[ErikJohnson]

Hey Faded—

Regarding your previous post concerning Sola Scriptura—there’s definitely some agreement here. I don’t dispute your point that the LDS position vis-à-vis doctrines that divide Protestants and Catholics are really “option C.” You’re certainly right that there are important distinctions in the details. And to a large extent, I think that once Joseph Smith denied the Triune God of the Christian Faith—all other points of comparison became superficial. But despite known and fundamental differences—I still think it’s reasonable to make a comparison of doctrines like “Spirit Prison” and Purgatory and of the Five Solas and to ask whether the LDS teaching is “better aligned” with the Catholic or Protestant view. (Although judging from the relative lack of interest in the thread—not many LDS here agree or find it worthwhile to make such comparisons.)

But I’m not sure you’re appreciating the distinction I made between Reformation doctrines and the outcomes of the Reformation, or its “achievements.” My analogy to Brigham Young’s achievement of founding SLC, which so deeply offended bytor2112, apparently didn’t resonate with you either. You keep reiterating what the Reformation accomplished (e.g., expansion of literacy and broad dissemination of the Bible), rather than the doctrines the Reformers actually taught. And somewhat off-topic, you’re adamant that Protestants don’t agree on the Five Solas and that some teach Faith = Belief + Works. For that claim, I would encourage you to do some research and see if you can provide links to substantiate it. Start with the largest of the mainline Protestant organizations (the SBC) and work your way down the list. You’ll discover there’s much more unity here than you think.

Near the bottom of your last post, you make the following statement that seems to agree with the point of my OP—

Protestantism all too often tended to throw the baby out with the bath water doctrinally. Often, there was a general concept that was right, but severely distorted. Protestantism threw the distorted version out and called it false doctrine. In so doing, they lost some things.

From an LDS point of view—what you say makes complete sense to me. The doctrines themselves were not inspired (tossing the baby out with the bathwater). Rather, they should be seen as providing a means to an end, setting the stage for the LDS “restoration.” To call the Reformation itself inspired is misleading. It merely substituted one error for another, and as you say, “lost some things” along its way. The Reformation itself was inspired only in the sense that it served as a catalyst for certain outcomes, or as you say, achievements.

Now to put the shoe on the other foot—imagine I told an LDS audience I thought Joseph Smith was inspired of God. That would please the room, right? But supposing I followed up by saying his core doctrines, his claims to authority, etc. were false, or at least flawed. LDS would see this as a contradiction, would they not?. They’d argue that since he was inspired, it follows that the doctrines he taught were inspired. And they’d rightfully wonder what I meant by saying he was inspired to begin with. And if I went on to say that despite his false teachings, I believed Joseph Smith was inspired because of Mormonism’s achievements (e.g., investing in educational institutions, encouraging/enabling European emigration to the US, settling the Utah Territory, making it impossible to get a decent mixed drink at a bar in that state)—they’d think I’d missed the point or was being disingenuous. And they’d be right.

That’s pretty much how it seemed to me when I’d hear LDS say that the Reformation was inspired. To say the Reformation was inspired while saying it promoted false and flawed doctrines is contradictory. (Unless, as LDS poster Maxel suggested on the other thread, there was a brief historical window where Sola Scriptura and the other doctrines were in fact, true doctrine. To his credit, Maxel’s approach does implicitly acknowledge and resolve the contradiction—although it is highly problematic in other ways.)

Can you see my point?

--Erik