It's Not Doctrine?

[_Jason Bourne]

The "not doctrine" defense is a losing argument. Nobody cares if the church or their apologists classify something as doctrine or not. Was it taught? Yes, but.... NO BUTS. If it was taught, that's all that really matters. .

And further try making that statement to NON LDS with a straight face. Sort of like this:

Non Member Newperson: So you believe Brigham Young was a prophet of God correct?

Apologist: Yes indeed.

Newperson: That God spoke to him, gave him direction, commandments and all that, like Moses?

Apologist: Yes, of course.

Newsperson: Well what about all those things he said about the blacks?

Apologist: Not doctrine just his opinion.

Newsperson: Huh? He said an awful lot about this over many years and some of it even sounded pretty much like he thought God was telling him this stuff.

Apologist: No just his opinion.

Newsperson: Really? So the man who speaks for God can give his opinion over and over and even though it sounds like he thinks God is telling him this stuff it is just his opinion? What else do these guys get wrong? Seems like doctrine to me.

I mean really a nonmember will not understand this nuanced argument at all. You cannot claim that God is directing his Church and the back peddle away from so much of what is was said over and over. I am not taking about an aberrations or a statement here or there. I am talkiing about things said many times that the apologist wants to back away from.

It really makes the LDS leaders look like bumblers.

On the other hand accepting much of what they said as doctrine causes its own problems. Maybe this is a no win deal and arguing that often the prophets and apostles really did not know what they were talking about is the lesser evil.

[_Drifting]

I find it somewhat bizarre that you cannot tell if an Apostle is speaking on behalf of God until they die and the new Apostles pronounce judgement on it.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Really what does that say about the prophet or apostle and what they say, write, teach and preach if so much of it was simply their opinion and they got so much wrong?

That they have an opinion. That God does not animate their bodies, minds, and vocal chords 24/7. "Mormon Doctrine" actually has a lot of good doctrine in it but one will have to find the same in an officially published work to know if a particular item from it is doctrine.

Okay, assign an extreme position to the critics since you can't defend the OP as offered.

IMHO, if LDS prophets have the slightest connection to God, and if they have the slightest calling to share God's communications, they are obligated to do so in a straight-forward way. Since they are, obviously, speaking their opinions, making mistakes, etc., they are highly suspect of being either highly incompetent or lying manipulators.

[_ludwigm]

This is an old question. It was asked of the Prophet Joseph Smith and answered by him. He writes in his journal, "This morning . . . I visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet'; but I told them that a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such" (Joseph Smith, _History of the Church_, 5:265).

OK, be it.
Make doctrine and private opinion different.
Draw the definition. Publish it, and/or reveal it from the pulpit. Or hire bcspace to draw it. I don't care.

But, up to now, can anybody quote one, only one case, when any GA said about his own words - in real time :
"I say this now, but this is my opinion, not doctrinal, don't get it seriously"
- or
"I am not speaking now as a prophet, you may neglect it"
- or
"I am not acting now as a prophet, verily, you may not hearken"

Instead, Brigham Young said, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture."
Didn't he act then as a prophet? Was it only his opinion?

[_Drifting]

This is an old question. It was asked of the Prophet Joseph Smith and answered by him. He writes in his journal, "This morning . . . I visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet'; but I told them that a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such" (Joseph Smith, _History of the Church_, 5:265).

OK, be it.
Make doctrine and private opinion different.
Draw the definition. Publish it, and/or reveal it from the pulpit. Or hire bcspace to draw it. I don't care.

But, up to now, can anybody quote one, only one case, when any GA said about his own words - in real time :
"I say this now, but this is my opinion, not doctrinal, don't get it seriously"
- or
"I am not speaking now as a prophet, you may neglect it"
- or
"I am not acting now as a prophet, verily, you may not hearken"

Instead, Brigham Young said, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture."
Didn't he act then as a prophet? Was it only his opinion?

I think anyone that ends a talk or a sermon with 'in the name of Jesus Christ..' is insinuating that their words are officially sanctioned by God.

If its just your own opinion you should end it as "in the name of {Drifting}, Amen"

[_bcspace]

That they have an opinion. That God does not animate their bodies, minds, and vocal chords 24/7. "Mormon Doctrine" actually has a lot of good doctrine in it but one will have to find the same in an officially published work to know if a particular item from it is doctrine.

Yea BC but you miss my point. There is sooooo much that was said, especially by 19th century leaders, that is defended with essentially a shrug of the shoulders and the comment of "well it was not official and just their speculation." But many of these things were repeated over and over.

I know they have an opinion but when they express that so called opinion many times ( and in such a way that it did not seem like it was opinion) what does that really say about how wrong they really got things.

Do you really want to argue your leaders get it wrong so much of the time?

I haven't missed your point at all. But you have missed the fact that it is the FP and the Qo12 who establish doctrine, not an individual.

[_Drifting]

But you have missed the fact that it is the FP and the Qo12 who establish doctrine, not an individual.

How do we know if, when the Church publishes something from one leader, that they have consulted enough of the others for it to be classed as Doctrine?

[_bcspace]

How do we know if, when the Church publishes something from one leader, that they have consulted enough of the others for it to be classed as Doctrine?

Because the ultimate earthly authority on doctrine has published it. If you want higher authority, you need to pray.

[_DarkHelmet]

How do we know if, when the Church publishes something from one leader, that they have consulted enough of the others for it to be classed as Doctrine?

Because the ultimate earthly authority on doctrine has published it. If you want higher authority, you need to pray.

You publish stuff?

[_Buffalo]

I haven't missed your point at all. But you have missed the fact that it is the FP and the Qo12 who establish doctrine, not an individual.

And, per recent GC talk, it only becomes doctrine once ratified by the Holy Spirit.