What is and isn't doctrine?

[Guest User-Removed]

I'm not exactly sure what that had to do with my post.

I haven't ruled out the possibility of ending up in the Church of Christ in fact it's probably likely. I've meet them and the are wonderful very down to earth people. I'm still in study and prayer. Sometimes I may jump the gun on an idea, or get fired up about something. But I usually center back on the Church of Christ when I calm down. They are good patient people and aren't out to make quick baptisms, so I'm sure they'll bear with my while I work my ideas out. I don't pretend to have all the answers or to know if I'm even asking the right questions, but God knows me and he knows my heart, and he will lead me where he wants me to be sooner or later. So don't fret too much for me, trigger.

Kosher....:roflmbo::roflmbo:

[Jenamarie]

Kosher....:roflmbo::roflmbo:

What is the point of this? Really??

[Guest User-Removed]

What is the point of this? Really??

Dunno...I just kinda like the laughing guys....

Don't you think they're cute?

[Snow]

What is the point of this? Really??

It's a technique employed when one cannot make one's case on the merits.

[Snow]

What...Snow...kinda like when you attacked Laura Cooke??????

Please.....Ira Fuller is RIGHT!!!!

The Ira Fuller comment is a reference to a personal email you sent to me though the message board forwarding system where you called me a coward and a nothing person while ranting, yet again, about homosexuals.

Now isn't that right MyDogSkip.

Why are you sending me personal emails that call me coward and a nothing person and in your emails obsessing about homosexuals?

[Snow]

Snow...Nice try...but I'm going back to ignoring you...

... said as he read and responds to my posts.

Why are you sending me personal emails calling me a coward and a nothing person and ranting about homosexuals?

[Guest User-Removed]

... said as he read and responds to my posts.

Why are you sending me personal emails calling me a coward and a nothing person and ranting about homosexuals?

Snow...please cease your lies. I sent you one email, which you crafted into a flame...which you later edited out....cause you knew you were wrong.

My comments concerning D. Michael Quinn are out in the open...He was ex'd for being a homosexual...you know it, but continue to support him.

I get back to what Ira Fuller said...and he was right.

[skalenfehl]

This thread is temporarily locked.

[skalenfehl]

Thread is unlocked. Folks let's stay on topic and keep the flaming out. It is ok to have disagreements but not to make personal attacks. Please review the site rules and make sure you understand and abide by them.

[Guest Xzain]

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race-that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion."

I'm hard pressed to see how this is a damning statement. I see more charity and doctrine than any racist remarks.

[GoodK]

Of course it relates to the topic and to the original post. If you see something on an anti-Mormon website (and your inference that "an anti -LDS organization" isn't easily determined is prima facie untrue) that seeks to pejoratively define LDS beliefs, you can be fairly certain that it either untrue, or presented in a way that mischaracterizes our beliefs and, if it is authored by the anti-Mormon (as opposed from a quote of our scriptures - in context), then it is also very likely non-doctrinal.

You might have a point, if I was relying solely or even partially on an "anti-LDS organization" (whatever that is). But I have never done that. In fact, I simply quoted two people. Brigham Young and Bruce R. McConkie.

Now I know that we are conditioned to believe that criticism, even careful examination of the church, is merely anti-Mormon, lies and half truths promulgated by our enemies - but this is getting ridiculous. Come on people!

[VisionOfLehi]

Isn't "doctrine" the plain and simple truths found in the officially acknowledged Scriptures which have been sustained by the body of the Church?

Carrying on from that... Prophets, Seers, and Revelators are also sustained by the body of the Church. What they say is how it is. If they're speaking to the body of the Church, like in General Conference, then you should assume it's as good as if the Lord said it himself.

To what extent you take that, is up to you. You may disagree with things old and dead prophets say, but that doesn't remove their validity (if you argue from the standpoint that they're valid.)

Many people already assume that the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators merely offer suggestions, even though they officiate in all matters of the Church, including SPIRITUAL matters, and how they direct the Church and it's people is what they're called to do, and what we're supposed to obey.

This is all (purpose of a Prophet) laid out in Doctrine and Covenants 107, which happens to be doctrine

[Snow]

Isn't "doctrine" the plain and simple truths found in the officially acknowledged Scriptures which have been sustained by the body of the Church?

Carrying on from that... Prophets, Seers, and Revelators are also sustained by the body of the Church. What they say is how it is. If they're speaking to the body of the Church, like in General Conference, then you should assume it's as good as if the Lord said it himself.

To what extent you take that, is up to you. You may disagree with things old and dead prophets say, but that doesn't remove their validity (if you argue from the standpoint that they're valid.)

Many people already assume that the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators merely offer suggestions, even though they officiate in all matters of the Church, including SPIRITUAL matters, and how they direct the Church and it's people is what they're called to do, and what we're supposed to obey.

This is all (purpose of a Prophet) laid out in Doctrine and Covenants 107, which happens to be doctrine

While generally true and useful, that misses the complexity and specificity called for in understanding the word "doctrine."

First, that which is found in the canon is doctrinal. In fact, it, via inspiration and revelation, is the source of doctrine.

Second, what is spoken by prophets, seers and revelators - as a general rule - is doctrinal, but only to the extent that it is congruent with the scriptures. A prophet couldn't simply say something that contradicted the scriptures and have it automatically be accepted as doctrinal (those eternal unchanging gospel truths).

For example Brigham Young Jr, an apostle, thought that Danish Beer did not or ought not violate the Word of Wisdom. That was hardly doctrinal. Other Church authorities have spoken over the pulpit and their beliefs (for example BY's beliefs on when the blacks might be welcomed into the priesthood) turned out to be, not scriptural, and incorrect and thus do not meet the definition (eternal unchanging truths of the gospel) of "doctrine."

Third, a prophet may something over the pulpit (in this case in General Conference) and it may be a correct principle, but not be doctrinal. For example. I recall President Kimball instructing the Saints in conference to tear down their out buildings (decrepit barns and sheds) and clean up their property. Good advice surely, but hardly doctrinal.

To your point of whether we ought take everything the Brethren say as simiply advice or as a matter of absolute obedience... A couple years ago the Brethren told the members that body piercings were wrong and should be avoided... except one pierce per ear on women about which they offered no opinion. Now you may or may not consider that good advice or a commandment or not, but one can still be a worthy member of the Church and hold a temple recommend and with piercings. While only God can judge, the assumption is that worthy temple recommend holders are eligible for exaltation.

[VisionOfLehi]

That's true, your post. They only officiate over matters of the Church and spiritual things. Piercings are... iffy. "Body is a temple" is doctrine, but what does that mean? Good advise comes a lot. Our standards, and the ones that prophets encourage, should be upheld...

If it's in line with Scripture, then it should considered doctrine. Such as the telling of us not to masturbate. It falls in with the Law of Chastity. The prophets clarify this for us. It's doctrine. (It's one of the baptismal interview questions, as well. At least it was part of mine.)

But I know that sometimes these men write and speak with wisdom of age and of the Lord, but they're not conducting for the Church... Is that doctrine? I don't think it's upheld/sustained as such, so I don't think so.

But you ignore the words of prophets, seers, and revelators at your own peril. When you meet your maker... Do you want the divine equivalent of "I told you so!" ?

[Moksha]

Moksha...If you post them in Klingon...They might seem less uncomplimentary???

Probably worse. Spoken Klingon sounds like cuss words.

[Snow]

But you ignore the words of prophets, seers, and revelators at your own peril. When you meet your maker... Do you want the divine equivalent of "I told you so!" ?

I understand you are younger than I am and so we are at a different place in life, but now that you mention it... I don't really look to the prophet to figure out what I should be doing. It's not like I ignore instruction when I receive it but I think for the most part I do what is right (try to) whether the Brethren said to or not.

[GoodK]

To what extent you take that, is up to you. You may disagree with things old and dead prophets say, but that doesn't remove their validity (if you argue from the standpoint that they're valid.)

What about when church leaders disagree with things "old and dead prophets" say? Like when McConkie and Kimball "disagree" with Brigham Young? Does that remove their validity?

How about when the First Presidency says that the Hill Cumorah was in New York state, and then later ammend that statement?

There are so many things that have been said by prophets. It's really about what YOU WANT to believe. I'd be careful before I agreed to shackle myself to EVERYTHING our church leaders have said.

[rameumptom]

At lds.org, in the newsroom section, they have a note for media on what the Church considers doctrine. Doctrine are the clear teachings that come from the scriptures, official Church proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. There is a difference between core doctrines and other doctrines that are not as important.

Finally, things stated by a single General Authority, while they should be prayerfully considered, are NOT considered doctrine.

I think this clarifies very well what does and doesn't constitute doctrine. I would give a link to it, but for some reason the newsroom page isn't coming up for me right now.

[Hemidakota]

LDS Newsroom - Approaching Mormon Doctrine

This it?

[rameumptom]

That's it.

[GoodK]

LDS Newsroom - Approaching Mormon Doctrine

This it?

Yes. Take a look, folks. Look like GoodK was correct in his assumption that not everything a church leader says is considered doctrine.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church... This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith....Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

I'll pose a question to the boad: Is wearing a white shirt and tie while passing the sacrament a commandment, doctrine, suggestion, or what?

[rameumptom]

Yes. Take a look, folks. Look like GoodK was correct in his assumption that not everything a church leader says is considered doctrine.

I'll pose a question to the boad: Is wearing a white shirt and tie while passing the sacrament a commandment, doctrine, suggestion, or what?

It is a procedural guideline, the same as the counsel limiting piercings and tattoos. While not doctrine nor commandments, they are based on doctrines: modesty, body is a temple, setting a good example for the world, etc.

[jonathanncrm]

Good K. I read your other post you speak of here. You were not challenging all of what prophets and apostles say; rather you were challenging a specific doctrinal question, which was supported by many apostles, prophets, books and pamphlets of doctrine and other discourses given by general authorities. I believe where you are confused is at what time are they acting as apostles and prophets.

In each case yesterday the content sited to you were recitals of the brethren acting within their assignments and authority, as Apostles or Prophets and speaking doctrinally. Using the approach that if an apostle says "it looks like it is going to rain outside" and is doesn't is not a proper justification for picking and choosing what is and isn't doctrine.

[GoodK]

you were challenging a specific doctrinal question, which was supported by many apostles, prophets, books and pamphlets of doctrine and other discourses given by general authorities.

First, what "books and pamplets of doctrine" are considered doctrine? Please feel free to just give me a list, or say everything that has ever been written by a general authority, or say you don't know. As you know by now, I am very reserved when it comes to calling modern trends, counsel, "procedure", or opinions "Church" doctrine.

Second, I was not challenging a doctrine, per se, I was challenging something being called a "doctrine" that has still not been demonstrated to be an official church doctrine.

Third, I would be more than glad to find some doctrine supported by "many apostles" - that is no longer considered doctrine or literally true.

I was going one at a time, starting with the Adam-God theory, because skalenfehl wanted some time to review and pray about it before he commented. There are many more examples to come.

I believe where you are confused is at what time are they acting as apostles and prophets.

No, not at all. I think I provided the quote from JFS about it here or some other thread. In fact, you seem to be saying that they are always acting as apostles and prophets. Otherwise, how would you infer that I am confused with my reference to what Brigham Young taught many times, in the Journal of Discourses, no less.

In each case yesterday the content sited to you were recitals of the brethren acting within their assignments and authority, as Apostles or Prophets and speaking doctrinally.

But, and I can't stress this enough, it does not mean it was official church doctrine. The church is very specific about what it calls official church doctrine and what isn't officially doctrine.

Using the approach that if an apostle says "it looks like it is going to rain outside" and is doesn't is not a proper justification for picking and choosing what is and isn't doctrine.

Wow. One of us has a big problem if that is really what you took away from this. Either I write horribly, and should find a new career, or you didn't read carefully or comprehend what I wrote. I have not seen any mention of the approach you speak of. Please clarify.

[Hemidakota]

In aiding those who are seeking a greater understanding of how doctrine is receive, the following quote can be found in the ‘Improvement Era [1938], "Evidences and Reconciliations…”, where the article explains about three major areas how revelation is received.

There are at least three classes of revelations:

First, there are revelations dealing with the organization and basic doctrine of the Church. Such revelations form the foundation of the Church, upon which is built the superstructure of teaching and practice throughout the years. These revelations are necessary at the beginning of a dispensation, so that the Church may be properly organized and sent upon its way to bless mankind. In this age, these indispensable revelations were given to Joseph Smith who was commissioned to effect the organization of the restored Church. As given to the Prophet, they suffice for the salvation of man in this dispensation. Other such fundamental revelations dealing with organization and doctrine may, at the pleasure of the Lord, be given, for there is a universe of truth not yet known to us, but they will in no way change or abrogate the principles set forth in existing revelations.

Second, there are revelations dealing with the problems of the day. Though the essential doctrine, forming the foundation, framework, and structure of the Gospel, has been revealed, the Church, directed by mortal men, needs divine guidance in the solution of current questions. Many of the revelations received by the Prophet Joseph Smith were of this character. There were missions to organize, cities to be built, men to be called into office, temples, meetinghouses, and homes to be constructed. The Prophet presented his problems to the Lord, and with the revealed answer was able to accomplish properly the work before him. It is comforting to know that our Heavenly Father helps in the minor as in the major affairs of life. The revelations directing the building of certain houses in the early days of the Church, are, for example, among the cherished words of God, for they throw a flood of light upon the precious, intimate relationships that may be established between God and man.

Such revelations, directing the Church in the affairs of the day, have been received continuously by the Church, through the President of the Church. One needs only review the history of the Saints to assure himself that such revelations have constantly been vouchsafed the Church. Perhaps more of this type of revelation has been received since, than during the time of the Prophet. Because they are not printed in a book as revelations does not diminish their verity.

Third, every faithful member of the Church may be granted revelation for his daily guidance. In fact, the members of the Church can testify that they in truth have and do receive such daily guidance. The testimony of the truth of the Gospel, the precious possession of hundreds of thousands, has come through the spirit of revelation. By desire, study, practice, and prayer, one must approach the testimony of the truth, but it is obtained finally only under the spirit of revelation. It is by this power that the eyes of men are opened to understand the principles and the truth of the Gospel. Without that spirit, truth cannot be comprehended. In the words of President Brigham Young:

Without revelation direct from heaven, it is impossible for any person to understand fully the plan of salvation. We often hear it said that the living oracles must be in the Church, in order that the Kingdom of God may be established and prosper on the earth. I will give another version of this sentiment. I say that the living oracles of God, or the Spirit of revelation, must be in each and every individual, to know the plan of salvation and keep in the path that leads them to the presence of God. (Brigham Young's Discourses, p. 58.)

We may go further. Every person born into the earth has claim upon the assistance of the spirit of God. That is a species of revelation.

Consequently, all good achievements of man, in science, literature, or art, are the product of revelation. The knowledge and wisdom of earth have so come.

It must be remembered that revelations usually come as needed, no faster. The Prophet Joseph Smith made this clear: "We cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know, unless we comply with or keep those we already have received." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 256.)

The question then should not be "Do we receive revelations now as in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith?" but rather, "Do we keep so fully the revelations already given us that we have the right to expect more?"

Another important principle of revelation in the organized Church of Christ is the limitation placed upon those who secure revelations. Every member of the Church may seek and receive revelation, but only for himself and those for whom he is responsible. Every officer of the Church is entitled to revelation to help him in the field into which he has been called, but not beyond. The bishop can claim no revelation except for his ward duties, the stake president for his stake duties only; the President of the Church is the only person who can receive revelations for the guidance of the Church as a whole. These limitations, coming from the Lord, protect the orderliness of the Kingdom of God on earth.