Why is the Definition of Doctrine So Important to Some?

[Guest]

I don't think bcspace cares that doctrine has changed. He just needs to know what it is today so he doesn't have to deal with ambiguity.

bcspace is a computer programer. The switch is open, the switch is closed. That's all he knows.

But the program doesn't tell you what to input. So bcspace has a problem.

He thinks he has found an answer with Official Church Publication. So imput it and see what comes out. But he doesn't realize that Official Church Publication can't define itself.

So GIGO.

[_Tobin]

I sort of agree, but not exactly. For example, say somebody claimed the following: "Brigham Young taught that the virgin Mary conceived Jesus via Sex with God the Father." This claim raises some questions:

• Did Brigham Young teach that?
• Do Mormons believe that?
• Should Mormons believe it?
• Is it okay for Mormons not to believe it?
• Is it true?

"Official" doctrine is a circle much smaller than "true" doctrine. "Official" doctrine is doctrine that Mormons must accept, believe, and defend. If it isn't official, belief in it is optional; such beliefs don't need to be defended, regardless of whether or not they are true.

Well, if that is the definition, then "Official" doctrine is probably a very small subset of Mormon doctrines. It probably only consists of a belief in God (of some sort) and acceptance of the Book of Mormon (at some level). I really don't know what else you'd need to accept inorder to be a Mormon.

[_Tator]

BC uses this issue as a coping mechanism. Without it he would have to look at and deal with things Mormon that he does not want to. To do so would put his life, belief, etc. on shaky ground. Actually he is on shaky ground anyway but it is all he's got to maintain and balance his status quo.

I think he is very close to falling over to the dark side.

[_zeezrom]

BC is having a good time.

[_Tator]

BC is having a good time.

Probably true and so am I.

[_MCB]

I don't think the word doctrine should be applied to LDS teachings. Better to just avoid the word altogether, rather than re-define it. Mormonism already redefines too many words to suit its objectives.

Let the winds blow, and the teachings change.

Jello.

[_moksha]

Definition of Doctrine is important to me as well, since I do not want a slew of goofy speculations and personal positions to ruin my appreciation and support for the Church.

Whether these items run the gamut of taking a Luddite view of science to venerating the IBM style of business apparel, I want to know the difference.

[_lulu]

Definition of Doctrine is important to me as well, since I do not want a slew of goofy speculations and personal positions to ruin my appreciation and support for the Church.

Whether these items run the gamut of taking a Luddite view of science to venerating the IBM style of business apparel, I want to know the difference.

The original D&C was published 1835 by F. G. Williams & Co. with Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams listed as Proprietors.

Was it OCP at the time? If it is now OCP at what point did it become so?

What was Official Church Doctrine before the OCP standard was announced in May 4, 2007? Was it still the OCP standard or was it something else?

Deseret Book is owned by Deseret Management which is owned by the Corp. of the 1st Pres. of COJCOLDS and works under its auspices. Deseret Book publishes Shadow Mountain Imprints. Is it a OCP and therefore doctrinal?

Like the first D&C, the Journal of Discourses was published by a private publisher under the auspices of the church. Is it OCP?

[_ludwigm]

I think most people are happy talking about a religious organizations "doctrine" changing over time, and don't take it as a smear on the validity of the organization. I also think most people are happy talking about different leaders within a religious organization teaching different concepts about the same doctrine.

Correct description of my viewpoint.

But wouldn't it be easier to just subscribe to a definition of "doctrine" as something that not only changes, but in fact should change over time in order to circumscribe more truth and light?

The same.
While I was regular officer (39 years), our written doctrine of anti-aircraft defense was updated in every year. It followed the changing environment.

Mormonism already redefines too many words to suit its objectives.

Yes. Unfortunately, it is not a feature, it is a drawback.

Am I onto something, BCSpace?

Nobody likes vivisection.

[_bcspace]

Why is the Definition of Doctrine So Important to Some?

Whether you admit it or not, you all react as if some definition for doctrine is in operation and you all are keenly interested in what the LDS Church's doctrine is.

It is obvious that the correct definition of Mormon Doctrine is a matter of utmost importance to BCSpace.

Besides representing the Church correctly, it's not possible to debate without a common underlying basis of fact. Anti Mormons, for example, need to change the paradigm and reality in order to count any coup on the Church, hence there is no discussion or debate under those conditions.

BC is having a good time.

Probably true and so am I.

Yes I am.

I immediately could tell he was one of "those" Mormons that couldn't accept the fact that the brethren often teach false doctrine from the pulpit.

Nope. The brethren most assuredly teach some false doctrines straight from the pulpit. Sometimes it makes it into publication, sometimes not. A publication example might be one of the GA's telling us that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics in a 1990's Ensign. Nothing catastrophic however. That is virtually impossible because there are 15 prophets and apostles looking out for it.

What's interesting to me is when he's nailed to the wall using his own definition of doctrine he's usually quiet.

This has never happened.

But it seems BCSpace is very unhappy in talking about "doctrine" in any such way, at least about such doctrines as are currently espoused by the LDS Church.

Am I onto something, BCSpace?

I am perfectly satisfied with most of the doctrine including the doctrines on the ban and plural marriage. There are some doctrines which I disagree with such as the global Flood and I have never shied away from admitting such.

What's closer to the truth is that you and others are very unhappy with some major doctrines such as the ban or plural marriage, homosexuality, the priesthood, the family, only true Church, etc. and that is why you reject the Church's stance on doctrine. It's a coping mechanism for many of you to change the paradigm so at least in your mind you don't have to live with the spectre of true doctrine.