False enough for me

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

Two things. 1. You may be expecting men to be in your own image. 2. You may be expecting God to be in your own image. <grin>

You're just too good for this world, TD! (and I mean that!!!)

Regards,
MG

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Apologists such as John Tvedtness and Dan Peterson have all stated that manuals are not official LDS doctrine. I have seen them refuse to be pinned down to something in a LDS manual that they do not want to be pinned down to by making such a claim.

[_bcspace]

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).

No redefining necessary as I put my money where my mouth is.

I understand your frustration because I have debated this with other apologists as well. However, I think the Church put out the official statement referenced in my siggy to correct them. Afterall, I have come across apologists with agendas contrary to LDS doctrine and for the Church to have a clear policy on this (as it's had for as long as I've been cognizant of the issue, over 30 years) is to bring their gospel hobbies to a screetching trainwreck.

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"

Not at all. It simply recognizes that continuing revelation is part of the systematic theology of the LDS Church. Notice Tarski's lack of examples. He's unwilling to go to LDS doctrine because of the strawman church he's built up overr the years.

[_cinepro]

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



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).

Wow. So are you saying it is official LDS doctrine that Noah's flood was literal, worldwide and catastrophic, and that there was no physical death anywhere in the world for plants or animals until the Fall of Adam?

Glad I could finally clear that up.

(Adam and Eve)
(Noah

[_mentalgymnast]

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"

I don't think ALL the manuals contain ALL doctrine. I think that's beyond the scope/ability of the correlation groups that write/edit them. Now the scriptures...they're graded on a different scale. And the scale is a sliding scale.

I don't think anyone has to look for loopholes. They're not needed. One does have to look at reality, however.

Or at least an approximation thereof. You can only get so close and then things suddenly and/or gradually get fuzzy or illusionary. That's where it gets fun.

Regards,
MG

[_bcspace]

I don't think ALL the manuals contain ALL doctrine.

They don't. However, all doctrine is published. If it's not, it's not doctrine.

I think that's beyond the scope/ability of the correlation groups that write/edit them.

One could track the GP manual over the years and not find many changes. I daresay one would not find any cahnges at all to the major doctrines we often debate over such as Lucifer being a literal spirit son of God or that God was once a mortal man or that plural marriage is doctrine.

Now the scriptures...they're graded on a different scale. And the scale is a sliding scale.

Here is where people get into trouble. Scriptures are doctrine, but doctrine is not scripture.

I don't think anyone has to look for loopholes. They're not needed.

Correct. There is no deception going on here. It feels like deception to some because they've swallowed that which is not doctrine.

One does have to look at reality, however.

Sure. Here we have an LDS person (me) freely admitting that doctrine does change, yet no crtics are jumping all over that even when I said it's very rare (and I daresay, insignificant).

Or at least an approximation thereof. You can only get so close and then things suddenly and/or gradually get fuzzy or illusionary. That's where it gets fun.

We can fill in the undefined details any way we want as long as we don' teach them for doctrine.

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

I think we need to go straight to what Joseph Smith said...and not what ANYONE else said. Also, it is important to look at when he said it and who recorded it. Most importantly, Joseph Smith is the only one that knows what he did or didn't see and how he was going to share that information with his associates and with the Christian world...and how much...and when. It is difficult to know how much he did or didn't know about the godhead when he walked out of the grove of trees because we don't know exactly what he saw.

On the assumption that there was a heavenly vision of some sort, that is.

Afterall, he said there were a multiplicity of beings in the vision.

So what you say is the Mormon Prophets really did not understand a whole lot and had to wade through it like everyone else.

Yes. Brigham said as much. Amazing, when you think about it. With full knowledge of what he was saying (what an admission!!)...and of what Joseph Smith had already said he saw YEARS earlier.

Regards,
MG

[_Tarski]

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



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).

Wow. So are you saying it is official LDS doctrine that Noah's flood was literal, worldwide and catastrophic, and that there was no physical death anywhere in the world for plants or animals until the Fall of Adam?

Glad I could finally clear that up.

(Adam and Eve)
(Noah

LOL! I would say touche but BCSpace has a handy talent of redefining words at will to suite the purpose. There are no scriptures that can't be read to say something slighly different that the manifest meaning- just enough to dodge the scientific bullet. But at the expense of linguistic absurdity.

[_The Nehor]

Hence why you were a crappy member. You learned to shut up instead of sitting down and figuring the whole Spirit thing out. If you think the standard is flawed and doesn't work (despite the Church surviving this long) then don't let the door hit you on the way out. Somehow it has worked for me....go figure.

Nehor if you haven't got anything to add except personal insults, then STFU. This is how both you and Bourne act and is exactly why I call you lapdogs - and ignore pretty much all of your messages.

You have NOTHING to add. Nothing, and quite frankly I'm getting f*****g tired of it.

I think it is getting time to drop my subscription to MDB. This is the exact reason why I steer anyone who is looking for recovery away from MDB - people like you and Bourne. You relentlessly attack anyone who left your Cult.

I think I've had enough.

NOOO!!!! Please don't go!!! You contribute so much and.......

Oh wait, never mind. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm squarely behind Tarski on this one. He's hit the nail on the head.

As long as the nail is a certain size and shape and being driven into a precisely chosen variety of wood.

There are so many reasons why the LDS church looks just as manmade as all the other churches, that it's hard to fathom what reason there is to believe that, unlike all the other untrue churches, it really is true after all. It's just not there. It's wishful thinking.

Stepping back for a minute and playing God.

Hmmm, I have more than one option here...how do I want my church to appear... I think I'll put my fingerprints ALL over it so there's no mistake about it. I'll guide every thought and move so that things move along exactly the way I want it with no errors of judgment...no mistakes. That way it will be so obvious that it's my church that people really won't have any reason/choice NOT to become part of it. I mean, gosh, it will be an absolute no-brainer. OTOH, if I generally speaking take a hands off position much of the time, give them a guidebook to begin with, and then let people kind of run the show on their own and hope that they remember to phone in frequently, or at least once in a while to get some directions, maybe...just maybe...these kids might learn some things that will help them along the way in their eternal journey. Just maybe they might develop characteristics that are a spin off of having to exercise faith and determination in exercising their OWN agency...hmmm...I think I'll go with the second choice. In the long run I think it stands a better chance.

Regards,
MG