Early Church Fathers

[arieh0310]

I have noticed an interesting characteristic in Mormon apologetics, which is a refusal to reach back to the founders of their faith to prove the historicity of Mormon doctrines. Catholics, on the other hand, constantly refer back to the Early Church Fathers (the earlier the better) to prove that their exegesis of Scripture is correct. The Fathers’ writings are the lenses through which Scripture and Tradition are properly interpreted. The same principle is applied by originalist justices when they refer back to the Federalist Papers or other similar documents while interpreting the Constitution .

However, this method of apologetics seems alien to modern LDS apologists. On the contrary, what I notice is the wholesale rejection of their founders’ works as speculation when the doctrine they taught is no longer palatable to the public (like overt racism). The same approach is taken with regard to prophecy (the prophet simply wasn’t acting as a prophet at that moment). I think that LDS apologists have to use this approach because of the Mormon church’s ability to eliminate and create divine doctrine to suit public consumption. However noble the LDS apologist’s intentions are, this method of argumentation can be used by any organization to prove anything without accountability. Seems to me that the FLDS (and possibly the RLDS) have a much easier task than CoJCoLDS.

Please keep in mind that I am trying to write this with charity. I hope this post comes across as inquisitive and not condemning because I am simply baffled by the tendency of LDS church to ignore the founders of their faith.

 

[mormon_fool]

Nice post!

I think your observations are more applicable to the differences between someone in apologetics mode and some one in systematic theology mode. These mode shifts occur regardless of religious affiliation.

When someone is in apologetics mode, he or she is being confronted with an embarrassing quote from the past that has been carefully selected by a critic. It would seem an almost expected reaction that an apologist would refer to a current source and/or a more authoritative source that is much more enlightened or accurate.

When someone is presenting the current teachings of their church, say from the *CCC or Gospel Principles, they are in systematic mode. *The objective shifts somewhat, because it is often desirable to quote the authority that set the precedent for that particular belief. And, as you say, the further in the past this quote can be found, the better everyone feels. By quoting the old, precedent setting authority with approval, it keeps that quote in circulation, keeping it current and respectable.

Both the theologian and the critic get to select those quotes that suit their purposes. I think this classification captures the dynamic better. IMO, you are comparing catholic teaching methods to mormon apologetic methods, when you should be comparing mormon apologetics to catholic apologetics and mormon theological presentations to catholic theological presentations.
*
Hope that helps,
fool
*

 

[arieh0310]

fool (no offense intended) ,

I am comparing apples to apples, apologetic tactics to apologetic tactics.

I have in my library three volumes of writings by dozens of the Early Church Fathers (compiled by William A. Jurgens) that spans from the Didache in the first century to John of Damascus in the eighth century. What you find is a near unanimous testimony to the fidelity to which the Church kept the original deposit of faith. You do see occasional variances of opinion on minor doctrinal points, but that is about it.

Try to square the teachings of Brigham Young and others to the current teachings of the LDS church on major doctrinal issues, it can’t be done.

 

[mormon_fool]

arieh0310:

I have in my library three volumes of writings by dozens of the Early Church Fathers (compiled by William A. Jurgens) that spans from the Didache in the first century to John of Damascus in the eighth century. What you find is a near unanimous testimony to the fidelity to which the Church kept the original deposit of faith. You do see occasional variances of opinion on minor doctrinal points, but that is about it.

You are entitled to your perception, but I see a diversity of opinions on “major” doctrinal tenants even among the ECFs. Plus you rig things somewhat, because whenever there was a controversy over doctrinal issues there were winners and losers, and to the winners go the spoils. The winners get to choose who is considered orthodox or heretical.

If you ever read LDS works on the apostasy and were to provide a responsible critique of them, I guarantee you would have to go into an apologetics mode that resembles the LDS apologetics mode.

 

[arieh0310]

mormon fool:

You are entitled to your perception, but I see a diversity of opinions on “major” doctrinal tenants even among the ECFs. Plus you rig things somewhat, because whenever there was a controversy over doctrinal issues there were winners and losers, and to the winners go the spoils. The winners get to choose who is considered orthodox or heretical.

If you ever read LDS works on the apostasy and were to provide a responsible critique of them, I guarantee you would have to go into an apologetics mode that resembles the LDS apologetics mode.

Even though I don’t buy your “winners write the history books” argument, I will run with it. Lets look at who the Catholic Church has labeled as orthodox and read their writings. One will walk away assured that the Church has preserved its historical doctrines (even though those oppressive defenders and martyrs for the faith totally eliminated all trace of LDS doctrines).

Try to do the same with whom the LDS church labels as orthodox. You cannot walk away with the same assurance (unless you are a member of the FLDS).

 

[mormon_fool]

arieh0310:

Even though I don’t buy your “winners write the history books” argument, I will run with it. Lets look at who the Catholic Church has labeled as orthodox and read their writings. One will walk away assured that the Church has preserved its historical doctrines (even though those oppressive defenders and martyrs for the faith totally eliminated all trace of LDS doctrines).

You are painting the “winners write history books” argument as much more extreme than I ever stated it. No wonder you reject such a concept. Some traces of LDS doctrine are indeed found in ECF writings, otherwise the LDS could not hope to muster evidence for the apostasy that has any chance of convincing anyone else. My point is that sometimes evidence is found that supports LDS views is automatically discarded because it isn’t considered orthodox.

Try to do the same with whom the LDS church labels as orthodox. You cannot walk away with the same assurance (unless you are a member of the FLDS).

I don’t quite comprehend what you are saying here.

Unless you can (or point us to someone who can) sucessfully deal with every type of ECF quote mustered in LDS works that outline the apostasy without taking an apologetic stance (as I have described it) then your distinction between catholic apologetics and mormon apologetics is baseless to me.

later,
fool

 

[arieh0310]

mormon fool:

You are painting the “winners write history books” argument as much more extreme than I ever stated it. No wonder you reject such a concept. Some traces of LDS doctrine are indeed found in ECF writings, otherwise the LDS could not hope to muster evidence for the apostasy that has any chance of convincing anyone else. My point is that sometimes evidence is found that supports LDS views is automatically discarded because it isn’t considered orthodox.

I don’t quite comprehend what you are saying here.

Unless you can (or point us to someone who can) sucessfully deal with every type of ECF quote mustered in LDS works that outline the apostasy without taking an apologetic stance (as I have described it) then your distinction between catholic apologetics and mormon apologetics is baseless to me.

later,
fool

Maybe I am painting your stance a little extreme, but I do understand your argument and still reject it. The Church has had to battle every heresy that the human mind could possibly imagine, so it is not hard to imagine that there would be traces of LDS-like heresy at some point. To say, “ah-ha, you see is battling a , that proves the Church went apostate!” is an extrodinarily weak argument. To say that the Church that Jesus Christ Himself founded when he walked the earth went immediately and substatially into apostacy leaving behind no trace of “true Christianity” is cultic. (now I am not saying LDS members are cultists, just that this type of argument is used by every cult).

Now, to your second point, I am sure we can deal with all your apostacy “proofs” but that is not the subject of this thread. If you wish, please post your “proofs” and we can debate those. What I am trying to convey in this thread is that Catholics hold the Fathers in high esteem, almost to a canonical status. Whereas, Mormons seem to have little faith in what their Fathers promulgated. Everytime we bring up embarassing doctrines that were taught (polygamy, racism, becomming a god, etc.) they are discounted as “speculation” even though there can be an excellent case made that they were presented as “inspired doctrine”.

 

[mormon_fool]

arieh0310:

would be traces of LDS-like heresy at some point. To say, “ah-ha, you see is battling a , that proves the Church went apostate!” is an extrodinarily weak argument.

For you perhaps. But when I see an ECF and a heretic going at it I have to ask myself which is the real heretic. What are the influences behind the ECF’s stance and which are those behind the so-called heretics. Are the ECFs using imported philosophy or are they relying on authentic Christian tradition? What about the so-called heretic?

What you are not addressing – and I will try to make myself more clear on – are those cases when it is the ECFs themselves, in the course of expressing their views, promote a position which, if they promoted it into today’s RCC world would be awkward, or unenlightened, or even heretical.

When such ECF quotes are brought up, IMO, catholic apologetics directly mirror mormon apologetics when embarrasing Brigham Young quotes are brought up.

To say that the Church that Jesus Christ Himself founded when he walked the earth went immediately and substatially into apostacy leaving behind no trace of “true Christianity” is cultic.

Now you’re painting the mormon position on the apostasy in extreme terms again. The mormon apostasy view only requires a partial loss or corruption of Christian truth. That part of our stance Protestants can definitely agree with us on and I presume you don’t go around calling all of them cultists. The only difference between the Protestant stance and the mormon stance is how early said corruption and loss took place and that LDS hold that the authority to perform ordinances (sacraments) and receive normative revelations went with it.

(now I am not saying LDS members are cultists, just that this type of argument is used by every cult).

You may wish to review how academics define “cult”, any thing else is just a subjective, perjorative use, IMO.

Now, to your second point, I am sure we can deal with all your apostacy “proofs” but that is not the subject of this thread.

I am sure any “proofs” I advance can be dealt with. My claim is that they will be dealt with in a manner that resembles mormon apologetics.

What I am trying to convey in this thread is that Catholics hold the Fathers in high esteem, almost to a canonical status.

As do mormons for our former prophets and apostles. This esteem will be readily apparent if one reads teaching literature in addition to apologetic literature.

Would you mind conveying to me what experience you have reading mormon teaching manuals? How about catholic apologetics in discussions of what ECFs believed? All you have written so far makes me think you are making comparisons based on rather limited sample sizes.

I will mention a few examples of ECFs gone awry:

• Tertullian unabashedly believed that God has a material body.
• Many ECF referred to Jesus as a second God: (Justin, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, Lactantius, Methodius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Eusebius).
• All pre-Nicene Fathers were subordinationalists.
• Some ANFs, a minority, believed in a pre-mortal existence. Origen’s views on this were later pronounced heretical.

And I could go on. My source for most of this is David Waltz’s (who is now Catholic and occasionally posts here) review of Barry Bickmore’s book.

The best Catholic apologists, like Cardinal Newman, is cognizant of these types of heretical errors found in the ECFs and yet still hold them in high esteem. Just like LDS apologists do their leaders even if there are occasional errors to found in their sermons.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

I would agree with you about the status of LDS "ECF"s in LDS teaching materials and in fact within LDS churches. I think the problem has been that on this forum at least we have seen a lot of “distancing” from these sources by many of the LDS posters.

There is also the increased significance of the LDS belief in prophets and apostles leading the church by divine revelation versus the Catholic belief in ECFs being inspired and or enlightened “scholars” of doctrine. The difference in effect is subtle but I think significant. For example I would look at Augustine as someone to be studied, whose teachings are important but not divine revelation. When I was LDS I believed that BY was a prophet whose teachings were revealed from God so that he could lead the church in the path that the Lord directed.

In the case of the Catholic ECFs where you spoke of similar apologetic methods. (distancing from doctrines that aren’t currently espoused) there is the catechism that clearly defines what the “final answer” is after the various councils determined what is true doctrine. This is different in that the LDS church does not have an equivalent and thus there is much room for the “DSI” to end up with widely varied “congregational doctrine”, individual beliefs and practices, etc. Thus what is taught and emphasized appears to be more dependent on the individual doing the teaching and emphasizing.

 

[arieh0310]

mormon fool:

*] Many ECF referred to Jesus as a second God: (Justin, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, Lactantius, Methodius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Eusebius).

I don’t think so:

Justin Martyr

“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

Tertullian

“We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics” (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

“And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).

“Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (ibid., 9).

“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number” (ibid., 25).

Origen

“For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

“No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages” (ibid.).

“For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages” (ibid.).

Hippolytus

“The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).

Novatian

“For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God. . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God” (Treatise on the Trinity 11 [A.D. 235]).

I read that book review and it seems that David Waltz has a hard time reading the Fathers in context.

 

[arieh0310]

It is also important to note that Barry Bickmore is not a scholar, but a geochemist. He may have clever arguments by twisting patristic writings but his views are not shared by the overwhelming majority of scholars (actually none that I know of).

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

I have noticed an interesting characteristic in Mormon apologetics, which is a refusal to reach back to the founders of their faith to prove the historicity of Mormon doctrines. Catholics, on the other hand, constantly refer back to the Early Church Fathers (the earlier the better) to prove that their exegesis of Scripture is correct.

Except when their teachings does not conform to current Catholic belief. Origen and many early Christian Fathers believed in the preexistence of the spirits. Almost all of them believed in the deification of man and the plurality of gods. This doctrine is still accepted by the Orthodox Church. Most of them believed in creation out of preexistent matter. Most of them believed in the separate identity of the members of the Godhead, and in the subordination of the Son to the Father. Does the Catholic Church still accept these doctrines?

The Fathers’ writings are the lenses through which Scripture and Tradition are properly interpreted. The same principle is applied by originalist justices when they refer back to the Federalist Papers or other similar documents while interpreting the Constitution.

We too lay great store by our former leader’s writings and teachings. They are constantly quoted in teachings, sermons, manuals and handbooks of the Church. Our current Melchizedek Priesthood handbook consists of the teachings of David O. McKay, a former president of the Church. The previous ones were from other presidents of the Church, including Brigham Young, John Taylor, Heber J. Grant, Joseph F. Smith, and Harold B. Lee. Indeed, the Doctrine and Covenants states that “Whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” That means 99.99% of what they have said. The reason why it appears to you like that is because places such as this only focus on the 0.001% controversial issues, and ignore the 99.99% which are not controversial. The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith is still very much loved and in use in the Church, and treated with reverence almost as scripture. It is only a couple of paragraphs in the King Follett Discourse that has proved controversial.

However, this method of apologetics seems alien to modern LDS apologists. On the contrary, what I notice is the wholesale rejection of their founders’ works as speculation when the doctrine they taught is no longer palatable to the public (like overt racism).

Wholesale rejection? You must be joking. Where did you get that idea from?

The same approach is taken with regard to prophecy (the prophet simply wasn’t acting as a prophet at that moment).

I hadn’t heard of that before. Can you give some examples?

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

Except when their teachings does not conform to current Catholic belief. Origen and many early Christian Fathers believed in the preexistence of the spirits. Almost all of them believed in the deification of man and the plurality of gods. This doctrine is still accepted by the Orthodox Church. Most of them believed in creation out of preexistent matter. Most of them believed in the separate identity of the members of the Godhead, and in the subordination of the Son to the Father. Does the Catholic Church still accept these doctrines?

Try posting your comments in the EO sub-forum and prepare to be flamed. The EO idea of theosis is nowhere near the LDS idea of eternal progression. I would argue the the ECFs bear a striking resemblence to modern Catholic theology (their writings are what is bringing me into the Church). Nowhere do I see a belief in a plurality of gods. A small group believed in the preexistent soul but their ideas do not in any way resemble the LDS doctrine.

 

[mormon_fool]

arieh0310:

I don’t think so:

Arieh,

The point of this exercise was for you to actually deal with Bickmore’s quotations in an manner that doesn’t resemble mormon apologists “distancing” tactics.

Remember what I said earlier:It would seem an almost expected reaction that an apologist would refer to a current source and/or a more authoritative source that is much more enlightened or accurate.
By posting a bunch of carefully selected “teaching” quotes that make it appear the ANF fathers had an orthodox handle on monotheism and Jesus’s status you are doing just what a mormon apologist would do to create distance from carefully selected “critical” quotes that current orthodoxy would have problems with.

Care to actually deal with the array of quotes (themselves) that were mustered by Dr. Bickmore to demonstrate his point? The ones that David Waltz characterized as “solid evidence” and even added to the list.

I read that book review and it seems that David Waltz has a hard time reading the Fathers in context.

Don’t we all! I am highly confident in David Waltz’s abilities, though. We asked him about his review in this thread starting around post 39. Also check out his knowledge background here.

It is also important to note that Barry Bickmore is not a scholar, but a geochemist. He may have clever arguments by twisting patristic writings but his views are not shared by the overwhelming majority of scholars (actually none that I know of).

Well if Dr. Bickmore is not a scholar trained in patristics, it should be easy to handle his quotes non-apologetically.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Arieh,

By the way, don’t feel obligated to personally take on Barry Bickmore’s quotes. I plan on reading from Catholic scholars such as John Henry Newman to get his take on doctrinal development. From what I understand of his approach, he doesn’t seem to have the need to force current orthodoxy into every ECF quote. Yet he has profound faith in the preservation of the church, and that it developed as divinely intended. This bend but don’t break principle is much more acceptable to me as an outsider as I try to create the strongest, best picture of the rival claims to be the approved church.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

I would agree with you about the status of LDS "ECF"s in LDS teaching materials and in fact within LDS churches. I think the problem has been that on this forum at least we have seen a lot of “distancing” from these sources by many of the LDS posters.

Thank you for reaffirming (at least partially, anyway) my observation. There is a difference between mormons in devotional mode and when in apologetics mode. I would say 95% of the time I am in devotional mode and hence I have a high amount of loyalty to my LDS “ECFs”. Apologetics somewhat compromises me because I am often working with those that don’t have such a respect and I try to appeal to common ground or at least try to present a perspective that balances out some of the negativity.

There is also the increased significance of the LDS belief in prophets and apostles leading the church by divine revelation versus the Catholic belief in ECFs being inspired and or enlightened “scholars” of doctrine. The difference in effect is subtle but I think significant.

Which makes it hard to make exact comparisons of how both sides handle their “ECFs” when they say something that no longer resembles current beliefs. It is probably an overstatement to regard everything the catholic ECFs wrote as “almost canonical”. Same deal for LDS prophets and apostles.

In the case of the Catholic ECFs where you spoke of similar apologetic methods. (distancing from doctrines that aren’t currently espoused) there is the catechism that clearly defines what the “final answer” is after the various councils determined what is true doctrine. This is different in that the LDS church does not have an equivalent

Thank you for observations. You are like a breath of fresh air on this thread. See, it doesn’t hurt to actually compare mormon apologetics and catholic apologetics (instead of just devotional material). Yes I suppose on many issues a Catholic might know exactly where to start looking for “final answer”. Whereas a mormon might have to look around for awhile, appealing first to the scriptures, then to the First Presidency proclamations, then . . .

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

…still would not"know" for sure what the “official” church doctrine was.

I also still see a much larger distinction between catholic ECF and the “prophets, seers and revelators” that comprise the LDS first presidency and quorum of the twelve. ECFs are not claimed to have their words “…when moved upon by the Holy Ghost…be the mind and will of God” (paraphrased from D&C)

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

…still would not"know" for sure what the “official” church doctrine was.

Only in cases that are not particularly relevant to salvation. Even so a pretty good understanding of where church-taught doctrine ends or has varied and what is left open to individual study and prayer can readily be had in this information age.

I also still see a much larger distinction between catholic ECF and the “prophets, seers and revelators” that comprise the LDS first presidency and quorum of the twelve. ECFs are not claimed to have their words “…when moved upon by the Holy Ghost…be the mind and will of God” (paraphrased from D&C)

If you want to bring the Spirit into it (and DSI considers this, too), then I would have to say that prophets, seers, and revelators are not speaking at all times as direct automatons of the Spirit. Their best work has been canonized and I can compare the spiritual witness I get from the best works to lesser ones. For the other stuff besides canon, I use my own subjective, access to the Spirit to recognize the Spirit working through others.

As the D&C puts it for one such (much) lesser work:
There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men. . . . Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited.
Nor were the ECFs totally uninspired, if they were not inspired at all, catholicism is in trouble! Some happy medium lies between them being “almost canonical” and “uninspired”. But either way, it is through the writings of the ECFs that we see how the RCC developed. The RCC should have its development process put under just as much scrutiny as the LDS church processes have come under.

In comparing the two some allowances have to made that LDS leaders are inspired towards the end of correct action. Trying to mix and match this with the catholic desire to have correct belief systematized just doesn’t mix. Mormonism should be judged by its own terms and values, and that includes flexibility in articulating beliefs. Catholicism does not appear to value flexible belief as much, which I will keep in mind when I read ECFs. If anything, we should be tougher on ECFs than LDS prophets’ non-canonical writings.

later,
fool

 

[arieh0310]

majick275:

…still would not"know" for sure what the “official” church doctrine was.

I also still see a much larger distinction between catholic ECF and the “prophets, seers and revelators” that comprise the LDS first presidency and quorum of the twelve. ECFs are not claimed to have their words “…when moved upon by the Holy Ghost…be the mind and will of God” (paraphrased from D&C)

Thanks for articulating that better than I have. As one can tell I am not nor ever have been LDS, so I am sure I can misdefine or misunderstand LDS doctrine and teaching at times. Where I have issue is that it is my uderstanding (as majick alluded to) that the first Presedency and the quorum of twelve possess a charism of infallibility. When I say that Catholics treat ECF writings as “almost canonical” the emphasis is on “almost” because they are understood to not possess infallibility. What you see is a development of doctrine that is in harmony with the original deposit of faith, and I don’t see this in LDS.

Is this simply a difference in understanding about doctrinal development between LDS and Catholicism? The LDS church seems to possess the ability to change doctrine whenever it is advantageous to do so, Catholics do not have that liberty.

 

[mormon_fool]

arieh0310:

Where I have issue is that it is my uderstanding (as majick alluded to) that the first Presedency and the quorum of twelve possess a charism of infallibility.

Mormon prophets and apostles do not claim infallibility. We have an understanding that they won’t lead the church astray, but that is not to say that their humanity doesn’t play a factor. I think TOmN has called this “functional inerrancy” especially when LDS members have agreed to make certain prophetic teachings binding on themselves through the “charism” of common consent.

later,
fool