Mike Ash on Mormon Doctrine

[Lamanite]

Recently I referred a friend to this FAIR brochure written by Mike Ash. I absolutely love the concise clarity of this article.

I thought it would be fun to post several excerpts and maybe discuss them.

[*]President Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency, for example, once wrote:

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I am a bif fan of Mike's.

Indeed...Big UP!

[Lamanite]

I am a bif fan of Mike's.

Indeed...Big UP!

Me too! Do you have a favorite from the list in the OP?

One of mine is:

"To claim that anything taught in general conference is

[lostindc]

I am also a big fan of Mike's and also Lamanite (more so because Lamanite is a lot bigger than me).

[ebeddoulos]

P.S. Anyone know how to change the font in my MADB theme? It's really irritating me.

I am unsure what you mean by "MADB theme" but if you are talking about your signature below your post, perhaps the following will help.

This is normal:

P.S. Anyone know how to change the font in my MADB theme? It's really irritating me.

This will change your font face to Times New Roman:

[font="Times New Roman"]P.S. Anyone know how to change the font in my MADB theme?  It's really irritating me.[/font]

Which results in this:

P.S. Anyone know how to change the font in my MADB theme? It's really irritating me.

There are other BB codes which can alter the look of your signature/posts. For example, this will increase your font size

[size="5"]P.S. Anyone know how to change the font in my MADB theme?  It's really irritating me.[/size]

Resulting in this:

P.S. Anyone know how to change the font in my MADB theme? It's really irritating me.

This:

[color="red"]P.S. Anyone know how to change the font in my MADB theme?  It's really irritating me.[/color]

or this"

[color="#FF0000"]P.S. Anyone know how to change the font in my MADB theme?  It's really irritating me.[/color]

Will change your font color to red resulting in this:

P.S. Anyone know how to change the font in my MADB theme? It's really irritating me.

Your typical color names work (first example) and your hex color codes (second example) all seem to work as well.

[Lamanite]

This is another important point regarding Church doctrine and the Church's official publications.

[cinepro]

That's a pretty good summary of all the mistakes people make in judging whether something is doctrinal or not. But it's also a pretty one-sided summary. Conspicuously absent are quotes from the Church website.

Have the prophet and apostles really spoken so seldom on the subject that we must be referred to Joseph McConkie, the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" (oh, I'm sorry, the First Presidency authorized "Encyclopedia of Mormonsism" ), and decades old teachings of FP counselors that appear no where on the Church website?

Ultimately, there tend to be two different approaches to judging "doctrine".

In trying to determine a doctrine, a sound first step would be to study the scriptures, words of the Prophets and Apostles, and correlated Church materials, gleaning as much information as possible. The results of that research can then be considered doctrinal "traffic cones" (imagine a parking lot with single traffic cones, arranged in a line, representing each reference. Some teachings might have only a few cones, others might have dozens and dozens. References that agree with each other line up perfectly, with divergent views being placed off the line.)

Some people would then try to formulate their "theory" so that it aligns with as many cones as possible. They see the cones lines up in a perfect line, and adopt the theory that shoots down the line, accepting all of them. If there are cones "off the line", or the variety of statements don't line up in any discernible way, then the doctrinal status of any theory would be noticeably subdued and tentative.

Others would consider any theory viable as long as it doesn't knock too many cones over. It can curve and twist as often as needed.

They see the line as a slalom course, curving and dodging each cone (noting that some cones are just opinion, others need the words clarified or redefined to change their meaning, implying ambiguity where there was none, or knocking a few over but explaining that they were the results of "Prophetic fallibility").

Frankly, apologists seem more and more dependent on the slalom method. There are fewer and fewer references to the scriptures and correlated materials, and louder and louder arguments about why they shouldn't need to be referenced in the first place.

[Smith]

[*]

[cinepro]

This point of fact would seem to disprove that official publications = doctrine. This argument is most frequently made in conjunction with the "Approaching Mormon doctrine" press release.

Big UP!

Lamanite

The argument is that things that are consistently proclaimed in official Church publications are doctrinal.

Consistently meaning "constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form, etc." Obviously, the more frequently (and recently) it is proclaimed, the greater the likelyhood it should be considered "official".

For example, this is how the Church describes the Correlation process (in an official manual meant to be taught to all adult members of the Church in Church):

Explain that the purpose of Church correlation is to preserve

[cinepro]

I suppose the link from my previous post should be posted in full, if only to serve as a counterpoint to Mike Ash's quotes in the OP. Compare how a correlated Church magazine addresses the issue:

Should that which is written in Church publications and lesson manuals be taken as official doctrine?

Dean L. Larsen,

[MAsh]

Thanks to all those who made kind comments. To those who didn't may you burn in...

Just kidding!

We must lose sight of the forest for the tree. The entire purpose of the Church (the prophets, scriptures, the correlation committee, etc.) is to bring us to Christ-- but not just to bring us to Christ, but align us with Christ in every conceivable say.

One of my all-time favorite talks was given by Dallin Oaks in the October 2000 General Conference. The talk is entitled

[Ariarates]

When I was young, things were much simpler. The prophet and the leaders of the church spoke the words of God. We would watch GC on VHS 4 months after the event (that's how long it took for the subtitles to be added) and relish the thought that these servants of God had spoken to us as directed by the Spirit. They said what we most needed to hear. We sustained them as prophets, seers and revelators and believed that they could never lead us astray.

I'm a bit sad that this has changed. What happened? It sometimes seems that the church is governed by press releases nowadays. Why all the excuses, the back doors and the spin? What happened?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm a bit sad that this has changed. What happened? It sometimes seems that the church is governed by press releases nowadays. Why all the excuses, the back doors and the spin? What happened?

What are you talking about. CFR that there are "back doors" and "spin".

[Lamanite]

...

I'm glad you added to the thread Mike.

The Oaks talk you referenced is a favorite of mine and represents a wonderfully tremendous shift in my personal discipleship.

I think your approached is balanced and fair (no pun intended). I think the general statements you made, and the implied methodology for discerning doctrine, covers most arguments.

Cinepro, if you have additional clarifications to make I'm still interested in the discussion.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

When I was young, things were much simpler. The prophet and the leaders of the church spoke the words of God. We would watch GC on VHS 4 months after the event (that's how long it took for the subtitles to be added) and relish the thought that these servants of God had spoken to us as directed by the Spirit. They said what we most needed to hear. We sustained them as prophets, seers and revelators and believed that they could never lead us astray.

I'm a bit sad that this has changed. What happened? It sometimes seems that the church is governed by press releases nowadays. Why all the excuses, the back doors and the spin? What happened?

When we are men, we put off childish things.

Nothing happened. You became something more.

[Ariarates]

What are you talking about. CFR that there are "back doors" and "spin".

What I meant was that when I grew up, nobody had a problem with Jackson County, Missouri being the location for the Garden of Eden. These days, I have to read in a press release that this is not a very important teaching after all (tell that to all the poor sods who emigrated there and lost all they had along the way). I call that "spin" - a refusal to give a direct answer to a direct question. The infamous "I don't know that we teach that" episode is another example.

Maybe it is me who changed, as mfbukowski pointed out. Maybe I'm just getting old, believing everything was much better in the old days...

[krose]

Not only were Biblical prophets sometimes wrong, but often they believed in the prevailing

[Spurven Ten Sing]

I apologize if this has already been addressed, but doesn't it seem problematic to attempt to create an objective standard on a subjective phenomenon? Is there a goal or function in creating this standard?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What I meant was that when I grew up, nobody had a problem with Jackson County, Missouri being the location for the Garden of Eden. These days, I have to read in a press release that this is not a very important teaching after all (tell that to all the poor sods who emigrated there and lost all they had along the way). I call that "spin" - a refusal to give a direct answer to a direct question. The infamous "I don't know that we teach that" episode is another example.

Maybe it is me who changed, as mfbukowski pointed out. Maybe I'm just getting old, believing everything was much better in the old days...

Since when did a press release constitue offical doctrine?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I apologize if this has already been addressed, but doesn't it seem problematic to attempt to create an objective standard on a subjective phenomenon? Is there a goal or function in creating this standard?

Nope, go ahead and start a new thread so we can discuss it.

Nothing like, "Your testimony is just a delusion".

[Spurven Ten Sing]

Nope, go ahead and start a new thread so we can discuss it.

Nothing like, "Your testimony is just a delusion".

I am sorry if I offended you. Such was not my intent. Let me rephrase. Since testimonies are based on subjective experience, i.e. something that cannot be removed from your soul and compared to another experience, it seems problematic to try to measure something as subjective as 'doctrine' by any sort of definition. It seems prudent to leave a definition like that to the individual to verify or refute potential doctrine through the subjective experience.

I am very much not implying that testimonies are delusional, just that they are subjective. Do you feel differently?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am sorry if I offended you. Such was not my intent. Let me rephrase. Since testimonies are based on subjective experience, i.e. something that cannot be removed from your soul and compared to another experience, it seems problematic to try to measure something as subjective as 'doctrine' by any sort of definition. It seems prudent to leave a definition like that to the individual to verify or refute potential doctrine through the subjective experience.

I am very much not implying that testimonies are delusional, just that they are subjective. Do you feel differently?

Testimonies are indeed subjective. They are not objective. But generally what comes is that subjective = bad.

Then the often rebuttle of "how do you know your in love"? That is subject too, but it is very real.

BTW I am not offended, I just know were this is going to go.

[Ariarates]

Since when did a press release constitute offical doctrine?

And there you go, more spin. Why bring out a press release on Mormon doctrine, only to deny that the press release is doctrine...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And there you go, more spin. Why bring out a press release on Mormon doctrine, only to deny that the press release is doctrine...

I am not the one spinning. Since when did press releases = offical doctrine? I have never heard that they did.

The burden is upon you to show that press releases are indeed offical.

To answer your question, I don;t know why they do press releases, you might want to ask them why.

The fact that you think they do, to me tells me you are the one that does not understand what does and waht does not constitue offical doctrine.

The standard works and anything spoken of at GC is offical doctrine. Any thing in teh Ensign is offical. Anything that is in the priesthood or relief society manuals is offical.

Now if a press release is quoted in the Ensign that would make it offical.

You suppose that every time a prophet opens his mouth that it must be an offical pronouncemnt.

WHy is Mormon Doctrine not offical? WHy is the JoD not offical?

[cinepro]

Since when did a press release constitue offical doctrine?

May 4, 2007.