LDS and the bible vs BOM

[Stephen168]

Stephen168 and Horton,
First, the bolding was Stephen’s. He quoted 14 Fundamentals and added his own conclusion. Those are here:
And I think the term “infallible” has very specific meaning. “Without error.” And in this context I would suggest “Without the possibility of error.” Nothing in the 14 points supports that conclusion IMO.
Point #4 while not saying infallible is the ONLY one that anyone could believe is saying this:
There is only one concept in all of LDS scripture that I can see warrant for this statement. D&C 112:30. This says that we are in the last dispensation. Whatever it was that lead to the need for a restoration associated with the church once headed by St. Peter, could not happen in the CoJCoLDS according to D&C 112:30. To read more into the fourth point is unwarranted and out of alignment with volumes of LDS teaching.

Yes, I bolded the three fundaments which support my conclusion; the Mormon prophet claims to be infallible in EVERYTHING, not just faith and morals.©1980
Yes, the word “infallible” is not used.
Yes, infallible means without error which is what #4 says, and none of them deny.
Yes, if you remove one of the three then my conclusion can be questioned. But that would be an irrational thing to do by someone seeking the truth.

When Mormons swoon about being Mormon they often talk of having a Prophet that can teach them things which there would be no other way to find out; like what heaven is like or what people on the moon are like or the Book of Mormon being a history of all the American Indians. What he teaches is the infallible truth.

BUT fundamental #3 tells that the infallible teaching is subject to change by the current prophet, so that would make the previous prophet fallible but the current prophet infallible.
Therefore when a Mormon claims the prophet is not infallible in ALL things he is correct and when he claims the prophet is fallible he is correct.

Joseph Smith teaching a Trinitarian God©1832 was correct, and Joseph Smith teaching polytheism©1844 is correct. Brigham Young teaching God the Father is Adam©1850 is correct, and current teaching he is not Adam is correct.

After reading “volumes of LDS teaching,” you can come to any conclusion about anything you want.

Biblical exegesis, and Mormon scripture change as required to keep up with changing dogma.
Ezra Taft Benson; Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet 2/26/1980:

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.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

**Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.**

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

 

[TOmNossor]

Yes, I bolded the three fundaments which support my conclusion; the Mormon prophet claims to be infallible in EVERYTHING, not just faith and morals.©1980
Yes, the word “infallible” is not used.
Yes, infallible means without error which is what #4 says, and none of them deny.
Yes, if you remove one of the three then my conclusion can be questioned. But that would be an irrational thing to do by someone seeking the truth.

I will try again and then invite folks to read for themselves.
#4:

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

There is absolutely nothing in this premise that demands infallibility. You must believe that if there is any fallible utterance from the prophet that this is equivalent to “the prophet leading the Church astray.” I find such an assumption totally without merit. The words do not mean this and they NEVER have. Such a comment must be placed in context with the ALWAYS taught concept that the prophet is not infallible. Again from 1912.

Charles W. Penrose (1912): “Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?”
Charles W. Penrose:
Question 14: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?
Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility

I seldom see folks leave the CoJCoLDS who I think well understood the CoJCoLDS. This doesn’t mean that I am right and they are wrong, just that I feel little compulsion to adopt such reasoning and follow them out of the Church. The above is a good example of the type of thinking that I consider to be so off base I am unconcerned with its impact upon the truth claims I embrace.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I will try again and then invite folks to read for themselves.
#4:

There is absolutely nothing in this premise that demands infallibility. You must believe that if there is any fallible utterance from the prophet that this is equivalent to “the prophet leading the Church astray.” I find such an assumption totally without merit. The words do not mean this and they NEVER have. Such a comment must be placed in context with the ALWAYS taught concept that the prophet is not infallible. Again from 1912.

I seldom see folks leave the CoJCoLDS who I think well understood the CoJCoLDS. This doesn’t mean that I am right and they are wrong, just that I feel little compulsion to adopt such reasoning and follow them out of the Church. The above is a good example of the type of thinking that I consider to be so off base I am unconcerned with its impact upon the truth claims I embrace.
Charity, TOm

a) a Mormon prophet claims a divine revelation
b) this divine revelation is taught, as the word of God, and so it is infallible
c) later Mormon prophet(s) teach the previous was not divine revelation, but just an opinion of a fallible man
d) I agree, Mormon prophets are fallible, but will add, what they teach is fallible
e) I don’t see the point to Mormon prophets, or why they would be considered prophets.

 

[XuDan]

If it is claimed that a prophet will never lead the church astray (and it is) then it is the same to claim that a prophets teachings as it relates to the church can never lead the church astray. Which is to say that it is not possible for a prophet to teach something, as it relates to the church, that is in error. Again, this is just a nice way to obfuscate the doctrine of papal infallibility and rebrand it as something else. Of course as pointed out above, in the words of Benson, it is a held belief that it is far more reaching than just, “as it relates to the church” and is thus far more encompassing and braid than papal infallibility.

 

[Stephen168]

I will try again and then invite folks to read for themselves.
#4:

There is absolutely nothing in this premise that demands infallibility. You must believe that if there is any fallible utterance from the prophet that this is equivalent to “the prophet leading the Church astray.” I find such an assumption totally without merit. The words do not mean this and they NEVER have. Such a comment must be placed in context with the ALWAYS taught concept that the prophet is not infallible. Again from 1912.

I seldom see folks leave the CoJCoLDS who I think well understood the CoJCoLDS. This doesn’t mean that I am right and they are wrong, just that I feel little compulsion to adopt such reasoning and follow them out of the Church. The above is a good example of the type of thinking that I consider to be so off base I am unconcerned with its impact upon the truth claims I embrace.

To summarize: I’ve heard it before™

 

[TOmNossor]

XuDan,
You said:

If it is claimed that a prophet will never lead the church astray (and it is) then it is the same to claim that a prophets teachings as it relates to the church can never lead the church astray. Which is to say that it is not possible for a prophet to teach something, as it relates to the church, that is in error.

More clearly you said:

… astray … astray … error.

“Astray” and “Error” are not synonymous. That is all that is necessary to make my point and it is IMO clear. Do you understand what I am saying? Is it irrational for me to make this distinction in your opinion? We can talk about related things as those I think have bearing on why the CoJCoLDS is more likely to be God’s church than the Catholic Church, but if we cannot agree that “astray” is not equal to “error” I am not sure how we will get anywhere.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Joseph Smith teaching a Trinitarian God©1832 was correct, and Joseph Smith teaching polytheism©1844 is correct. Brigham Young teaching God the Father is Adam©1850 is correct, and current teaching he is not Adam is correct.

“Astray” and “Error” are not synonymous. That is all that is necessary to make my point and it is IMO clear.

A “prophet” teaching false dogma is not leading the church astray because “Astray” and “Error” are not synonymous. I think I got it.

 

[iepuras]

XuDan,
You said:

More clearly you said:

“Astray” and “Error” are not synonymous. That is all that is necessary to make my point and it is IMO clear. Do you understand what I am saying? Is it irrational for me to make this distinction in your opinion? We can talk about related things as those I think have bearing on why the CoJCoLDS is more likely to be God’s church than the Catholic Church, but if we cannot agree that “astray” is not equal to “error” I am not sure how we will get anywhere.
Charity, TOm

So let me get this straight. An LDS prophet can teach false doctrine but not lead the LDS church astray? So LDS doctrine comes down to obeying the LDS prophet no matter what? Even if he changes the teachings of the LDS church?

 

[Horton]

The Mormon procedure is quite similar actually.

If a person wants to have sex outside of marriage (good example), they can. No one is physically going to stop them. But that doesn’t make it “right”: they are enacting a horrible thing, bringing great harm to themselves, their current relationships, and their future relationships. Sex outside of marriage is terrible sin. If a person is honest, they should not partake of the Lord’s Supper while involved in such evil.

When a person desires to turn away from such evil, they should surrender the evil actions and seek guidance from their local priest to aide them in the repentance process. At the end of the repentance process, through the power of the Lord’s atonement, the sin is eventually washed away as if it was never there.

Not quite the same thing. When a priest absolves a penitent of their sin, it is right then and complete. All one has to do is go to reconciliation and they are forgiven, absolved of their sins. Often Reconciliation is offered prior to a vigil Mass so the person can receive the Eucharist at that Mass.

There is no eventually washed away, repentance “process” (I’m guessing the church court thing), or anything to do with man. Reconciliation is between the person and God. The priest is in persona Christi (explained here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_persona_Christi)

The LDS would treat this in a different way and from what I understand the repentance process is different from place to place. In the Catholic Church we still follow biblical method of gaining forgiveness for our sins.

 

[jane_doe]

Not quite the same thing. When a priest absolves a penitent of their sin, it is right then and complete. All one has to do is go to reconciliation and they are forgiven, absolved of their sins. Often Reconciliation is offered prior to a vigil Mass so the person can receive the Eucharist at that Mass.

There is no eventually washed away, repentance “process” (I’m guessing the church court thing), or anything to do with man. Reconciliation is between the person and God. The priest is in persona Christi (explained here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_persona_Christi)

The LDS would treat this in a different way and from what I understand the repentance process is different from place to place. In the Catholic Church we still follow biblical method of gaining forgiveness for our sins.

By “repentance process” I don’t mean church court or anything like that. The repentance process is:

1. Recognizing that what you’re doing is a sin.
2. Feeling godly sorrow and the need for your savior. Invite Him into your heart.
3. Forsaking the sin.
4. Confessing the sin to the Lord, and in some cases other people (depending on the sin and who’s involved).
5. When possible, make reconciliation. Example: returning something you stole.
6. Accepting the Lord’s forgiveness and forgiving yourself. Part of this is partaking of the Lord’s Supper for absolution of sins and renewing that sacred relationship.

The above are universal in the Mormon church, and I imagine not much different in the Catholic church either. (LDS article on it: lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-19-repentance?lang=eng)

The role of a priest/bishop does differ between the two churches though. In Catholicism, the priest plays the role persona Christi (as you neatly explained) and should be involved in the reconciliation of all (???) sin. In Mormonism, ‘lesser’ (horrible term) sins are handled without a Bishop being involved. A bishop only comes in for major sins and is viewed as a coach/guide to help you through your repentance because it can be very hard. The Bishop is in no way viewed as stand-in for Christ and it is only Christ that does the actual forgiving (like in Catholicism only Christ actually forgives).

Again, all of the above is universal throughout the Mormon church (being identical in Bolivia, Boston, and Bangkok).

On a different note: what is a Mormon church court? Formally known as a “disciplinary council”, they are convened when there has been an outrageous sin committed and the person is unrepentant**. When an unrepentant person whom loves their sins more than God, it is sometimes best for that person to be released from their covenants with God, to prevent further damnation of themselves and possible harm to those around them. Excommunication is an extreme action taken only when the person refused to forsake the sin and all other actions have been exhausted. How someone’s disciplinary process exactly goes is as individual as that person and involves much prayer.

Sins which could result in a church court being convened (non-exclusive): murder, incest, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, abortion, major theft, sale of illicit drugs, fraud, perjury, and blatantly leading others into apostasy. Overall, very serious sins.

You are 100% not sent to disciplinary counsel for things like drink coffee, not paying tithing, not attending church meetings, having doubts in your faith, or personally disagreeing with church leaders.

**Slight caveat on the “unrepentant” part of this: in some extreme cases a person will be formally disciplined regardless of whether or not they are repentant (example: child molester). This is done to protect the church body, and the person is encouraged to repent and undergo the mighty change of heart that they might one day readmitted into the body of Christ.

 

[jane_doe]

On a different note: what is a Mormon church court? …

Two things I forgot–

1. An excommunicated person is allowed and encouraged to attend church, pray, meet with the Bishop, read scriptures, etc. An excommunicated is not allowed to give sermons, hold church positions (i.e. “callings” in Mormon-speak), or partake of the Lord’s supper. Obviously is a person is a child molester or something like that, additional restriction apply.
2. If an excommunicated person has a change of heart, and does repent, they can be re-baptized. When this happens it is a cause for much rejoicing.

 

[XuDan]

XuDan,
You said:

More clearly you said:

“Astray” and “Error” are not synonymous. That is all that is necessary to make my point and it is IMO clear. Do you understand what I am saying? Is it irrational for me to make this distinction in your opinion? We can talk about related things as those I think have bearing on why the CoJCoLDS is more likely to be God’s church than the Catholic Church, but if we cannot agree that “astray” is not equal to “error” I am not sure how we will get anywhere.
Charity, TOm

The terms are related. *Astray *and *Erring *are synonyms *Erring *means to be in a state of error. Interestingly enough, the Thesaurus also includes sinning, sinful, and ***fallible ***as *synonyms *of erring.

 

[iepuras]

Jane, can you please provide a citation for #6 in post 130?

I was born and raised Mormon and was in the LDS church for 35 years. I have never heard and was never taught that the sacrament in the LDS church absolves sins. A renewal of the baptismal covenant, yes, but no absolution of sins.

 

[iepuras]

Jane, can you please provide a citation for #6 in post 130?

I was born and raised Mormon and was in the LDS church for 35 years. I have never heard and was never taught that the sacrament in the LDS church absolves sins. A renewal of the baptismal covenant, yes, but no absolution of sins.

 

[jane_doe]

Jane, can you please provide a citation for #6 in post 130?

I was born and raised Mormon and was in the LDS church for 35 years. I have never heard and was never taught that the sacrament in the LDS church absolves sins. A renewal of the baptismal covenant, yes, but no absolution of sins.

Disclaimer: the relationship between baptism/sacrament/resolution is not a canned Mormon lesson, so there is a variety of opinions on it. So I am speaking here as myself. If you want me to pull of references supporting my opinion I can (just typing this response first).

The baptismal prayer is to take His name upon yourself. The sacramental prayer is likewise: to take His name upon yourself: you are once again renewing that baptismal rebirth, which includes the dissolving of past sins.

 

[XuDan]

Here is the full - response with citations. I forgot to link my sources least it become two people disagreeing over words, with out a neutral basis of determining what is a synonym and what is not. I times out of being able to edit my last post, so my apology for duplicate information.

The terms are related. *Astray *and Erring (as Erring is another term for wrong that is also a word directly synonymous with astray) are synonyms Erringmeans to be in a state of error. Interestingly enough, the Thesaurus .***fallible ****synonyms *erring

You’re right, if you can’t agree with the English language, then it will be very difficult to speak with you on any subject. Again, we are going back to this tendency of arbitrary redefinition of terms.

 

[TOmNossor]

Here is the full - response with citations. I forgot to link my sources least it become two people disagreeing over words, with out a neutral basis of determining what is a synonym and what is not. I times out of being able to edit my last post, so my apology for duplicate information.

The terms are related. *Astray *and Erring (as Erring is another term for wrong that is also a word directly synonymous with astray) are synonyms Erringmeans to be in a state of error. Interestingly enough, the Thesaurus also includes sinning, sinful, and ***fallible ***as *synonyms *of erring.

You’re right, if you can’t agree with the English language, then it will be very difficult to speak with you on any subject. Again, we are going back to this tendency of arbitrary redefinition of terms.

XuDan,
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
By your Thesaurus driven reasoning:
Astray = run-off
Astray = nonextant
Astray = kiss goodbye.
Those make less sense than Astray = Erring, but not much less sense.
Again, it is not as Stephen168 said, “I’ve heard it before.”
Rather I cannot accept as evidence against my church the opinions of folks who believe LDS prophets are infallible because astray=erring. It is easy for me to see that as a radically flawed proposition and as such I do not find it remotely compelling. That does not mean it doesn’t weigh heavily upon your decision to depart from the CoJCoLDS, just that it never will weigh heavily upon my reason-based commitments. And I hope and expect it will have little to do with the faith commitments of the average LDS.
Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre1]

Tom,

Don’t know where you found your definition of the word “astray”, but here’s Merriam-Webster’s definition:

Full Definition of ASTRAY

1: off the right path or route : straying
2: in error : away from what is proper or desirable

But instead of posting the meaning of the word “astray”, let’s be honest and post the dictionary meaning of the phrase in question - “lead astray”:

LEAD ASTRAY

Dictionary entry overview: What does lead astray mean?
• LEAD ASTRAY (verb)
The verb LEAD ASTRAY has 3 senses:

1. teach immoral behavior to
2. lead someone in the wrong direction or give someone wrong directions
3. cause someone to believe an untruth

Like, oh let’s say, teaching the members that black people of African descent were cursed and could not hold the priesthood because they were not valiant in the pre-existence. Taught it for 150 years!

That could be called “leading the church astray” according to the definition of the phrase.

Paul

 

[Stephen168]

Again, it is not as Stephen168 said, “I’ve heard it before.”
Rather I cannot accept as evidence against my church the opinions of folks who believe LDS prophets are infallible because astray=erring. It is easy for me to see that as a radically flawed proposition and as such I do not find it remotely compelling. That does not mean it doesn’t weigh heavily upon your decision to depart from the CoJCoLDS, just that it never will weigh heavily upon my reason-based commitments. And I hope and expect it will have little to do with the faith commitments of the average LDS.

A “prophet” teaching false dogma is not leading the church astray because “Astray” and “Error” are not synonymous. I think I got it.

I see you trying to defend Mormonism the same way I see you defend the Book of Mormon; by trying to prove some small factoid but ignore the big picture.

Mormonism claims their ‘prophet’ to be infallible in a much greater way than the Catholic Church claims their Pope to be. You would like the opposite to be true so you can ignore the teachings of past Mormon prophets and try to twist every word of the Pope.

As you try to claim your prophet to be fallible you have to avoid post #123. What’s the point of a fallible prophet?

 

[iepuras]

Disclaimer: the relationship between baptism/sacrament/resolution is not a canned Mormon lesson, so there is a variety of opinions on it. So I am speaking here as myself. If you want me to pull of references supporting my opinion I can (just typing this response first).

The baptismal prayer is to take His name upon yourself. The sacramental prayer is likewise: to take His name upon yourself: you are once again renewing that baptismal rebirth, which includes the dissolving of past sins.

Ah, so you were simply stating the “gospel according to Jane Doe” rather than official LDS teaching. Thought so.

Given that ex-Mormons and never Mormons in this forum are constantly accused of claiming that teachings of past LDS prophets were never official teachings of the LDS church and simply “opinions of fallible men”, it would be a good idea if you stuck to “official” LDS teaching rather than the “gospel according to Jane Doe”. Or at least make it very clear that you are preaching the “gospel according to Jane Doe” rather than actual teachings of the LDS church.