DiscussMormonism.com

Yes, I mean like BCSpace.

It is obvious that the correct definition of Mormon Doctrine is a matter of utmost importance to BCSpace.

This thread is not about what constitutes official Mormon Doctrine, but rather why it is that BCSpace should go through such contortions to define "Mormon Doctrine" so small as to be a virtually unhittable (and sometimes moving) target.

I think what underlies BCSpace's concern is he subliminally defines "doctrine" as that which is, has, and always will be universally true in some sense; and hence can never have been taught any differently than how it is taught now, and will never be taught any differently than what it is now.

In other words, I think that for BCSpace, "doctrine" is something unchangeable. But the measuring rod for that determination is placed squarely in the present. We judge all past statements by what is currently taught. And in ten years, we will once again judge all past statements by what is taught in ten years. This is why I say it is a moving target--it moves from day to day and year to year--it moves with the passing of time. The past must be made to comform with the present. And hence "doctrine" must be defined in such a way that nothing constituting "doctrine" in the past will conflict with "doctrine" in the here and now.

This is very different from the way most people would define "doctrine" (not to mention those who compile dictionaries).

I think most people are happy talking about a religious organizations "doctrine" changing over time, and don't take it as a smear on the validity of the organization. I also think most people are happy talking about different leaders within a religious organization teaching different concepts about the same doctrine.

But it seems BCSpace is very unhappy in talking about "doctrine" in any such way, at least about such doctrines as are currently espoused by the LDS Church.

Am I onto something, BCSpace?

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well, clearly he's looking for an out.

What's interesting to me is when he's nailed to the wall using his own definition of doctrine he's usually quiet.

Regardless, he and others like him are in a no-win situation. There's simply enough in the Bible to dismiss Mormonism, but add in the crazy crap from other "doctrinal" sources and it's checkmate.

- VRDRC

Nope. You aren't really onto something. After reading just a few posts by bc when I first got on the board, I immediately could tell he was one of "those" Mormons that couldn't accept the fact that the brethren often teach false doctrine from the pulpit. In a rather bizarre attempt to address this problem by bcspace and a number of apologists, they have created this idea that when the brethren do this they aren't teaching "official" doctrine vs the truth that they taught false doctrine. It is no more compelling than the "we don't know" answer as to why blacks were denied the priesthood. The fact is we do know. It was a purely racist man-made doctrine invented and taught by many of the brethren. It had nothing to do with the gospel.

I know this thread is directed at BCspace, but I think it's a survival tactic that members use to deflect old doctrines that are embarrassing or demonstrably false. It either never was doctrine in the first place, or the past speaker lacked the further light and knowledge that we have now.

The only context in which I've talk about 'official doctrine' is when someone is trying to disqualify the words of a church leader for one reason or another. In apologetics it's important to define because it determines the line they must hold.

aranyborju wrote:I know this thread is directed at BCspace, but I think it's a survival tactic that members use to deflect old doctrines that are embarrassing or demonstrably false. It either never was doctrine in the first place, or the past speaker lacked the further light and knowledge that we have now.

I agree it is a survival tactic.

But wouldn't it be easier to just subscribe to a definition of "doctrine" as something that not only changes, but in fact should change over time in order to circumscribe more truth and light?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

consiglieri wrote:

aranyborju wrote:I know this thread is directed at BCspace, but I think it's a survival tactic that members use to deflect old doctrines that are embarrassing or demonstrably false. It either never was doctrine in the first place, or the past speaker lacked the further light and knowledge that we have now.

I agree it is a survival tactic.

But wouldn't it be easier to just subscribe to a definition of "doctrine" as something that not only changes, but in fact should change over time in order to circumscribe more truth and light?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Yeah, good luck with getting bcspace and company to accept that.

BC is truly Scottish.

I sort of agree, but not exactly. For example, say somebody claimed the following: "Brigham Young taught that the virgin Mary conceived Jesus via Sex with God the Father." This claim raises some questions:

• Did Brigham Young teach that?
• Do Mormons believe that?
• Should Mormons believe it?
• Is it okay for Mormons not to believe it?
• Is it true?

"Official" doctrine is a circle much smaller than "true" doctrine. "Official" doctrine is doctrine that Mormons must accept, believe, and defend. If it isn't official, belief in it is optional; such beliefs don't need to be defended, regardless of whether or not they are true.

consiglieri wrote:

aranyborju wrote:I know this thread is directed at BCspace, but I think it's a survival tactic that members use to deflect old doctrines that are embarrassing or demonstrably false. It either never was doctrine in the first place, or the past speaker lacked the further light and knowledge that we have now.

I agree it is a survival tactic.

But wouldn't it be easier to just subscribe to a definition of "doctrine" as something that not only changes, but in fact should change over time in order to circumscribe more truth and light?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think the problem is if the additional light and knowledge falsifies the previous light and knowledge. Consider some of the statements on the priesthood ban. If those are counted as doctrine it means that prophets can teach things that are not true. That would mean conceding that some of the statements of the current leadership could also possibly be false and overturned in the future.