The Inconsistent LDS Argument

[Tmaque]

One can imagine, at some future date, a new “prophet” having a vision where God asks him to restore the LDS church because it has apostatized. If that ever happens, this new “prophet” and his followers will have a wealth of documents from Joseph Smith and the rest of the early LDS leaders to prove their case.

Of course, the argument against this new religion will be that God promised that the LDS church will never be led astray. It’s an intellectual dilemma for LDS. Why does this hold true for the LDS Church and not the Catholic Church? Isn’t it disingenious to use non-scriptural historical documents to argue that Catholicism has apostatized, yet not allow the same to show that the LDS church has apostatized?

The LDS in this forum consistently use the ECF’s to argue their positions, yet cry foul when we use the LDS “fathers” to show that their church has changed even more dramatically than ours.
I’m curious if any LDS in this forum can see the inconsistency.

 

[arieh0310]

Lets make sure we fully define the double standard. In the Catholic Church you will see a development of doctrine, or more precisely, a maturation. Mary is all holy to Imaculate Conception, Real Presence to Transubstantiation, etc. However, in with the LDS you see contradiction and reversal. Black barred from the priesthood to being allowed, Jesus a polygamist with decendants to “no one really knows”, etc.

Yet LDS apologists insist that Catholic doctrinal development is similar to theirs. How?

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

One can imagine, at some future date, a new “prophet” having a vision where God asks him to restore the LDS church because it has apostatized. If that ever happens, this new “prophet” and his followers will have a wealth of documents from Joseph Smith and the rest of the early LDS leaders to prove their case.

Of course, the argument against this new religion will be that God promised that the LDS church will never be led astray. It’s an intellectual dilemma for LDS.

I think this is a good question and one that I have wrestled with in the past. After a certain point in Early Church history I can no longer see anyone who does not demand that there can be no Apostasy. How can I be sure that the “last dispensation” concepts within the CoJCoLDS are on sure footing when I argue that the “gates of hell will not prevail” interpretation is on flawed footing?

I can distance myself from such things by saying that “last dispensation” has been a universal claim from the beginning of the CoJCoLDS to today, but there are some reasons to see future falling away in the Early Church for many years, but in the end I am not totally comfortable saying these two things are totally dissimilar.

I choose to lean upon God to help me sift through what I must pay attention to and what I may ignore. I do not know exactly what an apostate authority would look like at the head of the CoJCoLDS, but I am pretty certain it would not be corrected with a FLDS schism. I give no credence to the Reformers claims and likewise I basically ignore the FLDS.

There have been two groups claiming to be God-inspired (both of which interestingly enough have a place for Joseph Smith) that I have paid some attention to and I am 2/3 the way through a trilogy (actually 6 books, but I have three) of apologetic books (1000 pages down 500 more to go) for one of them.

Intellectually I see things that point me to the CoJCoLDS, but I do not see absolutes. The Reformation ABSOLUTELY could not be the path through which God restores his church. To me it makes no sense. That the Catholic Church is still God’s church is not something that I can dismiss ABSOLUTELY and this particularly intellectual group (whose name I will not mention) is not ABSOLUTELY dismissible in my mind either. I see the CoJCoLDS as superior for a variety of reasons, but I also have faith that God loves me enough to direct me.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

Why does this hold true for the

LDS Church and not the Catholic Church? Isn’t it disingenious to use non-scriptural historical documents to argue that Catholicism has apostatized, yet not allow the same to show that the LDS church has apostatized?

The LDS in this forum consistently use the ECF’s to argue their positions, yet cry foul when we use the LDS “fathers” to show that their church has changed even more dramatically than ours.

I’m curious if any LDS in this forum can see the inconsistency.

I really see two very different topics in your post. The above being the second one.

1. The Catholic Church unlike the CoJCoLDS has professed to be a constant protector of Tradition and not a religion that develops. If you look at the response Newman received from educated Catholics, you can certainly see one of my concerns. Is the development that accepts development compatible with Newman’s characteristics of development. I am not so sure it is. Change in the Catholic Church is more problematic than in the CoJCoLDS in my opinion.
2. I do not use the ECF to tell Catholics what Catholic doctrine is when Catholics do not embrace what the ECF said to be doctrine. I have said on this board that if you want to make the case that the CoJCoLDS has changed in its beliefs, this is fine. But do not tell us that we must believe as the Early Church leaders may or may not have taught as evidenced by a small snippet of a quote. Some things were taught that were not accepted by common consent. Some things were said that do not evidence a systematic understanding of doctrine. The objections I offer to the use of the early LDS is associated with saying that LDS believe … because BY said …
3. LDS also use the ECF to show that as time passed doctrine moved from things LDS embrace to things that are considered orthodoxy. In my mind it is powerful when we can show that most of the things that Joseph Smith was condemned for are also found in the Early Church. Some things are quite clear, the early church believed as LDS believe and then developed away. Other things are less exciting. Lactantius believed a certain thing so perhaps you can be less excited about the fact that we also believe this.

So what I am saying is that while I think there is something to consider in the first part of your post, and it does evidence a difficulty for the restorationist; I think the second part of your post misses.

And we should also remember that none of us are Jews nor pre-Abrahamic religionists. We all believe that some guy communed with God the Father and changed the religious landscape radically. I just think it happened an additional time than do you.

Charity, TOm

 

[MEP]

1. The Catholic Church unlike the CoJCoLDS has professed to be a constant protector of Tradition and not a religion that develops. If you look at the response Newman received from educated Catholics, you can certainly see one of my concerns. Is the development that accepts development compatible with Newman’s characteristics of development. I am not so sure it is. Change in the Catholic Church is more problematic than in the CoJCoLDS in my opinion.

I don’t think the Church denies that it has changed and developed over time. That’s not the claim Catholics make. God has not changed over time and the truth of God’s will has not changed. But our understanding of His teachings has grown and matured over time. I think the teachings of the Church today are absolutely consistent with the early Church and frankly fail to see where we have added or subtracted anything.

But our understanding of what has always been taught has grown and evolved and that sometimes appears, on the surface, like the core teachings have changed as well.

Additionally, our traditions do change, a lot actually. That’s impossible to deny just looking at the 20th century alone. But the meaning of the traditions does not change. It’s the expression of our beliefs that changes to fit in the context of our time (or different cultures). But the beliefs which inspire those traditions are constant.

Change is not problematic in the Catholic Church unless you have a completely superficial view of Church tradition. If you look at the purpose and meaning behind our traditions, and put them in historical and cultural context, it is all consistent and built on the same foundation of doctrine that the church has always taught.

It’s only when people look at our traditions as a lot of handwaving and chanting that it looks like our doctrine changes.

 

[arieh0310]

3. LDS also use the ECF to show that as time passed doctrine moved from things LDS embrace to things that are considered orthodoxy. In my mind it is powerful when we can show that most of the things that Joseph Smith was condemned for are also found in the Early Church. Some things are quite clear, the early church believed as LDS believe and then developed away. Other things are less exciting. Lactantius believed a certain thing so perhaps you can be less excited about the fact that we also believe this.

The absolute best “evidence” of LDS distinctives in ECF writings is “God became man so that man could become God” (if you interpret it with an LDS bias). Yet this teaching has always been understood in an orthodox Catholic manner. That is evidence of apostacy?

When we raise doctrinal issues by quoting BY or JS we aren’t simply inserting our own biases into the passage but affirming the common belief of the LDS faithful held for generations. I think the evidence of LDS apostacy is much more evident than it is for Christianity.

 

[TOmNossor]

MEP:

I don’t think the Church denies that it has changed and developed over time. That’s not the claim Catholics make. God has not changed over time and the truth of God’s will has not changed. But our understanding of His teachings has grown and matured over time. I think the teachings of the Church today are absolutely consistent with the early Church and frankly fail to see where we have added or subtracted anything.

But our understanding of what has always been taught has grown and evolved and that sometimes appears, on the surface, like the core teachings have changed as well.

Additionally, our traditions do change, a lot actually. That’s impossible to deny just looking at the 20th century alone. But the meaning of the traditions does not change. It’s the expression of our beliefs that changes to fit in the context of our time (or different cultures). But the beliefs which inspire those traditions are constant.

Change is not problematic in the Catholic Church unless you have a completely superficial view of Church tradition. If you look at the purpose and meaning behind our traditions, and put them in historical and cultural context, it is all consistent and built on the same foundation of doctrine that the church has always taught.

It’s only when people look at our traditions as a lot of handwaving and chanting that it looks like our doctrine changes.

Perhaps it is my unique engagement with Catholic thinkers.

The second or third most influential Catholic I have interacted with (second IRL certainly) is an SSPX Catholic that makes other SSPX Catholics seem a little liberal. He is constantly bringing up past Catholic writing that demands that tradition be preserved. He is quite well versed on the last 200-300 years of Catholic history, but he does not seem to know as much about the early church except where it supports his ideas that Tradition has been unchanged.

There is no doubt in my mind that Newman introduced ideas that paved the way for an acceptance of development that was not commonly expressed. Protestants, especially of the Anglican variety, have been making hay over Catholic changes. Newman said, “Yes, the changes you describe exist, but they damn your tradition long before touching the Catholic Church. It is authority that guides the development.” This is the only view available to the non-restorationist in my opinion, but it was revolutionary. As Newman reeled from the impacts of his words, he lamented that while he would like to teach Catholic history nobody would allow it.

In any case, my point is that the CoJCoLDS was very clear from the first day to the present day that understanding is built, “precept upon precept” AND that continuing revelation was to be used to guide the church. Occasionally this continuing revelation is evidence in the emphasis a certain teaching is given, and occasionally it results in a wholesale change, polygamy to no polygamy.

The Catholic Church on the other hand maintained for a very long time that it was built upon Scripture and Tradition neither of which could be affected by continuing public revelation. Newman appears to me to have ushered in a change.

So while I grant that the Polygamy to no Polygamy change was more radical (although it is quite possible to say that Polygamy at times and no Polygamy at other times has ALWAYS been God’s way), it comes through a tradition that allows for changes.

And when past teachings not accepted by common consent are lofted as evidence of change, it is the same as saying that Catholic beliefs changed because Origen taught the pre-existence of souls.

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

“Real Presence to Transubstantiation”

Meditate on John Chapter 6 / The whole Chapter from the miracles to the miracle given to the Church to sustain it throughout time. It is what Christ said it is. Read it and think about it. We could talk about the Real Presence if you would like.

God Bless

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

The absolute best “evidence” of LDS distinctives in ECF writings is “God became man so that man could become God” (if you interpret it with an LDS bias). Yet this teaching has always been understood in an orthodox Catholic manner. That is evidence of apostacy?

When we raise doctrinal issues by quoting BY or JS we aren’t simply inserting our own biases into the passage but affirming the common belief of the LDS faithful held for generations. I think the evidence of LDS apostacy is much more evident than it is for Christianity.

Actually, my absolute best starts with creation ex nihilo and then branches.

But, the Catholic Church does not have the monopoly on defining what the ECF meant when they said, “men may become gods.” The progression of this through time is quite evident. It was largely forgotten in the West and weakened in the East in a way the West cannot follow. This specific point was discussed on a recent thread and then left hanging.

Anyway, as I think about my response in the post before this AND the more elaborate response I was about to provide here, it occurs to me that neither of these are germane to the thread and perhaps I should remember to merely defend the CoJCoLDS instead of being unduly argumentative.

If you would like to discuss my feelings on “men may become gods” and the ECF you can start a new thread (or you can pick up in the other thread).

The use of the ECFs in the way that LDS use them is not, in this example, evidence of some double standard. That you want to discredit the non-developed understanding of what the ECF said does not have any particular impact upon the discussion in this thread. Even if we were profoundly wrong in the way we read the ECF, which I do not think we are, we still would not be creating a discontinuity when we use the ECF and then ask that our early LDS not be used TO DEFINE CURRENT DOCTRINE. There is not discontinuity in these uses.

Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

Some things were taught that were not accepted by common consent. Some things were said that do not evidence a systematic understanding of doctrine. The objections I offer to the use of the early LDS is associated with saying that LDS believe … because BY said …… In my mind it is powerful when we can show that most of the things that Joseph Smith was condemned for are also found in the Early Church.

Speaking as a Catholic whose ancestors saw the events in Nauvoo, I see you as making a long step forward in reforming the LDS.

My personal attitude towards the LDS claim of Catholic apostasy is that, from a point of view where right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right, the Catholic Church “apostasized” with Bartolome de las Casas’ reform (in line with NT scriptures) towards a gentle, loving strategy for conversion of the Indians. LDS disagrees, and says coercion, lies, and catching people between the bad guys and the hypocritical “good guys” are all justified strategies for conversion of people of color.
The Catholic Church “apostasized” with Bartolome de las Casas’ reform towards a gentle, loving, service-oriented strategy for conversion of the (American) Indians. If this is apostasy, then the world needs more of it. Mother Teresa saw it. Coerced conversion was an intrusion into Spanish Catholicism from the Islamic culture.

 

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

The use of the ECFs in the way that LDS use them is not, in this example, evidence of some double standard. That you want to discredit the non-developed understanding of what the ECF said does not have any particular impact upon the discussion in this thread. Even if we were profoundly wrong in the way we read the ECF, which I do not think we are, we still would not be creating a discontinuity when we use the ECF and then ask that our early LDS not be used TO DEFINE CURRENT DOCTRINE. There is not discontinuity in these uses.

It doesn’t matter whether doctrine was “developed” or was outright reversed. Change occured in either case.

LDS apologists contrast primitive, non-canonical, Catholic writings with current Catholic doctrine to demonstrate evidence of apostasy. But, they protest if non-LDS use past, non-canonical, LDS writings to demonstrate changes(which would demonstrate hypothetical apostasy) in LDS doctrine.

I realize that we are talking about two different things here. Really, we can only argue for the truth(or falseness) of one church at a time. However, I see no problem in using the changes in LDS doctrine as a means to buffet LDS attempts to “prove” that changes/developments in doctrine amount to an apostasy of the Catholic Church.

 

[TOmNossor]

Speaking as a Catholic whose ancestors saw the events in Nauvoo, I see you as making a long step forward in reforming the LDS.

My personal attitude towards the LDS claim of Catholic apostasy is that, from a point of view where right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right, the Catholic Church “apostasized” with Bartolome de las Casas’ reform (in line with NT scriptures) towards a gentle, loving strategy for conversion of the Indians. LDS disagrees, and says coercion, lies, and catching people between the bad guys and the hypocritical “good guys” are all justified strategies for conversion of people of color.
The Catholic Church “apostasized” with Bartolome de las Casas’ reform towards a gentle, loving, service-oriented strategy for conversion of the (American) Indians. If this is apostasy, then the world needs more of it. Mother Teresa saw it. Coerced conversion was an intrusion into Spanish Catholicism from the Islamic culture.

I am not completely sure I understand what you are saying.

But, I am sure, “LDS disagrees, and says coercion, lies, and catching people between the bad guys and the hypocritical “good guys” are all justified strategies for conversion of people of color,” is just false. I do not believe LDS ACTIONS in the past could be shown to be more negative than Catholic ACTIONS in the past. I also do not believe you could find any LDS GA past or present who would agree with your assessment here. I expect somewhere you have seen some past statements of LDS which you infer to mean the above, but I suggest this is not a fair assessment (of course I do not even completely understand what you are saying).

Oh and before you get all excited about how those horrible Moslems affected Catholicism you might realize that Catholicism predated Islam. Oh and you might read City of God by Augustine which also predated Islam.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

It doesn’t matter whether doctrine was “developed” or was outright reversed. Change occured in either case.

LDS apologists contrast primitive, non-canonical, Catholic writings with current Catholic doctrine to demonstrate evidence of apostasy. But, they protest if non-LDS use past, non-canonical, LDS writings to demonstrate changes(which would demonstrate hypothetical apostasy) in LDS doctrine.

I realize that we are talking about two different things here. Really, we can only argue for the truth(or falseness) of one church at a time. However, I see no problem in using the changes in LDS doctrine as a means to buffet LDS attempts to “prove” that changes/developments in doctrine amount to an apostasy of the Catholic Church.

Have I ever said that change in LDS doctrine cannot be used to examine the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. I am quite certain that I have specifically said that changes could be examined to determine their effect upon LDS truth claims.

There are a few places in Catholic history where change has been so radical that I question if the concept of preservation of tradition with development advocated by Newman is tenable.

In addition to this, I see Newman’s ideas as quite controversial for good reason when he first introduced them. Does accepting Newman’s ideas and then applying them to Vatican II create a discontinuity in the Catholic Church. I am unconvinced either way.

The above are the areas in which I think Catholic doctrine development is attackable toward showing an apostasy. Is there an internal contradiction?

It is absolutely true that the CoJCoLDS has changed its teachings. This shifting may also be examined to determine its effect upon LDS truth claims. I however suggest that the CoJCoLDS CLAIMS to be able to change and thus change does not create an internal contradiction.

Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre]

TOmNossor:

There are a few places in Catholic history where change has been so radical that I question if the concept of preservation of tradition with development advocated by Newman is tenable.

TOm,
Would you mind citing a few examples? They may yield a fruitful discussion.
God bless,
Paul

 

[cestusdei]

Funny this should come up. Last night several personages appeared to me in my room…more to come…

 

[arieh0310]

TOmNossor:

There is no doubt in my mind that Newman introduced ideas that paved the way for an acceptance of development that was not commonly expressed.

Well, lets acurately describe what Newman indended true development to mean:

“This process, whether it be longer or shorter in point of time, by which the aspects of an idea are brought into consistency and form, I call its development, being the germination and maturation of some truth or apparent truth on a large mental field. On the other hand this process will not be a development, unless the assemblage of aspects, which constitute its ultimate shape, really belongs to the idea from which they start. A republic, for instance, is not a development from a pure monarchy, though it may follow upon it” (Dev. Doc. Chap 1, Sec 1, 5)

He does not say that doctrinal development can include wholly new interpretations of the same idea. It has to resemble its original shape, there has to be an original deposit of truth that is built upon but not changed in its very essence.

 

[ben_dy]

cestusdei:

Funny this should come up. Last night several personages appeared to me in my room…more to come…

Since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, that occurred with a few of my Catholic Lebanese friends, as well. These days it certainly pays (well, perhaps it always has…) to be white and delightsome!

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

Tmaque:

The LDS in this forum consistently use the ECF’s to argue their positions, yet cry foul when we use the LDS “fathers” to show that their church has changed even more dramatically than ours.
I’m curious if any LDS in this forum can see the inconsistency.

We need to remember that the teachnig authority of the C of JC of LDS lies with the Living General Authorities of the Church not with Dead ones. I do not consider it an inconsistency when the living President changes church doctrine and when he does then this superceeds that of his predecessors.

After all, the Pope and the Magisterium are doing it all the time.

 

[catholic-rcia]

‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ I** am God not of the dead**, but of the living.” (Mark 12:26b-27)I would think about what you said, you are saying that the one true God is the God of the dead.That we as Christians worship the dead

The God we profess is the God of the Living wether in heaven or on earth.

What the prophets said before has been fullfilled in Jesus, we come to the same revelation that they did about Him. What took place on the cross saves us today. It is finished, but still saving souls one at a time.

We have heard the prophets cry, John the Baptist said it well. Christ has come, Christ has died, Christ has risen. Come to Christ, Trust in Christ as He has redeemed you. Not by what you do or how often you do it. By trusting in Jesus Christ

 

[ben_dy]

Asa Ben Judah:

We need to remember that the teachnig authority of the C of JC of LDS lies with the Living General Authorities of the Church not with Dead ones. I do not consider it an inconsistency when the living President changes church doctrine and when he does then this superceeds that of his predecessors.

After all, the Pope and the Magisterium are doing it all the time.

That would come as quite a shock to all Catholics - even the Pope.

Can you cite one example where “the Pope and the Magisterium” “changes church doctrine and when he does then this superceeds that of his predecessor”? Just one?