DiscussMormonism.com

Dictionary.com tells us that a Red Herring is "something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue."

Perhaps the greatest of all Red Herrings in all the voluminous writings between critics, observers, and Mopologists of the LDS church is that of "Official Doctrine". It is shocking how many of us seem to get wrapped up in this painful, wall nailing jello discussion. If all roads lead to Rome, and all threads lead to Hitler, surely all discussions of Mormonism lead to an embarrassed fish.

Blacks and the priesthood? Official doctrine.
Location of Cumorah? Official doctrine.
Evolution? Official doctrine.
Number of licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? Official doctrine.

The amount of ink wasted on this non-issue is astonishing.

This Red Herring was created by some brilliant person to distract any detractors from asking the real, pertinent question: Has God been talking to the leaders of the church?

You see, if Joseph Smith did not really see the Lord in the Sacred Grove then the church is flatly false. If god never told Brigham Young a thing, it is all a lie. If Thomas S Monson has heard God as much as I have personally heard him myself, the Mopologists have lost.

The Prophets certainly have claimed God has spoken to them. God gives them revelations through visions, dreams, and the weekly appearance of Christ for potato salad in the Holy of Holies. Additionally, the Prophets claims has told them a lot. Like what?

The Hill Cumorah is in NY.
There really were first parents Adam and Eve.
A literal Sin Flood.
Blacks were less valiant in the Green Room.
Evolution is bunk.
Adam is god.
We are gods.
We are not gods.
Pork is the other white meat.
On and on and on and on.......

The trouble is, well, some of these thing that the Prophets claimed God told them are silly, proven false, or downright wrongheaded. Mopologists do not want to argue in favor of a young earth, they know that would make them look like unwound cuckoo clocks. So the Red Herring is introduced.

"That's not official doctrine. The church doesn't teach that. That's folk doctrine"

Oddly, the critic falls for this BS every time. Remember the ONLY question at hand is whether has God been talking to the leaders of the church?

Remember, if God no talky, church no truey.

If ANY prophet proclaims through revelation that the Flood was real, and global; and this point is dis-proven, then that means God is not likely talking to that man. The question as to whether the church printed the claim in its educational material, or if it gets through correlation, or if conference talks are doctrine is totally irrelevant. Totally. Utterly.

One more time, the question is not about doctrine, official or not it's all about:

Has God been talking to the leaders of the church?

Stop engaging in this wildly successful Red Herring. It is the Mopologists greatest victory over truth so far.

I nominate this post for "worlds most brilliant post this year"

If god no talkey, Church no truey...

Absolutely, slide splittingly, hilariously brilliant.

You sir are a genius.

Following on from my sickly sycophantic bum snog I would like to comment...


Is God talking to the Mormon Prophet?
Has God ever talked to the Mormon Prophets?

This is the million dollar (10%) question.

If you think yes, chances are you're going to stump up the money.
But before you do - on what basis are you deciding categorically that God is speaking to your chosen religions spokesperson and not someone elses?

If it's on the basis of a well researched journey through the evidences and actions of the Prophets that's great - treat us to some of the salient, factual things that Prophets have done and said that are demonstrably only explicable by direct Godly communication.

If it's on the basis of a warm feeling in your tummy, then move along, this is not the thread you're looking for...

Drifting wrote:this is not the thread you're looking for...

Or, as Obi Wan Kenobi said, "These are not the droids you're looking for.."

Thank you, Drifting, for helping me bring this "Star Wars" moment...LOL

I'll just repeat something that I said on this forum two years ago, here:

MsJack wrote:Mormon "doctrine" doesn't change because there is no such thing as Mormon doctrine. It is a mythical creature, kind of like pink unicorns and equal partnerships where one partner presides.

Don't agree with me? Too bad. Blake Ostler does.

Mormon beliefs and practices have changed. The things that have been taught and emphasized by top church leaders have changed. That is all that matters to me.

And here:

MsJack wrote:For me, Blake Ostler's observation was extremely liberating. I'm glad I don't have to play the doctrine wack-a-mole game with Mormons anymore where I try to discuss a policy or past teaching only to have it dismissed as insignificant because "that's not doctrine." Now it's all non-doctrine and all equally worthy of discussion. The only question is how widely the non-doctrine has been taught, believed and practiced and how significant it has been in the history of Mormon thought.

I, too, am amazed at how many seasoned critics continue to play the "what is doctrine?" whack-a-mole game. Y'all should know better by now.

MsJack wrote:I, too, am amazed at how many seasoned critics continue to play the "what is doctrine?" whack-a-mole game. Y'all should know better by now.

The definition of "doctrine" seems to be designed to allow any and all teachings to be dismissed as "not doctrine" as needed. As you say, quibbling over what is official is kind of silly.

Runtu wrote:

MsJack wrote:I, too, am amazed at how many seasoned critics continue to play the "what is doctrine?" whack-a-mole game. Y'all should know better by now.

The definition of "doctrine" seems to be designed to allow any and all teachings to be dismissed as "not doctrine" as needed. As you say, quibbling over what is official is kind of silly.

Merely mentioning doctrine is silly. It isn't needed unless one is trying to cover.

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:Dictionary.com tells us that a Red Herring is "something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue."

Perhaps the greatest of all Red Herrings in all the voluminous writings between critics, observers, and Mopologists of the LDS church is that of "Official Doctrine". It is shocking how many of us seem to get wrapped up in this painful, wall nailing jello discussion. If all roads lead to Rome, and all threads lead to Hitler, surely all discussions of Mormonism lead to an embarrassed fish.

Blacks and the priesthood? Official doctrine.
Location of Cumorah? Official doctrine.
Evolution? Official doctrine.
Number of licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? Official doctrine.

The amount of ink wasted on this non-issue is astonishing.

This Red Herring was created by some brilliant person to distract any detractors from asking the real, pertinent question: Has God been talking to the leaders of the church?

You see, if Joseph Smith did not really see the Lord in the Sacred Grove then the church is flatly false. If god never told Brigham Young a thing, it is all a lie. If Thomas S Monson has heard God as much as I have personally heard him myself, the Mopologists have lost.

The Prophets certainly have claimed God has spoken to them. God gives them revelations through visions, dreams, and the weekly appearance of Christ for potato salad in the Holy of Holies. Additionally, the Prophets claims has told them a lot. Like what?

The Hill Cumorah is in NY.
There really were first parents Adam and Eve.
A literal Sin Flood.
Blacks were less valiant in the Green Room.
Evolution is bunk.
Adam is god.
We are gods.
We are not gods.
Pork is the other white meat.
On and on and on and on.......

The trouble is, well, some of these thing that the Prophets claimed God told them are silly, proven false, or downright wrongheaded. Mopologists do not want to argue in favor of a young earth, they know that would make them look like unwound cuckoo clocks. So the Red Herring is introduced.

"That's not official doctrine. The church doesn't teach that. That's folk doctrine"

Oddly, the critic falls for this b***s*** every time. Remember the ONLY question at hand is whether has God been talking to the leaders of the church?

Remember, if God no talky, church no truey.

If ANY prophet proclaims through revelation that the Flood was real, and global; and this point is dis-proven, then that means God is not likely talking to that man. The question as to whether the church printed the claim in its educational material, or if it gets through correlation, or if conference talks are doctrine is totally irrelevant. Totally. Utterly.

One more time, the question is not about doctrine, official or not it's all about:

Has God been talking to the leaders of the church?

Stop engaging in this wildly successful Red Herring. It is the Mopologists greatest victory over truth so far.

STS, my first underlined passage you wrote is the prime question that has to be answered. But as to my second underlined passage you wrote, I disagree. The church's printed educational material and conference talks are relevant as a plethora of evidence in helping one answer that prime question. All the crap in those educational materials and conference talks are further evidence and proof that the Mormon prophets have, at best, voices in their heads that have psychological not divine origins.

The word "doctrine" was not created by Mormons.
It simply means that which is taught.

For Mormon apologists the word is landmine because they are tasked with defending the claim that the LDS Church is led by men who speak by and for God, and obviously God would not tell his Prophets to teach something that was not true.

Ergo, when that which was taught becomes absurd or embarrassing, the claim that it was "not official doctrine" simply means that the teaching was not traceable back to God.

Apologists are fixers, who job it is to wipe God's fingerprints off the smoking gun.