Do (LDS) prophets have any value

[_harmony]

Being in the Standard Works is not a requirement for doctrine.

That is not the case. Every doctrine must be either in the standard works or tied to them, or it's not doctrine. The standard works are the only canonized (which means accepted by vote of the members) source we have. The rest is all off the cuff and results in things like Adam God.

Incorrect. That is not what the Church itself says (and I posted above). You can say doctrine does not conflict with canon but it's not the same thing.

It is not doctrine if it's not canonized. If it's not accepted by the body of the church as binding, it's not doctrine.

[_Roger Morrison]

In answer to the excellent question re the value of a LDS prophet. It is MSCO the word "Prophet" as generally understood in a biblical sense, is nothing but a title such as "King" "Queen" or "Boss". The purpse of which is to subordinate others to obey the title holder.

To the end that this tends to establish order within the rank and file, it does serve some purpose. However, purpose-serving is not an endorsement--many wrong & horrid 'things' serve vile purposes.

OTOH, some titles such as Doctor, Engineer, Mechanic etc, do indicate skill and expertice easily tested. In fact it is fraudulent to advertise one's self to be certified in those professions or vocations without THE paper saying so.

In General Conference, April 5th, it will be interesting, to me at least, to see and hear how GBH's successor is presented. IF as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator can that be understood, and taken literally to mean, in this century what it did thousands of years ago to superstitious primitives who believed that Prophets controlled the sun, the seas and she-bears?

Credibility, integrity and honour of members, and LDS Inc hang on that question, as I see it... Warm regards, Roger

[_bcspace]

Incorrect. That is not what the Church itself says (and I posted above). You can say doctrine does not conflict with canon but it's not the same thing.

It is not doctrine if it's not canonized. If it's not accepted by the body of the church as binding, it's not doctrine.

Then why does the Church state otherwise in a news release to the press as well as in it's own teaching materials?

This remains the basic problem in communications between Mormons and non/ex/jack Mormons; that Mormons know (or should know) what doctrine is and the others do not and won't accept it.

[_Roger Morrison]

BCS said:This remains the basic problem in communications between Mormons and non/ex/jack Mormons; that Mormons know (or should know) what doctrine is and the others do not and won't accept it.



How about recognizing the fact, "...once a Mormon, always a Mormon..." in that what was/is 'learned' remains, generally speaking, as material in the mind. Whether 'belief' remains is a matter of individual continued acceptance of that material once presented as 'truth' remaining as once taught/believed.

The labels "Doctrine" &/or "Cannonized" are human efforts to 'Divinize' teachings and edicts of the particular institution agrandizing themselves by suggesting their affinity with "God". A most reprehensible boast. In my seriously considered opinion... Warm regards, Roger

[_harmony]

Incorrect. That is not what the Church itself says (and I posted above). You can say doctrine does not conflict with canon but it's not the same thing.

It is not doctrine if it's not canonized. If it's not accepted by the body of the church as binding, it's not doctrine.

Then why does the Church state otherwise in a news release to the press as well as in it's own teaching materials?

If it's not stated in the canon, it's not binding, and that includes news releases and to a certain extent, teaching materials.

Good grief, bc. News releases? You honestly consider news releases to be doctrinal? You know the process as well as anyone.

This remains the basic problem in communications between Mormons and non/ex/jack Mormons; that Mormons know (or should know) what doctrine is and the others do not and won't accept it.

Yeah, well, my temple recommend is as good as yours.

[_harmony]

The labels "Doctrine" &/or "Cannonized" are human efforts to 'Divinize' teachings and edicts of the particular institution agrandizing themselves by suggesting their affinity with "God". A most reprehensible boast. In my seriously considered opinion... Warm regards, Roger

Canonization is simply the process by which the members agree on what is binding. It certainly doesn't necessarily mean that which is canonized actually came from God. Canonization is necessary for something to be binding, but not sufficient to declare something actually was God-breathed. (Because Lord knows Sec 132 is canonized, but it certainly isn't from God).

[_Roger Morrison]

The labels "Doctrine" &/or "Cannonized" are human efforts to 'Divinize' teachings and edicts of the particular institution agrandizing themselves by suggesting their affinity with "God". A most reprehensible boast. In my seriously considered opinion... Warm regards, Roger

Canonization is simply the process by which the members agree on what is binding. It certainly doesn't necessarily mean that which is canonized actually came from God. Canonization is necessary for something to be binding, but not sufficient to declare something actually was God-breathed. (Because Lord knows Sec 132 is canonized, but it certainly isn't from God).

Exactly the point i was/am attempting (feebly :-) to make. Thank You, Sis. Unanimity in support of an error, doesn't change its errantcy...
Warm regards, Roger

[_bcspace]

Then why does the Church state otherwise in a news release to the press as well as in it's own teaching materials?

If it's not stated in the canon, it's not binding, and that includes news releases and to a certain extent, teaching materials.

CFR

Do you honestly believe the Church would teach that which is not doctrinal in it's manuals?

Good grief, bc. News releases? You honestly consider news releases to be doctrinal? You know the process as well as anyone.

The news release simply states what has been known for years. And yes, the news release is official doctrine, being published by the Church.

[_Roger Morrison]

bcs said:

Do you honestly believe the Church would teach that which is not doctrinal in it's manuals?

Are you sure you want to stick with that question? "Manuals" contain history, biography, personal opinons and statements that in my understanding of "doctrine" are anything but??

Could be i'm misunderstanding you, bcs?? Are you suggesting the definition of "doctrine" to be: any/every thing published in a "manual"? Roger

[_bcspace]

Do you honestly believe the Church would teach that which is not doctrinal in it's manuals?

Are you sure you want to stick with that question?

Quite sure.

"Manuals" contain history, biography, personal opinons and statements that in my understanding of "doctrine" are anything but??

Could depend on presentation. For example, the Bible Dictionary, though published by the Church, says in it's own introduction that it is not doctrinal. Therefore, the doctrine is the the BD is not doctrinal.

Seems to me that such cases come up only rarely. I can't really think of anything recently that I've stated as LDS doctrine being subject to presentation scrutiny. I'm not going to deceive you. Of course I'm fairly certain you or someone else be trying to equivocate......

Could be I'm misunderstanding you, bcs?? Are you suggesting the definition of "doctrine" to be: any/every thing published in a "manual"?

By the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sure. It's even more than manuals (such as new releases). But we can stick with that for now.