DiscussMormonism.com

Consiglieri
This is a difficult thing to do when pretty much every teaching of the LDS Church has been changed over time, as Charles Harrell points out in his excellent book, "This is My Doctrine."

One of the true LDS books that helped drive me completely out of apologetics. It is one of the singular most devastating LDS author books I have ever read, and amazingly he is still employed at BYU (last I checked). It is an outstanding read make no mistake about it. But the problems it shows with the LDS "doctrine" let alone "historic interpretations of the Bible" is utterly eviscerating against LDS views. I began to write a huge review of it and then it petered out. Perhaps I shall pick it back up again.

mentalgymnast wrote:

Exiled wrote:
I think this is the best way to define it. Doctrine is whatever they say it is and could change 5 minutes later.

But principles don't change.

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.
Prophet Joseph Smith

Over on the Church site we then find this:

No doctrine in the gospel is more important than the Atonement of Jesus Christ. If the gospel were compared to a wheel, the Atonement would be the hub and all other doctrines would be the spokes emanating from the hub. As the Prophet Joseph Smith declared, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).
https://www.LDS.org/manual/doctrines-of ... t?lang=eng

Notice that it says, "No doctrine in the gospel..."

Underneath that statement we then see that core principle/doctrine broken down:

1. God governs the universe by law.
2. Because we are fallen, we have need of an Atonement.
3. Only Jesus Christ possessed the qualifications and attributes necessary to perform an infinite Atonement.
4. By means of His divine attributes and the power of the Father, Jesus accomplished the infinite and eternal Atonement.
5. The Atonement of Christ harmonized the laws of justice and mercy.
6. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is essential for the salvation of all the children of God.
7. We must do the will of the Father and the Son to receive the full benefit of the Atonement.

So here's the thing. If you believe in and/or have faith that these core doctrines/principles are what are necessary for a testimony, the other so-called doctrines/principles/practices...or appendages...are going to be recognized for what they are. That doesn't mean that, for example, the WofW shouldn't be obeyed. But it does mean that the WoW and other commandments are not at the core of belief. But if we believe in the core doctrines, we will obey the commandments/policies as the church prescribes. Because we believe in the core doctrines/principles.

In the temple...principles/doctrines don't change...appendages and/or add-ons may.

Regards,
MG

Nice in theory, but in practice we see the changes about the nature of the godhead, and the whole idea goes out the window.

Excellent observation Steelhead! Yes, the ahem......"doctrines" of the Godhead and who was who and how many and what powers they have, etc., have ALL changed WITHIN Mormonism since Joseph Smith. Boyd Kirtland has an outstanding Sunstone (Dialogue?) article on how Elohim and Jehovah were constantly confused in early Mormonism and it wasn't until Talmage's writeover decades later in 1921 (I think, don't have it directly in front of me at the moment) that there finally came to be a unifying idea of all the various powers and relationships. However, it STILL doesn't match the Bible view, because there isn't a singular consistent Bible view of God either! What a fascinating conundrum that not even revelation from God to his latter day prophets have even solved yet! Apparently God Himself can't figure himself out yet after all these millenia...... but I'm sure his own self-anointed apologists can giver him a hand and help him figure out what the actual and true doctrine of his own self is...

Exiled wrote:
I think this is the best way to define it. Doctrine is whatever they say it is and could change 5 minutes later.

MG wrote:But principles don't change.

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.
Prophet Joseph Smith

Over on the Church site we then find this:

No doctrine in the gospel is more important than the Atonement of Jesus Christ. If the gospel were compared to a wheel, the Atonement would be the hub and all other doctrines would be the spokes emanating from the hub. As the Prophet Joseph Smith declared, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).
https://www.LDS.org/manual/doctrines-of ... t?lang=eng

Notice that it says, "No doctrine in the gospel..."

Underneath that statement we then see that core principle/doctrine broken down:

1. God governs the universe by law.
2. Because we are fallen, we have need of an Atonement.
3. Only Jesus Christ possessed the qualifications and attributes necessary to perform an infinite Atonement.
4. By means of His divine attributes and the power of the Father, Jesus accomplished the infinite and eternal Atonement.
5. The Atonement of Christ harmonized the laws of justice and mercy.
6. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is essential for the salvation of all the children of God.
7. We must do the will of the Father and the Son to receive the full benefit of the Atonement.

So here's the thing. If you believe in and/or have faith that these core doctrines/principles are what are necessary for a testimony, the other so-called doctrines/principles/practices...or appendages...are going to be recognized for what they are. That doesn't mean that, for example, the WofW shouldn't be obeyed. But it does mean that the WoW and other commandments are not at the core of belief. But if we believe in the core doctrines, we will obey the commandments/policies as the church prescribes. Because we believe in the core doctrines/principles.

In the temple...principles/doctrines don't change...appendages and/or add-ons may.

Regards,
MG

SteelHead wrote:Nice in theory, but in practice we see the changes about the nature of the godhead, and the whole idea goes out the window.

Philo brought up Charlie Harrell's book.

https://www.amazon.com/This-My-Doctrine ... es+harrell

In a podcast with John Dehlin:

http://www.mormonstories.org/317-318-by ... -doctrine/

Brother Harrell said this in the comment section:

Obviously Mormons can respond to doctrinal
change in several different ways.

1) Refuse to believe that God would
leave us in the dark, and therefore attribute any apparent shifts in doctrine to
one’s misunderstanding of scripture.

2) Conclude that God wants us to have
the true doctrine, but in our finite state he is unable to fully communicate it
to us and therefore humans must fill in the holes.

3) View God as actually the source of
doctrinal idiosyncrasies, which is the result of his (mysterious) preference to
accommodate[s] prevailing cultural paradigms of the time.

4) Conclude that God allows us to
stumble and guess at doctrine because he doesn’t care all that much about what
we believe…at least about most things.

5) Reject all belief in God (or at least
the Mormon God) and chalk up all doctrine as simply the product of human
contrivance.

One or more of these responses may come into play with your concerns concerning the doctrinal development of the godhead. But that doesn't negate, at all, the fact that...as Joseph Smith taught...that:

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

by the way, Philo, I read Bro. Harrell's book when it first came out. Kind of a mind blower.

Regards,
MG

zerinus wrote:

SteelHead wrote:So where is the canonized form of the current understanding of the word of wisdom?

Where is the canon that changed it to a commandment?

The current understanding of the Word of Wisdom is the same as the canonized one. We think that when God gives us a bit of “good advance,” that is as good as a commandment.

Sure...

Still waiting to be directed to the canonized scripture that tells people to avoid cold tea and coffee. Even 'advice' will do.

mentalgymnast wrote:The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

At this point you might as well belong to any generic christian church.

SteelHead wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

At this point you might as well belong to any generic christian church.

Notice that Joseph Smith said, "testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ..."

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

What is it about the testimony of "Apostles and Prophets" that is lacking from any other professing believer in Jesus? What is it about your testimony concerning Jesus that is lacking but that is found in the testimonies of "Apostles and Prophets" concerning Jesus?

sock puppet wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

What is it about the testimony of "Apostles and Prophets" that is lacking from any other professing believer in Jesus?

Belief in modern day Apostles and Prophets.

sock puppet wrote:What is it about your testimony concerning Jesus that is lacking but that is found in the testimonies of "Apostles and Prophets" concerning Jesus?

The Prophets and Apostles are special witnesses of Christ and His resurrection. I'm not.

So it comes back to doctrine/principle as I said in my original post on pg.4 of this thread. We try to make doctrine/principle somehow disconnected and/or unassociated from the core principles/doctrines. It is those principles/doctrine that are of primary importance. Other folks, such as yourself(?), would like to make them secondary...by looking beyond the mark.

Regards,
MG

And by what authority did they claim that NO DOCTRINE is as important as the Atonement...? It's simply ridiculous.

You do realize that the Atonement of Christ IS a DOCTRINE of the Church? And would Eternal Marriage be less important than the Atonement? What good would the Atonement do, if there was no Eternal Marriage and there were no gods? What about Baptism? What good would the atonement be without baptism? Is the Atonement more important than Adam intentionally breaking the first commandment not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge? If he hadn't done that, why would their need to be an atonement on any world? And we can go on and on. To say one is more important that the other is simply posturing because Mormons get accused of their Jesus not being the "real" Jesus or that he is one of many gods.

This is a silly, stupid argument.