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

[_truth dancer]

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

Were they taught? Yes? Then they are doctrine.

How about the scriptures denouncing polygamy? Were they taught? Yes? Doctrine.

ANTHING taught by the church is considered doctrine based on the actual definition.

Again, the mistake is to assume doctrine means something more than, something that is taught.

Doctrine does not equate to truth. Repeat five times. ;-)

[_bcspace]

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

Since they are no longer in the D&C, they are not doctrinal. However, I believe many parts of it are quoted in doctrinal works as well as some of the same teachings. Those would be doctrinal.

They are also published in full in the Ensign back in the 70's as I recall, but the presentation is of historical context making it doctrine that the LoF are part of LDS history.

[_Runtu]

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

Since they are no longer in the D&C, they are not doctrinal. However, I believe many parts of it are quoted in doctrinal works as well as some of the same teachings. Those would be doctrinal.

They are also published in full in the Ensign back in the 70's as I recall, but the presentation is of historical context making it doctrine that the LoF are part of LDS history.

So, when they were included in the D&C, they were doctrinal, but they aren't now?

[_beastie]

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.

Of course. Whenever human beings claim to receive "revelation" from god, it always turns out to be notoriously unreliable (unless later, helpful editors rewrite history).

And this helps your case, how?

The entire premise of the LDS church is built upon the concept that God can "reveal" truths clearly enough to human beings for those same human beings to make categorical truth claims, such as "the LDS church is the only church on the face of the earth with the authority of the priesthood of JC to perform saving ordinances". Or "HF and JC appeared to Joseph Smith and told him no churches on earth were correct". Members supposedly can find out the reliability of those same claims via personal revelation.

And yet everything points to the fact that personal revelation is inherently flawed. You know what they say about sandy foundations...

[_bcspace]

Of course. Whenever human beings claim to receive "revelation" from god, it always turns out to be notoriously unreliable (unless later, helpful editors rewrite history).

And this helps your case, how?

Because the Lord has established a Church to help determine what is and is not doctrine (Ephesians 4:11-14). Since 1835 (D&C 107) we've known that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority and therefore, both bodies must agree on doctrine.

The entire premise of the LDS church is built upon the concept that God can "reveal" truths clearly enough to human beings for those same human beings to make categorical truth claims, such as "the LDS church is the only church on the face of the earth with the authority of the priesthood of JC to perform saving ordinances". Or "HF and JC appeared to Joseph Smith and told him no churches on earth were correct". Members supposedly can find out the reliability of those same claims via personal revelation.

That is correct.

And yet everything points to the fact that personal revelation is inherently flawed. You know what they say about sandy foundations...

Which is why, for example, Joseph Smith had 11 witnesses for the Book of Mormon. For the crowning epiphanies, you have only the HG to bear testimony. It really is the great test, and everything else falls into place afterwards or it does not.

[_cksalmon]

I remember an article I published (when I was editing The Evangel) by a sharp guy (I'd have to look up his information) who argued that the LDS Church has only two ultimate, irrevocable doctrinal beliefs:

(1) That God exists
and
(2) That revelation continues.

Nothing else is, or, indeed, can be, sacrosanct.

Chris

[_bcspace]

So, when they were included in the D&C, they were doctrinal, but they aren't now?

That is correct, unless of course you can find them published elsewhere as doctrine.

[_bcspace]

I remember an article I published (when I was editing The Evangel) by a sharp guy (I'd have to look up his information) who argued that the LDS Church has only two ultimate, irrevocable doctrinal beliefs:

(1) That God exists
and
(2) That revelation continues.

Nothing else is, or, indeed, can be, sacrosanct.

Oh I think many other doctrines can be added to that list. But yes, doctrines can, do, and have (but not in any major way) changed.

[_John Larsen]

I think another way to phrase this issue is that the LDS Church has no Creed and no Systematic theology. Every doctrine is movable and there is not doctrinal solid ground. The idea that the scriptures provide a doctrinal foundation is easily proven wrong. Ask anyone who eats meat when it isn't a famine or fruit out of season.

[_beastie]

Because the Lord has established a Church to help determine what is and is not doctrine (Ephesians 4:11-14). Since 1835 (D&C 107) we've known that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority and therefore, both bodies must agree on doctrine.

And where did Ephesians come from????? Yeah, you got it, from the same flawed source the rest of it did. Personal revelation.

Do you really not see how endlessly circular - and pointless - this all is? No personal revelation is reliable. You've already affirmed yourself that the personal revelations recorded in the Bible were not reliable. We all know that the personal revelations of LDS prophets and apostles are not reliable. Again, this helps you, how?

Which is why, for example, Joseph Smith had 11 witnesses for the Book of Mormon. For the crowning epiphanies, you have only the HG to bear testimony. It really is the great test, and everything else falls into place afterwards or it does not.

11 witnesses who signed a pre-written statement. Yeah, that is so convincing. To top that off, human memory is one of the most unreliable sources of information around. And the "great test" is to rely on the HG... which is the same source of all those other flawed revelations.

I wrote a lengthy post for FAIR some time ago about the unreliability of revelation, and how it dooms the entire foundation of the LDS church. I'll try to find it.


Chris:

I remember an article I published (when I was editing The Evangel) by a sharp guy (I'd have to look up his information) who argued that the LDS Church has only two ultimate, irrevocable doctrinal beliefs:

(1) That God exists
and
(2) That revelation continues.

Nothing else is, or, indeed, can be, sacrosanct.

This is basically Ben McGuire's position, if I've understood our past conversations correctly.