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

[_Jason Bourne]

BC has a different definition from that of most apologists.

But not different from the Church.

Sorry

I should have noted that the Church does not have a definition. I await you to provide one other than a news release.

Most I know of limit official LDS doctrine to canon

Irrational; doctrine being the inpterpretation of scripture.

Tell HBL and JFS that they were irrational.

and official FP statements.

Such a limitation is contrary to the Church's own statements.

Please provide other statements that bear more weight than a simple news release.

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 severely 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 actually teach something it did not consider doctrine? I think not.

I agree with you but these so called rogues are in my experiennce the majority and you seem outside the norm for apologists.

[_bcspace]

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.

No dodge. This is the way it's taught in teacher preparation class throughout the Church and for many decades previous at least. If an "apologist" doesn't know this, then such a one has never had any serious callings or activity in the church.

So were the lecture doctrine or man made opinions?

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

You now have the ability to determine for yourself. Can you find such doctrine in the latest publications? Can you find them in older publications? What was/is the presentation?

My question for you is, why would the Church teach to it's Primary age children that God is the literal father of all our spirits and literal father of Jesus' physical body if it were not doctrine?

[_Runtu]

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.

No dodge. This is the way it's taught in teacher preparation class throughout the Church and for many decades previous at least. If an "apologist" doesn't know this, then such a one has never had any serious callings or activity in the church.

So were the lecture doctrine or man made opinions?

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

You now have the ability to determine for yourself. Can you find such doctrine in the latest publications? Can you find them in older publications? What was/is the presentation?

My question for you is, why would the Church teach to it's Primary age children that God is the literal father of all our spirits and literal father of Jesus' physical body if it were not doctrine?

I think it's commendable that you clearly assert that doctrine does change. That is what I think puts you outside the mainstream of the church; see, for example, Packer's statement that “while doctrines remain fixed, the methods or procedures do not” (“Revelation in a Changing World,” Ensign, Nov 1989, 14). But it is self-evidently true that doctrines do change and are retired from service, and I appreciate your candor in discussing this issue.

I do take issue with the syllogism you outlined:

If the church publishes it, it's doctrine.
If it's doctrine, it's true.
Ergo, if the church publishes it, it's true.

If the church's publications never contradicted themselves, that might be possible.

And by the way, the pedantic editor in me reminds you that

"it's" is a contraction of "it is."
"its" is the possessive form of "it."

[_bcspace]

I should have noted that the Church does not have a definition. I await you to provide one other than a news release.

Please provide other statements that bear more weight than a simple news release.

The Church itself commenting on a subject bears enough weight for any rational person.....

Comments from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on news stories, including corrections.

Irrational; doctrine being the inpterpretation of scripture.

Tell HBL and JFS that they were irrational.

Why? I certainly might tell that to anyone who taught as doctrine things that the Church really didn't teach as doctrine including an apostle. If I recall correctly, DOM was pretty upset at BRM and JFS for the works they published under pretentious titles.

I agree with you but these so called rogues are in my experiennce the majority and you seem outside the norm for apologists.

I have some pretty good experience. Whenever I have this discussion on MADB for example, there are a couple who chime in to disagree and a host of others to come to my defense. And that was before the Church commented on the subject. Since then, I think most of these "rogues" understand now what the Church's stand on this is.

[_bcspace]

I think it's commendable that you clearly assert that doctrine does change.

Thank you. The Church essentially admits the same in the link on my siggy. But this is nothing new. Notice the use of the Article of Faith.......

That is what I think puts you outside the mainstream of the church; see, for example, Packer's statement that “while doctrines remain fixed, the methods or procedures do not” (“Revelation in a Changing World,” Ensign, Nov 1989, 14). But it is self-evidently true that doctrines do change and are retired from service, and I appreciate your candor in discussing this issue.

Well I think Packer is right. Doctrines don't change per se. But man's understanding of them does. There might indeed be some confusion or even apparent condradiction for a while until revelation settles the issue.

I do take issue with the syllogism you outlined:

If the church publishes it, it's doctrine.
If it's doctrine, it's true.
Ergo, if the church publishes it, it's true.

If the church's publications never contradicted themselves, that might be possible.

True from the Church's perspective that is.

And by the way, the pedantic editor in me reminds you that

"it's" is a contraction of "it is."
"its" is the possessive form of "it."

I have learned to forgive and overlook other's spelling and puncuation mistakes. I make plenty of my own.

[_Chap]

Oh good ... bcspace does agree that the things the Hebrew deity are said to have ordered were 'vile and disgusting'. (Otherwise the phrase 'just as vile and disgusting' would be meaningless).

(a) However, if God commanded, would you carry it out?

Point is, some people think we ought to worship him, love him and shower him with laudatory epithets ... no-one is asking anybody to worship the advocates of the social policies that bcspace dislikes.

(b) Such social policies are actually a type of enforced worship.

I should think that the being who created the plague bacillus and all the rest has probably killed a lot more people than any human individual or group has ever managed to rub out. And yet we are supposed to thank him every day of our lives (presumably even if we are dying of plague at the time ...)

(c) Yet this Being knows that we do not cease to exist when we die. This life purifies and refines us. We know the bitter from the sweet, etc. The old atheist chestnut of "Is God a good father?" is not a rational argument.

There is an old Jewish saying: if God lived on earth, people would break his windows. One can quite see why.

(d) they would even crucify him.

This is a typical example of the poverty of bcspace's argumentative resources. He seems to think that so long as he says something to correspond to each part of a post, he has in some way rebutted it. But let us look at what he offers.

His point (a) is no kind of rebuttal to the fact that in the Old Testament the Hebrew deity is represented as commanding his followers to commit despicable acts of cruelty and violence. What does it matter whether I would or would not have obeyed what are said to have been his commands? bcspace's (b) asserts a mere nonsense - that the adoption by a government under which he lives of a policy he dislikes is equivalent to forcing him to worship a deity. His (c) does not try to relieve the deity he is defending of responsibility for such things as the plague bacillus, but asserts (merely asserts) that this deity will make it all up to us in the end. Really? His (d) is another piece of silliness: Jesus was not crucified by people who thought they were taking revenge on Yahweh for his various unpleasantnesses, but was done away with because he was a political and social embarrassment (poor man).

No-one but bcspace would think he had actually answered my post in any effective manner.

[_Jason Bourne]

No dodge. This is the way it's taught in teacher preparation class throughout the Church and for many decades previous at least. If an "apologist" doesn't know this, then such a one has never had any serious callings or activity in the church.

Yes dodge. Yes the apologists I refer to have callings. Ask any on the MAD board if every word of every manual is official LDS doctrine.

So were the lecture doctrine or man made opinions?

You now have the ability to determine for yourself. Can you find such doctrine in the latest publications? Can you find them in older publications? What was/is the presentation?

No I want an answer from you. You claim doctrines do not change. I have asked if they can conflict. The lectures are a perfect example of both. Answer me. The lectures were publish by the Church for years. Indeed it can be argued they had canonical status. They taught doctrine which is specifically refuted by other scripture and teachings and for a period of time they conflicted with another passage of scripture in the D&C. There are other similar items. But this one will do for our discussion.

My question for you is, why would the Church teach to it's Primary age children that God is the literal father of all our spirits and literal father of Jesus' physical body if it were not doctrine?

You are dodging again. I know what the current doctrine is. And it conflicts with the Lectures that were the doctrine of the D&C for 86 years until they were simply removed and even de-canonized. The clear reason is they disagreed with what had developed into the doctrine of the Godhead. You say anything published be the church is doctrine. So how can you have opposite doctrine at the same time?

[_Jason Bourne]

I should have noted that the Church does not have a definition. I await you to provide one other than a news release.

Please provide other statements that bear more weight than a simple news release.

The Church itself commenting on a subject bears enough weight for any rational person.....

You think it is irrational for the Church to provide a substantive statement on its own doctrine that is something more than a simple news release? I fint your position irrational. Also I assume you capitualate that there is no such statement on doctrine other than this news release. What did you harp on before it came out.
But really BC, if the Church has for decades, as you claim, given clear and substantive guidance on what constitutes its official doctrine then it should be easy for you to provide it. I challange you to give me one, just one statement on doctrine that clearly outlines what it is that bears the weight of more than a news release.

Tell HBL and JFS that they were irrational.

Why? I certainly might tell that to anyone who taught as doctrine things that the Church really didn't teach as doctrine including an apostle. If I recall correctly, DOM was pretty upset at BRM and JFS for the works they published under pretentious titles.

HBL and JFS said anything that does not agree with canon can be set aside. I assume this includes many things that you may consider official doctrine. Were they incorrect?

I agree with you but these so called rogues are in my experience the majority and you seem outside the norm for apologists.

I have some pretty good experience. Whenever I have this discussion on MADB for example, there are a couple who chime in to disagree and a host of others to come to my defense. And that was before the Church commented on the subject. Since then, I think most of these "rogues" understand now what the Church's stand on this is.

So you concede that the Church did not comment on this prior to the news release?

[_truth dancer]

BC... you pretty much confirmed what critics claim.

LDS believers have different opinions on what is or is not doctrine.

Doctrine may or may not be true.

Doctrine changes.

No one knows what is or is not doctrine, but lots of believers have opinions.

Church leaders in an official capacity may teach that which is in opposition to truth.

The church has not made an official statement on what is or is not doctrine.

Yep... it is a mess. ;-)

~dancer~

Oh, also, thinking non-believers who post on LDS MBs have some sort of an agenda with the church is silliness. Seriously BC this is nonsense. there may be a few critics who are out to hurt the church and deconvert believers but seriously, in all my years since disbelief I would say a handful have an "agenda". Time to let go of that silliness. :-) And really, you don't need to resort to the whole liar thing.. kind of immature in my opinion.

[_beastie]

Beastie

I just picked some stories that I remembered. I know there is a ton of other "sensational" stuff in there. It's repulsive, and anyone who imagines that God really ordered this junk AND still chooses to worship this god has some real issues, as far as I'm concerned. You're no better than the peon of the mafia don, who knows that the don is a vicious, amoral killer, but still kisses the ring in order to benefit from borrowed power.

bcspace;

I find supporting the homosexual lifestyle choice, abortion as a method of birth control, and socialism to be just as vile and disgusting and a greater cause of death.

Is this supposed to be some sort of meaningful response???? Smells like a diversion to me.

I’m serious about this, bcspace. If God orders such vile and disgusting actions, the only moral action that would allow a human being to retain an ounce of integrity and dignity would be to tell God to shove it, regardless of the personal cost.