.

[_MsJack]

I wasn't really trying to make it a contest between Protestantism and Mormonism. Just illustrate.

I think these diagrams help show where Protestantism stands on how authoritative tradition is when compared to Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism:





(Diagrams by C. Michael Patton of Parchment & Pen blog, found in his In Defense of Sola Scriptura series.)

I'm an adherent of sola scriptura myself. It's those solo scriptura people---the "Me, My Bible, My Jesus" folks---who think they can divorce themselves from tradition altogether. We do believe in the authority of tradition, but it is less central to our beliefs than it is RCs and EOs (and arguably Mormons, though that depends on who you talk to).

As far as the ECFs go, I don't read them thinking "well, they agree with Protestantism here and that's where they're right, and here they disagree so obviously they're wrong." I prefer to just read them on their own and not pass too much judgment on them. I say that they're wrong on some things though because there's some crazy stuff in there which no Christian tradition today would agree with. It's kind of like Journal of Discourses for traditional Christianity.

My real gripe with them is that they divorced themselves from the Jewish context in which the New Testament was written, which was their biggest mistake in my book. Admittedly evangelical Christianity hasn't done much to fix this problem, but I guess I've given up on having a religion that has everything that I want.

[_Trevor]

I wasn't really trying to make it a contest between Protestantism and Mormonism. Just illustrate.

So, everything is theoretically fallible in Mormonism, in your view?

I'm an adherent of sola scriptura myself. It's those solo scriptura people---the "Me, My Bible, My Jesus" folks---who think they can divorce themselves from tradition altogether. We do believe in the authority of tradition, but it is less central to our beliefs than it is RCs and EOs (and arguably Mormons, though that depends on who you talk to).

Thank you for the education on this. Too often Mormons and people who were raised Mormon like myself have a rather distorted and simplistic view of Christianity/ies. My education is still woefully incomplete. My most recent study has been about EO.

As far as the ECFs go, I don't read them thinking "well, they agree with Protestantism here and that's where they're right, and here they disagree so obviously they're wrong." I prefer to just read them on their own and not pass too much judgment on them. I say that they're wrong on some things though because there's some crazy stuff in there which no Christian tradition today would agree with. It's kind of like Journal of Discourses for traditional Christianity.

How refreshing to find someone actually reading my words correctly. I do worry that the temptation is to conform the past to a presentist perspective. Certainly, in Mormon apologetics, this is one of the dangers involved in cherry-picking historical Christianities for Mormon parallels of some kind. I am not so certain, speaking as a historian, that the disappearance of odd beliefs of the past makes them "wrong" in some absolute sense, although I do understand the need to appeal to some standard. I do still like your comparison of the ECF with the John Dehlin.

My real gripe with them is that they divorced themselves from the Jewish context in which the New Testament was written, which was their biggest mistake in my book. Admittedly evangelical Christianity hasn't done much to fix this problem, but I guess I've given up on having a religion that has everything that I want.

Well, it is all just Hellenistic Judaism in one form or another. Judaism as it exists now is partly the result of being beaten upon so thoroughly by the Roman Empire under Hadrian. The last thing Jews after that bloodbath wanted was to support another national messianic champion. Paul's Jesus is probably just one version of the messianic hero that was formerly attractive to a fair number of Jews and God-fearers before that time.

[_huckelberry]

Gnostic and Mormon, I think there is enough spread in what is gnostic that some overlap is possible between these two. I find it very difficult to see the common ground a few people above are able to see. As best as I can see Mormon views are largely the same as the Catholic tradition in contrast with gnostics. There are well known differences with the Catholic tradition but these are not points of similarity with gnostic teaching to my knowledge. I have seen, over and over Mormon posters reference gnostic Christianity to show there were traditions which were lost. I wish people would show what specifics they see which could be seen as like Mormon thought.

Consiglieri mentioned Mormon belief in the importance of knowledge. I am unfamiliar with any form of Christian tradition which does not see the importance of knowledge. This is hardly a significant common ground. If the things which it is important to know were the same in gnostic thought and LDS thought and in contrast with the Catholic tradition then you would be showing Mormonism as restored gnosticism,( for better or worse.)

[_MsJack]

Trevor ~ I'll try to get back to you on this later this weekend. Wednesdays & Thursdays are really busy for me with work & class.