Official Lds Doctrine Is:

[wenglund]

If you replace the words "rather than" in your post to "in addition to", I believe you will then be in more agreement with official Church doctrine regarding living the gospel.

I suppose that were I to be ****-retentive I may see a need to make that unnecessary change in what I said. But, thankfully I am not.

You don't have to give up anything that is good in your life, Wade.

You can just keep adding more and more good things to your life, forever.

Is that a paraphrase from "The Giving Tree"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

By adding the words I highlighted in bold to your statement I believe I am now more in agreement with you.

Oh, good! I was concerned that I may not have been able to get to sleep tonight worrying frantically that we have differing points of view (which might make me an "anti-Mormon" in someone's eye). Whew...am I glad that has been resolved.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[blueadept]

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that there is something wrong with participating in online discussions. In fact, I believe online discussions may rightly be viewed in a way as feeding the spiritually hungry with a feast of wisdom and enlightenment, administering to the spiritually sick with healing words of comfort and health, and clothing the spiritually naked with breastplates and shields and swords of truth and righteousness.

It is just that feasts here are less likely to materialize if all the cooks in the kitchen are busy quibbling over what is the "Official Cook Book", rather than busying themselves putting together some tasty gospel morsels. Healing is less likely to happen if all the doctors in the examination room are quibbling over what is the "Official Medical Manual", rather than busying themselves running tests and writing out proven perscriptions. Clothing the naked is less likely to happen if the tailors are quibbling over what is the "Official Fashion Guide", rather than busying themselves putting sizzors and thread to cloth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Interesting analysis and good for you in being an optimist. It's one of your endearing writing qualities in your discussions with critics.

I prefer doing these things by going and doing my assignments at the hospital, one of the senior health care centers or visiting our shut-ins. It's much more rewarding than being here even though I do understand my TBM wife's faith much better each day I do come here.

I guess we have our own particular reasons for being here

Peace

[Bat-Man]

Oh, good! I was concerned that I may not have been able to get to sleep tonight worrying frantically that we have differing points of view (which might make me an "anti-Mormon" in someone's eye). Whew...am I glad that has been resolved.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I like it when I find myself in agreement with other people and God too, Wade.

... and the more I am in agreement with other people and God, the better, IMHO.

[wenglund]

Interesting analysis and good for you in being an optimist. It's one of your endearing writing qualities in your discussions with critics.

I prefer doing these things by going and doing my assignments at the hospital, one of the senior health care centers or visiting our shut-ins. It's much more rewarding than being here even though I do understand my TBM wife's faith much better each day I do come here.

I guess we have our own particular reasons for being here

Peace

Even though we may be of different religious faiths, I have been enriched by your participation here (feed, healed, and clothed), just as I am sure the seniors at the health care center are blessed by your visits. I am glad you have chosen to cast your bread upon many waters.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jadams_4242]

There has been a lot of talk recently in several threads, about what is and isn't LDS Doctrine. So what is it? Has the Church released an official statement I haven't seen recently? I'm sure most of our enemies would love to know as they seem to be totally at a lost dragging things up from random discourses and books written by GA's. So what exactly is LDS Doctrine?

Your thoughts,

Liberal Mormon Chef

Our doctrine is whatever is good, virtuous ,righteouss,spiritualy confirmed,chaste,charitable,eternal,upstanding,honest,family oriented, and forthright.

[BCSpace]

There has been a lot of talk recently in several threads, about what is and isn't LDS Doctrine. So what is it?

Your third option is the closest. The number one option, the standard works, simply contains doctrine. They are scripture to be interpreted and those interpretations, published by the Church, are what constitutes doctrine.

Has the Church released an official statement I haven't seen recently?

The link in my siggy is the most recent one I know. The same has been taught in the Church for at least three decades and the principle is at least as old as D&C 107.

I'm sure most of our enemies would love to know as they seem to be totally at a lost dragging things up from random discourses and books written by GA's.

Neither our enemies nor even some of our own apologists can afford to have the Church declare what is and is not doctrine so expressly as it has done. Such negates many of their hypothesis and agendas. Therefore, it is common to see them deny what the Church published in the article "Approaching Mormon Doctrine".

So what exactly is LDS Doctrine?

Anything published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of latest date (which allows for continuing revelation)

[Bat-Man]

Neither our enemies nor even some of our own apologists can afford to have the Church declare what is and is not doctrine so expressly as it has done. Such negates many of their hypothesis and agendas. Therefore, it is common to see them deny what the Church published in the article "Approaching Mormon Doctrine".

Good to have you back, BCSpace. It's easier to like people who are in agreement with me.

I also think it would be helpful to point out that not every interpretation of "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" is or is going to be in harmony with official (LDS) Church doctrine, especially in regard to what is meant by a "statement" which is made by an official representative of our (LDS) Church.

In an ideal world it might not need to be said that not all statements are teachings (or doctrine), regardless of who is making the statement, but some people seem to find it difficult to realize that is true which is why I prefer to say that official Church teachings are teachings (or doctrine) taught by Church officials, rather than using the word "statement".

And I think this rule also applies to every other Church, or organization.

Not all statements are teachings, plain and simple.

[thesometimesaint]

Glad to see you back BC.

[cksalmon]

1. Doctrine can change.

2. Doctrine does not necessarily equal truth.

Hi Life--

(Your wife got a raw deal, btw. )

As I'm much more interested in the theology of Mormonism than, say, Mesoamerican archaeology, or NHM, or the Enoch literature, or what-have-you, you've succinctly summarized one of my main issues with Mormonism: what is doctrine is not necessarily true. I'm not picking at you here. This just is what I find so perplexing about the LDS worldview. I'll (re)propositionalize one possible scenario described by your statements above. See if you can see what boggles.

As background, see, from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, s.v. "Doctrine,"

[thesometimesaint]

cksalmon:

Christians are no longer practice animal sacrifice.

Christians are no longer practice circumcision.

Christian no longer have no religious objects to eating pork, shellfish.

Etc, Etc, Etc.

[cksalmon]

cksalmon:

(1) Christians no longer practice animal sacrifice.

(2) Christians no longer practice circumcision.

(3) Christians no longer have no religious objections to eating pork, shellfish.

Etc, Etc, Etc.

But "Christians," your term, have a concise and biblical reason for ending each of your examples: Christ fulfilled the law under which those rules were based.

"Doctrine" didn't change. It remains eternally the same. The law was fulfilled and some specific applications of doctrine were brought to completion.

(1) Christ was the ultimate, category-fulfilling sacrifice. Doctrine: Life is in the blood; sin requires the shedding of blood. The doctrine was and is true. It was not true then and false now. The doctrine hasn't changed. It remains eternally true.

(2) Many, in fact, do. They are not required to do so. Doctrine: Be visibly separated from the world. The doctrine was and is true. It was not true then and false now. The doctrine hasn't changed. It remains eternally true.

(3) All things are clean. The doctrine suggest to us to avoid that which is unclean. Christ fulfilled the specific Israelite ceremonial law pertaining to pork and shellfish. Not eating pork or shellfish was never "doctrine." Doctrine is based on eternal truth revealed by God. Not eating pork or shellfish was a time-bound, visible instantiation of God's people avoiding that which is unclean. Christ superseded that instantiation and declared all foods (and all people, which is really the point) clean. The doctrine, per se, remains eternally true.

See my citation from EoM above. I agree with it.

I think you're conflating the time-bound application of doctrine with doctrine itself.

If Life is making a similar category mistake, then so be it. But, the response you've given doesn't, to my mind at least, answer my concern with his response.

It's an interesting discussion.

cks

[charity's child]

Bible, BoM, D&C,PoGP, and Official Proclamations - i.e. Proclamation on the Family, and the apostolic witness of Christ (sorry, can't remember its official name)

[Lightbearer]

The link HiJolly gave was from the editorials section of the LDS website.

It has no more doctrinal bearing than a nice FPR sent in to the Ensign by a 14 year old Mia maid. For all we know, a 14 year old Mia maid sent this article into the editorial section and the editors thought it was cute and decided to post it.

Actually it has every bearing in the world since it is on the LDS official website and is written to members of the press or others who may be asking questions... it certainly carries more weight than that of a sarcastic apostate jerk.

[cksalmon]

Bible, BoM, D&C,PoGP, and Official Proclamations - i.e. Proclamation on the Family, and the apostolic witness of Christ (sorry, can't remember its official name) [THE LIVING CHRIST?]

But the Bible, BoM, D&C, and POGP, at least, are not doctrine. Their canonization is doctrinal, to be sure. But the books, in and of themselves, are not "doctrine."

"Doctrine" must be extracted from them, and that requires interpretation.

At most, one might say that the Bible, BoM, D&C, and POGP are the sources in which official LDS doctrine is found. But, that doesn't answer the question, "What is official LDS doctrine?" And that's a much more intricate pancake.

cks

[MatthewG]

As I thought, the results of the poll are utter disagreement.