Official Doctrine Irrelevance: Seriously, Guys!

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

I went to some trouble actually searching through my house no gather up all my thoughts that are normally scattered like marbles in an ADD kids' room. What did I get for the trouble? No one listened to me! Some of you are still engaging in the Official Doctrine Red Herring Tour (ODRHT) with obiwan and bcspace.

Again, again, again, doctrine is irrelevant to the truth claims of the prophets. (Excluding doctrine as a study in itself, as Sock illustrated) "The church" mattereth not. I blame myself, really, for not being clear. So, I will try again! Out of love for my fellow man, I will extend myself!

When a truth claim is at stake during a conversation with a Mopologist, put it in prophetic and factual terms.

Example One: Worldwide flood.

Wrong: Critic, "The Church has long taught, and has expressed, that the flood of Noah was worldwide in scope." Talking Monkey, "If you read the texts or the statement, you can see that the words worldwide have not been used by the current prophet, therefore we have no clear doctrine on the matter."

Right: Critic, "Mormon prophets have claimed that god told them that the Noachian flood was worldwide in scope. Is this true or false?" Talking Monkey, "Yes, that's true, but it doesn't matter!"

Example Two: Upstate NY location for that stupid hill.

Wrong: Critic,"The church has long presented the place for that stupid hill being in NY." Talking Monkey,"Many leaders have expressed opinions, but the church has no position."

Right: Critic,"Mormon prophets have claimed that god told them the location of that stupid hill is in NY." Talking Monkey,"Yes, but that's not doctrine!"

Example Three: The Funky Curse of Cain.

Wrong: Critic,"though reason presented by the priesthood ban is because the brothers were fencesitters in Operation WTF." Talking Monkey,"The church has no position on that and does not teach that."

Right: Critic,"Mormon prophets have claimed that god told them that black skin is a sign of a curse, the African curse being for being Swiss in Operation WTF." Talking Monkey, "Yes, but the church doesn't teach that!"

Conclusion: Doctrine is irrelevant. What prophets claim god told them IS. It is true that Adam-God is probably not doctrinal. What is also true is that BY claimed god told him Adam-God is the case.

So, please, the next time you talk to obiwan and he asserts something like the church has ALWAYS presented there being pre-Lehites, ignore that. Instead show what prophets have claimed.

Thank You!

[_CSA]

When "Mormon Prophets" said any of these things, was it doctrine or opinion? There is a difference.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

When "Mormon Prophets" said any of these things, was it doctrine or opinion? There is a difference.

if the context or the prophet makes it clear it is opinion, well, duh.

[_CSA]

When "Mormon Prophets" said any of these things, was it doctrine or opinion? There is a difference.

if the context or the prophet makes it clear it is opinion, well, duh.

We should expect a prophet to make it clear if it is doctrine, if it is not well made clear we can assume that it could be opinion. The person is responsible to take these things into their mind and pray about them to see what God has to say about the topic.

[_aranyborju]

I went to some trouble actually searching through my house no gather up all my thoughts that are normally scattered like marbles in an ADD kids' room. What did I get for the trouble? No one listened to me! Some of you are still engaging in the Official Doctrine Red Herring Tour (ODRHT) with obiwan and bcspace.

Again, again, again, doctrine is irrelevant to the truth claims of the prophets. (Excluding doctrine as a study in itself, as Sock illustrated) "The church" mattereth not. I blame myself, really, for not being clear. So, I will try again! Out of love for my fellow man, I will extend myself!

When a truth claim is at stake during a conversation with a Mopologist, put it in prophetic and factual terms.

Example One: Worldwide flood.

Wrong: Critic, "The Church has long taught, and has expressed, that the flood of Noah was worldwide in scope." Talking Monkey, "If you read the texts or the statement, you can see that the words worldwide have not been used by the current prophet, therefore we have no clear doctrine on the matter."

Right: Critic, "Mormon prophets have claimed that god told them that the Noachian flood was worldwide in scope. Is this true or false?" Talking Monkey, "Yes, that's true, but it doesn't matter!"

Example Two: Upstate NY location for that stupid hill.

Wrong: Critic,"The church has long presented the place for that stupid hill being in NY." Talking Monkey,"Many leaders have expressed opinions, but the church has no position."

Right: Critic,"Mormon prophets have claimed that god told them the location of that stupid hill is in NY." Talking Monkey,"Yes, but that's not doctrine!"

Example Three: The Funky Curse of Cain.

Wrong: Critic,"though reason presented by the priesthood ban is because the brothers were fencesitters in Operation WTF." Talking Monkey,"The church has no position on that and does not teach that."

Right: Critic,"Mormon prophets have claimed that god told them that black skin is a sign of a curse, the African curse being for being Swiss in Operation WTF." Talking Monkey, "Yes, but the church doesn't teach that!"

Conclusion: Doctrine is irrelevant. What prophets claim god told them IS. It is true that Adam-God is probably not doctrinal. What is also true is that BY claimed god told him Adam-God is the case.

So, please, the next time you talk to obiwan and he asserts something like the church has ALWAYS presented there being pre-Lehites, ignore that. Instead show what prophets have claimed.

Thank You!

I'll try to do better. Line upon line...

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

CSA: Doctrine doesn't matter at all. Only the claim.

[_Runtu]

CSA: Doctrine doesn't matter at all. Only the claim.

Exactly. "Doctrine" is indeed a red herring.

[_bcspace]

When "Mormon Prophets" said any of these things, was it doctrine or opinion? There is a difference.

Was it published by the Church or not published by the Church? That is the answer to life, the universe, and everything on this issue. Critic and apologist alike are bound and limited to what the Church actually believes.

[_Themis]

When "Mormon Prophets" said any of these things, was it doctrine or opinion? There is a difference.

Was it published by the Church or not published by the Church? That is the answer to life, the universe, and everything on this issue. Critic and apologist alike are bound and limited to what the Church actually believes.

Except you always avoid answering one question on this issue.

Here is the news release statement about doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Now show us where the church states everything published by the church is to be considered doctrine?

[_bcspace]

Now show us where the church states everything published by the church is to be considered doctrine?

Yes, it states that the doctrine IS consistently proclaimed in official Church publications and gives no qualifications or exceptions so it all must be doctrine and that is exactly how the Church sees it. Your Bishop and your Stake pres will tell you that. Any GA according to my long experience, and well before Approaching Mormon Doctrine, will also tell you that.

Does the Church publish that which is not doctrine without identifying it as such? When the Church says to keep the doctrine pure by using the official publications (Teaching, No Greater Call), can one use the official publications and still keep the doctrine pure if there are bits of unidentified or unqualified "non doctrine" floating around?