M
mfbukowski
Guest
I know. It WAS subtle. I honestly think she just doesn’t know
- Status
L
lax16
Guest
So then Rebecca is not wrong. You are stating in the above post that “you have never heard of anyone leaving Mormonism called a liar”, then you are blatantly (not subtly)
questioning her honesty.
What do we call a person when they are of questionable honesty? A liar perhaps?
D
dianaiad
Guest
The problem isn’t where WE put the JoD in terms of our beliefs. To us, they are good commentary, research on the thought processes of our early leaders, great sources of the times and (at least for me) a great read and full of the most amazing speculation–some very thought provoking and some just plain out there. It is extremely valuable to us as historical documents for the above reasons, and, when read along with the 'standard works" (which have been declared by us to be the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants…and those four only) can be of service. However, for getting core doctrine (as opposed to…“hey, you can believe this or not if you want to, it’s not salvific, but are you SERIOUS??” sorts of things,) we go first to our canonized scriptures…the standard works. THEN, for guidance in moral matters and day to day living, we go with what our modern prophets tell us, in General Conference talks and articles. However, canonized scripture trumps everything.
That said, remember that we have an open canon. That is, while nothing’s going to get added to the bible, the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants is open to addition. We may not add to it every year, or even every decade or century, but the possibility is always there for us TO do it, and the process by which that is done is specific.
I hope that helps you see where WE put the JoD. It is very valuable for researching the philosophies and beliefs of some of our early leaders, but those thoughts and beliefs do not establish doctrine. They established what those men thought and believed themselves, not what WE have to, after study, time, and further revelation.
The problem isn’t that we do NOT place a high value on the JoD. It’s just that we place a different value on it than our critics and the antis (not the same thing, by the way) insist that we do.
…and by the way, as an aside to Rebecca…we quote C.S Lewis a lot in our lessons and talks, too. However, I doubt that mainstream Christianity would want to admit that “Mere Christianity” has a lot of LDS doctrine in it.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The preface to the 8th volume, written by mormon Apostle George Q. Cannon, stated:…and by the way, as an aside to Rebecca…we quote C.S Lewis a lot in our lessons and talks, too. However, I doubt that mainstream Christianity would want to admit that “Mere Christianity” has a lot of LDS doctrine in it.
“The Journal of Discourses deservedly ** ranks as one of the standard works** of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of ‘the light that shines from Zion’s hill.’”
Please show me where one of your apostles said “Mere Christianity” ** ranks as one of the standard works**.
PS: “Mere Christianity” is like most Christian literature, used by LDS completely out of context.
M
Michael_Vernon
Guest
As a former LDS, I know where WE put the JoD. Remember what you do when you attend Conference? You raise your right hand to declare that you support the GA as “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.” Are you saying that you only support what they say as coming from prophets, seers, and revelators of it gets added to the D and C? May I quote you to your Stake President when you have your next Temple Recommend Interview? One of the things that pushed me into the long and very painful struggle to leave the Mormon Church was how my LDS brothers and sisters did picking and choosing about which of the GA’s statements they would regard as coming from the Lord or not.
D
dianaiad
Guest
he he…
this is so fun…Rebecca, do you have a clue the size of the hole you are digging yourself into here, accusing US of taking quotes out of context with “Mere Christianity” while you keep insisting that the JoD is a ‘standard work’ of the LDS church?
George Q Cannon may have written a breathless blurb extolling the JoD about how it 'deseredly ranks among the standard works of the church," but you are now not only equivocating, you are doing it on purpose. We have already gone through this with you, more than once. At the time George Q Cannon wrote this, the term 'Standard Works" didn’t mean to us what it does today. Indeed, using the sense in which HE meant it, the JoD IS one of the standard works of the church…in that it is something that should be available to all of us for study, along with, say…“Jesus The Christ,” “The Articles of Faith,” “Mormon Doctrine,” “Preach My Gospel…” back issues of “the Ensign…” “History of the Church”, works that all Mormons can find value in. However, when most people (especially now) think of the term ‘standard works,’ it is restricted to our canonized scriptures, and them alone.
YOU are equivocating, and you are doing it deliberately because you’ve been TOLD this before, insisting that because the term meant one thing to George Q Canon, that because the term means something different now, he was using it in the modern sense THEN.
It would be like me insisting that John Hughes was a blazing homosexual cross dresser because he set 'Don we now our gay apparel" in stone when he wrote down the lyrics to “Deck the Halls” for the first time in the early 1800’s.
so yes, in the sense of 'standard works" that Cannon used, the JoD is 'deservedly one of the standard works of the church." In the sense that you are attempting to make it mean, however, it most certainly is NOT.
D
dianaiad
Guest
And so we do, when they are speaking as such and SAY they are speaking as such.
You don’t have to. They not only agree with me, we have some pretty lively discussions. I take it you don’t remember your ‘Gospel Doctrine’ classes very well, do you?
I’m TRYING to figure out how to write this diplomatically…but…I don’t see that there’s a way to do that. So…
Michael, we are NOT supposed to be 'lockstep Mormons." We are given the gift of discernment, of thought and of personal revelation. On matters that are NOT strict core doctrine, or rather ‘salvific,’ then the world won’t collapse if we disagree with our leaders. For instance, was Jesus married? Not salvific. How old is the planet? Not salvific. What about evolution? Not salvific. How many people will be ‘sons of perdition?’ not salvific. Most of the stuff that is the most fun to talk about? Not salvific.
Whether we should worship a Mother in Heaven? Yep, that’s salvific…it is directly involved with the nature of God. People who advocate for that are excommunicated. Who HAS the priesthood? Salvific. Who SHOULD have it? …in terms of male/vs female…salvific. Stuff that cuts to the core of our beliefs is salvific.
Whether BY thought that there were men on the moon? Definitely not salvific.
So here’s the undiplomatic part of this: if you were so convinced that you should have accepted every word that came out of the mouth of every church leader as equivalent to scripture, why did you leave? All you had to do was believe everything that came out of the mouth of every church leader, whether he claimed to be speaking for God, reciting a grocery list, or simply telling us what his own opinions were, as a man.
L
lax16
Guest
Very interesting. Where would one read about what Mormons believe to “salvific” and “not salvific?”
A
Arandur
Guest
I have a similar view to lax (though it took me a while to be convinced of it). First and foremost, I take anything defined infallibly by the Magisterium of the Church (thus relating to matters of faith and morals) to be Divine Truth defined by the Holy Spirit. To deny it is to deny Christ Himself, Head of the Church, and the Spirit which is its soul, leading us into all truth. There’s much more to it of course, and many Scriptures supporting or stating just this pretty directly.You are hitting upon one of the things that made me go ‘wow.’ As I stated, my thoughts were in no way a criticism of his statement. It was enlightening. You see, Catholics have been telling me for a very long time now that they do NOT believe that the popes are infallible (except on ‘faith and morals’ when speaking ex cathedra), and thus they are not bound by what the pope thinks.
this is almost always followed by some variation of 'lockstep followers," and ‘blind faith,’ and ‘not thinking for yourselves,’ or ‘the thinking is done,’ —always in disparaging tones. “brainwashed” is generally used in there somewhere, all aimed at our trust in the current president and prophet of our own church.
In other words, it’s generally not considered to be a good thing, if someone ELSE is doing it. As for me, I happen to think that lax’s attitude on the matter is a healthy one; that’s precisely what he SHOULD be doing, if he trusts in God to lead him to truth, not just to agree with the pope. He simply has a fair amount of faith that when the truth comes to him, it will turn out that the pope had already told him so. Fair enough.
I am filing it away in my ‘hmmn…’ folder, though.
Tell me, though–is this what you think about papal announcements and opinions, as well? Honest question here, no set up.
Well, maybe a little one but since I’m sure you can see it coming, you can take it, right?
As for statements that are more guidance and opinion, then I would take it on advisement from wiser men, ordained with a special gift to guide me in these matters. I believe my Pastor is given a special gift to guide me; my Bishop; and the Petrine See (Pope). Only under certain conditions are they truly infallible, but I must carefully consider their guidance as likely better guided by God than my own interpretation.
There are many ways Catholics have to verify truth, all proper methods agreeing with each other. It’s not a matter of blind obedience, but obedience is an important trait in God’s Kingdom.
L
lax16
Guest
Arandur - it is a process, isn’t it?
L
lax16
Guest
Dianaiad - In all fairness, you have to understand how this looks to the average “have no clue what the JoD are” person.
If someone embarked on a study of the JoD, and saw how many times they were praised and promoted by PROMINENT LDS leaders throughout the church’s history, it would be logical to conclude that were of extreme and great importance to all Mormons at all times. If one chooses to pursue further explanation from someone such as yourself, then obviously they would learn otherwise.
I know that Rebecca is not an “average have no clue” person, but I can see why she has trouble accepting that they are somehow on the same level as the writings of C.S. Lewis.
Many Catholics and “born-agains” quote and read C.S. Lewis for his insights on Christianity all the time, but are obviously not reading and quoting the JoD for the same purpose.
(btw, I have my 13 years in born-again Protestant bible study and friendships and my children’s school of “classical education” to thank for introducing me to the wonderful literary world of C.S. Lewis:thumbsup
.
A
Arandur
Guest
Yep. Both coming to accept the truth of the Church’s charism of infallibility (I struggled through insufficient catechism, the pollution of our culture, and the arguments of non-Catholics, and yet found this ultimately inescapable), and in verifying truth.
L
lax16
Guest
I found it to be most interesting that whenever I felt that I hit a roadblock I ended up falling into an abyss of answers!
God is good (and patient
)!
L
lax16
Guest
You are so right about the “insufficient” catechism (I would probably use a much stronger word than that!) and the arguments of non-Catholics as being part of the struggle.
All of those years I spent with Catholics who did not know their faith and born-agains and Mormons that were challenging my beliefs at every turn, at the time, did seem inescapable. Then God, in His infinite goodness and mercy, put me in the company of the most wonderfully orthodox, devout, and perfectly “normal” Catholic human beings for five wonderful years.
My cup was filled… and the best part of it all - I learned how to keep it that way.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Diana, I am not equivocating, that would be your church and its doctrine including the definition of what doctrine is. You, specifically, don’t want the teachings of your prophets included as “standard works”, so you equivocate on what the term actually means. It goes quite well with your changing doctrines. Only, you fail to address the very fact that what your prophet speaks today is considered more vital than doctrine. (see below)
I guess if you want to insist any previous prophet speaking was opinion, then you can explain why you accept anything that Smith ever uttered. Especially in light of this:
Code:
“First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
“Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
“Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
And why do you think anything like that question is in the temple recommend interview?
It never has been. “Do you sustain the Jof D as scripture”? No, I don’t recall that one.
In fact there are questions about scripture at all.
Edit: OOPS I meant “no questions about scripture at all”
Just two little letters…
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Is the “Catholic Encyclopedia” perfect in every detail of doctrine? Why or why not?Dianaiad - In all fairness, you have to understand how this looks to the average “have no clue what the JoD are” person.
If someone embarked on a study of the JoD, and saw how many times they were praised and promoted by PROMINENT LDS leaders throughout the church’s history, it would be logical to conclude that were of extreme and great importance to all Mormons at all times. If one chooses to pursue further explanation from someone such as yourself, then obviously they would learn otherwise.
I know that Rebecca is not an “average have no clue” person, but I can see why she has trouble accepting that they are somehow on the same level as the writings of C.S. Lewis.
Many Catholics and “born-agains” quote and read C.S. Lewis for his insights on Christianity all the time, but are obviously not reading and quoting the JoD for the same purpose.
(btw, I have my 13 years in born-again Protestant bible study and friendships and my children’s school of “classical education” to thank for introducing me to the wonderful literary world of C.S. Lewis:thumbsup
L
lax16
Guest
mfbukowski - I have no idea why you are asking me this.
Have I ever said the JoD is perfect in every detail of doctrine?
However, I don’t know the answer to your question and will have to look it up. I have never read the Catholic Encyclopedia but probably should.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Lax 16 and Mr. Bukowski,
You wrote: *mfbukowski Is the “Catholic Encyclopedia” perfect in every detail of doctrine? Why or why not?
Lax 16: I have no idea why you are asking me this.
Have I ever said the JoD is perfect in every detail of doctrine?
I still think that all of this canine tail-chasing over the “Journal of Discourses” is rather moot in really evangelising L.D.S. Mormons. Not that a Catholic should ignore it (or be ignorant of it), but rather a Catholic should keep it in perspective with other L.D.S. Mormon literary artifacts.
The “Catholic Encyclopedia” (available digitally on Catholic Answer’s WWW site) is truly excellent. I prefer it to the somewhat modernist “New Catholic Encyclopedia”, though I gladly use both. You really, Lax, should discover this fine old reference work!
Pax, Jerry
You wrote: *mfbukowski Is the “Catholic Encyclopedia” perfect in every detail of doctrine? Why or why not?
Lax 16: I have no idea why you are asking me this.
Have I ever said the JoD is perfect in every detail of doctrine?
However, I don’t know the answer to your question and will have to look it up. I have never read the “Catholic Encyclopedia” but probably should. *
Yes, there is some lack of logic in this! As fine as the original “Catholic Encyclopedia” is (and far more authoritative than the later “New Catholic Encyclopedia”), the Church never has put it forth as inspired and of any kind of canonical status. It just is a very fine piece of work, quite scholarly, and reliably Catholic in what the writers of its various articles state. It is more akin to “The Mormon Encyclopedia” in this regard, than it is to the “Journal of Discourses” of L.D.S. Mormonism! Whatever the current status among Mormons of the J. of D., Mormons in the past, some still, have claimed “standard work” (and hence inspired) status for it; Mormons never have made such claims for “The Mormon Encyclopedia” or, so far as I am aware, of McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”, a briefer cyclopaedic work.I still think that all of this canine tail-chasing over the “Journal of Discourses” is rather moot in really evangelising L.D.S. Mormons. Not that a Catholic should ignore it (or be ignorant of it), but rather a Catholic should keep it in perspective with other L.D.S. Mormon literary artifacts.
The “Catholic Encyclopedia” (available digitally on Catholic Answer’s WWW site) is truly excellent. I prefer it to the somewhat modernist “New Catholic Encyclopedia”, though I gladly use both. You really, Lax, should discover this fine old reference work!
Pax, Jerry
L
lax16
Guest
Jerry - I don’t think anyone is trying to evangelise Mormons using the JoD. It all started with a quote that exploded into a whole lot of back and forth as to what the JoD are and how they are perceived by Mormons today.
I have no idea why they keep bringing it up, but as long as mfbukowski keeps asking, I will respond.
You are right, Jerry, I should read the Catholic Encyclopedia and thanks for the info on it. I have never thought about using it as a reference, but I will. In fact, I didn’t even know there was a Catholic Encyclopedia!
And thanks, mfbukowski, because of your post I’ve learned something new today.
- Status