False enough for me

[_truth dancer]

Hey MG... :-)

You would choose to have creedal Mormonism? Isn't it obvious as you look around in the world that information/knowledge comes line upon line, precept on precept...here a little and there a little? There isn't a whole lot that happens without an evolutionary process.

Yes it is obvious (at least based on our human experience), that we live in a universe of evolution, and as humans grow, develop, expand our consciousness we learn and understand more.

Gosh, it wasn't until 1920 or so that the 1st Presidency finally came out with a united statement on the nature of God and Christ. Ninety years to work things out to the point that we now teach Christ being the Jehovah of the Old Testament. Here we are in 2008 and Blake Ostler is still writing books on the nature of God.

And of course, like in the past that first presidency message can be changed, altered, ignored, or eliminated at any minute. (sigh)

This to me sounds more like a bunch of men trying to put together a belief system than a true church directed by God with the fullness of the truth.

Isn't it also obvious that we live in a world of contradictions and opposition? The world is a messy place...because of people. Why would we think that things would be drastically different in the church?

Ohhh, I don't know... maybe because Jesus Christ is supposedly at the helm of the church? Maybe because the church claims to be run by prophets in direct communication with God? Maybe because prophets are supposed to receive revelation? Maybe because the claims of the church state that unlike those churches that teach "the philosophies of man mingled with scripture", the LDS church teaches they have fullness of the truth? Maybe because the LDS scriptures teach that, "whether by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same" which seems to suggest the prophets, (when they are in the official role of their calling) are speaking what Christ wants the world to know?

I don't know... maybe it is too much to assume that the one and only true church run by Christ himself, would be just a little different than the rest of the world's organizations and businesses. Then again, the church certainly and boldly claims it is unique with God's power and all, and it does claim to be led by Christ so I guess it isn't just my unrealistic assumptions that are the problem.

:-)


~dancer~

[_bcspace]

BCSpace indicates that nothing is doctrine unless it is declared so by both the FP and the Qo12.

But,...

Where is the list of doctrines that the FP and the Qo12 have made official doctrine by joint declaration? Where are the declarations? Spread all over in a disorganized way? Nonexistent? I am interested in knowing what they left out.

Tarski continues to ignore Church statements on the matter because if they exist, his pet theories don't. It's sorta like a child covering his eyes and thinking you can't see him if he can't see you.

In my siggy is the clear statement where these items exist. They are found in Church publications....

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications

There is no need for a conference address, there is no need for a letter, there is no need for the Church membership to vote. If a work is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is a doctrinal work. The Theology is systematic.

So are the Primary and Sunday School manuals doctrine? Yes.
Are the Priesthood and Relief Society manuals doctrine? Yes.
Are the institute and other seminary manuals doctrine? Yes.

So now here is a comprehensive list of works from which critics of the Church can point to and say 'It's doctrine." unless the item is presented otherwise (quite rare).

Will our critics use these items? No. Why? Because (usually having an ax to grind) they are not intellectually honest.

[_truth dancer]

Hey BC...

So are the Primary and Sunday School manuals doctrine? Yes.
Are the Priesthood and Relief Society manuals doctrine? Yes.
Are the institute and other seminary manuals doctrine? Yes.

So now here is a comprehensive list of works from which critics of the Church can point to and say 'It's doctrine." unless the item is presented otherwise (quite rare).

Will our critics use these items? No. Why? Because (usually having an ax to grind) they are not intellectually honest.

Hold the phone a sec... :-)

This is the first time in my life I have heard such a thing.

In fact I hear repeatedly from apologists that the above manuals are NOT doctrine.

Hmmm... I guess no one seems to know.

Or rather, everyone seems to think they know what is or is not doctrine is right but the opinions differ quite significantly.

Even if the leaders of the church define doctrine, their statements are merely opinion so the bottom line is... no official doctrine, nowhere to find official doctrine, what believers think is doctrine can be changed, eliminated, altered, dismissed, reinterpreted, altered, at any moment.

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

You would choose to have creedal Mormonism? Isn't it obvious as you look around in the world that information/knowledge comes line upon line, precept on precept...here a little and there a little? There isn't a whole lot that happens without an evolutionary process.

Gosh, it wasn't until 1920 or so that the 1st Presidency finally came out with a united statement on the nature of God and Christ. Ninety years to work things out to the point that we now teach Christ being the Jehovah of the Old Testament. Here we are in 2008 and Blake Ostler is still writing books on the nature of God.

Isn't it also obvious that we live in a world of contradictions and opposition? The world is a messy place...because of people. Why would we think that things would be drastically different in the church?

The problem here is Church leaders do not present is as a messy place nor that it took 90 years to understand just what LDS think about who God is and what the relationship between the members of the Godhead are. Statements about how Joseph new more about God and the Godhead after he walked out of the grove than all the 1800 years of Christianity presents to us are frequent. So what you say is the Mormon Prophets really did not understand a whole lot and had to wade through it like everyone else. Heck even as late as 1890 Pres Cannon was not sure the Holy Ghost was a personage. And in 1921 those sticky lectures were yanked from the canon and then it was claimed they were never really canon or on par as scripture in the first place.

Yep. Lot's of sticky messy issues. Joseph said it was the first principle of religion to know who God is and what his characteristics and attributes are. His own thought on this changed dramitically in his own life. So did the views of his successors. And today where are we at?

[_Jason Bourne]

For Mormons the spirit is really only the spirit when it speaks favorably of LDS things and truth claims. If someone else says the spirit tells them something that contradicts LDS truth claims then that person doesn't really have the spirit or understand the spirit.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OMG!!!!!!!!!


HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

/falls on the floor

Infymus

You do understand this was a criticism that I was making about the way many LDS view the spirit. I was not saying that this was good, right or correct. Please say you understood this because if you did not you really do have comprehension skills or I really am a poor communicator.

[_Sethbag]

Joseph said it was the first principle of religion to know who God is and what his characteristics and attributes are. His own thought on this changed dramitically in his own life. So did the views of his successors. And today where are we at?

I guess this just goes to show that Joseph didn't know the first thing about God. Bummer.

Besides, I thought that the first principle of Heaven is obedience. I used to believe that statement. Now it scares me. It's telling us that the most important thing God wants from us is to obey the men who stand up and proclaim their right to order us around in God's name. There've been a lot of such men over time, and I can't think of a case where it turned out well for anybody (except maybe those men unto whom obedience was rendered).

[_Sethbag]

Jason, I don't think you're a bad communicator. I just think Infymus is stepping into this MDB discussion milieu sort of in the middle of things, and hasn't got the background that the rest of us have with your posts, your admitted attitudes, etc. He's jumping to conclusions about what you believe based on the fact that you've decided to remain active in the church for now.

Infymus: Jason doesn't actually believe most of the stuff that you and I also don't believe. He's chosen to remain in the church for whatever personal reasons seem fit to him, however he does so with eyes wide open, and doesn't make excuses for the stuff that Joseph obviously did or got wrong. You'd be well-advised to be a little more cautious including him in your posts against the church and churchmembers.

[_bcspace]

So are the Primary and Sunday School manuals doctrine? Yes.
Are the Priesthood and Relief Society manuals doctrine? Yes.
Are the institute and other seminary manuals doctrine? Yes.

So now here is a comprehensive list of works from which critics of the Church can point to and say 'It's doctrine." unless the item is presented otherwise (quite rare).

Will our critics use these items? No. Why? Because (usually having an ax to grind) they are not intellectually honest.

Hold the phone a sec... :-)

This is the first time in my life I have heard such a thing.

ah...Ah...AH...Dukakis!

Then I would say you have never attented a teacher preparation class or read the CHI book 2, or even attended Church in over 30 years. I don't believe you anyway as you and I have been posting on the same boards for years.

In fact I hear repeatedly from apologists that the above manuals are NOT doctrine.

Then you can refer to my siggy and say "Your own Church says they are."

Hmmm... I guess no one seems to know. Or rather, everyone seems to think they know what is or is not doctrine is right but the opinions differ quite significantly.

Then refer to the Church's own official statements. An apologist is only as good as he knows and understands the Church's clearly stated positions.

Even if the leaders of the church define doctrine, their statements are merely opinion so the bottom line is... no official doctrine, nowhere to find official doctrine, what believers think is doctrine can be changed, eliminated, altered, dismissed, reinterpreted, altered, at any moment.

This concept does not exist in the Church. What does exist is continuing revelation which can override previous doctrine (rare and I can't think of a single case at the moment) meaning that if there is a conflict, the newer publication Trump's.

[_mentalgymnast]

But mentalgymnast, I think he has a great point. Let's examine it:

1. The scriptures contain LDS doctrine.

What is the doctrine found in the scriptures? Is there a magic number of doctrines? What is that number? Is the fullness of the gospel in the scriptures? Where do hermeneutics and exegesis come into play in regards to your statement?

Your statement is valid...up to a point.

2. If the scriptures contain anything false, then it wasn't translated correctly in that particular spot.

Would you elaborate on this? What are those things that you consider to be false? Define false. I suppose you may be referring to some of the anomalies and events that don't correlate with the known world as we see/observe it today? If so, would that infer that translation errors are at the root...and not something else?

3. The living prophets supersede the scriptures.

Where/What are some instances where this causes a problem for the church?

4. The living prophets' words will always have a scriptural foundation.

Why? If God works line upon line, precept upon precept, there may be some things that wouldn't...wouldn't there?

5. Return to Step 1.

Why follow your recipe? There are some possible snafu's along the way. Your recipe may lead to some interesting and in some cases, unfortunate, outcomes. Wouldn't you agree?

So, since nobody knows which of steps 1-4 is the "foundation" of LDS doctrine, the cycle endlessly repeats, with the end result that nobody knows what's true (or even doctrinal) or not and no two Mormons believe exactly the same thing.

I think your recipe is fallacious.

Jesus Christ is the foundation of LDS doctrine. He speaks to prophets but also allows latitude/agency/time as part of the recipe. I think that's what you may be missing interspersed in your 1-4 above.

That's how we ALL learn and grow. In our time as in times of old.

Regards,
MG

[_Tarski]

What does exist is continuing revelation which can override previous doctrine (rare and I can't think of a single case at the moment) meaning that if there is a conflict, the newer publication Trump's.

BCSpace's claim that those manuals are doctrine contradicts what we hear from apologists all the time. If only all TBM's would make this claim we could comb back through the manuals and find all sorts of things that contradict science. But there are plenty in the scriptures--remember those? the scriptures? (I can hear BCSpace breaking out his word-redefinition manual).

But notice bcspace's sentence above? It's a little hole to slip through. You always need a little loop hole: "if there is a conflict, the newer publication Trump's"