Lds Prophets - Official Doctrine Vs. Personal Opinions

[wes]

There's a difference between what a person says and what a person teaches.

There is also a difference between what a person teaches as his/her opinion and what a person teaches as the truth.

And, yet again, there is also a differences between what a person teaches as the truth and what a person teaches which is actually true... according to God and all other people who really know the truth.

Realizing those differences is often difficult for some people, but that is all it comes down to when trying to get at which is true and what is not true and what is only a person's opinion regarding what he or she believes to be true which may or may not be true according to God.

In our Church, the people who speak for God, officially, are the officials of the Church, and anything those officials teach is official doctrine.... whether or not anyone else agrees with that idea, and whether or not anyone else agrees with what they are teaching.

What officials teach is aka official doctrine, and what officials of a (any) Church teach is aka official doctrine of that Church... whether or not anyone else agrees, or believes it.

Period. The end.

Thank you for playing with us.

So how does it work when a Mormon Prophet claims that every sermon he has preached is equal to scripture while at the same time, the official Mormon position is that those sermons are not doctrine?

[ttribe]

So how does it work when a Mormon Prophet claims that every sermon he has preached is equal to scripture while at the same time, the official Mormon position is that those sermons are not doctrine?

Here comes another BY quote....

[LeSellers]

So how does it work when a Mormon Prophet claims that every sermon he has preached is equal to scripture while at the same time, the official Mormon position is that those sermons are not doctrine?

CFR that any LDS Prophet has ever said this.

The straw man factor is rising with every post.

Lehi

[LDSMusic483]

Yes, I know that is the answer. The thing is, God seems to be mighty fickle and gives every Mormon a different revelation. As though, every Mormon has a different god.

I think the difference is it is what God gives in the form of revelation as opposed to what the individual THINKS God gives them through revelation. Not everything that an individual thinks is revelation is. Unfortunately, unless it contradicts established doctrine, we aren't in the place of correcting them either as it is between them and God.

And if anyone ever tells you that become a god is not our doctrine, have them go read D&C 132 and ask them if they believe it or not.

[LeSellers]

Here comes another BY quote....

Better: Here comes another BY misquote ...

Lehi

[saemo]

I think the difference is it is what God gives in the form of revelation as opposed to what the individual THINKS God gives them through revelation. Not everything that an individual thinks is revelation is. Unfortunately, unless it contradicts established doctrine, we aren't in the place of correcting them either as it is between them and God.

And if anyone ever tells you that become a god is not our doctrine, have them go read D&C 132 and ask them if they believe it or not.

How about, God was once a man? I get the same thing with that one.

Is doctrine.

Is not doctrine.

Believe what you like.

[ttribe]

Better: Here comes another BY misquote ...

Lehi

Good point.

[wes]

No Wes you have not discovered it was fraudulent, you have discovered that you can't accept it. Now if you have some incontrovertable proof that it is fraudulent please present it otherwise appologize for your fraudulent and offensive remarks.

I have plenty of proof and so do the others like me who have also left. The issue is that Mormons do not accept it as proof and come up with a wide variety of explanations to dismiss the evidence we have. That's the whole point of most of the discussions on this board. One man's proof is another man's dismissal. Just like one man's BOM is another man's made up story.

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

What?

[saemo]

saemo:

What?

What, what?

[wes]

CFR that any LDS Prophet has ever said this.

The straw man factor is rising with every post.

Lehi

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 13, Page 95)

[ttribe]

I have plenty of proof and so do the others like me who have also left. The issue is that Mormons do not accept it as proof and come up with a wide variety of explanations to dismiss the evidence we have. That's the whole point of most of the discussions on this board. One man's proof is another man's dismissal. Just like one man's BOM is another man's made up story.

Hmmmm...what qualifies as "proof"? Now, before you list off all your "proof", bear in mind that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what the characteristics are that determine whether something is "proof" or not.

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

That every LDS has a differing God.

[ttribe]

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 13, Page 95)

And there it is!

[wes]

Hmmmm...what qualifies as "proof"? Now, before you list off all your "proof", bear in mind that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what the characteristics are that determine whether something is "proof" or not.

I use the same criteria as our court system...by a preponderance of the evidence and what would consitute reasonable doubt.

[LeSellers]

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 13, Page 95)

Yup, just as we predicted: a misquote from Brother Brigham.

That is not what he said. Wanna try to give us your "quote" in its context?

Text without context is pretext.

Lehi

[ttribe]

I use the same criteria as our court system...by a preponderance of the evidence and what would consitute reasonable doubt.

Since that's not the criterion used by the "court system" I believe you have a problem.

[saemo]

saemo:

That every LDS has a differing God.

God says to John that him becoming a god is doctrinal.

God says to Juan that him becoming a god is not doctrinal.

God says to Sione that it's ok, he can believe either way.

Either, this is one God that doesn't know what is going on. Or, it is three different gods...one for each person.

[zerinus]

Anyway, in the LDS church, every person can believe whatever they like (to a point), and still be in good standing with the LDS church. My own observations (for whatever that is worth) is that there are core doctrines, such as Jesus lived, died and was resurrected on the third day. All are in agreement with this.

In every religion there are areas of doctrine about which sufficient information has not been revealed, which therefore are open to discussion or speculation. The Catholic Church is no different. Does the Catechism tell you how many angels can dance on a pinhead? I doubt it. If it does, then it shouldn't! LDS is no differnet. Some things have been revealed, and some things haven't been revealed. What is clearly revealed is in the standard works, and that is what defines LDS doctrine.

But doctrine is not clearly defined for the stranger doctrines.

Do men become gods? Some believe this is absolutely doctrine, and it was clearly taught as doctrine by Brigham Young and others. Yet, today, many LDS deny this is doctrine.

Men become gods. That is taught in the standard works. It is true LDS doctrine. Anybody who tells you they don't is uninformed about LDS doctrine.

Is polygamy a doctrine?

That depends on what you mean by "doctrine". If you mean it is currently practised, the answer is no. If you mean that it is a theologically acceptable principle, the answer is yes.

There is no one source that I could go to, such as a catechism, and read: THIS IS THE DOCTRINE OF THIS SUBJECT.

What do you do if an issue arises that is unforseen in the Catechism? How do you decide what is doctrine then?

zerinus

[saemo]

In every religion there are areas of doctrine about which sufficient information has not been revealed, which therefore are open to discussion or speculation. The Catholic Church is no different. Does the Catechism tell you how many angels can dance on a pinhead? I doubt it. If it does, then it shouldn't! LDS is no differnet. Some things have been revealed, and some things haven't been revealed. What is clearly revealed is in the standard works, and that is what defines LDS doctrine.

Men become gods. That is taught in the standard works. It is true LDS doctrine. Anybody who tells you they don't is uninformed about LDS doctrine.

That depends on what you mean by "doctrine". If you mean it is currently practised, the answer is no. If you mean that it is a theologically acceptable principle, the answer is yes.

What do you do if an issue arises that is unforseen in the Catechism? How do you decide what is doctrine then?

zerinus

go to vatican.va and research

but, I have to add, I have never had this happen. I have questions, certainly, but I can always find the doctrinal answer. If if the doctrinal answer is, we don't know (a Mystery), we don't know is the doctrine.

[Bat-Man]

So how does it work when a Mormon Prophet claims that every sermon he has preached is equal to scripture while at the same time, the official Mormon position is that those sermons are not doctrine?

CFR, please. What on this Earth are you talking about?

I hereby and forthwith dare you, even double dare you, to give us all an example of an instance where a Mormon Prophet (I presume you mean a President of the Church) has claimed that every sermon he has preached is equal to scripture, and then, if and when you can cite an example of that, show us where someone stated that what that President of the Church taught said that what that President of the Church taught was not official doctrine taught by officials of the Church, and then, if and when you can cite an example of that, show us that we (LDS, collectively) do not consider what that President of the Church taught to be official doctrine simply because someone said that what that President of the Church taught was not official doctrine taught by an official of our Church.

Come on. I dare you.

[zerinus]

But in Mormonism, individuals may have ambiguities about some doctrines because the LDS Church itself is ambiguous about them.

LDS Church is not ambiguous about its core doctrines. We are clear about what has been revealed. That is in the standard works. We are not required to be unambiguous about what has not been revealed.

zerinus

[wes]

CFR, please. What on this Earth are you talking about?

I hereby and forthwith dare you, even double dare you, to give us all an example of an instance where a Mormon Prophet (I presume you mean a President of the Church) has claimed that every sermon he has preached is equal to scripture while at the same time, and then, if and when you can cite an example of that, show us where someone stated that what that President of the Church taught said that what that President of the Church taught was not official doctrine taught by officials of the Church, and then, if and when you can cite an example of that, show us that we (LDS, collectively) do not consider what that President of the Church taught to be official doctrine simply because someone said that what that President of the Church taught was not official doctrine taught by an official of our Church.

Come on. I dare you.

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 13, Page 95)

[Bat-Man]

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 13, Page 95)

That is true on so many levels that I'm amazed that not everyone will believe it.

... and while there are some of the children of men who may not call every sermon that Brigham Young preached Scripture it is Scripture, nevertheless... whatever they may choose to call it.

[zerinus]

There you go. There is no such thing as opinion=doctrine or doctrine=opinion in Catholicism, or any other church that I am aware of.

Nonsense! As I said before, in every church there are areas of doctrine about which information has not been revealed. That is equally true of the Catholic Church. Where information has not been revealed, discussion and speculation becomes possible.

zerinus