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

Post by **_Droopy** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:16 am

Civil? Its just the truth Jason, and nothing more. If you perceive the truth as insulting, that lies with you, not with the statement.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:25 am

Droopy wrote:Civil? Its just the truth Jason, and nothing more. If you perceive the truth as insulting, that lies with you, not with the statement.

No it is not the truth. It is the nastiness of a narrow minded little man that has to add his rottenness to his posts to avoid the cog dis that these issues cause to his testimony. For whatever reason this is your defense mechanism. Really I think you are running scared.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:27 am

Droopy wrote:
And I have the title page of the 1835 D&C which says the lectures were the doctrine of the D&C. Clearly Smith downplayed them when they were de-canonized. How could he not?

And as bc pointed out, a number of General Authorities decided that, based upon some difficult statements made in the text, it was decided that, doctrinal or not, it would no longer be official doctrine.

You are rambling on and on over quibbles that I and others have quite easily negotiated and offered plausible counter-explanations. You refuse to consider them logically or thoroughly. I'm just wondering now what the consequences for you; for your present world view and philosophy of life, would be were you to give in on this issue. If you were to admit that this really poses no problem for Church doctrine or history, what other aspects of your own philosophy would this impact, and why?

At one point I wrote quite a lengthy defense about the issues the lectures bring up?. I had all your explanations and more. But over time they just seemed to ring hallow. Sorry.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:56 pm

You are rambling on and on over quibbles that I and others have quite easily negotiated and offered plausible counter-explanations. You refuse to consider them logically or thoroughly. I'm just wondering now what the consequences for you; for your present world view and philosophy of life, would be were you to give in on this issue. If you were to admit that this really poses no problem for Church doctrine or history, what other aspects of your own philosophy would this impact, and why?

Amen. Is it rational to ask for a definition of doctrine, get an official one, and then pretend it doesn't exist? No.

The fact remains that these people can't accept any defintion of LDS doctrine because to do so would eliminate many of their favorite arguments.

Post by **_harmony** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:50 am

Doctrine is voted on and approved the body of members. Policy is not. If it's not voted on, it's not doctrine.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:54 am

bcspace wrote:
You are rambling on and on over quibbles that I and others have quite easily negotiated and offered plausible counter-explanations. You refuse to consider them logically or thoroughly. I'm just wondering now what the consequences for you; for your present world view and philosophy of life, would be were you to give in on this issue. If you were to admit that this really poses no problem for Church doctrine or history, what other aspects of your own philosophy would this impact, and why?

Amen. Is it rational to ask for a definition of doctrine, get an official one, and then pretend it doesn't exist? No.

The fact remains that these people can't accept any defintion of LDS doctrine because to do so would eliminate many of their favorite arguments.

No BC, I am accepting your definition. I agree that things published by the Church should be considered doctrine. I am just asking what you so when things published have conflicting doctrines as well as how can you argue something like AG was not doctrine when it was preached at general conference and published in the Church owned paper of the day. Your definition included anything published by the Church. Thus there was a time when it was doctrine that God was a spirit as contrasted to having a body and there was a time when it was doctrine that Adam was God.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:01 am

The fact remains that these people can't accept any defintion of LDS doctrine because to do so would eliminate many of their favorite arguments.

Who are "these people," apologists or critics? ;-)

It is the apologists who gave me the newsflash that everything the church published is NOT doctrine; that just because something is taught and proclaimed by prophets and apostles in an official capacity, and that just because something is in the canon doesn't make it official doctrine.

But even if the news release (which of course doesn't really tell anyone what is or is not doctrine), was some sort of official statement from the church, (which of course it is not), and everything the church published was indeed official doctrine, you have a serious problem presenting the idea that the LDS doctrine is not necessarily true.

Which is worse, claiming there is no official church doctrine? Or admitting official church doctrine is not true?

Hmmm...

~dancer~

Post by **_bcspace** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:02 am

No BC, I am accepting your definition. I agree that things published by the Church should be considered doctrine. I am just asking what you so when things published have conflicting doctrines as well as how can you argue something like AG was not doctrine when it was preached at general conference and published in the Church owned paper of the day. Your definition included anything published by the Church.

Since LDS doctrine includes the notion of continuing revelation, you must also take the latest date of publication into consideration. That is how one can resolve any real differences such as that you mentioned.

Thus there was a time when it was doctrine that God was a spirit as contrasted to having a body and there was a time when it was doctrine that Adam was God.

I don't think I can agree with either of those assesments.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:07 am

No BC, I am accepting your definition. I agree that things published by the Church should be considered doctrine. I am just asking what you so when things published have conflicting doctrines as well as how can you argue something like AG was not doctrine when it was preached at general conference and published in the Church owned paper of the day. Your definition included anything published by the Church.

Since LDS doctrine includes the notion of continuing revelation, you must also take the latest date of publication into consideration. That is how one can resolve any real differences such as that you mentioned.

Can something be doctrine at one point then be overturned by later revelation as not doctrine?

Thus there was a time when it was doctrine that God was a spirit as contrasted to having a body and there was a time when it was doctrine that Adam was God.

I don't think I can agree with either of those assesments.

Thus we get to the bottom of it. Thanks for proving how disingenuous you are. You want to give a defination then you refuse to be held to it. But both these items were published by the Church and this made them doctrinal at least at one point in time. Indeed as noted the doctrine of God being spirit and not body was canonized as part of the doctrine of the D&C.

But you proved my point. You will cherry pick when your feet are put to the fire.

Post by **_bcspace** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:26 am

Can something be doctrine at one point then be overturned by later revelation as not doctrine?

Sure. Something might also be doctrine at the beginning as a matter of course but not supported by any revelation or inspiration until it is so overturned.

Thus we get to the bottom of it. Thanks for proving how disingenuous you are.

How so? You pointed out two instances of what you thought was doctrine but gave no evidence for such. perhaps you did elsewhere on this thread, but I don't see that I have any obligation to go find it.

You want to give a defination then you refuse to be held to it. But both these items were published by the Church and this made them doctrinal at least at one point in time.

Depending on what was also published.

Indeed as noted the doctrine of God being spirit and not body was canonized as part of the doctrine of the D&C.

I am familiar with the LoF #5 argument. I simply don't agree with it

But you proved my point. You will cherry pick when your feet are put to the fire.

You've not yet given any evidence of such.