It's Not Doctrine?

[_Yahoo Bot]

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.

"Mormon Doctrine" remains heavily quoted in General Conference addresses. Also, Elder McConkie was no bum. The 1979 revisions of the headings and cross-references to the LDS scriptures were headed up by Elder McConkie, as well as minor revisions to the Book of Mormon.

It is fashionable amongst LDS intelligentsia to disparage Elder McConkie and his works, but as I have pointed out elsewhere, LDS apologists include teenagers to elderly men and women, along with active and inactive members of the Church. So what they think of Elder McConkie, that he has fallen out of favor, is irrelevant to what is and what is not church doctrine. Same comment as to Miracle of Forgiveness. It is politically correct amongst the timid in the Church to throw those in the dustpin.

It is true, however, that Mormon Doctrine no longer is in print. There may be several reasons for it, including that things said in Mormon Doctrine are no longer favored by the First Presidency. We really don't know, but certainly many, many popular works of former apostles and presidents are no longer in print. It could simply be a bookseller's decision not to publish what isn't being bought.

I read Elder McConkie's New Testament commentary after I had already ready several other evangelical and Catholic commentaries, along with reading Talmages' Jesus the Christ (which depended heavily on Dummelow). I could easily observe that he had not read anybody else's commentaries, so his approach to scripture study was to learn on his own without resort to "sectarian" authorities. I had the view that he just got it wrong on a number of points, but have since modified my view based upon a talk Elder Oaks gave some time ago that said that the scriptures are what they are to you through revelation.

BCSpace makes the point that Mormon Doctrine is not doctrine, and he has elsewhere said that LDS Doctrine is what the church says it is today, like on the church's website. I've come to the conclusion that that this is most likely correct. Suppose you had a rule in your house that kids had to be in the house by midnight. Your oldest teenage says, well, for Johnny, my oldest brother, the rule was 1:00 a.m., so I'll abide by that rule. Of course, that won't fly. Doctrine and policy is what the church says it is today, not ten years ago. A trivial comparison, but corporate policy is what a corporation says is and not some securities analyst says it is. U.S. military policy is what the military says it is, not what Al Queda says it is. The Vatican's position on the death penalty is what the Vatican says it is, not what some liberal Methodist theologian says it is.

Now, it may be fruitful and interesting social commentary to compare church doctrine in Elder McConkie's day to today, with its differences. Apostates may be wont to point out that God doesn't change, but church doctrine sure changes and, thus, the church is a man-made organization. (To that I point to Matt 18:19, which says that Church doctrine is what a quorum in the Q12 says it is.) And perhaps some such comparisons will lead to a change in doctrine or policy, as when the way the Q70 was organized in the 80s was based upon research by the Brethren as to how Joseph Smith did it. But, the fact remains that church doctrine and policy is what it is today, notwithstanding what Elder McConkie or Joseph Fielding Smith may have said.

[_Themis]

BCSpace makes the point that Mormon Doctrine is not doctrine, and he has elsewhere said that LDS Doctrine is what the church says it is today, like on the church's website. I've come to the conclusion that that this is most likely correct.

bcspace wants to think everything published by the church is doctrine. This is incorrect. He has been asked where the church says this and has failed to do so. I believe this statement by the church best represents what is doctrine.

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.

KG and Tim are correct in that what the church teaches is the doctrine. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine book is not doctrine. It is a book that contains many of the doctrine/teachings of the LDS church. Some of those are not current doctrine, and the book as a result has fallen out of favor. bcspace still cannot differentiate between say policy and doctrine.

[_Nomomo]

The apologetic message boils down to God's prophets and apostles can't tell the difference between revelation and their own opinion.

Mmm... They may be on to something here. Perhaps it is precisely because a prophet can't tell the difference between a revelation and his opinion or imagination that the policy nowadays is that if God gives the prophet a revelation it still has to be approved by the others in the FP and the council of twelve before being accepted to share with the membership.

Can't have God and the prophet acting solely on their own authority. Would be too large a risk to the Church that either the prophet or God could become a loose cannon without any checks on their authority that could cause the Church damage with a troublesome or embarrasing revelation ~_-

[Guest]

The apologetic message boils down to God's prophets and apostles can't tell the difference between revelation and their own opinion.

Mmm... They may be on to something here. Perhaps it is precisely because a prophet can't tell the difference between a revelation and his opinion or imagination that the policy nowadays is that if God gives the prophet a revelation it still has to be approved by the others in the FP and the council of twelve before being accepted to share with the membership.

Can't have God and the prophet acting solely on their own authority. Would be too large a risk to the Church that either the prophet or God could become a loose cannon without any checks on their authority that could cause the Church damage with a troublesome or embarrasing revelation ~_-

So, we can safely assume that the entire content of General Conference talks was mere personal opinion because at no point was it voted on or noted that the FP and 12 Apostles had agreed it. And in which case they should stop closing their talks with 'In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen' because 'He' hasn't signed it off.

[_sock puppet]

At least in the 1970s, when SWK was on his anti-sex, every-19-year-old-male-do-a-mission screeds and BRM was bombastic and definitive on everything Mormon, one knew what it meant to be a Mormon.

[_DarkHelmet]

So, we can safely assume that the entire content of General Conference talks was mere personal opinion because at no point was it voted on or noted that the FP and 12 Apostles had agreed it.

Yep. I remember being taught that General Conference was awesome because every 6 months we receive more scriptures. Now we have to wait several years before we know for sure if the stuff in GC is doctrinal. It used to be that when there was a controversial issue (political, social, etc.) the common phrase was, "I will wait until the prophet speaks on the issue before I make up my mind." Now the poor TBMs can't even do that. They have to wait for the prophet to speak on the issue, then they have to wait until the entire FP and Q12 agree on it and publish it in some official source.

[_Drifting]

So, we can safely assume that the entire content of General Conference talks was mere personal opinion because at no point was it voted on or noted that the FP and 12 Apostles had agreed it.

Yep. I remember being taught that General Conference was awesome because every 6 months we receive more scriptures. Now we have to wait several years before we know for sure if the stuff in GC is doctrinal. It used to be that when there was a controversial issue (political, social, etc.) the common phrase was, "I will wait until the prophet speaks on the issue before I make up my mind." Now the poor TBMs can't even do that. They have to wait for the prophet to speak on the issue, then they have to wait until the entire FP and Q12 agree on it and publish it in some official source.

I can't wait for Monson to die so that we can find out which of his talks are doctrinally correct.

[_Jason Bourne]

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

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.

I think you have missed my point and maybe I am not elucidating it clearly. Maybe Bot can chime in a bit. His comments above I think were good. More on that in a second.

But my main point is that I think it is a poor argument to call something a prophet or apostle taught on a frequent basis simply speculative opinion even if it was not published by the Church. It may not rise to official doctrine. But to dismiss such things as simply speculative opinion and to imply or even state that that leader got it wrong seems to diminish their capacity as actually speaking to and for God.

If say BY got it wrong on who God was, on whether plural marriage really was required for exaltation and if the church would be in apostasy for abandoning it, if he got it wrong so many times on the blacks and the priesthood, and so on, that seems to diminish our ability to trust what he or other prophets say.

Now on to Bot's point about doctrine changing. BC does not think doctrine changes. And honestly, at least the Church I grew up in would argue that doctrine does not change either. We may receive revelation that gives us new knowledge but certainly that new knowledge should enhance rather than change prior doctrine. Bot says the Church is a man made organization. Of course men are involved in it. But I thought the distinguishing factor is God leads the men running it so it stays on course.

[_ludwigm]

BCSpace makes the point that Mormon Doctrine is not doctrine, and he has elsewhere said that LDS Doctrine is what the church says it is today, like on the church's website. I've come to the conclusion that that this is most likely correct.

OK.
Then, please don't say doctrine can be found here and there, one should decide for every sentence.
Please say what is doctrine.
For example:
Doctrine is listed below
- 1. x
- 2. y
...
- 2473. z
- other items are not doctrine. Period.
- and the list can be changed after ten years or in every six month.

Doctrine and policy is what the church says it is today, not ten years ago.

OK.
Then, don't say I don't know if we teach that.
Please say yes, this was doctrine/taught umpty years before, today this is not.

Now, it may be fruitful and interesting social commentary to compare church doctrine in Elder McConkie's day to today, with its differences. Apostates may be wont to point out that God doesn't change, but church doctrine sure changes and, thus, the church is a man-made organization. But, the fact remains that church doctrine and policy is what it is today, notwithstanding what Elder McConkie or Joseph Fielding Smith may have said.

OK.
Then, please don't blow smoke about private opinion and such.
Instead please say that era is passed away. Today McConkie and JFS words are invalid. In the meantime some things changed.


Do I demand something impossible?