Was or was not BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" just that?

[_moksha]

But how do you know that what Teaching No Greater Call defines as doctrine is itself doctrinal? Who wrote the quoted portion? Was it the Prophet? Or some unknown COB employee?

Excellent point. This quote could have been written by our own Runtu and he could have been strung out on popcorn at the time.

[_jon]

The interesting thing is that LDS doctrine really has not changed in the areas our critics tend to claim it has like... the Priesthood ban.

Hmmm, so what is the current doctrinal position on the ban that is consistent with the doctrinal position in Brigham Youngs period as Prophet?
(Remember what 'doctrinal' means by your standard, so I'm expecting offical published quotes from members of the FP/12 Apostles).

[_Jason Bourne]

[quote="Jason Bourne"I absolutely understand this. Never the less it seems that any new official doctrine or position should not contradict a prior doctrine or position should it?[/quote]

You'd think, but then we have the story in the New Testament of Peter receiving a revelation that there would be no differentiation between Jew and Gentile. When he bowed to social pressure and required the saints to be circumcised and followed Jewish custom of not eating with Gentiles, Paul called him on his inconsistency and called him a false brother.

Jesus founded a new faith system. So I am not sure we are comparing apples to apples. But yes this example applies to Christianity's impact on Judaism.

You have this real black and white view of how prophets and apostles work.
You don't give any credit to error or disagreements. Many people exit the church when the general authorities don't live up to extraordinary expectations. Certainly, this is nothing in their sermons which invite the error that you make.

I do not think your summation of my view is accurate. I have always allowed for errors and some messiness. But I am talking of some concrete issues here. Things like prophets teaching that the Church will be in apostasy if it ever abandons plural marriage, a prophet knowing about who God is and such things.

And by the way, it always is amazing to me that when the Church leaders themselves tell the members that we should follow them even if what they say may be wrong we then have the apologist telling us that they really make lots of mistakes and why would we expect any difference.

But no worries. I see it is even more messy than what I once thought. So now if I here something from our leaders that does not resonate with my spirit and what I think God is telling me about it I feel quite happy about simply ignoring it.

[_Jason Bourne]

Generally not unless there was no revelation previously. Perhaps some aspects of the nature of God in the Lectures of Faith or the Universal Flood for example.

Personally I think there are significant changes regarding the nature of God from the Book of Mormon to the 1840s. I guess one can assume it is line upon line and all that. But you really do know the Lectures, that were canon, had significant ideas about God that were later set aside. It is clear this is why the lectures were decanonized and that without a Church vote. For me at least this a clear example of what I am talking about.

The interesting thing is that LDS doctrine really has not changed in the areas our critics tend to claim it has like plural marriage or the Priesthood ban.

You disagree with Church leader that call polygamy non doctrinal these days. And again I guess it is perspective. I see the fight tooth and nail to keep plural marriage in the Church along with teachings that it is essential for exaltation as well as teaching that the Church will be in apostasy if it ever drops at as later contradicted in significant ways. Same for the priesthood ban. It was to be until the millennium or until all other sons of Adam had a chance to receive the priesthood. It was put on the race of Cain as a curse and those born into this race may have been less valiant. There is plenty on that from the pulpit as well as an FP statement that makes it official. Then when the ban is lifted we are told to just forget all that.

Well perspective plays a role in all this and yours and mine I guess as I note above may just be vary different.

[_brade]

True or false?

If a statement is official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then it's true.

As long as God is also in agreement, it's true.

True or false?

If a statement is official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then God is in agreement with it.

Just putting this out there again. I know you're getting bombarded a bit BC, but if you get a chance, will you please tell me whether you believe that statement true or false.

[_brade]

True or false?

If a statement is official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then God is in agreement with it.

Bump.

[_Brackite]

The First Edition of Mormon Doctrine came out in June of 1958. The Second Edition of Mormon Doctrine came out in September of 1966.
Please Check Out and See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)


Bruce R. McConkie became an LDS Apostle on October 12, 1972.
The Edition of Mormon Doctrine that I have a copy of is this:

Bookcraft
Salt Lake City, Utah
1979

15th Printing, 1994


I got that copy of Mormon Doctrine while I was a Missionary for the LDS Church.
The Following is From Kevin Graham here:

Of course McConkie's book was doctrine.

Either that, or the man was a published liar.

"Mormon Doctrine" isn't Mormon doctrine? Gee, that would have been news to everyone in my ward back in 1989. A year later when the ward threw a farewell party for my before my mission, they pitched in to purchase me two books to use on my mission. The Missionary Pal and McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine." They all signed the latter.

On my mission McConkie's work was used by missionaries when questions of doctrine arose. There was never the slightest hint that it wasn't really doctrine. Nor was there such a thing as "official" or unofficial" doctrine. Over the next few decades this gradually became a popular apologetic tool used by people who were trying to dismiss conflicting or embarrassing doctrines of the Church.

I remember going to the LDS bookstores with some faithful members who refused to buy apologetic books like the Day of Defense or the Gainsayers, because they were not written by General Authorities. They'd say things like "who the heck is this guy"? But GAs write books all the time, not only to increase their purse, but to provide the membership with a constant source of doctrinal instruction.

Link: viewtopic.php?p=511203#p511203

[_Willy Law]

The only thing that really matters is what the rank and file member believes.
I would put the over under at 90% that think Mormon Doctrine is actually Mormon Doctrine, and I would still take the over.

[_Brackite]

Let's see, I was about 14 when I first picked up Mormon Doctrine. I was supposed to understand that Bookcraft meant something less than best? How many members knew about this ever really? Come on bot. This is pretty lame.

Yet another ill-read naïve critic.

And anonymous to boot. How courageous.

As long as Yahoo Bot continues to accuse Posters that he does not like as "anonymous" here, I am going to keep Posting this sexist statement that he made over two years ago here.
Here it is again:

Plural marriage is an eternal principle. It is founded on the notion that there will be far fewer men who will accept the atoning sacrifice than women. It has to do, somehow, with the struggle in the Garden of Eden, the choice Eve made, and the promise that she would be saved in childbearing. I don't get it all, but the fact that women are more spiritual and willing to accept the spirit is a fact.

Link: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 20#p237220

[_brade]

True or false?

If a statement is official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then God is in agreement with it.

bcspace, you there?