In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Alf O'Mega]

That kind of begs the question: from what or whom would you need to have the definition provided?

I don't think it's that convoluted. Just a definition of doctrine that also satisfies its own definition. The press release clearly doesn't qualify, because it doesn't identify press releases as sources of doctrine. A statement from the canon would qualify if it identified the canon as the source of doctrine. But so far I haven't seen such a canonical statement.

All I'm looking for is self-consistency. Correctness is a whole different question.

[mfbukowski]

I just have a gut feeling that "no doctrine" is incompatible with having priesthood authority in the same organization.

Certainly that the gospel has been restored is a "doctrine"; certainly the restoration of the priesthood is a doctrine. The hierarchy itself, as a chain of command is a pretty clearly structured belief system, unless everyone wants to be their own bishop which sounds fine to me.

So right now I am thinking that there is something to Ostler's point, but that he perhaps did not think it through well before posting it.

But of course no one else has ever done that before, have they?

Edit: and along with authority, I suppose implied is that there is a chief authority who speaks for the organization and defines the beliefs of the organization, but certainly as the authority changes, so might the beliefs.

I'm just, like Alf, thinking about consistency and the "logic" of the organization, not correctness.

[Nofear]

So that's a "no" for Nofear. Anybody else?

"No" that there's no doctrine or no on being able to supply a definition? I suppose it doesn't matter as either interpretation by you of my comment is incorrect.

I think you may also find that a number of non-critics find the definition of LDS doctrine somewhat frustrating to grapple with. I would also suggest the problem is somewhat more complicated than the mere existence of critics.

Certainly. But that doesn't have any impact on my comment that critics are often frustrated because they wish to make the tent-o'-doctrine larger than we members do.

[Hyrum Page]

Certainly. But that doesn't have any impact on my comment that critics are often frustrated because they wish to make the tent-o'-doctrine larger than we members do.

Perhaps, but that is likely an oversimplification on your part, especially because such confusion exists within the Church concerning the precise boundaries of doctrine.

[Alf O'Mega]

"No" that there's no doctrine or no on being able to supply a definition? I suppose it doesn't matter as either interpretation by you of my comment is incorrect.

"No" to the original question I posed: "Can anybody supply a doctrinal definition of doctrine?" Or do you believe that you did supply such a definition?

[ToGo]

I don't think it's that convoluted. Just a definition of doctrine that also satisfies its own definition. The press release clearly doesn't qualify, because it doesn't identify press releases as sources of doctrine. A statement from the canon would qualify if it identified the canon as the source of doctrine. But so far I haven't seen such a canonical statement.

All I'm looking for is self-consistency. Correctness is a whole different question.

Alf O'Mega,

If a press release from the Public Affairs Department issued today read "X is now the doctrine of the LDS Church", would you consider the press release as doctrine?

What if the press release from the Public Affairs Department reads: "Today President Thomas S. Monson has said that it is LDS Church doctrine that X." Would you then treat X as doctrine?

If either press release is signed by Thomas S. Monson, would you then consider it LDS Church doctrine?

[Alf O'Mega]

If a press release from the Public Affairs Department issued today read "X is now the doctrine of the LDS Church", would you consider the press release as doctrine?

What if the press release from the Public Affairs Department reads: "Today President Thomas S. Monson has said that it is LDS Church doctrine that X." Would you then treat X as doctrine?

If either press release is signed by Thomas S. Monson, would you then consider it LDS Church doctrine?

I haven't proffered a definition of LDS doctrine, nor do I have any standing to do so. I do feel empowered to observe, however, that unless "X" involves defining doctrine, none of the scenarios you envision would address the question I'm asking.

[ToGo]

I haven't proffered a definition of LDS doctrine, nor do I have any standing to do so. I do feel empowered to observe, however, that unless "X" involves defining doctrine, none of the scenarios you envision would address the question I'm asking.

How would you know whether X is or is not defining doctrine if you do not have a definition of doctrine?

Note, whatever X may be (X is merely a placeholder in the hypothetical statements I proffered), in both such hypothetical statements X is couched in terms of being declared as doctrine (#1-"X is now the doctrine of the LDS Church", and #2-"Today President Thomas S. Monson has said that it is LDS Church doctrine that X.")

The real question is from whom would a declaration of doctrine have to be issued for you to accept it as doctrine? Who do you trust to be issuing doctrine?

[Nofear]

"No" to the original question I posed: "Can anybody supply a doctrinal definition of doctrine?" Or do you believe that you did supply such a definition?

It was in the link I posted (several times in this thread):

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four

[Hyrum Page]

That such confusion exists within the Church doesn't change the fact that critics often get annoyed when the try to make the tent-o'-doctrine bigger than we accept. I simply did not address the internal state of the doctrinal question within the Church. The omission should not be regarded as a denial.

Note that I did not call it a denial. I called it a likely oversimplification.

[Nofear]

Note that I did not call it a denial. I called it a likely oversimplification.

And I'm saying it's simply not relevant. Even if there was general agreement upon what constitutes doctrine inside the Church (and I might contend that such general agreement exists - how general would probably be a point of disagreement) it would still annoy the critics when we fail to buy their definition of what constitutes doctrine. Other things may annoy them too, but that too isn't relevant to the veracity of my comment. In short, tying baggage to a mule doesn't change the fact that the mule is still there.

[Hyrum Page]

And I'm saying it's simply not relevant. Even if there was general agreement upon what constitutes doctrine inside the Church (and I might contend that such general agreement exists - how general would probably be a point of disagreement) it would still annoy the critics when we fail to buy their definition of what constitutes doctrine.

And I disagree that it is irrelevant. A proper understanding of causes is never irrelevant, unless all you are interested in achieving is winning the point "X=X". I happily concede that "X=X". The question is as much a matter of what to do as it is one of what is. Indeed, I find your approach to border on fatalism, as though nothing productive can be done to ameliorate the situation, and that the usual mantras about "those critics" are helpful. One might say that your oversimplification about critics is as annoying as critics' assumptions about Mormon doctrine. Mormons often overgeneralize about critics to the point of failing to recognize any important distinctions between them.

[Scott Lloyd]

Mormons often overgeneralize about critics to the point of failing to recognize any important distinctions between them.

I, for one, am liberal and magnanimous enough to acknowledge that people can be wrong in a variety of different ways.

[Alf O'Mega]

How would you know whether X is or is not defining doctrine if you do not have a definition of doctrine?

Note, whatever X may be (X is merely a placeholder in the hypothetical statements I proffered), in both such hypothetical statements X is couched in terms of being declared as doctrine (#1-"X is now the doctrine of the LDS Church", and #2-"Today President Thomas S. Monson has said that it is LDS Church doctrine that X.")

The real question is from whom would a declaration of doctrine have to be issued for you to accept it as doctrine? Who do you trust to be issuing doctrine?

It was in the link I posted (several times in this thread):

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four

[Hyrum Page]

I, for one, am liberal and magnanimous enough to acknowledge that people can be wrong in a variety of different ways.

LOL. That's a good one Scott. Let it never be said that you are not a generous soul. You crack me up.

[clairc829]

I, for one, am liberal and magnanimous enough to acknowledge that people can be wrong in a variety of different ways.

Careful you'll have ceeboo wanting to know if your mocking

[Hyrum Page]

I am not just asking for a definition of doctrine. I am asking for a definition of doctrine that comes from a doctrinal source. (See the snake swallowing its tail there?) The press release offers a reasonable-sounding functional definition of doctrine. But since press releases aren't one of the mechanisms specified by that definition as defining doctrine, it fails as a doctrinal definition of doctrine.

A definition of doctrine from a doctrinal source seems like a minimal first step in such a discussion. Anybody?

Ho ho ho!!! Nice.

[ToGo]

It appears that the self-referential nature of my question is not as obvious as I had hoped.

I am not just asking for a definition of doctrine. I am asking for a definition of doctrine that comes from a doctrinal source. (See the snake swallowing its tail there?) The press release offers a reasonable-sounding functional definition of doctrine. But since press releases aren't one of the mechanisms specified by that definition as defining doctrine, it fails as a doctrinal definition of doctrine.

A definition of doctrine from a doctrinal source seems like a minimal first step in such a discussion. Anybody?

Bear with me, I'm just wanting to make sure that I am understanding you, Alf O'Mega. The only possible source of doctrine would be With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

The only mechanisms by which such sourced doctrine would be issued are:

1-in the four

[mfbukowski]

But if you side with Ostler, there is no doctrine anyway.

So I guess Ostler would say there is no doctrinal definition of "doctrine"-- that is his point.

Alf agrees with Ostler. That's nice. I like to see people getting along with eachother.

[Nofear]

And I disagree that it is irrelevant. A proper understanding of causes is never irrelevant, unless all you are interested in achieving is winning the point "X=X". I happily concede that "X=X". The question is as much a matter of what to do as it is one of what is. Indeed, I find your approach to border on fatalism, as though nothing productive can be done to ameliorate the situation, and that the usual mantras about "those critics" are helpful. One might say that your oversimplification about critics is as annoying as critics' assumptions about Mormon doctrine. Mormons often overgeneralize about critics to the point of failing to recognize any important distinctions between them.

Fine, I'll add another hedging word to mitigate the over-generalization, "What gets many critics frustrated is they often want to make the tent-o'-doctrine much larger than we do. " Happy now?

It appears that the self-referential nature of my question is not as obvious as I had hoped. ... A definition of doctrine from a doctrinal source seems like a minimal first step in such a discussion. Anybody?

I did indeed note the non-authoritative nature of the quote. But if you'd like me to support it, sure. Read D&C 43:1-7 where it states that public revelation must come through the gate (and it is upon revelation that we establish our doctrine). The scriptures testify of themselves as being true. Alas, I don't think we'll find any not-self-referential statement from the scriptures supporting that the scriptures contain revelations from God. Nevertheless, the press release is consistent with the scriptures and public discourses by the latter-day prophets.

[mfbukowski]

Ostler:

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

With due respect to Bruce McConkie, I propose that we now have no Mormon

[Nofear]

I think he's on to something. "Political" is too strong a word, but the notion of orthopraxis is right on the money imo. It's not that the errors are political as much as they are against orthodox practice.

I'll remind our good bishop of one of the defining features of apostasy, "Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishops or higher authority." It may be in practice that this is rarely invoked but it is most certainly allowable and could not exist if Church doctrine did not exist.

[Hyrum Page]

Fine, I'll add another hedging word to mitigate the over-generalization, "What gets many critics frustrated is they often want to make the tent-o'-doctrine much larger than we do. " Happy now?

Pleased as punch.

[Hyrum Page]

I think he's on to something. "Political" is too strong a word, but the notion of orthopraxis is right on the money imo. It's not that the errors are political as much as they are against orthodox practice.

I find it intriguing too. He may be overreaching a bit, but there is a lot of use in this line of discussion, I think.

[Hyrum Page]

I'll remind our good bishop of one of the defining features of apostasy, "Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishops or higher authority." It may be in practice that this is rarely invoked but it is most certainly allowable and could not exist if Church doctrine did not exist.

Yes. At the same time I would say that the emphasis is on persisting in teaching it in defiance of higher authorities, not on the existence of doctrine.