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

[_truth dancer]

I think you understand quite well that it is quite clear and simply. However, you seem to have an agenda against the Church and therefore cannot afford to allow others to see it.

I have no agenda against the church... because YOU have an idea of church doctrine doesn't mean it is the church's position. As you know, your opinion differs to that of most believers.

Your opinion doesn't make it so, nor does it make it representative of the LDS church.

The LDS church has never clarified doctrine. Your statement from the church website tells us nothing regarding doctrine other than that it can be found in scripture and published work. This doesn't tell us what is or is not scripture only that it may be there. It doesn't say that there may be doctrine outside of published material, or that all scripture is there. It doesn't tell us what doctrine is true or not true. The statement is next to worthless when trying to figure out what is or is not official LDS doctrine.

You said there may be doctrine that is not true. So, doctrine may or may not be true no? What is incorrect about this statement. Are you saying all doctrine is true?

Of course doctrine can be changed at any time. It has in the past and according to believers it most certainly can be i the future... you know, further light and knowledge and all that.

Your belief seems to be that all those who agree with you are right about doctrine, those who disagree are simply less informed. Of course other believers think you are off base and they are the ones who have a better understanding of what is or is not doctrine.

Just pick a topic and see how believers disagree about its meaning, doctrinal status, and ultimate truth.

Noachian flood, Book of Mormon location, Adam and Eve, polygamy, Adam/God theory, nature of God, temple rituals, Book of Abraham origins, requirements for the CKHL, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc., believers all seem to have an opinion, but no one seems to know. The church teachings seem to mean nothing regarding truth.

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

BC


So we have you stating the position that anything the Church publishes is doctrine. You think the Chuch agrees with this based on a news release. Ok. Let's assume you are correct.

What problems are thus caused when something was published by the Church and thus was doctrine and then it is no longer published. I refer again the to the lectures on faith. The fifth lecture contained the doctrine that God had was spirit, not body, and that thee Holy Ghost was not a personage. That conflicted with later developments. Indeed the lectures ran as the doctrine of the D&C and even conflicted with section 130 for a time.

So how can two conflicting positions both be doctrine? They were published at the same time by the Church.

Further, if you take this position you must agree that things published during the 19th century int he Deseret News were LDS doctrine as this was the publishing arm of the Church. Accordingly, things like Adam God, that were preached in conference and published in the Deseret News were doctrine. Now they no longer are.
So how can something be true doctrine at one point in time but not another?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jason,

So how can something be true doctrine at one point in time but not another?

Of course it can't.

I think what BC is not wanting to say, but believers is that doctrine does not mean something is true, it just means it is what the church teaches at a particular given time.

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

In other words, as I believe bc is trying to make clear (if I'm understanding him correctly), texts like the Lectures on Faith, or doctrines such as God the Father having a father etc (or Heavenly Mother, for that matter), while not in the scriptures, may still be doctrinal, and while not official doctrine, may still be true doctrine.

But the problem is that some of this doctrine that was published contradicted concurrent as well as current doctrine. Teachings in the lectures on faith are a prime example. It seems this is the reason they were removed from canon. So what do I believe about the Godhead? What was taught in the lectures or the current teachings? How about those who lived when both the lectures and D&C 130 were published together?

Then there are doctrinal theories or opinions (traditional Priesthood ban explanations, for example) that may combine true principles as understood in the Church with other elements that can be safely discarded.

But the FP published a statement on the priesthood ban that included the idea that blacks were less valiant in the pre-earth life. So based on BCs definition this was doctrine as it was published by the Church and it carries added weight as being sent out under FP signature. So do you now agree with BCs definition of doctrine?

This dreary old hobby horse argument is so threadbare its literally physically painful to revisit it again and again and again as it can be answered definitively for anyone actually seeking an answer to the question.

BC has a different definition from that of most apologists. Most I know of limit official LDS doctrine to canon and official FP statements. Most do not want to be pinned down to anything published by the Church as it leaves many difficult things to defend. I understand why they feel that way and am surprised to find BC so expansive in his definition that he insists is the Church's definition of doctrine. But that creates problems as well as I have noted.

[_Jason Bourne]

The amazing thing is that there are official statements by the Church on this subject which exactly mirror how the church has operated for decades and yet they still won't believe. But that is because they can't afford to admit that there apostasy was wrongly justified or that their favorite arguments against the Church are false.

The only thing close to any official statement that one could use to define what is Doctrine of the LDS Church is the news release that you link to. That is it. If there is another please provide it. I have looked high and low and cannot find one. There are snippets here and there like HFS and HBL comments that if anyo church leader says something that does not agree with the standard works you can set it aside. But that position contradicts your and the press release because leaders say stuff that has been published that may not agree with the standard works. Then there is the D&C and section 107 which ranks authority but that does not define what is and is not LDS doctrine.

So why is a news release the end all of what defines doctrine? Do you have other similar statement that are more official? I do not think the news release is a bad definition. How about the Church put it out under FP and Q 0f 12 signature and make it official?

[_bcspace]

I have no agenda against the church...

You have been around here and on other boards too long for me to believe that.

because YOU have an idea of church doctrine doesn't mean it is the church's position.

The Church has stated it as it's position so it's not my idea at all.

As you know, your opinion differs to that of most believers.

My knowledge of what is and is not doctrine mirrors that of most, if not all, TBM's I know. There indeed a few rogue apologosts.....

The LDS church has never clarified doctrine.

See my siggy.

Your statement from the church website tells us nothing regarding doctrine other than that it can be found in scripture and published work.

There is your guide.

This doesn't tell us what is or is not scripture only that it may be there.

It lists the scriptures.

It doesn't say that there may be doctrine outside of published material,

There is no doctrine outside published material.

or that all scripture is there.

However, it does define the scriptures we have.

It doesn't tell us what doctrine is true or not true.

Doesn't have to. It's not true if it's not doctrine.

The statement is next to worthless when trying to figure out what is or is not official LDS doctrine.

How so?

You said there may be doctrine that is not true.

In my opinion yes. But this is not about my opinion, it is about what the Church says is doctrine. That the flood is global, for example, is published LDS doctrine. Just because I believe it is wrong doesn't mean it's not LDS doctrine. You are ascribing to me and other individuals by implication, authority over doctrine that we do not have.

So, doctrine may or may not be true no? What is incorrect about this statement. Are you saying all doctrine is true?

All doctrine is true as far as the Church is concerned.

Of course doctrine can be changed at any time. It has in the past and according to believers it most certainly can be I the future... you know, further light and knowledge and all that.

It can, but you make it sound as if it happens with regularity. I think you would be hard pressed to find an example. I daresay that most of what you all claim as changing doctrine is really you comming to find out that what you thought was doctrine never was in the first place.

Your belief seems to be that all those who agree with you are right about doctrine, those who disagree are simply less informed.

It is irrational to claim you can't tell what is LDS doctrine when the LDS Chruch has clearly stated a very simple method for you to tell.

Of course other believers think you are off base

Not very many.

and they are the ones who have a better understanding of what is or is not doctrine.

Oh really? lol

Just pick a topic and see how believers disagree about its meaning, doctrinal status, and ultimate truth.

How many of you are going to pose as believers? lol

Noachian flood, Book of Mormon location, Adam and Eve, polygamy, Adam/God theory, nature of God, temple rituals, Book of Abraham origins, requirements for the CKHL, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc., believers all seem to have an opinion, but no one seems to know. The church teachings seem to mean nothing regarding truth.

Apples and oranges.

I'll bet most believers will agree that officially the Church says this or that on a subject. What many of these debates are about is either not knowing what the Church has said, or arguing over what the Church has not said, or not believing what the Church has said.

[_bcspace]

So we have you stating the position that anything the Church publishes is doctrine. You think the Chuch agrees with this based on a news release. Ok. Let's assume you are correct.

What problems are thus caused when something was published by the Church and thus was doctrine and then it is no longer published. I refer again the to the lectures on faith. The fifth lecture contained the doctrine that God had was spirit, not body, and that thee Holy Ghost was not a personage. That conflicted with later developments. Indeed the lectures ran as the doctrine of the D&C and even conflicted with section 130 for a time.

You simply go with the latest date which is in keeping with the doctrine of continuing revelation (whcih either builds upon existing revelation or corrects man made opinions).

[Guest]

BC has a different definition from that of most apologists.

But not different from the Church.

Most I know of limit official LDS doctrine to canon

Irrational; doctrine being the inpterpretation of scripture.

and official FP statements.

Such a limitation is contrary to the Church's own statements. All one has to do to know this is open a lesson manual to the introductory sections to find that teaching is not limited to canon and fp statements.

Most do not want to be pinned down to anything published by the Church as it leaves many difficult things to defend. I understand why they feel that way and am surprised to find BC so expansive in his definition that he insists is the Church's definition of doctrine. But that creates problems as well as I have noted.

I think running with the Church's own definition of doctrine severly limits these kinds of problems. These "rogue" apologists you speak of (and they seem to be very few in number) have more difficultly, imho, explaining why the Church teaches certain things in it's own Sunday School, Primary, Relief Society and Priesthood manuals. Would the Church, any church, actually teach something it did not consider doctrine? I think not.

[_Chap]

So we have you stating the position that anything the Church publishes is doctrine. You think the Chuch agrees with this based on a news release. Ok. Let's assume you are correct.

What problems are thus caused when something was published by the Church and thus was doctrine and then it is no longer published. I refer again the to the lectures on faith. The fifth lecture contained the doctrine that God had was spirit, not body, and that thee Holy Ghost was not a personage. That conflicted with later developments. Indeed the lectures ran as the doctrine of the D&C and even conflicted with section 130 for a time.

You simply go with the latest date which is in keeping with the doctrine of continuing revelation (whcih either builds upon existing revelation or corrects man made opinions).

Is that all that 'continuing revelation' does:

either

(a)builds upon existing revelation

or

(b) corrects man made opinions?

That would suggest that anything which is 'corrected' is a man made opinion. Presumably the 'Lectures on Faith' would have to come under the 'man made opinion' category, since they were (at the very least) 'corrected'. But at the time a lot of people thought they were revelation, no?

How can one tell, at any given time, what is 'revelation' (which may be built upon, but not corrected) and what is 'man made opinion' (which may be corrected, perhaps to the extent of being withdrawn altogether? Or is one not supposed to be able to tell the difference?

[_Jason Bourne]

So we have you stating the position that anything the Church publishes is doctrine. You think the Church agrees with this based on a news release. Ok. Let's assume you are correct.

What problems are thus caused when something was published by the Church and thus was doctrine and then it is no longer published. I refer again the to the lectures on faith. The fifth lecture contained the doctrine that God had was spirit, not body, and that thee Holy Ghost was not a personage. That conflicted with later developments. Indeed the lectures ran as the doctrine of the D&C and even conflicted with section 130 for a time.

You simply go with the latest date which is in keeping with the doctrine of continuing revelation (whcih either builds upon existing revelation or corrects man made opinions).

Nice dodge.

So were the lecture doctrine or man made opinions?

Go back and read my posts and answer the questions I pose please?