Tradition In The Church

[cdowis]

Just to clarify on my Catholic side of things, there are three legs of the Church:  Scripture (the Bible), Tradition, and the Magisterium (ecclesiastical authority, vested in the Pope and the college of Bishops in communion with him).  We have not expanded the Bible, because it is by definition canonical.  Tradition passes on the truth.  The Magisterium develops the doctrine in explanation to us, which could be seen in some ways as an expansion.

 

It would be a very weak Catholic argument to say that we have the Bible as our only canonical scripture simply because we haven't lived up to what the Bible has said.  Perhaps protestants make such arguments, since they do not believe in Tradition or the Magisterium, but those other two legs work really well for us Catholics and should be remembered by non-Catholics, because we are not sola scriptura, not at all 

 

 

Once again, our friend shows a interesting parallel between the RCC and the LDS church.

 

We don't really discuss it, but tradition really does seem to be an acceptable source of doctrine.  I am thinking about the Adam God doctrine of BY (I prefer to call it Adam Eloheim theory).  While BY was preaching it, I think LDS tradition was pushing back against this teaching, and eventually won after his death.

[ERMD]

I triangulate with:

 

Scripture

Teachings of modern-day prophets and apostles

Personal Revelation

 

When these agree, I know I am on solid ground.  When one is out of line, it is most often #3, and I reformulate and re-ask the question.

[Ahab]

I triangulate with:

Scripture

Teachings of modern-day prophets and apostles

Personal Revelation

When these agree, I know I am on solid ground. When one is out of line, it is most often #3, and I reformulate and re-ask the question.

I triangulate a little bit differently, or so it seems.

Personal revelation from God to me is the main thing I need to know my relation to God, because it is by personal revelation from God to me that I know if anything written or spoken is scripture or what God wants to teach me.

And it is also by personal revelation from God to me that I know the key role prophets and apostles have in my life, and in the world. Without them I could not have received the gift of the Holy Ghost or the priesthood of God, even though I would still be able to receive personal revelation from God to me. I just wouldn't have the same relation to God that I have now.

[MiserereNobis]

Intriguing thread -- thanks for starting it.  I'm interested to see the responses.

[theplains]

We don't really discuss it, but tradition really does seem to be an acceptable source of doctrine.  I am thinking about the Adam God doctrine of BY (I prefer to call it Adam Eloheim theory).  While BY was preaching it, I think LDS tradition was pushing back against this teaching, and eventually won after his death.

 

 

According to the 1997 version of Gospel Principles, President Wilford Woodruff said that a

prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray: “I say to Israel, the Lord will never

permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is

not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would

remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children

of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. God bless you” (Discourses of

Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13; see also Official Declaration 1).

 

Either Brigham Young led Mormons astray with his preaching or he did not.

 

Regards,

Jim

[JLHPROF]

 

According to the 1997 version of Gospel Principles, President Wilford Woodruff said that a

prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray: “I say to Israel, the Lord will never

permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is

not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would

remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children

of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. God bless you” (Discourses of

Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13; see also Official Declaration 1).

 

Either Brigham Young led Mormons astray with his preaching or he did not.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

He did not.  Now whether you believe his teachings to be true are irrelevant to this issue.  What it comes down to is there was the Brigham Young tradition of the Godhead (possibly also taught but at least referenced by John Taylor, Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow & Joseph F. Smith). 

Then there was the tradition of the Godhead we have today similar to teachings of Orson Pratt, James E. Talmage, Heber J. Grant, Bruce R. McConkie etc. 

 

Two traditions that varied but did either lead people "astray"?  No.  Just different opinions with no conclusive proof as to who was right.  And who knows which tradition (or indeed a new tradition) will take precedence in the future.

[CV75]

 

 

Once again, our friend shows a interesting parallel between the RCC and the LDS church.

 

We don't really discuss it, but tradition really does seem to be an acceptable source of doctrine.  I am thinking about the Adam God doctrine of BY (I prefer to call it Adam Eloheim theory).  While BY was preaching it, I think LDS tradition was pushing back against this teaching, and eventually won after his death.

 

As MN pointed out, tradition only carries doctrine. It can also resist and drop doctrine. There is true doctrine and false doctrine; correct tradition and “traditions of men”; true sources and false sources; correct scripture and incorrect scripture. I think D&C 1 is a good summary and guide for us to recognize where tradition is a help or a hindrance to the truth.

[pogi]

We don't really discuss it, but tradition really does seem to be an acceptable source of doctrine.  I am thinking about the Adam God doctrine of BY (I prefer to call it Adam Eloheim theory).  While BY was preaching it, I think LDS tradition was pushing back against this teaching, and eventually won after his death.

 

It is an interesting topic.  To understand it, one would have to ask "what makes tradition an acceptable source of doctrine?"  3DOP explained in another thread that "Irenaeus held that any Tradition that should be considered authoritative had to be apostolic."  In other words, tradition is not authoritative or useful simply because we have been doing it for a very long time.   It must have authoritative roots and originate from the will of God through revelation.  In this way, we are no different from the RCC.

 

Tradition can be a double edged sword.  For the Jews, tradition became a huge stumbling block as they were unable to accept innovation through the revelatory process.  Joseph Smith warned of the "traditions of our fathers."   Because tradition can be both useful and a source of stumbling, I don't really see the use in distinguishing tradition from revelation as a useful source of doctrine.  While the restoration restored the traditions of old in their purity, it was the revelatory origins that made them authoritative. 

Edited April 2, 2014 by pogi

[3DOP]

 

According to the 1997 version of Gospel Principles, President Wilford Woodruff said that a

prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray: “I say to Israel, the Lord will never

permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is

not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would

remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children

of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. God bless you” (Discourses of

Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13; see also Official Declaration 1).

 

Either Brigham Young led Mormons astray with his preaching or he did not.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

I would understand the promise you cited from Wilford Woodruff to be fulfilled in that the Church was not led astray with the teaching you cite. The most reasonable interpretation of the promise doesn't seem to guard against the possibility of individuals accepting a false teaching. It was only an unsuccessful teaching. It never took deep root. I think LDS, believing in this promise, could believe that the prophet can teach false doctrine...but the Church won't accept it. This is what happened. Probably some followed Brigham Young, maybe some still do. But the Church was not corrupted by it. I seldom hear anyone defend Adam-God.

 

I don't know if this is an authoritative promise of Latter-day revelation or not, but if I were LDS, that is how I would understand it, and as a non-LDS I could not refute such an understanding.

 

3DOP

[theplains]

I think LDS, believing in this promise, could believe that the prophet can teach false doctrine...but the Church won't accept it.

 

By 'Church', do you mean the governing authorities or a majority of the members? What would

the 'Church' in Brigham Young's day do if he taught false doctrine - leave him in place (where

he could deceive more members) or excommunicate him?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Once again, our friend shows a interesting parallel between the RCC and the LDS church.

 

We don't really discuss it, but tradition really does seem to be an acceptable source of doctrine.  I am thinking about the Adam God doctrine of BY (I prefer to call it Adam Eloheim theory).  While BY was preaching it, I think LDS tradition was pushing back against this teaching, and eventually won after his death.

You are right...this is why KFD will never be canonized, as one example.

[mfbukowski]

I triangulate a little bit differently, or so it seems.

Personal revelation from God to me is the main thing I need to know my relation to God, because it is by personal revelation from God to me that I know if anything written or spoken is scripture or what God wants to teach me.

And it is also by personal revelation from God to me that I know the key role prophets and apostles have in my life, and in the world. Without them I could not have received the gift of the Holy Ghost or the priesthood of God, even though I would still be able to receive personal revelation from God to me. I just wouldn't have the same relation to God that I have now.

Agree.

 

My belief in any doctrine at all MUST be defined by personal revelation.

 

I am not a Hindu or a Muslim or a Jew because God has not told me to be one.

 

Similarly, if an LDS "doctrine" appears with which I disagree, I must still follow "my gut" (personal revelation) because that is the only compass God has given me to determine religious truth from any source.  I believe it is wrong to follow a path because "my parents told me to" or because "I have always been a _____ and will be one forever" or because some organized body has set themselves up as the "authority" on what is best for MY life.

 

There is a reason every person here has selected their personal religious views-  and yet they differ.

 

There are only two possible explanations to this, as I see it:

1- I am right and everyone else in the world is wrong not to believe as I do, OR

2-God leads each of us to the path which is the best way for each of us to learn how to become closer to Him, as the perfect spiritual tutor.

 

So for me, anyway you cut it, personal revelation is the basis for all belief.  It can be nothing else.

 

I of course believe in the second option.

[Stone holm]

By leading astray, I have always felt what was meant was that it would never lead the members to commit sin. Prophets from time to time go off the rails, but rarely on subjects that actually lead people to sin. There have been times when their rhetoric may have been used as an excuse for sinful and unChristian behavior such as racism and sexism, but that was people taking rhetoric and going beyond it.

[mfbukowski]

I have found it interesting that Catholics have something called "sensus fidelium" which basically says that if a belief is held by the whole body of the church, it is doctrinally correct.  So the entire body of the faithful is essentially infallible.

 

The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole people's supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_fidei

What I have found interesting is that Mormons are often criticized for their "changing doctrine according to convenience" in matters such as blacks and the priesthood and polygamy, and yet apparently this basic concept is also found in other churches.

I wonder if "sensus fidelium" will lead to Catholic women have the priesthood eventually.

[3DOP]

By 'Church', do you mean the governing authorities or a majority of the members? What would

the 'Church' in Brigham Young's day do if he taught false doctrine - leave him in place (where

he could deceive more members) or excommunicate him?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

I would need to know more about the context of the quote, Jim. What did Wilford Woodruff mean? That would be the answer. I doubt if he identified the Church as a mere majority of members. I doubt if he meant only the governing authorities. But maybe he did. In any event, neither a majority of the members, nor the governing authorities are advocates of Adam-God.

 

I really have no way of knowing what the LDS Church would do or should do. .

 

It seems to me like Woodruff's promise leaves room for a prophet to be wrong, and to even be a bad influence. It doesn't say that the prophet is inerrant and nothing in LDS tradition seems to teach that. Given such a context, it seems unlikely that Woodruff intended to teach infallibility on the part of the prophet. This leaves room for the prophet to make mistakes and lead people to believe the mistake. Maybe I don't understand what Adam-God means in an LDS context? Help me if I am taking this too lightly. I don't see how Adam-God is very harmful to the LDS Church even if they unanimously believed it and taught it.

 

They don't believe it, but even if they did, what difference would it make if LDS mistakenly identified Adam as God? I don't even know that such a mistake would qualify as leading the Church astray. Unless you can prove Woodruff was preaching prophetic infallibility, it seems like "lead the church astray" must allow for mistakes in doctrine while the Church continues to build God's kingdom. The position they take now is that Young was wrong, the Church survived, its bigger than ever and has lots of missionaries going all over the world. Therefore, the prophet did not lead the church astray. If I were a happy LDS, I would need other reasons than this to begin to be troubled about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Edited April 3, 2014 by 3DOP

[cdowis]

It is interesting to do a search on "tradition" on the Bible.

 

2 Thess 2 [15] Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

But on the other side we get many others that say

 

1 Peter 1 [18] Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

[3DOP]

It is interesting to do a search on "tradition" on the Bible.

 

2 Thess 2 [15] Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

But on the other side we get many others that say

 

1 Peter 1 [18] Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 

Good find cdowis.

 

Clearly, not all tradition is good. Equally clearly, not all tradition is bad.

[JLHPROF]

By 'Church', do you mean the governing authorities or a majority of the members? What would

the 'Church' in Brigham Young's day do if he taught false doctrine - leave him in place (where

he could deceive more members) or excommunicate him?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Is it possible for the President of the Church to teach false doctrine?  If he's the prophet isn't his word doctrine at the time.

Otherwise how do we know the current president is teaching true doctrine?

It's not like there's an absolute.  Even the scriptures are just the teachings of the presidents/prophets of those times.

[Stone holm]

Is it possible for the President of the Church to teach false doctrine?  If he's the prophet isn't his word doctrine at the time.

Otherwise how do we know the current president is teaching true doctrine?

It's not like there's an absolute.  Even the scriptures are just the teachings of the presidents/prophets of those times.

 

I don't think Mormons have ever believed that everything that comes out of the President's mouth is doctrine.  Do they make mistakes, are they sometimes guided by cultural concepts rather than the Holy Ghost, of course, does that mean they are not prophets? No.  Look at the excursions that Paul made which evidenced his cultural bias, yet we don't throw him under the bus as being uninspired.

[JLHPROF]

I don't think Mormons have ever believed that everything that comes out of the President's mouth is doctrine.  Do they make mistakes, are they sometimes guided by cultural concepts rather than the Holy Ghost, of course, does that mean they are not prophets? No.  Look at the excursions that Paul made which evidenced his cultural bias, yet we don't throw him under the bus as being uninspired.

 

Oh I know.  I just get REAALLLY tired of good faithful members dismissing something that Brigham or John (or Heber, or Orson, or many others) taught as just their opinions or biases.

But what REAAAAALLLLLYYY irritates me is that this standard is not applied to whoever happens to be a current GA.  We just assume that whatever is currently taught is automatically more correct than what was previously taught.

 

It's not right that we say "Oh, that was Brigham so I don't have to believe it" and then turn around and say "Oh President Monson said it so it has to be true."

[Coreyb]

I don't think Mormons have ever believed that everything that comes out of the President's mouth is doctrine.  Do they make mistakes, are they sometimes guided by cultural concepts rather than the Holy Ghost, of course, does that mean they are not prophets? No.  Look at the excursions that Paul made which evidenced his cultural bias, yet we don't throw him under the bus as being uninspired.

I know plenty of Mormons who throw Paul under the bus

[MiserereNobis]

I know plenty of Mormons who throw Paul under the bus

 

Ha!  You beat me to it

[Bob Crockett]

You are right...this is why KFD will never be canonized, as one example.

Untrue.

It was not stenographically reported.

[Coreyb]

Oh I know.  I just get REAALLLY tired of good faithful members dismissing something that Brigham or John (or Heber, or Orson, or many others) taught as just their opinions or biases.

But what REAAAAALLLLLYYY irritates me is that this standard is not applied to whoever happens to be a current GA.  We just assume that whatever is currently taught is automatically more correct than what was previously taught.

 

It's not right that we say "Oh, that was Brigham so I don't have to believe it" and then turn around and say "Oh President Monson said it so it has to be true."

I agree that its ridiculous the way we some times belittle our past leaders. I do feel that the only way for a president to have his teaching stay truly viable years after he is gone is to write them down and present them to the quorums and the church body for common consent, and then add them to our standard works. Fortunately or unfortunately Brigham Young did not do this with his Adam God revelation, and it has not remained viable in the current church. 

Edited April 3, 2014 by Coreyb

[Stone holm]

I agree that its ridiculous the way we some times belittle our past leaders. I do feel that the only way for a president to have his teaching stay truly viable years after he is gone is to write them down and present them to the quorums and the church body for common consent, and then add them to our standard works. Fortunately or unfortunately Brigham Young did not do this with his Adam God revelation, and it has not remained viable in the current church. 

 

I don't know, I think a lot of Brigham Young's teachings will stand the test of time, perhaps better than say Joseph Fielding Smith's and definitely better than the pre-Presidency teachings of Ezra Taft Benson.  In fact, I think we tend to pay more attendtion when Joseph Smith, Brigham Young have stated something than others.  While we may have thrown the Adam God Theory overboard, i think many Mormons still go with Brigham's approach to the Creation Story than say Joseph Fielding Smith's.