BC's View of LDS Doctrine -- Is It Doctrine?

[_mms]

John Larsen posted this thought-provoking commentary in a thread at MAD:

I think the lack of consensus among faithful members on this post shows the heart of the problem. There is no official method. In fact, there are no official doctrines as far as I can tell.

As best as I can tell, if you wish to remain a member in good standing this is the doctrinal criteria:

You are bound to believe the things required by the temple recommend questions (if you want to go to the temple).
You cannot public disagree with any doctrine held by a current apostle.
New doctrines do not have to be reconcilable to old doctrines.
Old doctrines taught by apostles that have not be renounced or contradicted by later apostles may well have expired without further action.
There is an "unwritten order of things" both doctrinal and procedural that you may be held to.
The current brethren may be "speaking as men" but you can take no action on this fact. This only applies to dead apostles.
The scriptures are not necessarily a doctrinal bind since non scriptural commentary on the scriptures by later brethren my change or obsolete the scripture.

[_bcspace]

All you have to do is ask "Then why, in this official publication, does it say this?" Never have I seen so many detractors of the Church so afraid to use this ready made weapon. Could it be that they know their arguments have been untrue and false to start with? I think so.

What? Quoting from church publications has been a favorite tactic for all church critics. Who is afraid to use this tactic? I've never met a critic/anti-mormon/ex-mormon who does not LOVE to throw quotes from church publications in TBM's faces.

Then why all the fuss?

Where do you think the "That's not official doctrine/that was just his opinion" rebuttal started?

1. From antiMormons quoting from nondoctrinal works.
2. From LDS apologists who don't know what the doctrine is.

One of the famouse critics at RfM, Decontructor, has a website devoted to using church publications as his weapon, just as you suggest. http://www.i4m.com/think/history/

A simple perusal shows that that not all the references are from doctrinal works.

[_bcspace]

John Larsen posted this thought-provoking commentary in a thread at MAD:

Which thread would that be? Except for the first, there is no such notion of those things he listed in the Church as far as I can tell.

Most members I know agree with the Church's own statements about what is and is not doctrine. Unfortunately, there are some apologists who do not. The solution of course is to show where in a Church published work is your claim supported and then reference the link in my siggy.

[_beastie]

I think the question of "is it doctrine or not" is entirely irrelevant.

The point is that prophets and apostles of God taught false teachings over the pulpit, functioning in their callings as prophet and apostles. I think it's safe to assume that these people cared deeply about teaching correct principles to the members of the church, and therefore sought out revelation/inspiration from the HG as they prepared and delivered their teachings - teachings which turned out to be false.

To me, the main point of problematic past teachings of prophets has nothing to do with "doctrine", and everything to do with the failure of "personal revelation" or inspiration of the HG.

Despite all the protests of believers that the HG gives clear "truth", history tells us that reality is, in fact, the exact opposite.

[_truth dancer]

Well according to dictionary .com

Doctrine means:

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

So, yeah, anything taught by the church is "doctrine."

What is important to note is that doctrine does not equal truth, can and does change, can be altered, eliminated, and revised at any time.

It is a mistake to assume something doctrinal is regarded as truth, it is not. It means just that it is being taught by someone in the church at a given moment.

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

I think the question of "is it doctrine or not" is entirely irrelevant.

The point is that prophets and apostles of God taught false teachings over the pulpit, functioning in their callings as prophet and apostles. I think it's safe to assume that these people cared deeply about teaching correct principles to the members of the church, and therefore sought out revelation/inspiration from the HG as they prepared and delivered their teachings - teachings which turned out to be false.

To me, the main point of problematic past teachings of prophets has nothing to do with "doctrine", and everything to do with the failure of "personal revelation" or inspiration of the HG.

Despite all the protests of believers that the HG gives clear "truth", history tells us that reality is, in fact, the exact opposite.

Yup, thus BY's teachings can be denounced a century later as a "damnable heresy." Apparently, prophets declare doctrine, but only once it's been through the correlation committee.

[_bcspace]

To me, the main point of problematic past teachings of prophets has nothing to do with "doctrine", and everything to do with the failure of "personal revelation" or inspiration of the HG.

Such is evident in scripture too. Balaam for example. He had an even greater manifestation than the HG and he still went astray. There is Jonah. There are Peter and the rest of the disciples in Acts not immediately agreeing that Peter's revelation dictates the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, etc.

In other words, we already know and understand that the prophets aren't perfect and don't need to be told that. It's a built in conception of our doctrine which is why you guys fail to gain much traction with it.

[_bcspace]

Yup, thus BY's teachings can be denounced a century later as a "damnable heresy." Apparently, prophets declare doctrine, but only once it's been through the correlation committee.

Yes. BY said something similar regarding the JoD.

[_bcspace]

So, yeah, anything taught by the church is "doctrine."

At least you're on the right path in this regard.

[_Runtu]

Yup, thus BY's teachings can be denounced a century later as a "damnable heresy." Apparently, prophets declare doctrine, but only once it's been through the correlation committee.

Yes. BY said something similar regarding the JoD.

What about the Lectures on Faith? They were vetted and published as part of the Doctrine and Covenants. Are they doctrine or not?