Judging "the Church"

Dave Armstrong said...

If one doubts papal infallibility (as David [Waltz] has), then he has likely thought: "it fails because of historical counter-examples a, b, c, and d." The pros and cons of each case could be argued, sticking mostly to historiography (that would be my methodology if it came to that), but the question must be asked, "why is it that one has placed their private judgment and personal doubts above the judgment of the Church in the first place?" That is a question of faith and of the rule of faith.

One has now assumed a Protestant stance of judging the Church (indistinguishable from Luther), rather than being judged by her, and giving assent, without necessarily having every jot and tittle of Catholic doctrine perfectly understood and tied in a neat little package with a shiny purple bow.

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/01/solemn-announcement-but-with-no-thanks.html?showComment=1263259816843#c8239731309232949749

Brigham Young said…

If one doubts First Presidency (as Dave Armstrong has), then he has likely thought: "it fails because of historical counter-examples a, b, c, and d." The pros and cons of each case could be argued, sticking mostly to historiography (that would be my methodology if it came to that), but the question must be asked, "why is it that one has placed their private judgment and personal doubts above the judgment of the LDS Church in the first place?" That is a question of faith and of the rule of faith.

One has now assumed a Protestant stance of judging the LDS Church (indistinguishable from Luther), rather than being judged by her, and giving assent, without necessarily having every jot and tittle of Mormon doctrine perfectly understood and tied in a neat little package with a shiny purple bow.