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

[_Mahonri]

The current and generally accepted account of Joseph Smiths 'first vision' is not doctrine according to their statement.

It all depends on what the meaning of is is?

[_bcspace]

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.

Even I wouldn't say that. It depends on how it's presented. For example, the Bible Dictionary clearly states in it's introduction....

"It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth."

Perhaps you should ask these (as yet unidentified) apologists what is meant by "words of the prophets".

No dodge.

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.

Only in the context of absolute truth. I have never claimed that published LDS doctrines can't and don't change.

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

No. But I am not aware at the moment of anything the general public would has access to of that nature. Doesn't make any difference really. The membership of the Church has known this for decades and most rational people in my experience accept the published works of any church as it's doctrine.

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 do. But it's not a news release. But now you are dealing in symantics. The bottom line is the Church has produced an official statement for public consumption. Most rational people would consider that to be the word of any organization on the matter.

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?

They are not incorrect. However, I don't see how this helps the case of anyone who disagrees with the Church's own statements about it's doctrine. What doctrines do you think conflict with canon and what makes you (or anyone else) the one to make that determination?

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.

Certain people often do consider a "by your own logic" type of argument to be a diversion.

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.

Unless of course there is an issue larger than their own mortal lives.

The current and generally accepted account of Joseph Smiths 'first vision' is not doctrine according to their statement.

How so? JS-H is not canon?

[_ludwigm]

The release is here
The main problem not that the press release itself IS NOT doctrine.

The problem is that it defines nothing.
Did You try it to read?
It writes:
"... the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined."
then
" The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them."
then
" Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine."
then
" Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example ..."
( we are not interested in some doctrine but all of them )

It writes
"Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day"
The problem is that they don't. Even GBH said it is not necessary.

It writes
"Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions"
Mormon vocabulary have greatly different meanings.


bcspace !
Please copy one sentence from that release, which says what IS doctrine.

There is no such sentence and bcspace will not find one.

[Guest]

The main problem not that the press release itself IS NOT doctrine.

So what the Church says about it's own doctrine dos not accurately reflect what the Church considers doctrine? Irrational.

bcspace !
Please copy one sentence from that release, which says what IS doctrine.

I'll give you two...

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

The problem is that it defines nothing.
Did You try it to read?

Yep. It gives many examples of what is not doctrine couched in what is doctrine and how to identify it.

[_Runtu]

It writes:
"... the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined."
then
" The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them."
then

bcspace !
Please copy one sentence from that release, which says what IS doctrine.

There is no such sentence and bcspace will not find one.

That's right. The press release essentially says that understanding doctrine is a product of one's broad approach, encapsulating all that has been published and all that the prophets are teaching. It defines nothing and sets no boundaries. It reminds me of Justice Potter Stewart's statement about obscenity: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it."

That's really a great "definition" because it does exactly what bcspace is doing: it sets nothing down as solid doctrine, but insists that everything is fluid and subject to change. That's a real asset in a church that must adapt to its times, but it's a hindrance for helping people avoid being blown by the winds of "doctrine."

[_bcspace]

That's really a great "definition" because it does exactly what bcspace is doing: it sets nothing down as solid doctrine, but insists that everything is fluid and subject to change. That's a real asset in a church that must adapt to its times, but it's a hindrance for helping people avoid being blown by the winds of "doctrine."

I suggest you read it again as the differentiation is quite clear. You will not find LDS doctrine defined anywhere except in official publications of the Church.

[_Runtu]

That's really a great "definition" because it does exactly what bcspace is doing: it sets nothing down as solid doctrine, but insists that everything is fluid and subject to change. That's a real asset in a church that must adapt to its times, but it's a hindrance for helping people avoid being blown by the winds of "doctrine."

I suggest you read it again as the differentiation is quite clear. You will not find LDS doctrine defined anywhere except in official publications of the Church.

Of course, but as you have repeatedly said, what the church publishes now is not what it used to publish and will likely not be what it publishes in the future.

[_bcspace]

Of course, but as you have repeatedly said, what the church publishes now is not what it used to publish and will likely not be what it publishes in the future.

I have not said that at all, espescially the "likely" part. But it's good of you to so admit ("Of course").

[_Runtu]

Of course, but as you have repeatedly said, what the church publishes now is not what it used to publish and will likely not be what it publishes in the future.

I have not said that at all, espescially the "likely" part. But it's good of you to so admit ("Of course").

You have said that the doctrines have changed in terms of the church's publications superseding one another. I'm sorry if I assumed that you'd be comfortable with such things happening in the future.

The bottom line is that "doctrine" is what the church publishes today. Yesterday's doctrine is not today's doctrine, and today's doctrine may not be the same as tomorrow's.

[_bcspace]

You have said that the doctrines have changed in terms of the church's publications superseding one another. I'm sorry if I assumed that you'd be comfortable with such things happening in the future.

I am quite comfortable with it. However, I don't agree with your use of not and likely.

The bottom line is that "doctrine" is what the church publishes today. Yesterday's doctrine is not today's doctrine, and today's doctrine may not be the same as tomorrow's.

Too broad especially where one tries to assume that a particular doctrine has changed. Such seems to be the case with the Lectures on Faith, but I'll need a specific example. The Father being mentioned as a personage of spirit certainly isn't an example of change. LDS retain such usage today as evidenced in the scriptures (spiritual body).

What's very clear about the the Church's statement here is that works like the JoD and Mormon Doctrine are not official works of the Church but the lesson manuals are. This causes consternation because many antiMormon chestnuts are built from such works. What is and is not doctrine is quite narrowly defined.