It's Not Doctrine?

[_Drifting]

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.

So, anything published by the Church (or one of its subsidiaries) is doctrine? That can't be right...

[_Kevin Graham]

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.

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.

The definition of "doctrine" has nothing to do with the word "establish." It has everything to do with what's taught, especially over a long period of time on a consistent basis.

Your word choice "establish" seems very much like something corporate attorneys would come up with in order to rig the game so they can determine which doctrines they can and cannot be held accountable for teaching. Ultimately the Mormon Church has become nothing special at all. It is nothing more than a boring Corporate newsletter posting repeated truisms to make Mormons feel good, but the unique stuff that really makes Mormonism unique can no way be attributed as God's word. So what's the point at all of having the one true Church? Missionaries must be engaged in false advertisement when they assure new members that they won't have to be worried about being tossed to and fro since being led by a true Prophet means the LDS Church will always have answers to important question. In reality, the Church refuses to answer much of anything, and when it does, it is given in such an ambiguous way that allow them to disavow it at some later point, if need be. They're essentially a bunch of lying politicians who can't get their crap together.

And Mormons today are in more of a quagmire over this stuff than Protestants have ever been with respect to figuring out what their Church really teaches. Just look at the way Mormons reacted to recent comments by a BYU professor, and the subsequent PR release by the Church. Iv'e seen monkey shit-fights in a zoo more organized than that.

[_Tobin]

This is purely a fiction in bc's head. He likes to play this game where if something is false and taught from the pulpit, then it must not have been doctrine. Ummm, no. It is false doctrine taught from the pulpit. I don't know why he (and other apologists) have to play this game. For some reason they are committed to the line that the brethren are perfect and don't make mistakes and can not teach false doctrine. in my opinion, it is a stupid version of Mormonism since Mormonism to me is between myself and God. If what the brethren teach is true, then God will back them up. If not, it's just their opinion and yes, it is false doctrine. This should have no impact on a "true" Mormon because they have seen and experienced God and should be purely interested in getting at the truth.

[_Fence Sitter]

Ahh the good ole days when apostles like B.H. Roberts actually would make claims like this.

Some of the sectarian ministers are saying that we "Mormons" are ashamed of the doctrine announced by President Brigham Young to the effect that Adam will thus be the God of this world. No, friends, it is not that we are ashamed of that doctrine. If you see any change come over our countenances, when this doctrine is named, it is surprise, astonishment, that any one at all capable of grasping the largeness and extent of the universe-the grandeur of existence and the possibilities in man for growth, for progress, should be so lean of intellect, should have such a paucity of understanding, as to call it in question at all. That is what our change of countenance means-not shame for the doctrine Brigham Young taught

[_DarkHelmet]

Ahh the good ole days when apostles like B.H. Roberts actually would make claims like this.

Some of the sectarian ministers are saying that we "Mormons" are ashamed of the doctrine announced by President Brigham Young to the effect that Adam will thus be the God of this world. No, friends, it is not that we are ashamed of that doctrine. If you see any change come over our countenances, when this doctrine is named, it is surprise, astonishment, that any one at all capable of grasping the largeness and extent of the universe-the grandeur of existence and the possibilities in man for growth, for progress, should be so lean of intellect, should have such a paucity of understanding, as to call it in question at all. That is what our change of countenance means-not shame for the doctrine Brigham Young taught

LOL. So what does the change of countenance mean when TBMs are asked about Brigham Young's Adam/God doctrine today? I think it means confusion as they have no idea what it is.

[_Tobin]

LOL. So what does the change of countenance mean when TBMs are asked about Brigham Young's Adam/God doctrine today? I think it means confusion as they have no idea what it is.

It's gobbledygook. I don't need to look at someone's countenance to know if something is false. I'm sure TBMs that hang on every word spoken by the brethren will no doubt come up with some mind-boggling explanation on how this makes sense. Which always comes back to saying, it is gobbledygook.

[_Tim]

The definition of "doctrine" has nothing to do with the word "establish." It has everything to do with what's taught, especially over a long period of time on a consistent basis.

Exactly. It's absurd to point to your scriptures and say "that's where our doctrines are." No that's where your scriptures are. Your doctrines are the teachings based on those scriptures. McConkie was set apart to teach Mormon doctrines. He did just that. The church published and distributed his doctrines. Therefore his book was Mormon doctrine. Perhaps the church disavows that doctrine now but it's ridiculous to say that it wasn't doctrine.

[_moksha]

Or Jenna Jameson is not officially a slut because none of her porn movies were produced by official porno companies.

What God hath not slutified, let no man plow asunder. So there.

--------

Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie was a multi-flawed book. Why should Mormons now be stuck with it? We need to perfect ourselves rather than furnish more attack fodder for critics. Let's jettison the book.

[_Yoda]

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?

Excellent point, Ludwigm!

BC, what say you?

[_Buffalo]

Ahh the good ole days when apostles like B.H. Roberts actually would make claims like this.

Some of the sectarian ministers are saying that we "Mormons" are ashamed of the doctrine announced by President Brigham Young to the effect that Adam will thus be the God of this world. No, friends, it is not that we are ashamed of that doctrine. If you see any change come over our countenances, when this doctrine is named, it is surprise, astonishment, that any one at all capable of grasping the largeness and extent of the universe-the grandeur of existence and the possibilities in man for growth, for progress, should be so lean of intellect, should have such a paucity of understanding, as to call it in question at all. That is what our change of countenance means-not shame for the doctrine Brigham Young taught

That's PRICELESS.

Old LDS hymns:

We Believe in Our God

We believe in our God, the Prince of his race,
The archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days
Our own Father Adam, earth’s Lord as is plain,
Who’ll counsel and fight for His children again.

- Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Sainsts, 11th edition, 1856, by Franklin D. Richards, Apostle, p. 375; online at http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech8.htm


Michael, Is the Eternal Father

Sons of Michael, he approaches!
Rise; the Eternal Father greet;
Bow, ye thousands, low before him;
Minister before his feet;
Hail the Patriarch’s reign,
‘Stablished now o’er sea and main!

- Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 11th edition, 1856, by Franklin D. Richards, Apostle, p. 375; online at http://www.ldshistory.net/adam-god/ag2.html