Peterson Misleading Again

Post by **_The Dude** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:39 pm

I am cynical like my friend neworder. Everything said in the church or by the church is opinion and hearsay to one degree or another, leaving members to believe essentially whatever they wish to believe. Only the unwritten protocols of hierarchical leadership, polite deference, and the insidious fear of appearing to doubt keeps them from breaking out in Elder's quorum fistfights over what is and isn't doctrine. Intellectual apathy also helps reduce the rancor (say to yourself: It's not essential to my salvation.) The only thing that's truly binding is, maybe, the current Church Handbook of Instructions.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:48 pm

neworder wrote:I finally just came to the conclusion that NOTHING is doctrine in the LDS Church.

Took you long enough. Now you can begin to understand our Faith if you'd just get the Holy Ghost in there.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:57 pm

This is actually an old issue, and we've brought it up with The Good Professor on a number of occasions. Basically, he insists that Bill Hamblin managed to somehow browbeat Micheal Watson into disavowing the first letter and writing a second one, the text of which was reproduced in (I believe) an issue of FARMS Review. However, unlike the 1st Letter, no copy of the 2nd Letter appears to exist. DCP claims that it "vanished" into the vortex of Prof. Hamblin's "messy" office.

Post by **_Joey** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:18 pm

Mister Scratch wrote:This is actually an old issue, and we've brought it up with The Good Professor on a number of occasions. Basically, he insists that Bill Hamblin managed to somehow browbeat Micheal Watson into disavowing the first letter and writing a second one, the text of which was reproduced in (I believe) an issue of FARMS Review. However, unlike the 1st Letter, no copy of the 2nd Letter appears to exist. DCP claims that it "vanished" into the vortex of Prof. Hamblin's "messy" office.

The point is that Peterson claims to have seen an "official statement". What makes a footnote in a FARMS article "official"? What makes personal correspondence between Hamblin and Watson "official"? Where can anyone see this "official" statement posted anywhere on the Church website? Where has the Church published this "official statement"?

Peterson knows what ever he claims to have seen is not "official" but continues to lie about it even now. He has difficulty holding himself to the same standards of truthfulness he demands from others.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:43 pm

Hi Joey,

Refresh my memory here; how do apologists explain this supposed document as official?

Is it from the First Presidency and written for the entire church? If so, why can't we find it somewhere?

My observation is that even if there was a clear statement from the prophet even published in the Ensign it would not be considered official or doctrinal or necessarily true, just an opinion.

Who was the author of the statement?

~dancer~

Post by **_Joey** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:12 pm

truth dancer wrote:Hi Joey,

Refresh my memory here; how do apologists explain this supposed document as official?

Is it from the First Presidency and written for the entire church? If so, why can't we find it somewhere?

My observation is that even if there was a clear statement from the prophet even published in the Ensign it would not be considered official or doctrinal or necessarily true, just an opinion.

Who was the author of the statement?

~dancer~

TD,

All valid and logical questions.

All should be directed to the one making the claim.

All will undoubtedly go unanswered for the obvious reason.

Post by **_cinepro** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:31 am

neworder wrote:
I finally just came to the conclusion that NOTHING is doctrine in the LDS Church.

John Larsen posted what I think is the best guide to Mormon Doctrine:

* You are bound to believe the things required by the temple recommend questions (if you want to go to the temple).
* You cannot public disagree with any doctrine held by a current apostle.
* New doctrines do not have to be reconcilable to old doctrines.
* Old doctrines taught by apostles that have not be renounced or contradicted by later apostles may well have expired without further action.
* There is an "unwritten order of things" both doctrinal and procedural that you may be held to.
* The current brethren may be "speaking as men" but you can take no action on this fact. This only applies to dead apostles.
* The scriptures are not necessarily a doctrinal bind since non scriptural commentary on the scriptures by later brethren my change or obsolete the scripture.

MADB thread #35948

Post by **_bcspace** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:30 am

"Maintain and attest" doesn't seem to me to be an indication that they have any inspiration on the subject. Perhaps it's doctrinal, perhaps not (the letter not being published by the Church and therefore not vetted by both the FP and Qo12 as required), but if so, it seems like one that could change with actual revelation.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:32 am

I finally just came to the conclusion that NOTHING is doctrine in the LDS Church.

See my siggy.

John Larsen posted what I think is the best guide to Mormon Doctrine:

Quote:

* You are bound to believe the things required by the temple recommend questions (if you want to go to the temple).
* You cannot public disagree with any doctrine held by a current apostle.
* New doctrines do not have to be reconcilable to old doctrines.
* Old doctrines taught by apostles that have not be renounced or contradicted by later apostles may well have expired without further action.
* There is an "unwritten order of things" both doctrinal and procedural that you may be held to.
* The current brethren may be "speaking as men" but you can take no action on this fact. This only applies to dead apostles.
* The scriptures are not necessarily a doctrinal bind since non scriptural commentary on the scriptures by later brethren my change or obsolete the scripture.

MADB thread #35948

This is significantly different than what the Church itself has said. Notice how I applied what the Church has actually said to the letter referenced in the OP in my previous post.

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:03 am

cinepro wrote: * Old doctrines taught by apostles that have not be renounced or contradicted by later apostles may well have expired without further action.

So there's like a "use best by" date on LDS doctrine? Coolio. So in time that means the Book of Mormon will expire and should be disregarded like chunky milk or funkie lunch meat?

*Sounds like a new apologetic ideer to me.*