Mike Ash on Mormon Doctrine

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

May 4, 2007.

Can you shed a little more light on that? OR are you just being funny?

[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...

I want to back up a bit, that might bring home the point I am making. Jackson County is an import aspect because it is in our church canon of scripture. Just because a press release claims something doesn't make it so.

You said it best ."Maybe I'm just getting old, believing everything was much better in the old days..."

And the old "I don't know that we teach that" taken in context is a little more revealing than just "I don't know that we teach it because I am clueless". That generally is the spin that is put on that quote form GBH.

[Spurven Ten Sing]

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.

Do you? Well please tell me our destination, I had none in mind. Do you personally feel it is possible to objectively measure a subjective experience?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you? Well please tell me our destination, I had none in mind. Do you personally feel it is possible to objectively measure a subjective experience?

Yes I do, lets see if I am indeed correct.

I do not believe that it is possible to "objectively measure a subjective experience". I never claimed that it was possible.

It is not required to "objectively measure a subjective experience" for that experiance to be true. Do you feel it otherwise?

Of coruse that is why it is refered to as "personal experiance".

[Spurven Ten Sing]

Yes I do, lets see if I am indeed correct.

I do not believe that it is possible to "objectively measure a subjective experience". I never claimed that it was possible.

It is not required to "objectively measure a subjective experience" for that experiance to be true. Do you feel it otherwise?

Of coruse that is why it is refered to as "personal experiance".

I feel subjective evidence, while problematic from a strictly objective perspective, is valid for many conclusions. Earlier, I was wondering out loud why one would try to define Mormon Doctrine (an objective definition) for something based on subjectivity (the testimony, the spirit, prophecy, etc). It does not seem to be a good fit.

I apologize for missing this, but 'why' am I referring to subjective evidence as personal? Do you suspect ulterior motives of me? Have I said anything to make you feel as though I am not being honest?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I feel subjective evidence, while problematic from a strictly objective perspective, is valid for many conclusions. Earlier, I was wondering out loud why one would try to define Mormon Doctrine (an objective definition) for something based on subjectivity (the testimony, the spirit, prophecy, etc). It does not seem to be a good fit.

I apologize for missing this, but 'why' am I referring to subjective evidence as personal? Do you suspect ulterior motives of me? Have I said anything to make you feel as though I am not being honest?

Perhaps I got confuse on what you were asking. I thought we were going down a nother road. I was wrong.

Who made the claim of "why one would try to define Mormon Doctrine (an objective definition) for something based on subjectivity (the testimony, the spirit, prophecy, etc)."?

My testimony does not define doctrine. What it does is give me a reason for belief. In simple terms that is.

[Spurven Ten Sing]

Perhaps I got confuse on what you were asking. I thought we were going down a nother road. I was wrong.

Who made the claim of "why one would try to define Mormon Doctrine (an objective definition) for something based on subjectivity (the testimony, the spirit, prophecy, etc)."?

My testimony does not define doctrine. What it does is give me a reason for belief. In simple terms that is.

I am the guilty party who asked that question. There seems so much to do about the precise definition of doctrine. Even some ill feelings, I would suspect. But I wonder if there is a solution at all given the nature of the problem. Do you have an opinion on the matter?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am the guilty party who asked that question. There seems so much to do about the precise definition of doctrine. Even some ill feelings, I would suspect. But I wonder if there is a solution at all given the nature of the problem. Do you have an opinion on the matter?

No worries.

The main problem is an ironic problem. I cannot say if it has been offical declared what is offical doctrine. For me it follows that the Scriptures or cannon are doctrine and the only one authorized to interpret the scriptures are the prophets and apostles. And a peophet is only a prophets when acting as such. So that is why I say things are offical when they come in the way of the Ensign or General Confrence. Those, for me, are the times when they are acting in an offical capacity and are able to delcare doctrine.

[cinepro]

Can you shed a little more light on that? OR are you just being funny?

May 4, 2007

A statement defining doctrine must be doctrinal, otherwise it will be irrelevant.

[cinepro]

Additional note:

A good rule of thumb on whether someone is honestly trying to explain how LDS Doctrine should be defined is whether or not they include D&C 68 in the conversation:

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.

The second critical issue is to explain who has authority to authoritatively interpret and explain the scriptures. It is easy to relate the scriptures to "doctrine", but since there are so many ways to interpret the scriptures (even the ones that seem relatively unambiguous), there must be an understanding of who gets to say what the scriptures mean.

We shouldn't confuse lists of loopholes for people who need a methodology to not believe something taught by Church leaders with an actual study on how to determine "Official" doctrine.

Unless we are willing to admit that there might be some "Official Doctrines" that we just plain don't agree with (and might be false), we'll be forever running in circles telling the world about our wonderful prophets and modern revelation while at the same time insisting nothing they say is doctrinal.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

May 4, 2007

A statement defining doctrine must be doctrinal, otherwise it will be irrelevant.

This sounds good to me. THis is in essance what I have been saying.

we'll be forever running in circles telling the world about our wonderful prophets and modern revelation while at the same time insisting nothing they say is doctrinal.

Of course no one is saying that "nothing they say is doctrinal".

It is just he opposite, that not everything they say is doctrinal.

[cinepro]

Additional note:

The first part of Mike Ash's article perpetuates a silly caricature of Catholic teachings regarding "infallibility". Their doctrine is actually eerily similar to ours: A pope is only infallible when acting as such.

[mfbukowski]

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?

You nailed it.

Can't be done, but it appears that all the critics try to do it.

Edit: You are new and welcome. We talk about this all the time here. We know most of the arguments by heart, so sometimes we jump the gun on figuring out what side a "new guy" is on. But that was really a promising post, because in my opinion, it went straight to the crux of the issue.

[cinepro]

This sounds good to me. THis is in essance what I have been saying.

Of course no one is saying that "nothing they say is doctrinal".

It is just he opposite, that not everything they say is doctrinal.

How about "while they may say doctrinal things, nothing is doctrinal just because they said it"?

[BCSpace]

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

Am quite familiar with it. Unfortunately, it and many of it's references are not published by the Church. But having said that, there is not too much that conflicts with the Church's own statement on doctrine and how it's been treated for decades.

[BCSpace]

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

[Lamanite]

What has that to do with official publications and is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism published by the Church? There are many places in official publications where speculation is made and identified as such. One simply takes the publication at face value, that the doctrine on the matter is that the subject is unclear and these are speculations. An example of this might be the Genesis 14 speculation that Melchizedek is Shem.

Ummmm. Let me take a stab at this and see if we are talking about the same thing.

In your opinion: Do official church publications = doctrine?

Big UP!

Lamanite

PS. I tried to send you a message but I'm either blocked or you don't get messages. I saw the evolution vid in your sig and wondered if you had any other material regarding evolution that would have been written with an LDS audience in mind.

[BCSpace]

In your opinion: Do official church publications = doctrine?

It is the way the Church sees it, yes.

PS. I tried to send you a message but I'm either blocked or you don't get messages. I saw the evolution vid in your sig and wondered if you had any other material regarding evolution that would have been written with an LDS audience in mind.

Haven't blocked anyone. Feel free to try again. The evolution video I think I got from Consig.

[Lamanite]

It is the way the Church sees it, yes.

So if publications = doctrine

then Encyclopedia of Mormonism (in its entirety) = doctrine?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[fred57]

I am a bif fan of Mike's.

Indeed...Big UP!

Me too! I really liked his most recent article in the Deseret News where he denied any geographical location for the Book of Mormon. Priceless!

[mfbukowski]

What has that to do with official publications and is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism published by the Church?

Whoa! Did I miss something? Published by the Corp of the President of the Church of JCLDS?

I honestly don't know...

[mfbukowski]

What has that to do with official publications and is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism published by the Church?

http://www.lib.byu.edu/Macmillan/

[cinepro]

So if publications = doctrine

then Encyclopedia of Mormonism (in its entirety) = doctrine?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Explicitly no:

[Lamanite]

Explicitly no:

So the fact that it's an official publication of BYU and some of the Brethren, including Dallin H. Oaks, Neal A. Maxwell, and Jeffrey R. Holland (president of BYU when the project began), helped manage and review this work, still leaves it wanting for "official publication" status?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[USU78]

So the fact that it's an official publication of BYU and some of the Brethren, including Dallin H. Oaks, Neal A. Maxwell, and Jeffrey R. Holland (president of BYU when the project began), helped manage and review this work, still leaves it wanting for "official publication" status?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Exactly.

But that doesn't make it useless.