JLHPROF Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Another truism that is overused. It has gotten to be code for "I don't want to accept this so it must be that prophets opinion". It's SO true. I sure wouldn't stand there in front of Joseph and say "this teaching of yours hasn't been canonized so I reject it".He'd laugh at the naivete in that good natured way.The entirety of Mormonism is about adding to canon, further light, and ignoring established creed in favor of revealed truth. Just as Christ ignored the Pharisee's canon by explaining the law better than their interpretation.Just as Mormonism ignored the traditional Christian's canon by disavowing the creeds and adding additional scripture.So Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, Lorenzo, Joseph F. etc taught doctrines that they believed were true regardless of canon. As Joseph taught "I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief."I choose to believe "too much". 1
Teancum Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 I am proud of my doctrines as they are found in the scriptures. I have never said that God was never a man, all I am saying is that this is not an official doctrine of our church. We do not know the nature of god in the distant past because it has not been relieved. I am distinguishing between what may be true and what may be doctrine. King Follett is not a source of doctrine. This discussion is about definitions, not about the nature of God. I do not have an issue with the idea that God was once a man. It may well be the case. I do know, however, that this teaching is not found in our scriptures at this time.You miss my point or are ignoring it. There is LDS Doctrine that is found outside the scripture. The KFD or at least what it teaches is one of those. 1
Freedom Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 You miss my point or are ignoring it. There is LDS Doctrine that is found outside the scripture. The KFD or at least what it teaches is one of those.I disagree. Our doctrine is found in the scriptures. If it cannot be verified through the scriptures then it is not doctrine. You can take a looser interpretation of the term doctrine and include official positions. But this is quite different. The churches official position on book of mormon geography is that we do not know where it took place. It is not our doctrine, however, that it did not take place anywhere.
Freedom Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Another truism that is overused. It has gotten to be code for "I don't want to accept this so it must be that prophets opinion".So you believe that Jesus was born on April 6th? And do you accept as doctrine that the earth is 6,000 years old? The church's official position is that our doctrine is found in the scriptures and in official proclamations. You are confusing council with doctrine. I do not reject the council of the prophet, but if the prophet makes a statement that contradicts doctrine then I can accept that they are fallible.
Canadaigua Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 I disagree. Our doctrine is found in the scriptures. If it cannot be verified through the scriptures then it is not doctrine. The LDS temple ceremony is not found in the scriptures therefore it is not doctrine.
ERayR Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) So you believe that Jesus was born on April 6th? And do you accept as doctrine that the earth is 6,000 years old? The church's official position is that our doctrine is found in the scriptures and in official proclamations. You are confusing council with doctrine. I do not reject the council of the prophet, but if the prophet makes a statement that contradicts doctrine then I can accept that they are fallible. Where do you get that from what I wrote? Projecting much I would say. I am confusing nothing but neither am I forgetting JS warnings against creedal thinking. Edited January 11, 2015 by ERayR
Freedom Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 This is what your position is. That everything a prophet says is scripture. If not, then provide clarification.
ERayR Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 The LDS temple ceremony is not found in the scriptures therefore it is not doctrine. How would you know?
Canadaigua Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as a prophet. Are you aware that Joseph taught the trinity? 1. "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as a prophet." When a prophet--particularly earlier prophets such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young--says something that is not liked by the modern LDS church then it is simply disregarded as a false teaching and the excuse given is that he was not "acting as a prophet". 2. Are you aware that Joseph taught the trinity? Joeseph's teaching about God evolved over the first several years after 1830. There is an excellent youtube video by Grant Palmer that discusses this for anyone that is interested. "Joseph Smith's Changing View of God" with Grant Palmer
Canadaigua Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 That everything a prophet says is scripture. If not, then provide clarification. I certainly didn't say EVERYTHING a prophet says is scripture. Certainly a conversation with his wife etc. is not scripture. But a teaching about the nature of God--especially since Joseph claimed to see God face to face and have ongoing conversation with him--that states God has not always been God is certainly an important teaching. Especially given the fact that the LDS church reprinted the sermon in full in the official LDS magazine "Ensign".
ERayR Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 I certainly didn't say EVERYTHING a prophet says is scripture. Certainly a conversation with his wife etc. is not scripture. But a teaching about the nature of God--especially since Joseph claimed to see God face to face and have ongoing conversation with him--that states God has not always been God is certainly an important teaching. Especially given the fact that the LDS church reprinted the sermon in full in the official LDS magazine "Ensign". Are prophets infallible?
ERayR Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 The LDS temple ceremony is not found in the scriptures therefore it is not doctrine. Again how would you know?
Canadaigua Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Are prophets infallible?According to LDS it certainly seems so.
ERayR Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 According to LDS it certainly seems so. No it is you who are requiring infallibility. Now Again How would you know the temple ceremony is not in the scriptures? 2
JLHPROF Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 I disagree. Our doctrine is found in the scriptures. If it cannot be verified through the scriptures then it is not doctrine. What exactly do you think scriptures are? The only difference between scriptures and the KFD is that one is universally accepted by members.
JLHPROF Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 So you believe that Jesus was born on April 6th? And do you accept as doctrine that the earth is 6,000 years old? Yep.
ERayR Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 This is what your position is. That everything a prophet says is scripture. If not, then provide clarification. Definitely not. I am one who explores new ideas and seeks personal revelation and confirmation. I refuse to be pigeon holed and I definitely feel as JS expressed about creeds. I think the Church is to teaches enough to get back to Heavenly Father and delivers the saving ordinances but is definitely open ended enough to allow personal progress to go as far as we can.
Canadaigua Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Now Again How would you know the temple ceremony is not in the scriptures?Because I have read them and they aren't in there. So since they are not in the LDS scriptures would you say that any unique teaching is not official LDS doctrine? Edited January 11, 2015 by Canadaigua
Canadaigua Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 The proof, from a doctrinal perspective, is the canon. It is the scriptures. If it is not supported by the scriptures then it is not doctrine. The proof in science is empirical evidence. The proof in mormonism is The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Perl of Great Price, the Bible, and the official proclamations. I cannot find a reference in the scriptures that states that God was once a man, therefore this is not doctrine and I do not accept it as truth. With the exception of the blacks and the priesthood in 1978 there hasn't been any new scripture for over a hundred years. What is the purpose for having a living prophet especially since you believe that their words can't be trusted as official teachings AND everything that you need to know is already written down for you in the LDS scriptures?
JLHPROF Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Because I have read them and they aren't in there. So since they are not in the LDS scriptures would you say that any unique teaching is not official LDS doctrine? The temple ordinances are not in scripture laid out from beginning to end, but almost every iota of the temple ordinances can be found scattered throughout our scriptures. The one or two things that may not be I attribute to Joseph's revelation.But believe me, they are there. I have enough verses marked as "temple" in my scriptures to make that undeniable. There are also elements referring to the temple scattered all through the history and cultures of the human race, far more than Joseph had any hope of bringing together into one cohesive ceremony. The temple is undeniable to those who have eyes to see. Edited January 11, 2015 by JLHPROF 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 So why should I rely on it if it is nor canon? I cannot based on your position. We have plenty of non-canonical beliefs in the Church. We are open too truth no matter where we find it. I'm just telling you what the Church says about itself. Personally I like the KFD and find much in it I agree with, but that doesn't make it canon or doctrine.SEE https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng
thesometimesaint Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 With the exception of the blacks and the priesthood in 1978 there hasn't been any new scripture for over a hundred years. What is the purpose for having a living prophet especially since you believe that their words can't be trusted as official teachings AND everything that you need to know is already written down for you in the LDS scriptures? Even if true so what? For the Sola Scriptura crowd there hasn't been any new Bible Scriptures in nearly 2000 years. Age is irrelevant to truth. Further; Not all LDS beliefs are contained in our canon. Twice a year we have General Conference were new counsel and applications are presented to the world. We fully believe that all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. 1
Vance Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) According to LDS it certainly seems so.You anti-Mormons are so funny. You rant and rave that no one can be perfect, and then you rant and rave that our prophets aren't perfect. And then you falsely claim that is us that insists that our prophet are perfect. You guys are lunatics. By the way, you haven't answered my question. Which one of the commandments can't be obeyed? Edited January 11, 2015 by Vance
Teancum Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 We have plenty of non-canonical beliefs in the Church. We are open too truth no matter where we find it. I'm just telling you what the Church says about itself. Personally I like the KFD and find much in it I agree with, but that doesn't make it canon or doctrine.SEE https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=engIt is only a recent development that we are somehow scripture only for our doctrine church. The founders of the LDS church never taught this. Most of the leading GAs in my life did not either.How we can now claim that only that which is in the LDS canon is our official doctrine is beyond me. But I used to argue such because it made it easier to defend things we would rather walk away from.The couplet "as many is God once was, as God is man may become" as well as many parts and even all of the KFD have been published by the church over and over and quoted over and over in conference addresses. The themes of the KFD Have been expanded upon over and over as well.So now here is s critic arguing idea of God being a man is not bibilical and the response is "that's not doctrine" just seems so disingenuous to me. 1
ERayR Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Because I have read them and they aren't in there. So since they are not in the LDS scriptures would you say that any unique teaching is not official LDS doctrine? I have seen them too and I reject you declaration that they are not there. They are there. Read Genisis.
Recommended Posts