Doctrine by unanimous Q15 affirmation

[_Dr Moore]

I do not understand the notion that church doctrine must be taught by all 15 apostles, as per Andersen.

Andersen: A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. - Oct General Conference

First, not all 15 apostles have taught this concept. So is the test of doctrine official, or only a well-considered opinion?

Second, he isn’t clear whether it must be all 15 apostles ever, at any time, or does it have to be the current living 15? If doctrine is established at a point in time, once 15 men have spoken on it, can that doctrine never change? Or is the doctrine ever changing as per the status of the current 15?

Third, if one apostle is silent on a difficult point of doctrine, for instance gay marriage, is that silence to be heard as an objection and over ruling of what appears to be church doctrine? Why shouldn’t silence be considered a tacit endorsement? Otherwise, any and every message from the GC pulpit is potentially invalidated by silence.

Fourth, if this test of doctrine is to be believed, why has the church not documented its doctrines and set out the points in time in which those doctrines were clearly established by common teaching of all 15 living apostles?

Fifth, is Andersen deflecting the question here with clever language? About the only thing consistently taught in common by all 15 apostles is basic sunday school, 8 year old baptism theology. Does Andersen mean to suggest that every other point doctrinal, carrying any degree of complexity, is actually no doctrine at all? If not then why do such things manage to be taught by various of the 15 apostles at all?

[_consiglieri]

Brilliant analysis!

One gets the idea the point is not to designate what is doctrine so much as to designate what is not doctrine.

Without ever actually designating what is and isn't doctrine.

[_Gadianton]

I'm sure he said that just to navigate whatever situation he was in at the time. Doctrine hasn't been a priority in decades. mainly they care about money and the growth of church wealth. they might believe the Church is true at some level, but that's just it, it's true...say it 10,000 times a year. It's true, so we try to keep thing in line with the values we're comfortable with from sixty years ago, and beyond that, the church being true is a placeholder to cover whatever it wishes to pursue, and also to leave open the possibility that while we focus on wealth for now, in absence of anything else to do, should God want to tell us something he will and then we'll go from there.

[_kairos]

I do not understand the notion that church doctrine must be taught by all 15 apostles, as per Andersen.

Andersen: A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. - Oct General Conference

First, not all 15 apostles have taught this concept. So is the test of doctrine official, or only a well-considered opinion?

Second, he isn’t clear whether it must be all 15 apostles ever, at any time, or does it have to be the current living 15? If doctrine is established at a point in time, once 15 men have spoken on it, can that doctrine never change? Or is the doctrine ever changing as per the status of the current 15?

Third, if one apostle is silent on a difficult point of doctrine, for instance gay marriage, is that silence to be heard as an objection and over ruling of what appears to be church doctrine? Why shouldn’t silence be considered a tacit endorsement? Otherwise, any and every message from the General Conference pulpit is potentially invalidated by silence.

Fourth, if this test of doctrine is to be believed, why has the church not documented its doctrines and set out the points in time in which those doctrines were clearly established by common teaching of all 15 living apostles?

Fifth, is Andersen deflecting the question here with clever language? About the only thing consistently taught in common by all 15 apostles is basic sunday school, 8 year old baptism theology. Does Andersen mean to suggest that every other point doctrinal, carrying any degree of complexity, is actually no doctrine at all? If not then why do such things manage to be taught by various of the 15 apostles at all?

Good insights- i asked professor michael goodman from church correlation at ed week 5 years ago how can you tell an LDS doctrine. to what you have stated and discussed goodman added the area must be related to salvation ,so things like the hinckster's 1 earring policy has no effect on one's salvation and thus can certainly not ever be a church doctrine though many members have/do consider it must be followed.
k

[_2bizE]

“Our doctrine is not difficult to find.”
So what is Mormon doctrine and where is it found?
Is the WoW Mormon doctrine? Where is that found?

[Guest]

Pardon this interruption, but since I can't initiate an original POST, I desire all to receive, https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_ ... yEFANbKNt0

LDS PERSONAL FAITH CRISIS
Prepared for President Dieter F. Uchtdorf
Proprietary and Confidential

[_Gadianton]

link busted...?

[_Mormonicious]

link busted...?

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_ ... yEFANbKNt0

[_Mormonicious]

Example Story from document

ANONYMOUS FEMALE: AGE 50 - 64

household income: $200,000+

education level: College Graduate

member type: Life-long member

prior to crisis: Full Tithe Payer, Regular Attendance at Sacrament Service, Temple Recommend Holder, Adherence to the Word of Wisdom callings held: Young Women’s Presidency, Young Women’s President, Relief Society Presidency, Relief Society President, Primary Presidency, Primary President, Spouse of Bishopric, Temple Worker

I was never inactive prior to learning the true church history. I was born in the covenant, faithful in my youth, attended BYU, married a returned missionary in the temple and raised my children in the church (both of my sons went on missions). I was always a full tithe payer. I never missed church and even attended when on vacations by finding the nearest church to wherever we were at the time. I held nearly every leadership position a woman can hold in the church and served faithfully.

My awakening began with hearing some things about Joseph Smith’s polygamy and went online to prove these things wrong. I quickly learned that they were in fact the truth and then proceeded to learn about Joseph Smith and others’ polyandry, too. That was the beginning of my journey into discovering all of the church history that had been whitewashed and kept hidden from me during all of my faithful years. After this, I simply could not support an organization that demanded complete 100% honesty from me when they had and continued to be extremely dishonest in their teachings and lessons (especially regarding church history and past doctrines).

My husband, who was also extremely active and had held numerous leadership positions, felt like I did once he discovered the truth. Two of my four children have also left the church and the other two are working their way out now, too. Out of seven of my siblings (all serving missions and marrying in the temple), only one of them is still active (and they are only semi-active due to their spouse wanting to attend). All of them have left because of the dishonesty regarding church history, Book of Abraham issues, DNA problems, and other issues with the Book of Mormon.

If the church had been honest with their history and other details from their past, I would have loved learning about these as I was growing up and when I was older. It would have made the church leaders feel more human and full of integrity for me to know their faults and mistakes along with their good qualities. It would have given me hope when I also made mistakes and tried to repent. I would not have stopped attending if the church had simply been honest with me. I believe if they start doing this, they may be able to stop the hemorrhaging of some of their best, most valiant, most educated, and most hard working and devoted members. They are definitely losing some of their strongest members and this will continue because the true information is so readily available to all now. Also, this is affecting new baptism rates tremendously because no one will join a church requiring the time and money demanded by the LDS church without at least doing a Google search. Who wants to join a church that is not honest?

I miss a great deal of what I had when I was an active member of the church, but the truth is very important to me. So is integrity and honesty. I will not go back unless the church leaders start implementing honest information and discussions about its past.

[_peacemaker]

You blind anti-Mormons will never understand the church. Just because something isn't taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve doesn't mean it is not doctrine. It is a confirmation when all the 15 members teach the same doctrine.