When Is Doctrine Really Doctrine?

[Scott Lloyd]

So to summarize my further light and knoweldge, Correlation in no way "creates" doctrine, but is responsible for correctly representing what the prophets have taught.

 

I think that's a fair summary, except that what they do is more along the lines of scrutinizing what others produce.

 

Whether or not they do that is of course subject to question. 

 

 

Nobody's perfect. But my observation over the years has been that they do a pretty good job.

 

And that certainly does away with the idea that "everything the church publishes is doctrine" because what it publishes is largely written not by apostles and prophets, who sometimes err and disagree themselves, but by writers who also are human and speak only for their understanding of what the apostles have perhaps erroneously stated.

 

 

 

Apostles and prophets don't err and disagree among themselves all that often.

 

And you make it sound here that they are more hands-off in controlling what comes out under their watch than they actually are.

 

 

I think I have it now. 

 

I hope so.

[Scott Lloyd]

Heck no- I am saying that interpretations change over time, and we accept them according to the spirit.

 

Midgley says there is only one "doctrine" and I tend to agree with that.  I am sure that meaning of "Jesus is the Christ" changes over time as well- surely Aquinas would disagree with Brigham Young considerably on what that phrase means.

 

But yes, the prophets are here to set us straight on theology.

 

Maybe if we dropped "doctrine" and substituted "theology" we would be closer to figuring this out.  Prophets teach theology? 

 

Oh I suppose then we will get into the "philosophies of men " stuff.  But after all, prophets are men.  How about "inspired theology"?

I'm tired, and my wife wants me home to attend a pack meeting.

 

Have a good evening.

[mfbukowski]

I think that's a fair summary, except that what they do is more along the lines of scrutinizing what others produce.

 

Nobody's perfect. But my observation over the years has been that they do a pretty good job.

 

Apostles and prophets don't err and disagree among themselves all that often.

 

And you make it sound here that they are more hands-off in controlling what comes out under their watch than they actually are.

 

I hope so.

Well I am willing to go with this and stamp it "correlated" as far as your opinion and mine. 

 

I readily admit I have been no closer than 100 feet or so from the Church Office Building. 

[theplains]

we are about the only ones who still believe in living prophets running around saying things and we have this amazing tendency not only to listen, but to have what they say written down.

 

Joseph F. Smith said, "He [mankind] dies in consequence of the sin of Adam" (Teachings of

Presidents of the Church - Joseph F. Smith, chapter 10: Jesus Christ Redeems All Mankind

from Temporal Death).

 

President Marion G. Romney, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, said "It [the gospel

plan or program] anticipated the need for a Savior to win the victory over death, atone for the

sin of Adam, which brought death, and provide the means whereby men, through repentance,

may receive forgiveness for personal sins and be readmitted into the presence of God" (Ensign,

"Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ", November 1979).  This is supported by the November 1974

Ensign ("A Testimony of Christ") and March 2008 ("The Atonement of Christ").

 

But Dallin H. Oaks said  "The decision of Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit was not a

sin, as it is sometimes considered by other Christian churches. It was a transgression - an

act that was formally prohibited but not inherently wrong" (Conference Report, Oct. 1993,

Ensign, November 1993).

 

Do you listen to the members of the First Presidency only while they live?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[strappinglad]

To quote John Kenneth Galbraith, eminent economist, when asked why his views on the economy were not the same over time. He said , " I'd rather be right than consistent " .

 

 I will define doctrine. Doctrine is a statement made by the Brethren , that we agree with. Policy /practice are those which we have some reservations about. Heresy is found in those concepts which the Brethren preach which we definitely do not agree with.

Edited December 11, 2013 by strappinglad

[Stone holm]

Joseph F. Smith said, "He [mankind] dies in consequence of the sin of Adam" (Teachings of

Presidents of the Church - Joseph F. Smith, chapter 10: Jesus Christ Redeems All Mankind

from Temporal Death).

 

President Marion G. Romney, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, said "It [the gospel

plan or program] anticipated the need for a Savior to win the victory over death, atone for the

sin of Adam, which brought death, and provide the means whereby men, through repentance,

may receive forgiveness for personal sins and be readmitted into the presence of God" (Ensign,

"Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ", November 1979).  This is supported by the November 1974

Ensign ("A Testimony of Christ") and March 2008 ("The Atonement of Christ").

 

But Dallin H. Oaks said  "The decision of Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit was not a

sin, as it is sometimes considered by other Christian churches. It was a transgression - an

act that was formally prohibited but not inherently wrong" (Conference Report, Oct. 1993,

Ensign, November 1993).

 

Do you listen to the members of the First Presidency only while they live?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Oh heck, I rarely listen to them at all, especially the last one quoted.

[teddyaware]

Oh heck, I rarely listen to them at all, especially the last one quoted.

It's proper and fitting that you be an active member of the Lord's restored Church in there latter days. For it must needs be that those who give due deference and honor to the living prophets, seers and revelators face and learn to deal with internal forces that stand in opposition to their stance.

[Stone holm]

It's proper and fitting that you be an active member of the Lord's restored Church in there latter days. For it must needs be that those who give due deference and honor to the living prophets, seers and revelators face and learn to deal with internal forces that stand in opposition to their stance.

Oh, I wouldn't say that I stand in opposition to them. I rather think that God gave us brains and expects us to use them. When one of the GAs says something worth listening to I listen, when they babble on with puff and crowd control, I tend to tune them out. Do you think that every time a GA opens his mouth he is totally plugged in? If you do that's fine, I no longer share that belief.

[teddyaware]

Oh, I wouldn't say that I stand in opposition to them. I rather think that God gave us brains and expects us to use them. When one of the GAs says something worth listening to I listen, when they babble on with puff and crowd control, I tend to tune them out. Do you think that every time a GA opens his mouth he is totally plugged in? If you do that's fine, I no longer share that belief.

You seem to go far beyond the notion that there some occasions when the GSs aren't as tuned in as they could be, but on to a position that asserts they are quite rarely ever in tune and worth listening to. If you are merely exaggerating so as to mischievously play the role of the iconoclastic contrarian, that's not so bad. But if you're serious, I would be somewhat worried for you. The goal is to humble ourselves into the very depths of deepest humility. "God resisteth the proud but giveth grace unto the humble."(James 4:6) Do you not realize that such an attitude smacks of (to coin a word) Lamanism?

Edited December 11, 2013 by teddyaware

[jkwilliams]

You have a most amazing ability to turn on a dime.

 

I know, I misunderstood you the whole time, right?

 

Maybe you could clarify. My position is this:

 

1. The doctrine resides in the scriptures, and the brethren proclaim the doctrine.

2. The Correlation committee and staff use guidelines established by the brethren to review any materials or programs the church departments produce.

3. Anything approved and published by the church has thus been reviewed and determined to be doctrinal.

 

If I've been unclear about that, I'm sorry, but this has been my position from the beginning.

[jkwilliams]

For what it's worth, what John says here comports with my own understanding.

 

And I interact weekly with Correlation, and my work is routinely scrutinized by them.

 

Thanks, Scott.

[jkwilliams]

You have to take a time-lapse view covering several generations to identify such inconsistencies.

 

The Brethren as they are constituted today are remarkably consistent in their individual views. I think any snapshot at any given time (with the possible exception of the turbulent days in the early history of the Restoration) would show similar consistency.

 

I don't see that jkwilliams disputed it.

 

I don't dispute it. Midgley is right that the central doctrine, the "fullness of the gospel," is the mission of the Savior. Where I would caution is against arguing that this is the only doctrine of the church; rather, the many doctrines we see are part of the doctrine of Christ.

[jkwilliams]

No, you've taken reality and turned it upside down with this supposition.

 

Correlation take(s) its (their) direction from the prophets and apostles and function(s) accordingly.

 

That's how it was explained to me and how I saw correlation working in my job.

[jkwilliams]

Emphasis added:

 

See why I have a problem with your definitions?

 

In one point correlation "establishes" doctrine and in the other they are checking "adherence" to "doctrine" which remains undefined.

 

No, correlation doesn't "establish" the doctrine. The FP and the 12 started Correlation, and as part of that program, they established the doctrine. I can see why you misunderstood.

[jkwilliams]

He said that Correlation establishes doctrine.

 

As I said, that is not what I meant. Correlation ensures that the doctrines established by the prophets and apostles are declared consistently in church programs and publications. The committee has no authority or mandate to establish doctrine.

[jkwilliams]

I do hope so.

 

Except that one of the roles of a prophet, as I understand it is to "declare new doctrine" from time to time. (This, by the way, was taught to me by a member of the Correlation Department, ironically. And yes, he used that precise phrase: "declare new doctrine".) You seem to be saying (and correct me if I am misunderstanding ) that there can be no new doctrine, or no doctrine that is not already in the scriptures.

 

That's exactly right. The existence of Correlation does not inhibit the prophets and apostles in declaring new doctrine, nor does it affect future additions to scripture or new revelations.

[Stone holm]

You seem to go far beyond the notion that there some occasions when the GSs aren't as tuned in as they could be, but on to a position that asserts they are quite rarely ever in tune and worth listening to. If you are merely exaggerating so as to mischievously play the role of the iconoclastic contrarian, that's not so bad. But if you're serious, I would be somewhat worried for you. The goal is to humble ourselves into the very depths of deepest humility. "God resisteth the proud but giveth grace unto the humble."(James 4:6) Do you not realize that such an attitude smacks of (to coin a word) Lamanism?

 

Well that varies over time.  Right now most everything is going through the milk homogenization process so what tends to come out is superficial puff without much substance.  Boyd K. Packer is usually worth listening to, not because he is always right, but because he tells it as he sees it.  The two counselors in the First Presidency are generally worth listening to because they are trying to quietly prepare the Church for change.  President Monson is worth listening to because he is the President of the Church and if real change or something of major significance is about to happen, it will start there.  Perhaps I am Lamanistic, I prefer to think of it as realism -- Laman and Lemuel were too conservative and too in favor of the status quo and trying to go backwards for my blood, the societal changes were emanating from Lehi and Nephi at the time.  On the other hand, during the time of Christ the changes were being heralded by him and his disciples and the conservative establishment was resisting Him, eventually to the point of crucifying Him.

[garza4411]

One only has to go back to the Sept 2013 Ensign to find an explanation of how doctrine is established. The article is even called, "How is Doctrine Established?"

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/09/how-is-doctrine-established

 

The bottom line, doctrine comes through divine revelation to prophets from Jesus Christ. No committees, dictionary meanings, etc.....the definition is right there in the Sept 2013 Ensign.

 

So the First Presidency in 1947 called the ban "doctrine" several times in written correspondence with the member, adding this about doctrines:  "They are either true or not true."  Given that the FP bore their testimonies in the letter that "...[the doctrines] are true" I'm going with:  The ban was clearly a doctrine.

[DBMormon]

Just to add to my frustration is the impossibility of pinning down very little in Mormonism

We have prophets as mentioned by a poster earlier that Adam's sin versus later saying it was not a Sin (no worries we can explain it away)

We have Quotes that Doctrine doesn't change and then we change our Doctrine (No problem, sometimes Doctrine is beliefs aka - dictionary definition and sometimes it means eternal truth revealed by God)  but then you have to compare that with Elder Christofferson saying our Doctrine comes by revelation (he is setting the definiton, not me).  But we simply explain it away as he is not describing the same Doctrine that Elder Anderson is describing when he says our Doctrine is what 15 men teach unitedly and it is not hard to find. 

 

I love Mormonism and I am here for the long run (barring another revelation from God where he asks me to go) But I am frustrated as all heck that we can't pin Mormonism down on most anything.  There are loopholes, allowances, deference that must be paid as to limit one from questioning to the ends of a logical argument, there are scholars and apologist who defend the Church with great answers only the Church itself won't stand behind those same answers, there are contradictions at every turn only they really are not contradictions because same words have different meanings, and he meant this, and she meant that..... 

Again no offense to Elder Anderson, but our Doctrine is darn hard to find and define.  Leaders always say our Doctrine can be found easily but none of them actually define it as it can't be done.  We can't even tell if the PH ban came from God or if it was an invention of Brigham Young or some other leader.  And the Church doesn't know either, but it is easy to find.......

 

We don't even have Grace nailed Down in terms of defining in any way that the majority of the Church would agree

 

We don't grasp justification vs sanctification (made clean vs the mighty change)

 

the majority of members don't have a clue about their faith's history and theology and a large chunk of the rest are in many respects wrong.

 

Our manuals are a constant nourishment of MILK and my spirit has grown somewhat lactose intolerant.  I need to be fed deeper and I personally think  we only feed fluff 95% (and the other 5% comes from people like me opening our mouth in Sunday School or PH/RS) of the time to the lowest common denominator

Edited December 11, 2013 by DBMormon

[Stone holm]

Just to add to my frustration is the impossibility of pinning down very little in Mormonism

We have prophets as mentioned by a poster earlier that Adam's sin versus later saying it was not a Sin (no worries we can explain it away)

We have Quotes that Doctrine doesn't change and then we change our Doctrine (No problem, sometimes Doctrine is beliefs aka - dictionary definition and sometimes it means eternal truth revealed by God)  but then you have to compare that with Elder Christofferson saying our Doctrine comes by revelation (he is setting the definiton, not me).  But we simply explain it away as he is not describing the same Doctrine that Elder Anderson is describing when he says our Doctrine is what 15 men teach unitedly and it is not hard to find. 

 

I love Mormonism and I am here for the long run (barring another revelation from God where he asks me to go) But I am frustrated as all heck that we can't pin Mormonism down on most anything.  There are loopholes, allowances, deference that must be paid as to limit one from questioning to the ends of a logical argument, there are scholars and apologist who defend the Church with great answers only the Church itself won't stand behind those same answers, there are contradictions at every turn only they really are not contradictions because same words have different meanings, and he meant this, and she meant that..... 

Again no offense to Elder Anderson, but our Doctrine is darn hard to find and define.  Leaders always say our Doctrine can be found easily but none of them actually define it as it can't be done.  We can't even tell if the PH ban came from God or if it was an invention of Brigham Young or some other leader.  And the Church doesn't know either, but it is easy to find.......

 

We don't even have Grace nailed Down in terms of defining in any way that the majority of the Church would agree

 

We don't grasp justification vs sanctification (made clean vs the mighty change)

 

the majority of members don't have a clue about their faith's history and theology and a large chunk of the rest are in many respects wrong.

 

Our manuals are a constant nourishment of MILK and my spirit has grown somewhat lactose intolerant.  I need to be fed deeper and I personally think only feed fluff 95% of the time to the lowest common denominator

 

That depends.  If you are talking about core principles, in other words your basic "milk", then you can pick up any single Ensign issue and you will basically have them -- not much need for anything else.  That is unfortunately also the extent of many members' understanding of the Gospel, and generally getting more than that makes them uncomfortable.  It is only if, like Joseph Smith, you are "wont to swim in deepwater", that things start to get a bit murky.  But better to have "deep waters" that are a bit murky, than to only have a wading pool.  Correllation is designed to make sure that our wading pool is clear and pure.  So long as the membership primarily consists of toddlers, then its just not a problem.

[stemelbow]

Just to add to my frustration is the impossibility of pinning down very little in Mormonism

We have prophets as mentioned by a poster earlier that Adam's sin versus later saying it was not a Sin (no worries we can explain it away)

We have Quotes that Doctrine doesn't change and then we change our Doctrine (No problem, sometimes Doctrine is beliefs aka - dictionary definition and sometimes it means eternal truth revealed by God)  but then you have to compare that with Elder Christofferson saying our Doctrine comes by revelation (he is setting the definiton, not me).  But we simply explain it away as he is not describing the same Doctrine that Elder Anderson is describing when he says our Doctrine is what 15 men teach unitedly and it is not hard to find. 

 

I love Mormonism and I am here for the long run (barring another revelation from God where he asks me to go) But I am frustrated as all heck that we can't pin Mormonism down on most anything.  There are loopholes, allowances, deference that must be paid as to limit one from questioning to the ends of a logical argument, there are scholars and apologist who defend the Church with great answers only the Church itself won't stand behind those same answers, there are contradictions at every turn only they really are not contradictions because same words have different meanings, and he meant this, and she meant that..... 

Again no offense to Elder Anderson, but our Doctrine is darn hard to find and define.  Leaders always say our Doctrine can be found easily but none of them actually define it as it can't be done.  We can't even tell if the PH ban came from God or if it was an invention of Brigham Young or some other leader.  And the Church doesn't know either, but it is easy to find.......

 

We don't even have Grace nailed Down in terms of defining in any way that the majority of the Church would agree

 

We don't grasp justification vs sanctification (made clean vs the mighty change)

 

the majority of members don't have a clue about their faith's history and theology and a large chunk of the rest are in many respects wrong.

 

Our manuals are a constant nourishment of MILK and my spirit has grown somewhat lactose intolerant.  I need to be fed deeper and I personally think  we only feed fluff 95% (and the other 5% comes from people like me opening our mouth in Sunday School or PH/RS) of the time to the lowest common denominator

 

I honestly kind of like that we can't nail down the doctrine completely.  We're fluid,.  Subject to change and differing opinions on some of these things.  Its a lovely way to go.  It just gets sticky and tough when something that was defined as revelation from God and doctrine is now considered false.  How did that happen?  Will it happen again?  Is it happening now? 

 

But I agree we're inundated with Milk--we're all getting mild poisoned.  To me it seems to be because the Church generally fears if they let us go discussing what we want, we'll end up with people professing all sorts of weird things.  Uh...Hello?  This social pressure to keep us stifled is exhausting.  It's putting me to sleep, literally, every week.  I kind of get why--who wants a bunch of who knows what weird theories being expressed by anyone who feels the need to chime in?  That'd be tiring too. 

[go_utes01]

Revel in the ambiguity and the opportunity it provides to learn and grow individually. Why do you feel the need to "pin down" Mormonism? The unpinned nature is one of Mormonism's best features, in my opinion.

[DBMormon]

That depends.  If you are talking about core principles, in other words your basic "milk", then you can pick up any single Ensign issue and you will basically have them -- not much need for anything else.  That is unfortunately also the extent of many members' understanding of the Gospel, and generally getting more than that makes them uncomfortable.  It is only if, like Joseph Smith, you are "wont to swim in deepwater", that things start to get a bit murky.  But better to have "deep waters" that are a bit murky, than to only have a wading pool.  Correllation is designed to make sure that our wading pool is clear and pure.  So long as the membership primarily consists of toddlers, then its just not a problem.

 

Which means the meat never has the Church's sanction

[DBMormon]

I honestly kind of like that we can't nail down the doctrine completely.  We're fluid,.  Subject to change and differing opinions on some of these things.  Its a lovely way to go.  It just gets sticky and tough when something that was defined as revelation from God and doctrine is now considered false.  How did that happen?  Will it happen again?  Is it happening now? 

 

But I agree we're inundated with Milk--we're all getting mild poisoned.  To me it seems to be because the Church generally fears if they let us go discussing what we want, we'll end up with people professing all sorts of weird things.  Uh...Hello?  This social pressure to keep us stifled is exhausting.  It's putting me to sleep, literally, every week.  I kind of get why--who wants a bunch of who knows what weird theories being expressed by anyone who feels the need to chime in?  That'd be tiring too. 

I actually think getting a variation of thought on deeper issues would correct much of the nonsense that is out there as people would realize their one way of thought is not the only way to see things and truth might better surface to the top.

[Kevin Christensen]

Just to add to my frustration is the impossibility of pinning down very little in Mormonism

We have prophets as mentioned by a poster earlier that Adam's sin versus later saying it was not a Sin (no worries we can explain it away)

We have Quotes that Doctrine doesn't change and then we change our Doctrine (No problem, sometimes Doctrine is beliefs aka - dictionary definition and sometimes it means eternal truth revealed by God)  but then you have to compare that with Elder Christofferson saying our Doctrine comes by revelation (he is setting the definiton, not me).  But we simply explain it away as he is not describing the same Doctrine that Elder Anderson is describing when he says our Doctrine is what 15 men teach unitedly and it is not hard to find.

Did you see my post #149 the section from Midgley's RBBM 1 essay, quoting Jesus' very clear statement on what is and what is not doctrine?

Though a few people "got it" I notice that it did not take very long for some people to sidle away from that, and back to a social-conventional definition.

It seems to me that the urge to pin everything down, rather than just accept what Jesus specifies as his doctrine, avoids his saying that any attempt to build on anything else amounts to a sandy foundation. You are actually complaining about having a sandy foundation with respect to notions external to his formal definition. Many want to have all things closed and settled, packaged, and shelved in a Big Book of What to Think, but that is in tension with what is basic to Mormonism, the notion of ongoing revelation. Of course, on the Myers-Briggs scale, I have the P preference, which makes for an urge to put off making decisions until I have more and better information, rather than the J preference, which makes for the urge to have things closed and settled. The Perry Scheme also has implications.

Whenever I see books like Mormon Doctrine, or the more recent We Believe, I actually cringe inside. If I did know what to think on all topics, I would, with regard to what I should think, be beyond repentance. That would give me an impressive moral and rhetorical advantage. Indeed, I'd then be rather godlike, no longer an arm of flesh, but an idol worthy of worship

Nibley comments that every system needs a few constants to give it structure. The issue is how many constants do we need to give our system a viable structure?

 

I love Mormonism and I am here for the long run (barring another revelation from God where he asks me to go) But I am frustrated as all heck that we can't pin Mormonism down on most anything.  There are loopholes, allowances, deference that must be paid as to limit one from questioning to the ends of a logical argument, there are scholars and apologist who defend the Church with great answers only the Church itself won't stand behind those same answers, there are contradictions at every turn only they really are not contradictions because same words have different meanings, and he meant this, and she meant that..... 

Again no offense to Elder Anderson, but our Doctrine is darn hard to find and define.

Notice that the implied definition of Doctrine (with a capital D) here is very much at odds with the quotation from Jesus in 3 Nephi. It comes with valid complaints about the uncertain, shifting, foundation, but without acknowledging that this is just what the restricted definition offered by Jesus predicts when we try to extend the definition of doctrine into, "Once and for all, what should we think on all topics?" Quoting Midgley's essay again:

"On this matter it is instructive that after Jesus declared his doctrine to the Nephites (3 Nephi 11:31-39), he added that "whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it as my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them" (3 Nephi 11:40).

 

Leaders always say our Doctrine can be found easily but none of them actually define it as it can't be done.  We can't even tell if the PH ban came from God or if it was an invention of Brigham Young or some other leader.  And the Church doesn't know either, but it is easy to find.......

 

We don't even have Grace nailed Down in terms of defining in any way that the majority of the Church would agree

 

We don't grasp justification vs sanctification (made clean vs the mighty change)

 

the majority of members don't have a clue about their faith's history and theology and a large chunk of the rest are in many respects wrong.

Think about where these topics might fit, or not, into the formal definition of doctrine as given by Jesus:

"And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned" (3 Nephi 11:33-34).

 

Our manuals are a constant nourishment of MILK and my spirit has grown somewhat lactose intolerant.  I need to be fed deeper and I personally think  we only feed fluff 95% (and the other 5% comes from people like me opening our mouth in Sunday School or PH/RS) of the time to the lowest common denominator

While on my mission in England, back in 1974, finding myself unprepared to face some of the questions thrown at us by some middle schoolers who were visibly passing around what were probably their first anti-Mormon pamphlets, I learned not to trust the institutional church to prepare me for everything I might encounter, no matter how many meetings I attended, or how many times I set up or took down chairs, or played basketball, or participated in roadshows or choir or service projects or scouting. So what could I do? "Seek ye out of the best books wisdom." It does not say, "seek ye out of the correlated manuals," or "assume that all of your church leaders have been carefully and thoroughly instructed in all things before having been given the job." It asks me to take initiative, rather than wait to be fed. Church has been a lot more fun, more interesting and more satisfying since I have done so. Ive found that nothing about that church can keep me from learning if I want to, and there are a great many sources within the community who are eager, willing, and able to help me learn, and it often comes a lot faster than if I wait for correlation to catch up. FAIR, Interpreter, Maxwell Institute, even sometimes discussion boards within the Bloggernacle.

Interestingly, the formal definition of doctrine by Jesus includes "repent" and word itself calls for a change of mind. If we had a full and formal, nailed down, set in concrete, consistent and unchangeable set of thoughts to think, that word would not apply as broadly and as well as it does. Accept the doctrine of Christ means continual repentance, which besides referring to moral missteps, also means repent of being ignorant, learn something new, seek it out.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited December 11, 2013 by Kevin Christensen