Lds Prophets - Official Doctrine Vs. Personal Opinions

[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)

Once again without its context, both textual and historical.

Where's the entire quote? Have you ever read the entire quotation? Somehow I doubt it. You seem to be copying from someone else's "work".

BTW, it's on my clipboard right now, so don't try to waffle out of the question. What is the entire quotation if you have ever even seen it in its entirety?

Lehi

[zerinus]

Me and the numerous others who have left Mormonism after discovering it was fraudulent.

I think you have been deceived.

zerinus

[saemo]

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

Discussion and speculation are never doctrinal in Catholicism. And, it isn't done to the extent that Mormons do.

Where, there is such a thing in Mormonism as speculation becoming doctrine, taught to the members of the LDS church. And then later denied as ever being doctrinal at all.

[zerinus]

So says you, and I believe that this is what you believe. But I have had very devout Mormons tell me this is NOT doctrine. And, in a conversation I had with a Mormon who is a bishop, asking about this, he said that a devout Mormon did not have to believe this as doctrinal (but that he did believe it himself).

This is why I just finally came to the conclusion, don't assume what any one LDS person holds as doctrinal. Everyone seems to have their own individual church.

Quoting anecdotal evidence that cannot be verified is moot, and not acceptable in debate. Such a thing is unheard of in my personal experience; and I think I have much more experience of the Church than you do. I do not beleive what you say is true.

zerinus

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

"You seem to be copying from someone else's "work"."

The AntiMormons never do that.

[saemo]

Quoting anecdotal evidence that cannot be verified is moot, and not acceptable in debate. Such a thing is unheard of in my personal experience; and I think I have much more experience of the Church than you do. I do not beleive what you say is true.

zerinus

Like I care.

And no, I am not debating. If the answer to my questions is, stop asking the questions. I'm ok with that. As no, I have no interest in "fixing" mormonism.

And to have a discussion without including personal experience is rather disengenuous. And in religion, it is not even possible.

[zerinus]

A good question, which is the exception, joining the LDS church, or leaving it?

Thank you. That was a good reply. Far more people join the LDS Church than leave it; otherwise the Church would have a negative growth. As it happens, it the fastest growing one around.

zerinus

[saemo]

Thank you. That was a good reply. Far more people join the LDS Church than leave it; otherwise the Church would have a negative growth. As it happens, it the fastest growing one around.

zerinus

numbers please...how many people do mormon missionaries contact and how many actually join?

[selek]

Thank you. That was a good reply.

Far more people join the LDS Church than leave it; otherwise the Church would have a negative growth. As it happens, it the fastest growing one around.

zerinus

In the interests of fairness and accuracy, it is one of the fastest growing, but not the fastest.

numbers please...how many people do mormon missionaries contact and how many actually join?

Shifting the goalposts now, saemo?

That hardly seems fair....

[zerinus]

No, God does not have to give us a reason for everything HE does. However, I do not believe that HE was in any way involved with either decision.

So what that you don't? What do you expect me to do about it? I do.

zerinus

[saemo]

Shifting the goalposts now, saemo?That hardly seems fair....

No, I don't believe so. The statement was that people who do not accept mormonism are the exception. Are not mormon missionaries asking people to accept mormonism? And aren't there those who accept and those who decline? To know which is the exception, it would be necessary to know the numbers in this regard.

I know these numbers aren't available though. But I'd take a swag based on missionary stories that accepting mormonism is the exception.

[ttribe]

No, I don't believe so. The statement was that people who do not accept mormonism are the exception. Are not mormon missionaries asking people to accept mormonism? And aren't there those who accept and those who decline? To know which is the exception, it would be necessary to know the numbers in this regard.

I know these numbers aren't available though. But I'd take a swag based on missionary stories that accepting mormonism is the exception.

I interpreted his comment to mean people who LEAVE.

[LDSMusic483]

No, I don't believe so. The statement was that people who do not accept mormonism are the exception. Are not mormon missionaries asking people to accept mormonism? And aren't there those who accept and those who decline? To know which is the exception, it would be necessary to know the numbers in this regard.

I know these numbers aren't available though. But I'd take a swag based on missionary stories that accepting mormonism is the exception.

But that would be between accepting mormonism and rejecting it, rather than accepting mormonism and leaving it. Far more people reject it than do leave it. So in essence, it is shifting the goal posts because you asked what the exception was joining or leaving...not joining or rejecting/not entering.

[saemo]

I interpreted his comment to mean people who LEAVE.

That's not what he said though. He said "accepted".

[zerinus]

hi, I have yet to read that denying the Mormon priesthood to those of African heritage was ever doctrinal.

Of course it was. The Church has never denied that it was doctrine. The change was never intended nor portrayed as an act of denial.

Yet, the change in this regards is doctrinal (by the definition that it is in your D&C). I have no idea what that means, but I guess the question is, in regards to Mormon doctrine, did God really will it? so, what is the basis of belief (or unbelief)?

I do not understand your question. Of course we beleive that God willed it. He willed it in both cases: the original denial of the priesthood to them, as well as the later changing of the rule.

zerinus

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

We have about 300,000 converts per year. Tracking produces somewhat less than 1 in 10 converts. Member referrals is about 1 in 3. Any more questions?

[ttribe]

That's not what he said though. He said "accepted".

Check post 182 again.

[saemo]

Of course it was. The Church has never denied that it was doctrine. The change was never intended nor portrayed as an act of denial.

I do not understand your question. Of course we beleive that God willed it. He willed it in both cases: the original denial of the priesthood to them, as well as the later changing of the rule.

zerinus

I accept that this is what you believe.

[zerinus]

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.

Personal revelation does not determine LDS doctrine; the standard works do.

zerinus

[selek]

No, I don't believe so. The statement was that people who do not accept mormonism are the exception.

No- that was not it at all.

The original qualifier was people who had researched Mormonism and, having found it fraudulent, left it. By definition, this number constitutes people who accepted the Church and later repudiated that decision.

Knowing that those numbers are unsuitable to your task, you are now trying to toss in the numbers of those who never accepted it in the first place.

That is indeed a shifting of the goalposts.

Are not mormon missionaries asking people to accept mormonism?

I hope so- it'd be pretty silly for Mormon missionaries to ask people to accept Baptist doctrine!

And aren't there those who accept and those who decline? To know which is the exception, it would be necessary to know the numbers in this regard.

Not at all, because it has nothing to do with the original criterion: those who researched Mormonism and left it as a result of that research.

I know these numbers aren't available though. But I'd take a swag based on missionary stories that accepting mormonism is the exception.

I'd be inclined to agree- the number of those who accept Mormonism are far less than the number who are offered it- which would be readily said of any faith that isn't imposed by the sword. In any given year, the number of Catholic baptisms is far less than the number of those who are taught Catholic doctrine.

But that's not the original criterion offered, now is it?

[LeSellers]

Discussion and speculation are never doctrinal in Catholicism. And, it isn't done to the extent that Mormons do.

Yes, we do speculate about things we do not understand fully (or much at all). But all of the speculation does not create doctrine. It may cause some Saints to believe it is doctrine, but their beliefs do not doctrine define.

Where, there is such a thing in Mormonism as speculation becoming doctrine, taught to the members of the LDS church.

Unless it is officially announced as "doctrine", it is not doctrine.

And then later denied as ever being doctrinal at all.

Since was never doctrine, denying it is hardly improper.

If someone claims the moon is made of Swiss cheese, that does not change the nature of the moon. If someone learned this at his mother's knee, and believes it with all his heart to be the truth, the moon remains non-dairy. When someone denies the moon's lactal quality, his statement is not a modification of a previous truth, but simply a setting straight of the matter. Thus is it with the speculations you have erroneously labeled "doctrine". They are not, and have never been LDS doctrine.

Lehi

[zerinus]

proof please

Proof here:

http://zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/aposta...estoration.html

Since this is a question that frequently crops up in LDS discussion, I have written a Blog post to anser it. After you have read that, you can discuss it further with me if you have further questions.

zerinus

[LDSToronto]

numbers please...how many people do mormon missionaries contact and how many actually join?

Saemo, et al.

The question is awkward. You may want to consider the following a more thorough question that can draw examination:

'How many people are baptised into the church, excluding child-of-record baptims, each year? In contrast, how many people have their names removed from the records of the Church, each year?'

This does not tell much of a story, as the answer is disingenuous with respect to activity in the church. One would want to consider the number of inactive members that have their names on the records of the church but have fallen out of activity.

However, I'm not certain you can estimate such a number - the statistics behind inactivity are not published publicly.

But, what do you want to figure this out for? Many faiths have similar problems.

H.

[LDSMusic483]

Yes, we do speculate about things we do not understand fully (or much at all). But all of the speculation does not create doctrrine. It may cause some Saints to believe it is doctrine, but their beliefs do not doctrine define.

Unless it is officially announced as "doctrine", it is not doctrine.

Since was never doctrine, denying it is hardly improper.

If someone claims the moon is made of Swiss cheese, that does not change the nature of the moon. If someone learned this at his mother's knee, and believes it with all his heart to be the truth, the moon remains non-dairy. When someone denies the moon's lactal quality, his statement is not a modification of a previous truth, but simply a setting straight of the matter. Thus is it with the speculations you have erroneously labeled "doctrine". They are not, and have never been LDS doctrine.

Lehi

I had an excellent institute teacher who often mentioned that point. Someone might ask him a doctrinal question that had no answer set forth by the church. He would tell them, I know the answer to that, but I can't "teach" it to you because it isn't doctrine. Outside of the class I could give it to you as my opinion. So even though the Spirit had taught him a principle, he would never try to foist those teachings on others, and would emphasize the lack of doctrine on the matter.

[zerinus]

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?

The position of the Church remains unchanged. The standard works determine LDS doctrine.

zerinus