The Confounding World of LDS Doctrinal Pronouncements...

[_wenglund]

I don't see that as silly. I think reliably conveying information and better understanding the attributes of God are important. It is the extent to which some may expect infallability and perfection in reliability and conveyance that may be unrealistic if not "silly".

No one said anything about infallibility and perfection. We did say something about reliability. Do you really not know the difference between the two?

Yes. However, I'm not sure you do. Or, rather I would guess that for you the two are not as different as I see them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't know. Even after correlation, it's still difficult to nail down certain doctrines in the church. I would have an easier time agreeing that church leaders have been reliable in pronouncing church doctrine (which I believe is scripturally one of the apostles' mandates) if they didn't contradict each other.

Doctrinally, it's easy to know what the church teaches now but that might change later, like it has before. We were always told that policies change, not doctrine. That is manifestly not true.

Some of us have found the doctrines (or policies) of the Church to be quite reliable. But, that may be because what it is that we may be relying on them for is different than it is for others. I have found them to be quite reliable in assisting me to become more Christlike and a better person and to better understand God. I may not have found them reliable if I was uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity and certain levels of inconsistency (which I am not).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Yes. However, I'm not sure you do. Or, rather I would guess that for you the two are not as different as I see them.

Infallible and perfect would mean never saying something totally stupid like quaker men live on the moon.

Reliable means that the church would not dramatically change its teachings on certain very basic topics, such as the nature of God the Father, for example. Or the Holy Ghost. Is he a separate member of the godhead. or just the "mind of God"? Does God have a perfected body of flesh, or is he a personage of spirit?

I fully expect that spiritual knowledge, just as with secular knowledge, will grow and evolve as we individually and collectively learn and develop. Were there not to have been changes of this sort (evolving knowledge) in the teachings of the Church throughout time, including so-called drastic changes, but they were to have remained static instead, I would, ironically, think them unreliable. Science once taught that things may spontaneously generate, and the earth was the center of the universe, and deseases would be cured via blood-letting, but now it teaches quite different things. I welcome that change, and find science to be reliable as a result thereof. Perhaps others, such as yourself, would think it more reliable were there to have been no change, preferring instead to hark back to the old science of a geo-centric universe and so forth. ;-)

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I see. Here's how it goes:

Joseph Smith sees Jesus and Heavenly Father.

After that apparition, Joseph Smith initially teaches that Heavenly Father, whom he saw, is a personage of spirit while Jesus has a tabernacle of flesh.

Later, Joseph Smith changes that teaching to state that HF also has a body of flesh.

And this, according to wade, is just the evolution of knowledge. Even more, for me to regard this as an example of the unreliability of LDS teachings means that I expect perfection and infallibility.

[_sailgirl7]

As I see it, the major qualm that Christ had with the Scribes and Pharisees, beside their rank hypocrisy, was the overly burdensome priority they placed on the letter of the law (their notion of doctrinal purity?), in which things like the simple doctrine of the sabbath had been systematically analysized and exacted to the Nth degree, thereby inadvertantly making man for the sabbath rather than, as intended, the sabbath for man. So fixated were they on the law and the prophet (I.e. the doctrines) that they failed to recognize and know the Savior and Redeemer when he appeared among them--the very object for which the laws and prophets were a type and foreshadowing thereof.


In terms of the sermon on the mount, do you think that Christ was speaking to "doctrinal purity" when he spoke of the salt loosing its savour, or the light being hid under a bushel? Was he speaking of "doctrinal purity" when he said that "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, he shall in no case enter into the kindom of heaven"? Did the "higher law" that Christ taught on the Mount pertain to doctrines regarding the nature of God (systematic theology), or was it, as I have intimated, intended as a thought and behavioral guide the adherence to which will enable men to become more godly (perfect even as the Father), and thereby better know God by having experienced godliness and having been, to some degree, godly?

I disagree that Jesus merely had a qualm with the hypocrisy and letter of the law ways of the Pharisees- I also disagree that he just wanted to give us a "thought and behavioral guide"- I think it was much more than that. He actually had a higher law and a more complete doctrine to teach.

Jesus and the Law of Moses

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets,” Jesus said. “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matt. 5:17). The meaning of this verse may be amplified by an alternate translation: “Don’t think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets, I have come not to abolish but to complete, to make their meaning full.” 1 The Hebrew word Torah, which literally means “teaching or doctrine,” is rendered in the New Testament by the Greek word nomes, which means “law.” Therefore, what Jesus was conveying is that whenever He spoke of or taught from the law of Moses, He would render a fuller or more complete meaning. The law had been given to Moses by Jehovah, who was now upon the earth in His mortal ministry as Jesus Christ; therefore it was His prerogative to make the meaning of the law, the teachings, and the doctrine “full” and “complete.”

Using passages of scripture that the Pharisees pridefully considered themselves to be experts in, Jesus confounded them by teaching the true doctrine intended in the law of Moses.

Jesus did not reject the law of Moses—the Torah—as found in the Old Testament. Rather, He used it to affirm its own truthfulness and give a more complete meaning.

The Savior’s Use of the Old Testament By Thomas F. Olmstead

Where I may differ with some, is the extent to which that effort should be undertaken and at what cost.

And what exactly is the extent to which that effort should be undertaken?

I see it as the end objective of a process involving imperfect and fallible people, and one that I expect to take a somewhat modest zigzag course (sufficiently modest to still be considered reliable, though not infallible or perfect) rather than a straight line

.
Zigzag? And where do the scriptures teach that?

Jesus gave us the ending demographics: wide is the gate and popular and broad is the way that leads to destruction (see Matt. 7:13). The narrow and straight way that leads to salvation, alas, is the path less traveled by. Hence, there is no way we can both move with the herd and also move toward Jesus. Nevertheless, there are some who try to serve the Lord without offending the devil (see James E. Faust, Liahona, November 1995, page 2). Others want “to serve the Lord but only in an advisory capacity,” cautioned President Marion G. Romney.

Popularity and Principle By Elder Neal A. Maxwell

I also see it as an objective that may be of lesser priority (though still high) than changing the nature of mankind to becoming Christlike.

And who gets to decide the difference between striving to discern "pure" doctrine and striving to change the nature of mankind?

[_wenglund]

I see. Here's how it goes:

Joseph Smith sees Jesus and Heavenly Father.

After that apparition, Joseph Smith initially teaches that Heavenly Father, whom he saw, is a personage of spirit while Jesus has a tabernacle of flesh.

Later, Joseph Smith changes that teaching to state that HF also has a body of flesh.

And this, according to wade, is just the evolution of knowledge. Even more, for me to regard this as an example of the unreliability of LDS teachings means that I expect perfection and infallibility.

I am sorry, but I can't relate to the words you just put into my mouth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I am sorry, but I can't relate to the words you just put into my mouth.

Then your reply to me was utterly meaningless. I provided a very specific example in my previous post of the unreliability of LDS prophets. Your reply went on about how I was incapable of recognizing "evolution" of knowledge. Now you state that I put words in your mouth. Right.

[_Blixa]

I am convinced that this hair-splitting nonsense about “official doctrine” is relatively recent concept in the Church and it is deeply rooted in the apologetic movement. I was thinking about this lately because I am in the middle of a discussion over at MAD where I am told that the LDS notion of Elohim = God the Father was only a “recent” thing in Mormonism as if that was somehow supposed to make LDS less tied down to it as doctrine.

Kevin,
This is a great point. From the reading I've done, the intricacies involved in determining whether Brigham Young's statements were "official" or not would probably have been scoffed at by the man himself.

Actually, I think the so-called "hair-splitting nonsense" has been a function of rigid and narrow-minded critics and members attempting to pigeon-hole the restored gospel of Christ in ways that were never intended--I.e. as a systematic theology. These good folks tend to forget that the essence of Christ's gospel is not so much a matter of intellectual and legalistic epistemic, but rather changing personal natures to become Christ-like and bearing Christ-like fruits: feeding the spiritual and physical hungry, healing the spiritual and physical sick, assisting a neighbor in need, etc. The gospel is about Godly love, which lends itself less to doctrines exactitudes (official vs unofficial) and more to doing good works and living edifying lives. To me, an hour laboring at welfare square or the Sort Center teaches me far more about Christ and his gospel than a week of scholarly lectures on Christology or endless debates and disputes thereon.

In short, the real nonsense is in quibbling over what doctrines are "official" or not, rather than striving to follow Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It may not surprise anyone, but I think both dart and Wade are wrong. The "hair-splitting nonsense" has been a function of the efforts at correlation, which began in earnest in 1970 as a means of standardizing instruction in the church to ensure that all conference talks, manuals, and church publications conformed to doctrine consistent with the standard works. Thus, according to the correlation process, neither the 1860 FP statement nor the McConkie "heresies" talk are considered doctrinal.

But it's important to note that, although the correlation process gives apologists an "out" for quite a lot of ridiculous and embarrassing statements, it did not originate with them. Nor is it the product of "rigid and narrow-minded critics," unless you consider the First Presidency and the Correlation Committee to be rigid, narrow-minded, or critical.

If there's been any effort at a "systematic theology," it has been by exclusion, not by constructing a coherent whole.

I'm getting into this thread late, but I found this exchange useful for what everyone said.

Like Runtu, I'm inclined to give "correlation" pride of place as a significant moment in recent Mormon history. That said, I think dart also has a good point about how the advent of internet apologetics has also played a role in magnifying (and I suppose I would argue, if I were taking this further, distorting) the issue of "continued revelation" out of all proportion.

I think Wade's comments speak past all this to something completely different. I suppose I could agree that the original teachings of Christ (in so far as we can determine what they were through various accounts) are not suggestive of a worked out, systematic theology as much as they are a pattern of kindly living which challenges its hearers to treat one another with more care. So, "doing good works and living [an] edifying li[fe]...an hour laboring at welfare square or the Sort Center" seems a fair sort of example of christian faith, practice, and possibly worship. So much so that I then wonder what the need is for any organized religious institution, not to mention the highly legalistic (binding contracts, property disputes over who owns "priesthood authority," lawyerly argument over precedents, etc.) edifice of Mormonism.

[_Runtu]

I'm getting into this thread late, but I found this exchange useful for what everyone said.

Like Runtu, I'm inclined to give "correlation" pride of place as a significant moment in recent Mormon history. That said, I think dart also has a good point about how the advent of internet apologetics has also played a role in magnifying (and I suppose I would argue, if I were taking this further, distorting) the issue of "continued revelation" out of all proportion.

I think Wade's comments speak past all this to something completely different. I suppose I could agree that the original teachings of Christ (in so far as we can determine what they were through various accounts) are not suggestive of a worked out, systematic theology as much as they are a pattern of kindly living which challenges its hearers to treat one another with more care. So, "doing good works and living [an] edifying li[fe]...an hour laboring at welfare square or the Sort Center" seems a fair sort of example of christian faith, practice, and possibly worship. So much so that I then wonder what the need is for any organized religious institution, not to mention the highly legalistic (binding contracts, property disputes over who owns "priesthood authority," lawyerly argument over precedents, etc.) edifice of Mormonism.

Very well said. Wade tells us that the words of the prophet are "reliable" for teaching us how to be more Christlike. I would imagine that every Christian of every denomination knows how to be more Christlike simply from reading the New Testament. And that is outlined rather simply in the scriptures: Love God, and love thy neighbor. What Mormonism asserts is that it's important to know the nature of God to become like him. Yet the church abandoned the quasi-canonical Lectures on Faith precisely because they described God's nature (two personages, one of spirit [Father] and one of flesh [Son]) in a way that was contradicted and superseded by D&C 130:22 "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

I tend to agree with Wade, who believes that the most important thing for us as Christians is to learn to be more Christlike, and we all know what that means. But Joseph Smith held that knowing who and what God is was of primary importance: "If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being he is,--if he will search diligently his own heart--if the declarations of Jesus and the Apostles be true--he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle" (King Follett Discourse). If that's true, we should expect a restored and revealed gospel to explain the nature of God to us in a reliable way.

I'm fine with an evolving and contradictory set of doctrines. But it's a little weird to tell me I can't handle ambiguity because I see a rather obvious contradiction in the teachings of someone who claimed to have communed with Jehovah.

[_wenglund]

I think Wade's comments speak past all this to something completely different. I suppose I could agree that the original teachings of Christ (in so far as we can determine what they were through various accounts) are not suggestive of a worked out, systematic theology as much as they are a pattern of kindly living which challenges its hearers to treat one another with more care. So, "doing good works and living [an] edifying li[fe]...an hour laboring at welfare square or the Sort Center" seems a fair sort of example of christian faith, practice, and possibly worship. So much so that I then wonder what the need is for any organized religious institution, not to mention the highly legalistic (binding contracts, property disputes over who owns "priesthood authority," lawyerly argument over precedents, etc.) edifice of Mormonism.

The Apostle Paul answers your question in Eph 4:11-13: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sethbag]

It's a hilarious, but typical, sign of a weak and desparate faith that will take the abundant evidence that their Prophets, Seers, and Revelators are just making it up as they go along, and turn it into a feature, ie: a ziz-zag course by fallible humans leading us eventually to some truth.

So, the past sureness that LDS prophets had when testifying strongly of certain "facts" that they claimed were absolutely true were just one zig along the path, now perhaps over-corrected by the zag of the more recent LDS apologetic trend to disclaim that we know really much of anything at all about anything at all. I suppose these paths will eventually converge on a point where the Lord really will appear to some LDS Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and tell him a few things, and then we'll meet somewhere in the middle, ie: knowing a few things at least. How's that sound?