Defining "Mormon Doctrine"

[cdowis]

If so called Mormon doctrine was limited to these 13 statements of belief…Mormon Doctrine would be easy to describe, debate and understand. But you’ve created a false dichotomy, for certainly you are not suggesting that these 13 declarations of belief are Mormon Doctrine in its entirety are you?

I'm not going to argue over what you claimed. We have fundamental doctrines which are not subject to the "shifting sands" that you claim.

Are you now admitting that we do indeed have bed rock doctrines that do not change? If so, you have backed away from your original statement.

In reality Mormon Doctrine is an opaque, shape shifting, ubiquitous mist that changes with every sign of societal pressure;

I gave you the challenge to take these thirteen fundamental doctrines and prove your statement. Let's see what you got. I think you are full of baloney, but let's see what you got.

bent on the preservation and survival of the ‘mother’ organization, Mormonism jettisons controversial core doctrines, abandoning principle in order to survive.

You asked about shifting sands of change....well...

When the church was faced with financial ruin and given the choice to either abandon celestial marriage to more than one wife (in this life anyway) or be disenfranchised and have all of its assets seized by the federal government, the church chose survival.

Polygamy is still a doctrine of the church. It is practiced in the temples today. A man is sealed to one woman, she then dies, and he can be sealed to another woman.

What you are describing is not a change in doctrine but a change in the practice of that doctrine. We no longer practice the sealing of two *living* spouses.

We used to practice the United Order, all things in common. That was the practical form of the doctrine of the Law of Consecration. Today we practice that doctrine with the payment of tithes.

Same doctrine, different practices.

The practice of ordination of certain individuals has changed..... the doctrine of the priesthood is still the same, but the practice has changed.

Again, the Articles of Faith, the bed rock doctrines, have not shifted as you claim.

Edited July 29, 2011 by cdowis

[LeSellers]

So, he has no clue what it really means, BUT he "knows" that Mormons have it WRONG!

Right?

I have a half dozen or so commentarties printed before 1840. In regard to 1 Cor 15:29, they were universal in saying that they didn't know what it was all about. But those written after 1850 were universal in saying that, no matter what it does mean, it sure ain't baptism for the dead.

Lehi

[Vance]

I have a half dozen or so commentarties printed before 1840. In regard to 1 Cor 15:29, they were universal in saying that they didn't know what it was all about. But those written after 1850 were universal in saying that, no matter what it does mean, it sure ain't baptism for the dead.

Lehi

So, this is not a limited phenomena that I have encountered then.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

"Common consent does not play a part in the determination of LDS doctrine. The Holy Ghost also does not play a part in the sense that you determine what LDS doctrine is; only whether or not you personally will accept LDS doctrine as doctrine.

The Holy Ghost will certainly play a part when the 15 prophets and apostles determine LDS doctrine; but neither you nor I nor any of the general membership is involved in that process".

Not entirely correct. We do sustain them as prophets, seers, a revelators in their own right. But any member of the Church can present charges that our Apostles are not. Now it is going to take A LOT of doing to prove it. However in theory it is possible.

[BCSpace]

Not entirely correct. We do sustain them as prophets, seers, a revelators in their own right. But any member of the Church can present charges that our Apostles are not. Now it is going to take A LOT of doing to prove it. However in theory it is possible.

But that in and of itself would not prevent them from establishing doctrine for the LDS Church and this speaks only to whether or not we accept it so I am entirely correct.

[elguanteloko]

Mormon Doctrine is what the Scriptures, the Prophets, the Holy Ghost, and Common Consent all four agree upon.

Scripture alone is not infallible, Prophets alone are not infallible, Spiritual Impressions alone are not infallible, and Common Consent alone isn't infallible.

Neither are combinations of two or potentially three perfectly reliable.

When all four work together and agree, then we can be assured what actually is the Doctrines of God and His Church on the earth.

Anti-mormons trying to make every statement of history, especially inaccurate representations of most statements, does not and never has made "doctrine" of the Church, nor for that matter ANY religion. Christian anti-mormons should know better. But of course they don't, using double standards and hypocrisy constantly in trying to destroy the Church.

Prophets: "We received the revelation through the Holy Ghost that the scriptures indicate that God was indeed a man like us and sinned but, through another Christ, he was saved and reached exaltation. All that agree to make this official doctrine please manifest it by raising your right hand."

Do you seriously expect "common consent" to disagree with the prophets and the scriptures (which, after all, the prophets' job is to interpret them anyways)?

BTW, I don't know how much of the New Testament would have been considered 'official doctrine' with this method. Probably prophets aren't as they used to.

Edited July 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[BCSpace]

Do you seriously expect "common consent" to disagree with the prophets and the scriptures (which, after all, the prophets' job is to interpret them anyways)?

BTW, I don't know how much of the New Testament would have been considered 'official doctrine' with this method. Probably prophets aren't as they used to.

Indeed. For those who erroneously think doctrine is by common consent, when did we vote specifically on the John 3:5 "water bapstism" interpretation?

[elguanteloko]

Indeed. For those who erroneously think doctrine is by common consent, when did we vote specifically on the John 3:5 "water bapstism" interpretation?

I think you and I agree once every year. lol but it's nice when it happens.

[ldsfaqs]

Common consent does not play a part in the determination of LDS doctrine. The Holy Ghost also does not play a part in the sense that you determine what LDS doctrine is; only whether or not you personally will accept LDS doctrine as doctrine.

The Holy Ghost will certainly play a part when the 15 prophets and apostles determine LDS doctrine; but neither you nor I nor any of the general membership is involved in that process.

Disagree. While it is true that the first three are the primarily methods we know doctrine, Common Consent is like the putty that binds it all together. The Church is not the Church without the consent of the people. If common consent wasn't important to certifying doctrine then the Church wouldn't have done it multiple times through history, let alone for callings.

Also, I'm very surprised that you actually said that about the Holy Ghost. You couldn't be more wrong. The Holy Ghost verifies the truth of all things, including doctrines of the Church. Of course, it cannot be relied upon alone all the time, but it's important to the process.

[ldsfaqs]

Indeed. For those who erroneously think doctrine is by common consent, when did we vote specifically on the John 3:5 "water bapstism" interpretation?

There is implied consent according to the support and belief of the people, and then there are official acts of consent, in which the people raise hands.

Also, what makes you think at some point in the history of the Church, the people did not vote in support and confirmation on the doctrine of water baptism?

I can guarantee you that it was done at some point, either in Christ's time, and most certainly in general when the Church had the members vote on all currently revealed doctrines of the Church as constituted.

I know for certain I've read that occurring a couple of times in LDS history.

So, you would be wrong.

Edited July 29, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[ldsfaqs]

Prophets: "We received the revelation through the Holy Ghost that the scriptures indicate that God was indeed a man like us and sinned but, through another Christ, he was saved and reached exaltation. All that agree to make this official doctrine please manifest it by raising your right hand."

Do you seriously expect "common consent" to disagree with the prophets and the scriptures (which, after all, the prophets' job is to interpret them anyways)?

Absolutely I do. That's the reason it exists. It's not just for show. It's always possible for prophets to fall or to not follow Gods Will.

Further, just as the entire 12 must agree on things before the Prophet makes a rulling, the Church itself must all agree.

Even further, there are specific examples in Church history of the Consent of the People being followed.

The Prophet Joseph Smith for example wanted to remove one of his counselors (William Law I think?), but when it was brought before the people for a vote, the membership voted him to stay in, and guess what, the counselor stayed.

Everything with the Church is to be by common consent, not "compulsion". Compulsion is satan's methodology, and it's one of the reasons I'm so upset with the Church for their recent proclamation to full time leaders and their spouses, that they can't do anything at all related to politics, including simple volunteering or donating, let alone public seeking etc. which wouldn't be overly unreasonable and I could understand.

BTW, I don't know how much of the New Testament would have been considered 'official doctrine' with this method. Probably prophets aren't as they used to.

It's not a method alone, so your statement is irrelevant.

[Loran Blood]

In real life...I am very pragmatic...

A better example of a sword with two edges could not be made.

This forum has been extremely patient with me...I come here seeking understanding...thanks for helping me to better understand your brand of Mormonism

I think I'm beginning to catch on now.

I think...

[Loran Blood]

For example, I believe the Book of Mormon is The Word of God, but I don't believe it is historical.

This is tantamount to claiming that one believes the NT is the word of God, but doesn't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or that he actually performed the miracles recorded in that text. As the historicity of the BofM is central to its fundamental message as the word of God, if one removes the historicity, one removes the core veracity of most of its truth claims.

Can one really be said to be authentically "Mormon" if one does not accept the historicity of the BofM? Can one be said to be authentically "Christian" if one does not accept what Jesus actually did, during his mortal ministry? The question rather answers itself, it would appear, given the fundamental defining characteristics of what it means to be Christian and a Latter day Saint, and to accept the BofM as the word of God (the entire BofM is, precisely, a historical narrative, which means the gospel principles it teaches are always utterly immersed in an environment of real life application on a personal and societal level.

The BofM is of little value, similar to the NT, if it is reduced to nothing more than a mythological transmitter of abstract theological concepts. The Book of Mormon is immersed in the practical realities and practical consequences of living or not living the gospel, which is its primary function, besides the teaching and clarifying of the doctrinal principles themselves.

I await General Authority sources for your claim that this is nothing more than church leader opinion and LDS folk doctrine.

So, I believe it is the Official Doctrine of the Church that it is The Word of God, but the idea that it is historical is just the personal opinion of different leaders that has been perpetuated through the years (and it isn't a "core" doctrine, so it's ok not to believe it.

If this is a concerted attempt at sophistry, its really one of the worst performances I've seen in a long, long time.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Loran Blood

[elguanteloko]

Absolutely I do. That's the reason it exists. It's not just for show. It's always possible for prophets to fall or to not follow Gods Will.

Further, just as the entire 12 must agree on things before the Prophet makes a rulling, the Church itself must all agree.

Even further, there are specific examples in Church history of the Consent of the People being followed.

The Prophet Joseph Smith for example wanted to remove one of his counselors (William Law I think?), but when it was brought before the people for a vote, the membership voted him to stay in, and guess what, the counselor stayed.

Everything with the Church is to be by common consent, not "compulsion". Compulsion is satan's methodology, and it's one of the reasons I'm so upset with the Church for their recent proclamation to full time leaders and their spouses, that they can't do anything at all related to politics, including simple volunteering or donating, let alone public seeking etc. which wouldn't be overly unreasonable and I could understand.

It's not a method alone, so your statement is irrelevant.

Look, only for you here I highly recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.co...11977329&sr=1-1

Edited July 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Loran Blood]

Exactly. And the prophets are not all in unity regarding the "humans can rule their own planets" notion, nor is it embraced by all Church members.

I'm not so concerned about "church members" as I am the Lord's anointed servants in our day. Could you provide a reference that you would consider either "official" or representing the mainstream thinking of the Brethren that claims the creation of planets on which we, as gods, will place our spirit offspring, is in some sense in question or even semi-heretical, in an LDS sense?

There are even some faithful, believing members who don't believe it, just as there faithful, believing members who don't accept the idea that God has a god whom He worships,

I also consider this, for all intents, established doctrine, as it has been published in mainstream teaching manuals by the Church and easily available to all active members (those who attend Sunday meetings regularly, at least).

The last paragraph here ends with, "communes with another." is not the end of the larger teaching from within which the excerpt in the Melchazedek priesthood manual was taken. The source is the King Follett Discourse, which continues, two paragraphs down:

Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves--to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.

I see little, in point of fact, no wiggle room here. Any number of church leaders could be quoted as to the idea that there have been gods from eternity and will be through eternity yet future, and that God the Father is one in a great linked chain of eternal family relationships that has neither beginning or end. At the very least, if "God Himself was once as we are now" as this official church manual asserts, from the mouth of Joseph Smith, then there was a time when he, himself, was not a god. There is no other implication here that makes any sense other than that if God, as Joseph said, was once a man such as ourselves, and attained his position and authority as God the Father "by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation", then God, as he was himself following the very same eternal pattern (obedience to the laws and principles of the gospel) must have been the son of yet another God the Father; a being having his own endless kingdoms within which to "bring to pass" the exaltation of his own spirit children, or which our God the Father was one.

This expresses the great, eternal continuity and consistency of the plan of salvation as well as placing the concept of godhood itself within the grasp of all and conceptualizing it as an eternal, natural, ongoing process. This banishes the deeply problematic God-was-somehow-always-God idea and affirms the true kinship we have with our Father in Heaven, and with all gods who came before him, regardless of where and when, as members of one fathomless eternal family (and species) order, all of whom exist and progress upon the same principles.

There is plenty of "wiggle room" in the Church to believe what makes sense to you, and what God has allowed you to believe for whatever reason.

On peripheral or unrevealed issues, yes. On settled doctrine, no. And any "wiggle room" is still going to have to pay tribute to philosophical rigor that demands of it that it wiggle within reasonable perimeters.

I believe, for example, that becoming an exalted being does not mean that you can rule your own world, but rather that we will continue to eternally progress to become like God, and that God will share with us His power, glory, and dominion, all the power, glory, and dominion that we can imagine, and that God will allow us to become one and joint-heirs with His Son. That is what it means to be exalted, not that we can become Heavenly Fathers and Heavenly Mothers of other worlds.

1. Your description of what it means to become gods is uselessly vague. You have yet to define and clarity just what it means to actually acquire all that power, glory, and dominion.

2. The concept of becoming Heavenly Fathers and Heavenly Mothers of our own spirit children is established church doctrine. Here is what the D&C Institute Manual affirms regarding the topic in question:

Those who comply with the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and endure to the end gain the right to become eternal parents. The Prophet Joseph Smith, as he spoke verses 1–4 to William Clayton, stated: “Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory.” (History of the Church, 5:391; see also Smith, Teachings, pp. 300–301.)

On 30 June 1916, the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose) declared: “So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.” (In Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 5:34.)

President Spencer W. Kimball taught that the right to eternal increase will depend directly on how individuals keep the marriage covenant in this life:

“One young man said that he expected to reach exaltation in the celestial kingdom as one of the Lord’s messengers, without having to marry. He does not understand. No one who rejects the covenant of celestial marriage can reach exaltation in the eternal kingdom of God.

“‘In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

“‘And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

“‘And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

“‘He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.’ (D&C 131:1–4.)

The same manual quotes Elder McKonkie:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught: “Those who gain eternal life (exaltation) also gain eternal lives, meaning that in the resurrection they have eternal ‘increase,’ ‘a continuation of the seeds,’ a ‘continuation of the lives.’ Their spirit progeny will ‘continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.’

Joseph Smith also said the following, also from the KFD:

How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child or dear relative, to know that although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings, in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer,or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? [i.e., to be joint heirs with Jesus Christ]. To inherit the same power, the same glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before.

The church manual Achieving a Celestial Marriage states:

As shown in this chapter, our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now, capable of physical death. By obedience to eternal gospel principles, he progressed from one stage of life to another until he attained the state that we call exaltation or godhood. In such a condition, he and our mother in heaven were empowered to give birth to spirit children whose potential was equal to that of their heavenly parents. We are those spirit children.

When (or if, I should say) I make it to the celestial kingdom, I plan on spending my time there with my family, not becoming God's "equal" and creating "worlds without end," populating them with my "spirit children," and redeeming them with my Only Begotten Son. Such a teaching is not part of the Church of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith didn't teach it,

I suppose this discussion is now at an end.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Loran Blood

[ldsfaqs]

Look, only for you here I highly recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.co...11977329&sr=1-1

So, rather than actually respond directly to my statements, making clear how YOUR "logic" is superior, you just mock people in your posts???

You've done it twice so far at least to me. You don't have any logic, otherwise it would be easy to respond. The negative fantasy's of your own mind are not logical argument.

[elguanteloko]

So, rather than actually respond directly to my statements, making clear how YOUR "logic" is superior, you just mock people in your posts???

You've done it twice so far at least to me. You don't have any logic, otherwise it would be easy to respond. The negative fantasy's of your own mind are not logical argument.

I'm telling you what I think will greatly help you in the long run. Seriously, with all my heart, I highly recommend you to read that book. Read that book, understand it, and you will GREATLY better your ideas. Please don't take this to be mockery, brother.

[elguanteloko]

ldsfaqs, I'll answer as best as I can to your post trying to show you why I think you should study that book seriously.

Absolutely I do. That's the reason it exists. It's not just for show. [

This isn't an answer that isn't circular. "This works because it has been implemented because it works."

It's always possible for prophets to fall or to not follow Gods Will.

Which is irrelevant to the question. The question is about the method and its practical efficacy.

Further, just as the entire 12 must agree on things before the Prophet makes a rulling, the Church itself must all agree.

This is not true. If LDS member John Doe disagrees, he has to have, ultimately, reasons that the same "prophets" must agree BEFORE anything of effect takes place from his disagreement.

Even further, there are specific examples in Church history of the Consent of the People being followed.

This is way too general. The problem isn't that "the consent of the people" can sometimes be followed, but that the methodology you presented is efficient. You are, still, begging the question.

The Prophet Joseph Smith for example wanted to remove one of his counselors (William Law I think?), but when it was brought before the people for a vote, the membership voted him to stay in, and guess what, the counselor stayed.

Read the example I wrote and see if you see any relevant difference between a doctrine concerning the nature of God and removing a counselor.

Everything with the Church is to be by common consent, not "compulsion". Compulsion is satan's methodology, and it's one of the reasons I'm so upset with the Church for their recent proclamation to full time leaders and their spouses, that they can't do anything at all related to politics, including simple volunteering or donating, let alone public seeking etc. which wouldn't be overly unreasonable and I could understand.

...

It's not a method alone, so your statement is irrelevant.

What do you mean it isn't a "method alone"? That's what we're discussing, namely, "how to define mormon doctrine?"

Edited July 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[ldsfaqs]

ldsfaqs, I'll answer as best as I can to your post trying to show you why I think you should study that book seriously.

I've read logic books before, the problem isn't my logic, it's yours.

This isn't an answer that isn't circular. "This works because it has been implemented because it works."

See, here is an example of where you don't actually demonstrate logic.

There is no "circular reasoning" at all in my statement, you falsely represent and omit the facts.

You made the claim as to if I "actually expected" common consent to disagree with the prophets, and I said yes, and THEN I proceeded to give you evidence of such occurring.

That is not circular reasoning buddy, that's your claim, data presented demonstrating my claim, your claim debunked.

It is you lacking the logic. You only see what you want to see, not the actual evidence and facts. You do this by completely omitting the information I provided to prove my statement, and then go and try to say I provided no evidence and only made a "circular statement". Let me clue you in on something. You people do this on everything concerning Mormonism, and who knows what else.

Which is irrelevant to the question. The question is about the method and its practical efficacy.

Here again, you use no logic, by ignoring facts of the statement.

It is not "irrelevant" because the practice exists for the very reasons that prophets CAN indeed error.

As to it's practical efficacy, I never said that it by itself alone is 100% effective. I've stated there is a 4-fold process to knowing the doctrines of the Church, that is Prophets, Scriptures, Holy Ghost, and Common Consent. One alone, or a couple without all four can allow error. But all four working together and in tandem and we can know of an assuredness of what the Doctrines of God are.

See, you just can't help misrepresenting and omitting facts, in order to try and minimize the LDS position.

This is not true. If LDS member John Doe disagrees, he has to have, ultimately, reasons that the same "prophets" must agree BEFORE anything of effect takes place from his disagreement.

Boy, that was some goop to try and parse.... and I'm still not sure I got what you were trying to say, but I will try to answer.

First, the membership of the Church is essentially a united vote. Obviously with human fallibility, there might be someone who disagrees, but if there is, then that persons concerns are actually delt with and discussed, it could be him, or it could be that he knows something that the general body doesn't know. Rulings can also be reversed you know. Common Consent does work, and it is most certainly true. Obviously the common consent doesn't have to be to the same degree of uniformity as the Twelve, but pretty darn close. Note the word "common". It's what's held in common, not absolute 100% uniformity.

This is way too general. The problem isn't that "the consent of the people" can sometimes be followed, but that the methodology you presented is efficient. You are, still, begging the question.

No, it is not "general". And as I said above, I've never said this method is used "alone", that it alone is "efficient". Do you even read peoples words to understand them?

I made clear that efficiency comes with all four aspects being in play. Take other religions. Other religions might have scriptures, and they might have some Holy Ghost, and maybe even some common consent, but they are missing Prophets. Missing True Prophets, and they create their own interpretations and false doctrines, their own religions, their own authority, etc. Other religions might have so called "prophets" and "spirit", and then be missing much of the other aspects. Again, false religion false doctrines.

Only when all four are in place, can we have a more sure prophecy that we are being led by God and not men.

Read the example I wrote and see if you see any relevant difference between a doctrine concerning the nature of God and removing a counselor.

Doctrines still follow the same process. Most have been generally voted on, and others have been singled out.

If the people believed through their own Scripture study, through the words of other prophets, through the Holy Ghost, and through their common consent that a Doctrine on the Nature of God was false, then we would most certainly say so. We aren't sheep.... We belong to this Church because it is literally AND fully True, to a degree that no other religion on the planet compares, but not only that, but literally so in every way, not just mostly or more so.

So, if something was false.... We would most certainly speak up, similar to what I'm doing in the News section of this site concerning a policy that the Church just put out concerning Full Time leaders and political activity. I believe the Church has went to far, and are following evil in it. I'm not afraid to speak out, when there is a problem. Of course, it's not a doctrine, but a policy, but policy should be based on doctrine, and this policy directly goes against certain doctrines. I'm considering writing a letter, but, it might be awhile, I have bigger issues I'm dealing with. Anyway, you're wrong.

What do you mean it isn't a "method alone"? That's what we're discussing, namely, "how to define mormon doctrine?"

Just as I've already said in this post. Common Consent is not a method that is used alone when determining "Mormon Doctrine". It's only ONE of the parts required to determine the Truth. I'm hope it's clear to you now?

[elguanteloko]

Just as I've already said in this post. Common Consent is not a method that is used alone when determining "Mormon Doctrine". It's only ONE of the parts required to determine the Truth. I'm hope it's clear to you now?

I never even implied CC was a method used alone. I was talking about the whole method you mentioned (of which CC is a part). Now read everything I wrote again with that in mind and try again.

Edited July 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Jeff K.]

Well said ldsfaqs, well done