Further confusion? Encyclopedia of Mormonism on LDS.ORG

[_EAllusion]

In fairness, Ben's views are quite unusual for an LDS apologist.

[_truth dancer]

BUT then they added a disclaimer:

The same web site includes an official statement by the Church on what is and is not doctrine. See my siggy.

There really is no official doctrine, no official answers, no official statements.

Only in your mind.

What is funny BC is that you seem to think you know what is doctrine but the rest of the apologists disagree with you.

As Ludwigm pointed out, saying something can be found in scripture or other published works, is not in any way telling anyone what is doctrine and what is not doctrine.

As I have said before, telling someone that hidden somewhere, (no one knows where) in the midst of thousands of pages is some official teaching, but no one will tell you what it is so you have no idea if you even find it, is not exactly helpful.

It is like saying that you can find my favorite word in the dictionary and a Shakespeare play.

OK, so? How does this help anyone discover what is my favorite word?

And, as you know, there are plenty of teachings/rituals/ceremony/what people think are official doctrines of the LDS church NOT found in any scripture... ya know? Or is all the temple stuff not doctrinal these days?

~dancer~

[_beastie]

In fairness, Ben's views are quite unusual for an LDS apologist.

I think ben is unusual because post-modernism seems to be his over-all philosophical outlook and not something he's picking from out of apologetic convenience. Due to that, he takes it farther than most apologists. However, I don't believe he's unusual in terms of embracing a certain amount of post-modernism, or some version of it, in his apologia. I think it is very easy, if one interacts with apologists for any length of time, to become convinced that they think almost nothing is doctrine. I do not believe generic Mormons think this at all. Generic Mormons would "fundamentalists" in their eyes. Of course, a reference to this phenomenon would not be complete without linking Juliann's essay:

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Critics_in_ ... Glass.html

Those outside the Mormon community have taken note of the unusual relationship of liberal vis-à-vis conservative within the Mormon community. Massimo Introvigne, the Director of the Center for Studies on New Religions, analyzed the labels and notes the peculiar usage employed by Mormons:

Unlike many Protestant modernists-Latter-day Saint liberals are persuaded that, thanks to Enlightenment rationalism, an objective concept of "science" and "truth" may allow them to reach factual, empirical, "scientific" conclusions on the Book of Mormon and its origins…

On the other hand, the late modernist and postmodernist position that knowledge is by no means objective and that "true," universally valid historical conclusions could never be reached, is held by Latter-day Saint conservatives.5

Although "post-modern" has become a popular term, its definition is widely debated in scholarly circles. It is not the purpose of this essay to assign its application, but merely to point out how the LDS worldview is likely to be perceived by those outside of our community. Introvigne concludes:

At this stage, an outside observer expecting conservative Latter-day Saints to adopt a fundamentalist view of truth, and liberal Latter-day Saints to adopt a postmodernist one, may easily claim that something should be wrong. The attitudes are in fact almost reversed. Historical truth is regarded as a mere social product by Latter-day Saint conservatives, while a rather naïve sociology of knowledge claiming that historical-critical methodologies may indeed achieve "truth" lies behind the liberals' attitude. The "love affair with Enlightenment science" of American fundamentalists described by Marsden does not find a counterpart among Latter-day Saint conservatives; conversely, Enlightenment's claim for certainty and objectivity is still defended in the liberal camp.6

When we add Marsden's observation that "Fundamentalists have the confidence of Enlightenment philosophies that an objective look at 'the facts' will lead to the truth" we are looking at a topsy-turvy Alice in Wonderland world in which those dissidents commonly referred to as Mormon liberals are in reality operating more like Christian fundamentalists. Part of what such iconoclasts confuse with liberalism in the realm of scholarship is an often self-congratulatory appeal to a culturally popular notion of open-mindedness and a naïve view of the requirements of biblical research. One such introduction makes the amazing claim that its authors are not really trying to influence anyone.

I have no doubt that Juliann does not really understand post-modernism, and If I recall correctly, you demonstrated that on Z. But there is certainly an element of it that she, and many others, apply - out of convenience - in their apologia.

So would they agree with Ben's conclusion (who knows if Nehor means or understands what he also asserts) that the content of revelation is not relevant, but what is relevant is the process of revelation (my paraphrase), and would they agree that no teaching is privileged and beyond future alteration - even the divinity of Christ? I doubt it. But I have debated numerous believers who have followed the leader and embraced some element of this attitude, except they privilege certain claims as beyond this effect (mainly the divinity of JC).

[_solomarineris]

Hi Jersey Girl...
EXACTLY!
There really is no official doctrine, no official answers, no official statements.

Everybody knows that nothing LDS Church espouses can be verified or un-verified.
This is not only LDS problem, but they don't make themselves look as ridiculous
by printing this kind of lame disclaimers.
Imagine me to run a medical practice under a disclaimer like this, nobody would
show up, I'd lose 95% of my patients, the rest would sue me.
That is why 90% of converts disappear after finding out where church stands on issues
of their faith.
You really cannot fault them for trying to wash their hands off clean even their closest allies.
They have to have room to deny everything like Hinkley did in his reign.
But this hierarchy Brass is so myopic, reminds me of someone's last stand.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=T8dl4faCpJE

It is fun to watch.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Hi Jersey Girl...
EXACTLY!
There really is no official doctrine, no official answers, no official statements.

Everybody knows that nothing LDS Church espouses can be verified or un-verified.
This is not only LDS problem, but they don't make themselves look as ridiculous
by printing this kind of lame disclaimers.
Imagine me to run a medical practice under a disclaimer like this, nobody would
show up, I'd lose 95% of my patients, the rest would sue me.
That is why 90% of converts disappear after finding out where church stands on issues
of their faith.
You really cannot fault them for trying to wash their hands off clean even their closest allies.
They have to have room to deny everything like Hinkley did in his reign.
But this hierarchy Brass is so myopic, reminds me of someone's last stand.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=T8dl4faCpJE

It is fun to watch.

Please pass the seer stones and the top hat please... HUH????

[_Yong Xi]

Plural marriage, Celestial marriage....these are glorified names for adultery.

Right, but at least it is organized adultery.

[_bcspace]

Only in your mind.

That website doesn't say a word about what is doctrine.
It says, where to found parts of it.

No, it says where to find all of it; "consistently proclaimed in official publications".

[_ludwigm]

Only in your mind.

That website doesn't say a word about what is doctrine.
It says, where to found parts of it.

No, it says where to find all of it; "consistently proclaimed in official publications".

Please list the official publications. I don't think there are hundreds of them.









I like the word "consistently". What does it mean in saintspeak?

[_bcspace]

Please list the official publications.

Anything published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[_ludwigm]

Please list the official publications.

Anything published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

For example the "Journal of Discourses"? The "Book of Commandments"? The "Ensign"? The "LDS.org"?