Jump to content

2 Ev Apologists Discussing What Constitutes "official" Lds Doctrine


cksalmon

Recommended Posts

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.

This is because you highlighted the wrong sentence in your vain attempt to see only what you wish. Notice the "counsel together establish doctrine". By your logic, they are still establishing canon, not doctrine. The doctrine is proclaimed in official publications AND the doctrine resides in the four standard works. That's two entirely different things.

Since you refer to the official LDS stance as a "model", I'll take that to mean you have never been a missionary, taken a Teacher Prep class, or read the CHI book2.

Link to comment

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.

I think the new priesthood/RS manual will answer several questions on the doctrinal stance of the KFD.

Link to comment

I think the new priesthood/RS manual will answer several questions on the doctrinal stance of the KFD.

It appears that the 2008 Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith quotes and affirms KFD. Does that make it doctrinal?

I'm legitimately wondering. (I know your answer BCSpace. :P )

CKS

post-3151-1196897353_thumb.jpg

post-3151-1196897374_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
This is because you highlighted the wrong sentence in your vain attempt to see only what you wish. Notice the "counsel together establish doctrine". By your logic, they are still establishing canon, not doctrine. The doctrine is proclaimed in official publications AND the doctrine resides in the four standard works. That's two entirely different things.

BC, if there is anything more annoying than being patronised, it is being patronised by someone who is quite idiotically wrong about a really sophomorically simple issue.

You plainly don't understand my logic, so refrain from trying to tell me what it is. Now, for the very first time in your entire posting career, listen:

1) I know about the First Presidency and the Twelve counselling together to establish doctrine. This is not how we get all of our doctrine, but it is how doctrinal questions are settled. Do you understand the difference, or not?

2) I also know about doctrine being proclaimed. How many such proclamations have been published? What is the total doctrinal content of these? Since you don't know, I'll tell you: it is a rather small fraction of the totality of our doctrine.

3) It is true that doctrine is published in official publications. No English-speaking reader supposes that I have said otherwise. However--and I would not need to explain this to anyone with a better than fourteen-year-old grasp of logic--the fact that some content C may appear in some publication P does not entail that P only ever contains C. For example, classified advertisements are published in your local newspaper. Does that mean that everything in your local newspaper is a classified ad? No.

Therefore, the fact that something appears in your local newspaper is insufficient to prove that that item is a classified ad.

Please do not read any farther until you have grasped this elementary point.

Now that you have grasped this elementary point, the conclusion is obvious: official doctrine is indeed published by the Church, but the fact that something is published by the Church does not make it official doctrine.

Since you refer to the official LDS stance as a "model", I'll take that to mean you have never been a missionary, taken a Teacher Prep class, or read the CHI book2.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Now go away and get a clue.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
BC, if there is anything more annoying than being patronised, it is being patronised by someone who is quite idiotically wrong about a really sophomorically simple issue.

I agree completely.

Now that you have grasped this elementary point, the conclusion is obvious: official doctrine is indeed published by the Church, but the fact that something is published by the Church does not make it official doctrine.

Indeed. And once again you are faced with the question of does the Church publish anything that is not doctrinal?

There are a few cases in which items are not presented as doctrine in official works but rather for historical, comparative, or reasons. However, lacking statements to that effect, official publication is THE defining aspect of what is and is not doctrine. It is NOT declaration from the pulpit and a sustaining of the membership.

Hence, as I have said (and nothing you have said so far disagrees), if it is not published in an official work of the Church it is NOT doctrine.

Virtually all the issues under major discussion such as God was once a mortal man, MIH, Lucifer is Jesus' brother, etc. are the official doctrine of the Church. You may disagree, but you have absolutely no official statements to back up that claim whereas I do.

Link to comment
Didn't someone already provide a link to the Church's position on doctrine?
I guess you don't know either.

Anyone?

I did. Here it is again....Approaching Mormon Doctrine

If you want to know if something is official LDS doctrine, you must find it (either the quote or the concept will do) in a work published by the Church, not the JoD, not Mormon Doctrine, not Doctrines of Salvation, not Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, etc.

Link to comment

Indeed. And once again you are faced with the question of does the Church publish anything that is not doctrinal?

I'm sure the Church publishes some things in which doctrine per se isn't in view, but I see where you're going here.

What puzzles me is that something can be published by the Church in a teaching manual, the contents of which are meant to be taught to learners in chapel, and yet those Church-sanctioned, Church-published teachings are viewed by some LDS as non-doctrinal.

I don't get the idea from the manual that the relevant sections of KFD are being presented as opinion.

CKS

Link to comment
I did. Here it is again....Approaching Mormon Doctrine

If you want to know if something is official LDS doctrine, you must find it (either the quote or the concept will do) in a work published by the Church, not the JoD, not Mormon Doctrine, not Doctrines of Salvation, not Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, etc.

And even once you do locate it in a Church publication, its doctrinal status may still be undetermined, if it is not also found in the Standard Works, or in joint statements of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

Because, try as you might as you search that web page, you will find no statement asserting or implying that everything found between the covers of a Church publication is necessarily doctrinal.

Nothing. Not a sausage.

If I say there is water in that well, some might be foolish enough to insist that there are no frogs in it, because I only mentioned the water.

"Oh well."

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
What puzzles me is that something can be published by the Church in a teaching manual, the contents of which are meant to be taught to learners in chapel, and yet those Church-sanctioned, Church-published teachings are viewed by some LDS as non-doctrinal.

You really only find this on boards like this lending credence, unfortunately, to the antiMormon notion (Dr Shades? Mr Scratch?) of a difference between 'Internet Mormons" and "Chapel Mormons".

The only reasons for this that I can think of for rejecting the Church's stance, as I mentioned to Rob and Paul are (imho)....

1. The Church's stance is not known.

2. An LDS apologist does not believe certain doctrines.

3. An LDS apologist has had trouble defending the doctrine so he retreats into the safety ambiguity.

I don't get the idea from the manual that the relevant sections of KFD are being presented as opinion.

Indeed they are presented as official doctrine, not opinion or conjecture in the manuals. Even in lesson one this year in the Primary manual it is stressed, and I do mean stressed, that God the Father is the physical father of Jesus and Mary is his physical mother.

Link to comment

Isn't it fascinating the "dichotomy" anti-mormons create by themselves accepting a "laze fair" version of Christianity, that vast "variations" of belief and imperfection is OKAY, yet, they still claim to hold the absolute truth of all things related to God? Then they wish to hold LDS to a different standard, that ALL THINGS must be perfect and absolute, that there can never be an opinion by an LDS leader or something written somewhere that is not doctrine, simply because we claim true servants and the true church.

Not only that, but most of such things are from people who were predominately from "other" religions prior to being LDS, thus further not giving consideration or leeway in what would be normal "Church development".

Link to comment
You really only find this on boards like this lending credence, unfortunately, to the antiMormon notion (Dr Shades? Mr Scratch?) of a difference between 'Internet Mormons" and "Chapel Mormons".

Dr. Shades invented that false dichotomy, which no-one with any credibility upholds.

The only reasons for this that I can think of for rejecting the Church's stance, as I mentioned to Rob and Paul are (imho)....

1. The Church's stance is not known.

2. An LDS apologist does not believe certain doctrines.

3. An LDS apologist has had trouble defending the doctrine so he retreats into the safety ambiguity.

Indeed they are presented as official doctrine, not opinion or conjecture in the manuals. Even in lesson one this year in the Primary manual it is stressed, and I do mean stressed, that God the Father is the physical father of Jesus and Mary is his physical mother.

CFR. Which Primary manual is that, please? There is, of course, more than one.

And primary children are not exactly the group most likely to associate fatherhood with sex, are they?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
Even in lesson one this year in the Primary manual it is stressed, and I do mean stressed, that God the Father is the physical father of Jesus and Mary is his physical mother.

This is the defining difference between LDS theology and orthodox Christian theology: We LDSs believe in the literal Sonship of Jesus and the literal Fatherhood of God.

We, in the XXI, have a more refined understanding of what it means to be a father, but in its fundamentals it is not too far removed from that of our XIX or I spiritual forebears: A man contributes half of his own DNA, a woman provides half of hers, and, under heat and pressure, a child's body is created from the conjunction of the two halves.

The mission of Jesus Christ, i.e., to be the Savior of the World, is only possible if two, mutually exclusive conditions obtain:

• He is immortal.

• He is mortal.

Were He unable to die, there could have been no Sacrifice because, as several scriptures (found in both the Bible and the uniquely LDS canon) plainly tell us, the payment for our personal sins and for Adam's transgression required His death. No lesser price would answer.

However, were He subject to death, the Sacrifice would fail. As Amulek stated, it must needs be an infinite sacrifice. Had He been mortal, i.e., not immortal, He would have been no different from any other man, and His dying would have held no redemptive power or value.

As at least one of the Creeds puts it, He was both fully man and fully God, which is not quite the LDS understanding of His status, but close enough to use as a basis for initiating a discussion.

We LDSs accept that Jesus' DNA was 1/2 from His mother, Mary, but only half. Where we differ in this arena is where the other half came from. As the Primary manual stated, Jesus is the physical Son of Father, i.e., that other half came from His physical Father.

So, in order for Him to be immortal, He needed DNA from an immortal Parent. To be mortal, He required DNA from a mortal parent. Father provided the one, Mary, the other.

The processes we have in our day by which a woman can become pregnant include the only one Brigham Young, or Mary, for that matter, knew of, and many more. Artificial Insemination and In Vitro Fertilization are but two of them. We also believe that Father is far more intelligent than any, or even than all of us. It is inconceivable (pardon the double entendre) that He would not know how to physically father Jesus by Mary (while retaining her virginity) when we could do it today.

That fundamental difference between ours and orthodox theology is that we believe the Bible literally: Jesus is the Son of God. The orthodox say the words, but they do not accept them.

We could extend this discussion to analyze the difference between the two phrases "the Only Begotten (Son) (of the Father)" and "The Firstborn (Son) (of the Father)".

My experience with orthodox Christians is that they see no practical difference between them. We LDSs do.

The "Firstborn" implies the births of others following. We see this as pointing to our birth, and more specifically to that of Jesus, in the pre-mortal existence; else why bother with "First"?

The "Only Begotten" is quite a different proposition. Under it, there is no other, earlier or later. On this we agree with our orthodox brethren: Jesus is the only Person whose Father is God. But the ramifications of this include the fact that Father **did** "beget" Jesus. We LDSs know this to mean that half of Jesus' DNA is Father's, in exactly the same way that 1/2 of my DNA came from **my** father.

The questions to which I have never heard a satisfactory response in re: Jesus' relationship with His/our Father are

• Why did They choose the terms "Father" and "Son" to describe Their relationship?

• Is God such a poor linguist that He cannot convey the true relationship to us in either Hebrew or Greek (or English)?

• Why do They insist on portraying that relationship as patro-filial rather than co-presidential, regent/vice-regential or some other?

Earlier I hinted that in the pre-mortal existence, we, all of us on the Earth were born to Father. This is a logical extension of the "firstborn" status of Jesus there. It is also very different from orthodox dogma. (I am unsure there is a uniform orthodox doctrine on this point — it seems to be disputed among them as much as it is between us, but with more variety.)

We LDSs believe that we are all literally spiritual offspring of God, as Paul asserted. This doctrine of the universality of the Fatherhood of God allows us to put this mortal existence into a more consistent perspective than the common belief of orthodoxy: that we are mere creatures, albeit doubly so with a spirit and a body. Fathers love their children in ways that creators cannot love their creations.

Lehi

Link to comment
Well yes I could, but BC seems to be quite dogmatically insistent that he is right, and doesn't even seem to realise that there are any alternative views on the subject.

I do realize there are alternative views on the subject. The question is, which one is right and which matches what the Church says about it's own doctrine.

Which gets rather boring.

:)

Well, this could be added to my list as number 4. Absolute truth does tend to end all dispute. Time to stop teasing those EV's and just send them to **** with the truth. :crazy::crazy:;):P

Consider it the equivalent of the artillery mule's 2x4: I'm not trying to hurt him, just get his attention.

Why should I be ashamed of the truth?

One way to get to the truth quickly and efficiently is to argue opinion as if it were the truth and see how it stands up.

You really only find this on boards like this lending credence, unfortunately, to the antiMormon notion (Dr Shades? Mr Scratch?) of a difference between 'Internet Mormons" and "Chapel Mormons".
Dr. Shades invented that false dichotomy,

I agree completely.

which no-one with any credibility upholds.

Unless they inadvertently contribute to it. I'm cutting you some slack here.....

Even in lesson one this year in the Primary manual it is stressed, and I do mean stressed, that God the Father is the physical father of Jesus and Mary is his physical mother.
CFR. Which Primary manual is that, please? There is, of course, more than one.

I see your CFR and raise you this reference, the one in current use to teach the older boys and girls.....

Attention Activity

Display picture 7-5, Family with a Baby. Ask the children the following questions:

â?¢ How do you think these parents feel to have this new baby?

â?¢ Where did this babyâ??s spirit live before it was born?

â?¢ Who is its earthly mother? Who is its earthly father? Who is the Father of its spirit?

Explain that, just like this baby, each of us has an earthly father and mother and that Heavenly Father is also the Father of our spirits.

Display the picture Jesus the Christ.

â?¢ Who is Jesusâ?? mother? Who is Jesusâ?? Father?

Help the children understand that Jesus is different from us because Heavenly Father is the father of Jesusâ?? earthly body. Tell them that this lesson will teach them more about Jesusâ?? birth.

........

â?¢ Why is Jesus called the Only Begotten of the Father? (Jesus is the only person born in mortality whose physical father is Heavenly Father.) Explain that as Maryâ??s husband, Joseph was chosen to be the man who would help teach and raise Jesus.

â?¢ How does Jesusâ?? relationship with Heavenly Father differ from our relationship with Heavenly Father?

â?¢ Why was it important for Jesusâ?? mother to be mortal? Help the children understand that because Mary was mortal, Jesus was also mortal and could die for us. Also help the children understand that because Heavenly Father is the father of Jesusâ?? physical body, Jesus did not have to die (see John 5:26; 10:17â??18). He chose to suffer for our sins and overcome death (see Alma 22:14; D&C 19:16â??19).

Enrichment Activities

You may use one or more of the following activities any time during the lesson or as a review, summary, or challenge.

1. Ask the boys to imagine what it might have been like to be Joseph. Ask the girls to imagine what it might have been like to be Mary. Have them tell you what they might have thought when the angel came to visit them. Ask them what they might have felt when they were told they would be the earthly parents of the Savior.

2. Have each child look up one of the following scriptures, where Jesus is referred to as the Only Begotten Son: John 1:14; 3:16â??18; 1 John 4:9; Jacob 4:5, 11; Alma 5:48; 12:33â??34; Doctrine and Covenants 29:42, 46; 93:11; and Moses 1:6. (If you have more than nine children in the class, you can assign two children to a scripture.) When the children have finished this activity, they should understand that the title Only Begotten Son tells us that Jesus is the only person born on this earth who is the physical son of Heavenly Father.

3. Ask the children to tell you something that they know about Jesus that is important to them.

4. Review the first article of faith with the children.

5. Have the children sing or read â??He Sent His Sonâ? (Childrenâ??s Songbook, p. 34).

Conclusion

Testimony

Bear testimony of Jesus Christ, emphasizing that he is Heavenly Fatherâ??s Only Begotten Son, or the only person born on earth whose physical father was Heavenly Father. Testify that Jesus is our Savior. Encourage the children to study and pray to gain a testimony that Jesus Christ is our Savior.

Lesson 4: Jesus Christ Is the Son of Heavenly Father,â? Primary 7: New Testament, 12

Click on the link

I did say Lesson 1, but it is actually Lesson 4. Sorry.

And primary children are not exactly the group most likely to associate fatherhood with sex, are they?

Who said anything about sex? Of course the spectre is indeed raised in this lesson and I do recall questions on those lines. But I choose not to consider it a spectre, just a teaching opportunity.

Btw, have you ever seen the Primary lesson on the law of Chastity or rather, actually teach it and answer their questions? Have you ever had to teach the Priesthood lesson on Chasity to the combined High Priests and Elders? Fun fun fun......... :fool:

LeSellers (Lehi): Good post.

Link to comment
Why should I be ashamed of the truth?

No-one is suggesting that you should be ashamed of the truth. It is the arrogance by which you assume your unsupported opinion to be "the TRVTH" that you have every right to be ashamed of.

The notion that book covers confer canonical or authoritative status is not only absurdly superstitious and blatantly false, it is completely original with you. It is your very own false doctrine.

You are entitled to your opinion. Stop proclaiming it as if it were the Church's position. It is not. It never has been.

One way to get to the truth quickly and efficiently is to argue opinion as if it were the truth and see how it stands up.

That's also a way to get yourself seen as a pig-headed dogmatist.

Unless they inadvertently contribute to it. I'm cutting you some slack here.....

See BC, this is where your attempts to be cute fall flat. I have not contributed to the "Internet Mormons" canard, either inadvertently or otherwise. Cut me no slack. Just accept that you don't know as much as you imagine you do.

I see your CFR and raise you this reference, the one in current use to teach the older boys and girls.....

I did say Lesson 1, but it is actually Lesson 4. Sorry.

That's quite all right. And when we see the actual content of the lesson, we see that it is perfectly standard LDS doctrine, and which has never, at any time, ever, been disavowed or downplayed by any LDS apologist.

So your little throwaway line about how it was "stressed, that God the Father is the physical father of Jesus and Mary is his physical mother" didn't quite turn out to support any 19th century speculations about the method of his conception did it?

So now that we've settled that one....

Who said anything about sex? Of course the spectre is indeed raised in this lesson and I do recall questions on those lines. But I choose not to consider it a spectre, just a teaching opportunity.

An opportunity to teach what, precisely?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
Why should I be ashamed of the truth?
No-one is suggesting that you should be ashamed of the truth. It is the arrogance by which you assume your unsupported opinion to be "the TRVTH" that you have every right to be ashamed of.

Unsupported? How many references do you have to support your view? None. I have a recent official news release and at least three decades of teaching behind me.

The notion that book covers confer canonical or authoritative status is not only absurdly superstitious and blatantly false, it is completely original with you. It is your very own false doctrine.

It's not me calling an official LDS news release 'superstitous'......

One way to get to the truth quickly and efficiently is to argue opinion as if it were the truth and see how it stands up.
That's also a way to get yourself seen as a pig-headed dogmatist.

Rejecting the LDS position while claiming to be LDS reduces your credibility to zero.

Unless they inadvertently contribute to it. I'm cutting you some slack here.....
See BC, this is where your attempts to be cute fall flat. I have not contributed to the "Internet Mormons" canard, either inadvertently or otherwise. Cut me no slack. Just accept that you don't know as much as you imagine you do.

You argue from weakness and invective like this because your position has no support and actually contradicts LDS statements.

I see your CFR and raise you this reference, the one in current use to teach the older boys and girls.....

I did say Lesson 1, but it is actually Lesson 4. Sorry.

That's quite all right. And when we see the actual content of the lesson, we see that it is perfectly standard LDS doctrine, and which has never, at any time, ever, been disavowed or downplayed by any LDS apologist.

And we also see that either you disbelieved because you called for a CFR or you're being dishonest here by saying you believed it all along.

So your little throwaway line about how it was "stressed

I think most people, seeing the many highlighted portions in the lesson stating the importance of how the children are to understand that God the Father is the father of Jesus' physical body will agree that it is stressed.

, that God the Father is the physical father of Jesus and Mary is his physical mother" didn't quite turn out to support any 19th century speculations about the method of his conception did it?

So now that we've settled that one....

CFR on when I EVER said it did. You seem to think you've scored a point but you're just obfuscating with strawmen here.

Btw, this also shows the wisdom of the LDS position on doctrine. Much simpler when you don't have to contend with every shot from the hip 19th century opinion. Jesus has the Father's DNA, but nowhere in any doctrinal work is it stated that sexual relations are the way it happened (although such would not be contradictory if indeed that's how it happened).

Who said anything about sex? Of course the spectre is indeed raised in this lesson and I do recall questions on those lines. But I choose not to consider it a spectre, just a teaching opportunity.
An opportunity to teach what, precisely?

To stress the doctrine, as the lesson requires.

Here's the bottom line. Our honest critics (Paul I deem to be honest so far) need (or want) to know what the doctrine is. The Church has an actual position, yet certain LDS apologists don't know it or want to know it. God is not the author of confusion, the odd LDS apologist is such an author in this case.

Link to comment

The King Follet Discourse is one of the crowning aspects of the Restoration. If it were up to me, I'd add it to the Doctrine & Covenants. I don't think most people are ready for it, nor do they know how to understand it, even in the church.

Link to comment
The King Follet Discourse is one of the crowning aspects of the Restoration.

I seem to recall a couple of things that don't seem to jive with current LDS doctrine or at least is not mentioned in a doctrinal work, but I'd have to read it again to see what they are and if they really exist as such. Otherwise, I think it's very good.

Link to comment

I have a message from Paul Owen.....

Brian,

By the way, I went over and looked at the thread on MADB. It seems like a rumor has circulated that I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. Iâ??m an Anglican, and have no intention of converting to the East. Iâ??d go to Rome before Iâ??d do that. Please correct the record over there if you wouldnâ??t mind. Thanks!

Link to comment
Unsupported? How many references do you have to support your view? None. I have a recent official news release and at least three decades of teaching behind me.

No. You do not.

The news release does not say that everything published by the Church is official doctrine. There are no decades, years, months, days, hours, minutes or seconds of that nonsense behind you.

It's not me calling an official LDS news release 'superstitous'......

I am not calling the news release superstitious. I am calling your ridiculous misinterpretation thereof superstitious.

I served my mission in the 1970's. I heard all the silly Mormon folklore there is. I heard that if you go into the water, Satan can pull you under and drown you. I heard that "someone" had seen a contract between the Pope and Satan. I heard that the symbols on Satan's temple are spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs. I heard that President Kimball had weekly meetings with the Lord in the Salt Lake Temple. I even heard the notorious one about the missionary killing a cat by flicking its nose--naturally, it was the companion of a friend of my companion who did it. But of all the silly Mormon superstitions there are in existence, the single most addle-pated is the notion that absolutely everything published over the Church's name is official doctrine, and absolutely everything that is found between the covers of the quad is canonised scripture. This is not the Church's position. This has never been the Church's position. This is your position, and yours alone.

Rejecting the LDS position while claiming to be LDS reduces your credibility to zero.

Good thing I didn't do that, then.

See BC, this is where your attempts to be cute fall flat. I have not contributed to the "Internet Mormons" canard, either inadvertently or otherwise. Cut me no slack. Just accept that you don't know as much as you imagine you do.

You argue from weakness and invective like this because your position has no support and actually contradicts LDS statements.

This is your idea of "invective?" Show me one LDS statement that my position contradicts, please. Just one.

I have demonstrated that the press release on which you rely does not say that everything published by the Church is official doctrine. It says that official doctrine is published by the Church; the two things are not the same, a very simple fact that you seem to have the utmost difficulty grasping.

And we also see that either you disbelieved because you called for a CFR or you're being dishonest here by saying you believed it all along.

That's right, go ahead and call me a liar. You know you wanted to.

I issued my CFR for the same reason I usually do: to find out what was actually said. I wanted to know what you thought was being "stressed" that any LDS apologist anywhere did not believe or support. And the answer was--nothing. Not a single solitary sausage.

So what did you think you proved by bringing it up?

CFR on when I EVER said it did. You seem to think you've scored a point but you're just obfuscating with strawmen here.

Here is what you previously wrote, and the context in which you wrote it:

The only reasons for this that I can think of for rejecting the Church's stance, as I mentioned to Rob and Paul are (imho)....

1. The Church's stance is not known.

2. An LDS apologist does not believe certain doctrines.

3. An LDS apologist has had trouble defending the doctrine so he retreats into the safety ambiguity.

I don't get the idea from the manual that the relevant sections of KFD are being presented as opinion.

Indeed they are presented as official doctrine, not opinion or conjecture in the manuals. Even in lesson one this year in the Primary manual it is stressed, and I do mean stressed, that God the Father is the physical father of Jesus and Mary is his physical mother.

Unless you threw that last sentence in for no reason at all, the juxtaposition of ideas implies that some "LDS apologist" somewhere has denied or downplayed the doctrine "that God the Father is the physical father of Jesus and Mary is his physical mother." Now I know of no such denial by any "apologist," so I wondered if in fact you were trying to claim that the manual taught as doctrine that the conception of Jesus was accomplished by means of sexual relations.

And it did not.

But neither, as I said, has any "apologist" denied what the manual actually says. If you now wish to back away from this clear and obvious falsehood, I will let you; or if you want to tell me you intended something entirely different, I will listen. But do not pretend that your post is a "strawman" of my construction, please.

Btw, this also shows the wisdom of the LDS position on doctrine. Much simpler when you don't have to contend with every shot from the hip 19th century opinion. Jesus has the Father's DNA, but nowhere in any doctrinal work is it stated that sexual relations are the way it happened (although such would not be contradictory if indeed that's how it happened).

I think it would contradict the clear and official LDS doctrine that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.

Here's the bottom line. Our honest critics (Paul I deem to be honest so far) need (or want) to know what the doctrine is. The Church has an actual position, yet certain LDS apologists don't know it or want to know it. God is not the author of confusion, the odd LDS apologist is such an author in this case.

Really?

Who are these "certain LDS apologists" and what is the "actual position" that they "don't know it or want to know?"

Because, you see, I'd like to know.

Just for once, do try to respond without any false accusations or juvenile attempts at cuteness, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

The King Follet Discourse is one of the crowning aspects of the Restoration. If it were up to me, I'd add it to the Doctrine & Covenants. I don't think most people are ready for it, nor do they know how to understand it, even in the church.

We LDS accept it as "true", just not doctrine. It's the world that is not ready for it, not us.

Plus, all it states is that the "Father was once a man LIKE Christ".

While, not true to most other Christians, it at least isn't saying what their bearing false witness claims state, that is that the Father was "simply once a man".

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...