Do LDS hold to "Sola Fide" or "Tradition Plus Scripture"

[Casen]

Chris-WA:

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?

Perhaps these quotes will help you understand the LDS position on doctrine vs. speculation and the principle of Common Consent:

I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.
President George Q Cannon, General Conference 10 Oct 1880

*The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.

It is not sufficient to quote sayings purported to come from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine. Our own people also need instruction and correction in respect of this. It is common to hear some of our older brethren say, “But I heard Brother Joseph myself say so,” or “Brother Brigham preached it; I heard him.” But that is not the question. The question is has God said it? Was the prophet speaking officially? . . .

As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren, the same principle holds. They do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is–What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine.*
B.H. Roberts

 

[arieh0310]

Asa Ben Judah:

Actually if readers of this thread studied Section 1 of the doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints they would find that God gave to this church via a living prophet an explicit and INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY which has been held by each succeeding and living prophet. Those Mormons who are offended by what is taught by the presently constitued General Authorities of the above mentioned church are not in good standing or in a state of grace; even if they hold a temple recommend.

You seem to hold a minority opinion on this (at least from what I have seen on this forum). I have heard it argued that the LDS church possesses “functional inerrancy”, which simply boils down to: The prophet is inerrant only when he is right and even if he is right he can be reversed by a succeeding prophet. That isn’t infallibility, at best it is only certitude.

 

[majick275]

Not only does B.H. Roberts statement directly contradict what IS in the D&C but if his comments were to be taken literally then the WoW is not binding, does not prohibit coffe or tea and the Temple Endowment Ceremony is completely speculative and not doctrinally binding.

I find it interesting that you would use this particular man as a doctrinal reference. He has long been considered “controversial” even in LDs circles. His writings on the BoM are the same kinds of things that get LDS historians exed these days.

I would think that the statements of LDS prophets would carry more weight. Apostles and prophets both have , since the time of Roberts, painted a very different picture. The ACTIONS of JS and BY certainly show a diferent belief as well.

Once again though, I ask for ONE example in the BoM (the most correct book ever, “fullness” of the Gospel, etc.) where a prophet submitted any revelation to common consent. Had Jesus submitted his teachings in the synagogue to a sustaining vote what would have happened? We can see that in the history of the LDS church those who disagreed with the sitting prophet on matters of doctrine have separated. (not always voluntarily)

 

[amgid]

tkdnick:

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?

Because these revelations have been given to the leadership of the Church to instruct them how to govern the Church; and that is what they have used them for. It is not yet expedient in the wisdom of the Lord that they should all be published. A small handful of them have been published. I will post a couple of these directly below this post for your information.

When was the last time “new doctrine” was proclaimed?

It is not necessary that “new doctrine” should be proclaimed all the time. The foundational doctrines of the Church have been revealed through Joseph Smith. The vision of the redemption of the dead, which is now canonized and published as section 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants, contains “new doctrines” which had not been made known to the Church before.

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! …

If that was an attack on the Catholic Church, then your constant berating of the LDS Church for “not” having a catechism must be an attack on the LDS Church.

I will post below two revelations received by John Taylor, which have been published and are in the public domain. The first is a revelation received in October 1882, and the second received at the occasion of the dedication of the Logan temple, in May 1884. There are many more like these which have not yet been published.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Revelation received by John Taylor in October 1882

Thus saith the Lord to the Twelve, and to the priesthood and people of my church: let my servants George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant be appointed to fill the vacancies in the Twelve, that you may be fully organized and prepared for the labors devolving upon you, for you have a great work to perform; and then proceed to fill up the presiding quorum of the Seventies, and assist in organizing that body of my priesthood who are your co-laborers in the ministry.

You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of the Seventies, if he will conform to my law; for it is not meet that men who will not abide in my law shall preside over my priesthood. And then proceed forthwith, and call to your aid any assistance that you may require from among the Seventies, to assist you in your labors in introducing and maintaining the gospel among the Lamanites throughout the land.

And then let high priests be selected, under the direction of the First Presidency, to preside over the various organizations that shall exist among this people; that those who receive the gospel may be taught in the doctrines of my church, and in the ordinances and laws thereof, and also in the things pertaining to my Zion and my kingdom, saith the Lord, that they may be one with you in my church and my kingdom.

Let the Presidency of my church be one in all things; and let the Twelve also be one in all things; and let them all be one with me, as I am one with the Father. And let the high priests organize themselves, and purify themselves, and prepare themselves for this labor, and for all other labors that they may be called upon to fulfill. And let the presidents of stakes also purify themselves, and the priesthood and people of the stakes over which they preside, and organize the priesthood in their various stakes according to my law, in all the various departments thereof–in the high councils, in the elders’ quorums, and in the bishops’ and their councils, and in the quorums of priests, teachers and deacons, that every quorum may be fully organized according to the order of my church.

And then let them inquire into the standing and fellowship of all that hold my holy priesthood in their several stakes; and if they find those that are unworthy, let them remove them, except they repent; for my priesthood, whom I have called and whom I have sustained and honored, shall honor me, and obey my laws, and the laws of my holy priesthood, or they shall not be considered worthy to hold my priesthood, saith the Lord.

And let my priesthood humble themselves before me, and seek not their own will but my will. For if my priesthood, whom I have chosen and called, and endowed with the spirit and gifts of their several callings, and with the powers thereof, do not acknowledge me, I will not acknowledge them, saith the Lord; for I will be honored and obeyed by my priesthood.

And then I call upon my priesthood, and upon all my people, to repent of all their sins and short comings; of their covetousness and pride and self-will, and of all their iniquities wherein they sin against me; and to seek with all humility to fulfill my law, as my priesthood, my saints and my people. And I call upon the heads of families to put their houses in order according to the law of God, and attend to the various duties and responsibilities associated therewith, and to purify themselves before me, and to purge out iniquity from their households.

And I will bless and be with you, saith the Lord; and ye shall gather together in your holy places, wherein ye assemble to call upon me. And ye shall ask for such things as are right; and I will hear your prayers; and my Spirit and power shall be with you; and my blessing shall rest upon you–upon your families, your dwellings and your households; upon your flocks and herds and fields, your orchards and vineyards, and upon all that pertains to you; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

And your enemies shall not have dominion over you, for I will preserve you, and confound them, saith the Lord. And they shall not have power and dominion over you; for my word shall go forth, and my work shall be accomplished, and my Zion shall be established, and my rule and my power and my dominion shall prevail among my people; and all nations shall yet acknowledge me. Even so, Amen

 

[amgid]

Revelation received by John Taylor in May 1884.

As thou hast asked me concerning this temple, thus saith the Lord: I accept this house which thou hast built; and also the labors of the committee, the superintendent, and the architect thereof, and of those who have in anywise contributed to the building or beautifying the same, by their labor or by their means; and inasmuch as it shall be preserved pure and not be defiled, my presence shall be there, even the power of my Spirit–the gift of the Holy Ghost–which shall in this house hereafter be more fully understood.

And I will acknowledge the ordinances which shall be administered therein, both for the living and the dead; and my blessing shall attend the administration of the ordinances, and shall rest upon those who administer therein, inasmuch as they comply with the order and institutions of my house, and act with purity and singleness of heart before me, according to my word, my ordinances and my laws.

And this house shall be a house of prayer, a house of learning, a house of God, wherein many great principles pertaining to the past, to the present, and the future shall be revealed; and my word and my will be made known; and the laws of the universe, pertaining to this world and other worlds be developed. For in these houses which have been built unto me, and which shall be built, I will reveal the abundance of those things pertaining to the past, the present, and the future; to the life that now is, and the life that is to come; pertaining to laws, order, rule, dominion and government; to things affecting this nation and other nations; the laws of the heavenly bodies in their times and seasons, and the principles or laws by which they are governed, and their relation to each other, and whether they be bodies celestial, terrestrial, or telestial, shall be made known, as I will, saith the Lord. For it is my will and my purpose to place my people in closer communion with the heavens, inasmuch as they will purify themselves, and observe more diligently my law. For it is in mine heart to greatly bless and exalt my people; and to build up, exalt, and beautify my Zion, inasmuch as they shall observe my law. Even so, Amen.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

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:

It is in point to notice also the structure and style of Scripture, a structure so unsystematic and various, and a style so figurative and indirect, that no one would presume at first sight to say what is in it and what is not. It cannot, as it were, be mapped, or its contents catalogued

Scripture absolutely needs interpretation and commentary to be meaningful (that is what a catechism is). Fortunately, the Catholic Church was gifted by God with an infallible teaching authority. This doesn’t seem be something Mormons are claiming to possess, at least from the arguments in this thread.

An interesting quote from Newman. I do not have the full context of that quote; but to my way of thinking, what he says is an excellent argument against any form of catechism!

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

An interesting quote from Newman. I do not have the full context of that quote; but to my way of thinking, what he says is an excellent argument against any form of catechism!

amgid

The title of the chapter I pulled that quote from is “An Infallible Developing Authority to be Expected”, and Newman forcefully defends the Catholic authority to catechize its faithful. You should pick up the book and read it instead of throwing out these silly platitudes.

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

catholic-rcia:

“God gave us His Son to be the fullfilment of all things” We have been given His Holy Spirit to guide the Church, to guide us all. It has not failed the Church yet, not one time. Truly amazing."

“If we as Catholics were given a Mass recommend we would have to refuse it out right because not one of us is deemed worthy to attend, even the Pope.” Only because of Jesus’ Mercy do we attend."

We have no argument to be the true Church, we are not built on the fall of any other Church, we are in Church because we are all fallen and in need of our Savior and God. It is that simple.

The Protestants are are brothers and sisters in Christ, they who profess Christ are also saved by Him. They beleive in the Most Holy Trinity as all Christians have beleived, it is our Hope and our desire to be with it and in it with Jesus forever.

Firstly, I agree with you that God gave us his son to be the fulfillment of all things but the problem is that there is no concensus on the nature of God and the meaning of the Gospel that provides us with ONE CHURCH/KINGDOM on Earth. A situation created by an apostacy from the true priesthood following the death of the last Apostle of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, Catholics do require a ‘mass recommend’ from the Priest - the sacrament of absolution following confession; some Catholics dare to participate in taking the Blessed Sacrament without absolution and therefore eat and drink damnation unto their own souls.

Finally, the doctrine of the ‘Holy Trinity’ as defined by the Council of Nicea was not held by the Apostles of Christ, Peter, James and John, because they were with Jesus Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration when God proclamed and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”
AND
Stephen was stoned for declaring is vision of Jesus Christ standing at the Right hand of God the Father in Heaven.
AND
The Protestants who are are brothers and sisters in Christ are denied the blessing to feast at Catholic altars with their Catholic Brothers and Sisters. So much then for Christian unity!

Asa

 

[tkdnick]

amgid:

It is not necessary that “new doctrine” should be proclaimed all the time. The foundational doctrines of the Church have been revealed through Joseph Smith. The vision of the redemption of the dead, which is now canonized and published as section 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants, contains “new doctrines” which had not been made known to the Church before.

I was trying to say that there needed to constantly be new doctrinal revelation, just curious when the last “official” one was.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

The title of the chapter I pulled that quote from is “An Infallible Developing Authority to be Expected”, and Newman forcefully defends the Catholic authority to catechize its faithful. You should pick up the book and read it instead of throwing out these silly platitudes.

I am sure you did. Then Newman must be as confused as you are! Moses had a few more thins to tell us about how we should treat the scriptures.

Deuteronomy 6:

6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

Deuteronomy 11:

18 Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.

19 And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

20 And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates:

21 That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth.

22 For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do them, to love the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto him;

23 Then will the Lord drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater nations and mightier than yourselves.
Some Orthodox Jews go so far as to take these words literally! They literally wear armbands with a pouch containing the scriptures, and likewise headbands with the scriptures sticking permanently on their foreheads! That of course is not how the Lord meant these words to be understood. But it is clear the will of God that we should so familiarizing ourselves with scripture literally that we are able to extract our doctrine from them directly and with confidence, and obey and follow them, to fulfill the commandments of God, rather than by relying on an inevitably imperfect “catechism” prepared by human ingenuity and wisdom (however well intentioned).

amgid

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Asa Ben Judah:

[Lack of consensus is] … A situation created by an apostacy from the true priesthood following the death of the last Apostle of Jesus Christ.

There is no historical evidence supporting your conclusion that there was a “Great Apostacy.” Indeed, a review of the Early Church Fathers reveals all of the ways in which the Church was successful in defeating the attacks upon the Church by heretical movements. You have hardly met your burden of proving your statement by merely asserting it as a fact. You must present at least some evidence before I can even take this seriously.
Asa Ben Judah:

Secondly, Catholics do require a ‘mass recommend’ from the Priest - the sacrament of absolution following confession; some Catholics dare to participate in taking the Blessed Sacrament without absolution and therefore eat and drink damnation unto their own souls.

There is no requirement of a “recommend” for attending mass. The “restriction” is placed upon receiving the Eucharist - and that “restriction” is limited to Catholics who are burdened by mortal sin. To the contrary, a “temple recommend” is required before one can even view any temple ceremony. I’m not sure what your point is by comparing the two?
Asa Ben Judah:

Finally, the doctrine of the ‘Holy Trinity’ as defined by the Council of Nicea was not held by the Apostles of Christ, Peter, James and John, because they were with Jesus Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration when God proclamed and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”
AND
Stephen was stoned for declaring is vision of Jesus Christ standing at the Right hand of God the Father in Heaven.
AND
The Protestants who are are brothers and sisters in Christ are denied the blessing to feast at Catholic altars with their Catholic Brothers and Sisters. So much then for Christian unity!

Asa

(1) Regarding the Holy Trinity - that doctrine is implicit in the Scriptures. It was understood and defined long before Nicea. Nothing that you have stated above runs contrary to the doctrine.

(2) The separation of protestant brothers and sisters from the Eucharistic table is a sad result of the reformation. Reformed christianity that traces its roots to the 1500s denies the Real Presence of Christ as it is taught infallibly by Christ’s Church. As such, it would be a mockery of the sacrament to allow someone to partake of the Real Presence of Christ if - in fact - they do not accept that they are actually receiving the Real Presence. Thus, the invitation of all to participate in the Sacrament is there, but it is not an immediate invitation. Anyone who is willing to formally accept the doctrines of the Catholic Church may receive the sacrament. But to allow anyone - regardless of belief - to participate would not be the symbol of “christian unity” that you seem to think it would be. To allow all to partake without unity destroys all meaning of the shared meal that Christ asked us to partake in. Yes, it is tragic. The separation of Catholics and Non-Catholics from the Eucharistic table is a great example of where christians lack unity. But this does not establish error on the part of the Church.

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

Some Orthodox Jews go so far as to take these words literally! They literally wear armbands with a pouch containing the scriptures, and likewise headbands with the scriptures sticking permanently on their foreheads! That of course is not how the Lord meant these words to be understood. But it is clear the will of God that we should so familiarizing ourselves with scripture literally that we are able to extract our doctrine from them directly and with confidence, and obey and follow them, to fulfill the commandments of God, rather than by relying on an inevitably imperfect “catechism” prepared by human ingenuity and wisdom (however well intentioned).

amgid

You have just proven my point. Scripture requires commentary in order to avoid error. The CCC does not suplant Scripture but supliments it. Without commentary we should all be running around with phylacteries on our heads.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Please be mindful of charity in content and tone before posting.

Thank you!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

amgid:

I am sure you did. Then Newman must be as confused as you are! Moses had a few more thins to tell us about how we should treat the scriptures…

Deuteronomy 6: …

Deuteronomy 11: …

Some Orthodox Jews go so far as to take these words literally! They literally wear armbands with a pouch containing the scriptures, and likewise headbands with the scriptures sticking permanently on their foreheads! That of course is not how the Lord meant these words to be understood. But it is clear the will of God that we should so familiarizing ourselves with scripture literally that we are able to extract our doctrine from them directly and with confidence, and obey and follow them, to fulfill the commandments of God, rather than by relying on an inevitably imperfect “catechism” prepared by human ingenuity and wisdom (however well intentioned).

amgid

You’ve just set forth a great example for why an infallible authority is required. You simply dismiss the tradition that some jews have kept for 1000s of years by stating, “That, of course, is not how the Lord meant these words to be understood.”

How can *you * come to that conclusion. Isn’t it fair to say that the descendents of Moses took seriously the command to read and study the scriptures? If so, then why would their understanding of the passage be any less valid than yours. Indeed, their consistent traditional understanding would seem to have more value than your personal understanding, which has only existed for a portion of your own life. It must take a great deal of arrogance to simply dismiss the traditional interpretation of generations of an entire people without any apparent thought as to whether it might be *you * that has an incorrect understanding of those portions of Deuteronomy that you cite above. You seem to presume that God is telling *you * what is right, so others must be wrong. Isn’t it true that in the end, you have nothing to rely upon but yourself.

Catholics, on the other hand, have a Church that has existed continuously since the time of Christ which has always declared - with the authority given directly by Christ to Peter - that it has the charism of the Holy Spirit to speak with authority on matters of doctrine.

Catholics don’t rely on the Catechism. The Catechism is a summary of the Church’s teachings from Tradition and Scripture. Catholics rely on the Church, Scripture, and Tradition. The Catechism is not a replacement of Scripture and Tradition, but an aid in understanding how the Church teaches consistently from both Scripture and Tradition. Nowhere does the Church tell its people to set aside Scriptures and Tradition and look only to the Catechism? If you think that’s what the Church teaches, then you are simply mistaken.

The Catechism is merely a compendium of the Church’s teachings. It is not - and has never been stated to be - equivalent with Scripture. I do not understand the nature of your objection to the Catechism? Yes, it is a book created by human beings. Yes, it is an organized presentation of the teachings of the Catholic Church, stated in relatively plain language as an aid to the Church’s people and to others. Why is this a bad thing to try to make more clear what the Church has taught in accordance with Scripture and Tradition for two thousand years?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Rachel Malloy:

Please be mindful of charity in content and tone before posting.

Thank you!

My apologies to amgid. My last post was less than charitable in its tone. You are a guest to this site and my tone was not polite. However, some of your comments have been less than charitable as well…

amgid:

Then Newman must be as confused as you are!

Can we agree to focus on the arguments presented and not upon the persons presenting them?

 

[arieh0310]

Robert in SD:

My apologies to amgid. My last post was less than charitable in its tone. You are a guest to this site and my tone was not polite. However, some of your comments have been less than charitable as well…

I think the mod may have been commenting on a statement I made (which I edited out after seeing her post)

My apologies for a non-extant uncharitable comment.

 

[tkdnick]

amgid:

IBut it is clear the will of God that we should so familiarizing ourselves with scripture literally that we are able to extract our doctrine from them directly and with confidence, and obey and follow them, to fulfill the commandments of God, rather than by relying on an inevitably imperfect “catechism” prepared by human ingenuity and wisdom (however well intentioned).

And we Catholics agree with everything written by Moses. I don’t understand where you get this idea that we are “obsessed” with the Catechism as taking the place of the Bible. The Catechism is a summary of those things we believe. And it does a really good job of making the connection to the Bible so that people can see where in Scriptures we get our beliefs from. The Catechism DOES NOT IN ANY WAY take the place of reading the Bible.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

You have just proven my point. Scripture requires commentary in order to avoid error. The CCC does not suplant Scripture but supliments it. Without commentary we should all be running around with phylacteries on our heads.

That argument is a double-edged sword. It works against you more than it works for you. Why do you think the Orthodox Jews do it? It is not their “scriptures” that tells them to do it. It is their “catechism” (whatever that is–probably the Talmud) that tells them to do it. They have been around a lot longer than you have been; they have a bigger “catechism” than you do. But they call it by a different name. And that is precisely what is wrong with a “catechism”. Over time it becomes rigid and inflexible, tends to supplant scripture, and blinds people’s eyes to true scriptural meanings. If the Jews didn’t have that, and relied on scripture instead, some intelligent Orthodox Jew would have been found who would have said, “But wait a minute, this is daft, it can’t be what God had intended us to do.” But they don’t because they are blinded by their “catechisms”. They killed Jesus because He healed people on the Sabbath day, because their “catechisms,” and their “traditions,” and their “Rabbinical interpretations” told them that that was wrong!

I agree that scripture sometimes needs to be interpreted. It can sometimes be misunderstood. If you read or listen to past LDS conference talks, you will find that many of talks and sermons preached by LDS General Authorities are intended to clarify and make scriptural doctrine better understood. These interpretations and explanations are given as the needs and requirements of the Church necessitate it, which is how it should be. But that is a different thing from “finalizing” scriptural interpretation in a “book” published with the full authority of the Church. Firstly, our knowledge and understanding of scripture is in a constant state of flux. We can always discover some new insight that we may not have realized before. I have lost count of how many times I have read the scriptures; but every time I reread them, I seem to get a deeper insight and understanding of them than before, and discover some truths that I had missed in my previous readings. It is never possible to “finalize” scriptural interpretation in this way.

Secondly, when you publish a “book” in this way, attempting to finalize scriptural doctrine, it does have a tendency to “supplant” scripture, no matter how much you may think it doesn’t. And over time it acquires the authority and finality of scripture, and blinds peoples’ minds to true scriptural meanings, as the old Jewish traditions had done (and still do). These are some the reasons why the LDS Church does not approve of the idea of publishing a catechism.

amgid

 

[ben_dy]

amgid:

That argument is a double-edged sword. It works against you more than it works for you. Why do you think the Orthodox Jews do it? It is not their “scriptures” that tells them to do it. It is their “catechism” (whatever that is–probably the Talmud) that tells them to do it. They have been around a lot longer than you have been; they have a bigger “catechism” than you do. But they call it by a different name.

amgid

Just to jump into this portion of the discussion (because it’s something I know a bit about)… Orthodox Jews follow the 613 “mitzvahs” (commandments) found in the Old Testament - which is why they wear the “funny” undergarments with tassels - ‘tzitzit’ - as commanded by God (Numbers 15). A quick Google search turned up a fairly complete article on “holy clothing”…

triumphpro.com/holy_clothes.htm

…but it makes no mention of LDS temple garments. You can get a look at these garments (and order a comfy set for all the men in your family!) at

judaism.com/search.asp?nt=CKAm&sctn=882

There is no Jewish ‘catechism’ - there are 613 commandments (and the articles that you spoke of earlier - are called phylacteries and I think you noted that Biblical passage) found in the Old Testament.

While Mishnah (the first part of what we think of as the Talmud), Gemara (commentary on the Talmud, principally), and Midrash (commentary as late as the 13th century) do offer commentary on practices and manners of following the Mitzvahs, they can in no way be thought of as catechisms - more like ‘legal’ commentaries. There is a rich Jewish oral tradition amongst (primarily) the Eastern European Orthodox - wonderful tales of miracles, the good that comes from following God’s law, etc.

I don’t mind you thinking Catholic practices silly (as I’m sure you take no offense at me thinking the same of LDS some practices) but before you start in on the wearing of scripture, placing scripture at the door, wearing “funny underwear” remember, well, you know… word has it that you guys don’t buy your boxers at Brooks Brothers! As there are no Orthodox Jews that I know of here to defend their practices and customs, I feel as if I should defend their practices as much as possible as we (Catholics) are likely closer to Judaism than even some schismatic ‘Christian’ sects!