Seven Deadly Heresies Speech Is Now Doctrine

[_Runtu]

You're too generous, Runtu, I was dead ass wrong.

Nah, if you were dead wrong, you'd have an anime avatar.

[_J Green]

by the way, I get to do the 5th Sunday lesson on the very subject of doctrine in one of the Wards this month. I'm taking bets on whether or not someone will disagree with me or call me out or if I get corrected or released by higher authority.

I've had the same discussions as a GD teacher, even reading the Newsroom Statement to the class with the blessing of the Bishop. Invariably, most members don't understand the nuances involved unless you actually define the context for them. Most people assume that "doctrine" simply means "doctrinal" in this sense. But when you frame the question correctly and ask if there is a difference and what that difference is, you'll find that most members will say the same thing that the members of the Quorum of the Twelve did about the handbook.

Incidentally, I'm disappointed that you disengaged from our conversation on the other board. You had made several claims that were incorrect, including that an apostle had called the new CH "doctrine." I showed that despite the new CH going through tighter controls than normal for correlation, Elder Oaks did not refer to it as doctrine but "doctrinally-based." He referred to it as "interpretations" and not on the same level as scripture. I further showed that he kept using the word "doctrinally-based" to refer to sections of the handbook, after which he proceeded to elaborate on which doctrine(s) they were based. I then referenced other remarks by Elder Cook that referred to the CH the same way, as well as Church Publications reporting about their remarks at the training as pointing out that the CH is "doctrinal" or doctrinally-based." I also referenced Elder Scott who spoke of the process of compiling and publishing Duty to God and other official publications, referring to the process as ensuring that they are based on doctrine (not that they are doctrine). There is more where that came from, and this type of language necessarily invalidates your thesis. But no answer from you was disappointing.

And for the record, I don't argue that doctrine is limited to scripture. The newsroom statement and Christofferson's talk tell us how doctrine is received and where it resides, and they include aspects of revelation that are additional to the scripture. But this aspect is fairly well defined and does not include either overt or tacit declaration that everything published is "doctrine." Correlation assumes some form of a doctrinal stamp of approval, but that is something different. And it is this area that will likely confuse your class unless you frame the context for them fairly and correctly.

by the way, about a year ago, I was visiting in the COB with one of the 70 who has responsibility over the Middle East. Our meeting essentially over, he was showing me a new copy of the Gospel Principles manual in Arabic. As we were going over it, I noticed that a chapter was missing, and I asked him about it. His response about decisions they made and the reasons for them wouldn't have worked under BC's view of what constitutes doctrine. The Brethren simply don't hold BC's view, and they don't talk about published material as if they hold this view (e.g., Oaks and Cook on the new CH and Scott on Duty to God, etc.). BC's view is not stated in the sources he cites and is necessarily contradicted by them from the get go. This is really a straight-forward issue to seemingly everyone except BC.

Cheers.

[_Runtu]

J Green,

You're far kinder and more eloquent than I, and I appreciate that very much.

For the record, my position has always been the same: Doctrine resides in the scriptures, proclamations, and First Presidency statements. Church publications are consistent with doctrine, but they are not doctrine themselves.

I like your use of "doctrinally based" and "doctrinal." Just out of curiosity, when did you have your imaginary training at the COB about the relationship between doctrine and publications? I received training in 1990 when I was an intern and then again in 1992 when I got a full-time job there.

[_J Green]

J Green,

You're far kinder and more eloquent than I, and I appreciate that very much.

Coming from you that's quite a compliment. Thanks.

Just out of curiosity, when did you have your imaginary training at the COB about the relationship between doctrine and publications? I received training in 1990 when I was an intern and then again in 1992 when I got a full-time job there.

My training occurred in the summer of 2007.

I work full-time for the military in a unit that has over 900 linguists with training in over 40 languages. Part of our training involves supporting a number of Government agencies with language translation projects, and in these projects we also use civilians, who sit along side the uniformed members. A number of these civilian linguists I helped train ended up later getting hired by the Church translation department.

Due to the recommendation of these former colleagues I had trained and had moved to the CoB, the Translation Department reached out to me in 2007 to assist them with providing Quality Control over Church correspondance sent to various parts of the world. They did so after talking to my Stake President and Bishop and then interviewing me. The position would have been a contract position that edited this correspondence from a translation/language angle as well as to ensure doctrinal correctness. I intended to accept the position and had both computer-based training on CDs as well as a few sessions in the COB. At that point, I received notification of unit being mobilized to Afghanistan soon. As the commander of the unit, I quickly disengaged from everything except preparing for war. So I received the training but never acted in that capacity. I still have the CD portion of the training material somewhere in my basement. I may get motivated enough to go look for it and see if it contains anything pertinent to this discussion.

Regards

[_Buffalo]

Any minute now, bcspace will disappear from this thread, never to return.

:)

[_Runtu]

My training occurred in the summer of 2007.

I work full-time for the military in a unit that has over 900 linguists with training in over 40 languages. Part of our training involves supporting a number of Government agencies with language translation projects, and in these projects we also use civilians, who sit along side the uniformed members. A number of these civilian linguists I helped train ended up later getting hired by the Church translation department.

Due to the recommendation of these former colleagues I had trained and had moved to the CoB, the Translation Department reached out to me in 2007 to assist them with providing Quality Control over Church correspondance sent to various parts of the world. They did so after talking to my Stake President and Bishop and then interviewing me. The position would have been a contract position that edited this correspondence from a translation/language angle as well as to ensure doctrinal correctness. I intended to accept the position and had both computer-based training on CDs as well as a few sessions in the COB. At that point, I received notification of unit being mobilized to Afghanistan soon. As the commander of the unit, I quickly disengaged from everything except preparing for war. So I received the training but never acted in that capacity. I still have the CD portion of the training material somewhere in my basement. I may get motivated enough to go look for it and see if it contains anything pertinent to this discussion.

Regards

If nothing else, this confirms what I already knew: the distinction between doctrine and publications is the same as when I worked there. A few years ago (2009, I think), I had a conversation with my old boss from the COB. I asked him if my recollection of the distinction was correct. He said it was and that it has never changed.

But for standing up for something I was taught at the COB, I'm ridiculed as not knowing anything. Go figure.

ETA: And my sincere thanks for your service to our country. If you're anywhere near Utah, let me know. I'll buy you dinner.

[_J Green]

But for standing up for something I was taught at the COB, I'm ridiculed as not knowing anything. Go figure.

Anyone who does so only highlights their own ignorance. You're clearly thoughtful, bright, and articulate.

But I think BC uses this line of reasoning mostly for apologetic purposes. I can understand his desire for a simple kind of all-ecompassing logic, but it is ill-advised. I have a number of friends and family all along the belief spectrum. And while I consider myself to be TBM and fully engaged in my faith, I also know that good relationships that should be more important that anything in this world are ill-served by poor apologetics. Understanding, communication, and honest discussion are so much better. And in this spefic area, while it's easy to define what doctrine isn't (BC's view), it isn't always clear to pin down what doctrine actually is. I acknowledge that and think that it's likely supposed to be that way (and always has been). What doesn't help is constructing our own system of measurement simply to try and define the chaos of the construction site a little better. This only ends up constructing a Potemkin village that everyone can spot. And everyone has been walking around BC's village and pointing out the lack of . . . well, a village. Doesn't help.

Cheers.

[_Runtu]

Anyone who does so only highlights their own ignorance. You're clearly thoughtful, bright, and articulate.

Shucks.

But I think BC uses this line of reasoning mostly for apologetic purposes. I can understand his desire for a simple kind of all-ecompassing logic, but it is ill-advised. I have a number of friends and family all along the belief spectrum. And while I consider myself to be TBM and fully engaged in my faith, I also know that good relationships that should be more important that anything in this world are ill-served by poor apologetics. Understanding, communication, and honest discussion are so much better. And in this spefic area, while it's easy to define what doctrine isn't (BC's view), it isn't always clear to pin down what doctrine actually is. I acknowledge that and think that it's likely supposed to be that way (and always has been). What doesn't help is constructing our own system of measurement simply to try and define the chaos of the construction site a little better. This only ends up constructing a Potemkin village that everyone can spot. And everyone has been walking around BC's village and pointing out the lack of . . . well, a village. Doesn't help.

Cheers.

I agree. I've long felt that it's not fair to pin beliefs on the church that the church doesn't actually teach, and I've long since lost interest in showing how "wrong" the church is. Sure, there are things I don't like about the church, but then there are other things I genuinely admire and love about the church. I try hard to be fair, and ironically, that's why some people believe I'm an insidious destroyer of faith.

Sometimes I feel out of place at church, but I'm usually there to support my wife. I respect her, and I respect her beliefs. How could I do otherwise? I don't have any interest in the polemical back and forth between apologists and critics. I guess that makes me evil.

[_J Green]

ETA: And my sincere thanks for your service to our country. If you're anywhere near Utah, let me know. I'll buy you dinner.

Didn't see this while I was replying, Runtu.

Appreciate the sentiment. And yes, I live in Utah and would love to have dinner or lunch with you. But none of this buying stuff. I pay my own way.

Cheers.

[_J Green]

Sometimes I feel out of place at church, but I'm usually there to support my wife. I respect her, and I respect her beliefs. How could I do otherwise? I don't have any interest in the polemical back and forth between apologists and critics. I guess that makes me evil.

I don't have much interest in the polemical aspect of apologetics either. But I do find a kind of utility in following the overall discussion because I enjoy challenging my own assumptions and perspectives.