The ECFs must be crazy

[PaulDupre]

TOmNossor:

All teaching is doctrine (on a certain level), but only that formally accepted by common consent teaching is binding doctrine.

Hi TOm,
We all understand the concept in theory. But those of us that have been LDS know that no one ever doesn’t sustain the GAs and the things they propose (unless he is looking to get ex’d or disfellowshipped). Anyone who does not sustain the prophet and his teachings is, by definition, an apostate. And no LDS wants to be suspected of apostacy.

Besides, by the time the matter is submitted for sustaining by the faithful, it is already a fait accompli. Whatever changes are proposed were enacted before the matter was ever presented in sacrament meeting or general conference. Your sustaining vote has no effect on whether or not the changes are enacted.

So the faithful raise their hands as a matter of routine, without ever critically evaluating the merits of the proposal being sustained.

In actual practice, what the prophet says goes. Period. I understand that the process of sustaining is for your spiritual benefit and is not a “vote” per se. How is it significant then that a doctrine is “accepted by common consent” when the surety of unanimous acceptance is built into the process?

God bless you,
Paul

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

Thus, the Church has the freedom to adopt what is useful/good of his writings, and reject what they know to be error precisely because of his lack of authoritative backing.

I can agree the RCC church has the right to reject unorthodox teachings, even if such unorthodoxy is not declared until centuries after the teaching was widely accepted.

This is a wholly different scenario with the “Prophets, seers, and revelators” of the CoJCoLDS, who are expressly given that critically absent authority in the RCC to express and define new doctrine.

I suppose you would say the ECFs weren’t defining “new doctrine” just speculating or engaging in risky apologetics (like Arieh’s link claims) when they were universally subordinationalists.

Oliver Cowdery’s status as an associate president of the LDS church doesn’t put him on a pedestal of infallibility. Where he erred he was subjected to church discipline and had to answer to the prophet. When we understand apostles to be prophets, seers, and revelators; it is a delegatory sense. It does not give them the right to act independently against the express wishes of the head the church (on earth).

This is a critical distinction between the RCC ECfs and the LDS ECFs. Regardless of how we feel about the distinction (ie which is the “better” position),.

Thanks for pointing out this distinction. I think of doctrinal development under the direction of revelators much more acceptable to doctrinal development under non-revelators. Especially if we place non-revelators under the constraint not to present any new doctrine and it is rather obvious (to me anyway) that new doctrine emerged in both cases.

Anyway, back to the present point. When the lds use the Catholic ECFs, as you, Mormon Fool, have attempted to use them, you are performing the fallicious analysis of the first action described in my OC example. To remind you what that is, here it is again:

That you think this comparison is pertinent shows that you have misunderstood my reasoning. In Ziggy’s marriage thread, I defended the idea that “certain people” who were apparently Christians believed in eternal marriage. I supported the idea that this belief was widespread (which you disagreed). I said very little about how this fact actually strengthens the LDS position. I did contend against your notions that the belief was *wrong *just because of Origen’s say-so and that we should posthumously consider everyone who disagreed with him as not in communion with the church.

In Bickmore’s framework, Origen’s “reluctant witness” does provide support for the LDS church because it affirms the mere existance of an LDS-like teaching in the early church by a group that has similiar values to the LDS people. Because you didn’t understand how its mere existance supports Barry Bickmore’s thesis, you are attributing to me an argument I have never made. You are missing key steps in Bickmore’s argument. My stance in that thread was much less ambitious than Bickmore’s. I believe my words centered around “partial support”. You argued they were no support.

For example, you previously asserted that eternal marriage as a legitimate early church doctrine is evidenced by its supposed teaching from the gnostic writings.

I used gnostic literature to support the idea that the belief in eternal marriage was widespread. Gnostic literature provides some evidence that eternal marriage was part of the 40 days of esoteric, otherwise unrecorded teachings of Christ’s post resurrection. Which in turn helps answer why information was withheld from the uninitiated Sadduccess in Matthew 22. You are not doing us any favors by over simplifying my arguments and creating a strawman.

However, the Church, when speaking for itself, has proclaimed these groups to be heterodox/heretics. So, when you use such sources, to include the less radical examples of the explicitly rejected musings of “recognized” (ie Orthodox) ECFs, as evidence of a true expression of early church doctrine, you are relying on evidence that rejects itself by its own definition,

You lost me here. I don’t use ECF or gnostic sources uncritically. In other words, I don’t have to accept either’s judgements about the beliefs they demonstrate existed. Nor would I regard accepting Oliver Cowdery as an all-or-nothing source.

and that you reject out of hand when presented to you regarding your own religion (despite that you have less ground to do so). You are, in true effect, saying that OC’s rejection of polygamy is evidence of the “true” (in this examples case, monogamous)religious teaching that was suppressed by the orthodox (polygamous) CoJCoLDS.

You may wish to see my previous response to your analogy on what kinds of things Oliver Cowdery’s rejection can and can’t demonstrate.

later,
fool

 

[BJRumph]

Ok TOm; two quick points.

One, you need to be aware that I do not make issue of the expectation of your leadership’s “infallibility”, it is always about the authority given them. Regardless of if they are “correct” in their proclaimed doctrines, they are given the authority to proclaim this doctrine (whether true or not, infallible or not) as binding. In this sense, in a very real and practical manner, they are “infallible” as their doctrine is binding until superceeded by a more “correct” doctrine later; and so it is only in this “limited” sense that recognition of the functional infallibility of your leadership is necessary to aknowledge, and it may not need be specifically termed “infallibility”, though that is the most common term used here. The distinction between what you are thinking I am saying, and what I am trying to say is exemplified in the distinction between heresy and apostacy as I outlined previously. Your orthopraxy vs orthodoxy distinction only, in a practical sense, shows why there are no “heretics” in mormon land, only “apostates”. My point is, on a practical level, the distinction is not very real when it comes to the “source” of the conflict. You cannot have Heretics without a certainty of Doctrine; but when no such certainty exists (such as in the lds church), then the Certainty of Authority, which produces only apostates, fills the same role. Therefore, on a practical level, the lack of infallibility claims by the lds does not allow them the room to duck away from things that are proclaimed utilizing said authority.

It also does not allow (logically) them the room to utilize a source that is based on certainty of doctrine to support a system based upon a certainty of authority (which in most cases, the ecf in question did not, themselves, posses do to their position and role within the Church, though some are exceptions, such as Bishop Augustine)

Thus the issue surrounding the distinction between RCC ECfs and LDS ECFs revolves, plainly, around Authority, not Infallibility, though I have vaguely suggested, as a side point, that the absolute reliance on authority within the lds spectrum creates a functional infallibility (I believe you called it “functional inerrancy”) within the lds church. IMHO, this reliance on authority over doctrine (rather than proclaiming Doctrine with/through authority) is misaligned, and (for me anyway) fatally critical of the lds claims to Truth.

Second; given the nature of this “supernatural public revelation” that is proclaimed by the lds present, then I have to fully disagree with your assertion (which is based upon a different fromulation of Revelation) that the RCC does not have, or claim, such as being a guiding force of our Church. According to the lds here, the “revelation” claimed, and acceptable, by your church is nothing more than Spiritual inspiration (sans dialogic or visionary transmission). This is fundamentally no different than the type of “revelation” asserted by the RCC which guides, and “promises” the infallibility so often overspoken. This revelation is fundamentally distinct from the revelatory claims of your early leadership (wherein they literally stood in the physical presence of God). The “modern” or “internet” mormon veiw of the nature of the revelation claimed by Smith and the Church does not allow you/them the claim that Smith had to this distinction, as they refute his teaching on the issue.

Finally, your insistence that your prophets can make any level of error as to doctrine completely undermines any effort to legitimatize that very doctrine through the means of dredging out the errors of ECF thoughts, as any parallels made are still subject to caveat, as the doctrines “supported” ar not necessarily the Truth, as you have no distinguishable or supportable claim to such. You end up only with what you are willing to believe is true, even when it disagrees with the authority you faithfully submit to.

To mine the ECFs for similarity in doctrine to your own is no more supportive of your church’s claims than if they mined Buddhist or Moslem authorities to draw support for them. All you can prove is that men are capable of making the same mistakes despite centuries of correction and edification, which in the end only supports the need for an orthodoxy. It is done only to support claims to being a restoration of Christianity, despite that such efforts deny the basis for those original claims.

How can a church which denies the infallibility, or even the critical importance of, doctrine use such a source to support, concurrently (though in reality contradictorally), the apostacy of the RCC, while supporting the “authority” of the teachings so used to make such a case for the truthfullness or correctness of the lds church’s doctrine?

Well, gotta go for now…bbl

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

In a bad mood, I have stated the attempts to reconcile the ecfs to the lds is dishonest (particularly in the more extreem examples used, mostly in other threads). Here and now, I will suffice with “fallicious”. I have endeavored to show evidence, as principle, of the fallacy so easily seen from my own perspective. Maybe it will help, maybe not (maybe I articulated it in an understandable fasion, maybe not). Afterall, “we wrestle not against flesh…”

I appreciate your attempts to explain you understanding of the reasoning I have presented. I agree it is much better to question someone’s reasoning then their honesty. The latter comes across as an ad hominem. Thank you for describing your perception of my presentation, so that we can address where you misunderstood it. If you want to throw the “fallacious” word around make sure you understand the different types of fallacies so that you can label them. There are a lot of good primers in logic on the internet.

Oh, and MFool, I have no idea who Ariel is, so those points are lost on me (though not the snipe that followed ).

I meant Arieh. I was quoting Arieh from another thread.

BTW, to use my posts in the manner you are suggesting you can, would be further use of the fallacy examined

For the record, I was being facetious with “proves all my points”. I did in fact, use your comparison much more appropriately to appreciate the intricacies of the arguments being made or that could be made.

later,
fool

 

[BJRumph]

Ok, a truely quick point for MFool;

I do not know, or rightly care, what Bickmore has to say about it. I can only respond to you here. The same goes for Ostler, and even this Newman fellow (who I cannot identify as there are several “Newmans” within the theological/religious world, and are from several traditions, making his specific usage here little more than useless to myself). I am not communitacting with any of these fellows, but with you, TOm, and the others present here.

Not trying to be testy, just pointing out a simple fact that is being overlooked.

B

 

[TOmNossor]

PaulDupre:

We all understand the concept in theory. But those of us that have been LDS know that no one ever doesn’t sustain the GAs and the things they propose (unless he is looking to get ex’d or disfellowshipped). Anyone who does not sustain the prophet and his teachings is, by definition, an apostate. And no LDS wants to be suspected of apostacy.

Besides, by the time the matter is submitted for sustaining by the faithful, it is already a fait accompli. Whatever changes are proposed were enacted before the matter was ever presented in sacrament meeting or general conference. Your sustaining vote has no effect on whether or not the changes are enacted.

So the faithful raise their hands as a matter of routine, without ever critically evaluating the merits of the proposal being sustained.

This “faithful” does not raise his hand as a matter of routine, at least not when sustaining the general authorities, stake president, and bishop (and if it came to a matter associated with the canon, you can bet that I would consider things even more).

I consider my calling as … and my calling as a member to be a serious part of the CoJCoLDS just as the prophets calling as prophet and the prophet’s calling as a member is a serious part of the CoJCoLDS. Perhaps I am on the high road to apostasy, but perhaps the evidence suggest that a critical, hopefully spiritually aided, look at what it is to sustain is just the opposite of the road to apostasy.

I already provided an example of were the body of the church did not accept something advocated by Joseph Smith. There are many examples were the highest quorums “counseled” the prophet and things were changed or delayed or prevented that the prophet might have been advocating. Three come to mind immediately, but I believe my favorite is the role Elder Talmage played in muting the first presidency statement on evolution (and Talmage was a member of the 12 not of the first presidency at the time).

“When the prophet speaks the thinking has been done,” was such a aberrant idea and so flawed that the prophet responded to this error and explained that this is not how the CoJCoLDS works. Perhaps it is the uncritical acceptance of the all sustaining votes and utterances from the prophet that leads to apostasy.

Blake Ostler is his ward’s nursery leader (or at least he was) and I have not been asked to authoritatively expound upon the doctrine of the CoJCoLDS, so perhaps it is the high road to apostasy we walk, but it surely doesn’t appear this way to me. There is safety in following the prophet, but we must also accept guidance from the Holy Spirit. If ever following the prophet radically conflicts with the message of the spirit, then perhaps I will be on the road to apostasy. I recognize my fallibility to an even greater extent than the fallibility of the prophet, but I cannot believe, follow, or do; that which I cannot believe, follow, or do.

PaulDupre:

In actual practice, what the prophet says goes. Period. I understand that the process of sustaining is for your spiritual benefit and is not a “vote” per se. How is it significant then that a doctrine is “accepted by common consent” when the surety of unanimous acceptance is built into the process?

In general, yes. In absolute no. And this is only remotely true of those things that make it to a vote of common consent by the general membership. I have it upon good authority that within the highest quorums the prophet does not rule as a unilateral dictator. The spirit miraculously leads to a unanimous common consent that is not always had (at least not initially) and may involve counsel or correction with respect to the prophet’s original direction.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

PaulDupre:

So the faithful raise their hands as a matter of routine, without ever critically evaluating the merits of the proposal being sustained.

And now to Newman. Newman was quite clear that the doctrine of infallibility was hoisted upon the church by “an aggressive insolent faction.” He thanked God for the faith that resulted in his always believing, but was quite exercised about “the prospect of having to defend decisions, which may be not difficult to my private judgment, but may be most difficult to maintain logically in the face of historical facts.” (the final definition while still imprudent in Newman’s mind was not near so hard to defend as it could have been). In addition to this Newman believed that those with less strong faith would be tried and that this imprudent act would radically hinder the unity of the faith (Newman’s conversion brought a lot of educated Anglicans Romeward, but Vatican I sent a few back and hindered what Newman thought might be a future unification, a unification that never came to pass).

This example is important because the act of the council was thrust upon the Catholic faithful in just the way you suggest that the common consent vote is thrust upon LDS. Papal Infallibility was passed with an abstaining of more than seventy Bishops, which is totally different from the way the highest LDS quorums decide. Newman felt that if these Bishops did not mount a unified response that surely the 400+ Bishops clearly in favor couldn’t be wrong. Newman acknowledged however that this is not how councils are supposed to work, but his faith was such that this was in no way evidence of the falsity of the Catholic Church.

The sustaining vote of the highest quorums is most definitely REAL in the CoJCoLDS in practice and in reality. The sustaining vote of the faithful is REAL in practice and I say in reality, but obviously you and others do not feel FREE.

If this lack of freedom is condemnable then the Catholic laity is significantly less free.

AND I would suggest that when things like common consent (or unanimity in a council) become unimportant we as members need to do our part to ensure they do not lead to apostasy. As a LDS I teach things, provide comments, and try to influence my ward and anyone dopey enough to read what I say on the internet. We cannot afford to give up our agency through perceived or real compulsion. I will choose how I interact with my church and I believe we all must choose. Our personal relationship with God is what saves not our devotion to a church (of course I consider this an important component of our relationship with God).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRumph:

Ok, a truely quick point for MFool;

I do not know, or rightly care, what Bickmore has to say about it. I can only respond to you here. The same goes for Ostler, and even this Newman fellow (who I cannot identify as there are several “Newmans” within the theological/religious world, and are from several traditions, making his specific usage here little more than useless to myself). I am not communitacting with any of these fellows, but with you, TOm, and the others present here.

Not trying to be testy, just pointing out a simple fact that is being overlooked.

B

Newman is Cardinal John Henry Newman. He converted from the Anglican church to the Catholic Church. Most Newman writings you see references on the internet or in either LDS, Catholic, or Protestant writing; I suspect source from either Newman as a protestant or Newman as a Catholic.

BTW, your post before this was quite good. I think it is noteworthy to call me to the carpet for using doctrinal teachings of the ECF to support doctrine teachings of the CoJCoLDS when all the while I point to the importance of orthopraxy over orthodoxy. I think that mutes my statements some (although certainly doesn’t make them of no consequence). I felt I needed some muting and I will not try to distinguish how I can still be loud, but rather just rest as one who has been muted (SOME).

BTW, my functional inerrancy is in reference to the scriptures not to the prophets.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

Ok, a truely quick point for MFool;

I do not know, or rightly care, what Bickmore has to say about it. I can only respond to you here.

Well my position is essentially Bickmore’s with some Noel Reynolds and co. thrown in. I don’t mind elaborating on this stance when it comes up. Feel free to ask questions. It might save you the expense of making non sequitur comparisons. I also try to understand the Newman’s development model. These are the two major competing interpretive frameworks as far as I am concerned. Even though my understanding of both of these needs to be improved, they repressent the “forest” in contrast to the tree level arguments that were examined on the other thread.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

PaulDupre:

In actual practice, what the prophet says goes. Period. I understand that the process of sustaining is for your spiritual benefit and is not a “vote” per se. How is it significant then that a doctrine is “accepted by common consent” when the surety of unanimous acceptance is built into the process?

Even if we accept your premise that common consent is a rubber stamp, the process is still a defining moment as to framing what doctrine is binding. Hence it is significant. A teaching that has been put through this process has much higher status in the doctrinal spectrum than one that hasn’t, all other things being equal.

Haven’t we had this conversation before?

later,
fool

 

[PaulDupre]

mormon fool:

Even if we accept your premise that common consent is a rubber stamp, the process is still a defining moment as to framing what doctrine is binding. Hence it is significant. A teaching that has been put through this process has much higher status in the doctrinal spectrum than one that hasn’t, all other things being equal.

Agreed.

Haven’t we had this conversation before?

Yes, but then again what conversation on this forum have we not had before? I can only hope that each time 'round we can be a bit more erudite and a bit more charitable.

God love you,
Paul

 

[BJRumph]

Thanks for the clarification TOm, I was assuming that that was the Newman in question, but not entirely certain.

MFool;

What can I say? That I could not articulate my point in such a manner as that you could not possibly misunderstand or fail to recognize it, does not mean that it does not follow. Nor does my lack of pointing out to you the classification of the fallacy I insist you are making mean that there is no fallacy (how’s that for a non sequitur?).

I believe that you understand the point I was making more than you aknowledge is evidenced by your correct adoption of the valid, reasonable, interpretation of what must be made of the doctrinal variance of an otherwise “orthodox” member of the church.

Does it suprise you that I agree that OC’s rejection of polygamy is not any reasonable support for the “attack” that the lds’ acceptance of polygamy is a deviation from the “true” teachings of the lds church’s early authorities?

Whether you wish to see it or not, you are rejecting the very logical, reasonable, foundation which brings us to such a conclusion every time you assert that a herodox belief of an ECF is a support for your belief that this alternate belief is representative of the “true” church founded by Christ, which is hidden by the corruption/apostasy of the later church.

I fully recognize why you do not wish to see it as such. I fully recognize why you fail to understand that such faulty reasoning is the very basis of the mormon exploration of ECF writings.

This is but an elaboration of the fact that proving the RCC “wrong” in any fasion, does not *positively validate * the claims of the CoJCoLDS (especially in light of their/your own veiw on the certainty of doctrine). Yes, I understand why you want it to, but this desire is irrelevant to reason and objectivity. Yes, I understand why you would need to overemphasize the “victory” gained in proving wrong the RCC, despite that it does nothing to build your case for the lds (just lessen the case of the RCC).

When I was a faithful lds over at ZLMB, I too was excited at the prospects of utilizing the Catholic ECFs as support for the lds position. Unfortunately, there is none to be, objectively, had.

And, from my own pov, even in destroying the supposed basis of the RCC, their vision of Spiritual reality is still far closer to what has been revealed to me than anything the lds church, institutionally, could muster (or even allow me to vocalize or develop), even with the presence of more “enlightened” members, such as TOm or ‘Lord’ Kerry.

No, when the lds church affirms its own doctrinal unreliability, I fail to find any merit in it’s decrying the same “failures” and unreliability in anyone else. BTW, this is but a minute glimpse as to how the lds apologists played a far greater role in my own apostasy from the lds than any anti-mormon could ever hope to acheive. After all, if all the lds can offer me is error from the outset, then what point is there in maintaining even a nominal acceptance/defence of those things that I know to be false (such as the common/mean lds polytheism vs monotheism)? Why would one accept the authority of someone who claims to not have any certainty with which to affirm that authority, other than the very same spiritual “calling” that “gives authority” to every itenerant preacher out there?

I realize that you have your own answers to these questions that allow you to ignore or mitigate them. However, once God gave me the Grace necessary to escape from my own erroneous (as you seem to dislike my usage of “fallicious”) rationalizations to answer these (and many more) questions, I cannot say that I can share them with you any longer. Therefore, we must necessarily come to a point of irreconcilability once again. We each are convinced of our perceptions and path, and that is no judgement for or against either position, just an aknowledgement of it.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas

 

[arieh0310]

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I have pulled from this thread regarding “infallibility”:

LDS Prophet

1. Receives inspiration/revelation directly from God
2. Doesn’t posses the ability to transmit the revelation infallibly

Catholic Papacy

1. Not inspired (only Apostles and writers of the OT and NT were inspired)
2. Posseses a charism of infallibility when defining doctrines of faith and morals

So, if an LDS prophet receives a revelation but transmits it wrong how is that not leading the church astray. I would rather have an unispired pope that is protected against taking the Church over the cliff of heresy by the guardrail of infallibility rather than a person who receives divine revelation but cannot spit it out right. How is it reassuring that a church can have complete doctrinal reversals but is “inspired”?

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

Ok TOm; two quick points.

I know this was addressed to TOm, but it seems some of my stances from previous threads have been muddled a little and should be clarified. Also there are some interesting thoughts that TOm hasn’t commented on yet.

You cannot have Heretics without a certainty of Doctrine; but when no such certainty exists (such as in the lds church),

Here I disagree. There are many tenants taught in the LDS church which are certain as humanly possible. One would be a heretic for example if they did not believe in say, the restoration of the priesthood. They would be an apostate if they publicly advocated this belief against the wishes of those in authority.

It also does not allow (logically) them the room to utilize a source that is based on certainty of doctrine to support a system based upon a certainty of authority (which in most cases,

In practice, authoratative sources are appealed to all the time. Neither persons in authority or authoritive records are the source of absolute final appeal. The LDS POV recognize God as infallible, and he is the ultimate judge of heretics and apostates.

the ecf in question did not, themselves, posses do to their position and role within the Church, though some are exceptions, such as Bishop Augustine)

While it definitely makes things more interesting when ECFs have been sainted or were in positions of authority, the main thing is that their writings do give us records on how the Christian church developed.

According to the lds here, the “revelation” claimed, and acceptable, by your church is nothing more than Spiritual inspiration (sans dialogic or visionary transmission).

No LDS here has ever claimed that all revelation is sans dialogic or visionary transmission. There are far less restrictions on LDS revelation than there are Catholic revelation. Inspiration appears to limited to the Bible (“sacred books”), if I read rightly. Because of the limitations of Catholic revelation, there is some difficult explaining to do in regards to doctrinal development.

I found this interesting at the end of the above link:
Cardinal Franzelin and Cardinal Newman, have on very different lines dealt with the progress and nature of this development. Cardinal Franzelin in his “De Divina Traditione et Scriptura” (pt. XXII VI) has principally in view the Hegelian theories of Guenther. He consequently lays the chief stress on the identity at all points of the intellectual datum, and explains development almost exclusively as a process of logical deduction. Cardinal Newman wrote his “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” in the course of the two years (1843 45) immediately preceding his reception into the Catholic Church. He was called on to deal with different adversaries, viz., the Protestants who justified their separation from the main body of Christians on the ground that Rome had corrupted primitive teaching by a series of additions. In that work he examines in detail the difference between a corruption and a development. He shows how a true and fertile idea is endowed with a vital and assimilative energy of its own, in virtue of which, without undergoing the least substantive change, it attains to an ever completer expression, as the course of time brings it into contact with new aspects of truth or forces it into collision with new errors: the life of the idea is shown to be analogous to an organic development. He provides a series of tests distinguishing a true development from a corruption, chief among them being the preservation of type, and the continuity of principles; and then, applying the tests to the case of the additions of Roman teaching, shows that these have the marks not of corruptions but of true and legitimate developments. The theory, though less scholastic in its form than that of Franzelin, is in perfect conformity with orthodox belief. Newman no less than his Jesuit contemporary teaches that the whole doctrine, alike in its later as in its earlier forms, was contained in the original revelation given to the Church by Our Lord and His Apostles, and that its identity is guaranteed to us by the infallible magisterium of the Church.
[cont]

 

[mormon_fool]

PaulDupre:

Yes, but then again what conversation on this forum have we not had before? I can only hope that each time 'round we can be a bit more erudite and a bit more charitable.

LOL. Good points. I will definitely try to learn from these conversations.

thanks,
fool

 

[BJRumph]

Arieh;

Note that, to myself, the “complete reversals of doctrine” is far less an issue than you suppose or preceive. In many ways, the NT’s “new commandments” are a complete reversal of doctrine from the literal and, in some particulars, brutal ones found in the OT. That Chrisitanity can see the prinicples behind the OT law, and understand them in light of Christ’s teaching, and thereby subjectively assert (or more accurately, abstractly) that they are but extensions of the same ‘principle’ does not really “solve” what in an objective practical sense a reversal of doctrine (as is how the jews saw it at the time).

What is critical to see, draw out, and never lose sight of, is not that there are ‘changes’ in doctrine, but that there is no recognition of any of the doctrine as being more than “potentially” correct. The lds church, as it perceives itself today (at least), does not provide any basis for which to draw any doctrine that can be believed in as certain Truth. It negates its own claim to providing such doctrine (or basis for any such doctrine). It cannot, under present self-definition, even sustain the viability of its founders’ claims.

For instance, it is a doctrinal claim (not historical as there is no historical evidence that can support it) that Smith was given the “keys” from PJ&J in a most lteral, revelatory fasion. However, the modern interpretation of revelation, as well as the certitude of prophetic expounding of such being non-existent; one cannot truly claim, within the mormon worldveiw, that Smith’s iteration of this delivery of keys was not anythimg more than his inspirational speculation that such had happened. It is only if you want to believe that such had happened that there is any authority (ie, that which you give it yourself) to make such an assertion.

Thus, the member must create their own spiritual worldveiw that is only supported by the lds church in those areas the member chooses to adopt (like the ever-popular sentimental doctrine of “eternal families”). The supposed “spiritual authority” possessed by the church is simply that of “common consent”, not a dispensation from God.

Occasionally a mormon will lament the fact that a larger than expected/normal number of ex-mos become atheists, rather than join a different church. I will make the observation (that I am sure will be contested) that it is the very apologetic of the lds church that produces such a result. In defending their own, they create a circumstance wherein they reduce their own church to the same spiritual wasteland they created for the protestants, leaving the catholics for special, individual treatment. Once they have perceptually reduced the RCC to that very wasteland they have placed themselves in, then the goundwork is already laid, so that once the potential apostate does finally reject the lds church, they are still laden with the subconcious idea that what they are leaving is at least equal to (if not superior) anything else, thus abandoning all desire to get mired up in further non-functional religions. (Note: the fundamental basis of this tactic is the “necessity” of every other church being ‘wrong’ in order for the lds to exist, something that does not exist within Catholic or Protestant claims for origin and basis of foundation)

It is only when a potential apostate rejects this programming, or holds stronger to supra-institutional beliefs, that they are capable of overcoming this trap, and find peace elsewhere.

I could be wrong, but really only the other ex-mos could comment with any validity as to this perception.

Just my take on this particular branch of the thread.

 

[BJRumph]

Hi MFool,

I realize you are still mid-post, but there is one thing I need to point out.

No LDS here has ever claimed that all revelation is sans dialogic or visionary transmission.

There is no need for such a claim, and as you said, none is made. What is a fact, that supports my position in this, is that the Church provides no mechanism for which any member can discern the nature of the revelation. As our previous conversation on this topic showed, was that Smith (at a minimum) was producing dialogic style revelations that were shown to be merely inspritational revelation, to which you both agreed, and said was perfectly fine.

As also stated there, I do not recognize that misrepresenting a revelation as to its type and source is fine. The nature of the revelation needs to be accurately stated if the members relying upon it are to be able to utilize the revelation in a manner conductive to its transmission. A dialogic revelation needs be followed more strictly than a mere inspirational musing of the prophet, as an exapmle of the need for this.

As your church, acceptibly in your estimation, produces such revelation under terms and conditions that are foreign to its actual fact, then there is nothing for which to say that a dialogic revelation actually occurred, as any that we can point to have now the uncertainty ofhtis particular.

So, you do not have to expressly claim there is no dialogic or visionary revelation; your acceptance of inspirational revelation being reported as dialogic revelation makes the claim for you, as you no longer can point to a definitively defined dialogic revelation within your religious tradition without admitting that it could be merely inspirational, and that (most importantly) you have no means whith which to tell the “real” dialogic revelations from the inspirational ones that are merely being reported as dialogic.

Yes, you can claim that dialogic revelations occur, but you cannot point to a single one with any certainty under your own allowances and definitions.

 

[majick275]

Amen BJ, Amen.

Your example regarding priesthood keys is very apropos. The account now in the D&C took years to get published and even then differs from earliest manuscripts as to the particulars. It was Sidney Rigdon who wanted the two priesthoods (aaronic and Melchisadec) originally Joseph just spoke of the priesthood.

Consistent with LDS scripture this could not be vision either. Peter James and John had to appear in the flesh and ordain JS and OC by the laying on of hands. Now think of the implications of that alone. (some individual, “early” resurections that don’t have to wait for the scriptural “first resurection” that literally can NOT be first)

To expound on your post, the LDS must first believe that ALL other churches are false, their creeds an abomination their dcotors corrupt and preaching for filthy lucre, etc. That destroys any sense of legitimacy for any other church. Next they must accept modern day prophets as Gods anointed stewards of his one true church.

This is where it really gets rough. One must accept that they are true oracles of the Lord without question, but one also must accept their complete fallibility in all things. Scriptures can be changed later. (not just spelling and grammar but doctrines like polygamy) On the one hand the LDS must “follow the prophet” doing their best to carry out the counsel of the GA’s every conference. (even to the sustaining of local leaders as being literally called by God to their present positions) On the other hand they must be ready at all times to denounce any doctrine of any prophet that is later considered false.(without denouncing the errant prophet mind you)

The scriptural promise (D&C) is that whatsoever these men speak when moved by the Holy Ghost IS the mind and will of God. (no room for incorrect transmission) So the only out can be wether or not they were “moved by the Holy Ghost”. Who determines that? Common consent? maybe…sometimes… but then the member sits in judgement (allegedly by inspiration) ovewr the veracity of the prophets teaching. So either the individual members are inspired (in which case why do they need a prophet?) or this system is very broken.

Where in the Bible do Prophets called by God submit their prophecies to a sustaining vote?

The cognitive dissonance required for this is spiritually deadly.

 

[arieh0310]

BJRumph:

Arieh;

Note that, to myself, the “complete reversals of doctrine” is far less an issue than you suppose or preceive. In many ways, the NT’s “new commandments” are a complete reversal of doctrine from the literal and, in some particulars, brutal ones found in the OT. That Chrisitanity can see the prinicples behind the OT law, and understand them in light of Christ’s teaching, and thereby subjectively assert (or more accurately, abstractly) that they are but extensions of the same ‘principle’ does not really “solve” what in an objective practical sense a reversal of doctrine (as is how the jews saw it at the time).

I will concede my point if you can point to some real reversal like what is seen in LDS doctrinal development (I am not challenging you, just curious). What I see in OT to NT doctrinal changes is not reversal but completion. The cerimonial and theocratical law was fulfilled in Christ. If there are true doctrinal reversals please point them out. I do not want to use an argument that is logically faulty.

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

What can I say? That I could not articulate my point in such a manner as that you could not possibly misunderstand or fail to recognize it, does not mean that it does not follow.

As should be abundantly clear by now, just because you can create an irrelevant syllogism, it does not follow that anything I have written in this thread or the other has been demonstrated fallacious. And since your example relates to historical events, the actual reconstruction of events defy the simplistic conclusions you offer.

Nor does my lack of pointing out to you the classification of the fallacy I insist you are making mean that there is no fallacy (how’s that for a non sequitur?).

Great example! Sounds like an ad ignorantiam argument.

I believe that you understand the point I was making more than you a knowledge is evidenced by your correct adoption of the valid, reasonable, interpretation of what must be made of the doctrinal variance of an otherwise “orthodox” member of the church.

Was there really any doubt I understood your point? I simply disagree with the universality of its application. I think I have by now, as has TOm, completely dismantled your complex question.

Does it suprise you that I agree that OC’s rejection of polygamy is not any reasonable support for the “attack” that the lds’ acceptance of polygamy is a deviation from the “true” teachings of the lds church’s early authorities?

Yes, mainly because a person like you is usually more thorough in looking at things from a variety of angles. Which I am not saying you haven’t on this issue, just that

In order for my use of the ECFs to be a direct attack on the catholic church I would have to interact with Newman’s test for corruption versus legitimate development or Franzelin’s deduction model. I would have to find anomalies that neither of these thinkers can account for.

I fully recognize why you do not wish to see it as such. I fully recognize why you fail to understand that such faulty reasoning is the very basis of the mormon exploration of ECF writings.

I have yet to see you characterize “mormon exploration of the ECF writings” correctly. If I recall you don’t “rightly care” about how mormon authors support their apostasy paradigm. Seems to me like you are making a hasty generalization.

This is but an elaboration of the fact that proving the RCC “wrong” in any fasion, does not *positively validate * the claims of the CoJCoLDS (especially in light of their/your own veiw on the certainty of doctrine).

I am not looking for positive validation of truth claims. Increased plausibilty in light of competing theories and claims, yes. Increased understanding of how mormon and catholic explain the same phenomenom, yes.

No, when the lds church affirms its own doctrinal unreliability, I fail to find any merit in it’s decrying the same “failures” and unreliability in anyone else. BTW, this is but a minute glimpse as to how the lds apologists played a far greater role in my own apostasy from the lds than any anti-mormon could ever hope to acheive.

If you find mormon apologetics to be unacceptable then what’s to stop you from developing the same types of aversions to catholic apologetics? As I have already noted the two groups employ similar strategies when their “ecfs” are shown wrong. Apologetics is all about finding common ground and appealing to fair standards. I admire apologists on all sides of the fence.

However, once God gave me the Grace necessary to escape from my own erroneous (as you seem to dislike my usage of “fallicious”) rationalizations to answer these (and many more) questions, I cannot say that I can share them with you any longer.

I only object to the use of “fallacious” when it isn’t specifically demonstrated and used as a synonym for “I think you are wrong”. No doubt many fallacies appear in my posts and could benefit from more scrutiny.

Good luck in your search,
fool