Have no fear. I have saved it and may return to it in some fashion or other.
Everyone needs to keep in mind that bcspace' opinion on what is official church doctrine is only his idea as he presents it. No one need consider that he speaks with real authority and he certainly doesn't represent the evolving Mormon religion.
What everyone needs to realize is that I have only presented the Church's view on it's own doctrine. It provides a systematic way to determine if the phrase "that's not doctrine" is really the case. So knowing the Church's stance should actually help critics avoid all sorts of argument and pitfalls though of course it also confirms many of their favorite chestnuts to be false.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I think I'm starting to feel BC's logic is sound. It all makes sense to me. I'm glad he is willing to defend his position on this thread.
That said, I stand in awe at his approach to religion and worship. It gives me the feeling of a dry business. When I try to look at BC's religion, I feel like I'm walking into a building of one of the Big Four. I'm not sure exactly why I get this feeling. Is it his use of concise explanations? Is it his rejection of disturbing doctrines, spoken by an individual prophet in the passion of the moment? Is it his rejection of personal revelation? What is it?
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
I find it interesting that Mr. BCSpace feels his subjective anecdotal experience is somehow more reliable than anyone else's.
Because no one else's "experience" is backed up by official statements from the Church and actual practice like "mine" is and no one else has found anything the Church has said to contradict it. This position you rail against is indeed, the official position of the Church and has been for many decades if not longer.
Approaching Mormon Doctrine is an official response to the question of doctrine published on an official web site. Prior to that, many good statements to that effect were, and still are, had in Teaching, No Greater Call and other official works. Since Approaching Mormon Doctrine is very useful as a summary, I will continue to use it.
bcspace wrote: Because no one else's "experience" is backed up by official statements from the Church and actual practice like "mine" is and no one else has found anything the Church has said to contradict it.
Well...except that whole flood thing...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Is it his rejection of disturbing doctrines, spoken by an individual prophet in the passion of the moment? Is it his rejection of personal revelation?
Examples?
Because no one else's "experience" is backed up by official statements from the Church and actual practice like "mine" is and no one else has found anything the Church has said to contradict it.
Well...except that whole flood thing...
I'm talking about what determines what is and is not doctrine.
bcspace wrote: I'm talking about what determines what is and is not doctrine.
I'm shocked...
However, my signature line Trump's yours. Mine states where doctrine resides. Yours just points out where its advertised! ;-)
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
bcspace wrote: What everyone needs to realize is that I have only presented the Church's view on it's own doctrine. It provides a systematic way to determine if the phrase "that's not doctrine" is really the case. So knowing the Church's stance should actually help critics avoid all sorts of argument and pitfalls though of course it also confirms many of their favorite chestnuts to be false.
Then why do you back peddle from it when it hurts you? You know AG, the Millennial Star and the Deseret News... as official as you get for the 19th century.
However, my signature line Trump's yours. Mine states where doctrine resides. Yours just points out where its advertised! ;-)
No. The doctrine may reside there, but it is shown that neither you nor I can look at those residences and establish what official LDS doctrine is. You can't say that the water in John 3:5 means water baptism according to the LDS Church without having referred to an official publication at some point.
Then why do you back peddle from it when it hurts you? You know AG, the Millennial Star and the Deseret News... as official as you get for the 19th century.
I've never back peddled on the Church's stance and have always noted the differences in context and qualifications that merely come down to agreeing with what the Church says.
Then why do you back peddle from it when it hurts you? You know AG, the Millennial Star and the Deseret News... as official as you get for the 19th century.
I've never back peddled on the Church's stance and have always noted the differences in context and qualifications that merely come down to agreeing with what the Church says.
The you agree that Adam God was official doctrine. Thanks.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.