The Catechism of the LDS Church

[_Wisdom Seeker]

I was recently cleaning out my briefcase and found an old document I printed from the LDS website:

http://LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

I printed this out just after receiving a new calling in 2007 which needed me to better understand Mormon Doctrine. I highlighted and wrote many comments on this print-out and had one last chance to read over the article and my comments before throwing it away.

Having believed all my life that this was God's one true church, I have always felt that the role of the Prophet, his counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve was to receive revelation and substantiate the claims and be a special witness of Jesus Christ and his one true church. If this was not his one true church but just one of many true religions in which God approved, then would there really need to be a Prophet and Apostles?

The article I printed out is interesting in noting that anything in which a Prophet declares may in fact only be opinion and not officially binding for the whole church. What has disturbed me the most over the last few years is my new perspective that God must not want clarity in what his religion is about.

Is it really the job of apologists to define the literal and figurative aspects of not only scripture but of what Prophets and Apostles may have said or done? And if it is truly the job of apologists then why are nearly all of them in complete opposition of what Ezra Taft Benson warned about in his speech about Pride?

Perhaps it is time that the leaders of the church ask for revelation to define exactly what this church believes to be actual truth and not what would be the best financial investment for the organization. Until that day, those of us who seek answers and seek wisdom about this church will continue to listen to the prideful, judgmental and oppressive views of many LDS apologists and pray for the day when God will once again speak to his Prophets and Apostles.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

I can't believe I had to bump my own ignored thread, but is this not a legitimate question:

Is it really the job of apologists to define the literal and figurative aspects of not only scripture but of what Prophets and Apostles may have said or done?

Wouldn't the development of a LDS Catechism or Prophet approved Mormon Doctrine manual put to an end the very need for LDS apologetics and give the world a true view of what exactly the church believes?

[_harmony]

I can't believe I had to bump my own ignored thread, but is this not a legitimate question:

Is it really the job of apologists to define the literal and figurative aspects of not only scripture but of what Prophets and Apostles may have said or done?

Wouldn't the development of a LDS Catechism or Prophet approved Mormon Doctrine manual put to an end the very need for LDS apologetics and give the world a true view of what exactly the church believes?

Apologist is not a calling. Therefore, all apologists are amateurs, volunteers with an interest. You are never going to hear the Brethren stand at the general conference pulpit and tell the members to read the FAIRWiki or FROB. Yet the apologists play a part in the governance of the church. They are the academics and the wanna be academics that Packer so despises, so in my opinion, they serve a very useful purpose. They undermine that which they're trying to hard to preserve in their own image. With any luck, thanks to the apologists, the church will finally get out of the 1950's.

[_Willy Law]

Seem so be the way things are going. Does seem the hierarchy hides behind the apologists and counts on them to do their dirty work for them. When is that last time you heard a member of the 12 or 1st presidency honestly answer any difficult church history question? Only example would be GBH dodging and lying to Larry King and Mike Wallace.

Confused about one thing, so talks given by prophets speaking from the pulpit at general conference are not considered doctrine?

Simon pointed out yesterday that a quote by BY given at GC and published in the JoD was not doctrine?
Huh? I swear I was taught that everything that comes from GC is scripture.
Is there a difference between scripture and doctrine?

[_harmony]

Wouldn't the development of a LDS Catechism or Prophet approved Mormon Doctrine manual put to an end the very need for LDS apologetics and give the world a true view of what exactly the church believes?

This is exactly what the Brethren do not want. They don't want to be pinned to any spccific concept that they may have to back away from in the future. They have learned from the mistakes of the leaders in the past, who did make concrete claims that the current leaders have had to back away from. Much better to stay fluid.

[_Joseph]

This is one main question many of us have asked over and over and over again. To no answers from The Brethren.
Doctrine is not doctrine. It is taught as such, even supported by missionary discussions, conference talks and First Presidency letters. Later it is changed and even denied.

Odd how a First Presidency statement can be wrong, isn't it? Especially when it concerns Doctrine said to be a commandment of The Lord and directly from God.

"Official Publication' is the current watchword and we can rely on it: until the next version is published. Then "Doctrine" may well be something different.

How do you lead people astray? Not with a big lie but a little at a time. You recruit new members and teach them the new doctrine. This is, to them, The Gospel. It matters not what Joseph Smith taught or(if you believe or have hope that it may be eternal truth) even what was in the manuals and statements a short time ago. These new members, whether by conversion or family ties, have The Fullness of The Gospel. A very different Gospel than their grandfathers generation had and in many cases different even from their fathers. Possibly even different from the teaching manuals of last year.

Doctrine? It is a chimera.

[_Nightlion]

I can't believe I had to bump my own ignored thread, but is this not a legitimate question:

Is it really the job of apologists to define the literal and figurative aspects of not only scripture but of what Prophets and Apostles may have said or done?

Wouldn't the development of a LDS Catechism or Prophet approved Mormon Doctrine manual put to an end the very need for LDS apologetics and give the world a true view of what exactly the church believes?

It is the responsibility of the head to think and the mouth to say what is true. But if the head and mouth offend the gospel and trample it underfoot and utterly refuse to accomplishes the promises of the Father, getting right with the gospel of Jesus Christ, they have nothing to say. Indeed, it is all a mass of confusion to them as President Hinckley do dishonorably demonstrated on his many celebrated world stage interviews.

What good is the topical guild?
What good is McConkie's Mormon Doctrine
Or any other book claiming to answer questions.

They only prove that they do NOT understand the gospel in the least. The time is past by the way. The day of the Gentiles is over. Look for the stone cut out of the mountain without hands to smite the image of the fallen Babylon upon the toes. The Ensign of the prophet Isaiah to call all nations to witness what is lifted up upon the top of the mountain has fully come in. See the Apocalrock and live. You, and all your house.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

In the article "What is Mormon Doctrine" over on the FairLDS website it states:

"How can we know if teachings, which have not been voted upon, are true? J. Reuben Clark explains that when “we, ourselves, are ‘moved by the Holy Ghost,’” then we know that the speakers are teaching true doctrine. “In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak.

It is likely that the Lord has allowed (and will continue to allow) his servants to make mistakes—it’s all part of progression and the growing process. We are not forced to accept teachings with which we disagree. We’re supposed to receive confirmation from the spirit if what is taught is the doctrine of God, and of course we’re the one who put ourselves in jeopardy if we fail to accept things which will bless us."

My questions:
What teachings have been voted on as being true?
When have teachings been voted on as being ture?
If teachings are voted on, are they voted on by congregations?
Does voting on something false make it true?
Why is it our responsibility to feel the spirit to determine what is true?

[_Joseph]

"J. Reuben Clark explains that when “we, ourselves, are ‘moved by the Holy Ghost,’” then we know that the speakers are teaching true doctrine."

This allows the Paul Dunns of the Church to get rich with lies.

Real Leadership would shut this crap down immediately and would state what Doctrine is and do so emphatically.

[_bcspace]

"Official Publication' is the current watchword and we can rely on it: until the next version is published. Then "Doctrine" may well be something different.

How do you lead people astray? Not with a big lie but a little at a time. You recruit new members and teach them the new doctrine. This is, to them, The Gospel. It matters not what Joseph Smith taught or(if you believe or have hope that it may be eternal truth) even what was in the manuals and statements a short time ago. These new members, whether by conversion or family ties, have The Fullness of The Gospel. A very different Gospel than their grandfathers generation had and in many cases different even from their fathers. Possibly even different from the teaching manuals of last year.

Doctrine? It is a chimera.

There've been no significant doctrinal changes since the Latter-day Church began other than initial revelations so I don't see what the problem is.