DiscussMormonism.com

Did anyone notice that in his attempt to clarify what is and what isn't doctrine, he never once mentioned the importance of whether or not it was published by the church? If anything he threw a bone to the apologists - what is ratified by the spirit in the hearts of the members is doctrine. Or something along those lines. That's license for the FAIR/NAMIRS crowd to keep disregarding any teachings that don't fit their apologetic theories.

It must have been a sad day for bcspace.

Buffalo wrote:Did anyone notice that in his attempt to clarify what is and what isn't doctrine, he never once mentioned the importance of whether or not it was published by the church? If anything he threw a bone to the apologists - what is ratified by the spirit in the hearts of the members is doctrine. Or something along those lines. That's license for the FAIR/NAMIRS crowd to keep disregarding any teachings that don't fit their apologetic theories.

It must have been a sad day for bcspace.

Aha, but who's to say that Christofferson was doing more than offering personal speculation and opinion?

(bc, you're welcome)

I paid special attention to this talk, and yes, I did find myself thinking of our friend, bcspace.

It was clear (because he said it!) that this talk was for the benefit of media (who get things wrong a lot).

The talk's overarching theme seemed to be restricting "doctrine" to the smallest target possible (faith, repentance and baptism) while discounting anything any other church leader may have said (a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such).

Professor Bott made an anonymous appearance by Elder Christofferson's otherwise pointless mention of Peter's vision at Joppa, which helped us understand he was mainly speaking (again anonymously) of Brigham Young's racist statements.

This talk amounted to a "duck and cover."

And yes, I wanted to ask Elder Christofferson how, according to his definition of doctrine, we should view his talk as authoritative.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

consiglieri wrote:I paid special attention to this talk, and yes, I did find myself thinking of our friend, bcspace.

It was clear (because he said it!) that this talk was for the benefit of media (who get things wrong a lot).

The talk's overarching theme seemed to be restricting "doctrine" to the smallest target possible (faith, repentance and baptism) while discounting anything any other church leader may have said (a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such).

Professor Bott made an anonymous appearance by Elder Christofferson's otherwise pointless mention of Peter's vision at Joppa, which helped us understand he was mainly speaking (again anonymously) of Brigham Young's racist statements.

This talk amounted to a "duck and cover."

And yes, I wanted to ask Elder Christofferson how, according to his definition of doctrine, we should view his talk as authoritative.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well according to his talk the way to know is by general consensus, ratified by the spirit in the hearts of the members. In other words doctrine = the majority opinion. I suppose one could conduct a poll to see how many members agree with Bott and find out if indeed his remarks were doctrinal.

The manner in which questions are asked and answered is more important than the content of the question.

consiglieri wrote:a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such

When was the last time that happened? Elijah?

Drifting wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Did anyone notice that in his attempt to clarify what is and what isn't doctrine, he never once mentioned the importance of whether or not it was published by the church, right, bcspace? If anything he threw a bone to the apologists - what is ratified by the spirit in the hearts of the members is doctrine. Or something along those lines. That's license for the FAIR/NAMIRS crowd to keep disregarding any teachings that don't fit their apologetic theories.

It must have been a sad day for bcspace.

Aha, but who's to say that Christofferson was doing more than offering personal speculation and opinion?

(bc, you're welcome)

Once Christofferson's speech is printed in the Ensign next month, then is it official doctrine? And since it is definitionally per bcspace, official doctrine and broadens the scope of doctrine, it will authoritatively Trump and make obsolete that prior LDS-printed scope for official doctrine. So bcspace's favorite perimeter for what is official doctrine is in the process of being ruptured, by the Church printing next month Christofferson's speech (unless Correlation pulls a Poelman). This is surely the living, changing prophecy from a prophet, seer and revelator from the GC pulpit.

bcspace, the end is in sight for your apologetic of trying to keep the LDS doctrine footprint small. Your attempt to contain it has just been herniated.

Thank you, Christofferson!

Actually, I think what Christofferson has done is make it smaller - and also made it a moving target. The brethren are getting into line, following the doctrines of the apologists now.

Did anyone notice that in his attempt to clarify what is and what isn't doctrine,

His talk was only on the establishment of doctrine. Notice that it's not by the scriptures alone. Notice also that it continues to be established (quoting AoF 1:9 to that effect) whereas the canon is not increasing.

he never once mentioned the importance of whether or not it was published by the church

Didn't have to. It's known and understood throughout the Church. It was a must enjoyable talk and proved everything the Church has been saying all along. The method for determining doctrine stands.

Buffalo wrote:Actually, I think what Christofferson has done is make it smaller - and also made it a moving target. The brethren are getting into line, following the doctrines of the apologists now.

Truly tries to make it a moving target for outsiders/critics, but within "the Church" it broadens the concept of doctrine to include whatever your file leader in "the Church" tells you. After all, if "the Spirit" has not told you what your file leader claims, then you are not 'in tune with the Spirit', so try harder until you've brainwashed yourself to perceive a self-induced psychological experience is confirmation from "the Spirit" that what your "Church" file leader has told you is correct--and thus 'doctrine'.

The underlying message of both aspects? Don't question the Brethren. And if you are a Mormon, just pray, pay and obey.

And if you are a Mormon, just pray, pay and obey

Obey what? Even that's a clue even you believe the publications are doctrine.