A church w/out doctrine is ... just a social order

[_sock puppet]

In the ultimate game of moving the goal posts, apologetics for Mormons has reached the position that COJCOLDS has no doctrine. Aside from how convenient that makes dodging criticisms (after all, even green jello with carrot shavings won't stick to a wall), where does that leave Mormonism? 'Ward Social at 6:30 on Saturday'?

[_BartBurk]

In the ultimate game of moving the goal posts, apologetics for Mormons has reached the position that COJCOLDS has no doctrine. Aside from how convenient that makes dodging criticisms (after all, even green jello with carrot shavings won't stick to a wall), where does that leave Mormonism? 'Ward Social at 6:30 on Saturday'?

I think it would be difficult to say the Mormons have no doctrine. They believe Jesus is the unique Son of God, in the atonement of Christ for our sins and Christ's resurrection from the dead. They believe that he will come again as judge of the world. They believe in the 10 commandments. The Articles of Faith are pretty specific about what they believe. When they go beyond these things they begin to equivocate, but then I guess it is important to distinguish the essentials from the non-essentials. I wish at times they would do this a little more honestly because in the information age the days of milk before meat are behind us. If they would clearly distinguish what a Mormon has to believe from what a Mormon can opine about it would be helpful.

[_brade]

In the ultimate game of moving the goal posts, apologetics for Mormons has reached the position that COJCOLDS has no doctrine. Aside from how convenient that makes dodging criticisms (after all, even green jello with carrot shavings won't stick to a wall), where does that leave Mormonism? 'Ward Social at 6:30 on Saturday'?

I think it would be difficult to say the Mormons have no doctrine. They believe Jesus is the unique Son of God, in the atonement of Christ for our sins and Christ's resurrection from the dead.

They have loads of doctrine, haven't you heard? They also believe things like "Can you find the two pictures that are most alike?".

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Doctrine is still irrelevant as to whether the church has been proven false. It's pointless to even talk about it.

[_BartBurk]

Doctrine is still irrelevant as to whether the church has been proven false. It's pointless to even talk about it.

Could the LDS Church's doctrine be correct even if the founding story is false? Could the Book of Mormon's doctrine be correct even if it wasn't delivered by an angel with gold plates?

[_sock puppet]

Doctrine is still irrelevant as to whether the church has been proven false. It's pointless to even talk about it.

Spurven,

You must then have conclusive proof and logic that concludes that elohim/jehovah talk to TSM or they do not talk to him. If so, please share. If not, then all else is yet relevant.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Doctrine is still irrelevant as to whether the church has been proven false. It's pointless to even talk about it.

Could the LDS Church's doctrine be correct even if the founding story is false? Could the Book of Mormon's doctrine be correct even if it wasn't delivered by an angel with gold plates?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22088

The only question is what the men claiming to talk to god have said. "Doctrine" is a red herring.

[_BartBurk]

Could the LDS Church's doctrine be correct even if the founding story is false? Could the Book of Mormon's doctrine be correct even if it wasn't delivered by an angel with gold plates?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22088

The only question is what the men claiming to talk to god have said. "Doctrine" is a red herring.[/quote]

I hate to keep sounding this chord, but even if the foundation is invalid, the current leadership could still be receiving revelation from God. It's not impossible to believe God could take a lemon and make it into lemonade. That doesn't make the LDS Church the one true church, but God could still be making something positive out of it.

[_MCB]

Yes, helping people understand the abuse of religion. As much error as there was in Marx's rants, he was not all wrong.

[_Chap]

Yes, helping people understand the abuse of religion. As much error as there was in Marx's rants, he was not all wrong.

Whether you agree with it or not, I don't think it would be correct to describe Marx's writing in general as 'rants', any more than Adam Smith's.