F
flameburns623
Guest
I don’t think Socrates made this observation. If memory serves me he lived in the 5th Century BC. You have something confused here.
- Status
F
flameburns623
Guest
This sounds a bit huffy to me and I can’t see any basis for it in anything Tom said. Are you perhaps reading into his post an insult that isn’t immediately apparent to third parties? I’m sure Tom’s citation of your name was a mistake–sitting too long at a computer can do that. I would think that giving Tom the benefit of the doubt is in order–he has not shown himself to be willfully incendiary in his previous posts.
B
BJRumph
Guest
Yes, Flameburn, my post would appear “huffy” if you are making the assumption that my declaration is based upon TOm’s consistent misspelling of my name (a usage found in another thread).
My declaration is based upon my collective observations of post interchanges between us across these forums, not simply in this thread. It is a simple matter; he and I cannot make meaningful discourse. The specifics as to “why” really aren’t important in a public sense, so I will refrain from going into those particular details.
Many from both camps veiw TOm with the same esteem that I once did. That is fine for them. My analysis of his responses, not only to me, but to all, and across these forums do not allow me to continue to hold that esteem, and have led me inexorably to the conclusion that we (TOm & I) will never make meaningful conversation here.
If my stating such is considered “huffy”, then at best I can apologize that I did not articulate my position in a manner that is suitably sophisticated that anyone/everyone loses sight of my point and focuses on the skillful rhetoric of it instead. I have been very careful not to disparage TOm, even indirectly (except in merely pointing out his continuing error as to my name, which I choose to believe to be more akin to a “freudian slip” than a conscious choice on his part), as even I can recognize the inappropriateness of such. Indeed, I believe our inability to effectively communicate is a result of weaknesses on both our parts, not simply me, or simply TOm.
I neither expect, or desire, you (or anyone) to come to my conclusion, as it is my own, and how I arrived at it is either apparent to you or not, which is a function of your own skills, experiences, and preferences. At any rate, to make such an attempt would be, in my estimation, an actual attack on TOm, and I am not willing to go there with anyone but him (which my own conlclusion precludes, therfore it “aint gonna happen”). Shikin haramitsu Daikomyo.
God bless you all.
Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas
My declaration is based upon my collective observations of post interchanges between us across these forums, not simply in this thread. It is a simple matter; he and I cannot make meaningful discourse. The specifics as to “why” really aren’t important in a public sense, so I will refrain from going into those particular details.
Many from both camps veiw TOm with the same esteem that I once did. That is fine for them. My analysis of his responses, not only to me, but to all, and across these forums do not allow me to continue to hold that esteem, and have led me inexorably to the conclusion that we (TOm & I) will never make meaningful conversation here.
If my stating such is considered “huffy”, then at best I can apologize that I did not articulate my position in a manner that is suitably sophisticated that anyone/everyone loses sight of my point and focuses on the skillful rhetoric of it instead. I have been very careful not to disparage TOm, even indirectly (except in merely pointing out his continuing error as to my name, which I choose to believe to be more akin to a “freudian slip” than a conscious choice on his part), as even I can recognize the inappropriateness of such. Indeed, I believe our inability to effectively communicate is a result of weaknesses on both our parts, not simply me, or simply TOm.
I neither expect, or desire, you (or anyone) to come to my conclusion, as it is my own, and how I arrived at it is either apparent to you or not, which is a function of your own skills, experiences, and preferences. At any rate, to make such an attempt would be, in my estimation, an actual attack on TOm, and I am not willing to go there with anyone but him (which my own conlclusion precludes, therfore it “aint gonna happen”). Shikin haramitsu Daikomyo.
God bless you all.
Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas
T
TOmNossor
Guest
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
This sounds a bit huffy to me and I can’t see any basis for it in anything Tom said. Are you perhaps reading into his post an insult that isn’t immediately apparent to third parties? I’m sure Tom’s citation of your name was a mistake–sitting too long at a computer can do that. I would think that giving Tom the benefit of the doubt is in order–he has not shown himself to be willfully incendiary in his previous posts.
Before too much is said or thought about this, let me tell BJRomph that I am sorry. I did in fact say something in my post that was intended to cause him to take specific notice. I really did not intend or expect to illicit the feelings I evidently did. I should have been more sensitive, and I am sorry.
In addition to this, I am sorry I mislabeled your name. This was entirely an accident.
Anyway, I am sorry I offended you.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I wrote my last post without seeing this.
I do in fact take responsibility for offending you, BJRumph (and not through my mistake on his name).
In addition to this I respect your desire to leave the specifics of how I offended you out of this discussion.
Again, I am sorry. It is not my intent to “chase you away.”
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
There are two men of significance in history named Socrates. By far the most famous is the 5th century B.C. philosopher. However there was as a Socrates born in the late 4th century A.D. who was primarily a historian. It seems his history deals primarily with the period from 306-439AD.
Here is his entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14118b.htm
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I am somewhat aware of how statistics work. I think the real message you are trying to convey is that if the spectrum of LDS (especially LDS as expressed on this board) and Catholic beliefs intersect in a meaningful way, it becomes difficult to distinguish the two in an ABSOLUTE way. It has actually been my experience and frequently my purpose to show that most of the criticisms offered by LDS critics are similar to the criticism offered by non-Catholics.
Now, as I have mentioned already there are certainly differences to be discussed.
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.
I suspect there is truth in the observation you make here. However, I do not think it is strictly and old / young division. I would suggest that in many ways these divisions separate based on the degree of systematization pursued by the individual LDS. I should however admit two other things.
The Brethren have focused on basics, specifically letting deeper ideas remain for personal exploration. This is not the practice of the earlier general authorities. I am fairly certain that some people in authority positions have been counseled to refrain from offering speculations beyond what has been revealed, but instead let members “prayerfully seek their own answers.” This has on occasion been frustrating for me, but the alternative now seems less inspired though.
cont…
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I have mentioned or alluded to my believe that the early saints ran both physically (by moving west) and doctrinally from the folks they believed killed their prophet. In isolation the early saints focus on the distinctiveness of the CoJCoLDS and areas in which we might be different than the rest of Christianity. An example of this is that the CoJCoLDS emphasized the threeness of God to a significant extent (and also demonstrated a misunderstanding of the Trinity when they referred to it). Over the last few decades, two things have pulled the CoJCoLDS out from this. One is that we are increasingly defining our doctrines in light of the scriptures that do in fact define our binding doctrine. Since we share the Bible with all other Christians, it is likely that much that is similar will arise. Also, dialogue with non-LDS is certainly helping us to see what may be better understood through the conclusions and ideas drawn by folks that have spent 2000 or 500 years with their Bibles defining / explaining doctrine. As we get beyond our, in many cases self imposed myopia, we can see truth that may have been deemphasized, but has really been part of the CoJCoLDS. Again by example: If the Bible (and the BOM) tell us that “God is one” we need to integrate that truth in the systematic explanation of what we believe. Many LDS have found the label, first mentioned (I think) by Plantinga, “Social Trinity,” to describe what our scriptures have always asserted and our leaders have spoken of in some type of implicit acknowledgement.
So there is certainly some older folks who speak/believe as you have suggested they do, but for me I remember when I commented on the oneness of God and before anyone could have me lynched the Stake Patriarch commented in a similar vein.
PaulDupre:
That being said what kind of sense can be made of a debate between LDS and non-LDS on what the LDS believe. I advocate that LDS should be able to define what we believe and then we can address those actual beliefs. This may not result in a single LDS belief, but it will result in a particular LDS belief that can then be addressed. Catholics have been asking anti-Catholics for this privilege for many years.
“I know you worship Mary! I do not care what you NOW say about Dulia or Hyper-Dulia or …, I was once Catholic and I was taught to pray to and worship Mary. Just deal with what you actually believe and quite trying to redefine it. The bible says, …”
Or perhaps the words that rang in Richard Mouw’s ears for many decades. An exasperated LDS said to Walter Martin, “You don’t even want to understand.”
I do not suggest that life is as simple as, “the big bad non-LDS are always beating up upon us.” I acknowledge that my understandings are not the same in many instances as those developed by the folks who sit next to me at church. I guess one will need to decide if I am an “Internet Mormon” who has forever left behind my “Chapel Mormon” friends in order to create new understandings OR as I suggest I am a “Chapel Mormon” just like everyone else, who has studied many issues out and tries to present a more systematic understanding.
Regardless of which you decide or how you act upon your conclusion, I am an active LDS who believes as I do. I have developed my understanding in and out of the chapel. I have developed through interaction with Catholics, Protestants, Bahais, Atheists, and other LDS. These folks have been critics, scholars, spiritualists, and various combinations of the three. And, as much as it might be nice to boldly declare, like an Evangelical author recently did to me, that my understanding has not changed and this is how I have ALWAYS believed; this is not the case. I regularly learn new ideas and integrate them into what I believe. I hope this is moving me closer to an understanding of God, but more than this I hope I am moving closer to a full communion with God.
Charity, TOm
So there is certainly some older folks who speak/believe as you have suggested they do, but for me I remember when I commented on the oneness of God and before anyone could have me lynched the Stake Patriarch commented in a similar vein.
Give us but a single millennium and while I doubt we will present a static target, I suspect we will have much more consistency than we do now.
That being said what kind of sense can be made of a debate between LDS and non-LDS on what the LDS believe. I advocate that LDS should be able to define what we believe and then we can address those actual beliefs. This may not result in a single LDS belief, but it will result in a particular LDS belief that can then be addressed. Catholics have been asking anti-Catholics for this privilege for many years.
“I know you worship Mary! I do not care what you NOW say about Dulia or Hyper-Dulia or …, I was once Catholic and I was taught to pray to and worship Mary. Just deal with what you actually believe and quite trying to redefine it. The bible says, …”
Or perhaps the words that rang in Richard Mouw’s ears for many decades. An exasperated LDS said to Walter Martin, “You don’t even want to understand.”
I do not suggest that life is as simple as, “the big bad non-LDS are always beating up upon us.” I acknowledge that my understandings are not the same in many instances as those developed by the folks who sit next to me at church. I guess one will need to decide if I am an “Internet Mormon” who has forever left behind my “Chapel Mormon” friends in order to create new understandings OR as I suggest I am a “Chapel Mormon” just like everyone else, who has studied many issues out and tries to present a more systematic understanding.
Regardless of which you decide or how you act upon your conclusion, I am an active LDS who believes as I do. I have developed my understanding in and out of the chapel. I have developed through interaction with Catholics, Protestants, Bahais, Atheists, and other LDS. These folks have been critics, scholars, spiritualists, and various combinations of the three. And, as much as it might be nice to boldly declare, like an Evangelical author recently did to me, that my understanding has not changed and this is how I have ALWAYS believed; this is not the case. I regularly learn new ideas and integrate them into what I believe. I hope this is moving me closer to an understanding of God, but more than this I hope I am moving closer to a full communion with God.
Charity, TOm
M
majick275
Guest
Just a few thoughts for you TOm,
Many of us here do not see LDS doctrine as a “moving target” because it is undefined or “still growing”. We see it as something that is deliberately “obscured”.
By not publishing a catechism there is no docrine that can not be "distanced from when needed. (see GBH on eternal progression) Those of us who are former LDS do not claim any status as “doctors of the former church” so much as just a knowledge and familiarity of how things work in the LDS church. There is de facto doctrine that is taught in LDS churches. It is NOT sola scriptura, however it is presented with plausiblwe references from scripture so as to not conflict with the standard works.
There is a deeper significance as well in looking at LDS "ECF"s as they claim to be true prophets leading by revelation. To state that JS or BY led the church in error is to deny their self proclaimed status and thus cast doubt on the entire founding of the LDS church. This is not so with the RCC. We acknowledge that scholars and theologians could have been mistaken about any number of ideas. (but we require sound logic and detailed analysis to accompany any such claims)
To believe in the LDS religion one must accept (as a minimum) that JS was in fact a true prophet of God and that his canonized writings are in fact direct revelation. One must also believe that there is an unbroken line of true prophets from JS to GBH who have correctly led the church as God wanted. (they can have personal shortcomings and misunderstandings all day but their instructions to the church must be correct) One must believe that the canonized writings of these men are also direct revelation from God.
This creates a very different doctrinal paradigm that should not allow for a broad spectrum of doctrinal interpretation. The whole proclaimed advantage of modern day prophets is so that the will of the Lord is KNOWN. I understand your comments on them concentrating on the “basics” and leaving the “deep doctrines” for later. I would submit to you though that the past teachings of the previous prophets on these can NOT just be waved off though. If LDS prophets taught incorrect doctrines that caused them to lead the church in incorrect practices then one must at least question the status of said prophets. If they lead the church astray then they are false prophets. If the LDS were led by false prophets then their whole religion must by its own definitions be false.
This is why the study of LDS doctrine IS important in any discussion of the LDS religion from a Catholic perspective. It it why firmly establishing just what IS the doctrine is critical. That practices have changed is not nearly as important as the doctrines changing and of even greater importance is why. Line upon line in a certain direction is fine. Back and Forth based on social complications, financial concerns or marketing surveys would be considered wrong. There is also the tendency to use sources to support LDS doctrines and then criticize or outright disqualify those same sources in situations where they are controversial. Boyd Packers track record with historians presents the appearance at least of a concerted effort to supress and even alter facts to strengthen a certain image. (compare the original history of the church with the current version)
To claim that LDS are free to believe and/or speculate as they will on many areas of religious interest is to deny most of the previous leaders and even the current leaders of the LDS church. Yet when asked, we see this here on this forum frequently. I fully understand that the majority of the faithful in every religion tend to not bother learning anything other than that which is necessary for the practicing of their faith in their own lives. I can certainly then excuse those who speak out of ignorance. However when knowledgeable (or at least those claiming to be) people engage in the type of “muddying the waters” like we saw with The manifesto and recently with GBH it can appear to many as deliberate deception.
Many of us here do not see LDS doctrine as a “moving target” because it is undefined or “still growing”. We see it as something that is deliberately “obscured”.
By not publishing a catechism there is no docrine that can not be "distanced from when needed. (see GBH on eternal progression) Those of us who are former LDS do not claim any status as “doctors of the former church” so much as just a knowledge and familiarity of how things work in the LDS church. There is de facto doctrine that is taught in LDS churches. It is NOT sola scriptura, however it is presented with plausiblwe references from scripture so as to not conflict with the standard works.
There is a deeper significance as well in looking at LDS "ECF"s as they claim to be true prophets leading by revelation. To state that JS or BY led the church in error is to deny their self proclaimed status and thus cast doubt on the entire founding of the LDS church. This is not so with the RCC. We acknowledge that scholars and theologians could have been mistaken about any number of ideas. (but we require sound logic and detailed analysis to accompany any such claims)
To believe in the LDS religion one must accept (as a minimum) that JS was in fact a true prophet of God and that his canonized writings are in fact direct revelation. One must also believe that there is an unbroken line of true prophets from JS to GBH who have correctly led the church as God wanted. (they can have personal shortcomings and misunderstandings all day but their instructions to the church must be correct) One must believe that the canonized writings of these men are also direct revelation from God.
This creates a very different doctrinal paradigm that should not allow for a broad spectrum of doctrinal interpretation. The whole proclaimed advantage of modern day prophets is so that the will of the Lord is KNOWN. I understand your comments on them concentrating on the “basics” and leaving the “deep doctrines” for later. I would submit to you though that the past teachings of the previous prophets on these can NOT just be waved off though. If LDS prophets taught incorrect doctrines that caused them to lead the church in incorrect practices then one must at least question the status of said prophets. If they lead the church astray then they are false prophets. If the LDS were led by false prophets then their whole religion must by its own definitions be false.
This is why the study of LDS doctrine IS important in any discussion of the LDS religion from a Catholic perspective. It it why firmly establishing just what IS the doctrine is critical. That practices have changed is not nearly as important as the doctrines changing and of even greater importance is why. Line upon line in a certain direction is fine. Back and Forth based on social complications, financial concerns or marketing surveys would be considered wrong. There is also the tendency to use sources to support LDS doctrines and then criticize or outright disqualify those same sources in situations where they are controversial. Boyd Packers track record with historians presents the appearance at least of a concerted effort to supress and even alter facts to strengthen a certain image. (compare the original history of the church with the current version)
To claim that LDS are free to believe and/or speculate as they will on many areas of religious interest is to deny most of the previous leaders and even the current leaders of the LDS church. Yet when asked, we see this here on this forum frequently. I fully understand that the majority of the faithful in every religion tend to not bother learning anything other than that which is necessary for the practicing of their faith in their own lives. I can certainly then excuse those who speak out of ignorance. However when knowledgeable (or at least those claiming to be) people engage in the type of “muddying the waters” like we saw with The manifesto and recently with GBH it can appear to many as deliberate deception.
M
majick275
Guest
(continued)
I do not accuse YOU of this or anything else for that matter, I merely speak to the frustrations of many on this particular forum. I would expect many of these type exchanges if I were going to a “bash board” or “invading” a pro-LDS site or even going to a straight apologetics forum. But I see this as simply “Catholic Answers”. That is answers to questions about LDS from a Catholic perspective for the benefit of Catholics and those possibly curious about being Catholic. I don’t say that to make anyone feel unwelcome and it certainly isn’t MY forum for me to rule. But I do resent the “missionaries” on this board obscuring the truth in hopes of gaining greater acceptance if not actual converts.
I know that between my sloppy typing and my imperfect speech that I have failed to say things the way that should be presented but hopefully you can look beyond my own errors and find an understanding of my postion if nothing else.
You are loved by God TOm and deserve to be treated as such. Sometimes I have a hard time distinguishing between the LDS “church” (about which I have made my opinions very clear) and the individual members. (who I have not always treated in a manner pleasing to God)
Just my thoughts.
I do not accuse YOU of this or anything else for that matter, I merely speak to the frustrations of many on this particular forum. I would expect many of these type exchanges if I were going to a “bash board” or “invading” a pro-LDS site or even going to a straight apologetics forum. But I see this as simply “Catholic Answers”. That is answers to questions about LDS from a Catholic perspective for the benefit of Catholics and those possibly curious about being Catholic. I don’t say that to make anyone feel unwelcome and it certainly isn’t MY forum for me to rule. But I do resent the “missionaries” on this board obscuring the truth in hopes of gaining greater acceptance if not actual converts.
I know that between my sloppy typing and my imperfect speech that I have failed to say things the way that should be presented but hopefully you can look beyond my own errors and find an understanding of my postion if nothing else.
You are loved by God TOm and deserve to be treated as such. Sometimes I have a hard time distinguishing between the LDS “church” (about which I have made my opinions very clear) and the individual members. (who I have not always treated in a manner pleasing to God)
Just my thoughts.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
By not publishing a catechism.
The perception that things are being “deliberately obscured” seems a little peculiar to me when it comes to doctrine. We MAY focus on the more faith promoting aspects of our history (although my Gospel Doctrine teacher if normal would call this conclusion into question). But to obscure the aspects of what is binding upon LDS to believe seems to be counter productive.
I once wished that we had a Catechism. I remember seeking definitive words on whether LDS believed “infused or imputed righteousness.” My Catholic friend was able to provide LDS authorities and/or scholars that taught both views. I longed for a Catechism that day. Then I engaged the scriptures. To me “infused righteousness” was the clear message. I have only built upon this truth since that day, and I am thankful that I could “search it out for myself.” I no longer see a need for a LDS Catechism.
The word “doctrine” in its simplest meaning is merely teachings. In this respect every word uttered by anyone LDS for the instructing of the CoJCoLDS is doctrine, but we have levels beyond this too where things become more binding. The Catholic Church also has levels. I am going to copy a FAIR post of mine into Mormon Fool’s DSI thread (not here because it belongs their).
To say that JS or BY “lead the church into” apostasy is to deny certain claims the CoJCoLDS makes and to call into question the validity of the CoJCoLDS.
For the prophet to teach error on the other hand is absolutely possible according to the very earliest teachings and practices of the CoJCoLDS. JS and BY specifically claimed to not be infallible. To be a LDS is to balance following fallible men with following the infallible Holy Spirit. One speaks clearly and with authority, but is imperfect. The other speaks subtly and while authoritative it is rather meek in its still USUALLY, but it is perfect. In the end ALL of us are responsible not for our relationship with the prophet, but with God. So I absolutely advocate that LDS must follow the prophet, but I never suggest the prophet is infallible.
In practice many LDS so respect the prophet that they act as if he is infallible. This over reliance upon the prophet is something the BY cautioned the saints against.
Catholics on the other hand have a lot different spectrum of issues. Regardless of when you believe the primacy of the Pope emerged, it took over 1800 years before his infallibility was defined. This infallibility was significantly less than what the Roman group desired. It was significantly more than some wanted. Anyway, what has emerged is an infallibility that is such that fallible men or an infallible council must decide when the infallible Pope has spoken infallibly (you may disagree with this conclusion, but I am in good company). In addition to this, my experience with Catholicism has been that the teachings of the Pope (not the infallible ones GENERALLY) are so disrespected by many Catholics that these folks are either unaware or ignore them. And other infallible or catechized teachings are also regularly ignored.
I am comfortable attending church with those who have forgotten the early and repeated cautions against over reliance upon the prophet as if he is perfect. I do not try to radically jolt them into what I think is a more faithful view, but I do not run from this either. When you as a Catholic seem to demand that I defend infallible prophets despite the clear LDS teachings against this, I will refuse AND I will see Catholic history flash before my eyes communicating to me how amazing it is that this demand comes from a Catholic.
cont…
T
TOmNossor
Guest
There are some good things and some errors in the above statement. I am in fact a LDS and I do in fact believe in the LDS religion so on the whole your statement is in error. “Direct Revelation” from a fallible man is to be understood as coming from God. “Their instructions to the church must be correct” should instead say, “their instructions to the church must not lead the church into apostasy.” With this additional understanding and this correction, I think I can agree with what you have said. It should be noted that the canonization process while not infallible is sealed by “common consent.” This is a very important aspect of LDS belief. Scripture become that which is binding doctrine for the church and while not inerrant it is sufficient AND I advocate for a functional inerrancy.
I would like to elaborate on a couple of things from this passage, but I see nothing actually incorrect in it. “Very different doctrinal paradigm” is correct, but one of the major differences is the concentration upon orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy. Strict definition of what is and what is not “right belief” in my opinion is what God commented against when he said, “the creeds are an abomination.” “Leaving the ‘deep doctrines’ for later” is correct, but I believe on of the big differences between the church of the last few decades and the church of the first few decades is that the “deep doctrines” are left for instruction through the Spirit rather than over the pulpit. The leaders teach us to move closer and closer to God so that we may enter a relationship with Him and then learn things that are “deep doctrine” by direct communion.
“One must at least question the status of said prophets,” with this I completely agree. That prophets have taught things that are generally thought to be errors in today’s church is something that should lead a reasonable person to question or evaluate their claims to direct revelation. I do not deny this. At the end of the day, I am quite convinced that the errors are explainable in the “true prophets” paradigm with significantly less difficulty than is the positive witness of the prophets in the “false prophets” paradigm. But life would be more simple if we all wore colored hats, one color never errs and never lies and the other always errs and always lies.
cont…
T
TOmNossor
Guest
The history of the CoJCoLDS including past teachings is most definitely something that I use when evaluating our truth claims. What I am advocating here is that past teachings are not binding doctrines. When you say compare the doctrines, you need to not bring up the past teachings that LDS do not accept. When you hold LDS doctrine next to systematically developed Catholic doctrine you need to engage systematic LDS theology not past or present words over the pulpit.
That teachings have changed as a result of political pressure or financial reasons is another thesis that may be attacked and defended, but it is again separated from what is binding LDS doctrine today.
That Boyd Packer does not think it necessary to teach non-faith promoting history is also something that can be asserted, shown, and then evaluated for impact upon the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. Again this is not about binding LDS doctrine.
To fairly evaluate the political, financial, and “non-faith promoting” aspects of LDS history when a Catholic asserts such things in my opinion requires a similar weighing of those things in Catholic history. I have become reluctant to lead such a charge here and thus I will likely roll over some, but I will protest with vagaries as I do . To compare doctrine to doctrine, this is not necessary. What is necessary is that LDS get to explain what we believe in a systematic way. If you would like something to compare Summa Theologica to read Exploring Mormon Thought, but do not compare teachings over the pulpit to systematic theologies. And to be honest teachings over the pulpit in the CoJCoLDS are less systematized than teachings over the pulpit in the Catholic Church. A comparison could be made here, but it would rest primarily upon Orthodoxy vs. Orthopraxy not the rigorousness of the specific pulpit teaching.
First, I do not think we are claiming “that LDS are free to believe and/or speculate as they will.” Instead, I suggest that LDS should believe in accordance with the standard works AND incorporate the regular and recent teaching over the pulpit. From this systematic theologies (that include many ideas from past LDS leaders) may be developed or the basics that lead to communion with God may be concentrated upon.
cont…
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I suggest that GBH was communicating the TRUTH. We do not know very much about what it means to say that “God was once a man.” I personally believe that the most common understanding of this does not acknowledge D&C 20:17, “infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God.” D&C 20:17 is binding whereas the Snow couplet is not. Blake Ostler does not shy away from the KFD or the Snow Couplet but he explains them in light of D&C 20:17 and other scriptures. I am aware of post-manifesto problems, but I try to apply similar levels of forgiving to LDS as I do to Catholics. Post-Nicene Arianism was far more widespread and accepted than post-manifesto polygamy.
I am both a missionary and not a missionary. I realize my missionary-ness more and more. For about a year (ending about 8-10 months ago) I pushed (encouraged or something) an Evangelical Christians friend of mine toward the Catholic Church. He had advocated for some very dangerous IMO compromises between what the Bible teaches and what the Bible asks us to do. But now that he is regularly attending the Catholic Church, receiving the sacrament, and … I am more comfortable pulling him gently toward the CoJCoLDS (it is incredibly unlikely he will move, but I can tell that within me there is a small desire to “help” him).
I am struggling with my missionary-minded-ness and my respect for the Catholic Church on this board. I KNOW that it is appropriate for me to encourage that the CoJCoLDS be viewed in best light it can be. I believe it inappropriate for Catholics to attack the CoJCoLDS with things that decimate the Catholic Church like the “Clement test,” but recently I have become less willing to demonstrate my thoughts on this. And finally I do not believe a committed Catholic who has no desire to investigate the CoJCoLDS MUST investigate the CoJCoLDS to be saved, but the Catholic who does in fact feel some need to investigate the CoJCoLDS should do so in the fairest and best manner possible. It is difficult to know who is only interested in understanding the CoJCoLDS so as to fairly classify us and who thinks they should investigate our truth claims because their might be something there.
The purpose of Catholic Answers is clearly not to provide an evangelization forum for the CoJCoLDS, but it seems to be true that the best understanding of the CoJCoLDS is not going to be had without the (name removed by moderator)ut of committed LDS.
I know Catholicism can survive when compared to the BEST the CoJCoLDS has to offer within the minds of intelligent and well informed individuals. And I know Mormonism can survive when compared to the BEST the Catholic Church has to offer. I believe it is better to know these things than it is to know that Catholicism comes out ahead when the CoJCoLDS is presented solely by those who have rejected it, but I am not sure it is necessary. Since I would never advocate LDS investigate the Catholic Church just because I find so much beauty in her, I think it fair to say that I cannot demand the Catholics MUST investigate the CoJCoLDS (other interpretations of “One True Church” could dictate different actions on the part of LDS, but speaking just for myself). But it has not been my impression that THIS BOARD exists to present an unnecessarily flawed view of the CoJCoLDS and then declare, “see look at the flaws.” Perhaps I am mistaken.
cont…
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I think part of what you said is that this board does not exist for the missionary purposes of the CoJCoLDS. I agree. At the same time, I cannot imagine Catholic Answers would advocate the suppression of LDS thought in order to protect the Catholic. I consider it unfortunate when someone leaves the CoJCoLDS (generally). I consider it especially unfortunate when someone leaves because they believed the prophet was impeccable and then found that he sinned or some other misunderstanding. (And I consider it most unfortunate when someone leaves for whatever reason and ceases to try to follow God). One of the reasons Catholic Answers exists is to respond to those who would have Catholics cease to be Catholics because the Pope is not impeccable. It seems that if CA is to have a LDS forum LDS should be able to explain what must be true for our church to be true such that false dichotomies cannot be heralded as proof of falsity. No LDS here would be a LDS if we didn’t think there was something about being a LDS that is superior to being a non-LDS, so we will be somewhat missionary minded.
It does seem generally that you presented your ideas quite clearly though. I disagree with some things, but our final conclusion is different so surely there must be some disagreements somewhere.
It is hard to distinguish in many instances. Believing as you do about the CoJCoLDS makes it hard to see it framed in a way unfamiliar to you and far more positive than you would expect to see it framed. Believing as the LDS do about the CoJCoLDS makes it hard to see it framed in a way familiar or unfamiliar to us and far more negative than we perceive her to be.
I am not immune from saying things that offend people either (as we have seen on this thread). I am sorry when I do, and I too attempt to lean upon Christ to cleanse me from such things.
I am generally happy to see those who have left the CoJCoLDS find the Catholic Church. Had things been different perhaps …, but there is much truth and beauty in the Catholic Church. God loves you too and He rejoices in the returned love coming from His faithful Catholics.
Charity, TOm
M
majick275
Guest
I read all of this “series” of posts. I appreciate your in-depth response and will consider what you have said thoughtfully before responding. Obviously we disagree on some things but there seems to be suficient mutual understanding for constructive dialogue.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
On our personal best:
There are some things about the Catholic Church that I have not seen systematically developed. There are some things about the Catholic Church that have been systematically developed that I KNOW are mistaken to the extent I couldn’t believe them.
We must know God to be saved. There are those who formulate “Baptism of Desire” as desiring to follow God without actually knowing God. I have suggested in the past, and I would believe were I Catholic that those who are saved under the “Baptism of Desire” will be purged of ignorance in Purgatory. Purgatory is certainly a place of purging, but in Catholic thought is seldom thought of a place of learning. I believe there is room to see ignorance of God purged in Purgatory. Unless shown why I couldn’t believe this, I would believe this as a Catholic.
The Eastern Orthodox Church has worked hard to develop what men becoming gods means in light of Nicea AND the oneness of God. I have been told that there are one or two Catholic books in French that address this, but nothing in English. There is certainly nothing definitive from any council.
Summa Theologica is a brilliant systematic theology. I cannot believe that God is as Aquinas claimed Him to be. My interactions with God are more rich than those allowed by the understanding of God formulated by Aquinas. My perception of who God is, is far greater IMO than the God formulated by Aquinas. While Summa Theologica is very important in Catholic thought there is freedom to disagree. Molina is a great example (and I would be more inclined to embrace Molina’s ideas rather than Aquinas, but this area is not my greatest concern).
It would be quite easy to declare that a Catholic believes what is taught in Summa Theologica, or a Catholic cannot resolve the creator/creature dichotomy and deification, or a Catholic believes that men are united with God in ignorance, or … and then say Catholicism is not acceptable to me. But, a Catholic is not required to embrace all of Summa Theologica, there are ideas/mysteries that could be formulated to explain deification, and some simple Purgatory ideas my resolve the “united in ignorance” concern. I choose not to declare Catholicism “fatally flawed” merely because of the above things as a part of comparing the best to the best.
I can imagine that most folks think dismissing much of Summa Theologica is horrible. Some might even suggest I cannot do this and be Catholic, but my best understanding of things is that I can. And it would be required. I suggest that in comparing best to best I am willing to be in communion with a majority of people who explicitly or implicitly accept Summa Theologica. Catholic DOGMA is not strictly determined by large majorities so I do not feel I can dismiss Catholicism because of flaws in Summa Theologica and its prominence in both ancient and modern thought.
Charity, TOm
There are some things about the Catholic Church that I have not seen systematically developed. There are some things about the Catholic Church that have been systematically developed that I KNOW are mistaken to the extent I couldn’t believe them.
We must know God to be saved. There are those who formulate “Baptism of Desire” as desiring to follow God without actually knowing God. I have suggested in the past, and I would believe were I Catholic that those who are saved under the “Baptism of Desire” will be purged of ignorance in Purgatory. Purgatory is certainly a place of purging, but in Catholic thought is seldom thought of a place of learning. I believe there is room to see ignorance of God purged in Purgatory. Unless shown why I couldn’t believe this, I would believe this as a Catholic.
The Eastern Orthodox Church has worked hard to develop what men becoming gods means in light of Nicea AND the oneness of God. I have been told that there are one or two Catholic books in French that address this, but nothing in English. There is certainly nothing definitive from any council.
Summa Theologica is a brilliant systematic theology. I cannot believe that God is as Aquinas claimed Him to be. My interactions with God are more rich than those allowed by the understanding of God formulated by Aquinas. My perception of who God is, is far greater IMO than the God formulated by Aquinas. While Summa Theologica is very important in Catholic thought there is freedom to disagree. Molina is a great example (and I would be more inclined to embrace Molina’s ideas rather than Aquinas, but this area is not my greatest concern).
It would be quite easy to declare that a Catholic believes what is taught in Summa Theologica, or a Catholic cannot resolve the creator/creature dichotomy and deification, or a Catholic believes that men are united with God in ignorance, or … and then say Catholicism is not acceptable to me. But, a Catholic is not required to embrace all of Summa Theologica, there are ideas/mysteries that could be formulated to explain deification, and some simple Purgatory ideas my resolve the “united in ignorance” concern. I choose not to declare Catholicism “fatally flawed” merely because of the above things as a part of comparing the best to the best.
I can imagine that most folks think dismissing much of Summa Theologica is horrible. Some might even suggest I cannot do this and be Catholic, but my best understanding of things is that I can. And it would be required. I suggest that in comparing best to best I am willing to be in communion with a majority of people who explicitly or implicitly accept Summa Theologica. Catholic DOGMA is not strictly determined by large majorities so I do not feel I can dismiss Catholicism because of flaws in Summa Theologica and its prominence in both ancient and modern thought.
Charity, TOm
M
majick275
Guest
Sure, yet we see it frequently. sometimes in a “sincere but condescending” milk before meat; sometimes in denial of past teachings that aren’t “required” practices now.
Yes! That is exactly my intent.
I am no longer capable of this level of cognitive dissonance. To faithfully follow a prophet because he is the oracle of the Lord while simultaneously reserving judgement on his words since he is always fallible…just as long as I don’t “challenge” his teachings which would be the high road to apostasy…
Yet, has there since been an LDS prophet who controlled every aspect of the members lives like he did?
M
majick275
Guest
But when these teachings were presented as “doctrine” by the “prophets” they were claimed to be of divine origin. I would also add that in the absence of a “catechism” how do we know what LDS do or do not accept? or what is binding? I have seen bishops allow TR’s to people who only drink decaf coffee/tea and others who deny TR’s for drinking Coke. (just one of MANY examples) There is the fundamental difference too that LDS prophets supposedly are the “shortcut” doctrinal development in that when there are questions they ask God, get a revelation and the doctrine is developed. The D&C epitomizes this.
I see these as related and relevant to the issues of “what is binding doctrine?” as well as the “orwellian” overtones in the “flexible” doctrine concept that appears to be inherent in the LDS church. from “here is the only path to exaltation” to “that is not our doctrine, it has never been our doctrine” this could be explained in a developmental model that progresses in a linear fashion but not (i think) when one can just ask God and have the true doctrine revealed.
doesn’t this show that in actual practice then that it is the LDS church that routinely teaches “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”?
M
majick275
Guest
I was mostly referring to the way the manifesto is written in “Clintonese” so that it doesn’t really say much. Certainly doesn’t seem like the “prophetic doctrine” you find in the rest of the D&C. I also repeat the difference in Oracles versus theologians.I suggest that GBH was communicating the TRUTH. We do not know very much about what it means to say that “God was once a man.”
Yet he seemed to be quite confident in his knowledge of this in his 94 talk. He also reassured the members in a later talk that he did in fact know church doctrine.
I would refer to his comments that he doesn’t know that we teach it or emphasize it as misleading. as pres. of the church he should know if you teach/emphasize it or not. (the recent gospel doctrine lesson would indicate that it IS taught/emphasized)
TOmNossor:
- Status