LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

[1holycatholic]

it all defelcts from the main issue: We believe is an unchanging God. he has always been God. You believe in a god who at some point in time, was just like us, a sinful human.

That is simply heresy

It’s not just heresy, Mormon doctrine is logically incoherent. The God of Christianity is a necessary being, the “gods” of Mormonism are contingent beings, that is to say not god at all.

For those whom English is not a first language: “Being” is everything that is or can be - that which actually exists or that which potentially exists. :coffeeread:

 

[Arandur]

Everybody is talking past each other here. 1holycatholic, you see the points that Caprica brings up, the differences between the ‘persons’ (or is it 'beings?" whichever) of the One God and the obvious changes in the way He has dealt with His people (instructions for one group vs. instructions for another, say…or when Christ restricted the teaching of the gospel to the Jews, then opening it up to everybody) as ‘not changes,’ and ‘not differences,’ because of course, God is One God and unchanging…therefore these things do not represent differences and 'changes."

Everyone’s talking past each other because they’re referring to different things. Catholics speak of God being unchanging in nature, absolute and unchanging in truth. Actions He has taken or, as you may put it, “policies” He advocates can change without changing His nature.

A parent wishing to teach a child something or desire the child to learn how to take care of himself and be part of the family does not change facts or principles, but may change how they are presented. To be more concrete than that, when a child becomes curious about his mother’s pregnancy and asks questions, a parent will begin to teach about how babies are made. The facts of the matter never change. The way the parent teaches it does as the child grows older.

The principles of love and integrity and freedom and how one acts in a family do not change, but the way the parent passes that on to the child changes, along with rules.

So, too, has our Heavenly Father guided mankind from its infancy through stages of growth, teaching us truth and how to behave in the divine family. God has never changed, and the truth and principles He has communicated have never changed, but how He has communicated it has.

 

[PaulDupre]

You mean, also according to Biblical scholars and Ancient Near Eastern/pre-exilic Judaism historians? The divine council is clearly found within the Bible, and the DSS has only added to our understanding of such passages (especially Deuteronomy 32).

Where in the bible does it state that there was a council of the gods? None of my bibles say that (including the KJV).

The only part of Deut 32 that is relevant to this thread is verse 39, in which God says “See now that I am He! There is no god besides me.” Which part are you referring to?

 

[Returning_Home]

1. The nearest thing to such a doctrine is the oft-quoted statement that the Lord would never allow the Prophet to lead the Church astray. However, this is in nowise a claim that the Prophet’s statements would never lead anyone to hold a doctrinally incorrect opinion, because it is not our belief that we will be judged for the doctrinal purity of our opinions. Rather, it asserts that the Lord would never allow the Prophet to turn the Saints away from their duty. Orthopraxy, rather than orthodoxy, is the “gold standard” for the Latter-day Saints; and orthopraxy is mostly viewed in terms of covenant keeping.

Unfortunately, you’re trying to redefine the meaning of that one particular sentence by taking it out of context. Gospel Principles, while it never comes out directly to say that LDS prophets are infallible, strongly implies it because in chapter 9, there’s not one single condition under which he can be wrong or misunderstood.

In fact, the chapter makes it clear that he speaks for God as if it were God himself speaking. To make this comparision is to imply that infallibility.

“A prophet is a man called by God to be his representative on earth. When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking.” (GP, p 47, 1996 edition)

The problem here is that the text never bothers to define when he is or isn’t speaking for God. Obviously, when he asks one of his plural wives to pass the salt, this isn’t scripture and I would claim it as such.

No, it simply reinforces what it’s claiming, that the prophet speaks for God:

"We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult. The Lord commanded us to follow the inspired teachings of his prophet: 'Thou shalt give heed unto all his (the prophet’s) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

‘For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.’ (D&C 21:4-5)

“The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.” (GP, pp 49-50, 1996 edition)

What this chapter doesn’t cover is the fact that there are no conditions under which the prophet can be wrong or mistaken. If even just one person believed something that the prophet said as his own opinion, it violates the previous statement and nullifies his purported divinity.

And thank you for showing the fact that the canon exists outside of the four standard works. You saved me some time proving that fact. That said, we have 27 volumes of Brigham Young’s nonsense to contend with, which we know consider themselves scripture.

 

[zdon011]

Raise it to the level of an actual discussion would be nice,
vs the usual inuendo, slander and mudslinging (debate tactics not allowed to non-Catholics on the forum)

Call me hypocritical (I don’t mind, I’m generally considered ‘non-Catholic’), but I just spotted an act of hypocrisy in that there quote. Can you? More importantly, can the mighty, martyred, long since apotheosized and polygamized Prophet, Joe Smith, using his diamond spectacles, his-magic-stones-in-his-stovepipe-hat, and his expert knowledge of that hitherto–and ever since–unknown script, Reformed Egyptian?

Blessings,
zdon

‘Lehi is not my homeboy’

 

[zdon011]

Every alternative that I have seen put forward in this forum recently has the distinct disadvantage of being provably false.

Dear Pahoran,
Have you ever considered the possibility that the problem you identify in that quote is not incidental to particular modes of Mormon apologetics, but fundamentally applicable to Mormonism as a faith?
Are you clutching at straws to defend the indefensible?

 

[zdon011]

You mean, also according to Biblical scholars and Ancient Near Eastern/pre-exilic Judaism historians? The divine council is clearly found within the Bible, and the DSS has only added to our understanding of such passages (especially Deuteronomy 32.

The seemingly plural conception of God, as expressed in the name 'Elohim', has traditionally been understood by Christian theologians as reflecting the eternal nature of the Trinity. The Shema Israel, the basic creed of Judaism in Deuteronomy 6.4, plainly states: 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, **the Lord is one**.' The concept of a 'divine council' or plural Godhead stems from Ugaritic and Canaanite paganism, and has no place in the Abrahamic religions.
I’ve bookmarked this thread so that, in the case of insomnia:coffeeread:, the long-winded and tenuous lines of Mormon apologetic will help lull me into a deep sleep under that dear old hill Cumorah:heaven:…:bigyikes:Wait, I might get nightmares about Lamanites!

From the Land of Moron (Ether 7.5; 14.7).

 

[PaulDupre]

Where in the bible does it state that there was a council of the gods? None of my bibles say that (including the KJV).

The only part of Deut 32 that is relevant to this thread is verse 39, in which God says “See now that I am He! There is no god besides me.” Which part are you referring to?
[/quote]

Still waiting for an answer, Pahoran.

Where in the bible does it state that there was a council of the gods?

 

[dianaiad]

Call me hypocritical (I don’t mind, I’m generally considered ‘non-Catholic’), but I just spotted an act of hypocrisy in that there quote. Can you? More importantly, can the mighty, martyred, long since apotheosized and polygamized Prophet, Joe Smith, using his diamond spectacles, his-magic-stones-in-his-stovepipe-hat, and his expert knowledge of that hitherto–and ever since–unknown script, Reformed Egyptian?

Blessings,
zdon

‘Lehi is not my homeboy’

I do believe that that you have just proven Todd’s point here, m’friend, and certainly shown your own utter disrespect for, not only Mormonism, but for the Mormons on this forum.

Of course, now that we know what your bias is, I will admit that it will be easier to understand and place your criticisms in the correct hierarchy of believability…I have seldom seen as many blazing “I’m a raving anti-Mormon, see me expose my ignorance!!!” indications in one post as you have put in yours.

I will admit to having learned a new one, though. …“diamond spectacles?”

I’ll have to remember that one.

 

[PaulDupre]

Still waiting for an answer, Pahoran.

Where in the bible does it state that there was a council of the gods?

Sorry, it was Caprica, not Pahoran, who claimed that “the divine council is clearly found in the bible”.

Nonetheless, still waiting…

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on topic and cease with childish namecalling.

 

[Todd520]

What this chapter doesn’t cover is the fact that there are no conditions under which the prophet can be wrong or mistaken. If even just one person believed something that the prophet said as his own opinion, it violates the previous statement and nullifies his purported divinity…

True, but the fact that all possible caveats and qualifiers were not included, does not make it dishonest, or a lie. The definition of prophet is pretty standard. I’ve never seen a def that articulated the detail of when a prophet was speaking as a man, or speaking through divine inspiration. Too much for the intro course, I think

Hmmm, I just used your Encyclopedia here and read the Pope is the “supreme authority to define in all questions of faith and morals”. There is also talk of infallibility but no reference to his human weaknesses, or links to the really bad but exciting Popes of times past. Where is the honesty!!!.

 

[datamonkey]

Well, here’s another little nuance for you. On 8 May 1854, Brigham Young said: “It is not the place for any person to correct any person who is superior to them, but ask the Father in the name of Jesus to bind him up from speaking false principles. I have known many times I have preached wrong.”

Regards,
Pahoran

If BY confessed to preaching false principles, did he provide a list of the false principles he preached. If not, how do we discerne the true principles from the false principles? Or does it come down to a matter of opinion to what are the true principles and false principles? Why would God allow his prophet to teach falsehoods?

 

[dianaiad]

If BY confessed to preaching false principles, did he provide a list of the false principles he preached. If not, how do we discerne the true principles from the false principles? Or does it come down to a matter of opinion to what are the true principles and false principles? Why would God allow his prophet to teach falsehoods?

Why would God allow a Pope, who is the final authority on all things regarding faith and morals and is thus infallible on those things, to advocate things like slavery and the selling of indulgences?

This question is NOT to criticise Catholic history; it is a simple question to get you to think. This isn’t me telling you that you are incorrect to believe this…this is me asking the question for you to answer: Why DOES God allow the Pope to do dumb things, even when He keeps the man infallible on other things?

When you answer that from within your own faith, you will have the answer to the question you are now asking, I think…in two words: free will.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Why would God allow a Pope, who is the final authority on all things regarding faith and morals and is thus infallible on those things, to advocate things like slavery and the selling of indulgences?

This question is NOT to criticise Catholic history; it is a simple question to get you to think. This isn’t me telling you that you are incorrect to believe this…this is me asking the question for you to answer: Why DOES God allow the Pope to do dumb things, even when He keeps the man infallible on other things?

When you answer that from within your own faith, you will have the answer to the question you are now asking, I think…in two words: free will.

it is the last resort of every mormon to compare Popes to Prophets. Diana has, by that comparison, admitted that their prophets do NOT communicate with God.

Tha nk you, Diana

 

[StevenFrancis]

My favorite thing about Catholocism, apart from the sacramental life given to us by Jesus himself, is the fact that the Church has a unified doctrine. It is the doctrine which has been discerned through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, His apostles, and His Church. It has been kept safe, and secure through magesterium since Jesus left us the Paraclete. Nothing changes in doctrine without, (literally), an act of God. It just doesn’t happen.

Now, of course, people have free will. Obviously not everyone is Catholic, and there are tons who are Catholic who were poorly cathecized, and don’t really know what the Church teaches. But people outside the Church, (or inside it for that matter), aren’t going to get a bunch or sidestepping and modernistic relativism from the doctine.

With their free will, they can agree with Catholic doctine. They can disagree with it, or they can ignore it altogether. What they can’t do is invent it in the pulpit. Change it up for any form of convenience. At the end of the day, if people have been arguing opinions, and they’re tired of it, there is a resource somewhere in the Church, stripped free of opinion that’s the same as it was 2000 years ago. It was one of the primary attractants on my road to conversion. It’s a real blessing, and one of the heftiest tools left to us by Jesus and the apostles to help catechize us, His lambs. Those who are sincerely searching can find answers. Real answers. Truth! (um, once that person works out in their lives that there IS one truth). It’s a difficult thing to accept until one feels the process of dying to self begin to start occurring. Even then, it’s quite strange. Especially for a convert from Buddhism, (and also many forms of paganism), after nearly 1/2 century of life in the dark.
I was speaking to some Mormon missionary guys who are hitting our neighborhood very heavy right now. (Nevada is a heavily Mormon state). We actually had a very civil conversation for quite some time, though, I found it rather enjoyable to share the Gospel in conversation, (something I don’t get to do much). Sadly, I felt that the very pleasant young missionaries were growing frustrated and wanted to move on to another home. I pray I didn’t offend them in any way. I thought we were doing splended. We shook hands, and parted ways. They asked if they could come for over for a while again sometime, and alas, I told them it probably wasn’t worth it. I’m hopelessly in love with the Catholic Church. I asked them to pray, and meditate on the Gospel of John. I don’t know how I got into all this just now. Oh, yeah…the things they would say to me seemed a little planned out, which I guess would be normal if you were going to be going door to door. It seemed like, “okay, this will call for our Catholic believer script”. That sort of thing. The other thing, that I found nearly humorous, was that they used an argument on me, (nearly word for word), that I’ve used on those who don’t believe in Christ. My old pagan friends. I’m sure you’ve all heard it. Either Jesus was a madman and a heretic, or what He said was true and real, in which case that changes everything etc. etc. I could probably find it at a website if I tried, but the thing was, they were making this argument about Joseph Smith. And they added that either he was telling the truth or he was a horrible heretic and deciever and conjurer and was in hell. I replied, that I didn’t think that he was being truthful when forming this religion, but that he himself may have been deceived, and not realized that he was promoting such a perversion. I also added that I thought God’s love and mercy was wider and more enveloping than any of us could even understand. I actually had to remove the duality from them, and tell them that just being deceived and passing it on is not sinful if you don’t know that you’ve been deceived, and have not cooperated in evil. I asked them if they thought Mr. Smith had participated in evil? They replied, well, no. So, there you are. I don’t have the power to put someone in hell. And I never used that part of the argument when trying to prove Christ. That’s a whole new ball of wax there. It’s really trying to elicit some kind of fear or something. I wasn’t quite sure what that was all about. Whether Joseph Smith is in hell is between precisely Mr. Smith and Jesus. I just don’t buy off on Mormonism. We’re not supposed to. Jesus isn’t coming back until He comes back, right? And then we’ll all know it simultaneously. As one human race. The dead and living. There won’t be any question any longer about post-incarnation religions such as Islam, Mormonism and such. The Word will descend from Heaven in glory. Unless I missed something, that hasn’t happened yet. It’s hard to carry out the Mormon debate (or pretty much any other “post-incarnation” religion for that matter), any much farther than that personally. I don’t know how others feel about that. They started to tell me there was something goofed up about John’s Revelation, and that if it’s right tons of other stuff in the bible is wrong or something. A lot of it’s lost on me. As I said, I was in the dark too long to ever let go again to anything else, so I’m not really up for grabs. But when they patiently give me a chance to discuss my faith, I can’t pass that up.

Peace to all,

Steven

 

[zdon011]

For the LDS posters on this topic who reacted to my last message:

**Κατήγορος**

ἀλλ᾽ οὖν σὺ μέμνησ᾽ αὐτὸς ἁπεκρίνατο.

**Φιλοκλέων**

ἄκουε, μὴ φεῦγ᾽. ἐν Συβάρει γυνή ποτε 1435
κατέαξ᾽ ἐχῖνον.

**Κατήγορος**

ταῦτ᾽ ἐγὼ μαρτύρομαι.

**Φιλοκλέων**

οὑχῖνος οὖν ἔχων τιν᾽ ἐπεμαρτύρατο·
εἶθ᾽ ἡ Συβαρῖτις εἶπεν, ‘εἰ ναὶ τὰν κόραν
τὴν μαρτυρίαν ταύτην ἐάσας ἐν τάχει
ἐπίδεσμον ἐπρίω, νοῦν ἂν εἶχες πλείονα’. 1440

**Κατήγορος**

ὕβριζ᾽ ἕως ἂν τὴν δίκην ἅρχων καλῇ.

You need neither Urim nor Thummim for this one, so don’t ask.

 

[ParkerD]

Sorry, it was Caprica, not Pahoran, who claimed that “the divine council is clearly found in the bible”.

Nonetheless, still waiting…

Psalm 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

Mark 12:35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?
36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son?

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Peace to all. Christ lives, and council is a divine pattern.

 

[dianaiad]

for the lds posters on this topic who reacted to my last message:

**Κατήγορος**

ἀλλ᾽ οὖν σὺ μέμνησ᾽ αὐτὸς ἁπεκρίνατο.

**Φιλοκλέων**

ἄκουε, μὴ φεῦγ᾽. ἐν Συβάρει γυνή ποτε 1435
κατέαξ᾽ ἐχῖνον.

**Κατήγορος**

ταῦτ᾽ ἐγὼ μαρτύρομαι.

**Φιλοκλέων**

οὑχῖνος οὖν ἔχων τιν᾽ ἐπεμαρτύρατο·
εἶθ᾽ ἡ Συβαρῖτις εἶπεν, ‘εἰ ναὶ τὰν κόραν
τὴν μαρτυρίαν ταύτην ἐάσας ἐν τάχει
ἐπίδεσμον ἐπρίω, νοῦν ἂν εἶχες πλείονα’. 1440

**Κατήγορος**

ὕβριζ᾽ ἕως ἂν τὴν δίκην ἅρχων καλῇ.

You need neither urim nor thummim for this one, so don’t ask.

Γίνετε ενήλικος.

 

[1holycatholic]

Psalm 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

Mark 12:35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?
36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son?

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Peace to all. Christ lives, and council is a divine pattern.

If LDS believe the Catholic Church is apostate why do they quote from a Catholic book?