mfbukowski Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Never heard of so much nonsense put together in one paragraph in all my life.Holy cow! Not even from me? Now I am jealous- I thought I had a special place in your heart for nonsense!
mfbukowski Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 There are plenty of things which are true which are not doctrine.Minor correction. Things are not true or false, sentences and propositions and descriptions are.
mfbukowski Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 There is one official doctrine in the Church: Jesus Christ is the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered for our sins, was crucified, and rose again on the third day. He is the Christ.Gosh I didn't know you were Catholic.
wenglund Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) As a newcomer to The Church, this is a frustrating aspect. As we've witnessed in this very thread, absolutely NO ONE knows what official doctrine is.To me, the controversy over what is "official doctrine" misses the point of, and may detract from, the intent and purpose of the gospel--which is to bring us to Christ and enable us to becoming like him through growth in faith in living revealed precepts and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As long as we know where we are headed and how best to get there, that should suffice, and it really doesn't matter whether we determine what is or isn't "official doctrine." Otherwise, don't you think that God would have instructed his living prophets to formulate and clearly establish his "official doctrine"?I suspect that God may not wish to be confined to a fixed or rigid, systematic or "official" box. Doing so may increase the risk of men, to one extent or another, creating God in their image rather than the other way around, and may inadvertently discourage the critical gospel element of personal revelation.Besides, the church seems to have survived and thrived for more than a century and a half quite well without officially setting forth what is "official doctrine." So, I am not sure why there is the frustration and upheavel over this issue. Maybe we humans are naturally drawn toward the drama.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited January 31, 2012 by wenglund 1
mfbukowski Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 So, I am not sure why there is the frustration and upheavel over this issue. Maybe we humans are naturally drawn toward the drama.AND easy answers for complicated questions.
Freedom Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 In many cases, it is not possible to have an official doctrine because we lack sufficient information. We know, for example, that we look like God and that the godhead is three separate individuals, but beyond that we know very little of the physical characteristics of God. If he came down, would he be Japanese or African? We have types and shadows of the eternal truths but it is like having 50 pieces of a 10,000 piece puzzle and trying to determine what the picture is. We can focus on the principles and ordinances and draw what ever conclusions we can form the limited amount of doctrines that are scattered about the scriptures.
Cobalt-70 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 There is one official doctrine in the Church: Jesus Christ is the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered for our sins, was crucified, and rose again on the third day. He is the Christ.Beyond that, everything the Church publishes, including the Scriptures, is simply intended to guide us to that one great truth, and that one great truth is the only thing the Church is bound by. All else is subject to change. Does something in a lesson manual lead us to Christ? Great, follow it. If you find it doesn't lead you to Christ, then change directions.I disagree that this is the only official doctrine of the Church. Every Christian believes these things, yet according to LDS doctrine, most of these Christians will not gain their exaltation simply by believing what you said. This doctrine is therefore incomplete.
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Cobalt-70:There is not one belief that is common to all of Christianity. There are Baptists that don't believe that baptism is necessary at all. Some Christians believe that sprinkling with water is sufficient for baptism, some baptize soon after birtth, some wait till 8 years old, some wait until the teen years. Heck there are even Christians that deny the divinity of Christ all together. How they justify that I don't know. But far be it from me to judge their Christianity.
Cobalt-70 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Minor correction. Things are not true or false, sentences and propositions and descriptions are. Which is why saying "this church is true" does not mean what it literally says. People would never say "the American Medical Association is true," or "my dog is true." You could interpret it to mean that everything written by the LDS Church or spoken at an LDS pulpit is "true," but I think few Mormons actually believe that in a literal sense. 1
Cobalt-70 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 To me, the controversy over what is "official doctrine" misses the point of, and may detract from, the intent and purpose of the gospel--which is to bring us to Christ and enable us to becoming like him through growth in faith in living revealed precepts and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As long as we know where we are headed and how best to get there, that should suffice, and it really doesn't matter whether we determine what is or isn't "official doctrine." Otherwise, don't you think that God would have instructed his living prophets to formulate and clearly establish his "official doctrine"?That doesn't explain why, in a couple of instances, the presiding quorums of the church did try to formulate and clearly establish what was "official doctrine." For example, in 1916, the church issued a statement formally rejecting Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine and siding with recent the theological developments by Talmage, Roberts, and Widtsoe that identified the Father with the temple god Elohim and the Son with the temple god Jehovah as well as with the Old Testament god. http://www.schoolofabraham.com/fatherandson.htm. So if such clarifications of the church's "official doctrine" detracts from the intent and purpose of the gospel, Joseph F. Smith's administration was guilty of such detraction.
Nofear Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Minor correction. Things are not true or false, sentences and propositions and descriptions are. Well, I admit that everything I say is false, including this sentence. Edited January 31, 2012 by Nofear
Mark Beesley Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 To me, the controversy over what is "official doctrine" misses the point of, and may detract from, the intent and purpose of the gospel--which is to bring us to Christ and enable us to becoming like him through growth in faith in living revealed precepts and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As long as we know where we are headed and how best to get there, that should suffice, and it really doesn't matter whether we determine what is or isn't "official doctrine." Otherwise, don't you think that God would have instructed his living prophets to formulate and clearly establish his "official doctrine"?I suspect that God may not wish to be confined to a fixed or rigid, systematic or "official" box. Doing so may increase the risk of men, to one extent or another, creating God in their image rather than the other way around, and may inadvertently discourage the critical gospel element of personal revelation.Besides, the church seems to have survived and thrived for more than a century and a half quite well without officially setting forth what is "official doctrine." So, I am not sure why there is the frustration and upheavel over this issue. Maybe we humans are naturally drawn toward the drama.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Exactly.
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Well, I admit that everything I say is false, including this sentence. You liar!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
wenglund Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 That doesn't explain why, in a couple of instances, the presiding quorums of the church did try to formulate and clearly establish what was "official doctrine." For example, in 1916, the church issued a statement formally rejecting Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine and siding with recent the theological developments by Talmage, Roberts, and Widtsoe that identified the Father with the temple god Elohim and the Son with the temple god Jehovah as well as with the Old Testament god. http://www.schoolofa...atherandson.htm. So if such clarifications of the church's "official doctrine" detracts from the intent and purpose of the gospel, Joseph F. Smith's administration was guilty of such detraction.You found one of the rare exceptions that proves the rule. I am sure you can strain to find others. Such is the inclination of a fundamentalist mind. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Which is why saying "this church is true" does not mean what it literally says. People would never say "the American Medical Association is true," or "my dog is true." You could interpret it to mean that everything written by the LDS Church or spoken at an LDS pulpit is "true," but I think few Mormons actually believe that in a literal sense.Unless of course they are making sure the chapel walls are "true" with a plumb-bob.But no, I don't think anyone thinks it means it literally. But I think that goes without saying.
Libs Posted February 4, 2012 Author Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) To me, the controversy over what is "official doctrine" misses the point of, and may detract from, the intent and purpose of the gospel--which is to bring us to Christ and enable us to becoming like him through growth in faith in living revealed precepts and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As long as we know where we are headed and how best to get there, that should suffice, and it really doesn't matter whether we determine what is or isn't "official doctrine." Otherwise, don't you think that God would have instructed his living prophets to formulate and clearly establish his "official doctrine"?I suspect that God may not wish to be confined to a fixed or rigid, systematic or "official" box. Doing so may increase the risk of men, to one extent or another, creating God in their image rather than the other way around, and may inadvertently discourage the critical gospel element of personal revelation.Besides, the church seems to have survived and thrived for more than a century and a half quite well without officially setting forth what is "official doctrine." So, I am not sure why there is the frustration and upheavel over this issue. Maybe we humans are naturally drawn toward the drama.Thanks, -Wade Englund-I understand what you're saying, Wade, and I wouldn't even personally disagree, because I think God is much bigger and much more than we can even imagine. But, part of the purpose of "nailing it down", comes from critics, who love to use whatever stray quote they can find, from past or even present leadership, and try to apply it as "official doctrine", when it may not truly be. When you try to point that out, to some of them, then the accusations of trying to "nail jello to a wall" begin. So, I think there is some advantage to having some decent parameters, like pointing to the Standard Works, especially when discussing with non-LDS (and most especially the critics). Edited February 5, 2012 by Libs
Ares Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Never heard of so much nonsense put together in one paragraph in all my life.That is not an appropriate response. Play nice.
BCSpace Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Polygamy is still allowed in Mormonism, just not in this life. So that is a clarification of existing revelation.The giving of the Priesthood to all worthy male members was the fulfillment of existing revelation.That is correct. Both plural marriage and the priesthood ban remain the doctrine of the Church. They're just not that important in our current context. Notice how the Church is careful not to apologize for or state the prophets of the time were somehow mistaken about these two doctrine. Edited February 5, 2012 by BCSpace
BCSpace Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 The church was a lot more exciting back in the day when you could talk about their being "a living prophet of God on the earth" and then go hear them talk and give you revelations that they said they recevied from God. You'd hear them say, "Thus saith the Lord..." or "The Lord has revealed to me that..."And it still wasn't official doctrine until all 15 agreed because of D&C 107. Even WW still had to get approval for the Manifesto. Now, the signification of such agreement is publication.
BCSpace Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Not quite. A question like this about the cirriculum was asked in one of our council meetings in preparation for a conference. Your notion actually restricts official doctrine to the changing yearly cirriculum materials used by the Church. We were disabused of this notion. The way to read it is that the doctrine is consistently published in whatever publication, not that a publication has to be consistently printed. Just because a doctrine is no longer being "emphasized" doesn't mean it's no longer doctrine. For example, plural marriage and the priesthood ban remain doctrines of the Church. That is why you haven't seen them repudiated or apologized for etc. The Church believes those prophets and apostles were acting under the inspiration/ revelation of God.What council is "our council", preparing for what "conference"? Your stake?Yes.The problem is that "the way to read it" is ambiguous and has not be clarified, to my knowledge, by anyone in authority for the church. Am I wrong?Yes. Approaching Mormon Doctrine isn't the only word on the subject. It's just a summary. For example, in Teaching, No Greater Call, one uses the official publications to keep the doctrine pure. That can't be done if the official publications contain unidentified doctrine.
BCSpace Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Not quite. A question like this about the cirriculum was asked in one of our council meetings in preparation for a conference. Your notion actually restricts official doctrine to the changing yearly cirriculum materials used by the Church. We were disabused of this notion. The way to read it is that the doctrine is consistently published in whatever publication, not that a publication has to be consistently printed. Just because a doctrine is no longer being "emphasized" doesn't mean it's no longer doctrine. For example, plural marriage and the priesthood ban remain doctrines of the Church. That is why you haven't seen them repudiated or apologized for etc. The Church believes those prophets and apostles were acting under the inspiration/ revelation of God.What council is "our council", preparing for what "conference"? Your stake?Yes.The problem is that "the way to read it" is ambiguous and has not be clarified, to my knowledge, by anyone in authority for the church. Am I wrong?Yes. Approaching Mormon Doctrine isn't the only word on the subject. It's just a summary. For example, in Teaching, No Greater Call, one uses the official publications to keep the doctrine pure. That can't be done if the official publications contain unidentified doctrine.
BCSpace Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 The upshot being that identification of official doctrine is easy. All one has to do is ask published or not?But here's the problem I think you are missing: why should we believe YOU?Not asking you to. I'm simply asking you to take the Church at it's own word.I mean I like you and all, and you are often totally right, but come on dude- the only evidence you have that you are right is your interpretation of an ambiguous press release- the author of which is unknown.Pardon me but this is the most ridiculous notion I have ever heard on this subject and the one most often repeated by "critics" of the Church. This is the Church's OWN web site and it's an article about a very serious subject. Do you honestly believe the Church would let something like this remain on it's site, especially with the word "Official" in the banner above it if it were erroneous?So what if a GA or some lowly functionary wrote it? Ever heard of delegation? The fact of the matter is that it's approved for official publication and the Church is not going to allow something it doesn't agree with to be published or to remain published for very long. It's just common sense. You, or your Bishop or Stake Pres., have the same access to information I do. Take it up the line and see what happens.
KevinG Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Even once we nail down that doctrine is Doctrine we then have the issue of whose understanding of doctrine is doctrinal.The Iron Rod is the word of God (Scriptures, personal revealtion, teachings of the living Prophets and other authorized servants when moved upon by the Holy Ghost). Debating the finer points of the Journal of Discourses never brought me so close to understanding God as a few minutes on my knees listening to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
Xander Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 If the Church teaches X, then X is Church doctrine. That by definition, is what doctrine is. Period.This notion of "official" doctrine is something that didn't exist prior to the 80's. Apologists gradually latched onto it as a means to distance the Church from many of its past embarrassing teachings, comments, etc. Instead of explaining how God would allow his one true Church to engage in false or ridiculous teachings, they just say it isn't "official, chalk it up as "opinion," and then drop the subject as if that resolves the matter.Anyone with access to an LDS database go ahead and search the phrase "official doctrine" in all LDS literature published from the early 19th century to the present, and tell me what you find.
Recommended Posts