LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

[SirThomasMore]

You posted an argument that is less than compelling.

 

[twopekinguys]

Why must you use this kind of loaded language? Why must everyone who doesn’t say what you want them to say be automatically presumed to be hiding something?

Why must you make something out of nothing? You haven’t been around CAF nearly as long as many of us, and you have **not **participated in the discussions we have, you have also **not **had the personal experiences that we have, so your assumption in this is far from valid.

It is one strand of LDS thought; pretty much a minority one. Contrary to the stereotype so popular around here, Latter-day Saints really do have their own opinions about things.

I wasn’t looking for your observations on this, that is why my questions were directed at Murdock.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=Pahoran;6956249 That is not the case. “Extemporanous” means “out of the moment,” i.e. impromptu, unprepared. Conference talks were not prepared in advance in those days. That’s just the way it was. It didn’t apply only to Brigham; speaking assigments simply were not made in advance.

Hey I only know what I was taught and that is that Extemporanous is written and resherred and then given in a mannor that come across as out of the moment. impromtu is out of the moment.

There were no notes written in preparation.

Do you know this as fact. And on what fact is this known?

This is an instance of the fallacy of the false dilemma. We don’t have to choose between swallowing it all or just spitting it out; the third alternative is to chew it over a little.

Even if you chew it over, you then have to swallow the whole thing or spit it all out. So yes it is one or the other its or is not scripture, And unless he told us what part is and what parts are not they either all are or they are either all not.

Naturally you are entitled to accept or reject whatever you please.

Thanks for your premission.

No, but I can expect some degree of civilised behaviour.

I have not seen any uncival. If so please report them. If it be me please point it out so I can look it over and see how I may have been more cival. Also keep in mind that disagreeing and pointing out fallacy in others is not the same as being uncival.

Krister Stendahl, who was no more a Mormon than you are, being the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm, defined Stendahl’s three rules of religious understanding. These are:

(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies. In the context of this forum, that means this: Catholic doctrine is what the Catholic participants say that it is; LDS doctrine is what the LDS participants say that it is.

(2) Don’t compare your best to their worst. I’m convinced that he would see the spiteful mining of quotes selected for shock value as a violation of this rule.

(3) Leave room for “holy envy.” Be prepared to admit that the other guys have something you admire and wish your own faith tradition had.

Stendahl’s rules would foster understanding in both directions. The violation of them merely promotes strife.

Which course of action is more consistent with 1 Corinthians 13?

Regards,
Pahoran

That does not mean that we can not ask question aobut what we have heard. it also means that it is the LDS, Catholic, or whom ever is doing the defending to provide the offiacl documts that refute the question or stated belief.

example i have heard that LDS teach that God was once a human man that now lives on a planet call Kolob, or a plant near a star by that name if this is not true you need to provide offical document for LDS church dening this teaching. even if you have had to do so 100 time already. If some one is quoted out of contest then you need to privide the rest of the qutoe and point out the correct context of the quote. not just call foul and avoid the matter.

you also do not come to some ones house and say i wish to talk to you about some thing , but I am going to set the rules and deside what can and can not be used as references. or I just will not talk about it. That is not only rude but is an invite to the door being shut in your face.

 

[Pahoran]

Orthopraxy is informed by what is taught and believed. If there are incorrect teachings and beliefs, then there will be incorrect practices.

That doesn’t necessarily follow. In fact, it doesn’t follow very often. Only when the belief directly mandates a practice will this be the case.

A number of years ago I read a rather exhausting study of religious practices in (so-called) “primitive” cultures around the world. The rather startling conclusion was that while the beliefs around those practices varied widely, from culture to culture and from location to location, there was a stunning consistency in the practices themselves. That’s because the practices came first, and the beliefs were subsequently developed to explain the practices.

Adhering to a defined duty in no way requires a prophet.

Knowing what the Lord requires of us today, however, does.

So what you’re saying is that you can believe anything and everything that one of your prophets says? Truth doesn’t matter?

No, I am not saying that at all. Nor do I see how you arrive at that conclusion.

As Paul pointed out, in our mortal state we “see through a glass, darkly.” None of us are capable of comprehending the fulness of divine things, so it would be manifestly unjust for God to judge us on the basis of the “rightness” of our beliefs. Rather, I think he judges us according to our faith as expressed in action.

But the truth matters very much. There was an apostle in the 19th century who went off the rails and started preaching that the Atonement of Christ does not save anyone. His name was Amasa M. Lyman. For this false teaching, he was excommunicated from the Church.

Ironically, in a stunning display of anti-Mormon ethics, one of our critics cited Lyman’s teachings as examples of LDS doctrine. (There are participants in this very forum whom I suspect would not only approve, they may even wish they’d thought of it first.)

(President Henry D. Moyle is where the 2nd quote came from.)

Thank you.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[RebeccaJ]

That doesn’t necessarily follow. In fact, it doesn’t follow very often. Only when the belief directly mandates a practice will this be the case.

A number of years ago I read a rather exhausting study of religious practices in (so-called) “primitive” cultures around the world. The rather startling conclusion was that while the beliefs around those practices varied widely, from culture to culture and from location to location, there was a stunning consistency in the practices themselves. That’s because the practices came first, and the beliefs were subsequently developed to explain the practices.

Catholic and LDS both believe that truth exists in all the forms in which we, the human race, seek to follow God.

Knowing what the Lord requires of us today, however, does.

God gave to us, and His Church, the gift of the Holy Spirit. Prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit, but it is not required that a prophet tell us what is required by God

God’s Word, Jesus Christ, has spoken. Follow Him. Adhere to Him. He is The Way. That is what is required of us today.

No, I am not saying that at all. Nor do I see how you arrive at that conclusion.

You say that you can follow your prophets in whatever they say. At the same time, you say they are fallible. The logical conclusion is that truth doesn’t matter.

As Paul pointed out, in our mortal state we “see through a glass, darkly.” None of us are capable of comprehending the fulness of divine things, so it would be manifestly unjust for God to judge us on the basis of the “rightness” of our beliefs. Rather, I think he judges us according to our faith as expressed in action.

I agree.

But the truth matters very much. There was an apostle in the 19th century who went off the rails and started preaching that the Atonement of Christ does not save anyone. His name was Amasa M. Lyman. For this false teaching, he was excommunicated from the Church.

If those who followed this Lyman fellow had correct orthopraxy, why would it matter?

Ironically, in a stunning display of anti-Mormon ethics, one of our critics cited Lyman’s teachings as examples of LDS doctrine. (There are participants in this very forum whom I suspect would not only approve, they may even wish they’d thought of it first.)

Well, it is obvious you can see that people fall into error. And it is obvious that you believe God can and does guide us through to Him. It is obvious that you can see that people quote error as doctrine.

Perhaps one day you’ll put two and two together.

 

[Pahoran]

Hey I only know what I was taught and that is that Extemporanous is written and resherred and then given in a mannor that come across as out of the moment. impromtu is out of the moment.

I’ll give you that, since “Prepared in advance but delivered without notes or text” is the second definition for “extemporaneous” on the web dictionary. The first is, “Carried out or performed with little or no preparation; impromptu.”

So, to be fully unambiguous: The talks were impromptu.

Do you know this as fact. And on what fact is this known?

It’s a rather uncontroversial historical fact that nobody, to my knowledge, has ever disputed. People would come to the conference, settle into the pews, then find out for the first time that they were being called on a mission to Hawaii or England, or to move to one of the outlying settlements, or to give a talk.

I wonder which was scarier?

In any case, it’s fairly well-documented.

Even if you chew it over, you then have to swallow the whole thing or spit it all out. So yes it is one or the other its or is not scripture, And unless he told us what part is and what parts are not they either all are or they are either all not.

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t follow. From anything at all.

Thanks for your premission.

I was merely acknowledging a fact.

I have not seen any uncival. If so please report them. If it be me please point it out so I can look it over and see how I may have been more cival. Also keep in mind that disagreeing and pointing out fallacy in others is not the same as being uncival.

I don’t regard your questions as uncivil.

That does not mean that we can not ask question aobut what we have heard. it also means that it is the LDS, Catholic, or whom ever is doing the defending to provide the offiacl documts that refute the question or stated belief.

I agree it is reasonable to ask for documentary support for actually disputed assertions. I also think, as a rule of thumb, that the burden here ought to rest upon those who are making assertions about the other fellow’s faith which the other fellow disputes.

Put simply: I don’t have to prove that we don’t sacrifice virgins at midnight. If someone thinks we do, they have to prove it.

example i have heard that LDS teach that God was once a human man that now lives on a planet call Kolob, or a plant near a star by that name if this is not true you need to provide offical document for LDS church dening this teaching. even if you have had to do so 100 time already.

Actually if someone who is not a Latter-day Saint makes that assertion, and a Latter-day Saint respondent disagrees, then I suggest that common courtesy holds that the LDS position is what the LDS poster says that it is, unless the non-LDS poster can provide documentation for his view.

In the example given, there is an LDS teaching buried in there, but badly garbled.

• Kolob is a star, not a planet.
• It is said to be “nearest the throne of God.”
• There is no LDS source to my knowledge that locates the throne of God on any planet.

Naturally, since it is impossible to prove a negative, I cannot provide documentation for what the Church does not teach. Therefore, anyone who wants to dispute the last bullet point will need to shoulder the burden of proof.

Stendahl’s first rule relies upon the presumption of good faith. Either you accept that Latter-day Saints are acting in good faith and representing their beliefs honestly, or you embrace the kind of bigotry that Charles Kingsley demonstrated against John Henry, Cardinal Newman, when he attempted to poison the well against him.

Incidentally, Newman responded to Kingsley’s tactic by calling his claims “foul calumnies.” This seems to be an accurate descriptor for the claims certain parties make against the Latter-day Saints.

If some one is quoted out of contest then you need to privide the rest of the qutoe and point out the correct context of the quote. not just call foul and avoid the matter.

Catholic apologist Karl Keating would appear to disagree with you.

“It must be admitted,” he writes, “they enjoy a certain tactical (if short-term) advantage in that they can get away with presenting bare-bones claims such as these; they wear out Catholicism’s defenders by inundating them with short remarks that demand long explanations.” (Quoted in Offenders for a Word, here.)

you also do not come to some ones house and say i wish to talk to you about some thing , but I am going to set the rules and deside what can and can not be used as references. or I just will not talk about it. That is not only rude but is an invite to the door being shut in your face.

But I’m not coming into anyone’s house and asking to start a conversation. The conversation is already happening. Either it can be a real conversation, and Latter-day Saints can participate, or you can talk about us behind our backs, and it will be nothing more than a gossip-fest.

But we – the Latter-day Saints – deny that we have any obligation whatsoever to defend every random Mormon quote that might fit someone’s polemical agenda. We are obligated to defend what the Church actually teaches, and nothing else.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

Why must you make something out of nothing? You haven’t been around CAF nearly as long as many of us, and you have **not **participated in the discussions we have, you have also **not **had the personal experiences that we have, so your assumption in this is far from valid.

But I have been to school and learned English. When you say something equivalent to “You are the only one who admits X” then you are implying “Everyone else knows X but won’t admit it.”

A less-pejorative approach would be to extend to us the benefit of the presumption of good faith, and say instead, “You are the only one who believes (or asserts) X.” That way, you don’t cast aspersions on anyone else.

I wasn’t looking for your observations on this, that is why my questions were directed at Murdock.

Well excuse me for participating in the thread I started!

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

But I have been to school and learned English. When you say something equivalent to “You are the only one who admits X” then you are implying “Everyone else knows X but won’t admit it.”

A less-pejorative approach would be to extend to us the benefit of the presumption of good faith, and say instead, “You are the only one who believes (or asserts) X.” That way, you don’t cast aspersions on anyone else.

Well excuse me for participating in the thread I started!

Regards,
Pahoran

Well, so far, Murdock IS the only person to have admitted it. Most, like you and Todd and Diana, chastize me for saying it.

 

[Murdock]

Twopekinguys

I will answer your two questions, after I first make a comment on style.

respectfully, your use of the word “admit” was not appropriate. I have been reading CAF threads about Mormonism (not all of them, too many for that) since a couple years before I first joined CAF a little over a year ago. Thus, I am aware that, for years, many LDS posters have emphatically denied that the ideas that I posted are doctrines of our Church. As my post itself made clear, those LDS posters are absolutely correct about that, because what I posted is NOT taught by the Church. Thus, I did not “admit” anything about Church doctrine or what prior LDS posters have said about Church doctrine. I am also aware that, for years, LDS posters have denied that the ideas that I posted are “our” beliefs. The ideas that I posted are, as has already been noted by Pahoran, a minority view, and clearly not shared by Diana (“stop telling me what I believe”), Zerinus (“it’s not in the Standard Works”) and other LDS posters at CAF. Those other LDS posters are neither lying nor hiding anything. Instead, they are honestly stating their own beliefs and accurately describing mainstream Mormon thought. If you want to point out that what I have posted is different than what has been posted by other LDS, then the worst things that anyone can say to you are (a) “that’s obvious” and (b) “so what?” However, to say that I have “admitted” something is to imply that there have been LDS lying and concealment here at CAF when, based upon my extensive albeit not exhaustive reading of Mormonism threads here at CAF, that is simply not the case. Please understand that I write all of the foregoing – which I know is too long – without any animosity or rancor and with the understanding that, during spirited debate, one should not scrutinize every word as excruciatingly as I have just done.

1. I get my ideas from all those sources that critics of Mormonism tend to abuse, e.g., the King Follett Discourse, the Sermon in the Grove, other texts included in “The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, the Journal of Discourses, SOME entries in Bruce R. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”, etc. – so I am not a Mormon heretic.
2. John and Jane Mormon have no interest in the topics that I addressed in my post. If you want to know what topics do interest them, then go to ww.lds.org and read the Sunday School manuals there. Believe it or not, the Church continuously solicits the (name removed by moderator)ut of the membership as to what interests them, and addresses those interests in the curricula of the various classes. So much for brainwashing. While I have never seen a poll, my unscientific best guess is that, of those Mormons who do give substantial thought to the topics of my post, most view them as interesting possibilities and take a “let’s wait and see” approach.
3. I hope Soren reads this. Soren views LDS theology as reprehensible because it does not PRECLUDE ideas such as those of my post. However, my post, which is not precluded by LDS theology, does not suggest that “God sinned”, which is the notion to which Soren takes exception. Rather, BEFORE Elohim was a God, he sinned, and once he WAS a God, he did not sin. Thus, I dispute Soren’s contention that LDS theology calls into question the holiness of God. More accurately, in terms of Soren’s “preclusion” analysis, I dispute the notion that LDS theology does not safeguard the holiness of God. Also, obviously, I deny that my post calls into question the holiness of God.

Murdock

 

[LongJourney]

I, for one, appreciate your honesty, that these things have been taught by past prophets, and that the personal beliefs of Mormons are very diverse. A religion that is based on wild theological speculations is highly unlikely to have a firm foundation. There are so many contradictions in the teachings of Mormonism that it is impossible for the individual to adhere to all of them. And many of those wild speculations have little bearing on how the individual decides to please God.

Again, I contrast the CCC’s teachings on the Ten Commandments, the core ethics of the faith, with those of Mormonism, with its narrow definition of how to live the Ten Commandments. I find the CCC’s teachings to be sublimely superior to those of Mormonism.

 

[Todd520]

Again, I contrast the CCC’s teachings on the Ten Commandments, the core ethics of the faith, with those of Mormonism, with its narrow definition of how to live the Ten Commandments. I find the CCC’s teachings to be sublimely superior to those of Mormonism.

I refuse to debate which is better.

I know the RCC teachings on the 10 commandments and core ethics have served me well, even when I stopped attending RC Mass.

 

[twopekinguys]

But I have been to school and learned English. When you say something equivalent to “You are the only one who admits X” then you are implying “Everyone else knows X but won’t admit it.”

If you are concerned about why something is phrased a particular way, then ask. It really isn’t that difficult of a concept for most people to grasp. Did you do that? Ummmm…NO. Instead you automatically jump in, guns blazing, accusing me of loaded language, and twisting what was said. It isn’t even close to a paraphrase.

Also, I am going to caution you one last time about trying to put words into my mouth, and or twisting what has been said. Your equivilancy statement totally changes the context, tone, and intent of what was posted, and puts it in a totally different category.( So much for your studying English.)
Your approach at this is extremely dishonest.

A less-pejorative approach would be to extend to us the benefit of the presumption of good faith, and say instead, “You are the only one who believes (or asserts) X.” That way, you don’t cast aspersions on anyone else.

There was nothing pejorative in my statement to begin with, so you advice (considering your demonstartion of the English language so far), is not needed or desired. I also resent that you are accusing me of casting aspersions.

Well excuse me for participating in the thread I started!

Had the questions been about something you posted, my questions would have been directed at you. Since Murdock offered a unique opinion, I am trying to obtain more information about that unique opinion from the one that provided it. Is that really too hard to understand?

I however did find it amusing that you were more than willing to jump in and try to correct what he posted.

BTW, The old poor me, I’m so persecuted card doesn’t really play well.

 

[Pahoran]

I, for one, appreciate your honesty, that these things have been taught by past prophets, and that the personal beliefs of Mormons are very diverse.

Which LDS posters have denied this?

A religion that is based on wild theological speculations is highly unlikely to have a firm foundation.

That’s true.

Fortunately, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not “based on wild theological speculations.” In fact, it is no based upon theological speculations of any kind, wild or otherwise. It is built upon the rock of revelation; all the speculation that went on in the first generation of the Church had nothing to do with the Church’s foundation.

There are so many contradictions in the teachings of Mormonism that it is impossible for the individual to adhere to all of them.

Except that the speculative stuff is not part of LDS doctrine. That’s the point.

And many of those wild speculations have little bearing on how the individual decides to please God.

You’re right; but please refer, once again, to the OP. Since “those wild speculations” aren’t what our doctrine is made of, they ultimately don’t matter.

Again, I contrast the CCC’s teachings on the Ten Commandments, the core ethics of the faith, with those of Mormonism, with its narrow definition of how to live the Ten Commandments. I find the CCC’s teachings to be sublimely superior to those of Mormonism.

Which is absolutely your prerogative.

You will understand, of course, that believing Latter-day Saints may see things differently.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

Which LDS posters have denied

 

[LongJourney]

Then, there are some Mormons who would argue even when there is nothing to argue about.

:knight2::knight2::knight2:

I am so glad you are on the opposite side of this blue marble. Good night.

 

[Pahoran]

Pahoran;6957410:

Which LDS posters have denied

this? **
You, Diana, Todd…
Call for references, please; where and when did I, Diana or Todd make these denials?

I can’t wait.

It is built on the fanciful tale of a guy who made his living conning people with treasure seeking.

Irrelevant smear.

Then, according to LDS Scholar Grant Palmer,

The Grant Palmer who wrote “An Insider’s View” is not an “LDS Scholar” and it is not honest to describe him as such.

he had fanciful tales of how he obtained Gold Plates.

I agree; Palmer’s book is a fanciful tale.

But nobody short of desperation believes it.

Actually, they are. Wild Speculations like Joe’s comments that there are men on the moon dressed like quakers.

Call for references, please. What contemporary source reports this alleged “comment?”

Or that the US would not last very long,

Call for references, please. In this instance I am asking you to quote what Joseph actually said. I find your paraphrase to be self-serving at best.

or that the world would end before 1900.

The passage in question does not say that, as you perfectly well know.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

Call for references, please; where and when did I, Diana or Todd make these denials?

 

[PaulDupre]

To the extent that Todd’s only question/topic is the actual teachings of the Church, his response to Soren, “end of story”, is correct. Of course, I wish Todd would have been a lot more tactful in expressing his valid point.

But, I am a bit of a speculator myself – when the Church has no teaching one way or the other – and Soren’s point intrigues me.

DISCLAIMER: What I say here should NOT be construed as teachings of the Church. Also, although I am influenced greatly by the opinions of the 19th Century Prophets and Apostles (and Orson Pratt is a favorite of mine), their opinions are NOT necessarily teachings of the Church and are NOT binding upon Mormons.

Elohim did, indeed, begin His premortal life in preexistence as a sprit child of a God. The God who fathered Elohim was, Himself, the spirit child of a previous God, and so on back in an infinite regression. (Do not complain about my infinite regression and I will not complain about your creation ex nihilo.)

Elohim was, indeed, once a man as we are. Indeed, He had to receive a mortal body, like ours, and experience a mortal probation, like ours, in order to progress so that He could become a God, as we have the POTENTIAL to do – and revive the heart of the contrite ones.

When Elohim was a man like us, of course He sinned like us. That is because of the sinful nature of men. (We are not talking about Jehovah/Jesus here, who is united in purpose in the Godhead with Elohim but is otherwise a separate God who did not go through a sinful mortal probation as did Elohim.) However, once He progressed to the point that He became a God, He no longer sinned. Gods do not sin.

Thus, to respond to Soren’s two rhetorical questions: (1) of course Isaiah was a sinner, because he was a man and (2) of course Isaiah had the POTENTIAL to progress to become a sinless God, because he was a man.

Assuming that you believe that Elohim had to undergo a mortal probation, there is nothing the least bit shocking about his sinning during that mortal probation.

Murdock

Murdock,

It is truly refreshing to hear an LDS express belief in the doctrines I was taught when I was LDS (1975 - 1986). It is distressing to former LDS when the doctrines we were taught to treasure (and which were consistently taught by all the pre-1990 LDS leaders) are denied as anti-Mormon propaganda or mere opinion.

I did not leave the LDS church because I disliked the teachings; in fact I liked most of them very much. I left because I learned that they are wrong.

Thank you for your honesty.

 

[hosemonkey]

Todd520,
What is the meaning of catholic => LDS ?
Does this mean that you are Catholic contemplating apostacizing to mormonism?
Or have you already separated yourself from the True Church?
If so, please run up your true colors, so we will know whom we are dealing with, in the interest of full disclosure.

 

[Arandur]

On the OP, what does this mean:

1. The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consists of the entirety of the teachings that have been severally accepted by the Church as a body.

?

How can we identify this? Is there a Catechism? A formula for us to examine various documents and determine a hierarchy of truths? Or some other means of discerning what has been accepted by the LDS church “as a body” as opposed to the various interpretations of that list from among the members?

Also, I take issue with the OP’s suggestion that LDS prophets aren’t seen as infallible under some conditions and senses, and the implication that the Catholic concept of infallibility is an arrogant claim to a greater gift. It is in fact a claim of a lesser gift. For LDS believe that their prophets can produce Scripture, which they accept as inerrant, divinely-inspired in the same manner as other Scripture.

Catholics do not accept Magisterial or ex-cathedra papal teachings to be quite on the same level as Scripture. To some this is a minor distinction, but the difference lies in that the Scriptures are viewed as time-tested texts that, though sometimes obscure and difficult to interpret, were positively Inspired, taught more or less in the appropriate way. Infallible doctrine taught by the Magisterium does not lead astray, but this is a more negative gift, preserving from error, not guaranteeing that what is taught is taught in a well-formulated fashion. It may not be well-developed or well-put.

Since to some this is a distinction without a difference, I am generally content to say that Catholics believe that the Magisterium on occasion makes official written declaration of truths already affirmed by Scripture and Tradition, that are led by the Spirit and hold the weight of Scripture.

Thus I am left wondering why LDS think the Catholic Church is so very different from how they’ve constituted their Prophets and Assembly, that we quarrel so much about the idea of “continuing revelation.” We both believe that the Spirit continues to guide the Church and “lead into all truth” by explaining the truth. Catholics just emphasize that Christ was sufficient, having revealed all truth in himself, himself being truth personified, and that no greater or additional revelation of God was going to come that was necessary for salvation. If Christ is who he says he is (God), it actually can’t. How can there be greater revelation than Him Himself? All that is left is to understand that infinite revelation completed in the Incarnation. And that’s an infinite journey