Mormon shift toward more traditional Christianity?

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

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.

If that’s the case, then LDS are not obligated to believe “Official Declaration 1”, because it is a contradiction of what is the standard works. It was placed into the standard works in 1890, but at that point, that official declaration was contrary to the standard works.

 

[mormon_fool]

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?

I have heard plenty about it and wink-wink we actually don’t know much about the first half of the couplet. I like what Roger Keller wrote:

Now, unfortunately, a lot of the anti-Mormon material that we find ourselves in need of addressing is often based on popular Mormonism or Mormon mythology. I’ve heard Bob Millet in several contexts recently remind various groups of people that he and I have been addressing that just because somebody in Church says something it doesn’t make it doctrine of the Church. Consequently a playground for so many anti-Mormons becomes the* Journal of Discourses*. Well Brigham Young said “such and such”; yeah, so Brigham Young said it, so what? The real issue, when people say, “well what is the doctrine of the Church?” is the question of what is in the canon. What do you hear the prophet saying today across the pulpit, what are we hearing in General Conference and what are we finding in the official publications of the Church? That’s the doctrine of the Church and if we’re not finding what Brigham Young said back there about Adam-God or whatever, it isn’t doctrine of the Church and we don’t need to get caught up in trying to defend something that somebody once said.

**Also again in this early morning context I think one of the best suggestions made was that there is a wonderful little phrase and it is “I don’t know.” Too often we hate to say that-we’re the restoration; we’re supposed to know everything. **Well happily President Hinckley has been using that phrase with a certain degree of regularity, especially about things that were on the periphery of the doctrine of the Church where we just don’t know. And now we don’t have to defend ourselves against those things. What we need to do is to educate members of the Church to say “I don’t know” when they ought to and we might have fewer Mormon mythologies circulating.

ref: fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003KelR.html

 

[oat_soda]

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.

ambiguity and uncertainty is where the devil does his work. God fully revealed himself in his Word and there will be no other. all the scriptures are about him.

catholicism is a religon of the Word. so when it comes down to it, there is only room for better defining a doctrine. truth by definition, like God, is unchangeable. the closer a doctrine extracts the truth, the less changable it is. God can’t contradict himself and niether can his doctrines.

in mormonism, truth changes like the wind. this should tell you something is wrong.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

If that’s the case, then LDS are not obligated to believe “Official Declaration 1”, because it is a contradiction of what is the standard works. It was placed into the standard works in 1890, but at that point, that official declaration was contrary to the standard works.

I think OD-1 fits well within the prophet’s perogative to make “official pronouncements clarifying doctrinal understanding or adapting doctrinal applications to particular circumstances” (see my EOM quote). The church members were not bound until they consented to be bound. Once it was placed in the standard works OD-1 became more than just “a man speaking”. At that point HBL’s criteria no longer applies and the contradiction card can’t be played to make OD-1 un-binding.

 

[mormon_fool]

mormon fool:

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.

One thing I did failed to point out is that LDS members might debate me on a model for translation and how that it affects the readings. Some mormons might be laboring under a version of Nick’s “perfect” translation. On the informed end of the mormon spectrum there are competing models for the translation: whether it was “tight” (closely literal), “loose” (more conceptual lee-way granted to express things in modern terms), or an eclectic mixture. Scholars like Royal Skousen and Blake Ostler are looking at historical data and doing textual criticism to support their competing models.

Regardless, of what model is used, I suppose that there is still a LDS consensus that overall Book of Mormon doctrine on the Godhead does not significantly change with the rewording in this verse. We just apply different logic and assumptions to reach the same conclusion!

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

Again, I think Mormon Fool has addressed just about everything.

LDS like Catholics do have “authoritative interpretation.” General Authorities are the only folks who have stewardship over then entire church. Their interpretation of scripture is to be preferred to the interpretation of others who do not have such stewardship. Still like the ordinary magisterium these authoritative interpretations are not guarded by an infallibility charism.

At the same time we as individuals are responsible for our own relationship with God. We are not saved by believing the words of the Prophets, by partaking of the sacrament, by baptism, by celestial marriage, by … The ordinances I listed are two way agreements between God and the individual. The reliance upon Christ that allows us to keep these agreements results in our becoming one who is united with Christ. This is an individual path aided most importantly by Christ, but also by a community of saints. Thus, we rely on Christ, but also “follow the Prophet.”

The individual enlightenment of the LDS as they ponder the scriptures and church teachings is afforded an importance as well in that one is saved no faster than they gain intelligence seems like a solid view. But again this intelligence is associated with a uniting with God and not merely associated with an accumulation of knowledge. This intelligence also must change the believer such that it aids in their BECOMING.

I really do not see the Catholic Church as being radically different. Right belief does not save the Catholic. It is the relationship with Christ. And while I believe the two way nature of LDS and early church ordinances was something partially lost in the Catholic sacraments, I still do not believe that the Grace afforded the believer who partakes of the sacraments automatically saves in Catholic theology. Salvation for a Catholic is also an individual path relying upon Christ, but aided by the community of fellow Catholics.

Charity, TOm

BTW, I assumed you were joking (in some unusual way) I was just trying to joke back.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

I think OD-1 fits well within the prophet’s perogative to make “official pronouncements clarifying doctrinal understanding or adapting doctrinal applications to particular circumstances” (see my EOM quote). The church members were not bound until they consented to be bound. Once it was placed in the standard works OD-1 became more than just “a man speaking”. At that point HBL’s criteria no longer applies and the contradiction card can’t be played to make OD-1 un-binding.

Well how did it even get that far in light of HBL’s quote? It was contradictory to the standard works up until the very point it was put in them.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

One thing I did failed to point out is that LDS members might debate me on a model for translation and how that it affects the readings. Some mormons might be laboring under a version of Nick’s “perfect” translation. On the informed end of the mormon spectrum there are competing models for the translation: whether it was “tight” (closely literal), “loose” (more conceptual lee-way granted to express things in modern terms), or an eclectic mixture. Scholars like Royal Skousen and Blake Ostler are looking at historical data and doing textual criticism to support their competing models.

I’ve heard about an original manuscript of the translation, and that the OM is slightly different (grammatical fixes, etc) that the published version. Is there a place to purchase or at least see this OM?

 

[TOmNossor]

Catholic Dude:

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.

On the difficulty of knowing when the Prophet speaks as the Prophet I want to offer a quote and a question.

Over time one can know that OD1 was binding because it ultimately was accepted by common consent. I see the idea of common consent as sort of charism of the CoJCoLDS (although still not infallible, but as close as we get). Still in the heat of the moment one is required to seek personal confirmation of the truth of some given statement. In the beginning this will be done by the highest quorums of the church, but ultimately we are all to seek our own confirmation. For those who do not seem spiritually in tune (I have been there before), eventually the idea of common consent can give us more assurance than we had before.

Within the Catholic Church it is not always obvious if the Pope is or is not exercising the charism of infallibility. Here is a quote. Was this an exercise of Papal Infallibility?
Pope John Paul II:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable Brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my Apostolic Blessing.

What think ye?

Charity, TOm

BTW, Pope JPII actually did not “originally post” the above, but he did write it.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Well how did it even get that far in light of HBL’s quote? It was contradictory to the standard works up until the very point it was put in them.

HBL’s quote says that the Prophet can in fact receive new revelation. Here is the relevant part.

“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.”

I guess you could read the fact that after this the conflicting with scripture is mentioned and that therefore the Prophet is not able to do this, but I would respond with two things.

First, I do not think that is necessarily demanded by the text. It actually never occurred to me that the ending of that quote was limiting God’s revelation from contradicting things that appeared to be revelations from the past that had been accepted by common consent.

Second, I do not think OD1 conflicts with previous scripture. I believe Polygamy was a practice God calls his church to during periods of time. Why He did this? When the need ceased? What good it did? And other questions, I cannot perfectly answer. But I believe that in 1890 (or thereabouts) it was better that the practice cease than that it continue towards bringing about God’s purposes. I do not think this is necessarily inconsistent with the witness of Polygamy throughout the scriptural history of the church (Old Testament and Restoration).

In any case, my understanding of the HBL quote and the underlying structure it builds upon from the D&C is that the Prophet is not restrained in any way accept to the truth as best he understands it from his revelations from God.
I look to Peter’s change when he extended the gospel to the gentiles. Previously Jesus Christ had said that the Apostles were not to go to the gentiles, but after Christ was gone Peter received supernatural public revelation. This came through a vision and an interpretation of that vision, and Peter declared that the church would change so that the gospel would go to the gentiles. This was accepted by the leadership and the church at the first council.
LDS claim that Peter’s charism is identical to Gordon B. Hinckley’s charism when it comes to receiving revelation and leading the worldwide church. This is a very big part of the restoration.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

TOmNossor:

Again, I think Mormon Fool has addressed just about everything.

Hey, Tom.

Glad to see you posting here. I am sorry for butting and fielding some questions that were addressed to you. I like your answers because you are knowledgable enough to make comparative statements about both faiths, something I can’t do. Which means I have a hard time appealing to what should be fair to both sides.

The Catholic posters here have me at a similiar disadvantage since they obviously know more about mormonism than I do about catholicism. For that I have a great respect them for taking the time to participate with a fool like me.

I probably need to take a long break from this board soon so I can get some work done. I get too addicted here. I can’t just write one post!

 

[TOmNossor]

mormon fool:

Hey, Tom.

Glad to see you posting here. I am sorry for butting and fielding some questions that were addressed to you. I like your answers because you are knowledgable enough to make comparative statements about both faiths, something I can’t do. Which means I have a hard time appealing to what should be fair to both sides.

The Catholic posters here have me at a similiar disadvantage since they obviously know more about mormonism than I do about catholicism. For that I have a great respect them for taking the time to participate with a fool like me.

I am probably need to take a long break from this board soon so I can get some work done. I get too addicted here. I can’t just write one post!

Don’t leave. Don’t be too addicted. Don’t … Well, do what you must.

I actually am very happy you post. I think you and I see the CoJCoLDS very similarly. I do think there is some advantage in being able to compare and contrast the two faiths so I try to add that a little. To me LDS answers to our critics are not perfect, but in many ways they are superior to the answers other faiths provide to their critics. For this reason when someone says Clement of Rome did not put forth a number of LDS doctrines in his writings, I respond that he didn’t put forth a number of Catholic doctrines in his writings either.

As you will probably not be too surprised about, I am camping tonight.

After this I will be going out of town. For the first 3 days or so I will likely have a lot of Catholic/Mormon discussion, but may not be on the internet at all. Then I must go to work.

Anyway, I am thrilled when you field questions. I do not think anyone specifically wants me to answer.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

I look to Peter’s change when he extended the gospel to the gentiles. Previously Jesus Christ had said that the Apostles were not to go to the gentiles, but after Christ was gone Peter received supernatural public revelation. This came through a vision and an interpretation of that vision, and Peter declared that the church would change so that the gospel would go to the gentiles. This was accepted by the leadership and the church at the first council.

Actually…Jesus is the person who told His aspotle’s to go out to all the nations. Matthew 28:18-20 " And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Peter and the other apostles were following Jesus’ command.

 

[tkdnick]

Fool and TOm:

Thanks for answering questions about official doctrine, common consent, etc. I have a curiousity question (don’t kill this cat please)…Let’s say a doctrine/teaching goes out for common consent (however that happens) and some people support and some don’t. What happens to the doctrine/teaching at that point? Is it “moved forward” as official, or is there more discussion, or is “squashed”? Has there ever been an example of a doctrine/teaching going out for common consent and not receiving the consent of the people?

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

I probably need to take a long break from this board soon so I can get some work done. I get too addicted here. I can’t just write one post!

Yeah, these forums are pretty addicting. At least they’re educational and fun (mostly). And I must say, eventhough we may strongly disagree about stuff, and not understand each other all the time, and get frustrated on occasion, I am very grateful to be able to discuss with several LDS about LDS beliefs, practices, etc. It has helped educate me more toward your faith. Until I found these forums, the only info I had about the LDS church came from 1 LDS friend and “anti-mormon” literature.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

I’ve heard about an original manuscript of the translation, and that the OM is slightly different (grammatical fixes, etc) that the published version. Is there a place to purchase or at least see this OM?

These things are available but they are exhorbitantly expensive:

fair-lds.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?page=FOS/PROD/BM/CC-34400031

Actually we have ~28 % of the OM and it badly damaged and fragmented. We have all the Printer’s Manuscript, which was the copy they made before getting it to press.

Too expensive for a poor college student. Some of Skousen’s work with the text has trickled down to the net and more should be on the way.

A recent interview with Skousen was interesting:
timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=1439

Some more stuff FYI:
farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=NzI5MDY2ODc2LTExLTAucGRm&type=amJtcw==

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

These things are available but they are exhorbitantly expensive:

fair-lds.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?page=FOS/PROD/BM/CC-34400031

Actually we have ~28 % of the OM and it badly damaged and fragmented. We have all the Printer’s Manuscript, which was the copy they made before getting it to press.

Too expensive for a poor college student. Some of Skousen’s work with the text has trickled down to the net and more should be on the way.

A recent interview with Skousen was interesting:
timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=1439

Some more stuff FYI:
farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=NzI5MDY2ODc2LTExLTAucGRm&type=amJtcw==

$47.95 isn’t that bad. A little expensive, but not crazy-expensive. though, that’s another story for a college student. If my LDS studies continue to grow, I think that would be a good investment.

That Skousen guy has been working on that project full-time for 17 years?!?!?!?!? That’s A LONG time!

That last link is to a book!

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Actually…Jesus is the person who told His aspotle’s to go out to all the nations. Matthew 28:18-20 " And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Peter and the other apostles were following Jesus’ command.

I am aware of this statement by Jesus, but extending the gospel to non-Jews was more than just taking it to all nations.

Also, Peter personally, and the Bible account generally sure suggest that supernatural public revelation was the pathway to this truth and that it was in fact a change from what existed before.

I have thought about the possibility that the extension of the gospel was a Newman-esque development, but I think this would be a huge stretch. Visions, revelations, and change seem apparent in Peter’s actions.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

I am aware of this statement by Jesus, but extending the gospel to non-Jews was more than just taking it to all nations.

How so?

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Fool and TOm:

Thanks for answering questions about official doctrine, common consent, etc. I have a curiousity question (don’t kill this cat please)…Let’s say a doctrine/teaching goes out for common consent (however that happens) and some people support and some don’t. What happens to the doctrine/teaching at that point? Is it “moved forward” as official, or is there more discussion, or is “squashed”? Has there ever been an example of a doctrine/teaching going out for common consent and not receiving the consent of the people?

I believe truth is truth. I look to the “common consent” idea as form of charism for the CoJCoLDS. In this it seems that things like Adam-God died in the highest quorums. The first presidency decided no elaboration was necessary at one point and one of the quorum of the twelve at the time was quite opposed to the idea. As I have said in the past these tests provide a minor point of evidence for the church in that I do not see much evidence of doctrines accepted by common consent being latter disavowed (although Adam-God is the best disavow-ment example I am aware of anyway).

I believe that if God were to reveal something that was tough and the church were to reject it that those who rejected it would be accountable to God for it. With the idea of common consent as a charism one might argue that nothing true from God would not be accepted by common consent. I am not sure I would do this though since again there is no absolute infallibility.

The highest quorums have spent a great deal of time hammering out truths that the Prophet revealed. To my knowledge this is the best example of not passing the “common consent” test. But after the details were fixed and consensus (reportedly divine consensus by the majority of accounts) was reached, the church accepted such things. I think the case can be made that when the highest quorums agree upon something that is a non-infallible guarantee of its truth. Still it does not become binding until accepted by common consent, which would be a secondary and more sure but still non-infallible guarantee of its truth.

Charity, TOm