That's Not Doctrine!

[_Buffalo]

Nobody is right on everything. That's just how it is. While you demand perfection from people who run a church and claim to speak for God I think that demand is unreasonable considering people and the world as we know it. I just have a different paradigm than you, it appears, that's why I take courage and am happy to note that there is some refinement in LDS belief and practice over the years. And in 50 years from now I'll most likely happily accept that things change.

But for them to get it wrong so frequently on so many important issues is troubling, no?

[_just me]

I think it would be an obvious concern. If they cannot get it right on important issues like this one, how does one know they are right about the others. You can bring up personal revelation, but it suffers from the same problem. How many members recieved revelation indicating certain things were true in the past that are not consideed true today. If God were really communicating to the leaders of the LDS church it would not be hard to aviod getting things wrong. How hard would it be to tell Joseph or BY not to restrict the pristhood from black males. So when will the apologists argue that the restriction of the priesthood to just males 12 years old and up was not doctrine? :)

Nobody is right on everything. That's just how it is. While you demand perfection from people who run a church and claim to speak for God I think that demand is unreasonable considering people and the world as we know it. I just have a different paradigm than you, it appears, that's why I take courage and am happy to note that there is some refinement in LDS belief and practice over the years. And in 50 years from now I'll most likely happily accept that things change.

Why do they claim to speak for god if they don't? Does God speak to them or not?

[_consiglieri]

There is no systematized doctrinal structure in the Church. There never has been. The Church is unlike any credel organization. They lack the Spirit and must operate by dictated rules.

I think this is a hard proposition to support historically.

Although this was the case in Joseph Smith's day, and to a less successful extent in Brigham Young's.

Then the church had to deal with the federal government over the polygamy issue.

When the dust from that conflict settled, the LDS Church set about systematizing doctrine, something Joseph Smith had apparently not thought necessary.

In Joseph F. Smith's administration, First Presidency pronouncements on doctrinal issues predominate. (Note--I keep typing pre-dominate, but it comes up "predominant.") Elder Talmadge was appointed to write correlated treatises of what constitutes Mormon Doctrine.

The Articles of Faith and Jesus the Christ resulted.

President Joseph Fielding Smith continued the push, followed up by his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie, who thought a systematized doctrine was so important he was willing to effectively call many early church leaders apostate and heretics for believing differently.

In 1970, the Correlation Committee was formed to make sure that only the "orthodox religion" would be preached in Mormon meeting houses.

A plethora of manuals vomited forth, each containing the same material but distinguished by varying covers.

The LDS Church has become what Joseph Smith sought to overthrow.

Creedal Christianity.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Yahoo Bot]

There is no systematized doctrinal structure in the Church. There never has been. The Church is unlike any credel organization. They lack the Spirit and must operate by dictated rules.

I think this is a hard proposition to support historically.

Although this was the case in Joseph Smith's day, and to a less successful extent in Brigham Young's.

Then the church had to deal with the federal government over the polygamy issue.

When the dust from that conflict settled, the LDS Church set about systematizing doctrine, something Joseph Smith had apparently not thought necessary.

In Joseph F. Smith's administration, First Presidency pronouncements on doctrinal issues predominant. (Note--I keep typing pre-dominate, but it comes up "predominant.") Elder Talmadge was appointed to write correlated treatises of what constitutes Mormon Doctrine.

The Articles of Faith and Jesus the Christ resulted.

President Joseph Fielding Smith continued the push, followed up by his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie, who thought a systematized doctrine was so important he was willing to effectively call many early church leaders apostate and heretics for believing differently.

In 1970, the Correlation Committee was formed to make sure that only the "orthodox religion" would be preached in Mormon meeting houses.

A plethora of manuals vomited forth, each containing the same material but distinguished by varying covers.

The LDS Church has become what Joseph Smith sought to overthrow.

Creedal Christianity.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

There's a difference between commentary, even official, and systematized theology.

Obviously, priesthood leaders have to preach the word and do so verbally and in written form. And, the Church is good at that.

But, with every man a prophet, priesthood holder and elder, there's going to be lot of commentary. Correlation does not denote systematized theology.

One might rank what is said in descending order of authority.

Canonized scripture is number 1, but even that is not a set of rules and regulations akin to the Koran. It is just a bunch of stories, letters, sermons.

Short of that, formal proclamations and official declarations by the Q12 and FP are helpful and interesting, but when you study these, they are rare or rather bland. The annual Christmas message?

Below that we have the handbook of instructions, but doctrinal discussions are rather rare. We can understand the rules and positions about abortion and homosexual behavior, and it is pretty clear, but it isn't doctrine.

Below that we have basically sermons by individuals, either in written or oral form. We can see individual Brethren's thinking on various points at snapshots in time (in the very early 1940s, very much against the war in Europe, for example).

For these reasons, if a member of the Church wants to understand what the Lord wants for him or her, as opposed to a degenerate apostate such as yourself, it requires something other than reading a list of rules or the Journal of Discourses.

[_Joseph]

"Nobody is right on everything. That's just how it is. While you demand perfection from people who run a church and claim to speak for God I think that demand is unreasonable considering people and the world as we know it. "
********************************

People who tell you they talk for God and are his ONLY authorized representatives on Earth and have the Fullness of Truth are and should be expected to be right when telling us what is True.

How can one be a prophet unless they prophecy?
How can one be a seer unless they see something?
How can one be a revelator unless they reveal something?

Don't you think they should be speaking the Truth when speaking 'for God' and with his Authority?

[_Yahoo Bot]

How can one be a prophet unless they prophecy?
How can one be a seer unless they see something?
How can one be a revelator unless they reveal something?

As Ratzinger says in his current best-selling book, a prophet is not usually an ecclesiastical soothsayer. He is a preacher and a leader.

But to understand this concept, you'd have to be something other than a [personal attack deleted].

[_Themis]

Nobody is right on everything. That's just how it is. While you demand perfection from people who run a church and claim to speak for God I think that demand is unreasonable considering people and the world as we know it.

This is a strawman. No where did I demand perfection. If they can't be right on important issues they cannpt be trusted to be right on other important issues. Why not go over my post and deal with what I brought up instead of creating this strawman.

[_Themis]

[Below that we have the handbook of instructions, but doctrinal discussions are rather rare. We can understand the rules and positions about abortion and homosexual behavior, and it is pretty clear, but it isn't doctrine.

Actually it is docrine. Doctrine does not equal truth, but what the church teaches and practices. Every man a propphet is basically BS since they cannot get revelation that is in conflict with what the church teaches.

[_Jason Bourne]

There is no systematized doctrinal structure in the Church. There never has been. The Church is unlike any credel organization. They lack the Spirit and must operate by dictated rules.

I think that it is fairly true that there is no systemized theology in the LDS Church though there were spurts and starts at it. The Lectures on Faith and D&C 20 come to mind quickly.

As for other Church's lacking the spirit I am not sure that is fair really. The attempt to outline what a Church believes and declares as official seems to make sense. The LDS Church does not do this and what look at the results when trying to pin down what its doctrine is that one must be accountable to and for.

Just see how all over the place apologists are and how often they want to dismiss something uncomfortable that seems to have been doctrine.

Take for example the issues you have with some apologists on their position on Book of Mormon geography.

The Church operates by the Spirit rather than by artificial man-made constructs. One can easily see from the Bible itself how inconsistent men apply prophetic utterances. A Moabite could not enter into the congregation of the Lord until the tenth generation "for ever" (Deut. 23:3), yet David's grandmother was a Moabite. Denying somebody the benefits of the gospel merely because of his race is a pretty significant pronoucement; yet, it was evaded or changed for no explanation.

The problem is this is so very much subjective to the individual. I am sure you have had experiences where some have said the spirit told them this, that or some other thing and you I bet were certain they were off their rocker. But how does one know for sure?

The Church operates with revelation from a mostly bottom up, rather than top down, dictate. As Jesus said in Matthew 18:18-20, if "any two of you" (speaking to the apostles) shall agree on earth as touching any thing" then it shall be so. It wasn't, "shake the dice, examine the entrails, and get your answer."

You really think so? I think it is a heavy top down organization.

To that extent, doctrine is something that can be known only by the Spirit. "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." John 7:17. One cannot endure "sound doctrine" if one seeks after one's own lusts, as persons such as yourselves. 2 Timothy 4:3.

So everyone is left on their own to figure out what really is and is not doctrine? When I was a missionary I promoted the Church as having it all figured out and you could know where you stand because we had prophets and apostles that gave us God's word and doctrine directly from him. This was the appeal over these other apostate Christian sects that seemed tossed about by every wind of doctrine.

But now, I see that to defend the Church we have mistaken men offering their own opinions a good part of the time and getting it wrong a lot. But the spirit will tell us what doctrine is.

So what happens when the spirit tells me something the LDS Church is teaching is wrong?

Things are not very well aided by well-meaning members of the Church who fail to read their scriptures and attempt to systematize doctrine. It is one thing to describe past statements about how the Church works, and another to say "this is doctrine and the way it is." One does not equal the other, although most or many of the members of the Church think it so.

So most the members are incorrect?

The word "canon" does not denote doctrine, either. In the LDS Church, canon means only that the Church as a body has voted upon including certain statements in what is popularly known today as the "Quad." Canon does not elevate one pronouncement over another, except to say that the Brethren and the Church have decided to include in the "Quad" a certain statement so that it can be more frequently used in sermons and teachings. Canonization also gives the stamp of authenticity upon a statement. For that reason, the King Follett Discourse has not been canonized because the Brethren have not been willing to declare it authentic, even though it is frequently cited in Relief Society and Priesthood manuals.

At least two prophets think more highly of the LDS Canon then do you. Both said we test every utterance by even leaders against the LDS canon and if it does not square with the canon we can set it aside.

So, degenerate apostates (Moderator Note) Deleted personal attacktry to use age-old rhetorical devices to defined the Church and then hang it by its definition. That can't be done. You can't do it. You rely upon a very imperfect understanding of precedent and logic when the Spirit doesn't operate that way.

I would love to see BC Space opine on your comments. I have no doubt he would vehemently disagree.

[_stemelbow]

This is a strawman. No where did I demand perfection. If they can't be right on important issues they cannpt be trusted to be right on other important issues. Why not go over my post and deal with what I brought up instead of creating this strawman.

I must have misunderstood. Then we should expect errors from leaders of the Church, even if errors have to deal with "important" stuff, right? It seems we're in agreement.