OK, I Am Confused. Do Mormons Believe In The Trinity?

[Jerusha]

I understand where you are coming from, Parker. I see some of the same positive message in the BOM that you do. However, the LDS church allows everyone to interpret it according to their own understanding. Thus, many honor the negative message, because it is “sacred scripture.” Anything that can be so easily misunderstood is NOT sacred scripture. And any church that allows people to misunderstand it and use it to justify sin, is seriously in error.

 

[cothrige]

Of course that is not correct. Who gave you that idea? We have a scriptural canon, just like you do; except that our canon includes more books than yours does.

I had understood that you have a list of scriptures, but I was thinking that it was not authoritative. I thought the list itself was not defined in a way to suggest that it is free from all possible error. Was I wrong in that?

One thing though. Please understand that I am aware I am using wildly ridiculous examples, but they are not intended to put some harsh or inaccurate light on your Church or to suggest that what you believe is ridiculous, but it is only to help me understand the reality of how belief in your Church is lived. Sometimes regular daily life doesn’t show much that is helpful, but a more extreme light throws longer shadows, and that can reveal the details. That is why I ask about Mormons who reject the scriptures and accept instead the Gnostic Gospels. Outrageous, I know, but if such is actually not possible then I am definitely wrong about some understanding, and so need to reconsider what I am reading.

That would be a strange Mormon who did not believe in the Book of Mormon. That would be like saying a Catholic who doesn’t believe in the Old or in the New Testament. Every true Mormon believes in the Book of Mormon. If he doesn’t, then he is a freak Mormon. That would be like a Catholic who didn’t believe in the Bible. I am sure there are more Catholics who do not beleive in the Bible than there are Mormons who do not believe in the Book of Mormon.

I hope you haven’t misunderstood me. I wasn’t trying to suggest that Mormons reject the BoM. I realize that Mormons do accept the BoM. However, I am not asking about what does happen, but what can happen. It helps me understand what the lines are in your Church and faith, and so better appreciate what you believe.

As for the Catholics, we believe in an infallible Church, and therefore our canon is authoritative. We hold that there are definitive truths which are not able to be rejected without falling into error. It is an objective infallible truth to us, as it is revealed directly by God.

We certainly have that authority. If a controversy arose concerning doctrine in the Church, the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are the final arbiter as to how the scriptures are to be interpreted. But it is not something that they would like, or need, to do very often. Such controversies do not arise in the Church that often. Rather, they encourage Church members to so acquaint themselves with the standard works, guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that they can act as independent arbiters of what is true doctrine and what is not.

But, am I wrong in understanding that there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that they are right? I would think the “final arbiter” would be the voice of the Spirit to the believer, not the Church or some official in it since that person can never be said to be sharing in any charism of infallibility.

I don’t really understand you very well. Doctrinal understanding is not a “free for all” in the Church. The basic doctrines of the Church are well understood. How many Mormons do you know who believe that the scriptures teach the Trinity as it is understood by Catholics? I have never heard of one!

I fear that you have read my words and thought I was suggesting something about Mormons. I am not, I promise. I am asking entirely hypothetical questions in hopes of learning what is true and what is not about the LDS faith. So, no, I don’t now any Mormon who believes in the Catholic Trinity, and I am not even saying that any do. I was actually just trying to understand what doctrine itself is to a Mormon. We Catholics believe that Church dogma and doctrines are infallibly defined and that sets a standard. So, I am asking about your Church to better understand how you define truth, without objective truth being a factor, and therefore how you also understand and define error and respond to it.

Objective truths are, of course, absolute. If a Church says that A is so without doubt, then A is an infallible truth. But, if a Church says there is no authority on earth which can state anything infallibly then that means that there is always error possible in any statement. In that instance there is no possibility that A can be an absolute truth since, regardless of its origin, there is always a possibility of error. Your canon and other doctrines are declared, I would imagine, by your Church and its adminsitrative bodies. Those bodies are fallible. Those teachings, therefore, are fallible.

Let me say something here. I am uncomfortable with the above. I am trying and trying to type that without making it sound judgmental. Knowing I am Catholic I know it will sound that way. But, Scriptorian and Parker have been immensely gracious to me in sharing with me some measure of knowledge about the LDS view of doctrine and infallibility, or lack thereof, and I have no interest in repaying that with a slight. I do not mean to suggest that your Church or belief should be this or that, or that your belief is wrong because it is not this or that. I am asking to learn what is true for you as a Mormon. Since I do not know I cannot correct you. You must correct me.

 

[dianaiad]

In the first place, When God truely gives a woman to a man in the Bible it’s never as just property, but as a partner. In the second place, whenever a man in the Bible takes a second wife, it never does anything but cause problems between all of the wives involved. That dosn’t sound like something that God would want for anyone. It’s our decisions that cause problems, not God’s.

You are contradicting yourself here.

 

[zerinus]

I had understood that you have a list of scriptures, but I was thinking that it was not authoritative. I thought the list itself was not defined in a way to suggest that it is free from all possible error. Was I wrong in that?

Yes! Our list of scriptures is one of the most authoritative things we have. It forms the theological and doctrinal foundation of our Church. But when you say “free from all error,” what do you mean by that? Do you mean free from spelling error? Do you mean free from typographical error? Do you mean free from scribal error? We believe that no book is free from error, including the Bible which you use. But that does not prevent it from being an infallible source of Christian doctrine to you. Even so, our scriptural canon is an infallible source of Christian doctrine to us, even though it may contain such errors.

As for the Catholics, we believe in an infallible Church, and therefore our canon is authoritative.

We believe in an infallible God, who has revealed the canon of scripture to us; therefore our canon is authoritative.

We hold that there are definitive truths which are not able to be rejected without falling into error.

Same here. That is what we believe too.

It is an objective infallible truth to us, as it is revealed directly by God.

Ditto.

But, am I wrong in understanding that there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that they are right?

Of course there is a guarantee that they are right. You have a doctrine called “ex-cathedra”. You say the Pope is infallible when he speaks “ex-cathedra” (and the number of occasions when he has spoken “ex-cathedra” in Catholic history has been very rare.) We have something equivalent to that in the LDS Church.

I would think the “final arbiter” would be the voice of the Spirit to the believer, not the Church or some official in it since that person can never be said to be sharing in any charism of infallibility.

Not correct. Just as the Pope is infallible only when he speaks “ex-cathedra,” the President of the LDS Church is infallible when he declares doctrine according to the procedure I had outlined in a previous post.

I fear that you have read my words and thought I was suggesting something about Mormons. I am not, I promise. I am asking entirely hypothetical questions in hopes of learning what is true and what is not about the LDS faith.

Thank you for your questions. I am not suggesting that you are being judgmental either. But your hypothesizing about Mormonism must have some basis in fact, otherwise it cannot serve as a suitable basis for discussion.

Objective truths are, of course, absolute. If a Church says that A is so without doubt, then A is an infallible truth. But, if a Church says there is no authority on earth which can state anything infallibly then that means that there is always error possible in any statement. In that instance there is no possibility that A can be an absolute truth since, regardless of its origin, there is always a possibility of error. Your canon and other doctrines are declared, I would imagine, by your Church and its adminsitrative bodies. Those bodies are fallible. Those teachings, therefore, are fallible.

They are not fallible. When a doctrine is canonized by the Church following the procedure outlined above, that makes it an infallible doctrine of the Church. It doesn’t mean that there cannot be any spelling mistakes in it! It means that it can be infallibly trusted to declare true gospel doctrine. Let me try something as an example. We have an Articles of Faith that is roughly equivalent to your creed. You can read it here. We hold these doctrines to be true. They are “infallibly” true, if you want to call it that. Let’s take it from there. What issue do you have with what we consider to be LDS doctrine?

zerinus

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The more important difference between our two theologies is our belief in continuing revelation, leading to an open canon of scripture. In fact, from our point of view, this is the strongest argument in favor of the Apostasy

of the early Christian church.

this does lead one to wonder what if a really great speaker some one well liked and admired comes along finds another testament that is given to him by a couple of angels and it totals denies the BOM and The D&C and such. what happens then?

 

[ParkerD]

This does lead one to wonder what if a really great speaker–some one well liked and admired–comes along, finds another testament that is given to him by a couple of angels and it totally denies the BOM and The D&C and such. What happens then?

 

[cothrige]

Of course there is a guarantee that they are right. You have a doctrine called “ex-cathedra”. You say the Pope is infallible when he speaks “ex-cathedra” (and the number of occasions when he has spoken “ex-cathedra” in Catholic history has been very rare.) We have something equivalent to that in the LDS Church.

Not correct. Just as the Pope is infallible only when he speaks “ex-cathedra,” the President of the LDS Church is infallible when he declares doctrine according to the procedure I had outlined in a previous post.

Please understand that this confuses me a bit. It seems 180 degrees from what is said by others here. Now, in case you get the wrong idea, I am not going to start arguing something from that. I don’t happen to think disagreement among believers constitutes proof of error in a belief or a faith. However, with that said, I am not sure what is what considering this. Have you read the posts of the other LDS members here that seemed to take a different position? What should I make of that? Have I really just misunderstood them? They didn’t seem to indicate I had, so I really thought I was on solid ground.

Thank you for your questions. I am not suggesting that you are being judgmental either. But your hypothesizing about Mormonism must have some basis in fact, otherwise it cannot serve as a suitable basis for discussion.

I agree about hypothesizing. And I really was trying to stay grounded in facts, though I was pushing them quite far on purpose. What I had in mind was using exaggeration in order to be very clear about what I was thinking was being said. Imagine you are talking to somebody and they say “Where I come from a person has the right to defend themselves, no questions asked.” You may say something like “Do you mean that even if I shoot a bus full of preschoolers I could say that I was defending myself, and I wouldn’t get in trouble?” You take what may seem a ridiculous exaggeration, but it shows the other person exactly what you take them to mean, and so they can more easily correct your error. I wasn’t trying to build a model of life in the LDS faith in my examples. I just wanted to give other people an opportunity to correct my misunderstandings, should there be any.

BTW, in the above example I tried very hard to come up with something which woulnd’t sound argumentative, and I couldn’t. That was the best I had. But, in my actual posts I really was not trying to be argumentative. So often on these boards it can be very hard to ask a question without looking like you are setting somebody up for the chop.

They are not fallible. When a doctrine is canonized by the Church following the procedure outlined above, that makes it an infallible doctrine of the Church. It doesn’t mean that there cannot be any spelling mistakes in it! It means that it can be infallibly trusted to declare true gospel doctrine. Let me try something as an example. We have an Articles of Faith that is roughly equivalent to your creed. You can read it here. We hold these doctrines to be true. They are “infallibly” true, if you want to call it that. Let’s take it from there. What issue do you have with what we consider to be LDS doctrine?

zerinus

What issue do I have? Well, none really, or at least I wasn’t trying to take any issue. I just wanted to understand what you believed. It was said that the LDS don’t believe in any infallibility, and several LDS posters took this position. All I was doing was making sure I really understood them correctly, and everything they said seemed to confirm it to me. What you are saying is different, and so I am not sure exactly what that means right now. But, regardless of whether I actually ever do understand the issue entirely, I do appreciate all the answers.

 

[zerinus]

I think tandem responses to some of these questions are helpful. (I assume Zerinus will answer also, and they are always thorough and to the point.)

You are welcome to reply to that if you want, but I was not going to. Some posts do not merit a reply, and are best left unanswered.

zerinus

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

oneGODoneCHURCH;5117683:

I think tandem responses to some of these questions are helpful. (I assume Zerinus will answer also, and they are always thorough and to the point.)

If you look back at the history of the world, there were only a few points in time when there needed to be restoration of authority and of doctrine. Moses needed communication of new doctrine and received it through a divine manifestation, but he received authority from Jethro, his father-in-law, who had priesthood authority.

Joseph Smith wanted to understand what the true doctrine of the Christian gospel was and where the authority was that Christ had given to the apostles by the laying on of hands. He acted on those questions by praying about them. There needed to be a restoration because revelation through the Holy Ghost became no longer the source of doctrine, and for that reason authority was no longer available on the earth either.

If someone asks such questions today sincerely, God has already provided the restored knowledge and the restored authority, so God would neither be expected nor be consistent with His purposes if He were to “send a couple of angels”. He might let that person ask that question for years feeling like they weren’t getting an answer, but eventually they will get answers. Those answers are available on the earth and many people are being led to the answers that make sense to them, are consistent with the Bible, and are fully ratified by the Holy Ghost speaking to their heart.

Having established the pattern for doctrine (prophets and apostles, revelation through the Holy Ghost that is always consistent with the Bible and consistent with the teachings of authorized prophets and apostles), God trusts humankind enough that if someone who is a great speaker comes along and says something totally contrary, He knows that those who really do have the Holy Ghost guiding their life by personal revelation will not be deceived, however wonderful the speaker may appear to be.

Thanks for your reply. I really did not expect one from Zerinus. Yes I agree if that person was to go contrary to the Bible 99% of Christianity would not follow. But my question was in response to Zerinus were he stated that our belief in

continuing revelation, leading to an open canon of scripture

. IN what this new person revels these angels give a testament that is complimentary to the Bible but without saying so totals negates the BOM etc… As the lost tribe of Israel went to Australia instead of the Americas get the idea.

 

[zerinus]

Please understand that this confuses me a bit. It seems 180 degrees from what is said by others here. Now, in case you get the wrong idea, I am not going to start arguing something from that. I don’t happen to think disagreement among believers constitutes proof of error in a belief or a faith. However, with that said, I am not sure what is what considering this. Have you read the posts of the other LDS members here that seemed to take a different position? What should I make of that? Have I really just misunderstood them? They didn’t seem to indicate I had, so I really thought I was on solid ground.

I haven’t read the exchanges that you have had with them. I don’t have the time to read every post. They also tend to reply to many posts and posters whom I would not normally reply to; and so a lot of the back and forth that takes place between Mormons and non-Mormons in these threads does not have much interest for me, therefore I do not read them. So forgive me if I have missed most of the exchanges you have had with other LDS. However, I think I can understand what may be the cause of the confusion you seem to be experiencing here. Mormonism is a new dispensation of the gospel. It is not an offshoot of Catholicism, like Protestantism and other extensions of it. As a result Mormonism has developed its own theological vocabulary which is different from the vocabulary of traditional Christianity. Unfortunately Mormons do not usually try to understand the theological traditions of historical Christianity in terms of its own vocabulary, and so are not able to translate between the two so as to avoid being misunderstood by traditional Christians. Latter-day Saints do not discuss the veracity of their theology in terms of “fallibility” and “infallibility”. But the language they use has its equivalents, and can be translated into that for better understanding by Christians of other faiths.

What issue do I have? Well, none really, or at least I wasn’t trying to take any issue. I just wanted to understand what you believed. It was said that the LDS don’t believe in any infallibility, and several LDS posters took this position. All I was doing was making sure I really understood them correctly, and everything they said seemed to confirm it to me. What you are saying is different, and so I am not sure exactly what that means right now. But, regardless of whether I actually ever do understand the issue entirely, I do appreciate all the answers.

The theological foundation of our religion is rooted in the standard works of the Church. If you really want to understand what we believe and why we believe, then you have to study those. I assume you have read the Bible; you also need to read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. When you have read those, you will be in a better position to know at least what kinds of questions to ask so as to better understand Mormonism.

zerinus

 

[cothrige]

I haven’t read the exchanges that you have had with them. I don’t have the time to read every post. They also tend to reply to many posts and posters whom I would not normally reply to; and so a lot of the back and forth that takes place between Mormons and non-Mormons in these threads does not have much interest for me, therefore I do not read them. So forgive me if I have missed most of the exchanges you have had with other LDS. However, I think I can understand what may be the cause of the confusion you seem to be experiencing here. Mormonism is a new dispensation of the gospel. It is not an offshoot of Catholicism, like Protestantism and other extensions of it. As a result Mormonism has developed its own theological vocabulary which is different from the vocabulary of traditional Christianity. Unfortunately Mormons do not usually try to understand the theological traditions of historical Christianity in terms of its own vocabulary, and so are not able to translate between the two so as to avoid being misunderstood by traditional Christians. Latter-day Saints do not discuss the veracity of their theology in terms of “fallibility” and “infallibility”. But the language they use has its equivalents, and can be translated into that for better understanding by Christians of other faiths.

What you say here is much like what I had expected to find, but which didn’t seem to be the case. You mention that there are “equivalents” of infallibility in your theology which can be translated as such. Would you perhaps be willing to share some idea of what that is? What I mean is what do the LDS normally say when they are thinking of that kind of idea? Is there a text which mentions that which may be available online that I could read? I have to tell you that based on what you have said here it really does sound markedly like what we call infallibility, all the way down to it only being applied in certain circumstances and only regarding definite types of teaching.

The theological foundation of our religion is rooted in the standard works of the Church. If you really want to understand what we believe and why we believe, then you have to study those. I assume you have read the Bible; you also need to read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. When you have read those, you will be in a better position to know at least what kinds of questions to ask so as to better understand Mormonism.

zerinus

Well, I suppose, but when it gets down to it I don’t think that works as well for me as other methods. Even if I read your scriptures through over and over I would never really understand what you believe because I would bring my own baggage and interpretations which are foreign to LDS thinking and that would clutter the process. Your culture informs so much of how you read your scriptures and interpret them, and my own background and way of thinking would interfere. I don’t have LDS sensibilities. With enough study I would know what your scriptures say, but I may never know what they mean. It would be, I think, kind of similar to when George W. Bush thought he could tell Muslims what Islam really teaches, like they don’t know that better than him? I try to avoid that kind of thinking. That is why I will argue what Catholics believe, and what Mormon’s are saying, but generally not what they believe. That is for you to say.

But I still enjoy learning about other people. I watch documentaries, read books or talk to people, depending on what is available. Of course some videos and books have axes to grind, and so can be very misleading. For that reason I try to take everything in such media with a grain of salt, and sometimes an entire salt lick. I prefer asking people themselves. They usually know, and I am able to ask for clarification and can learn much more that way. You also hear from more than one side, which helps keep things more above board, if you know what I mean.

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks for your reply. I really did not expect one from Zerinus. Yes I agree if that person was to go contrary to the Bible 99% of Christianity would not follow. But my question was in response to Zerinus were he stated that our belief in . IN what this new person revels these angels give a testament that is complimentary to the Bible but without saying so totals negates the BOM etc… As the lost tribe of Israel went to Australia instead of the Americas get the idea.

Scott,
I think I have understood your question, but it sounds to me like you’re “pulling Someone’s leg”. God spoke to Old Testament prophets, Christ confirmed those Old Testament prophets’ teachings, added to them, and the Apostles confirmed the doctrine of Christ and added the revelation that the “new covenant” gospel including baptism should go to the Gentile nations and people.

God spoke to Book of Mormon (American continent) prophets, Christ confirmed those teachings and added to them (including bringing them the “new covenant gospel” as the resurrected God the Son when He visited them, and He also visited the other lost tribes of Israel. Perhaps one was in Australia–it’s possible. If so, and if the prophetic writings of the prophets of those people were to come forth to the world, they would be consistent with both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. This is obvious to me, having read both the Bible and the Book of Mormon often enough to understand both.

A question has been asked about the “open cannon of scripture.” We expect to have the writings of other prophets of the lost ten tribes some day. We also have added scriptural cannon from 1978 and from a 1918 vision that was important enough to be added to the Doctrine and Covenants because it added additional light and knowledge to the world about the spirit world after we die.

 

[zerinus]

What you say here is much like what I had expected to find, but which didn’t seem to be the case. You mention that there are “equivalents” of infallibility in your theology which can be translated as such. Would you perhaps be willing to share some idea of what that is? What I mean is what do the LDS normally say when they are thinking of that kind of idea? Is there a text which mentions that which may be available online that I could read? I have to tell you that based on what you have said here it really does sound markedly like what we call infallibility, all the way down to it only being applied in certain circumstances and only regarding definite types of teaching.

Yes, there are such quotes. In this Blog post I have quoted from several past Presidents and leaders of the Church affirming that the standard works are the infallible guide to the theology of the Latter-day Saints—without using the terms “fallible” and “infallible”. I could copy and post them here, but there is no need. You can just as easily read them there.

zerinus

 

[Irish_Kathy]

You are contradicting yourself here.

Hi Dianaiad

In the first place, if I didn’t express myself quite right, it’s only because I’m not a Bible expert by any means. But I have learned enough from other Bible experts that I know a bit about God’s covenant relationship to Mankind (thanks to the likes of Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins and others like them).

However, I don’t believe I am contradicting myself in my statement about how God’s covenant plays out in the Old Testament and how mankind has often responded to it. All you have to do is read the stories in the Bible where men (beginning with Abraham) took more than one wife for any reason. There were always disagreements between the women involved.

However, a true marriage in the Bible is a symbol of God’s covenantal relationship with Mankind. God is always faithful to us. But we are not always faithful to him.

episcopal-dallas.org/forms/WOW_Jan_Feb_2008.pdf

 

[cothrige]

Yes, there are such quotes. In this Blog post I have quoted from several past Presidents and leaders of the Church affirming that the standard works are the infallible guide to the theology of the Latter-day Saints—without using the terms “fallible” and “infallible”. I could copy and post them here, but there is no need. You can just as easily read them there.

zerinus

I did see some interesting statements there which one could naturally presuppose something akin to infallibility. I saw, for instance, “God’s sole mouthpiece” and doctrine presented by the President of the Church as “revelation from God.” I may be wrong, but I suppose it may be natural to assume that if something is revelation from God it is infallible.

I am curious though. You also have this posted on that page:

We sustain the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators to the Church; but we do not consider them to be infallible. No prophet has ever been infallible, in any age of the world, nor claimed to be. A prophet is a prophet when he is acting as such, and speaks by the inspiration of heaven, as taught in this verse:

Here you say that no prophet has ever been infallible, and given the tone of so much on the rest of that page it seems a bit confusing. For me if a person teaches something which can be known to be infallible then that person is, at that time, infallible. Are you using the word here with a meaning different than I would understand it? Do you perhaps mean a person who is incapable of error at any time?

Also, would you say that for the LDS scripture is the sole infallible rule, and that all “infallible” teachings are shown to be so by having been included in the Standard Works? (I am leaving aside that obviously the decision of what is included in scripture must also be infallible of course.) But, I do get the idea that for LDS the word scripture itself may be close to what we Catholics would call infallible teaching, such as implied with the speech “When are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” If that is so, would that then mean that teachings and statements of leaders of the LDS Church which have not been incorporated into scripture would not be considered infallible?

 

[zerinus]

Here you say that no prophet has ever been infallible, and given the tone of so much on the rest of that page it seems a bit confusing. For me if a person teaches something which can be known to be infallible then that person is, at that time, infallible. Are you using the word here with a meaning different than I would understand it? Do you perhaps mean a person who is incapable of error at any time?

Again, compare that with the infallibility of the Pope. Is he always infallible, or is he infallible only when he speaks ex-cathedra? The same is true of a prophet. He is a prophet when he is acting as such.

Also, would you say that for the LDS scripture is the sole infallible rule, and that all “infallible” teachings are shown to be so by having been included in the Standard Works? (I am leaving aside that obviously the decision of what is included in scripture must also be infallible of course.)

Close enough. They are infallible as a guide to Christian doctrine, not infallible in the sense that there are no spelling mistakes in it.

But, I do get the idea that for LDS the word scripture itself may be close to what we Catholics would call infallible teaching, such as implied with the speech “When are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” If that is so, would that then mean that teachings and statements of leaders of the LDS Church which have not been incorporated into scripture would not be considered infallible?

They are not infallible in the sense that doctrinal errors may exist in them; it does not imply that doctrinal errors in them is a common occurrence. Again, compare that with the infallibility of the Pope. The Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex-cathedra. But does that mean that at other times errors in his teachings are a common occurrence? Obviously not. The same principle applies here.

zerinus

 

[cothrige]

Again, compare that with the infallibility of the Pope. Is he always infallible, or is he infallible only when he speaks ex-cathedra? The same is true of a prophet. He is a prophet when he is acting as such.

No, I understand that if you perceive there to be any claim to infallibility it would be only under specific conditions. I just wondered about the specific wording of that quote, which implied something stronger to me.

Close enough. They are infallible as a guide to Christian doctrine, not infallible in the sense that there are no spelling mistakes in it.

No, I wouldn’t think. We don’t use such terms in that way either. Additionally, in scripture we speak of inerrancy, but only regarding that which scripture intends to teach. So, books which are teaching spiritual truths may not be perfect history but that is because the Lord did not intend to deliver a history lesson in that text, but a moral teaching. That is where the guide of the Church is so helpful.

They are not infallible in the sense that doctrinal errors may exist in them; it does not imply that doctrinal errors in them is a common occurrence. Again, compare that with the infallibility of the Pope. The Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex-cathedra. But does that mean that at other times errors in his teachings are a common occurrence? Obviously not. The same principle applies here.

No, certainly, that would be how we would speak as well. Infallible statements have a guarantee, but there are many, many teachings and documents from the Holy Father, saints, Early Church Fathers and so on which are very reliable and sound teaching. But, they merely lack that ultimate guarantee and so over time what they say, sound as it is, might be open to some form of discussion and debate or perhaps even reconsideration. But, not having a claim to infallibility certainly doesn’t mean that something is likely to be wrong, or even that it has any errors in it at all. As a matter of fact I would think that anyone who has managed to be granted the burden of such a high office in a church as that would likely be quite reliable any time they bother to teach.

 

[Scriptorian]

No, I understand that if you perceive there to be any claim to infallibility it would be only under specific conditions. I just wondered about the specific wording of that quote, which implied something stronger to me.

No, I wouldn’t think. We don’t use such terms in that way either. Additionally, in scripture we speak of inerrancy, but only regarding that which scripture intends to teach. So, books which are teaching spiritual truths may not be perfect history but that is because the Lord did not intend to deliver a history lesson in that text, but a moral teaching. That is where the guide of the Church is so helpful.

No, certainly, that would be how we would speak as well. Infallible statements have a guarantee, but there are many, many teachings and documents from the Holy Father, saints, Early Church Fathers and so on which are very reliable and sound teaching. But, they merely lack that ultimate guarantee and so over time what they say, sound as it is, might be open to some form of discussion and debate or perhaps even reconsideration. But, not having a claim to infallibility certainly doesn’t mean that something is likely to be wrong, or even that it has any errors in it at all. As a matter of fact I would think that anyone who has managed to be granted the burden of such a high office in a church as that would likely be quite reliable any time they bother to teach.

This is an interesting topic, infallibility. I had an individual who once told me that everyone can improve their doctrine… everyone.

Even the canonical scriptures have imperfections. For the Bible it may be translation errors, compiling questions, the removal of words or phrases many centuries ago (even among the Jews), or perhaps the addition of them. But for all scripture there is the issue of the medium. There is no way to communicate a perfect message from God to man when you are limited to an imperfect language that is written by imperfect people and read by perhaps even more imperfect people. There are bound to be misunderstandings and things that are unclear.

However, we must be careful to say that we believe the scriptures to be the very word of God. Canonical scripture is unique because it was both written under the influence of Holy Spirit and also brings the Holy Spirit when read with sincerity. The Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, is a perfect medium of truth. So, if you can get it on the writing end and the reading end, the Holy Ghost can enlighten your mind through the scriptures like nothing else can.

So often we Mormons talk about the power of the Holy Ghost in testifying to you after you read first and then pray about the scriptures. But we often forget the power of when you pray first and then read (or when you read with a prayer in your heart). There is power in the careful and honest study of the scriptures.

Every major revelation Joseph Smith ever claimed to receive came from a question he had while studying the scriptures. Yes, every one.

 

[zerinus]

No, I understand that if you perceive there to be any claim to infallibility it would be only under specific conditions. I just wondered about the specific wording of that quote, which implied something stronger to me.

No, I wouldn’t think. We don’t use such terms in that way either. Additionally, in scripture we speak of inerrancy, but only regarding that which scripture intends to teach. So, books which are teaching spiritual truths may not be perfect history but that is because the Lord did not intend to deliver a history lesson in that text, but a moral teaching. That is where the guide of the Church is so helpful.

No, certainly, that would be how we would speak as well. Infallible statements have a guarantee, but there are many, many teachings and documents from the Holy Father, saints, Early Church Fathers and so on which are very reliable and sound teaching. But, they merely lack that ultimate guarantee and so over time what they say, sound as it is, might be open to some form of discussion and debate or perhaps even reconsideration. But, not having a claim to infallibility certainly doesn’t mean that something is likely to be wrong, or even that it has any errors in it at all. As a matter of fact I would think that anyone who has managed to be granted the burden of such a high office in a church as that would likely be quite reliable any time they bother to teach.

Thank you. It looks like we have come to some kind of an understanding then. Are there any other areas of LDS theology that you are not clear about, that you would like to understand better?

zerinus

 

[Catholic20064]

I don’t think our Mormon friends will ever understand any of this until they are willing to experience Catholicism in the Catholic Church without the social pressures of Mormonism. The social pressure starts from the day they are born or from the day they let the Mormon missionaries into their lives. The Mormon missionary gives them a hard sell and tries to manipulate them into feeling the Book of Mormon is true. If you are born in the LDS Church you are told that to be worthy you have to have a testimony of the Book of Mormon. It is impossible to present the truth to them unless they experience the peace of Christ as I did at a Catholic mass in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The best way to understand the Trinity is to experience the Trinity, and I think that’s best done praying in Eucharistic Adoration in a Catholic chapel or attending mass regularly. Until a Mormon is willing to open up to these types of experiences arguing about the Trinity is useless.