BC's "Official Doctrine Defined" Mantra

[_Inconceivable]

The mantra: LDS Doctrine Defined

Here is a common example of an exchange between BC and anyone quoting a Mormon prophet:

I would site quotes from Mormon legal administrators concerning the revelatory nature and value of the Journal of Discourses as a whole, but you know the quotes.

But could you pick anything official according to the Church's own definition? I don't think so.

I would suggest that LDS Doctrine Defined in BC's sig line is not "the Church's own definition". By it's own definition, this commentary is not a quote from the standard works, nor was it approved of by the FP/Q12.

Ever.

BC, show me where this commentary was officially written into Mormon doctrine and I'll attempt to eat my Sombrero.

Now, if you can produce proof positive that your mantra deserves validity, I'll begin boiling my hat to make it a little more palatable.

Keep in mind though, that If LDS Doctrine Defined were official Church doctrine from an unchanging Mormon God, Joseph Smith and others would have been constrained (by official Church doctrine) from banging mistresses until well after Smith died. Perhaps not until even 1852 (when Mormon adultery was officially accepted by the church and Q12).

This is generally where the next post begins with either a personal attack or some other off-topic derail. I challenge everyone to stay on topic.

[_Scottie]

I've challenged this siggy 100 times. BC still maintains that it is 100% valid, even though by it's own definition it isn't.

[_Inconceivable]

I've challenged this siggy 100 times. BC still maintains that it is 100% valid, even though by it's own definition it isn't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one even puts their butt on the line for writing it.

Who is the author? Where are the footnotes? References?

[_Scottie]

I've challenged this siggy 100 times. BC still maintains that it is 100% valid, even though by it's own definition it isn't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one even puts their butt on the line for writing it.

Who is the author? Where are the footnotes? References?

It is located in the "commentaries" section of the LDS web site.

If we are going to start taking commentaries, which could be written by any housewife in Provo, as official doctrine then we are in for a massive world of confusion. Even more-so than we live in now.

[_cinepro]

BCSpace's zealous allegiance to that "Commentary" is a little odd.

It is obviously meant to be a guideline for non-LDS journalists who are new to covering the Church, and find a multitude of different claims regarding Church doctrines in their research.

Until that article makes it into a Sunday School lesson (or is even referenced from the official Church website in a talk or other Church publication), it will remain hopelessly unofficial and unbinding.

[_cinepro]

There's a good article about the newsroom statement here:

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

Simply put, a member is not required to believe anything that is not Mormon doctrine, no matter how traditional or longstanding the hearsay or how prominent the source. Furthermore, members probably have an obligation to say something when another member asserts that such a requirement exists. Why? For the sake of future generations in the Church: we owe them something better.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Here's the deal-i-o:

The Church is a religion that is based on uncountable false premises and assumptions. Why? Because, according to the best evidence available, it is a fiction. It belongs to the many sided and multi-vocal group narratives of the species. Put simply, it is made up. In another thread I offered that Harmony is correct in her assertions that polygamy was against the nature of deity. I also conceded that DCP, Nehor, and Paul were also correct? Huh?

As a fictional narrative, there is no true form or forms of the church and its cosmology. Have you ever told your children the story of the three little pigs? Did you tell them about how the wolf jumped down the chimney to fetch some bacon and landed in a pot of boiling water from which he was later consumed by the porcine protagonists? Or did his bum get burned and he shot back out of the chimney like a cartoon character? Or did he never try going down the flue, but rather expired from trying to blow so hard? Which version is correct? All of them, even though they contradict one another, each version is valid because in each telling the story can change?

So what does this mean? Well, the church is one such type of story, created to help folks figure a very complicated world. Since no two people are alike, the story will take on new dimensions and meanings, a multi-voiced symphony of human expression. The church does not have an official shape, because that would functionally block the purpose of the social structure. Picture a church WITH an official version and made strict efforts to enforce orthodoxy. No one would or could stay a member of it. Instead you find a bell curve of belief, a cafeteria of choices. Each arrangement is valid if it serves the function required by the individual.

Just my thoughts on it, but I am forced to point out this does not fit my definition of binding doctrine on my official website, so you can take what you want from it.

[_Yoda]

There's a good article about the newsroom statement here:

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

Simply put, a member is not required to believe anything that is not Mormon doctrine, no matter how traditional or longstanding the hearsay or how prominent the source. Furthermore, members probably have an obligation to say something when another member asserts that such a requirement exists. Why? For the sake of future generations in the Church: we owe them something better.

Thanks for the article, Cinepro.

I found this example from it particularly interesting:

Robert Millet seems to have had a similar experience after an inter-denominational fireside in which he was asked to expound on basic LDS doctrine:

“After the meeting, a Latter-day Saint woman came up to me and said, "You didn't tell the truth about what we believe!"

“Startled, I asked, "What do you mean?"

“She responded, "You said we believe in the virgin birth of Christ, and you know very well that we don't believe that."

"Yes, we do," I retorted.

“She then said with a great deal of emotion, "I want to believe you, but people have told me for years that we believe that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary and thereby Jesus was conceived."

“I looked her in the eyes and said, "I'm aware of that teaching, but that is not the doctrine of the Church; that is not what we teach in the Church today. Have you ever heard the Brethren teach it in conference? Is it in the standard works, the auricular materials, or the handbooks of the Church? Is it a part of an official declaration or proclamation?" I watched as a five-hundred-pound weight seemed to come off her shoulders, as tears came into her eyes, and she simply said, "Thank you, Brother Millet."

[_Scottie]

There's a good article about the newsroom statement here:

LOL

So now we have an opinion article disecting an commentary article?

[_Some Schmo]

Here's the deal-i-o:

The Church is a religion that is based on uncountable false premises and assumptions. Why? Because, according to the best evidence available, it is a fiction. It belongs to the many sided and multi-vocal group narratives of the species. Put simply, it is made up. In another thread I offered that Harmony is correct in her assertions that polygamy was against the nature of deity. I also conceded that DCP, Nehor, and Paul were also correct? Huh?

As a fictional narrative, there is no true form or forms of the church and its cosmology. Have you ever told your children the story of the three little pigs? Did you tell them about how the wolf jumped down the chimney to fetch some bacon and landed in a pot of boiling water from which he was later consumed by the porcine protagonists? Or did his bum get burned and he shot back out of the chimney like a cartoon character? Or did he never try going down the flue, but rather expired from trying to blow so hard? Which version is correct? All of them, even though they contradict one another, each version is valid because in each telling the story can change?

So what does this mean? Well, the church is one such type of story, created to help folks figure a very complicated world. Since no two people are alike, the story will take on new dimensions and meanings, a multi-voiced symphony of human expression. The church does not have an official shape, because that would functionally block the purpose of the social structure. Picture a church WITH an official version and made strict efforts to enforce orthodoxy. No one would or could stay a member of it. Instead you find a bell curve of belief, a cafeteria of choices. Each arrangement is valid if it serves the function required by the individual.

Just my thoughts on it, but I am forced to point out this does not fit my definition of binding doctrine on my official website, so you can take what you want from it.

This is good. And it's so true, as evidenced by Mormons writing on this board.

So you're left realizing that Mormonism is quite the successful racket. Believe what you want folks, so long as you keep that 10% coming!

Man, I wish I had the same immoral fortitude it would take to try to mimic the church for my own personal gain. I could certainly use a shopping mall or two, myself.