BC's View of LDS Doctrine -- Is It Doctrine?

[_bcspace]

I find supporting the homosexual lifestyle choice, abortion as a method of birth control, and socialism to be just as vile and disgusting and a greater cause of death.

"supporting the homosexual lifestyle" = rape and genocide perpetrated on behalf of the God of the Old Testament

You can't be serious.

Strawman. I didn't say that. However, the hs lifestyle choice does in and of itself, increase the risk of death.

[_Chap]

I just picked some stories that I remembered. I know there is a ton of other "sensational" stuff in there. It's repulsive, and anyone who imagines that God really ordered this junk AND still chooses to worship this god has some real issues, as far as I'm concerned. You're no better than the peon of the mafia don, who knows that the don is a vicious, amoral killer, but still kisses the ring in order to benefit from borrowed power.

I find supporting the homosexual lifestyle choice, abortion as a method of birth control, and socialism to be just as vile and disgusting and a greater cause of death.

Oh good ... bcspace does agree that the things the Hebrew deity are said to have ordered were 'vile and disgusting'. (Otherwise the phrase 'just as vile and disgusting' would be meaningless).

Point is, some people think we ought to worship him, love him and shower him with laudatory epithets ... no-one is asking anybody to worship the advocates of the social policies that bcspace dislikes.

I should think that the being who created the plague bacillus and all the rest has probably killed a lot more people than any human individual or group has ever managed to rub out. And yet we are supposed to thank him every day of our lives (presumably even if we are dying of plague at the time ...)

There is an old Jewish saying: if God lived on earth, people would break his windows. One can quite see why.

[_bcspace]

Who decides what doctrine is?

The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve together.

What constitutes doctrine?

What the Church publishes.

Surely if the prophet prophesies, it should be made doctrine like the ancient prophecies become in the Scriptures.

It is when it's published.

Why would the church be scared to bring out new doctrine?

They are not. From the link in my siggy...

In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

[_bcspace]

Oh good ... bcspace does agree that the things the Hebrew deity are said to have ordered were 'vile and disgusting'. (Otherwise the phrase 'just as vile and disgusting' would be meaningless).

However, if God commanded, would you carry it out?

Point is, some people think we ought to worship him, love him and shower him with laudatory epithets ... no-one is asking anybody to worship the advocates of the social policies that bcspace dislikes.

Such social policies are actually a type of enforced worship.

I should think that the being who created the plague bacillus and all the rest has probably killed a lot more people than any human individual or group has ever managed to rub out. And yet we are supposed to thank him every day of our lives (presumably even if we are dying of plague at the time ...)

Yet this Being knows that we do not cease to exist when we die. This life purifies and refines us. We know the bitter from the sweet, etc. The old atheist chestnut of "Is God a good father?" is not a rational argument.

There is an old Jewish saying: if God lived on earth, people would break his windows. One can quite see why.

They would even crucify him.

[_Droopy]

Which one? The Holy Ghost that guided Nephi to kill Laban, or the one that guided the Laffertys to kill a baby?

This one:

1 Sam 15:3

[_Droopy]

Since they are no longer in the D&C, they are not doctrinal. However, I believe many parts of it are quoted in doctrinal works as well as some of the same teachings. Those would be doctrinal.

They are also published in full in the Ensign back in the 70's as I recall, but the presentation is of historical context making it doctrine that the LoF are part of LDS history.

In other words, as I believe bc is trying to make clear (if I'm understanding him correctly), texts like the Lectures on Faith, or doctrines such as God the Father having a father etc (or Heavenly Mother, for that matter), while not in the scriptures, may still be doctrinal, and while not official doctrine, may still be true doctrine. This has always been my understanding of the order of the Church. Anyone...anyone...can have the mysteries of God revealed to him or her, line upon line, point upon point, as soon as they are able to "bear it". Any member of the Church can essentially have the same knowledge, wisdom, and revelation as the Prophets. Unless, however, one is called and ordained to teach and interpret doctrine for the Church, it is then incumbent upon one to keep such greater knowledge to oneself until such a time as that knowledge is brought forth publically through the proper channels of Priesthood authority, but the reception of that knowledge remains the same. As soon as we are capable of receiving and living to the level of the knowledge we seek, we can receive it.

Then there are doctrinal theories or opinions (traditional Priesthood ban explanations, for example) that may combine true principles as understood in the Church with other elements that can be safely discarded.

This dreary old hobby horse argument is so threadbare its literally physically painful to revisit it again and again and again as it can be answered definitively for anyone actually seeking an answer to the question.

[_truth dancer]

Lets go with your belief that anything published by the LDS church is LDS doctrine.

That is the Church's own statement, not my belief.

It is an unofficial unclear statement that you hold as truth. Saying one can find doctrine in scripture does in no way suggest all scripture is doctrine.

Do you think all LDS official doctrine is true?

I believe there are some minor nit picky things that are doctrine but probably aren't or might not be true imho, such as the global flood.

Some "minor nit picky things" like the global flood? You are kidding right?

So, In other words, doctrine does not equate to truth. Doctrine may or may not be true.

If one is a believer in the LDS church does this assume they believe or agree with LDS doctrine?

Yes. How much a believer one is depends on how much of the doctrine one believes.

But what about all the untrue doctrine? Should believers believe it?

Can one be a member of the LDS church in good standing and believe some doctrine is completely wrong?

The Church allows for this yes. It depends on what that individual does about such unbelief.

Who decides what untrue doctrine one must believe? What should a believer do with untrue doctrine? Why does the church keep untrue doctrine? And how is anyone supposed to know what is or is not true doctrine? In other words, why bother with doctrine at all?

What is the purpose of doctrine if members don't believe it? Or if it is not true?

Whatever purpose the doctrine may claim to be. The unbelieving member could certainly also be wrong.

How is a believer supposed to know if they are wrong or if the doctrine is untrue?

See, this thread exemplifies the problem of doctrine in the LDS church.

First there is no official guideline to what is official doctrine (because there isn't any doctrine).

Next, doctrine may or may not be true, may change, alter, disappear, evaporate, or be eliminated at any time.

No one knows what doctrine/teachings/practices are true or not.

And, everyone seems to have their opinion on it all, while none of the opinions are the same.

It is all such a mess.

:-)

~dancer~

[_bcspace]

In other words, as I believe bc is trying to make clear (if I'm understanding him correctly), texts like the Lectures on Faith, or doctrines such as God the Father having a father etc (or Heavenly Mother, for that matter), while not in the scriptures, may still be doctrinal, and while not official doctrine, may still be true doctrine.

In part, yes. A Heavenly Mother and God having a Father is published doctrine elsewhere as I recall, implicitly and/or explicitly.

This has always been my understanding of the order of the Church. Anyone...anyone...can have the mysteries of God revealed to him or her, line upon line, point upon point, as soon as they are able to "bear it". Any member of the Church can essentially have the same knowledge, wisdom, and revelation as the Prophets. Unless, however, one is called and ordained to teach and interpret doctrine for the Church, it is then incumbent upon one to keep such greater knowledge to oneself until such a time as that knowledge is brought forth publically through the proper channels of Priesthood authority, but the reception of that knowledge remains the same. As soon as we are capable of receiving and living to the level of the knowledge we seek, we can receive it.

Sure.

This dreary old hobby horse argument is so threadbare its literally physically painful to revisit it again and again and again as it can be answered definitively for anyone actually seeking an answer to the question.

The amazing thing is that there are official statements by the Church on this subject which exactly mirror how the church has operated for decades and yet they still won't believe. But that is because they can't afford to admit that there apostasy was wrongly justified or that their favorite arguments against the Church are false.

[_bcspace]

See, this thread exemplifies the problem of doctrine in the LDS church.

First there is no official guideline to what is official doctrine (because there isn't any doctrine).

Incorrect. You cannot possibly get that out of what I posted and the evidence for that comes from the fact that you could not point to anything I said to justify this position.

Next, doctrine may or may not be true,

Inncorrect again.

may change, alter, disappear, evaporate, or be eliminated at any time.

Got to keep up on your reading the published works. However, I seriously doubt that, even if you haven't, you would miss much.

No one knows what doctrine/teachings/practices are true or not.

Plenty of people know. The ones that don;t are the ones that don't pay attention or have agendas that can't stand the light of truth.

And, everyone seems to have their opinion on it all, while none of the opinions are the same.

You now know the simple method on how to distinguish between opinion and doctrine. We can fill in the blanks, where there is no doctrine, with whatever we want.

It is all such a mess.

I think you understand quite well that what is and is not doctrine is clear and simple. However, you seem to have an agenda against the Church and therefore cannot afford to allow others to see it.

[_Chap]

Is there something about being LDS that disables one from writing continuous prose?