By what autority?

[Honorentheos]

Underline mine. As I view it, its an intractable situation. As you bolded, the preservation of authority seems pinnacle. The only avenue, given your posited alternatives, is to promote that actions were within the authorized bounds. Any other alternative implies greater power or diminshing for any power.

While I agree that all action taken by priesthood leaders has to be believed as being within authorized bounds to the extent they can not act in a way that results in absolute loss of authority, I do not think it is required for a functional model.

By this, I think we have to contrast the idea that there is some absolute version of truth that, when tapped into, forms a pure ideal model of deriving authority. In this thread, we seem to be dancing around the idea that proof of this type of authority would be tied to our ability to assess how perfect are the truths being revealed. What we seem to be dealing with is a much more human condition where the only real measure we seem to be able to observe is how functional are the truths being revealed. The LDS view seems to suggest that one can not remove the human element from how we, as humans, interact with God so we will always be using the functional model. And as the social context that we live in changes, this functional model is adaptive in nature as well.

And this is generally a consistent issue with anthropologic studies. To the outsider, observations are taken from a certain objective, almost absolute position that is somewhat distant from the culture being observed. To you and I, there is an obvious problem with the functional model of mormon prophecy because it seems to say it is tapping into the perfect model but fails to demonstrate this in any real, substantial manner. It changes, it's flexible, it seems to be little more that a reflection on what best suits people at a certain and apparently brief moment in time - in short, its functional which means its adaptable.

But as outsiders, we can not participate in the functional model, but if we could we may understand why the fact it works is really all that matters.

Which is why when we are the insiders, we get a bit defensive regarding issues that ask questions from a "perfect model" position that from our view miss the point...but this is from the inside of the functional model perspective.

Twisted and confusing? Sorry I am a bit tired and probably not conveying this well.

Could you expand (bold mine) on that a bit more? Why is "the priesthood" the sanctum?

I was using priesthood as a synonym for authority. Maybe I was wrong to do so. But it brings up an interesting point that I should ask you so we are speaking the same language - when you say "authority" what do you mean? What gives it, what would be evidence of it, how is it held or can it be held?

[cinepro]

I suppose the only guide to what the normative belief is, is what the nominal belief is. By that I mean, what are the minimal beliefs you must maintain to be LDS. IOW, the base requirement = LDS doctrine. What are the basic guidelines that must be followed to be LDS? Is there anything that isn't really open to interpretation? I would start a thread on it, but I think the resultant answers would be to conflicting to establish a baseline.

I once would have agreed with you, but I actually never forgot this post by Daniel Peterson 4+ years ago, where he lists "universal" beliefs held by pretty much all LDS. I can't argue with anything he says:

There is considerable clarity on the most central issues, and the Church has not waffled a bit in affirming them. For instance:

There is a God.

God the Father has a body.

God the Father has a Son.

That Son is Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ atoned for our sins.

Salvation is only in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ rose, physically, from the dead.

The Godhead consists of three personages.

The Father is one of them.

The Son is one of them.

The Holy Ghost is one of them.

The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.

Like Jesus, we will rise from the dead, in bodily form.

There were Nephites.

The Book of Mormon is a literal history of real people.

The angel Moroni, a resurrected Nephite, directed Joseph Smith to the plates of the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.

The Aaronic priesthood was restored by John the Baptist.

The Melchizedek priesthood was restored by Peter, James, and John.

Those two priesthoods continue in the Church today, and only in the Church.

Priesthood is conferred by ordination by the laying on of hands.

The president of the Church holds the keys of the priesthood.

The president of the Church is a prophet, seer, and revelator.

Baptism, by an authorized holder of the Aaronic Priesthood, is necessary for the salvation of those eight and above.

Baptism is performed by immersion.

Baptism must be accompanied by a specific prayer.

After baptism, it is essential that an authorized holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood confer upon the new member the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The gift of the Holy Ghost is conferred by the laying on of hands.

A certain formula must be used in conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Marriages performed in one of the temples of the Church can last forever.

Prior to the resurrection, all the spirits of the dead reside in something called the "spirit world."

Prior to this earth life, the spirits of all who have lived, now live, or will live, existed antemortally.

All humans are the literal offspring of God.

In that antemortal existence, we chose to follow a plan of salvation laid out by the Father.

All humans have the capacity to become like their divine Father.

The Doctrine and Covenants contains the Word of God.

The Pearl of Great Price contains the Word of God.

The Bible contains the Word of God.

The account of the life of Jesus given in the New Testament, including his miracles, is substantially correct.

We may communicate with God via prayer and personal revelation.

Sexual relations outside of marriage are a violation of God's law.

Jesus will come again to the earth.

And so on and so forth.

There is a vast degree of unity across the Church and across Church history on these and many other points. (There is wide dissension in many other churches on these or analogous subjects.) Whether you you attend church services in Istanbul or Brisbane or Cairo or Laie or Provo or Z

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,, this thread is a very good one and is commanding a lot of response, and very intersting and thought provocking ideas on the subject matter. but i just simply canott deny myself to ask once again, how do l.d.s latter day restoration prophets differ from ancient biblical prophets in the underling basis of this threads initial queastion?

J, I think there are several differences between the OT prophets and LDS prophets. Moses strikes me as an archetype of what LDS view as prophets. However, many of the lessor prophets do not.

Let me give you just one example i;E...

{quote}

Even when moral or temporal conditions are not articulated, they may be implied by the speaker or inferred by the hearers. A notable case is the flat prediction by Micah (Micah 3:12) that Jerusalem will be destroyed. A century later, Jeremiah quotes the passage not to show that the prophecy was unfulfilled (Jerusalem had not been destroyed and was still standing), or much less to indict Micah as a false prophet, but rather to argue that as a result of the prophecy, the king (Hezekiah) and the people repented, and hence Yahweh (Jehovah) forgave them and spared the city (Jer. 26:16-19). It was the prophet's message that produced the result, and therefore both he and his message were vindicated as coming from God.

I suppose Jeremiah didn't have the patience to wait on Titus and his armies to destroy it in 70 A.D. Though I suppose you make a point. There are other parts of the OT which might make that point for you more effectively. You should PM Urroner about that. He has a box full of them.

Anyway this type of stuff happened many, many times in the bible, why doesnt anybody take these things into consideration when all the time trying to accuse the l.d.s prophet of not being perfect?

I don't take issue with imperfection nor am I trying to compare EV perceptions of prophets vs. LDS perceptions. I think what is more central to the topic is, how can anything be maintained in light of such imperfection?

I think its nice and fun to have a discussion with lots of people involved and differant ideas, as each contributer gives there own opinions and apologetic ideas, but the bottom line this new idea that prophets are not perfect in modern days, is not a new idea in itself. We all need to look into the mirror and the past; the biblical past. Nothimg has changed in 10, 000 years, as far as human understanding is concerned, we al have ideas and personal interpritations of divine issues, so if you pr anyone else challenges l.d.s doctrine and trueness of l.d.s authotity. then that same person needs to challenge God himself and all biblical history of prophets, cause aint nuttin changed.

Emphasis mine. I may do just that.

Thanks for an insightful post.

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

Honorentheos ,

I wanted to answer your last statement first.

I was using priesthood as a synonym for authority. Maybe I was wrong to do so. But it brings up an interesting point that I should ask you so we are speaking the same language - when you say "authority" what do you mean? What gives it, what would be evidence of it, how is it held or can it be held?

I think positing my thoughts on how I perceive the concept of LDS authority as most pertinent. My thoughts and questions are based upon my understanding of it, and I may have a flawed premise. So for clarity's sake, here is my definition of what I perceive to be LDS authority.

It is the power to wield, dispense and define the truth, in God's name. The truth being an immutable absolute that can only be added upon. I suppose it could be defined as "priesthood", but I think my initial statement is more to the core.

The rest of your post, deserves response, but I would like to give yourself and any other posters who care to comment a chance to correct or discuss any misconceptions I may be maintaining.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Reuben Dunn]

By the simple fact of official publication by the Church. If not so published, it's not doctrine. Never has been. The first presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are equal in authority and therefore, all must agree.

"Never been published"?

Not correct, entirely.

Otherwise we would have some serious issues with the ordiances in the temples, none of them have been published you know, yet are considered "doctrine".

Would it be fair to say that only the President of the Church can pronounce doctrine, and that all other statements, even those from "The Brethren" are just opinion?

[Mudcat]

I think positing my thoughts on how I perceive the concept of LDS authority as most pertinent. My thoughts and questions are based upon my understanding of it, and I may have a flawed premise. So for clarity's sake, here is my definition of what I perceive to be LDS authority.

It is the power to wield, dispense and define the truth, in God's name. The truth being an immutable absolute that can only be added upon. I suppose it could be defined as "priesthood", but I think my initial statement is more to the core.

The rest of your post, deserves response, but I would like to give yourself and any other posters who care to comment a chance to correct or discuss any misconceptions I may be maintaining.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Bump for LDS thoughts on the definition presented.

[Mudcat]

Seems there is no response to correct the definition I posited, so I will take that as silent consent to it.

While I agree that all action taken by priesthood leaders has to be believed as being within authorized bounds to the extent they can not act in a way that results in absolute loss of authority, I do not think it is required for a functional model.

Here is the rub for me. The perfect model is nonexistent. It is simply a vision of what it should be like. But it isn't like it at all.

Assuming that God's truth is absolute (which may be a stretch for you, but is something I believe). Then this truth is put in the hands of specific men who have been authorized by God to utilize. The functional end product is not the truth. Instead it is considered the most perfect truth...and it will fall short of perfection. More like 2+2= 3.987654321 than 2+2 = 4. The imperfect mechanism of human nature dilutes the process. If the Prophets and Apostles were flawed, then how can someone without such authority arrive at a conclusion of belief that leads them closer to the truth?

The situation only compounds itself as the torch passes to the next man. The corrective mechanisms are equally impure, for the same reason. As time passes belief will skew more.

By this, I think we have to contrast the idea that there is some absolute version of truth that, when tapped into, forms a pure ideal model of deriving authority. In this thread, we seem to be dancing around the idea that proof of this type of authority would be tied to our ability to assess how perfect are the truths being revealed. What we seem to be dealing with is a much more human condition where the only real measure we seem to be able to observe is how functional are the truths being revealed. The LDS view seems to suggest that one can not remove the human element from how we, as humans, interact with God so we will always be using the functional model. And as the social context that we live in changes, this functional model is adaptive in nature as well.

That was nicely said.

Is adaptation in an environment that was founded upon an absolute viable?

The only way to support it, IMO is to refute that which is absolute.

And this is generally a consistent issue with anthropologic studies. To the outsider, observations are taken from a certain objective, almost absolute position that is somewhat distant from the culture being observed. To you and I, there is an obvious problem with the functional model of mormon prophecy because it seems to say it is tapping into the perfect model but fails to demonstrate this in any real, substantial manner. It changes, it's flexible, it seems to be little more that a reflection on what best suits people at a certain and apparently brief moment in time - in short, its functional which means its adaptable.

But as outsiders, we can not participate in the functional model, but if we could we may understand why the fact it works is really all that matters.

Emphasis mine. I have a bass that I have owned for a number of years. I have left it at my church as the "house" bass. Through use and abuse(youth group), it has developed a warp in the neck. I was able to functionally play it a few years and I knew it was going out. I made what corrections I could with it until it was beyond my skill to correct. The instrument is a average, but the sentimental value I have in it is considerable. So, I took it to the best for repairs. He did all he could.... it will need a new neck to fix it. Given the cost of the new neck (its hard to come by and pricey) his recommendation was to scrap it....

I suppose the point being, there is a point when functionality ceases to be.

Which is why when we are the insiders, we get a bit defensive regarding issues that ask questions from a "perfect model" position that from our view miss the point...but this is from the inside of the functional model perspective.

Defensive is ok. Its a natural reaction to challenge.

However, I don't think their is a point to be missed. The "One True", in light of the functional model doesn't meet the standard of the claim. The only alternative is a comparative analysis of the "Most True" to the other "Most Trues".

At that point the battle for truth ceases and the battle for who is more erroneous begins.

[Mudcat]

From the lack of response, I think LDS are uncomfortable with this topic.

Why is that?

[JDave]

From the lack of response, I think LDS are uncomfortable with this topic.

Why is that?

I just hadn't looked at the thread yet!! But it is probably uncomfortable to some because it is only a quasi-defined topic. It is defined by statements such as what BCSpace puts in the 'siggy', but even understanding what that statement means is not universal. There is a definite emphasis on the scriptures. Prophets speak for the Lord today, but we are told to read every day from the Book of Mormon, not from the addresses of our current prophet. In other words, follow the prophet and study the scriptures.

I don't want to get into what is more authoritative than what (Church published Ensign versus Church published Church News, for instance). Rather I think that my answer to your OP is that things are considered in context. That is how one must read the scriptures, after all. You can't read a single verse and assuredly determine its meaning without understanding in what context it is given, and also understanding other scriptural references to the subject being discussed. Similarly one must take statements that are made by GAs and understand them in context.

I remember a recent thread where someone was objecting to a GA statement to the effect that we need to overcome the natural man in this life. The objection was that we cannot completely overcome and be perfect in this life. If one was to read just the sentence in question, it could be seen as incorrect or at least questionable. But in the context of the speech, and in the context of the gospel, it makes much more sense and one can understand what he was trying to convey.

This definitely does not resolve every statement ever made, but a large majority fall (IMHO) within that category. For the remainder, I think I do agree somewhat with cinepro. We determine for ourselves if it meets our own understanding of what 'true doctrine' is. If it does not meet our understanding, we decide what we are going to do with it. Most times it just means, for me, putting it aside as something that really isn't that important. That sounds trite, perhaps, but my testimony is rooted in Jesus Christ and His Atonement, not the occasional odd statement by a leader of the church. This would be similar to saying that someone's views on the Rapture are much less important than their views on the Atonement.

[BCSpace]

It is defined by statements such as what BCSpace puts in the 'siggy', but even understanding what that statement means is not universal.

It is within the Church. The only places where I've ever seen views that dissent from the Church on this issue are boards like these.

[JDave]

It is within the Church. The only places where I've ever seen views that dissent from the Church on this issue are boards like these.

I didn't say dissent. I said a lack of universal understanding as to what they mean. The only place I've ever seen someone say that everything printed in Church News and the Children's Songbook counts as doctrine is on boards like this.

[JLFuller]

From the lack of response, I think LDS are uncomfortable with this topic.

Why is that?

MC

I have not been following the thread because it makes so little sense. With all due respect my friend, you are making this harder than it is. Like many or most most EVs, you are looking for holes in our theology. You want to prove us wrong by our own words. OK, fair enough, but the subject of how to screen out human fallibility from Apostolic admonition just doesn't work. This is a process not an event. You are looking for times and events in order to to come to a conclusion, one way or another. That is the legalistic kind of thinking I see in EV theology. It is the God has spoken and this is the way it is and always will be approach. Legalism, if that is the proper term, does not work in our theology. It has never been that way in God's thinking either. That is why He has called apostles and prophets. Malachi 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I do not change". That means he has a need for prophets. They explain the things of God. They provide us with God's own instructions for the proper way of adapting to the events of our times. Sometimes it is with new doctrine and others it is just explaining things from another perspective. But in every case He is using fallible human beings who make mistakes but He uses the Holy Ghost, as everyone's teacher, who doesn't. It works really well when everyone is in sync. It doesn't work quite so well when we are not. In the end we usually get most of it right. Sometimes though, like Missouri in the 1840's, we don't.

[cinepro]

The only places where I've ever seen views that dissent from the Church on this issue are boards like these.

That would make sense, if you think about it....

[cinepro]

But in every case He is using fallible human beings who make mistakes but He uses the Holy Ghost, as everyone's teacher, who doesn't. It works really well when everyone is in sync. It doesn't work quite so well when we are not. In the end we usually get most of it right. Sometimes though, like Missouri in the 1840's, we don't.

No one doubts the Holy Ghost is infallible. The problem seems to be that he doesn't have a reliable mechanism for communicating his infallibility. There are many people who believe many contradictory things who are totally convinced the Holy Ghost is the source of their knowledge (and hence, their surety). Even within the Church.

It would be like the show "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire", where the contestants can call a friend for help with a question. Suppose you were on the show and had an super-mensa genius (Ken Jennings x100) friend, but when you called him for help with a question, the connection was bad, and his words were garbled, making it impossible to clearly hear what he was saying. So you call another friend who isn't as smart (knows some things, but not with surety), but his line is crystal clear and you can clearly hear him.

When it comes time to answer the question, is one source of knowledge really that much better than the other?

[Teancum]

Correction:"Adam the Father and God of the Human Family."

That's quite a difference from what you are proposing. Are you sure Adam God isn't a favorite chestnut of yours that you've pinned a whole lot of things that come crashing down when the fact is realized that Adam God never was a doctrine of the Church or even taught by BY? I think the fact that you quoted it incorrectly and are ignoring the context by which Adam is considered a God shows that it is.

It could stand as is.

Here is s quote from the Deseret News:

"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me -- namely that Adam is our father and God...Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth" (Sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873)

The Deseret News at this time was an official publication of the Church. By your own definition of doctrine this raises the Adam God Teaching to doctrine. Additionally the AGD was taught at the St. George Temple as part of the Lecture at the Veil. Would you argue that what was taught in the Temple was not doctrine?

[Mudcat]

I just hadn't looked at the thread yet!!

JDave!!

As always, thanks for your thoughts. I suppose my last post was a shoddy attempt at throwing the "virtual" gauntlet, for no other reason than a shameful attempt to draw response.

But it is probably uncomfortable to some because it is only a quasi-defined topic. It is defined by statements such as what BCSpace puts in the 'siggy', but even understanding what that statement means is not universal. There is a definite emphasis on the scriptures. Prophets speak for the Lord today, but we are told to read every day from the Book of Mormon, not from the addresses of our current prophet. In other words, follow the prophet and study the scriptures.

Emphasis mine. I think you have stated the crux of it. It is quasi-defined, that is really the point.

I don't want to get into what is more authoritative than what (Church published Ensign versus Church published Church News, for instance). Rather I think that my answer to your OP is that things are considered in context. That is how one must read the scriptures, after all. You can't read a single verse and assuredly determine its meaning without understanding in what context it is given, and also understanding other scriptural references to the subject being discussed. Similarly one must take statements that are made by GAs and understand them in context.

I don't want to get in a *** for tat about the CN being better/worse than the Ensign. I agree that context is important in all things.

In regards to "context", I can't remember who said it or where I read it, but it was related to Bible study. They said basically that the Bible was the sea and the verse was a fish.

I remember a recent thread where someone was objecting to a GA statement to the effect that we need to overcome the natural man in this life. The objection was that we cannot completely overcome and be perfect in this life. If one was to read just the sentence in question, it could be seen as incorrect or at least questionable. But in the context of the speech, and in the context of the gospel, it makes much more sense and one can understand what he was trying to convey.

This definitely does not resolve every statement ever made, but a large majority fall (IMHO) within that category. For the remainder, I think I do agree somewhat with cinepro. We determine for ourselves if it meets our own understanding of what 'true doctrine' is. If it does not meet our understanding, we decide what we are going to do with it. Most times it just means, for me, putting it aside as something that really isn't that important. That sounds trite, perhaps, but my testimony is rooted in Jesus Christ and His Atonement, not the occasional odd statement by a leader of the church. This would be similar to saying that someone's views on the Rapture are much less important than their views on the Atonement.

From my observations, I would agree (emphasis mine) with this statement. At the end of the day, it seems LDS don't hang their hat on every word spoken by JS, BY, Lee, Monson, etc. Belief is self-determined. People choose what they believe, even within the structure of an organized religion.

To relate it to context, LDS have more fish than I do. Their sea is somewhat larger than mine, given the multitude of sources.

But at the end of the day, it seems they shop at the fish market for what they want rather than what is offered, just like everyone else.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

It is within the Church. The only places where I've ever seen views that dissent from the Church on this issue are boards like these.

I would agree with that.

I doubt addressing what LDS have determined, and determined it by some as of yet defined reason, as aberrant theology from its past leadership is the soup du jour for Church teachings.

[jadams_4242]

I would agree with that.

I doubt addressing what LDS have determined, and determined it by some as of yet defined reason, as aberrant theology from its past leadership is the soup du jour for Church teachings.

Ya know this thread go on and on with many differing theories; but just to make it simple yet very much true and understandable; first off the gospel {preisthood} should never ever be comprimised for justification; and i am seeing this over and over again; bottom line the preisthood and its sacred and holy power and trueness canott be scientifically proven except thru blessings and miracles wrought; of which there are many to point out for verification if thats what one wants; The problem is, { for non beleiving christians}is that most of these blessings received thru preisthood authority can only be understood where they came from by those whom know thru the power of the spirits confirmation;

And also most christians do not have but a very small understanding of the absolute immensity and beauty of the very real blessings that true and worthy preisthood holders families have.

So many will debate for hours upon never ending hours one beleife to another; every person whom worships God will come to understand some degree of spirit from time to time; And this is excatly where the problem is based; you totally beleive your understanding og god is correct because you have received spiritual confirmations as to his being; We worthy l.d.s have also received the very same excat confirmations as you have; {it is true, never doubt that}, there are some very big differances although; We also receive blessings beyond descriptive words in regards to Preisthood by authority and the power of that preisthood is predicaed upon the individual holders worthiness;; this is not your everday revearand or preacher ordained wishfully into the work of the lord; this preisthood i speak is without any doubt truely sacred and very powerfull when excersised in humility and worthyness; it is sssooo much more than you comprehend, it is not imaginary, nor wishfull; I pray that somehow somewhere in this life you will for the sake of your family be blessed by heavenly father to receive the spiritual undeniable witness that will lead you on to further investigation and prayerfull guidance that only he can give you.

yer freind.

[Mudcat]

MC

I have not been following the thread because it makes so little sense. .

Hey JL,

It doesn't make sense to me either.

With all due respect my friend, you are making this harder than it is. Like many or most most EVs, you are looking for holes in our theology. You want to prove us wrong by our own words.

I want to clarify this. I don't want to prove you wrong. Am I looking at what appear to me to be inconsistencies in LDS theology? Yes.

Does that mean I am seeking to prove you wrong? No.

OK, fair enough, but the subject of how to screen out human fallibility from Apostolic admonition just doesn't work. This is a process not an event. You are looking for times and events in order to to come to a conclusion, one way or another. That is the legalistic kind of thinking I see in EV theology. It is the God has spoken and this is the way it is and always will be approach. Legalism, if that is the proper term, does not work in our theology.

I don't understand how you can say this. Given past statements you have made (I'll dig, if you need me to) about the EV perspective on Grace, it would seem that you think EV's are anti-legalistic.

Given LDS progression philosophy, I don't see how you could say LDS are not legalistic.

It has never been that way in God's thinking either. That is why He has called apostles and prophets. Malachi 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I do not change". That means he has a need for prophets. They explain the things of God. They provide us with God's own instructions for the proper way of adapting to the events of our times.

Why are some explanations that are given by LDS Prophets and Apostles rejected and others accepted? That is the question I would like to know.

Some have been ruled out, but why?

Sometimes it is with new doctrine and others it is just explaining things from another perspective. But in every case He is using fallible human beings who make mistakes but He uses the Holy Ghost, as everyone's teacher, who doesn't. It works really well when everyone is in sync. It doesn't work quite so well when we are not. In the end we usually get most of it right. Sometimes though, like Missouri in the 1840's, we don't

It's this whole issue of fallibility that I don't quite grasp. Seems LDS can pick and choose what is of value, because they have the HS to guide them. Yet all LDS don't believe identically. The reason posited... because LDS are fallible people, in fact so were the people who tried to present the truth as Prophets and Apostles. The guarantee of truth only comes from the HS.

The whole thing is riding on the back of HS and this is the problem.

The HS seems to be the only authority anyone wants to bank on.

Respects,

Mudcat

BTW.... sorry about giving you the wrong the side of my whatchamacallit the other day.

[JDave]

Emphasis mine. I think you have stated the crux of it. It is quasi-defined, that is really the point.

But, really, do you think it is insufficiently defined? The scriptures are doctrine. Period. Follow the living prophet. Period. Are you expecting everything to be nailed down tight because this is the church of God? Paul gave his opinion to the saints, not as the word of God, but simply as his opinion. But I imagine the saints followed his counsel even though it was not nailed down.

In regards to "context", I can't remember who said it or where I read it, but it was related to Bible study. They said basically that the Bible was the sea and the verse was a fish.

That's a pretty good analogy.

Belief is self-determined.

That is quite an overstatement.

People choose what they believe, even within the structure of an organized religion.

That would be true even if everything were nailed down tight.

To relate it to context, LDS have more fish than I do. Their sea is somewhat larger than mine, given the multitude of sources.

But at the end of the day, it seems they shop at the fish market for what they want rather than what is offered, just like everyone else.

With this analogy of fish, I would agree that the sea is larger and there are more fish. But there are more of the same fish swimming around now too. There are more atonement fish and more grace fish and more love fish, etc. In my opinion things are more defined and require less 'shopping around' with the larger sea than with the smaller sea. Especially with the core doctrines that are vital and central to the gospel. Until there is a perfect knowledge of all things there will always be some shopping around for what seems to make the most sense.

I am left wondering if you think this is more pervasive through all of our doctrine than it really is. Because we have a larger sea there is a larger context within which to understand statements that are made by church leaders. I think the 'fish market' of Mormon thought is often exaggerated, with areas of discussion and debate emphasized much more than the vast areas of common understanding. After all, if we agree then what is there to discuss? And it is essential to note that the fish that are being debated on this board are of the more exotic varieties. Sometimes they have never even been observed in the sea, but the fish tales are told. And a discussion board such as this will lean towards the exotic varieties since there is more to discuss and speculate on. And telling fish tales is always fun.

Obviously I thoroughly enjoyed your analogy. I hope I didn't stretch it too far.

[Mudcat]

JDave,

Thanks again for your thoughts, your opening statement brought some things to light, that I hadn't fully realized. There is something that I see as a paradox in it. It may not be a paradox... I have seen a frozen waterfall before, I would imagine someone from the island nations might perceive that as a paradox, though it isn't. Hopefully, I am not making to much out of your particular word choice.

But, really, do you think it is insufficiently defined? The scriptures are doctrine. . Period. Follow the living prophet. Period. Are you expecting everything to be nailed down tight because this is the church of God? Paul gave his opinion to the saints, not as the word of God, but simply as his opinion. But I imagine the saints followed his counsel even though it was not nailed down

Emphasis mine, this a very different view from how I see the epistles of Paul. It's my be belief that Paul was writing God's word, rather than inspired opinion or simply just his opinion.

Unless there is some reason for Paul to be the only opinionated person in the Standard Works, I assume that is something you might likely say about any scriptural writer. But what is he giving his opinion of? Is he giving his opinion of what the HS revealed to him. Is he giving his opinion of what he has been instructed by others?...In that case he would be rendering an opinion of an opinion. Maybe both?

Regardless, in light of this and your two questions. If scriptures are doctrine and doctrine = the opinions of divinely inspired people. Just as a living prophet renders opinion. Then I would say things are less defined than I thought and it explains why things don't appear to me to be nailed down tight.

If the HS reveals truth to men, but all men can dispense is their opinion of it, then the absolute of the God's truth has been reduced in the process. I suppose I have been looking for evidence of this "absolute" in this discussion. A flawed ruler, makes flawed measurements.

That's a pretty good analogy.

I'm pretty sure, I heard it from John MacArthur.

That is quite an overstatement.

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion But I agree with you in some respects, the one thing you would not be willing to refute would the impact of HS in this process.

With this analogy of fish, I would agree that the sea is larger and there are more fish. But there are more of the same fish swimming around now too. There are more atonement fish and more grace fish and more love fish, etc. In my opinion things are more defined and require less 'shopping around' with the larger sea than with the smaller sea. Especially with the core doctrines that are vital and central to the gospel. Until there is a perfect knowledge of all things there will always be some shopping around for what seems to make the most sense.

I certainly don't want embark on a derailment about which sea has the best the fish. But given a better perspective on this topic, your statement has a valid premise.

I am left wondering if you think this is more pervasive through all of our doctrine than it really is. Because we have a larger sea there is a larger context within which to understand statements that are made by church leaders. I think the 'fish market' of Mormon thought is often exaggerated, with areas of discussion and debate emphasized much more than the vast areas of common understanding. After all, if we agree then what is there to discuss? And it is essential to note that the fish that are being debated on this board are of the more exotic varieties. Sometimes they have never even been observed in the sea, but the fish tales are told. And a discussion board such as this will lean towards the exotic varieties since there is more to discuss and speculate on. And telling fish tales is always fun.

Do you think core LDS doctrine is based upon the most abundant types of fish?

Obviously I thoroughly enjoyed your analogy. I hope I didn't stretch it too far.

I enjoyed your response and the play on the analogy equally well. Likewise, I hope I didn't stretch it beyond its limit either.

Respects,

Mucat

[JDave]

this a very different view from how I see the epistles of Paul. It's my be belief that Paul was writing God's word, rather than inspired opinion or simply just his opinion.

Woops. I really should have included a scripture reference for what I was stating.

1 Cor. 7:25

Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

I was only remarking that we have some evidence that Paul gave his opinion to the saints as to what they should do. We also have ample evidence that he spoke on behalf of God.

1 Cor. 7:10

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband

I only meant to point out that Paul did counsel the saints even when he didn't have a revelation from God concerning the matter. I did not mean to marginalize all of Paul's writings, nor to state that everything he wrote was simply his opinion. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Do you think core LDS doctrine is based upon the most abundant types of fish?

I would think so. There may be some areas that have a very common understanding because of some particularly clear statements(some "nice specimens" of fish). For instance, if a verse states "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (D&C 130:22), that is a very clear statement for the doctrine that Heavenly Father has a physical body.

[Mudcat]

Woops. I really should have included a scripture reference for what I was stating.

1 Cor. 7:25

Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

I was only remarking that we have some evidence that Paul gave his opinion to the saints as to what they should do. We also have ample evidence that he spoke on behalf of God.

1 Cor. 7:10

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband

I only meant to point out that Paul did counsel the saints even when he didn't have a revelation from God concerning the matter. I did not mean to marginalize all of Paul's writings, nor to state that everything he wrote was simply his opinion. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

JDave,

Ok...

Thanks for bringing some clarity to that. I am very appreciative, that in the scripture sited you point out a distinction... as Paul did. It gives a frame of reference and perspective. The observation being, that Paul seemed to convey an awareness of a distinction.

However, do we see such distinction being made by the early LDS prophets on some rather unorthodox statements?

I would think so. There may be some areas that have a very common understanding because of some particularly clear statements(some "nice specimens" of fish). For instance, if a verse states "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (D&C 130:22), that is a very clear statement for the doctrine that Heavenly Father has a physical body.

I would agree here. LDS seem to gravitate towards what is most popularly stated as well as stated in multiplicity.

If we assume multiplicity speaks for itself in some form or fashion.

Who determines popularity?

Respects,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

I once would have agreed with you, but I actually never forgot this post by Daniel Peterson 4+ years ago, where he lists "universal" beliefs held by pretty much all LDS. I can't argue with anything he says:

Do you think there is a believing that could take issue with one or two of those points, and still be LDS?

If not ok. If so, what is the minimum value of belief?

[LDSMusic483]

Here is s quote from the Deseret News:

"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me -- namely that Adam is our father and God...Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth" (Sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873)

The Deseret News at this time was an official publication of the Church. By your own definition of doctrine this raises the Adam God Teaching to doctrine. Additionally the AGD was taught at the St. George Temple as part of the Lecture at the Veil. Would you argue that what was taught in the Temple was not doctrine?

Indeed, he is at the gate, and not within the city upon the throne awaiting for us to be ushered into his presence.