a “sola scriptura” doctrinal base; while mormonfool, as another example, is presenting us with a complex formulae to determine the relative weight of various sources of church doctrine. This “spectrum” is a far cry from the spectrum you will find in a catholic pew.
I could certainly be mistaken, but I suspect both Amgid and MormonFool would suggest that the LDS standard works are the highest source of binding LDS doctrine.

Now PaulDupre and I may bandy about some engineering terms in a bit, but the “spectrums” in the pews I suspect are quite similar in their range. On some days I suspect that the standard deviations might be different, but on other days I think it might be the CoJCoLDS that has the tighter distribution. The issue is that while the Catholic Church catechizes much more thoroughly AND has a much stronger emphasis upon orthodoxy, the CoJCoLDS has a much stronger emphasis upon continued education and knowing your church.

For those who have ventured out into the world outside the pew, spectrums are similar still. There are Social Trinitarian Catholics. There is some emerging thought within some Catholic scholars associated with “sola scriptura” (not as the Protestants believe, but that scripture contains ALL of Catholic doctrine). Molina and Aquinas are not agreement. Newman was pretty revolutionary in his time. There is a great spectrum of ideas in and out of the pew.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRough:

this is precisely what certain lds here demand (that they, as an individual, has the right to define their doctrine, irrespective of what their religion defines their doctrine as).

I am not convinced that this has been done by LDS on this board, but I am quite opposed to such things. Forgive my allusion… I have explained that I am a LDS and I believe in a Social Trinity. Other LDS have also claimed to believe in the Trinity. However, when I say I embrace the Social Trinity it is because I do this in communion with the CoJCoLDS, because I think the Social Trinity is the best read of LDS binding doctrine. I find myself as a reflective LDS directed to this belief by the bounds of my church. Others have suggested they embrace the Trinity DESPITE the fact that they are (or were) LDS. This is not appropriate in my opinion. What I do is orthopraxic because I embrace the authority and scriptures of the CoJCoLDS. What others do is anti-orthoproxic because they rebel against the authority and scriptures of the CoJCoLDS. Quite interesting that two people with very similar beliefs can stand in very different places with respect to the authority that they in some ways sustain by calling themselves LDS.

I am unaware of LDS who come to Catholic Answers to defend their personal beliefs that they feel are “irrespective of what their religion defines their doctrine as.”

In fact, I will say this because it should be said. LDS who choose to believe things that they do not feel are defendable from LDS scripture and teachings are on the road to apostasy.
BJRough:

If you want to know a doctrine of the RCC, you can find an official document stating such.

This is not true! It may be more true in the Catholic Church than in the CoJCoLDS, but it is not true.

It might be a good time to make this point or remake it. The CoJCoLDS has been studying and understanding its scripture and tradition for 175 years. In the year 208AD there were huge spectrums of beliefs. In fact, Socrates, the 5th century historian, noted that not a single church agreed with any other (my book is being borrowed, but this is the essence of what he said. I believe he was talking about 3rd / 4th century environment). Give the CoJCoLDS half the time the Catholic Church has had and I would suggest we will have some pretty solid lines of thought (although I hope we will not canonize the results of scholarly debate in any significant volume).
BJRough:

Indeed, you cannot have (yes again!) a meaningful or forthright discussion without aknowledging these types of differences.

With this I agree. I am trying to “acknowledge these types of differences” and invite the discussion to continue without accusations that may have partially derived from a lack of understanding of “these types of differences.”

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

If I had thought or known, when I was younger, that there was room for the type of LDS belief that you seem to possess, it’s possible that I would still be LDS.

And had I truly understood what the Eucharist was, I am not sure I would have been able to give it up. I have faith that God has knowledge about the path you and I will walk and He loves us both despite and because of it.

Tmaque:

While I respect Tom’s “best”, it means little when comparing religions if your “best” isn’t in line with official teaching. Or, at least in line with the majority of LDS.

I believe my “best” understanding is in line with official teaching, that being what it is. The CoJCoLDS has clearly backed off of some of the things that it once regularly taught. Some of this is a product of no longer “running” from our Christian roots (we rebelled through differing emphasis from those who we blamed for killing the prophet).

The leaders of the CoJCoLDS no longer teach some of the less definitive truths of the gospel. I know of an instance were Elder Maxwell specifically said that he had no intention of teaching something in General Conference that would cause problems for folks who had reflected upon the issue and come to different conclusions. Other general authorities seem to have much less frequently ventured into that space (than even Elder Maxwell).

To be a LDS is to accept the witness of the standard works. To accept the teaching delivered by modern general authorities. But far more important than this it is to develop a relationship with God and receive truth directly from the source. This truth is not always something that you will share on Sunday or on a message board, but the most important thing is the relationship.

I think the majority of LDS agree on many things. Other things where systematic answers are required there will be different opinions. How is free will and divine foreknowledge compatible? It is not too important. God can be absolutely relied upon to bring to pass His purposes. We all agree. He can be absolutely relied upon to communicate truth to you about future events if necessary. We all agree. And yet, you are genuinely free to choose your actions. We all agree. This is enough.

Tmaque:

On another note, you mentioned your “fatal flaw” test. I’m curious as to where you think Catholicism’s fatal flaw(s) lie(s). I do not want to debate the point(whatever it is). It’s just that I respect your reasoning and would like to know specifically how the Church has failed your test.

I am not convinced that there is any “fatal flaw” in Catholicism. My thoughts are moving and I will send you two things that I have wrestled with more and more recently, but I have yet to feel I should (or need to) draw any conclusions.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

flameburn623:

Great post but I’m sort’ve like Tmaque. Where would one find books by LDS members whose approach to the faith is similar to yours?

I think the best recommendation I have is Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God. The foreword is by David Paulsen from BYU, but this book of course represents Blake’s thoughts not official doctrine. It is a slow read (and I am not done), but I am really enjoying it.

A Different Jesus by Robert Millet is also excellent. This book unlike Blake’s has a large and increasing circulation among LDS. The foreword and afterword is from Richard Mouw, an evangelical scholar.

Of course I still maintain that the standard works are very important, but I know you are familiar with them.

I still need to comment on “individual best to best,” but that and any comments for Paul will need to wait.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

TOmNossor:

I could certainly be mistaken, but I suspect both Amgid and MormonFool would suggest that the LDS standard works are the highest source of binding LDS doctrine.

Amen to this. My DSI formula is just to get people thinking about a number of practical issues on how much doctrinal (using the term loosely) sources translate into a specific belief being held collectively and individually by LDS members. It is more useful for getting a handle on beliefs that are found below the black and white line that separates binding from non-binding doctrine.

later,
fool

 

[BJRumph]

TOm;

It is clear from your responses to me (as I am assuming that BJROUGH is your appellation for myself) that even you, as sopisticated and articulate that you are, are incapable of dialog with me. Why that is is not appropriate for discussion here, but at any rate;

thanks for proving my point, and you have no need to worry about me bothering you again, in this or any other thread.

May God bless you.

BJRUMPH