"How To Define Mormon Doctrine"

[_SteelHead]

Zerinus, now that you have once again demonstrated that you are completely devoid of intellectual honesty, let's further destroy your claim that the doctrine is in the canon.

Can you provide a canonical reference authorizing the taking of a plural wife who is concurrently legally married to another man?

D&C 132

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins , and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

[_Nightlion]

If you might, even though we all know that you will not, answer me, why are these two major doctrines of commandments by the authority of Jesus Christ, in his own words fully and completely gotten around by if not utterly ignored by the LDS church?

<snip>

I would be happy to respond to your post if I could make some sense out of it, but unfortunately I can't.

LIke, what? You forgot how to read? The stark reality of it blinds you?

[_grindael]

Oh, I thought you were referring to me at first.

There is a pattern here on this board of folks calling out "BS", and making sweeping generalizations on the competence of other folks.

It is what it is.

And you stepped right up thinking it was all about you.

[_zerinus]

Face it, Z. You made a silly assertion trying to score points against SteelHead and it failed miserably.

Wrong. You are losing sight of the main argument because of the constant irrelevant chatter. You are losing sight of the wood for trees. The argument started when somebody claimed that “mild drink” in the Word of Wisdom signifies beer; it approves of drinking beer. I said that cannot be correct because beer is normally made with barley, whereas “mild drinks” in the Word of Wisdom can be made of every kind of grain. The fact that alcoholic drinks have been or can be made from other types of grain is irrelevant. The Japanese for example make a very potent alcoholic liquor out of rice called Saki. Well, so what? What has that got to do with what we are talking about? The answer is absolutely nothing.

[_zerinus]

Face it, Z. You made a silly assertion trying to score points against SteelHead and it failed miserably.

You are the one who is making silly assertions. See my previous post.

[_zerinus]

The current understanding is not the same as the canonical one. It is now a commandment. When did this occur?

Already answered. Wasting time.

[_consiglieri]

As difficult as it must be for any religion to try to define it's doctrine, I think the LDS Church has more problems with it than most.

And I think this has largely to do with the fact the LDS Church has a structure that believes not in just one prophet at the head of the church, but fifteen.

As recently as last General Conference, we were able to see President Monson's claim that we need to be afraid of the evil in the world contradicted by President Uchtdorf's claim of the opposite; in fact President Uchtdorf chided those who used the evil in the world as a fear tactic to coerce obedience from others. Sort of like President Monson did, as well as countless other speakers at General Conference.

And those are just the problems in the here and now.

Multiply this times the number of generations of general authorities the church has seen since its inception, and we can easily see why doctrine is so difficult to define in the LDS Church.

Now the most recent BYU-Professor has given us four categories to help us sort through the labyrinth. But then, his offering of four categories is not doctrine, either. So even if we were disposed to go through all the different categories and label doctrines accordingly, there seems no real point to the exercise.

If the LDS Church were to loosen things up a bit and simply define "doctrine" as a teaching by the church at any given time or place, we wouldn't need four categories to sort everything into.

The problem, of course, is at bottom the LDS Church still wants to claim "doctrine" in the eternal and unchanging sense.

This is a difficult thing to do when pretty much every teaching of the LDS Church has been changed over time, as Charles Harrell points out in his excellent book, "This is My Doctrine."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_zerinus]

LIke, what? You forgot how to read? The stark reality of it blinds you?

You make assertions for which there does not appear to be a reasonable justification. Then you quote a passage of scripture in support of your assertion when no obvious connection between the two is evident. It is impossible to reply to that. I have no clear idea what you are saying, or how you are justifying it to be able to know how to reply to It.

[Guest]

Let's see if Zerinus can be intellectually honest.

We will utilize the simple yes/no question format often necessary to get an intellectualy mendicant apologist to answer the question posed to them.

1. Does the canonized Word of Wisdom explicitly state that it is a revelation given as a greeting and not as a commandment?
Yes or No


2. Is the Word of Wisdom now taught as a commandment?
Yes or No

3. Is there a canonical reference where the Word of Wisdom is made a commandment?
Yes or No

Answering these 3 questions would take at most 9 characters.

Less time than typing "waste of time" and yet you won't do it.

Why not? Because you are bereft on intellectual honesty. Because you know the current adherence to the Word of Wisdom as a commandment contradicts the revelation.

You have failed to show that your claim that the doctrine is in the canon is correct. Continuing your penchant for intellectual bankruptcy, you will avoid answering the question about polyandry with anything but handwaving.

[_zerinus]

Answering these 3 questions would take at most 9 characters.

Already answered, wasting time. You can ask that question a million times if you like; the answer will be the same.