Dear Amgid;
Anything similar in LDS practice?
Casen,
Not a lot of emphasis on the cross - and even the link to Luke 22:44, of course, says nothing about bleeding “from every pore”.
And you see, Chris, this is exactly the problem. We get told be certain LDS that they believe “such and such”, then when we tell other people that, a different LDS comes along and says “that’s never been taught. I’ve never heard that.” So how are we supposed to understand what LDS believe when LDS don’t even agree on what it is they believe?
As I mentioned in my post, it requires a real comprehension of the doctrine, or as this is being further defined, of what people think is doctrine. As you come to understand the different viewpoints about certain subjects it will get less confusing. People mostly use reason to define those topics, but as we can all understand, different people’s reasoning leads to different conclusions, kind of like the scientific world. Some issues are agreed on readily by almost all, just because of the logic. Those then later get printed in text-books, which in the Church’s case might be manuals and other books, like Mormon Doctrine (poorly titled book). Therefore, true things are probably expressed there that are not in the scriptures. They (certain doctrinal issues) might not be true, and because of that they are not in the scriptures; they were reasoning of man but not revelation from God, although widely accepted; they help us understand the core doctrines and so are taught. If it turns out that something is a little off, oh well, it wasn’t a doctrine anyway, and we reform our thinking. Most of those topics are not very controversial. The most important topics get addressed by scripture. What God doesn’t explain we can speculate on, and I see no problem with it, as long as we are humble and willing to correct ourselves when we are mistaken.
It has, actually, but I have learned that things that are not so black and white. No leader has ever obligated me to take on his point of view on some controversial doctrinal issue (controversial not by way of importance but just in the fact that everyone thinks different things about it). Try to consider it from our point of view. You know that what’s in the standard works is true, as long as you interpret them correctly, so you search for truth by studying them, Church manuals and magazines, General Conferences, and you go to classes like Sunday school and Institute and you dialogue with others, including leaders. Really, you’re exercising your powers of reasoning to decide what seems reasonable and what doesn’t. You won’t agree with everything you read or hear. It’s a life-long study, whereas in the Catholic Church there is an official doctrine on many topics and doesn’t leave as much room for speculation and opinion. Of course, I’ll bet that there are some controversial issues in Catholic doctrine as well, as I’m sure there has to be in all religions. Think about it, it isn’t so foreign. Protestant churches are the same way; they don’t even have leaders the same way that Mormons and Catholics do. Their only source of authority in most cases is their Bible. Their declaration of denomination decides more or less how they interpret the Bible, but there are still unresolved issues, and you can find one Baptist preacher that believes differently from another Baptist preacher on some points of doctrine, maybe because of different political affiliations, etc. The same thing happens inside every religion, I think. The real problem is when certain members make themselves an authority and teach false doctrine (whatever ‘false doctrine’ might be to the religious organization in question).
Or it could be that we’re not ready for more. I feel that demending things of God is a bad idea. In the early Christian Church there was no more scripture for about 1500 years not because God thought, “All is done, they have enough to get by,” but because of the apostasy – people just weren’t ready. That’s not to say that we’re in a great apostasy today, but maybe our faith is lacking as a whole. Think about it. Moroni said that God is unchanging, that he is a God of miracles, and that he only ceases to do miracles among the children of men if there is no faith among them. Producing scripture is a great miracle. I have seen miracles of that kind, my patriarchal blessing is personal scripture (I’m just assuming you know what that is, as you do seem have a good background on the LDS Church; if not, you can look it up on the net). So to say that it doesn’t happen nowadays is misleading. It does, if not to the extent that it used to. By reading the records, it looks like the people of Zion in Joseph Smith’s time were simply more faithful and so the Church as a whole was blessed. Today there are faithful members, but not enough. So while miracles still happen they are reserved for a select few – those who are ready to receive them.
The problem with your statement is that those prophets often did not specify whether they were speculating or revealing something from God. When one reads their sermons it’s apparent that they were publicly teaching from an office of authority, which for me rules out speculation, especially if they did not preface their statements with “This is just my humble opinion as a man and not official doctrine.” A true prophet would take special care to differentiate between his own speculation and true revelation from God so as not to confuse the flock. Early LDS leaders certainly failed to due this, and as a result we have these controversial topics to discuss. If they were clearer regarding speculation vs. doctrine we wouldn’t be having this discussion. When you say that something was just their own speculation, can you really back that up, or is it that you have to find a way to dismiss something taught by one of your prophets without discrediting him?
Thanks for the clarification Robert. I think that’s one of the difficulties in our two religions talking - we have different understandings of the definition of doctrine.
This subject has been discussed, and adequately covered, in the following threads: “Is Mormonism Pagan,” “Can even a ‘true’ prophet have false revelations,” and “The ECFs must be crazy”. The short answer to that question is as follows: The fundamental doctrines of the Church are contained in the standard works. The leaders and teachers of the Church, at all levels, be they the humble deacon or an Apostle, are free to teach and preach in the Church as they are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost,” and LDS scripture teaches that when they speak as they are “moved upon by the Holy ghost,” their teachings are, effectively, “scripture”. This, however, does not authorize anyone, not even a General Authority, to bring in new doctrine into the Church, which cannot be substantiated by the standard works. All scripture is not “new doctrine”. 99% of scripture is not new doctrine. If the Lord wants to bring a new doctrine into the Church, which does not exist in, and cannot be substantiated by, the standard works, He will do so through the First Presidency of the Church, following a set procedure as outlined in the quote I gave from Harold B. Lee, that will not leave any doubt in the minds of Church members of the authenticity of the doctrine, and the authority through which it is revealed.
The rest of your post is largely redundant, because it is adequately answered by the quotes I had given. If I were to answer them, I would merely have to repeat verbatim from those quotes, which would be a futile exercise. If you still don’t understand them, I suspect that is intentional, and there is not a lot that I could do to change that.
See above.
Yes, LDS authorities in the past have made formal statements on doctrine of such description as you propose; but they do not make a habit of it. The LDS proclamation on the family is a case in point.
There are two answers to that. Firstly, in the early days, the Church had only just been organized. Those revelations were needed to organize the Church properly, and set it on a firm foundation both doctrinally and structurally, with the restoration of the priesthood and the various offices of it, and with the establishment of the Church on the foundation of prophets and Apostles. Once the structure and organization was in place, there was les need for such revelations over time. Even in the early days, if you examine the chronology published in the D&C, you will find that the greatest numbers of revelations were received during the first couple of years of the organization of the Church; and as time went by they decreased in frequency quite steeply. Secondly, I happen to know for a fact, that many “written revelations,” of the same kind that are published in the D&C, have been received by the First Presidency over the years since that time, which are preserved in the historical department or in the archives of the First Presidency, which have not yet been published or canonized, because it is not the will of the Lord that they should be at this time. A handful of them have indeed been published in various books and publications, and my also be found on the Internet; but there are a lot more that have not been; and I am sure that one day they will be both published and canonized for the benefit of the Church. But it is not the will of the Lord that they should be published at this time.
The answer to that is simple. If you are in doubt about any aspect of LDS doctrine, look it up in LDS scripture! What could be simpler than that? Learn a lesson from Moses:
I have already discussed that in the thread called “Why the Cross? Let’s talk”. I refer you to that for my views on that.
As I have shown in the above thread, there are sufficient indications in LDS scripture and in the Bible that the atonement was not entirely accomplished on the cross.
Yes, you are right, and that is a mistake. What took place on the cross is just as significant, if not more so, in the atonement process, than what happened in the garden of Gethsemane. It is true that the scriptures teach that Jesus suffered intensely in Gethsemane; but that does not give us the logical justification to conclude that what He experienced on the cross was any less painful to Him than what He experienced in Gethsemane, or that the Atonement was primarily performed in Gethsemane rather than on the cross.
You tell me! Didn’t you look? Here is the page on the Atonement.
LDS scripture provides that added insight, as I have shown in another thread.
See above.
See above.
You are talking silly now. See above.
Not so! See above.
You are getting ahead of yourself here. Be specific to get specific answers.
Members of the Church believe, or should believe, that which is taught in the standard works, and in the teachings of the leadership of the Church insofar as it is in conformity with the standard works. This places the onus on Church members to familiarize themselves with the standard works, and obtain the Holy Spirit, so that they can detect error in doctrine regardless of where it may come form. If the Lord wants to reveal a new doctrine to the Church which does not exist in the standard works, it will be done through the appropriate channels, following a set procedure so that there will be no misunderstanding in the minds of Church members that God has spoken His will to his servants the prophets.
So then the question becomes why? Why would God give a revelation to the leader of a church regarding that church and then not have it be revealed?
So, with your decription, and this quote…
When was the last time “new doctrine” was proclaimed?
This seems like a bit of an attack on Catholics for creating a book that describes what the Catholic Church believes. The Catechism in NO WAY replaces the importance of reading the Bible! The Bible is foremost, especially since it is the word of God, the Catechism is not. The Catechism references the Bible repeatedly so that those reading can see from what Scripture we get certain beliefs.
This is a classic Sola Scriptura argument, an idea that hasn’t proven itself effective in Protestantism. By relying on private interpretation of Scripture Protestants disagree with each other about everything. To quote Cardinal Newman:
I find this answer strange; when did the Catholic Church receive the revelation from God that it had recieved an infallible teachnig authority, or was it simply assumed?