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

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

But you have said is the Church publishes it then it is doctrine.

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."

This is a prime example of the confusion about what constitutes doctrine. First you argue if the Church publishes it obviously to any rational person it should be considered doctrine. Yet here we have a work published along with the scriptures no less that has a disclaimer that it is not doctrine? Say what?

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

.

Ask John Tvedtness or Dan Peterson if manuals represent official doctrine. And if you rely on the words of the prophets do you accept BYs AG teachings as doctrine that he gave over the pulpit at a GC and which were published by the Church in the Deseret News? You cannot have it both ways.

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 we have published doctrine that God is a spirit and the Holy Ghost is a non personage at the same time we have published doctrine that God has a body and the HG is a personage. Which one was true? And were the Lectures true before the conflicting passage was published as D&C 130?

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.

Yes I agree that most people accept what is published by the Church in manuals as doctrine. But it seems less than clear when dealing with defenders of the faith. Another example. Is the KFD doctrine? I say yes. But I have had apologists argue that it is not official since it is not canon.

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.

Sure it is. And it does not bear the signature of the FP nor the twelve. Also, I find it odd that you think it is irrational for a Church to publish a substantive statement on what it considers doctrinal.

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.

I am fine with the statement. Are you willing to be bound by it? Then answer the questions about doctrinal conflicts in the published works of the Church.

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 think there are many LDS doctrines that are and have been published in non canonical works that conflict with canonized scripture. For starters I think the KFD conflicts with Canon especially the ideas that talk about the Father having a father and an infinite regression of Gods.
[/quote]

[_Jason Bourne]

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

).


The Fifth Lecture does not use the term in the cacual sense that we all have spirits. It says the Father is A PERSONAGE OF SPIRIT and contrasts this against the Son who is a PERSONAGE OF TABERNACLE. The HG is not a personage but is the MIND OF GOD. Later saying the Father has a body as tangable as man's is a huge change. AG issues are also changes.

[_ludwigm]

( Excuse me for my long time absences. This forum may be of high importance but unfortunately I have other priorities. )

Runtu and Jason have told near everything I want to. I agree with them, thanks.
There are two remaining.

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.

You should read and understand the sentences before You reflect them.
I have said "the press release itself IS NOT doctrine". These words relate to the press release as an entity, to the status of that press release, and not to its content.

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."

This is not definition, or - if You like better with other words - this is a wrong definition.

With a definition of the members of a set, we can
1. list all the elements
2. decide that any element (for example random generated) is or is not element of that set

With Your "definition" above, one can not do it.

* Could You list all doctrines, using that definition You cited?
I think theoretically; it is not an easy task to assemble a list with hundreds of elements. (Even there are such lists; the telefon-book of New York is a very long list of elements.)

* Please, decide, which is doctrine and which is not, using that definition You cited:

And again, I say unto you, I remember my servant Oliver Granger; behold, verily I say unto him that his name shall be had in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord. (D&C 117:12)
____

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Matt 22:29,30 near the same as Mark 12:24,25)
____

And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same border as that upon which thou standest. (Abr 3:9)
by the way the whole sentence doesn't make much sense for me, even in the official hungarian translation. Forget it.
____

And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear. (Ether 3:6)
____

Some years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, Jr. mentioned that Mahonri Moriancumr was the name of the "brother of Jared". (The Juvenile Instructor 27/8, 15 April 1892 p282)
____

God who sits in yonder heavens is a man like yourselves That God if you were to see him to day that holds the worlds you would see him like a man in form, like yourselves. ("King Follett" sermon)

As You see, there are examples from the "standard works" and from outside of them.


Just for fun:
"is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications"
What about things ("folklor") which are inconsistently proclaimed?

[_Chap]

I predict that you will not receive a direct answer from bcspace in the form of a piece of coherent writing, setting out a firm position. Instead he will slice your post up into sentence-size chunks, and insert little one-liners like "strawman", "Non sequitur", "My position is unchanged" and so on.

This way of conducting an internet exchange is a bit like the case of someone who stands up in a debate, and shouts interruptions after every sentence or two of his opponent's speech. The objects of doing so are

(a) To reduce the impact of the opponent's case by breaking it up into a series of disarticulated fragments

(b) To give the impression of having an answer to everything the opponent says, but without having to confront the actual case made by the opponent, which (as in any sophisticated argument) will probably depend on the way the different parts of the argument work together.

(c) To avoid having to set out an argued case at length, with a full marshaling of evidence and an explanation of how the evidence leads to the conclusions, in a way that enables an opponent to mount an effective criticism.

You can see plenty of evidence of this in the 'pre-Adamites' thread, where bcspace has consistently ducked my challenge to explain in detail, and on the basis of evidence, how all people today could be descendants of Adam and Eve (in whole or in part) given the fact that almost all the world had been colonised by homo sapiens for tens of thousands of years before any plausible date for what bcspace believes was the lifetime of Adam and Eve.

He just can't face the challenge: so he sits in the back row shouting interruptions.

[_ludwigm]

I predict that ...
... He just can't face the challenge ...

It will be so - said me the Holy Ghost without any prayer.

If so many prophet, seer and revelator can not produce any coherent doctrine, even they can not produce any valid definition of the doctrine, then any efforts of ordinary members are in vain. (by the way common members are not authorized to get revelation on the church level. They may get revelation to themselves, or, in case of married male members, to their wife or to family.)

[_Droopy]

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.

Just for once Dancer...just for once, try to preset an argument or position with at least some semblance of intellectual coherence or evidence that you have at least some degree of actual knowledge of LDS doctrine and culture.

Just for once...

[_Droopy]

The fifth lecture contained the doctrine that God had was spirit, not body, and that thee Holy Ghost was not a personage.

Another old hobby horse we've been over again and again and again, for which no suitable plausibility will suffice to sooth the Bourne beast.

Joseph Fielding Smith said that:

1.The lectures on faith, although published by the Church, came with a disclaimer that they were "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons" according to the official statement made regarding their removal. McConkie stated that "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars."

A. They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.

B. They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.

D. They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.

D. It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.

It seems that Jason has not been able to avoid, for some reason, the confusion and contention Elder Talmadge sought to avoid.

Hence, the "God is a spirit" comment (as is Jesus Christ, as is the Holy Ghost, as are we all) looms less and less important as we realize the lectures may, indeed, contain hyperbole, theory, and even rhetorical flourish that makes in, although valuable, unsuitable for inclusion within a corpus of texts understood to have come, unambiguously, through direct revelation.

[_Droopy]

As Jason simply refuses to allow the early Apostles or the Church any benefit of the doubt upon the matter of the Lectures (and other matters), we need, again, to do his homework for him and make the implicit explicit.

Section 5 of the Lectures says the following:

The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;--he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him...

As I noted in another thread, long ago, but which is always rejected out of hand because it does not fit the template here, while this statement does seem to indicate that the Father is different than the Son in that he is a spirit while the Son is corporeal, the statement as a whole (and anyone with a modicum of substantive understanding of basic LDS doctrine would quickly point out) cannot be used to support the thesis of a doctrinal inconsistency. Why? because our text here makes in quite clear that "he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father..."

In other words, Christ and the Father are one; they are alike. This logically must mean that the attributes possessed by the Father are those possessed by the Son. Hence, if the Father is a personage of Spirit, then the Son is also (which is doctrinal). If the Son is a personage of tabernacle (a specific requirement of his Messiahship, which is perhaps why the author of this section of the Lectures created the bifurcation), then the Father must also express this attribute or innate feature. This is all perfectly consistent with the statements of Jesus in the New Testament that "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" and "I and my Father are one" and that Christ, as Paul said, is the "express" image of his Father's "person".

Ants can actually exhaust themselves and die going around sugar bowls of this kind.

Let's not.

[_Brackite]

Is it LDS Doctrine that the Book 'Mormon Doctrine' is LDS Doctrine?

Yes.

Is it LDS Doctrine that there will be Polygamy/Polygyny being practiced again in the ushering in of the millennium?

Not that I'm aware.

LDS Church Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated and wrote in his Book, 'Mormon Doctrine' that:

'Obviously the holy practice (of polygamy) will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium.'
(Mormon Doctrine, 1966 edition)

Hmm, maybe the Doctrine that there will be Polygamy/Polygyny being practiced again, in the ushering in of the millennium isn't LDS doctrine after all. The Following is part of the interview of former LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley with Larry King, and here is what exactly former President Gordon B. Hinckley stated on Larry King Live:

Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morals, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.

Larry King: You could have a certain amount of...

Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.

...

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.


(Hyper-Link: Larry King Live. , Part Of Bold Emphasis Mine. )

Well, it now looks like that there will likely be no Polygamy/Polygyny being practiced in the ushering in of the Millennium.

[_truth dancer]

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.

Just for once Dancer...just for once, try to preset an argument or position with at least some semblance of intellectual coherence or evidence that you have at least some degree of actual knowledge of LDS doctrine and culture.

Just for once...

Hi Droopy...

I'm not trying to present an argument.

And my "position" has nothing to do with my knowledge of LDS doctrine and culture. I'm not sure to what you are referring.

My point is that because BCspace, you, BRM, JFS, or anyone else has an opinion on what is or is not official doctrine, doesn't make it truth. Y'all don't speak for the church, nor does whomever wrote the press release on LDS.org.

~dancer~