DiscussMormonism.com

In Another Thread Tim said:

I just finished reading "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie.

And in typical BC Space fashion the in house "authority" on what is and is not doctrine says

Why? It's not doctrine.

Well I have been thinking a lot about this lately. Apologists love to dismiss much of what LDS prophets and apostles have said or written as simply their own speculation or opinion. Now I can understand people having their own opinion. Nor do I expect everything uttered by those claiming to be prophet, seers and revelators to be doctrine.

However, when they write, speak from the pulpit, repeat similar teachings over and over as say BY did with Adam God, Creating and peopling a planet, blood atonement, things about the blacks and the priesthood, polygamy required to be exalted and on and on from many leader what does that say about what they are teaching? To argue that it was just their opinion and not doctrine really seems like a poor defense.

Really what does that say about the prophet or apostle and what they say, write, teach and preach if so much of it was simply their opinion and they got so much wrong? Isn't saying it is not doctrine and simply personal opinion and speculation and even wrong a defense the weaken the apostle and prophet and demonstrate that more often than not they really don't know what they are talking about? Doesn't that diminish trusting what they say in any real sense?

I don't know but it seems to do more damage to the defense of the Church than good.

Jason Bourne wrote:In Another Thread Tim said:

I just finished reading "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie.

And in typical BC Space fashion the in house "authority" on what is and is not doctrine says

Why? It's not doctrine.

Well I have been thinking a lot about this lately. Apologists love to dismiss much of what LDS prophets and apostles have said or written as simply their own speculation or opinion. Now I can understand people having their own opinion. Nor do I expect everything uttered by those claiming to be prophet, seers and revelators to be doctrine.

However, when they write, speak from the pulpit, repeat similar teachings over and over as say BY did with Adam God, Creating and peopling a planet, blood atonement, things about the blacks and the priesthood, polygamy required to be exalted and on and on from many leader what does that say about what they are teaching? To argue that it was just their opinion and not doctrine really seems like a poor defense.

Really what does that say about the prophet or apostle and what they say, write, teach and preach if so much of it was simply their opinion and they got so much wrong? Isn't saying it is not doctrine and simply personal opinion and speculation and even wrong a defense the weaken the apostle and prophet and demonstrate that more often than not they really don't know what they are talking about? Doesn't that diminish trusting what they say in any real sense?

I don't know but it seems to do more damage to the defense of the Church than good.

The apologetic message boils down to God's prophets and apostles can't tell the difference between revelation and their own opinion.

Jason Bourne wrote:In Another Thread Tim said:

I just finished reading "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie.

And in typical BC Space fashion the in house "authority" on what is and is not doctrine says

Why? It's not doctrine.

Well I have been thinking a lot about this lately. Apologists love to dismiss much of what LDS prophets and apostles have said or written as simply their own speculation or opinion. Now I can understand people having their own opinion. Nor do I expect everything uttered by those claiming to be prophet, seers and revelators to be doctrine.

However, when they write, speak from the pulpit, repeat similar teachings over and over as say BY did with Adam God, Creating and peopling a planet, blood atonement, things about the blacks and the priesthood, polygamy required to be exalted and on and on from many leader what does that say about what they are teaching? To argue that it was just their opinion and not doctrine really seems like a poor defense.

Really what does that say about the prophet or apostle and what they say, write, teach and preach if so much of it was simply their opinion and they got so much wrong? Isn't saying it is not doctrine and simply personal opinion and speculation and even wrong a defense the weaken the apostle and prophet and demonstrate that more often than not they really don't know what they are talking about? Doesn't that diminish trusting what they say in any real sense?

I don't know but it seems to do more damage to the defense of the Church than good.

Anyone with a halfway objective mind would have agree.

Really what does that say about the prophet or apostle and what they say, write, teach and preach if so much of it was simply their opinion and they got so much wrong?

That they have an opinion. That God does not animate their bodies, minds, and vocal chords 24/7. "Mormon Doctrine" actually has a lot of good doctrine in it but one will have to find the same in an officially published work to know if a particular item from it is doctrine.

Only in BC's world is Mormon Doctrine not Mormon Doctrine.


Although my understanding is President McKay was pretty pissed about the title.

The "not doctrine" defense is a losing argument. Nobody cares if the church or their apologists classify something as doctrine or not. Was it taught? Yes, but.... NO BUTS. If it was taught, that's all that really matters. That's like saying slavery was not US doctrine since only a few wealthy landowners practiced it, and it was eventually abolished. Or Jenna Jameson is not officially a slut because none of her porn movies were produced by official porno companies.

bcspace wrote:

Really what does that say about the prophet or apostle and what they say, write, teach and preach if so much of it was simply their opinion and they got so much wrong?

That they have an opinion. That God does not animate their bodies, minds, and vocal chords 24/7. "Mormon Doctrine" actually has a lot of good doctrine in it but one will have to find the same in an officially published work to know if a particular item from it is doctrine.

Yet we are all still waiting for you to show where the church states this. I think this statement best describes what is doctrine

This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

Buffalo wrote:
The apologetic message boils down to God's prophets and apostles can't tell the difference between revelation and their own opinion.

That's because there is no difference. It all comes from the same source, and more people are seeing this.

bcspace wrote:
That they have an opinion. That God does not animate their bodies, minds, and vocal chords 24/7. "Mormon Doctrine" actually has a lot of good doctrine in it but one will have to find the same in an officially published work to know if a particular item from it is doctrine.

Yea BC but you miss my point. There is sooooo much that was said, especially by 19th century leaders, that is defended with essentially a shrug of the shoulders and the comment of "well it was not official and just their speculation." But many of these things were repeated over and over.

I know they have an opinion but when they express that so called opinion many times ( and in such a way that it did not seem like it was opinion) what does that really say about how wrong they really got things.

Do you really want to argue your leaders get it wrong so much of the time?

bcspace wrote:

Really what does that say about the prophet or apostle and what they say, write, teach and preach if so much of it was simply their opinion and they got so much wrong?

That they have an opinion. That God never talks to them.

FIFY