What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[Xander]

President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but ... when "Thus saith the Lord," comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.

Apostle Charles W. Penrose,

Millennial Star

, 54:191.

They investigate it!

Tell me Robert, which wing of the apologetic vanguard is involved in these "investigations" of comments made by LDS leaders? To even think or talk about such a thing makes you vulnerable to marginalization from within the fold because this is a trait only those borderline apostates share.

I've never known a single conservative Mormon to investigate anything an LDS leader says. In fact I was taught the exact opposite by the family that got me into the Church. And I was told this while the missionaries sat at the dinner table and validated their claims. "What comes out of the Prophet's mouth is law" he said. This, in response to my claim that it wasn't necessarily a sin for Mormon teens to date non-Mormons. The mother freaked out at my suggestion and asked the missionaries to put me in my place. Again, when the Prophet speaks "the thinking has been done." Of course I know this was retracted from publication, but the fact that this statement was ever published by the Church to begin with pretty much makes the point that this is a very acceptable thought process that has been, at least to some degree, institutionalized in the Church. The only reason they retracted it was because it was going to create a public relations nightmare for them and people were complaining about it. But faithful LDS members know it is better never to question.

Incidentally, one of my last experiences with the FAIR e-list involved being told by Scott Gordon that I was acting like a "fundie" simply because I had the audacity to tell Allen Wyatt that just because Spencer Kimball said something in conference, doesn't make it doctrine. I said Kimball was flat out wrong when he said "Lamanite" Indians were becoming lighter in skin tone as they affiliated themselves with the Church. I was reprimanded for doubting the Lord's anointed, I was told that they were chosen by God because they wouldn't lead us astray, etc etc. There was no room for investigation or even logic for that matter. After all, FAIR and FARMS had been contradicting Kimball's story for years now, saying the "white and delightsome" scripture didn't literally refer to skin tone. I explained to the FAIR e-list that "we as apologists keep telling anti-Mormons that the prophets aren't perfect and that they sometimes teach in error, but this conversation makes me wonder, do we really believe that?"

My questions were met mostly with friction from the FAIR faithful while a few liberal LDS folks empathized with my position.

So forgive me if I can't help but laugh at the notion that members are not only allowed, but expected to investigate everything LDS leaders say.

[Robert F. Smith]

They investigate it!

Tell me Robert, which wing of the apologetic vanguard is involved in these "investigations" of comments made by LDS leaders? To even think or talk about such a thing makes you vulnerable to marginalization from within the fold because this is a trait only those borderline apostates share.

I've never known a single conservative Mormon to investigate anything an LDS leader says. In fact I was taught the exact opposite by the family that got me into the Church. And I was told this while the missionaries sat at the dinner table and validated their claims. "What comes out of the Prophet's mouth is law" he said. This, in response to my claim that it wasn't necessarily a sin for Mormon teens to date non-Mormons. The mother freaked out at my suggestion and asked the missionaries to put me in my place. Again, when the Prophet speaks "the thinking has been done." Of course I know this was retracted from publication, but the fact that this statement was ever published by the Church to begin with pretty much makes the point that this is a very acceptable thought process that has been, at least to some degree, institutionalized in the Church. The only reason they retracted it was because it was going to create a public relations nightmare for them and people were complaining about it. But faithful LDS members know it is better never to question.

Incidentally, one of my last experiences with the FAIR e-list involved being told by Scott Gordon that I was acting like a "fundie" simply because I had the audacity to tell Allen Wyatt that just because Spencer Kimball said something in conference, doesn't make it doctrine. I said Kimball was flat out wrong when he said "Lamanite" Indians were becoming lighter in skin tone as they affiliated themselves with the Church. I was reprimanded for doubting the Lord's anointed, I was told that they were chosen by God because they wouldn't lead us astray, etc etc. There was no room for investigation or even logic for that matter. After all, FAIR and FARMS had been contradicting Kimball's story for years now, saying the "white and delightsome" scripture didn't literally refer to skin tone. I explained to the FAIR e-list that "we as apologists keep telling anti-Mormons that the prophets aren't perfect and that they sometimes teach in error, but this conversation makes me wonder, do we really believe that?"

My questions were met mostly with friction from the FAIR faithful while a few liberal LDS folks empathized with my position.

So forgive me if I can't help but laugh at the notion that members are not only allowed, but expected to investigate everything LDS leaders say.

Kevin,

I don't believe there is any such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" Mormon. Such terms are laden with emotive power, and frequently used, but are logically incoherent and meaningless. Just as meaningless as BC Space's one-sided presentation of ideas about the determination of Church doctrine.

I was simply quoting Apostle Penrose, but I could just as easily quote Mike Quinn's "The unexamined faith is not worth having," or excerpt the following from the April 1 address of Apostle Todd Christofferson:

" . . . the Church becomes a body of committed, spiritually mature individuals whose faith is not blind but seeing—informed and confirmed by the Holy Spirit" (note 2).

" . . . a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord," citing D&C 107:30–31 on the proper preparation for conciliar decision-making.

"it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that 'a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such',” citing B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church, V:265.

He also quoted Pres. J. Reuben Clark: “… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”

That requires real, sincere investigation, not adherence to narrow, rigid, and brittle (easily breakable) notions, such as that Ward Teaching Message in the June 1945 Improvement Era, saying that “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.” Pres. George A. Smith gave that nonsense short-shrift, commenting by letter to a non-Mormon, Dec 7, 1945:

“I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts.” See also

Dialogue

, 19/1 (Spring 1986), 35-39.

"There must needs be opposition in all things," Kevin, and to the extent that you raise valid issues, you play an important role in understanding the nature of the Kingdom of God on Earth. All of us on this Board owe you a debt of gratitude. Hugh Nibley told me that he was always happy to see things being stirred up, and he well understood the positive value which could come from seeking after the truth in the powerful crucible of ideas. That requires courage which is only safely employed while accompanied by the Holy Spirit. Let us not be afraid of what we might discover in such an endeavor -- an endeavor in which we are all engaged, and in which we help each other, even if it seems at times that we are in a virtual "war."

[Scott Gordon]

I'm sure there is a misunderstanding here. Maybe you thought you were being clear--but we didn't understand what you were really trying to say, or perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Anyone who knows me, or has read the FAIR Journal (check out last month's article on black issues), or has looked at the FAIR blog, or has looked at the Website I helped create, blacklds.org, knows that l would not be defending the idea of Native American's becoming lighter in skin color. You might as well claim that I don't really believe in the church. My beliefs in this area are fundamental to who I am. Allen Wyatt has a mixed race family so I'm sure he too has similar thoughts on this. So lets not continue down this road of thought.

[Brade]

BC,

Apologize for the delay. I was gone for Easter and just read your reply a little earlier. I have a lot of other things to get done today, but I'd like to answer a few of your common claims:

Agreed. You frequently base much of your own argument on anecdote, and I wanted everyone else to know that there are others out there with a different experience than yours.

I completely agree with the Newsroom statement, almost echoed verbatim by Elder Christofferson in his talk. It tells us how doctrine is received, where it resides, and that doctrine is consistently published in official publications. What it preciesly doesn't say is that everything else that is published in official publications is doctrine. You're making the mistake of the reverse syllogism. (E.g., "The majority of Arabs are Muslims, ergo the majority of Muslims must be Arabs"; but they're not.) The line you keep using (and attributing to the Church) is absent from the very source documents you keep citing. It's just not there. Period. And what's more, many of the things contained in official publications can't be doctrine because they don't meet the critera of how doctrine is received as per the statement and Christofferson's talk. You have arrived at a logical conclusion that is not stated explicitly in the Statement and that is precisely contradicted by the staement itself.

Agreed again. Since this is the very purpose of correlation, it is no wonder the Church follows the principles of it. But there is nothing in this that says that this makes doctrine out of everything so published. A good example is from Teaching, No Greater Call:

• 
  Keep the doctrine pure by teaching gospel truths as the Lord has revealed them. You can do this by teaching from the scriptures and the words of the latter-day prophets.
  

So far we have what we find in the newsroom statement: scriptures and revelation to latter-day prophets. Then, in the next paragraph, we get the following:

• 
  Also make sure that you use Church-produced materials when you teach. This will help you keep the doctrine pure. Avoid speculation and private interpretations.
  

This gives us nothing about church-produced materials being ipso facto doctrine. You keep the doctrine pure using the revelatory material that constitutes doctrine (scriptures and latter-day revelation to prophets). Additionally (separate paragraph), use official-church publications so you can help keep the doctrine pure. This is simlple correlation 101--the vetting of all church-produced material to ensure that it is consistent with doctrine. It is consistent (note the word) with Elder Richard G. Scott's advice here:

• 
  How should you serve? Follow the example of the auxiliary organizations at Church headquarters. They serve under the direction of their assigned General Authority priesthood officers. They meet together frequently to avoid duplication of effort, to simplify the guidance given, and to ensure that their materials are consistent with doctrine and Church policies. Excellent examples of how these cooperative efforts reduce the burdens on the membership of the Church are the recently published Faith in God program for boys and girls, prepared by the Primary, and the Duty to God and Young Women Personal Progress programs currently in use throughout the world.
  

• 
  Extraordinary effort was focused on these materials to make sure that they were simple, clear, and applicable around the world. They were worked on cooperatively with other headquarters auxiliaries. The other organizations have developed their materials in a similar way. When finalized, their efforts are reviewed and approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
  

Note that these great publications (that I use assiduously with my own kids) are described as "consistent with doctrine." They are not doctrine themselves, even though carefully vetted through Church correlation and published by the Church. I maintain that you consistently confuse the doctrine of correlation with doctrine itself. Similarly, in Teaching, No Greater Call, the guidance is to keep doctrine pure by teaching gospel truths the Lord has revealed (doctrine). In that paragraph about revelation, the guidance is to use the scriptures and revealed words of Latter-day Prophets. In the following paragraph, it gives further guidance to also use official church publications in your teaching because it will help you keep the doctrine pure. In the words of Richard G. Scott, this is because those publications, like the Duty to God program have been vetted to ensure that they are consistent with doctrine. And this is exactly consistent with what was given to me in my "anecdotal" training by the Church itself.

Also true. But as with the arguments above and below, this can still be the case where publications are consistent with doctrine, and it doesn't make the claim that all publications are doctrine.

This is somewhat opaque; I would need further clarification in order to answer it.

Except that he did not. Elder Dallin H. Oaks' talk, Overview of the New Handbooks (Worldwide Leadership Training, 2010) actually said that the handbooks are doctrinally based (which undercuts your argument) and that the handbooks are not on the same status as scripture. Others reporting the talk noted the difference, saying that Elder Oaks said that the handbooks are doctrinal, not doctrine. Elder Oaks says that the handbooks "represent the most current interpretations and procedural directions of the Church's highest authorities." Well and good enough. This is correlation at work. But he prefaces this statement by saying that "handbooks do not have the same standing as the scriptures." Note first, that the handbooks are interpretations and second, that they do not have the same standing as scriptures. And this despite going through a vetting and approval process that is much tighter than almost anything else in correlation. When holding up Book 2, he says, "Everyone who is receiving this broadcast should carefully read these three new chapters. They are doctrinally based on the scriptures. They are extremely important." Again, a reference to it being doctrinally based on something else but absolutely no reference to it being doctrine itself. He then cites several passages from the handbook and says something like "this is based on a doctrinal foundation of" scripture x, y, or z. Everything has a doctrinal foundation elsewhere (where the doctrine resides, according to the Newsroom Statement). It would be doctrinal, or in the words of Richard G. Scott, consistent with doctrine.

Richard G. Scott tells us that this material is "consistent with doctrine." Elder Oaks says that it is doctrinally-based and not on the same level as the scriptures. The Newsroom Statement and Elder Christofferson's talk tell us how doctrine is received but mysteriously leave out any declaration that everything the Church publishes is now doctrine. Based on what I've provided and what I've experienced, I think it clear that everything published by the Church is doctrinal or consistent with doctrine but not that it is doctrine. Interesting how the words like doctrinally-based and consistent with doctrine used by Elder Scott and Elder Oaks were the very kinds of words used in the training I received. Weird how that works!

Regards

I don't know that it can be put any better than this. As I've said time and time again, bcspace is making very clear logical errors here. Everyone else sees them but him, and I don't think there's anything anyone can do to help him at this point.

[zerinus]

BC,

I had some small hope when J Green posted that you would see some nuanced view that you would be comfortable with. To say that teaching materieals are consistent with doctrine, and given that they are published as teaching materials, it follows that there is no real distinction between "being/proclaiming doctrine" and "being consistent with doctrine". And I haven't seen anyone question that point.

There certainly is a distinction between the two, otherwise why make a distinction?

[Xander]

Scott,

I'm sure there is a misunderstanding here. Maybe you thought you were being clear--but we didn't understand what you were really trying to say, or perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

I have the exchange saved and it doesn't appear to be a misunderstanding. I was criticized on the list by Wyatt, and then off list by you, for asserting that Spencer Kimball was "wrong." Not for misunderstanding your beliefs.

Anyone who knows me, or has read the FAIR Journal (check out last month's article on black issues), or has looked at the FAIR blog, or has looked at the Website I helped create, blacklds.org, knows that l would not be defending the idea of Native American's becoming lighter in skin color.

Right. This is what you believe, and you do so contrary to what the Church has explicitly taught during conference.

You might as well claim that I don't really believe in the church.

I never said you didn't really believe it. I said you were upset with me for taking this apologetic to its logical conclusion by stating flat out, "the prophet was wrong."

My beliefs in this area are fundamental to who I am. Allen Wyatt has a mixed race family so I'm sure he too has similar thoughts on this. So lets not continue down this road of thought.

Yes, I'm perfectly willing to grant you that. The two of you believe in an apologetic theory that runs contrary to official Church teaching. You believe the prophet was wrong but you do not like it when people say this out loud. OK.

Robert,

I don't believe there is any such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" Mormon. Such terms are laden with emotive power, and frequently used, but are logically incoherent and meaningless. Just as meaningless as BC Space's one-sided presentation of ideas about the determination of Church doctrine.

Nonsense. There are clearly Mormons who can be described by themselves, and others, as conservative or liberal. That you do not like the distinction is irrelevant to its validity, significance and coherence.

I was simply quoting Apostle Penrose, but I could just as easily quote Mike Quinn's "The unexamined faith is not worth having," or excerpt the following from the April 1 address of Apostle Todd Christofferson:

None of these citations say Mormons are expected to investigate the teachings of LDS leaders, unless you're using some other sense of the word. By investigate, do you mean to simply pray about it and then trust the "spirit" based on the resulting feelings? When I say investigate, I mean to critically assess their claims. Mormons do not do this nor are they expected to.

That requires real, sincere investigation

No it doesn't. These citations are simply instructing the member to pray about something. Good grief, is this really the kind of "investigation" you're referring to?

The fact is members are not expected to "investigate" things the Church would rather keep hidden. It is for this reason most Mormons have never heard of the Kirtland Egyptian papers. Those who have probably heard about it after reading a FARMS review of Charles Larson. That's about the extent of true "investigation" a LDS member is expected to engage in; reading an apologetic response to the anti-Mormons (which usually amounts to a rebuttal to one or two minor points) as opposed to reading these arguments for themselves. The Church and the apologetists have been bending over backwards trying to keep these things out of the reach of the general membership, so I do not know who you think you are kidding by insisting the critics are welcomed and appreciated with open arms.

[wenglund]

They investigate it!

Tell me Robert, which wing of the apologetic vanguard is involved in these "investigations" of comments made by LDS leaders? To even think or talk about such a thing makes you vulnerable to marginalization from within the fold because this is a trait only those borderline apostates share.

I've never known a single conservative Mormon to investigate anything an LDS leader says. In fact I was taught the exact opposite by the family that got me into the Church. And I was told this while the missionaries sat at the dinner table and validated their claims. "What comes out of the Prophet's mouth is law" he said. This, in response to my claim that it wasn't necessarily a sin for Mormon teens to date non-Mormons. The mother freaked out at my suggestion and asked the missionaries to put me in my place. Again, when the Prophet speaks "the thinking has been done." Of course I know this was retracted from publication, but the fact that this statement was ever published by the Church to begin with pretty much makes the point that this is a very acceptable thought process that has been, at least to some degree, institutionalized in the Church. The only reason they retracted it was because it was going to create a public relations nightmare for them and people were complaining about it. But faithful LDS members know it is better never to question.

Incidentally, one of my last experiences with the FAIR e-list involved being told by Scott Gordon that I was acting like a "fundie" simply because I had the audacity to tell Allen Wyatt that just because Spencer Kimball said something in conference, doesn't make it doctrine. I said Kimball was flat out wrong when he said "Lamanite" Indians were becoming lighter in skin tone as they affiliated themselves with the Church. I was reprimanded for doubting the Lord's anointed, I was told that they were chosen by God because they wouldn't lead us astray, etc etc. There was no room for investigation or even logic for that matter. After all, FAIR and FARMS had been contradicting Kimball's story for years now, saying the "white and delightsome" scripture didn't literally refer to skin tone. I explained to the FAIR e-list that "we as apologists keep telling anti-Mormons that the prophets aren't perfect and that they sometimes teach in error, but this conversation makes me wonder, do we really believe that?"

My questions were met mostly with friction from the FAIR faithful while a few liberal LDS folks empathized with my position.

So forgive me if I can't help but laugh at the notion that members are not only allowed, but expected to investigate everything LDS leaders say.

Kevin,

Robert is correct. Your participation here does better us. Call it the Lehi factor. So, please, continue to serve diligently on your mission for the Church of What is Wrong with LDS Apologists. And, what ever you do, don't loose that chip on your sholder, and keep grinding that ax. And, if it isn't too much to ask, would you be so kind as to bear your teeth a little more as you snarl and snip at our heals?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 10, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Robert,

Nonsense. There are clearly Mormons who can be described by themselves, and others, as conservative or liberal. That you do not like the distinction is irrelevant to its validity, significance and coherence.

None of these citations say Mormons are expected to investigate the teachings of LDS leaders, unless you're using some other sense of the word. By investigate, do you mean to simply pray about it and then trust the "spirit" based on the resulting feelings? When I say investigate, I mean to critically assess their claims. Mormons do not do this nor are they expected to.

No it doesn't. These citations are simply instructing the member to pray about something. Good grief, is this really the kind of "investigation" you're referring to?

The fact is members are not expected to "investigate" things the Church would rather keep hidden. It is for this reason most Mormons have never heard of the Kirtland Egyptian papers. Those who have probably heard about it after reading a FARMS review of Charles Larson. That's about the extent of true "investigation" a LDS member is expected to engage in; reading an apologetic response to the anti-Mormons (which usually amounts to a rebuttal to one or two minor points) as opposed to reading these arguments for themselves. The Church and the apologetists have been bending over backwards trying to keep these things out of the reach of the general membership, so I do not know who you think you are kidding by insisting the critics are welcomed and appreciated with open arms.

Perhaps in your fundamentalist, spiritually myopic world view it may not have occurred to you that in certain cases, particularly those of a religious nature, praying to God is the most intelligent and critical form of investigation, and one that is strongly encouraged by the Church--and this along with the investigatory methodology of Alma 32.

And, since you flunked the test of faith, you can't be expected to grasp the simple and salient point that the reason the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers have been relatively unknown within the Church is because they are relatively irrelevant to the intent and purposes of the Church. Things like String Theory are also relatively unknown among Church members for similar reasons, and not because the Church has supposedly tried to hid them.

However, I do appreciate you providing this opportunity for making these corrections.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 10, 2012 by wenglund

[Xander]

If refusing to abandon all logic and reason, while trusting in emotion for determining important life-altering decisions is your idea of flunking some mysterious test, then I'll do so gladly without regret. In reality, there is no test of faith, only the Church's desire to convince the members that they are somehow being reasonable by relying on a demonstrably flawed method for determining truth. After all, this so called method has been employed by millions and the vast majority come to very different conclusions than those who end up converting.

Oh wait, that's because the vast majority, they too failed the "test of faith" right?

With this kind of convenient circular reasoning driving LDS thinking, the possibilities are endless.

The fact is Mormons do not investigate LDS truth claims and they are not expected to. To even ask tough questions attracts suspicions of apostasy, and who wants that? That they pray about things taught in Church should be taken for granted, but this shouldn't be confused with true investigation.

Like I said, there were a number of issues that i knew virtually nothing about, even as an apologist. Why? Because I confined my reading to FARMS reviews and Church approved materials. I had to hear about the anti-Mormon points from a faith promoting response that always came in the form of a floor-mopping refutation.

And by the way, if you believed your own rhetoric about wanting to keep me around, your posts would reflect that intention. But they don't.

[wenglund]

If refusing to abandon all logic and reason, while trusting in emotion for determining important life-altering decisions is your idea of flunking some mysterious test, then I'll do so gladly without regret.

But, you didn't refuse, nor do you have a clue what to trust. That was my point.

In reality, there is no test of faith, only the Church's desire to convince the members that they are somehow being reasonable by relying on a demonstrably flawed method for determining truth. After all, this so called method has been employed by millions and the vast majority come to very different conclusions than those who end up converting.

Again, since you flunked the test, it wouldn't be reasonable to expect you to understand.

Oh wait, that's because the vast majority, they too failed the "test of faith" right?

No--but I don't expect you to understand.

With this kind of convenient circular reasoning driving LDS thinking, the possibilities are endless.

CFR that I engaged in circular reasoning (warning: this is a test of critical thinking).

The fact is Mormons do not investigate LDS truth claims and they are not expected to. To even ask tough questions attracts suspicions of apostasy, and who wants that?

CFR that the above statement is a "fact' (warning: this is a test of critical thinking)

That they pray about things taught in Church should be taken for granted, but this shouldn't be confused with true investigation.

Again, since you flunked the test of faith, you can't reasonably be expected to understand. And, based upon how you respond to the CFR, we will see if you also flunk the test of critical thinking, which may give us all the more reason not to expect that you would understand.

Like I said, there were a number of issues that i knew virtually nothing about, even as an apologist. Why? Because I confined my reading to FARMS reviews and Church approved materials. I had to hear about the anti-Mormon points from a faith promoting response that always came in the form of a floor-mopping refutation.

Yes, I am aware of your quixotic and black knight perception of things, It lets us know whether you passed or flunked the test on having a grip on reality. LOL

And by the way, if you believed your own rhetoric about wanting to keep me around, your posts would reflect that intention. But they don't.

You evidently don't understand why I think it is good to have you around--but, then. as I have already intimated, it wouldn't be reasonable for me to expect it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 10, 2012 by wenglund

[Scott Gordon]

Nonsense.

I do not believe in an apologetic theory that runs counter to official church teachings. If I did, FAIR would not have the relationship with the Church that it has.

For example, this comes from the Church's recent official statement on race:

"Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church." (emphasis added by me)

And this one:

"Belief in prophets and apostles at the head of the Church does not mean that members blindly follow their leaders. While the prophet of God receives revelation and inspiration to guide the Church as a whole, revelation flows at every level, including to the leaders of congregations and to individual families and members. In fact, individual members are expected to seek that kind of divine guidance to help them in their own lives, in their responsibilities in the Church and even in temporal pursuits, including their occupations. Members are also expected to prayerfully seek their own “testimony” or conviction of the principles their leaders teach them."

What I mostly object to is your style of writing with your insisting as to what is and what is not official church doctrine just as you are doing again here. You are not the one who decides this for me.

I remember that some of our differences of opinion at the time had to do with how you were talking about Muslims and Islam.

Ironic that the "Mormon Apologist" was upset how someone was talking about Islam.

Right. This is what you believe, and you do so contrary to what the Church has explicitly taught during conference.

I never said you didn't really believe it. I said you were upset with me for taking this apologetic to its logical conclusion by stating flat out, "the prophet was wrong."

Yes, I'm perfectly willing to grant you that. The two of you believe in an apologetic theory that runs contrary to official Church teaching. You believe the prophet was wrong but you do not like it when people say this out loud. OK.

[Wiki Wonka]

Because I confined my reading to FARMS reviews and Church approved materials. I had to hear about the anti-Mormon points from a faith promoting response that always came in the form of a floor-mopping refutation.

Why? Why would you confine yourself to those materials? Have FAIR apologetics changed that much in the last few years? I know that at the very least you read Mormonism 101. How does one become an apologist without reading critical arguments? I have an entire shelf full of critical books (Denton, Palmer, Abanes, Southerton, Ostling, Brodie, and others), many of which I have read and responded to in the FAIR Wiki. I even told the counselor in our stake presidency about them during my temple recommend interview. You cannot be an apologist without reading what critics write.

http://en.fairmormon...Mormonism/Books

WW

[mfbukowski]

Thank you Elder Christofferson for disabusing us this morning of the notion that doctrine comes only from the scriptures. Notice how doctrine continues to be established (AoF 1:9 quoted to that effect) whereas canon has not changed in quite a while. Notice how the establishment of doctrine may include pondering the scriptures, but also the words of the prophets and even scholarship. The key of course being seeking revelation of the Spirit and not unanimity.

Nor is the criterion "being published by the church". Funny he didn't mention that.

[J Green]

Bumpin' for BC . . .

[Brade]

It's interesting that believers and non-believers agree on this issue - that bcspace's view of the church's view is absurd and unsupported by the offered evidence.

[J Green]

Agreed, Brade. And I notice that you've engaged him fairly consistently and well on this issue whereas I'm more of a confirmed lurker. Some people change personality when they get online, but I'm an introvert both on and off the boards -- or at least an extrovert only in the sense that I'm willing to look at other people's shoes.

Cheers.

[Brade]

Agreed, Brade. And I notice that you've engaged him fairly consistently and well on this issue whereas I'm more of a confirmed lurker. Some people change personality when they get online, but I'm an introvert both on and off the boards -- or at least an extrovert only in the sense that I'm willing to look at other people's shoes.

Cheers.

I really enjoyed your posts on this. People like you are a great asset to the church, I think.

[mfbukowski]

Agreed, Brade. And I notice that you've engaged him fairly consistently and well on this issue whereas I'm more of a confirmed lurker. Some people change personality when they get online, but I'm an introvert both on and off the boards -- or at least an extrovert only in the sense that I'm willing to look at other people's shoes.

Cheers.

I really enjoy your posts- you can look at my shoes anytime you like, and if you want to post more on your shoes I promise to read what you post without looking you in the eye.

[mfbukowski]

My views change all the time, and I am glad that people don't challenge the "old bukowski" with what the "new bukowski" thinks, mostly because what the "future bukowski" thinks may be quite different still.

[Libs]

Agreed, Brade. And I notice that you've engaged him fairly consistently and well on this issue whereas I'm more of a confirmed lurker. Some people change personality when they get online, but I'm an introvert both on and off the boards -- or at least an extrovert only in the sense that I'm willing to look at other people's shoes.

Cheers.

Thank you very much for your input, J Green. It's been very helpful.

I am a confirmed introvert, myself, so I totally understand the "lurker mode" and rarely posting.

So, I think the main difference between BC's argument and yours (and many others here) is that BC claims everything published by the Church is doctrine vs doctrine being IN publications of the Church, but not "everything" is doctrine. I think that is the crux of it?

BC, I appreciate your input, as well. This has been an interesting thread.

I think I mentioned that I started it, because some critics were claiming exactly what you (BC) are claiming...that everything published by the Church is official doctrine. I was claiming that only the Standard Works qualified as "official doctrine". I can see now that the truth of it is somewhere in between.

[J Green]

I really enjoyed your posts on this. People like you are a great asset to the church, I think.

Thanks, Brade.

[J Green]

My views change all the time, and I am glad that people don't challenge the "old bukowski" with what the "new bukowski" thinks, mostly because what the "future bukowski" thinks may be quite different still.

Amen. Excellent point, Bukowski.

Cheers.

[J Green]

So, I think the main difference between BC's argument and yours (and many others here) is that BC claims everything published by the Church is doctrine vs doctrine being IN publications of the Church, but not "everything" is doctrine. I think that is the crux of it?

That's essentially it, Libs. I think that through correlation the Church tries hard to ensure that everything it publishes is doctrinally-based or consistent with doctrine but not everything it publishes actually is doctrine.

Regards

[Libs]

Thanks!

[Brade]

bc, any thoughts?