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

[_bcspace]

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.

Doesn't matter. It's published by the Church.

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.

There may have benn. But you're talking about within about a decade of the organization of the Church. Such would be expected don't you think?

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.

There hasn't been such a statement and even if there had been, the one I'm thinking you're twisting wouldn't qualify as doctrine.

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.

Don't seem to be any changes here either.

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.

I've heard this before but not seen much evidence.

[_brade]

Hi bcspace, you keep posting in this thread, but seem to be overlooking my last question to you. Here it is again in case you missed it the last few times:

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]

Hi bcspace, you keep posting in this thread, but seem to be overlooking my last question to you. Here it is again in case you missed it the last few times:

I already answered it. You are now missing the obvious answer to your revision. Have you asked God?

[_sock puppet]

Hi bcspace, you keep posting in this thread, but seem to be overlooking my last question to you. Here it is again in case you missed it the last few times:

I already answered it. You are now missing the obvious answer to your revision. Have you asked God?

I thought Brade asked you? You're not claiming to be god, are you?

[_bcspace]

I already answered it. You are now missing the obvious answer to your revision. Have you asked God?

You're not claiming to be god, are you?

Not the God you should be speaking to, no.

[_brade]

Hi bcspace, you keep posting in this thread, but seem to be overlooking my last question to you. Here it is again in case you missed it the last few times:

I already answered it. You are now missing the obvious answer to your revision. Have you asked God?

I don't see where you answered whether the statement 'If a statement is official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then God is in agreement with it' is true or false. I initially asked you to assess this statement as true or false:

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

You responded by saying this:

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

Perhaps I missed it, but you have yet to say whether you believe the following statement is 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.

I want to know what you think. Is that statement true or false?

[_bcspace]

I already answered it. You are now missing the obvious answer to your revision. Have you asked God?

I don't see where you answered whether the statement 'If a statement is official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then God is in agreement with it' is true or false.

I merely claimed to have answered your original question. The answer to your revised question is obvious and I have now answered that too.

I initially asked you to assess this statement as true or false:

Neither you nor I has enough information to answer such an all encompassing question to that (or any) degree of accuracy. You could replace the LDS Church in that question with "science" and still have the same problem.

I want to know what you think.

You have it.

[_brade]

I merely claimed to have answered your original question. The answer to your revised question is obvious and I have now answered that too.

Sorry, I'm sincerely trying to understand what your position is with respect to these two statements - whether each is true of false:

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

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

Neither you nor I has enough information to answer such an all encompassing question to that (or any) degree of accuracy.

From this comment it seems that you believe you cannot assess the truth value of either one. Do I understand that correctly?

[_bcspace]

From this comment it seems that you believe you cannot assess the truth value of either one. Do I understand that correctly?

No. For the first I said as long as God agrees. For the second I said ask God.

[_brade]

From this comment it seems that you believe you cannot assess the truth value of either one. Do I understand that correctly?

No. For the first I said as long as God agrees.

Right, I assumed you recognized the problem that to say "as long as God agrees" does not tell us what you think of the first's truth-vale unless we also know what you think of whether or not God agrees.

If I ask you "Do you believe that John rightfully owns that car?" and you say "As long as he didn't steal it", you haven't told me whether you believe that John rightfully owns that car. You've merely told me what you would believe if some other set of conditions obtained, and you haven't told me whether you believe the other set of contingencies obtains or not.

Likewise, you haven't told us whether you believe (1) true or false by saying 'as long as God agrees' unless you also tell us whether you believe God agrees or not. You've merely told us that you would believe it true if God agrees. In order to infer how you assess (1) we would need to know that you believe God agrees.

However, subsequent to my asking you to report what you believe the truth value is for (2) you said:

Neither you nor I has enough information to answer such an all encompassing question to that (or any) degree of accuracy.

If you don't have a belief as to the truth value of (2), and whether you believe (1) true or false depends on whether you think (2) true or false, then I don't see how you can give the truth value of (1), or how anyone could infer your belief about it from what you've said. And that's why I said this:

From this comment it seems that you believe you cannot assess the truth value of either one.

After you said this:

Neither you nor I has enough information to answer such an all encompassing question to that (or any) degree of accuracy.

Also, you said:

You could replace the LDS Church in that question with "science" and still have the same problem.

I'm not sure that we do have the same problem in that instance (of not being able to make truth vale assessments). Setting aside the question of whether science has official doctrine and what scientific principles or claims would count as such, let's give it a try. I'll tell you how I assess each statement with 'science' substituted for 'the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints', or, if I cannot assess a statement's truth-value, then I'll say so and, if I can, why not.

(1) If a statement is official doctrine of science, then it's true.

I believe this statement false. Some scientific statements (even official ones, if there are such things) could very well be false, even if they seem to be the best possible explanation given the available evidence. Indeed, many past scientific statements, even very official and authoritative kinds, have turned out not to offer the best available explanation for things or have in some cases simply turned out to be false.

(2) If a statement is official doctrine of sciences, then God is in agreement with it.

I believe this statement is also false. Assuming God exists, I'm quite confident that at least some scientific statements are at odds with his views and I see no reason to think that all scientific claims would be consistent with God's views.