Jump to content

2 Ev Apologists Discussing What Constitutes "official" Lds Doctrine


cksalmon

Recommended Posts

See here.

Bowman is aware of the fallacy of strawman argumentation against LDS "doctrine," but disagrees with Owen's delimitations.

While Bowman suggests he is in ultimate agreement with Owen, I doubt that Owen would feel the same.

What is interesting is the give-and-take in the comments section. Owen comments on Bowman's blog post. Worth reading.

Both seem to agree that KFD is, in some sense, a relevant exposition of LDS doctrine. After that, the disagreements mount.

Guest appearance by Aaron Schaf.

Here's what they're saying about you, Mormons.

CKS

Link to comment

cksalmon:

The mistake is in giving any heed to what others believe what the LDS is actual Doctrine of the Church.

But, surely, the Church has doctrine. Even definable doctrine.

That's the issue with which Bowman and Owen are grappling.

Someone knows what it is. Whether inside the Church or outside it.

CKS

Link to comment

But, surely, the Church has doctrine. Even definable doctrine.

That's the issue with which Bowman and Owen are grappling.

Someone knows what it is. Whether inside the Church or outside it.

CKS

Didn't Joseph Smith make it clear what our official doctrine is when he said , "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 121) ?

Link to comment

Didn't Joseph Smith make it clear what our official doctrine is when he said , "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 121) ?

If Don Bradley were here he could give us a good treatment on the "Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism."

Link to comment

Didn't Joseph Smith make it clear what our official doctrine is when he said , "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 121) ?

I don't think Joseph Smith, Jr., would recognize this statement as any sort of delimitation of "official" LDS doctrine as revealed to him by God. Per a strict interpretation, such a reading renders PGP, BoM, and D&C superfluous.

And I don't think JS felt himself constrained by (as-yet-uncanonized) revealed scripture with regard to his prophetic pronouncements (some of which fall outside the purview of the official LDS canon).

Best.

CKS

Link to comment

See here.

Bowman is aware of the fallacy of strawman argumentation against LDS "doctrine," but disagrees with Owen's delimitations.

While Bowman suggests he is in ultimately agreement with Owen, I doubt that Owen would feel the same.

What is interesting is the give-and-take in the comments section. Owen comments on Bowman's blog post. Worth reading.

Both seem to agree that KFD is, in some sense, a relevant exposition of LDS doctrine. After that, the disagreements mount.

Guest appearance by The Schaf.

Here's what they're saying about you, Mormons.

CKS

I,m pretty sure i allready know whay they are saying, After all, arent you one of em thats saying it?

:P

Link to comment

I,m pretty sure i allready know whay they are saying, After all, arent you one of em thats saying it?

:P

Yeth. I would recommend not clicking on the link.

As an "anti-Mormon," I can say that I truly represent both parties involved. Those damn anti-Mormons are univocal in all things.

CKS

Link to comment

A few thoughts on this particular subject:

1. The use of the King Follett Discourse as the basis for the debate over what is/isn't official LDS doctrine is not representative of the sorts of quotes the critics often cite.

2. My problem is often not with the quotes as used by critics, but the way they use the quotes. More often than not, critics:

-- Engage in quote fraud.

-- Mis-interpret the statements of the LDS speaker

-- Inflate the 'official-ness' of the quote

-- Take the quote out of context

-- Fail to cite other contexting teachings (bad exegesis)

-- Reach beyond what is actually said

-- Substitute their own interpretation of quotes

4. Critics play fast and loose with the spectrum of official, traditional, personal statements in the history of the LDS Church. The critics conflate any statement into somehow being official doctrine.

3. I believe there is a great double standard in how critics approach the rigidity and totality of LDS teachings. If a critic wants to talk about 'official' doctrine to me as a Mormon...start by showing me that there is a similar base of 'official' doctrine that speask for all of traditional Christianity. I do not believe that such a concept even exists.

Regards,

Six

Link to comment

Didn't Joseph Smith make it clear what our official doctrine is when he said , "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 121) ?

Joseph also said... "Cling close to the bark of the tree, least reaching for the limbs ye fall"

Link to comment

I don't think Joseph Smith, Jr., would recognize this statement as any sort of delimitation of "official" LDS doctrine as revealed to him by God. Per a strict interpretation, such a reading renders PGP, BoM, and D&C superfluous.

And I don't think JS felt himself constrained by (as-yet-uncanonized) revealed scripture with regard to his prophetic pronouncements (some of which fall outside the purview of the official LDS canon).

Best.

CKS

It strikes me as interesting that you seem eager to discuss the doctrinal relevence of the KFD while dismissing this statement; as do our esteemed critics-

"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 121)

Yeth. I would recommend not clicking on the link.

As an "anti-Mormon," I can say that I truly represent both parties involved. Those damn anti-Mormons are univocal in all things.

CKS

Also, your argument would be a lot more fun if it involved silly illustrations.

Link to comment

I don't think Joseph Smith, Jr., would recognize this statement as any sort of delimitation of "official" LDS doctrine as revealed to him by God. Per a strict interpretation, such a reading renders PGP, BoM, and D&C superfluous.

And I don't think JS felt himself constrained by (as-yet-uncanonized) revealed scripture with regard to his prophetic pronouncements (some of which fall outside the purview of the official LDS canon).

Very funny. You have not only convinced yourself that you hold the mantle of magisterium in all things Mormon....you have now reached the the state of being that allows you to read JS's mind.

Link to comment

I thought Paul Owen left the EV realm and converted to Eastern Orthodox?

That was Carl Mosser. Here is a little of the love we have grown so used to hearing from the representatives of God on earth:

http://www.cbusedu.org/about_cbus/newslett...+2007+Issue.htm

November 2007 Issue

From the President

We Applaud Frank Beckwith

A Modern Parable

A wolf had lived among the sheep dressed in a sheepskin. Thus disguised, he had disarmed the na

Link to comment

That was Carl Mosser. Here is a little of the love we have grown so used to hearing from the representatives of God on earth:

http://www.cbusedu.org/about_cbus/newslett...+2007+Issue.htm

This is a little ironic considering the anti-Mormon sneering about LDS scholars. How many of theirs have they lost? How many are going to follow if they don't clean up their theology?

OUCH ! :P .

Link to comment
Owen also asserts, â??Sermons and Church education materials are expositions of doctrine, not sources of doctrine. Therefore they are not definitive of official Church teaching in the same way that canonized materials are normative and binding.â?

Word.

I have to wonder why Owen knowns more than a lot of members though, in this regard(?)

I do, however, think the KFD is essentially doctrinally sound when compared to canonized works (albeit, some of it requires going outside of the current LDS canon and into some apocryphal sources).

Link to comment

I have to wonder why Owen knowns more than a lot of members though, in this regard(?)

I don't know that he would claim that. What he can claim is that he has gotten the training and used appropriate sources and got to know Mormons instead of the people who like to talk about them. He has gone to great effort to rise above the CKS kind of "study"....and he and Mosser were quite outspoken about how the Evangelicals were losing the battle and not even knowing it because they refused to acknowledge LDS scholarship....let alone modern LDS thought and practice. I have not seen either of them for several years but my guess is that Mormonism made him take on deification and it won.

I have great respect for both of these men, they have both finished their degrees and apparently moved on. They were relentless proselyters in the sense they were trying to bring the improper elements of Mormonism to light. But they were also relentlessly honest, intellectually and personally. That is what made them different than the usual crop of poorly armed and sloppy EV warriors.

Link to comment

David Pyle and I talked with Paul Owen a number off years ago at David Pyles home for a couple of hours I remember that the conversation was Christlike from Paul Owens statements , I hope he feels the same about ours as well. Tanyan.

Link to comment
But, surely, the Church has doctrine. Even definable doctrine.

That's the issue with which Bowman and Owen are grappling.

Someone knows what it is. Whether inside the Church or outside it.

All one has to do is read the recent (May 2007) news release, Approaching Mormon Doctrine and one will know.

LDS doctrine really is as simple as being published by the Church and of latest date whenever there is a difference.

Link to comment

Both seem to agree that KFD is, in some sense, a relevant exposition of LDS doctrine. After that, the disagreements mount.

CKS

From the get go they are starting from a false hypothesis....

The KFD is no more "in some sense" Doctrine of the Church than christians believing some view Biblically related (but not spelled out or clear) that is held in common, as being somehow "doctrine" of christianity.

Link to comment
All one has to do is read the recent (May 2007) news release, Approaching Mormon Doctrine and one will know.

LDS doctrine really is as simple as being published by the Church and of latest date whenever there is a difference.

I'm sorry BC, but that's not what your referenced source says.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. 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 â??standard worksâ? of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

This statement is explicit. Furthermore, I find nothing anywhere in the article that gives any aid or comfort to your rather idiosyncratic "published by the Church" model.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...