Some personal reflections on Catholicism and Mormonism.

[ComradeAndrei]

Jude 3-

3Beloved, although I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, 3 I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones.

The Deposit of Faith is complete. Dogma and doctrine can develop-but there is nothing “new”. That is often the claim laid at the door of the Church, that we “make up” so-called “new” doctrines.

I really don’t see how there can be “new” revelations-and then to top it off, they aren’t even infallible?! If the Mormon “prophets” aren’t infallible, and if they are the leaders of the LDS, then what authority do they have to teach anything if it isn’t definite?

 

[Casen]

Since ONLY Christ was perfect we believe Prophets are not perfect and can make mistakes. There are several examples from the Old Testament where prophets made mistakes and were chastised by God and had to repent. For that reason we don’t believe prophets know everything and every word they utter is pure revelation. However, as God wishes, HE can use them as instruments to disseminate His word and will. Everything a prophet says isn’t considered official church doctrine. It only becomes doctrine when he receives a revelation from God and it is sustained as such.

 

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

The last thing I want to mention before I leave the country (I do not think I will be able to respond for the next week), is concerning what it means to be reluctant to give up this or that.

I am torn between two ideas so I will share both of them.

We are to “be as little children.” We are counseled that there will be preachers who preach to those with “itchy ears.” If “sola scriptura” is what you believe is true and the Bible teaches semi-arianism, then you should be a semi-arian. Or if the Bible teaches strict predestination then you should embrace strict predestination. If you subscribe to the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope explains something in an authoritative way, why would you feel the need to tell the Vicar of Christ that he is way off base? To take a different path on any of these issues would require a pretty strong spiritual reason in my book. We do not choose our beliefs because to believe something different would be uncomfortable. We choose our beliefs because we think that God is the author of truth and we wish to align ourselves with that truth. Who cares what we leave behind when we become a LDS or a Catholic, we are to walk with God. The Pearl of Great price is had for the singular amount of ALL that we have. This includes our sacred cows and our learned prejudices.

But what of the divinely beautiful? Can we not find God through the incredible resonance His truth has with His children, namely us? Are we sure that God did not make doctrines like Eternal Intelligences and the Real Presence so that we could hear Him calling to that part of us that longs to reunite with Him? I suspect this is part of it. It was not until I decided that the Catholic Church and CCC460 could offer me something of the truth I had learned to see in most of God’s interactions with His children that I felt that I could seriously look at what the Catholic Church had to offer. Would God make the idea that He is my Father and I am to become like Him through the Grace proffered by His Son Jesus Christ so incredibly important to me if it could not serve as a signpost on my path back to Him? I think not!

What do I do with the above conflict? I pray. I have faith. I know that a rock is not what I receive when I ask the Father for His will. His Grace is sufficient even for me.

Charity, TOm

Tom,

I just want to thank you for your contributions to this forum. You have given me a renewed appreciation for the religion of my youth and a better understanding of my adopted religion. I’ve learned that one can fully understand the ECF’s and still be LDS in good conscience. I’ve been humbled and impressed and humility is always a good thing. It’s serves us all well to remember that things are not always as black and white as they seem. And, that is a very good reason to not judge the motives of those practicing another faith. Thanks again.

 

[wademann]

ComradeAndrei:

Jude 3-

3Beloved, although I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, 3 I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones.

The Deposit of Faith is complete. Dogma and doctrine can develop-but there is nothing “new”. That is often the claim laid at the door of the Church, that we “make up” so-called “new” doctrines.

I really don’t see how there can be “new” revelations-and then to top it off, they aren’t even infallible?! If the Mormon “prophets” aren’t infallible, and if they are the leaders of the LDS, then what authority do they have to teach anything if it isn’t definite?

I have always been taught in church, that we should pray about any teachings, no matter who delivers it, so that we can gain a personal knowledge that it is truth. If we are sincere and have a contrite spirit, the Holy Ghost will testify to us. This has worked for me.

 

[TOmNossor]

Casen:

RE: But what of the divinely beautiful? Can we not find God through the incredible resonance His truth has with His children, namely us? Are we sure that God did not make doctrines like Eternal Intelligences and the Real Presence so that we could hear Him calling to that part of us that longs to reunite with Him? I suspect this is part of it. It was not until I decided that the Catholic Church and CCC460 could offer me something of the truth I had learned to see in most of God’s interactions with His children that I felt that I could seriously look at what the Catholic Church had to offer. Would God make the idea that He is my Father and I am to become like Him through the Grace proffered by His Son Jesus Christ so incredibly important to me if it could not serve as a signpost on my path back to Him? I think not!

Could you please explain this paragraph a little more? I’m no intellectual and I’m not sure if I understood correctly.

Well, I am back from vacation. Thank you for the kind words.

The above paragraph was to contrast this:

TOm:

We do not choose our beliefs because to believe something different would be uncomfortable. We choose our beliefs because we think that God is the author of truth and we wish to align ourselves with that truth. Who cares what we leave behind when we become a LDS or a Catholic, we are to walk with God. The Pearl of Great price is had for the singular amount of ALL that we have. This includes our sacred cows and our learned prejudices.

I do not know how to balance these ideas. How do we know when those beliefs we find “divinely beautiful” are really merely “sacred cows?” I do not think we can afford to ignore that which speaks to our soul. At the same time, I do not think we can afford to be led about by teachings and practices that make us feel good AND COMFORTABLE.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

One thing though - God did not create evil. He cannot create evil. You may take a indirect route and say He allowed free will, and free will led to evil, and thus God indirectly is involved. But it was never God’s plan (nor intention) for there to be evil.

As I mentioned (giving Augustine – the one who actually lived in 354AD not the one from this board – credit) I think evil as non-existence is possibly part of the solution to the problem of evil. I would disagree that the choosing of non-good was never God’s plan. I believe Christ was “slain from the foundation of the world.”

tkdnick:

Something I have always struggled with in regards to predestination…God in omnipotent. That means He knows if, or when, you will come to Him. If that’s the case, why does He try before that time? Or, if He knows you will never come to Him, why does He try? It is one of those mysteries that I have to submit my will to The Church.

I would suggest that the totality of who we are when we accept the call of God, be it at age 16 or age 61, is the summation of all those things in our lives before that time. So calls from God that are seemingly unheard are never truly unheard. Paul had been actively kicking “against the PRICKS” before he finally heard.

tkdnick:

Something I dislike about LDS theology is that there is too much detail for me. Too much is known. This takes away from the mystery of it. For me, I think it brings God down closer to our level. Makes Him too easily understood and tangible.

An interesting comment that I think I have heard before. To me the idea that binding doctrine is contained within the 4 standard works and no where else gives great freedom. The theological ideas presented over our short 200+ year history gives me a spring board from which to form my own ideas. As I mentioned above, I once wished we had something similar to the CCC, but today I am happy to work through my own questions.

tkdnick:

1. I would gain the support system the LDS church has.
2. I would gain the solid family environment.
3. I would gain the great social evironment.
4. I would lose the wonderful real presence of Jesus.
5. I would lose the lives of the saints.
6. I would lose that spiritual connection all Catholics have that I don’t think anyone else does (at least that I’ve seen).
7. I would lose the largest church “family” (1.1+ billiion members).

The loss 1 & 2 would be a huge problem for me. Strictly speaking I have found no way to pick up #1 and still be a LDS. I can have much of #2 as a LDS, but I have “holy envy” for your loss #1.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

DeFide:

Have you seen this thread?:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=54702

another link:

peterkreeft.com/topics/evil.htm

Peter Kreeft’s website has more on why there needs to be an Uncaused Cause, whether you call that “God” or not.

I enjoyed the PeterKreeft site. I have studied Theodicy a little, reading a little Plantinga, and a very little Aquinas and Augustine. I included a few of these ideas in my above post. If you would like to discuss Theodicy (Why is their evil?) we can do this in another thread. I believe the LDS solution to this problem is radically superior to the solution of any Creation ex Nihilo adherents.

Concerning the Uncaused Cause, I believe a broad definition of the “Uncaused Cause” would fit well within LDS theology. In addition to this, Blake Ostler has effectively addressed Kalaam’s Infinity arguments (something that I do not necessarily think must be done to place LDS theology in alignment with the “uncaused cause” structure). Anyway, this is also something for another thread. I am less informed and excited about this line of inquiry, but I can play a little if desired.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

ComradeAndrei:

Jude 3-

3Beloved, although I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, 3 I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones.

The Deposit of Faith is complete. Dogma and doctrine can develop-but there is nothing “new”. That is often the claim laid at the door of the Church, that we “make up” so-called “new” doctrines.

I really don’t see how there can be “new” revelations-and then to top it off, they aren’t even infallible?! If the Mormon “prophets” aren’t infallible, and if they are the leaders of the LDS, then what authority do they have to teach anything if it isn’t definite?

Two things that we can pursue from here if you like (but again probably on a different thread).

First, I believe this scripture was absolutely correct in that it counseled that those non-Apostles who claimed to reveal new doctrine were indeed to not be trusted. This was the purpose of Jude’s letter at this point. He was talking about the heretical teachings of those of which he knew. In context this was a declaration that revelation had ceased and the deposit of faith was complete so do not follow the claimed revelators. It is pretty well accepted that Jude was written before (decades before even) Revelations so this interpretation is a little troubling for sola scripturists and Catholics anyway.

So I see two avenues a LDS can address this. 1. It is fine for the 1830+ prophets to continue to reveal because Jude is speaking of the end of revelation in the first century and against the false prophets in this timeframe. 2. It is problematic to assume that Jude is strictly speaking against all revelation from God because the revealed book of Revelations certainly came to John on Patamos after Jude wrote his epistle.

Second, I have put my struggle over the “development of doctrine” on the back burner. On the one had I think Cardinal Newman does a wonderful job elaborating upon how doctrine had developed and even includes a powerful apologetic on the seven characteristics of a valid development. On the other hand, Newman was roundly criticized as presenting a non-Catholic view of development when he first published. Orestas Brownsen is a good example. While Newman’s works in my mind lay to rest Protestant claims (“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”), I have somewhat recently become less convinced that his work can properly be considered Catholic. My close association with an intelligent SSPX Catholic at work is of no help in these examinations. But my Mormonism allows for a lot of “yea but,” so perhaps my assessment of Catholicism should allow for more “yea but” than I might allow for.

Anyway, if someone is particularly interested in one of these two topics, another thread would be interesting (if too many “another threads” get started, I might be very slow to address things).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

Tom,

I just want to thank you for your contributions to this forum. You have given me a renewed appreciation for the religion of my youth and a better understanding of my adopted religion. I’ve learned that one can fully understand the ECF’s and still be LDS in good conscience. I’ve been humbled and impressed and humility is always a good thing. It’s serves us all well to remember that things are not always as black and white as they seem. And, that is a very good reason to not judge the motives of those practicing another faith. Thanks again.

Thank you very much for your words, they are too kind.

My engagement on the Internet and most specifically with AugustineH354 (although there are others too) have been very humbling for me as well. Actually, I was fairly ignorant when I started, but the presence of those better educated than me (and yet convinced evidence points a different direction), has been a constant source of humility for me. It is troubling to think that what seems to be so clear to you is not clear to others. When you cannot suggest those others are less educated, less capable, or less sincere; your troubles are magnified. However, the world is a more beautiful place with such troubles.

Here is a thread where I have tried to explain what may be the source of our differences. I think this (BORROWED) idea is interesting and worth contemplating.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=8450&st=0

If you want to address this, it might be more inline with this thread, but it also might belong in another thread. If you are going to address my post, please, at least read the “other shoe” paragraph near the end of the first post on the thread.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

The loss 1 & 2 would be a huge problem for me. Strictly speaking I have found no way to pick up #1 and still be a LDS. I can have much of #2 as a LDS, but I have “holy envy” for your loss #1.

Welcome back! Hope your vacation was enjoyable.

Those losses, especially #1, greatly outweigh what I would gain. In fact, loss #1 all by itself outweighs all the gains.

I don’t think it is possible to have loss #1 and remain LDS. Our two churches have such differing views on that subject. I know we’ve discussed this before, but if you wouldn’t mind…how is your ‘holy envy’ different from belief? And if you have such a strong feeling about the real presence, how do you mesh that with your LDS beliefs?

I’m curious, how do you have much of loss #2 while being LDS? Wouldn’t all those Catholic saints be considered apostate Christians by the LDS?

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

I do not think we can afford to ignore that which speaks to our soul. At the same time, I do not think we can afford to be led about by teachings and practices that make us feel good AND COMFORTABLE.

AMEN!!! Thank you!

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

An interesting comment that I think I have heard before. To me the idea that binding doctrine is contained within the 4 standard works and no where else gives great freedom. The theological ideas presented over our short 200+ year history gives me a spring board from which to form my own ideas. As I mentioned above, I once wished we had something similar to the CCC, but today I am happy to work through my own questions.

What seems interesting to me is that until I came to these forums, I’ve never heard an LDS say that binding doctrine is only contained in the 4 standard works. Other people I have talked with believe everything that the current prophet (and most past prophets) says. For me, they have WAY too much detail about those things that our minds really cannot grasp. I am more comfortable with the idea that binding doctrine is only found in the 4 standard works.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Welcome back! Hope your vacation was enjoyable.

Those losses, especially #1, greatly outweigh what I would gain. In fact, loss #1 all by itself outweighs all the gains.

I don’t think it is possible to have loss #1 and remain LDS. Our two churches have such differing views on that subject. I know we’ve discussed this before, but if you wouldn’t mind…how is your ‘holy envy’ different from belief? And if you have such a strong feeling about the real presence, how do you mesh that with your LDS beliefs?

I’m curious, how do you have much of loss #2 while being LDS? Wouldn’t all those Catholic saints be considered apostate Christians by the LDS?

Yes, vacation was fun. It is good to have folks speaking English to me again. I really need to study before I go to a foreign country again.

My feelings on the real presence are basically that it is beautiful, very defendable from scripture and Early Church history, but not something that I can embrace in any real sense as a LDS. Were I to become overwhelmed by the real presence as a REALITY, I believe I would need to be Catholic. I have spent an hour in an adoration chapel and I enjoyed praying, but I was not overwhelmed. I choose not to partake of the sacrament when offered by the incredibly liberal priest of the parish my parents grew up in. Part of me regrets this, but it would have been inappropriate for me to have taken the sacrament (even though my Pagan brother-in-law and largely atheist sister did).

So I would be happy in many ways for the real presence to be something I was sure was reality. I would be especially happy if the CoJCoLDS were to have originally embraced the real presence or left greater ambiguity than I currently see (it is pretty hard to see some REAL real presence when those blessing, passing, and presiding do not). I can also say that John 6 and the writings of the Early Church present something that non-Catholics must explain away not something that Catholics for which Catholics can be attacked (IMO).

Were I a Catholic there would be some things that I accepted because of the authority of the Catholic Church despite the fact that they are not most clearly taught from the Bible or …. As a LDS I accept that the real presence is not a doctrine taught by Jesus Christ because I have other reasons to accept the LDS authority.

Concerning the Saints, I do not believe Apostate Christianity is some evil organization. The Catholic Church is/was God’s way of preserving His witness and the Bible, and it provided a way to bring millions to Christ despite the fact its authority was apostate in 1830. I do not believe that the Peterine authority was passed to the church, but there was some authority and there has never ceased to be men united with Christ.

Do you believe that the Southern Baptist convention has an authority similar to the Papal authority? Do you have a problem with Southern Baptist miracles and/or Saints?

Also the thread I linked to will explain how Saints and miracles could mean even more than this (but it is quite long).

Concerning binding doctrine, it is tough to distinguish between how one must follow the prophet but that binding doctrine is included solely in the 4 standard works. I have found a way to balance this in my mind, but it is not necessarily something that I think needs to be emphasized. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the D&C, Harold B. Lee, and others have spoken of these ideas; but it certainly is not emphasized.

Charity, TOm

 

[AugustineH354]

Hey Tom,

I too want to welcome you back from vacation. Sounds like you had a goodtime. I have not looked at the message boards for 4 days now, so I am just now reading your posts from yesterday and today.

You wrote:

I have somewhat recently become less convinced that his work can properly be considered Catholic…>>

Would you mind explaining what has recently changed your mind on this important issue?

Grace and peace,

Aug

P.S. BTW, I finally found that map book (yesterday), it was still in the copier! Sheesh, what a dummy, good thing my head is attached….

 

[TOmNossor]

AugustineH354:

Hey Tom,

I too want to welcome you back from vacation. Sounds like you had a goodtime. I have not looked at the message boards for 4 days now, so I am just now reading your posts from yesterday and today.

You wrote:

I have somewhat recently become less convinced that his work can properly be considered Catholic…>>

Would you mind explaining what has recently changed your mind on this important issue?

Grace and peace,

Aug

P.S. BTW, I finally found that map book (yesterday), it was still in the copier! Sheesh, what a dummy, good thing my head is attached….

Ok. I guess since this is your thread.

I need to get back to my 3 huge white books, but here goes a little of my thoughts.

Orestes Brownson would suggest that Newman’s essay was not orthodox Christianity. I think this was a very prevalent view of Catholics for the first few years after Newman published. Eventually more and more embraced his ideas and they have become very well accepted.

So is it ok for Newman’s essay on development to be a development in itself? Perhaps?

Does this development (if it is a development) abide by the seven characteristics of a true development as espoused by Newman’s essay? Perhaps??

Does TOm hold the Catholic Church to a higher standard when he evaluates their peculiarities than he holds the CoJCoLDS? Perhaps? Life is hard when one is so BIASED as I am.

Some interesting things I have discovered (and I need to share with 3DOP since they relate to some of the stuff we discussed). Pope Pius X (the much admired Pope of those who are ultra-traditional) embraced Newman’s essay generally.

Orestes Brownson seemed fine with Johann Adam Möhler’s Theory of Doctrinal Development.

In fact, it seems to me that Newman (who should know a lot about what he was trying to communicate) and those who embrace his essay point to Mohler’s essay as expressing a similar idea. Brownson and those who have problems with Newman suggest the two express different ideas.

Anyway, “recently” in the post you quoted really meant about 3-4 months ago. I am concentrating on my big white books (slowly but surely). And my mind is only in flux. I still think Newman is essential, I just wonder how much shifting is necessary for the church to embrace Newman.

I am glad you found your map book and I am similarly fortunate that my head is attached otherwise it would still be on my good vaction (perhaps that would be good and perhaps there is truth to this).

Charity, TOm