Mormon Apostle states arguments against the Book of Mormon are "pathetic"

[wyp8riot]

So does the Catholic Church. Yet while there are many similarities and things in common, there are some very important beliefs that are very different. So who is right?

That “The Book of Mormon inspires people to believe in Christ and to do good” is not an argument for whether it is correct.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen them. They’re not as common because there’s not as much to discuss. Things you agree on don’t take as long to hash out

Jerusha, I think it’s important to discuss, because as you’ve seen, it seems common that Mormonism encourages an “argument” to dismiss the possibility of Satanic influences that in fact is quite dangerous, in that it ignores how Satan works and leaves proponents of this argument quite vulnerable to him, since they seem to believe they are immune from his attacks and the need for discernment.

Yes, it runs the risk of aggravating the sense of persecution/victim mentality. But so does any criticism. And I have seen many Smithians seek shelter in the various things about the Smith story (and his various writings) that are difficult to conclusively attribute to Smith’s invention. They tend to ignore the argument that there just aren’t clear enough records to prove conclusively, even if the evidence and consistent patterns strongly support one probability (interestingly, they use this argument in reverse when they discount criticisms from archaeology by saying “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”). That leaves open, however, the other possibility. Maybe JS and company didn’t come up with it entirely on their own; maybe they did have a spiritual experience. It’s just a maybe, but it’s a possibility that must be considered. Discernment of spirits is very important. It is clear in many ways that this is a possibility, and it is clear in many ways that if spiritual influence was involved, it was contrary to how God worked and the message He sent previous, and so was of the false and dangerous type.

The LDS religion does discuss and teach that Satan and his influences are real. Where did someone tell you otherwise?

 

[zaffiroborant]

I didn’t used to think anything of the kind, even though I was aware of some teaching like that which seems to match some of the early Reformers about the church they had left. I start to get a different impression as I read things like what has been posted the last day or so on this thread. I start to think maybe the Reformers were right in their thinking in that regard.

Catholics seem to have such a wrong concept of what Satan and those who followed him in pre-mortal life spend their energy doing in this world. Anger, drug abuse, sexual abuse and break-up of families, bringing contention, internet abuse (they have a hay-day with that), creating self-doubt and the mocking and belittling of others--these are the kinds of influences those spirits spend their energy encouraging within human behaviors and attitudes.

Seems to be a lot of that in those quotes from your prophets and apostles in the previous post.

ETA: Not to mention that there is quite a bit of “bringing contention” by LDS posters on this board.

 

[Arandur]

The LDS religion does discuss and teach that Satan and his influences are real. Where did someone tell you otherwise?

I encourage you to read that post and those previous pertaining to it a bit more carefully. You will find that I stated that I do understand that most churches (you guys included) believe the devil exists and works. Yet this seems in practice to be a superficial belief, because when people talk of sin or of false teaching, they tend to do it entirely from the perspective that it comes of man and seek to dismiss the possibility of Satan’s influences.

Certainly WhyMe, who I was responding to originally, did. He reiterated a position that I have heard often from Mormonism, that Mormonism cannot be influenced by Satan because it encourages worship of Jesus and spreads good. Such reasoning is quite faulty, and leaves the proponent thinking that his church is immune because of these traits.

The problem is that, of course, encouraging worship of Jesus and encouraging righteous things are done by many, many churches. Even churches Mormons have in their scriptures and among their leaders identified as Great and Abominable churches of the Devil.

Furthermore, in complete opposition to this attempted justification of WhyMe’s, your scriptures and leaders say quite clearly that the Devil was very much using other churches–churches that encourage belief in God/Jesus and in righteousness–to spread his own will. Well, if he’s doing that with others, then you cannot claim that Mormonism is free from his influence just because it encourages belief in God and righteousness like all the others. It’s no defense at all. In fact, believing it is a defense leaves one blinded to the danger of the Devil’s influences, dropping one’s guard, not discerning spirits–in short, practically delivering oneself right into his gleeful clutches.

 

[PaulDupre]

Arandur,

 

[Arandur]

Catholics seem to have such a wrong concept of what Satan and those who followed him in pre-mortal life spend their energy doing in this world.

What, founding churches?
How about this:

behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil.

it was founded by the Devil.

The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth.

Wait, those quotes came from your scriptures and your leaders…Seems they agree that Satan and those who follow him are busy founding and influencing churches, churches that seem to be worshipping God.

So why not yours? Turnabout is fair play, my friend.

 

[ParkerD]

What, founding churches?
How about this:

Wait, those quotes came from your scriptures and your leaders…Seems they agree that Satan and those who follow him are busy founding and influencing churches, churches that seem to be worshipping God.

So why not yours? Turnabout is fair play, my friend.

Arandur,
I have no doubt that Satan has influenced the beliefs inserted into the doctrinal beliefs and practices of some churches. John the Revelator saw that happen in the vision he saw and wrote about in the book of Revelation. He also saw and wrote about Satan’s influence in modern institutional/governmental leadership practices that “worship” false ideologies or lead away from following the Ten Commandments and the two Great commandments.

If a person yields their chance to follow the impressions and inspiration of the Holy Spirit personally in their life to make constructive changes as Christ would seek to lead them toward becoming a “new person” and keeping their baptismal covenants, and does that yielding because of what they have been taught instead of seeing their opportunity to gain that inspiration as they read the Bible itself, then I would say the beast and the dragon have had an influence in that yielding process. It would not be because the person may not have had good intentions, but because they are not even looking for such inspiration in their life so they won’t find it. Any teaching that has led them to do such yielding of the opportunity for personal divine inspiration, ultimately came through the influence of Satan even if it came to them third-hand by way of what they were taught by someone who took the teaching originally influenced by Satan way back when, and brought it into their own belief system and teachings.

So the point at which the teaching became changed is the point at which Satan’s influence was exerted. Most of that happened hundreds or over a thousand years ago. But that still left each individual person with an individual choice of following the Holy Spirit in their life, or not, since the Holy Spirit and His influence have still been available to those seeking individual and personal divine inspiration.

Nowadays Satan and his followers concentrate on bombarding minds with many kinds of counterfeit approaches toward control of bodies and minds by the kinds of thrill-seeking and self-serving practices we see in our world today.

I see my church teaching about seeking the Holy Spirit for personal guidance in life. This was taught very directly several times in the last LDS general conference. I also see my church teaching to follow the Ten Commandments and to follow the two Great commandments. I also see my church institutionally (through LDS Social Services) seeking to thwart the counterfeit thrill-seeking by helping people individually to overcome addictions of many kinds.

 

[wyp8riot]

I encourage you to read that post and those previous pertaining to it a bit more carefully. You will find that I stated that I do understand that most churches (you guys included) believe the devil exists and works. Yet this seems in practice to be a superficial belief, because when people talk of sin or of false teaching, they tend to do it entirely from the perspective that it comes of man and seek to dismiss the possibility of Satan’s influences.

Certainly WhyMe, who I was responding to originally, did. He reiterated a position that I have heard often from Mormonism, that Mormonism cannot be influenced by Satan because it encourages worship of Jesus and spreads good. Such reasoning is quite faulty, and leaves the proponent thinking that his church is immune because of these traits.

The problem is that, of course, encouraging worship of Jesus and encouraging righteous things are done by many, many churches. Even churches Mormons have in their scriptures and among their leaders identified as Great and Abominable churches of the Devil.

Furthermore, in complete opposition to this attempted justification of WhyMe’s, your scriptures and leaders say quite clearly that the Devil was very much using other churches–churches that encourage belief in God/Jesus and in righteousness–to spread his own will. Well, if he’s doing that with others, then you cannot claim that Mormonism is free from his influence just because it encourages belief in God and righteousness like all the others. It’s no defense at all. In fact, believing it is a defense leaves one blinded to the danger of the Devil’s influences, dropping one’s guard, not discerning spirits–in short, practically delivering oneself right into his gleeful clutches.

scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/123
12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are ablinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

I personally interpret this literally to include members of my own denomination. However I do believe the Church leadership is guided by the spirit and by Prophecy as I believe has always been done in Gods church.

 

[wyp8riot]

So does the Catholic Church. Yet while there are many similarities and things in common, there are some very important beliefs that are very different. So who is right?

That “The Book of Mormon inspires people to believe in Christ and to do good” is not an argument for whether it is correct.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen them. They’re not as common because there’s not as much to discuss. Things you agree on don’t take as long to hash out

.

Yes, However The God inspired founding fathers wanted our foundational principles to be taught in schools to unite us. They outlined the “Religion of America” and 5 basic Principles that they said all sound religions believe in. They wanted these principles taught to unite us. I have learned that very few people are even aware of that foundational “Religion of America” and its 5 principles that were mandated to be taught. Does anyone know the 5 principles that both LDS, Catholic and many other faiths believe?

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
**If a person yields their chance to follow the impressions and inspiration of the Holy Spirit personally in their life to make constructive changes as Christ would seek to lead them toward becoming a “new person” and keeping their baptismal covenants, and does that yielding because of what they have been taught instead of seeing their opportunity to gain that inspiration as they read the Bible itself, then I would say the beast and the dragon have had an influence in that yielding process. **It would not be because the person may not have had good intentions, but because they are not even looking for such inspiration in their life so they won’t find it. Any teaching that has led them to do such yielding of the opportunity for personal divine inspiration, ultimately came through the influence of Satan even if it came to them third-hand by way of what they were taught by someone who took the teaching originally influenced by Satan way back when, and brought it into their own belief system and teachings.

So the “Bible Christians” have it right?
ParkerD, again it seems like you’d make a better fundamentalist, “Bible Christian” than a Mormon. Your church teaches submission to your leaders and prophets.

Aside from that, what you are advocating is relying on oneself as a personal authority. Relying solely on your own interpretation of what you think the Spirit is leading you to. Yet how easy is it to follow a deceiving spirit in place of the Holy Spirit? Exceptionally easy, when you’re so open and have no guidance, no checks, especially when relying solely on one’s own faulty judgment!

Or do you not think the Devil is crafty? That he puts on the appearance of good? That he misleads by making it seem like he is teaching of God? You wildly underestimate the cunning and power of the Devil if you think so, to your own destruction.

What you advocate is EXACTLY the approach that has been embraced by the Protestant sects and has resulted in tens of thousands of schisms and different doctrines! It is a concept that has been absolutely, demonstrably proven to be contrary to the true approach God teaches, for it has led to innumerable splits, to contention and disunity, to doctrines that contradict other doctrines. And remember, so great many of those who follow this path do so very sincerely wishing for greater relationship with God and knowledge of truth! So how is it possible, then, if this is exactly the approach they are supposed to take, that it is leading to so much that is absolutely contrary to God’s wishes (for He clearly wishes for unity)?

Of course we need to have personal relationship with God, to pray and seek the inspiration of the Holy Spirit sincerely with all our heart, mind, and strength, to study the Scriptures, etc. But we ALSO must unite ourselves to Christ who is His Church. Guess what? That’s what the Catholic Church has always taught, and why it has remained the largest united body of believers in human history, something the devil could not possibly achieve, something that demonstrably proves the answer to Christ’s prayer for our unity.

We rely on our own selves, our own interpretations, to our own destruction, as Paul clearly states (among others). This is the sin of pride, the greatest of sins, and here you advocate it as the true path. Is this not exactly the path the Devil chose that led to his rebellion? Pride in his own thoughts, judgment, and stature above God’s? Thus it is exactly the path he wants you to pursue, and here you do it and advocate it willingly and yet deny any of his influence.

**So the point at which the teaching became changed is the point at which Satan’s influence was exerted. Most of that happened hundreds or over a thousand years ago. **But that still left each individual person with an individual choice of following the Holy Spirit in their life, or not, since the Holy Spirit and His influence have still been available to those seeking individual and personal divine inspiration.

Nowadays Satan and his followers concentrate on bombarding minds with many kinds of counterfeit approaches toward control of bodies and minds by the kinds of thrill-seeking and self-serving practices we see in our world today.

Oh, so the Satan-influenced changes happened long ago? He’s out of that business now? How convenient for you. Another way for you to blind yourself and open yourself to his attacks. Are there not new churches continually springing up? How about even the splintering in your own faith? These are free from the influence of Satan? How are you sure?

Of course, you’d have to demonstrate the point that Satan’s teachings conquered Christ’s Church in order for your assertions of past corruptions to warrant a “restoration,” but I will of course accept that Satan has been weaving heresies throughout history. The Church has stood strong against every one, and history proves it. Interestingly, the various Smithian groups adhere to varying mixtures of heresies that have come before, appearing at various points in history, recycled in new combinations and sometimes couched in new language.

I see my church teaching about seeking the Holy Spirit for personal guidance in life. This was taught very directly several times in the last LDS general conference. I also see my church teaching to follow the Ten Commandments and to follow the two Great commandments. I also see my church institutionally (through LDS Social Services) seeking to thwart the counterfeit thrill-seeking by helping people individually to overcome addictions of many kinds.

I see nearly all Christian churches doing the same thing. What’s your point? There’s nothing special about you in this; it doesn’t differentiate you at all from the religions that your church condemns as great and abominable works of the devil.

 

[Arandur]

Yes, However The God inspired founding fathers wanted our foundational principles to be taught in schools to unite us. They outlined the “Religion of America” and 5 basic Principles that they said all sound religions believe in. They wanted these principles taught to unite us. I have learned that very few people are even aware of that foundational “Religion of America” and its 5 principles that were mandated to be taught. Does anyone know the 5 principles that both LDS, Catholic and many other faiths believe?

I haven’t heard of this; please go ahead and list them.

A skeleton of beliefs, however, while rejecting other truths, is only mildly helpful.

 

[ParkerD]

So the “Bible Christians” have it right?
ParkerD, again it seems like you’d make a better fundamentalist, “Bible Christian” than a Mormon. Your church teaches submission to your leaders and prophets.

Aside from that, what you are advocating is relying on oneself as a personal authority. Relying solely on your own interpretation of what you think the Spirit is leading you to. Yet how easy is it to follow a deceiving spirit in place of the Holy Spirit? Exceptionally easy, when you’re so open and have no guidance, no checks, especially when relying solely on one’s own faulty judgment! …

Arandur,
We differ so markedly in our beliefs about the Holy Spirit’s guidance and influence (you and I), that I see no point in responding to each of your questions and assertions.

You would disagree with the major points of an LDS conference talk here:

lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1117-2,00.html

But I thought it was one of the best talks I’ve heard on the subject of the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost). The Bible certainly does act as a check and balance toward ascertaining whether the Holy Spirit is in one’s life, and does that by repeated teachings on the subject, but those teachings often fall on deaf ears.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I haven’t heard of this; please go ahead and list them.

A skeleton of beliefs, however, while rejecting other truths, is only mildly helpful.

Here is a bit about it.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
We differ so markedly in our beliefs about the Holy Spirit’s guidance and influence (you and I), that I see no point in responding to each of your questions and assertions.

I’m interested in pursuing truth. I have presented to you arguments and evidence. You hold certain beliefs, but seem to have no answer to the vast evidence before you that demonstrates what those beliefs lead to, and thus that they are false and dangerous. I would not want to be in such a position.

The Bible certainly does act as a check and balance toward ascertaining whether the Holy Spirit is in one’s life, and does that by repeated teachings on the subject, but those teachings often fall on deaf ears.

Again, that’s the approach that most Christian denominations take, and it has only lead to more division, contention, and contradicting doctrines. That is, it seems to me, an absolute and conclusive proof that this approach is seriously and dangerously flawed.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m interested in pursuing truth. I have presented to you arguments and evidence. You hold certain beliefs, but seem to have no answer to the vast evidence before you that demonstrates what those beliefs lead to, and thus that they are false and dangerous. I would not want to be in such a position.

Again, that’s the approach that most Christian denominations take, and it has only lead to more division, contention, and contradicting doctrines. That is, it seems to me, an absolute and conclusive proof that this approach is seriously and dangerously flawed.

Arandur,
I don’t see that you are very “interested in pursuing truth” other than your “version” of what you believe it to be.

I’ve already provided many, many answers about the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the fruits of the Spirit in various threads, and have done so when it appeared that the person I was answering or other people who had posted comments seemed genuinely interested in discussing the differences in points of view and beliefs, without contention. I don’t sense that is the case here, but the talk that I linked earlier would be a good starting point for anyone genuinely interested in getting the influence of the Holy Spirit personally in their life.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
I don’t see that you are very “interested in pursuing truth” other than your “version” of what you believe it to be.

I’ve already provided many, many answers about the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the fruits of the Spirit in various threads, and have done so when it appeared that the person I was answering or other people who had posted comments seemed genuinely interested in discussing the differences in points of view and beliefs, without contention.

Pursuit of truth often involves discussion, such as here. Discussion is back and forth. You have “provided many, many answers…?” That indicates you’re not interested in a back and forth discussion, which is not an honest pursuit of truth. So does your unwillingness to respond to my arguments. Note also that “argument” is a technical term unfortunately often mis-associated with “contention” as a connotation. It simply means that different positions are presented so that they can be discussed on their merits. There are few other ways for people to honestly join with each other to pursue truth than that, particularly when they are starting from opposing viewpoints.

So here’s how it works: One of us presents a position and defends it (with an argument and evidence). The other responds in kind or with an attempt to refute, pointing out any errors or significant evidence to the contrary. The God-given gift of human reason is employed, along with (hopefully) faith and prayer for wisdom beyond our own limitations–but reason will not contradict such wisdom, because God is the Master of Reason.

I don’t sense that is the case here, but the talk that I linked earlier would be a good starting point for anyone genuinely interested in getting the influence of the Holy Spirit personally in their life.

I read that link. I didn’t find anything new. It’s the beginnings of discernment. If you really want to get into discernment, read St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and many others. For a contemporary and non-Catholic (though all-but), read C.S. Lewis; the classic intro is Mere Christianity and relevant to this conversation would be the Screwtape Letters, but he has others that help with guidance and discernment. Peter Kreeft does wonderful digests of his works if you don’t have time to read the full originals.

Anyway, about your link, I have experienced similar things many times. Most powerfully during the Sacraments or in the presence of the Sacrament. Even to the point what seemed like direct “spiritual dictation,” as your elder calls it. So I of course agree that the Spirit can and does work in this way. However, as I said, that is the beginning of discernment; matters of personal guidance in actions and choices in life can be fairly simple, but some, particularly involving understanding of truth, can be deeper.

Of course, many others of many other persuasions, even non-Christian ones like the highly-spiritual Eastern religions, will claim the very same routes to guidance. This alone, then, cannot be enough, for there is such a diversity of directions and contradictory beliefs these lead to that they cannot all be the Holy Spirit properly interpreted. Either there are counterfeit experiences, which the Bible testifies can be the case, or people are not interpreting correctly even if they think it is clear.

Your elder leaves it at those experiences, those feelings. What a poverty to leave it there, for you will only get more centuries of new divisions from that.

The Catholic Church recognizes and guides its members through deep spiritual communion with the Holy Spirit, and it also, through the Spirit’s guidance and Christ’s own institution, teaches discernment. The method to knowing God’s truth, God’s will, must overcome the obstacles of human frailty and of the Deceiver, who is a cunning mimic. To do this, it takes personal relationship and spiritual communion, but it also takes Sacred Scripture and Tradition (custom and history–as well as, actually, Scripture) as a check; it also takes the gift of human reason and the evidence of the human experience of life and Creation (for God reveals much simply through His own Creation and Natural Law); it also takes union with Christ who is in His Bride the Church, through the ordination of those specifically gifted and guided by the Holy Spirit to preserve and teach all truth. It takes ALL of these gifts of God working in union to provide assurance of Truth. The Catholic Church has and teaches all of these gifts. You seem to be advocating only using the first, which is effectively setting yourself up as your own personal interpretive authority, your own god, something the Scriptures clearly and explicitly warn against, and which history shows vast evidence does not work to lead to unity in Christ.

Now, that’s a position with argument and evidence. Not as cleanly and simply presented as in philosophical format, but this is not really a philosophical forum in that sense. If you disagree, provide reason why. I start from a position based on my own understanding, and I present arguments and evidence to show why I have that understanding. I am open to being convinced otherwise if there are flaws in my arguments or evidence, or more convincing ones to the contrary. That is openness to truth and its honest pursuit, and what I’m asking of you. Saying you’ll just provide your viewpoint as an “answer” without discussing arguments and evidence is merely pride.

 

[ParkerD]

Pursuit of truth often involves discussion, such as here. Discussion is back and forth. You have “provided many, many answers…?” That indicates you’re not interested in a back and forth discussion, which is not an honest pursuit of truth. So does your unwillingness to respond to my arguments. Note also that “argument” is a technical term unfortunately often mis-associated with “contention” as a connotation. It simply means that different positions are presented so that they can be discussed on their merits. There are few other ways for people to honestly join with each other to pursue truth than that, particularly when they are starting from opposing viewpoints.

So here’s how it works: One of us presents a position and defends it (with an argument and evidence). The other responds in kind or with an attempt to refute, pointing out any errors or significant evidence to the contrary. The God-given gift of human reason is employed, along with (hopefully) faith and prayer for wisdom beyond our own limitations–but reason will not contradict such wisdom, because God is the Master of Reason.

I read that link. I didn’t find anything new. It’s the beginnings of discernment. If you really want to get into discernment, read St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and many others. For a contemporary and non-Catholic (though all-but), read C.S. Lewis; the classic intro is Mere Christianity and relevant to this conversation would be the Screwtape Letters, but he has others that help with guidance and discernment. Peter Kreeft does wonderful digests of his works if you don’t have time to read the full originals.

Anyway, about your link, I have experienced similar things many times. Most powerfully during the Sacraments or in the presence of the Sacrament. Even to the point what seemed like direct “spiritual dictation,” as your elder calls it. So I of course agree that the Spirit can and does work in this way. However, as I said, that is the beginning of discernment; matters of personal guidance in actions and choices in life can be fairly simple, but some, particularly involving understanding of truth, can be deeper.

Of course, many others of many other persuasions, even non-Christian ones like the highly-spiritual Eastern religions, will claim the very same routes to guidance. This alone, then, cannot be enough, for there is such a diversity of directions and contradictory beliefs these lead to that they cannot all be the Holy Spirit properly interpreted. Either there are counterfeit experiences, which the Bible testifies can be the case, or people are not interpreting correctly even if they think it is clear.

Your elder leaves it at those experiences, those feelings. What a poverty to leave it there, for you will only get more centuries of new divisions from that.

The Catholic Church recognizes and guides its members through deep spiritual communion with the Holy Spirit, and it also, through the Spirit’s guidance and Christ’s own institution, teaches discernment. The method to knowing God’s truth, God’s will, must overcome the obstacles of human frailty and of the Deceiver, who is a cunning mimic. To do this, it takes personal relationship and spiritual communion, but it also takes Sacred Scripture and Tradition (custom and history–as well as, actually, Scripture) as a check; it also takes the gift of human reason and the evidence of the human experience of life and Creation (for God reveals much simply through His own Creation and Natural Law); it also takes union with Christ who is in His Bride the Church, through the ordination of those specifically gifted and guided by the Holy Spirit to preserve and teach all truth. It takes ALL of these gifts of God working in union to provide assurance of Truth. The Catholic Church has and teaches all of these gifts. You seem to be advocating only using the first, which is effectively setting yourself up as your own personal interpretive authority, your own god, something the Scriptures clearly and explicitly warn against, and which history shows vast evidence does not work to lead to unity in Christ.

Now, that’s a position with argument and evidence. Not as cleanly and simply presented as in philosophical format, but this is not really a philosophical forum in that sense. If you disagree, provide reason why. I start from a position based on my own understanding, and I present arguments and evidence to show why I have that understanding. I am open to being convinced otherwise if there are flaws in my arguments or evidence, or more convincing ones to the contrary. That is openness to truth and its honest pursuit, and what I’m asking of you. Saying you’ll just provide your viewpoint as an “answer” without discussing arguments and evidence is merely pride.

Arandur,
I think it’s nice you believe all of what you posted as your response here. I think Paul described spiritual gifts, discernment, the fruits of the Spirit, and the necessity of not trusting in the wisdom of men when it differs from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (correctly understood based on being “spiritually discerned.”) He did that repeatedly, but especially in 1 Corinthians. I think he did not have the kind of position about “tradition” that you have expressed. I do like the writings of C.S. Lewis.

I don’t think inspiration is an “all-or-nothing” proposition. I think people can get inspiration that leads them to do good things and that is because they have sought after that inspiration from a source of light to the best of their knowledge and understanding. That applies to oriental religious beliefs.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
I think it’s nice you believe all of what you posted as your response here. I think Paul described spiritual gifts, discernment, the fruits of the Spirit, and the necessity of not trusting in the wisdom of men when it differs from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (correctly understood based on being “spiritually discerned.”) He did that repeatedly, but especially in 1 Corinthians.

What’s your point? I don’t see how this is relevant to what I posted. It seems a dodge, not a response.

I think he did not have the kind of position about “tradition” that you have expressed. I do like the writings of C.S. Lewis.

Oh? The man who said “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.” In 1 Corinthians, as you cite (11:2); and in 2 Thess 2:15 “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours”

Just what do you think is so wrong about what we teach about Tradition, and how do you really think you don’t have tradition, whether you acknowledge it or not?

C.S. Lewis understood a lot about tradition and discernment, and it doesn’t seem to jive much with what you’ve been saying here.

I don’t think inspiration is an “all-or-nothing” proposition. I think people can get inspiration that leads them to do good things and that is because they have sought after that inspiration from a source of light to the best of their knowledge and understanding. That applies to oriental religious beliefs.

I would agree, and so would the Church, having made many statements about God’s communication to man in all times and places. It’s just not the only measure of truth, nor any assurance of it, since its meaning is received through the filter of one’s own interpretation and understanding. There is much else that must be considered in discernment.

 

[ParkerD]

What’s your point? I don’t see how this is relevant to what I posted. It seems a dodge, not a response.

Oh? The man who said “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.” In 1 Corinthians, as you cite (11:2); and in 2 Thess 2:15 “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours”

Just what do you think is so wrong about what we teach about Tradition, and how do you really think you don’t have tradition, whether you acknowledge it or not?

C.S. Lewis understood a lot about tradition and discernment, and it doesn’t seem to jive much with what you’ve been saying here.

I would agree, and so would the Church, having made many statements about God’s communication to man in all times and places. It’s just not the only measure of truth, nor any assurance of it, since its meaning is received through the filter of one’s own interpretation and understanding. There is much else that must be considered in discernment.

Arandur,
Here are the instances where the word “tradition” is used in the New Testament:

Mark 7: 3, 5, 8-9, 13
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
• • •
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
• • •
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
• • •
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Matt. 15: 2-3, 6
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
• • •
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Gal. 1: 14
14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Col. 2: 8
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
2 Thes. 2: 15
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thes. 3: 6
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
1 Pet. 1: 18
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

When the Savior Himself used the word “tradition”, it had a negative connotation. When Peter used the word, it had a negative connotation. When Paul used the word, of the four times there were two with a negative connotation and two with a connotation as you have noted. Those two “positive connotation” verses were very specific, dealing with “word ye have been taught or our epistle” and “received of us” meaning taught or instructed or delivered by the apostles or Timotheus (Timothy) or Silvanus, and no one else. I would agree with those specific words in their specific connotation.

Otherwise, I think the Savior made it amply clear that holding to the traditions of men leads to acceptance of teachings that are less than Christ-centered, by their very nature. That comes across over and over in His teachings to the Jews about their traditions and how they interpreted the teachings of the prophets based on their traditions.

 

[Arandur]

When the Savior Himself used the word “tradition”, it had a negative connotation. When Peter used the word, it had a negative connotation. When Paul used the word, of the four times there were two with a negative connotation and two with a connotation as you have noted. Those two “positive connotation” verses were very specific, dealing with “word ye have been taught or our epistle” and “received of us” meaning taught or instructed or delivered by the apostles or Timotheus (Timothy) or Silvanus, and no one else. I would agree with those specific words in their specific connotation.

Otherwise, I think the Savior made it amply clear that holding to the traditions of men leads to acceptance of teachings that are less than Christ-centered, by their very nature. That comes across over and over in His teachings to the Jews about their traditions and how they interpreted the teachings of the prophets based on their traditions.

Still not seeing your point, because you have not responded to my earlier post and you have not completed your thought.

You are right to look into the senses in which the word “tradition” is used, for it is not always the same.

You seem to accept here that Paul is advocating acceptance of apostolic traditions. Catholics accept and mean the very same thing.

I think you mean to say (completing your thought) that Catholics are speaking of “traditions of men,” since you would like to vilify them. Yet we believe differently, and your position and accusation cannot be proven merely by you assuming that our traditions are merely traditions of men. We assert and can demonstrate that these are the very kind of apostolic traditions that Paul was talking of.

It’s a little more complicated than that, however, since the modern English sense of the word Tradition itself is somewhat modified in its usage. Perhaps it will help to provide the simple illustration that all Scripture is a product of Tradition; it was information passed down and taught and handed on before it was collected and canonized. Tradition is preserved and transmitted by the faithful of God in union with His priesthood. Yet there is more, because for the first time, when Christ came and instituted His Church as His own Body and Bride, and sent the Holy Spirit to guide and protect it, and made prayers and promises to the unity and sanctity of His Church in truth, for the first time His Church was empowered with a special and irrevocable Divine gift. For the first time the Church is Divine, and because it is Divine, it contains all truth and its truth cannot be conquered–for that would mean that God can be conquered and can teach falsehood. Thus for the first time Tradition (which is that body of truth contained within the Church but not canonized as Scripture) is empowered beyond mere “traditions of men.” Jesus spoke of “traditions of men” because He was changing things, making all things new, giving us something better than those mere traditions of men.

Oh, and I challenge you to find a single Catholic teaching that is, as you seem to accuse above, “less than Christ-centered, by [its] very nature.” That in itself could be the subject for a whole other thread, for we can show you how incredibly Christ-centered every single belief we have is, and how those contrary to ours are deficient in that quality.

I’m also fundamentally puzzled as to how a religion that proclaims separate gods and Christ created (and not initially God) could possibly call another less “Christ-centered.”

 

[ParkerD]

Still not seeing your point, because you have not responded to my earlier post and you have not completed your thought.

You are right to look into the senses in which the word “tradition” is used, for it is not always the same.

You seem to accept here that Paul is advocating acceptance of apostolic traditions. Catholics accept and mean the very same thing.

I think you mean to say (completing your thought) that Catholics are speaking of “traditions of men,” since you would like to vilify them. Yet we believe differently, and your position and accusation cannot be proven merely by you assuming that our traditions are merely traditions of men. We assert and can demonstrate that these are the very kind of apostolic traditions that Paul was talking of.

It’s a little more complicated than that, however, since the modern English sense of the word Tradition itself is somewhat modified in its usage. Perhaps it will help to provide the simple illustration that all Scripture is a product of Tradition; it was information passed down and taught and handed on before it was collected and canonized. Tradition is preserved and transmitted by the faithful of God in union with His priesthood. Yet there is more, because for the first time, when Christ came and instituted His Church as His own Body and Bride, and sent the Holy Spirit to guide and protect it, and made prayers and promises to the unity and sanctity of His Church in truth, for the first time His Church was empowered with a special and irrevocable Divine gift. For the first time the Church is Divine, and because it is Divine, it contains all truth and its truth cannot be conquered–for that would mean that God can be conquered and can teach falsehood. Thus for the first time Tradition (which is that body of truth contained within the Church but not canonized as Scripture) is empowered beyond mere “traditions of men.” Jesus spoke of “traditions of men” because He was changing things, making all things new, giving us something better than those mere traditions of men.

Oh, and I challenge you to find a single Catholic teaching that is, as you seem to accuse above, “less than Christ-centered, by [its] very nature.” That in itself could be the subject for a whole other thread, for we can show you how incredibly Christ-centered every single belief we have is, and how those contrary to ours are deficient in that quality.

I’m also fundamentally puzzled as to how a religion that proclaims separate gods and Christ created (and not initially God) could possibly call another less “Christ-centered.”

Arandur,
I did complete my thought. If you want me to say more, I’ll say that I do not believe in “apostolic tradition” as it is taught and presented by Catholics, in fact I disagree very strongly with the whole concept. I disagree with the idea that scripture is a product of tradition. It is a product of revelation to prophets and of the teachings of Christ Himself.

If you’re saying Catholics don’t believe the Trinity includes three Separate Persons, then I guess I have misunderstood many Catholics who have said the exact opposite.

Christ is the First and the Last, Alpha and Omega, the Only Begotten Son of God, the FirstBorn. He was perfect when He was brought forth by the Father in the pre-mortal life from an Intelligence that was already far advanced of all other intelligences. By being God in the pre-mortal life, He was God at first. We knew Him as the Son of God in pre-mortal life, and were in awe of Him and His love for all of us. He was and is a Separate Person from God the Father, and both are completely unified in Their will, Their love, Their mercy, Their knowledge, Their power.