Damien the Leper Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 The LDS church is not the authoritative spokesperson on the matter for the entire world. The LDS authority only reaches it's membership and is of no consequence to the rest of humanity. I accept and respect the LDS ability to teach and maintain its standards but that is as far as it goes. As long as the church does not try to legislate it's moral standard into civil law then things will be fine. The church should not overstep its place.
JLHPROF Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 There was no need for any Church leader to declare it's 'doctrinicity'. Being published by the Church automatically made it official doctrine. Well, that would make a lot of things official doctrine - every teaching in the Millennial Star, the Improvement Era, The Juvenile Instructor, and possibly Times and Seasons. (Journal of Discourses is considered affiliated, but not official apparently ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latter_Day_Saint_periodicals That would make Adam-God, Plural Marriage, the priesthood ban, and many other controversial doctrines "official doctrine" having been published in such periodicals.
BCSpace Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 Its been presented by the 12 and the 3, now if its just sustained by the church and placed in the cannon this discussion would be over Sustaining by the Church, while done from time to time, does not doctrine or canon make. Well, that would make a lot of things official doctrine - It does. All the way down to Primary artwork as we have seen. The key for some is context and qualification if any. every teaching in the Millennial Star, the Improvement Era, The Juvenile Instructor, and possibly Times and Seasons. Indeed. I'm sure you would agree that modern revelation/inspiration is an official doctrine of the Church? The answer here then is what is the publication of latest date when it comes to any conflicts between old and new publications. every teaching in the Millennial Star, the Improvement Era, The Juvenile Instructor, and possibly Times and Seasons. (Journal of Discourses is considered affiliated, but not official apparently ) http://en.wikipedia....int_periodicals The JoD is not published by the Church. Therefore it is not a doctrinal work. However, many quotes from it are found in official publications, manuals and such of course would be doctrinal. That would make Adam-God, BY never taught an Adam-God theory. It was Adam Sr./Jr. and this is clear even in the Nutall quote. Plural Marriage, the priesthood ban, and many other controversial doctrines "official doctrine" having been published in such periodicals. Both plural marriage and the ban remain official doctrine. In both cases, we are living in a time predicted by both. For plural marriage, the doctrine is that God authorizes it from time to time (Jacob 2:30). Previous plural marriages and sealings have not been 'disavowed', undone, or apologized for. We are even still plurally sealed. With the ban, it was known that blacks would receive the Priesthood in the future and the inspired nature of the ban has never been disavowed and is actually strengthened in the recent Topical Addition on the subject. As for "many other controversial doctrines", whatever they are, I think it would be a good exercise to look at them and construct or deconstruct according to the Church's take on doctrine which I have described.
rockpond Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 Sustaining by the Church, while done from time to time, does not doctrine or canon make. It does. All the way down to Primary artwork as we have seen. The key for some is context and qualification if any. Indeed. I'm sure you would agree that modern revelation/inspiration is an official doctrine of the Church? The answer here then is what is the publication of latest date when it comes to any conflicts between old and new publications. The JoD is not published by the Church. Therefore it is not a doctrinal work. However, many quotes from it are found in official publications, manuals and such of course would be doctrinal. BY never taught an Adam-God theory. It was Adam Sr./Jr. and this is clear even in the Nutall quote. Both plural marriage and the ban remain official doctrine. In both cases, we are living in a time predicted by both. For plural marriage, the doctrine is that God authorizes it from time to time (Jacob 2:30). Previous plural marriages and sealings have not been 'disavowed', undone, or apologized for. We are even still plurally sealed. With the ban, it was known that blacks would receive the Priesthood in the future and the inspired nature of the ban has never been disavowed and is actually strengthened in the recent Topical Addition on the subject. As for "many other controversial doctrines", whatever they are, I think it would be a good exercise to look at them and construct or deconstruct according to the Church's take on doctrine which I have described. So you are defining doctrine as anything published by the church and if it conflicts with something else published by the church then we are to go with the statement most recently published? Am I understanding this correctly. As a side note, Brigham Young instituted the priesthood/temple ban and he predicted that the blacks would only receive the priesthood when all the other children of God had received their blessings in the priesthood would the blacks be allowed to hold it. That prophecy or teaching was never fulfilled even though it was published in a signed First Presidency letter in 1949. How do you gather that the "inspired nature" of the ban was strengthened in the recent gospel topics article?
Stone holm Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 Well, that would make a lot of things official doctrine - every teaching in the Millennial Star, the Improvement Era, The Juvenile Instructor, and possibly Times and Seasons. (Journal of Discourses is considered affiliated, but not official apparently ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latter_Day_Saint_periodicals That would make Adam-God, Plural Marriage, the priesthood ban, and many other controversial doctrines "official doctrine" having been published in such periodicals.It also makes some edits of Pres Packer's Conference talks somewhat curious. But we have an accordion approach to doctrine anyway.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 So now the Proclamation is just an "ideological banner" from the 1950's. And since you've spun it as "not doctrine", you can pick and choose what you want to accept out of it. Thanks for clarifying your opposition to the principles in it.Its fun to pick and chose what you think doctrine is. You should try it sometime JT. I mean if the 1st presidency signs it and officially releases it that is a sign that you can safely just toss in it the garbage as mere opinion. I mean after all what would make something doctrinal. How would we know. I mean we can't trust the prophets. They don't make doctrine. They can't even tell us what does because by doing so that is just mere opinion. So what to do what to do.
rockpond Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 Its fun to pick and chose what you think doctrine is. You should try it sometime JT. I mean if the 1st presidency signs it and officially releases it that is a sign that you can safely just toss in it the garbage as mere opinion. I mean after all what would make something doctrinal. How would we know. I mean we can't trust the prophets. They don't make doctrine. They can't even tell us what does because by doing so that is just mere opinion. So what to do what to do.I agree... That really is the dilemma in which we (church members) and the church (institutionally) find ourselves these days.
Recommended Posts