That's Not Doctrine!

[_Buffalo]

TnD has been used as a bandage so frequently that one wonders if the church has any doctrine left.

Oh such hyperbole. Would you suggest that when people head off to church and discuss their beliefs, they don't know what to say? They don't know whether its appropriate to express their belief that Jesus is the Christ or not?

Hence the difference between internet Mormonism and chapel Mormonism. Chapel Mormons do have beliefs and doctrines. For internet Mormons, doctrine is an endlessly fluid concept that can be molded to suit whatever problem you're dealing with currently (your idea about a "figurative" curse in the Book of Mormon comes to mind).

[_lostindc]

I thought this thread was going to be a game and we yell: that's not doctrine!!! everytime someone throws out a church guideline.

Kind of dissappointed

[_Jason Bourne]

"That's not doctrine!" (hereafter TnD) started on June 9, 1978, one day after blacks were allowed to receive the priesthood. In essence the brethren created the conditions, and practically forced defenders of the faith to pull out TnD to make sense of what had just happened

I don't think that's all that "good" of a guess. BY's purported Adam-God "doctrine" was addressed before that.

Stem has a point. Some defenders have been using he Tnd for some time.

AG went out of vogue shortly after BYs death. The idea the celestial marriage=plural marriage also became a Tnd not long after the last leaders to have plural wive's died.

It seems out of convenience you're ascribing motives to the brethren that you don't know, but it is par for the course for most here. Perhaps it was more along the lines of there is no concesus among the brethren about what exactly what happened. Perhaps its more along the lines of, since they can't be sure on it all, they are left to say nothing than say something that might not be correct.

Yet how about the fact that there were years and years of teachings that the blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence and all that. Don't you think it would have helped to clarify it? Instead we get "oh just forget all we ever said about that..."

Come on. Can't prophets and apostles who speak with God and are supposed to get revelation on how to lead His church do better than that?

[_Jason Bourne]

Aristotle,

I enjoyed this post. Do you think there was ever a time when the Church had something close to a systematic theology? If so, did it get lost around the same time ‘blacks’ were given the Priesthood?

.

The closest it probably came were the Lectures on Faith that were de-canonized in 1921. The Lectures were the beginning of a series of such lectures that were to lay out the doctrine of the Doctrine and Covenants.

A few other things come to mind. Some sections of the D&C like section 20. 76, 84, 107 and the Articles of Faith off the top of my head start such a process.

[_just me]

Why does there need to be a consensus?

I don't know if there "has to be", but it'd be good to have unity.

Can't the prophet just ask God the reason?

Of course the prophet can. Its a matter if God the prophet is in tune to the answer, or is able to handle it, and if God sees it necessary to answer. Perhaps in God's eyes He feels it most appropriate to not say anything on the matter for right now.

Why is god silent on so many vitally important topics?

Beats me. Perhaps what we see as vitally important, He sees as not so important. He has HIs ways.

That is just no longer satisfying to me. It would be sad to think that god just doesn't give a damn about things like racism. I have to wonder why that is not so important.

I also have to wonder why he is content with thousands and thousands of people leaving or not joining his One True Church because of these horrible, horrible doctrines nd practices. Seems he would want himself accurately represented.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Aristotle,

I enjoyed this post. Do you think there was ever a time when the Church had something close to a systematic theology? If so, did it get lost around the same time ‘blacks’ were given the Priesthood?

I think there have been a couple of attempts to have something close to systematic theology. I think Sidney Rigdon tried to do this in the mid-1830's. In the second half of the 19th century, Orson Pratt tried to as well. Since then the only real try at this has been Blake Ostler, but he's so far out of the mainstream that I don't think his thought is going anywhere officially.

But, leaders have traditionally been pretty open about defining doctrine as a loose, but official, grab bag of ideas and concepts. Take the much vilified, but widely used and cited, "Mormon Doctrine" of Bruce R. McConkie. It's mainly just a dictionary of concepts as used by the general authorities. While it was not official, it did try to accurately represent what was official doctrine.

In my opinion, I think the Church lacks a place for Theologians, and as a result, proper Theology isn’t done in a manner that reaches people. I understand the need for a hierarchy to keep tight control on speculation, but it seems to me the Church could adopt something like the Roman Catholic Church, where trained theologians serve the papacy in the form of guidance behind close doors.

They could, but I doubt it will happen. My impression is that the GAs have little use for and even less trust in theologians. Even more problematic is that those guys simply don't have the training or expertise to make much use of theology. That's a lot different than popes such as Benedict XIV who was a professor of theology, or John Paul II who held doctorates in both theology and philosophy (specifically 20th century phenomenology).

Since the theology would have to eventually come through GAs to have any influence, that situation would have to change.

[_stemelbow]

Maybe it's the fact that some forward thinking brethren had already tried to get rid of the ban years earlier, and it took a lot of politicking to finally make it happen in 1978. That doesn't sound very much like a revelation, hence the silence. Just an idea.

I'm not doubting that that's a possibility too. Indeed, I wish I was from that era and I was some outspoken dude on the whole thing. That'd be cool to be a maverick-type.

[Guest]

Stem has a point. Some defenders have been using he Tnd for some time.

AG went out of vogue shortly after BYs death. The idea the celestial marriage=plural marriage also became a Tnd not long after the last leaders to have plural wive's died.

OK, it seems reasonable to concede that TnD was used prior to June 9, 1978. However, I still think the reasons for its use and the frequency with which it is invoked really changed in the 1980's and went into overdrive in the 1990's. I'm trying to work backwards to figure out what was the catalyst for the change, and 1978 seems to fit the bill in terms of being in the correct time frame and giving a plausible reason for the change.

But, I concede this is a difficult argument to make.

[_Yahoo Bot]

There is no systematized doctrinal structure in the Church. There never has been. The Church is unlike any credel organization. They lack the Spirit and must operate by dictated rules.

The Church operates by the Spirit rather than by artificial man-made constructs. One can easily see from the Bible itself how inconsistent men apply prophetic utterances. A Moabite could not enter into the congregation of the Lord until the tenth generation "for ever" (Deut. 23:3), yet David's grandmother was a Moabite. Denying somebody the benefits of the gospel merely because of his race is a pretty significant pronoucement; yet, it was evaded or changed for no explanation.

The Church operates with revelation from a mostly bottom up, rather than top down, dictate. As Jesus said in Matthew 18:18-20, if "any two of you" (speaking to the apostles) shall agree on earth as touching any thing" then it shall be so. It wasn't, "shake the dice, examine the entrails, and get your answer."

To that extent, doctrine is something that can be known only by the Spirit. "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." John 7:17. One cannot endure "sound doctrine" if one seeks after one's own lusts, as persons such as yourselves. 2 Timothy 4:3.

And, then there's the classic three-part formula in I Thess 1:5 for understanding the Gospel -- the priesthood, the scriptures and the Holy Ghost.

Things are not very well aided by well-meaning members of the Church who fail to read their scriptures and attempt to systematize doctrine. It is one thing to describe past statements about how the Church works, and another to say "this is doctrine and the way it is." One does not equal the other, although most or many of the members of the Church think it so.

The word "canon" does not denote doctrine, either. In the LDS Church, canon means only that the Church as a body has voted upon including certain statements in what is popularly known today as the "Quad." Canon does not elevate one pronouncement over another, except to say that the Brethren and the Church have decided to include in the "Quad" a certain statement so that it can be more frequently used in sermons and teachings. Canonization also gives the stamp of authenticity upon a statement. For that reason, the King Follett Discourse has not been canonized because the Brethren have not been willing to declare it authentic, even though it is frequently cited in Relief Society and Priesthood manuals.

So, degenerate apostates (Moderator Note) Deleted personal attacktry to use age-old rhetorical devices to defined the Church and then hang it by its definition. That can't be done. You can't do it. You rely upon a very imperfect understanding of precedent and logic when the Spirit doesn't operate that way.

[_Buffalo]

You rely upon a very imperfect understanding of precedent and logic when the Spirit doesn't operate that way.

I agree, logic is foreign to the "Spirit."