Pay your tithing. <-I'm not being facetious. I think that doctrine is almost universally accepted by Mormons. The Pay-Pray-Obey construct is probably the most consistently agreed upon doctrine in the Mormon church. That's about it as far as I can tell.
although some dispute whether it is net or gross
I always paid on my net, which is probably why I became a spawn of satan.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Pay your tithing. <-I'm not being facetious. I think that doctrine is almost universally accepted by Mormons. The Pay-Pray-Obey construct is probably the most consistently agreed upon doctrine in the Mormon church. That's about it as far as I can tell.
although some dispute whether it is net or gross
I always paid on my net, which is probably why I became a spawn of satan.
I paid on my gross for years, until my bishop castigated me for paying on the gross. He said I should pay on the net, so I did. Maybe that's why I left, too. Following bishop's counsel = apostasy.
I paid on my gross for years, until my bishop castigated me for paying on the gross. He said I should pay on the net, so I did. Maybe that's why I left, too. Following bishop's counsel = apostasy.
He actually castigated you for paying more than he thought you ought? Now that was one unusual bishop.
Oh, and you're only blessed for following a leader's incorrect counsel when the leader is the prophet.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
bcspace wrote: What is evident in scripture is that the prophets are fallible men. .
But "The Church" is infallible? What "it" publishes goes? I am not even sure what "The Church" is exactly. Is the abstract corporatation more authoritative than a living prophet?
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
mms wrote:I noticed that BC has a link in his signature line to the Church's press release of last year explaining what constitutes "doctrine" of the Church. I am sure this must have been asked before, but it seems under the press release's own description of what doctrine is, the press release itself IS NOT doctrine. So are we not simply left without any "doctrinal" description of what is in fact "doctrine"?
I have made this point from the first time I saw this. A press release on its own, falls outside what it attempts to define as doctrine. Where is the FP and Q of 12 on this? Had this come from them then it would have teeth. Without it, it is weak.
Look inside the cover. Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publish the JoD? not doctrine.
So in the 19th century the Church owned Deseret News was the official publication of the Church. Iw was the LDS.org of its day. So since it published sermons by BY about Adam God then this must be LDS doctrine. If it was part of the temple it much be LDS doctrine as well. Anything by GAs in the DN from the 19th century is LDS doctrine.
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?
The Lectures certainly were doctrine. Indeed the doctrine of the 1835 D&C, the first is a series of planned lectures to lay out LDS doctrine. Because Lecture 5 became problematic in its stating that the Father was a personage of spirit and relegating the Holy Ghost to the Mind of God and not a personage at all they wre removed from the D&C in 1921. The most likely reason was due to the blatent conflict the fifth lecture had with the 1916 FP statement on the Godhead which was written by James Talmadge. Talmadge encouraged dropping the lectures. So for about 86 years they were doctrine.
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 for 86 years it was doctrine that the Father was a personage of spirit and that as contrasted to the Son who is was a personage of tabernacle. Then suddenlty in 1921 the Father gained a body? Oh and then there was the conflict with D&C 130 as well. How can something be doctrine then not be suddenly?
Jason Bourne wrote: So for 86 years it was doctrine that the Father was a personage of spirit and that as contrasted to the Son who is was a personage of tabernacle. Then suddenlty in 1921 the Father gained a body? Oh and then there was the conflict with D&C 130 as well. How can something be doctrine then not be suddenly?
To bcspace's credit, he did say he believes that doctrine changes. That's an important and admirable concession, and one that puts him outside the mainstream of Mormon dogma. Officially, policies change, but not doctrines.
As you've pointed out, the jettisoning of the Lectures on Faith (how many modern Mormons have read them or even know they exist?) represents a fundamental change in the doctrine of the nature of God. And wasn't it Joseph Smith who said it was the "first principle of the gospel" to understand who and what God is? That is a major doctrinal reversal, and I commend bcspace for acknowledging it.