We do not have a catechism because we prefer to let the word of God to speak for itself, rather than let someone else tell us what it should say.
But Zerinus, surely if your church officially produces this document, would you believe it is merely a, ‘creation of man?’ Don’t you believe your church can authoritatively pronounce on doctrine? Don’t all Mormons believe this?
Wouldn’t it be the very point of your church to explain what its own scriptures mean, both to young and unschooled Mormons, as well as Mormons that need to be catechized?
It wouldn’t be the case that it would be, “letting someone else tell us what it should say”-- it would be the case of letting the church tell you what the scriptures specially entrusted to it say.
We believe that no one can do better than what God Himself has done, in defining the doctrines of the Church in His own revelations and scripture that He has given to the Church. That is why they are given. There is nothing that man can do that can improve on what God has done.
This is besides the point, Zerinus. The question isn’t whether scriptures can be, “done better,” but of making a manual which guides one surely through doctrine. Quite simply, scriptures are not manuals of doctrine, although they do contain it. Scriptures make no pretense as to being complete in themselves, and in any case, since there is no, “index” in the scriptures built in for doctrines x, y, and z, it is nearly impossible for the common believer to start from scratch every generation and build, for himself the doctrine of the church once again. In fact, I would argue that the only reason-- or rather, the predominant reason-- that one extracts certain doctrines from scriptures is because one has grown up with a certain framework of belief/rule of faith-- hence the Mormon can derive Mormon doctrine from it-- with which they interpret scriptures.
Having a catechism does not mean that doctrine cannot change. It is more likely to change!
What does this even mean, Zerinus? Does
it refer back to a catechism or to doctrine? Why in the world would having a
catechism make
doctrine more likely to change? If having a catechism means the catechism is likely to change, why does this point even matter, after all, we profess only the unchanging nature of doctrine, not catechisms.
It is scripture that does not change. Catechisms can and do change.
Again, the issue at stake is unchanging doctrine, not unchanging catechisms. It’s a clever slight of hand, but a slight of hand nonetheless. Catechisms
do change because catechisms are targeted at specific groups of people in specific time periods. They are aimed at making the one and same doctrine understandable by different people at different times. If catechisms do change, it is not such a big deal.
Has the catechism of the Catholic Church always been the same? Has the Catholic Church always had a catechism? When was it written? Has it never been revised or changed? Has it evolved? What is the history of it? According to an article in the Wikipedia on the Catechism, “The current Catechism of the Catholic Church [is] the first *** complete rewrite*** since the Council of Trent in 1566.” So it looks like the Catechism of the Catholic Church has not always been the same. Maybe Catholic doctrine is not so “unchanging” after all!
Again, it’s the same subtle switch.
You more or less argue that, the Catechism changes, therefore doctrine changes. This is a very poor argument. Surely you can do better.
“The
Catechism of the Catholic Church has not always been the same…” from which you conclude, “maybe Catholic
doctrine is not so ‘unchanging.’” Not a very good argument!
But scripture dose not change. The word of God is unchanging and eternally true. That is the ultimate, authoritative source of LDS theology and doctrine.
This corresponds with the Catholic position on revelation as well.
Such a book could not “add” anything to what the Lord has already revealed in scripture; neither could it “express” it any more correctly and accurately. It would always be something less perfect than the word of God itself, and you would always be able to discover flaws in it.
If the scriptures were meant as manuals of doctrine, then you would be right. But since the purpose of scriptures is not to be a manual of doctrine, it
is possible for man to present doctrine in a unified and systematized manner, because scriptures do not attempt to do this. It would be less perfect inasmuch as it was targeted to a specific time and audience, whereas scriptures are timeless. However, it would greatly alleviate the problem of wondering what your faith actually teaches.
