Mormon shift toward more traditional Christianity?

[mormon_fool]

ex-mormon:

Fool,

Can you make the same argument with regard to the Book of Commandments vs the Doctorine and Covenants?

ex-mo

No. With the Book of Mormon, all I see is an attempt to faithfully transmit the message of its ancient authors. With the revelations in the BoC and D&C I allow for its then living author to develop both doctrinally and in improving communication skills and for this maturity to be reflected in his publications.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Then why change any of them?

To convey the original author’s meaning with more clarity to a modern audience. I think it is an aid to those less careful readers among us who might miss rather obvious contextual clues or look at isolated verses at the expense of the big picture.

By the way, the Book of Mormon chapter you brought was used prominently in Magaret Barker’s (A Methodist scholar)presentation in the DC conference about how well the Book of Mormon fits with a 6th century BC Jerusalem backdrop .

 

[ex-mormon]

mormon fool:

I like this insightful comparison. It is probably why the founders allowed for amendments to the constitution. So the country’s “canon” could grow in response to the needs and accumulated wisdom of the people.

Yes an amendment serves this purpose after it passes all three branches of the government and ratified by the states without changing one word of the original document. The right to have an abortion is argued to be a constitutional right, where is that written in the constitution? The Founding Fathers did not intend it to be a living-breathing document that is changed or reinterpreted without amendment or even footnotes, at the will or whim to serve political correctness. The Bible and the BOM should be preserved in the same way. Why are there no footnotes in the BOM for these addition, deletions, and word changes?

ex-mo

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

To convey the original author’s meaning with more clarity to a modern audience. I think it is an aid to those less careful readers among us who might miss rather obvious contextual clues or look at isolated verses at the expense of the big picture.

Wasn’t it translated perfectly from the beginning? Didn’t JS get one symbol (or set of symbols) at a time, and once it was translated correctly, it disappeared and new stuff appeared? If that’s the case, then how could there possibly be need to better convey an already perfectly translated writing?

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Wasn’t it translated perfectly from the beginning?

I think we can all agree that the Book of Mormon was not a perfect translation. Excusably so, as the title page warns:

“And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God”

The actually process of the translation is unknown as Joseph Smith only affirmed that it was translated by the gift and power of God. What you refer to sounds like it comes from a statement from David Whitmer, but that invites the question of how he could possibly know. The assertion is counter-factual since there are obvious errors in what we have of the dictaction manuscript and no punctuation.

 

[Chris-WA]

First I don’t see how the change denies Mary is the mother of God. She is. Verse 16 (and v. 26) clearly identifies the being that is envisioned as “God”:

You may think so, but in relation to your church I think you’re stepping out on your own here. I’ve never heard a Mormon refer to Mary as “Mother of God,” and I certainly don’t believe the LDS church regards her as such. I’ll tell you what, go to your next Sunday school meeting and pose the question, “Is Mary the Mother of God?” and see what kind of response you get, then report back to us.

 

[Chris-WA]

Tom, BJ, and Mormon Fool, I think I’ve read from each one of you at one time or another that Latter Day Saints are only bound by what is contained in your scriptures. And if one of your prophets teaches something that is not later put into your scriptures, it is not binding. Where does that idea come from, and is that written anywhere?

 

[mormon_fool]

Chris-WA:

Tom, BJ, and Mormon Fool, I think I’ve read from each one of you at one time or another that Latter Day Saints are only bound by what is contained in your scriptures. And if one of your prophets teaches something that is not later put into your scriptures, it is not binding. Where does that idea come from, and is that written anywhere?

I think the idea has a genesis as Tom has pointed out with Joseph Smith’s early declaration:

*I *told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.

There are quotes in general authorities that are even more explicit in driving home the points the mormon posters have made about what doctrine is binding.

In 1880, a member of the First Presidency, George Q. Cannon discussed canon:

I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.

In 1907, we have B.H. Roberts description:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.

and later:

It is not sufficient to quote sayings purported to come from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine. Our own people also need instruction and correction in respect of this. It is common to hear some of our older brethren say, “But I heard Brother Joseph myself say so,” or “Brother Brigham preached it; I heard him.” But that is not the question. The question is has God said it? Was the prophet speaking officially?

Stephen Robinson covers this subject well in his widely available book “Are Mormons Christians”. All my quotes are from that source.

allaboutmormons.info/response/general/christians/ser2.htm

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

I think the idea has a genesis as Tom has pointed out with Joseph Smith’s early declaration:

There are quotes in general authorities that are even more explicit in driving home the points the mormon posters have made about what doctrine is binding.

Stephen Robinson covers this subject well in his widely available book “Are Mormons Christians”. All my quotes are from that source.

allaboutmormons.info/response/general/christians/ser2.htm

I never got an answer from TOm on this so maybe you can answer…

Does all this mean that there has been no binding doctrine since the 1978 declaration that blacks can be a part of the priesthood? Does this mean that an LDS does not have to believe anything that President Hinckley has commented on because it’s not in "the scriptures?

 

[mormon_fool]

Chris-WA:

You may think so, but in relation to your church I think you’re stepping out on your own here. I’ve never heard a Mormon refer to Mary as “Mother of God,” and I certainly don’t believe the LDS church regards her as such. I’ll tell you what, go to your next Sunday school meeting and pose the question, “Is Mary the Mother of God?” and see what kind of response you get, then report back to us.

A survey of what you suggest would only solidify my carefully nuanced views that I have already expressed.

As long as we are appealing to mormon consensus. I expect the rank and file of the LDS church to agree with me that there have been no changes in the Book of Mormon that have doctrinal significance.

I would also expect that my fellow LDS christians would agree that in absense of contextual clues and in isolation, the words “Son of God” more clearly identify the person being discussed (Jesus) than “God” does.

Conversely “God”, in isolation and without contextual clues is primarily taken to denote Jesus’s Father, in typical LDS usage. But it is also a well understood and easily demonstrated tenet of LDS doctrine that Jesus is also appropriately called “God”.

The only things that a fellow LDS might want to debate me on is how obvious the contextual clues are (i.e., exegetical issues), minutia about what the original author would have believed (i.e., historical reconstruction), or what the thought processes were behind making the emendation (i.e, mind reading).

That is unless you are seeing some complication that I am not.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

I never got an answer from TOm on this so maybe you can answer…

Does all this mean that there has been no binding doctrine since the 1978 declaration that blacks can be a part of the priesthood? Does this mean that an LDS does not have to believe anything that President Hinckley has commented on because it’s not in "the scriptures?

I thought that Tom’s Harold B. Lee quote when we discussed these issues back in January was particularly telling. Nothing since 1978 has reached the “binding doctrine” status to be sure. And as BHR points out we don’t feel highly obligated to defend teachings that haven’t been exalted to that status.

On the other hand, LDS Christians sustain GBH every conference. Therefore any member disagreeing with President Hinckley on an issue of doctrine does so at their own risk. In those cases, I would hope that those individuals had a solid justification based on their understanding of the scriptures for doing so.

Maybe this quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism will be helpful:

By 1844, the basic doctrinal structure of the Church was in place. Since that time, however, there have been official pronouncements clarifying doctrinal understanding or adapting doctrinal applications to particular circumstances. Some are now included in the Doctrine and Covenants; others are published as official messages of the First Presidency (cf. MFP). Over the years, various procedures and practices have received greater or lesser emphasis as changes have occurred in economic conditions (see Consecration; Tithing; United Order; Welfare), political circumstances (see Church and State; Politics; War and Peace), intellectual atmosphere (see Intellectual History), Church growth (see Organization), and many other areas. The essential doctrine of the Church, however, has remained constant amid such change. Certain Church leaders have written extensively of their understanding of the doctrines of the Church and, as a consequence, have had a significant influence on what many members believe (see treatises on doctrine below). These have included Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, B. H. Roberts, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McConkie. Their writings evidence some differences of opinion on unsettled issues, just as different schools of thought exist among Church members in general on certain issues. Examples include efforts to reconcile current scientific teachings and revealed truths, to ponder the nature of uncreated intelligence, and to define eternal progression. Latter-day Saints have faith that answers will eventually be revealed, and are urged, in the meantime, to seek knowledge by all available means and to show tolerance toward those espousing differing opinions on such subjects.

 

[oat_soda]

mormons are faced with the painful fact that the BOM is a total hoax as well as the BOA and D&C. DNA and archeological evidence prove every historical event in the BOM is a lie. so why does anyone expect mormons to be reasonable with their take on the trinity?

as long as they believe something as blatantly fabricated as the BOM, how can we expect to have a serious dialogue with them. this is why i don’t expect the catholic church to ever have a serious dialogue with the mormon church -they are just too far out there.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Back to the OP:
What the LDS President said in the world 2005 conference–
Hinckley:

My beloved brothers and sisters, on behalf of the worldwide membership of this Church, I extend to our Catholic neighbors and friends our heartfelt sympathy at this time of great sorrow. Pope John Paul II has worked tirelessly to advance the cause of Christianity, to lift the burdens of the poor, and to speak fearlessly in behalf of moral values and human dignity. He will be greatly missed, particularly by the very many who have looked to him for leadership.

You dont hear that everyday!

here is the source
ooops, here
lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,49-1-520,00.html

 

[TOmNossor]

I again am happy Mormon Fool seemed to have answered the majority of the questions. I was going to and will again quote the Harold B. Lee.

President Harold B. Lee, 1973:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

The source of the ideas behind common consent are in the D&C. The CoJCoLDS claims to (and I believe it does) provide a balance between direction from above and common consent from the body of the church.

I agree with MF that there has been nothing binding added to LDS doctrine since 1978. I also agree that as ones who sustain the Prophet (by common consent) when he feels the need to comment on doctrine we should find room for his ideas in our thinking.

Some might suggest that the Proclamation to the Family or some of the other official declarations were binding doctrinally, but I do not see them passing the “common consent” criteria. At the same time I see them (the Proclamation to the Family at least) to be almost identical to Pope John Paul II’s words on ordaining women to be priests Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994 (which I view as not an exercise of Papal Infallibility) in that it was already binding and expressed nothing new.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Catholic Dude:

Back to the OP:
What the LDS President said in the world 2005 conference–

You dont hear that everyday!

here is the source
ooops, here
lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,49-1-520,00.html

I was very happy as I listened to the words of Gordon B. Hinckley concerning Pope John Paul II that day.

Are you Chinese or just silly (or both)?

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

mormon fool:

I thought that Tom’s Harold B. Lee quote when we discussed these issues back in January was particularly telling. Nothing since 1978 has reached the “binding doctrine” status to be sure. And as BHR points out we don’t feel highly obligated to defend teachings that haven’t been exalted to that status.

On the other hand, LDS Christians sustain GBH every conference. Therefore any member disagreeing with President Hinckley on an issue of doctrine does so at their own risk. In those cases, I would hope that those individuals had a solid justification based on their understanding of the scriptures for doing so.

So let me see if I understand you here. Your prophet is only giving binding teaching when he is dictating direct revelation from God. Anything else can be called his own opinion, which would obviously include any explanation or expounding upon that doctrine. If that’s the case, who is the official interpreter of that revelation? Who authoritively teaches it? What guarantee do you have that your prophet has teaching authority? It sounds like you’re limiting his prophetic authority to only the reception of divine revelation.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TOmNossor:

Are you Chinese or just silly (or both)?

Im not Chinese, it was just a joke to anyone who actually bothered to click on the link.

Chris-WA:

So let me see if I understand you here. Your prophet is only giving binding teaching when he is dictating direct revelation from God. Anything else can be called his own opinion, which would obviously include any explanation or expounding upon that doctrine. If that’s the case, who is the official interpreter of that revelation? Who authoritively teaches it? What guarantee do you have that your prophet has teaching authority? It sounds like you’re limiting his prophetic authority to only the reception of divine revelation.

It makes sense to me that the prophet wont be speaking revelations every time he opens his mouth. The problem that bothers me is when we have to decide when he is doing so:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. … And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

I know this is opening a can of worms and there is a fine line when an “infallible” statment is made by either Catholics or LDS. But the concept of saying, “you be the judge, if I the president of the LDS say some doctrine that you know is a contradiction then you dont have to believe it”, is troubling to me.

 

[snowgarden]

I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read Pres. Hinckley said the “**‘As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become” **phrase was just a “couplet.” The Osmonds used that on their “The Plan” album and when I went to BYU it was always quoted…and needlepointed! I then read on an admittedly anti-Mormon board that in an talk to members of the church after his statements, Hinckley adressed the public statements and everybody basically laughed and “winked” like they still believed it, but it’s insider information and not for the masses. Did anyone hear about this?

 

[mormon_fool]

Chris-WA:

So let me see if I understand you here. Your prophet is only giving binding teaching when he is dictating direct revelation from God. Anything else can be called his own opinion, which would obviously include any explanation or expounding upon that doctrine. If that’s the case, who is the official interpreter of that revelation? Who authoritively teaches it? What guarantee do you have that your prophet has teaching authority? It sounds like you’re limiting his prophetic authority to only the reception of divine revelation.

Chris, you asked what constitutes “binding doctrine” and where that idea comes from and I demonstated this with some documentation. Just because there is a rather clear line of demarcation on what is binding doctrine (especially in an apologetic setting), it doesn’t necessarily mean that teachings not quite given that status carry no weight.

We are not dealing with black and white here. In my experience in the LDS church there is a doctrinal spectrum or hierarchy of doctrinal teachings. Sitting at the top are “binding doctrines” found in the scriptures. Some might sub-divide this further and give the “doctrine of Christ” and even higher status. The next level can be called “official doctrine” which comes in the form of pronouncements from the First Presidency. My EOM quote above describes them and TOmN gave an excellent example with “The Proclamation on the Family”.

A level just below that might include the “doctrinal works” which are currently being published/endorsed by the church. I would place conference addresses, current teaching manuals, and books like “Jesus the Christ” in this category. I am not trying to be exhaustive here.

Just because I am classifying doctrine, it doesn’t mean I am marginalizing the authority of the current prophet to officially interpret scripture for the church or significantly influence the content of any category.

The “if its not doctrine, it must be opinion” dichotomy gets rather old (even though it seems some LDS convey this attitude). Not all truths have equal importance. Not all truths are equally well grasped or articulated. Inspite of there being room for ambiguity, uncertainty, and different points of view on fringe issues in the LDS faith; personal revelation can help a person study the words of the prophets, both modern and ancient, and decide what is important.

 

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude:

Im not Chinese, it was just a joke to anyone who actually bothered to click on the link.

It makes sense to me that the prophet wont be speaking revelations every time he opens his mouth. The problem that bothers me is when we have to decide when he is doing so:

I know this is opening a can of worms and there is a fine line when an “infallible” statment is made by either Catholics or LDS. But the concept of saying, “you be the judge, if I the president of the LDS say some doctrine that you know is a contradiction then you dont have to believe it”, is troubling to me.

CD,

I hope you are not advocating that Latter-day Saints shouldn’t think, pray, and study the scriptures for themselves. Why should the LDS be “bound” to simultaneously believe in apparently contradicting doctrines? That sounds mentally painful!