"Mormon Doctrine" and Mormon doctrine

[HoosierGuy]

As for Miracle of Forgiveness, I'd note....

My Bishop recommended that book to me. I got to page eight or so, and what I read there threw me into an extreme rage. That book was the wrong book for me at that time.

Edited December 4, 2010 by HoosierGuy
Explained more.

[ozzy]

I find it interesting how people said the same exact thing about Mormon Doctrine 25-30 years ago and now look how it's turned. I wonder if we'll be saying the same thing about those books in 30 years? I guess that's why I like to stick with the good 'ole standard works and them only. It's a lot less confusion and more clarity that way.

I dunno much about the encyclopedia, but as for gospel principles, the fact that it is a gospel doctrine class text indicates to me that it is worthwhile and won't run the same way as MD. Same with Preach My Gospel. Missionaries wouldn't be instructed to use it world-wide if it wasn't worth it. Not that the scriptures aren't great, I just thought I would add some supportive words for other things that the church actually does accept as doctrine or at least inspired instruction.

[rameumptom]

The teachings in Gospel Principles and in Preach My Gospel are so basic and so well founded on doctrine and principles, that I don't think they will be wrong in 25 years. Elder McConkie wrote on hundreds of things that go well beyond doctrine and principles, and it is in those things that he often gets into trouble these days.

As for the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, it was an attempt by the Church to give a more authoritative and updated set of teachings, as well as doctrine on many topics. Perhaps an effort to replace MD, if you will. It contains writings by dozens of LDS scholars, and not just the thoughts of one person. The entire Encyclopedia was peer reviewed and then reviewed by Church leaders, before being printed as an official publication of the Church in the early 1990s. As good as it is, it also shows its age, as many concepts put forth in it have since been replaced with new revelation, teachings, or scientific discovery. Still, I would much prefer using it over MD for most of the quoting I do. When there are differing views on a topic, it shares all views with equal forbearance, so that the reader can make up his own mind. That, in and of itself, makes it much better than MD.

[martybess]

I find it interesting how people said the same exact thing about Mormon Doctrine 25-30 years ago and now look how it's turned. I wonder if we'll be saying the same thing about those books in 30 years? I guess that's why I like to stick with the good 'ole standard works and them only. It's a lot less confusion and more clarity that way.

The gospel principle book hasn't changed much since I took the class 32 years ago. I still have my original book and it's pretty much the same with a few exceptions like all worthy males and the priesthood. I must admit that it's been my favorite book other then the Book of Mormon. Another great publication that hasn't changed in oh 32 years I would guess is "Duties and Blessing of the Priesthood manuals 1&2. Love those books. I still have my original copies.

[martybess]

Revisit the basics. Seek for yourself personal revelation of the truth and what to do about it. If the details are becoming to confusing, don't worry about it! Just take a step back, go to the basics again, and start over. I, personally, have always felt an affirmation of the truth of the gospel and this church when I consider the foundational principles of its teachings. The "doctrine" is true and always will be true. As we take steps to align ourselves more closely with that truth, we will come to understand more and more. Eventually, we will be able to filter through all those details with ease, identifying truth and falsehood without difficulty. But that comes with time, patience, study, faith, and ACTION. ACT on what you know to be true. SEEK more truth. And always, always come back to the basics.

Just listen to a great talk given by Elder Eyring given in 1981 and a CES devotional. Can't find it anywhere on the web. They played it on the churches radio station: Mormon Channel

He talked about sticking to the basics. Just as in everything you want to be good at, piano, golf, tennis, painting etc. If you get away from the basics it wont be long and you will start to mess up he says and you will always find yourself going back to the basics. Told about even the greatest pro athletes always stick with the basics and so it is with anything you want to excel in including the gospel. Great talk!

[Blackmarch]

I came across a relatively old story to the effect that Deseret Books will no longer be publishing Bruce R. McConkie's classic work Mormon Doctrine. While I have never read it, I am aware both of its contents and the reasons that it is unpopular among many people, containing as it does large amounts of speculation, teachings presented as official doctrine which are not, and things that are just flat-out incorrect or wrong. It also seems that the Church itself is trying to distance itself from the work, having (for instance) removed all references to MD from the newest Gospel Principles book.

It does occur to me, though, that to my limited knowledge BRM's work is one of the few attempts ever made to really put a systematic Mormon theology down on paper, and that for all the flak he took over it, he did a pretty good job. So I have a couple of questions, some of which may be unanswerable, but I'd like to get thoughts on it, as a person who is trying to learn everything about Mormonism and the Church as possible.

Is Mormon Doctrine still an accurate representation, anachronisms(etc.) notwithstanding, of what is taught by the church? If not, is there any kind of 'systematic Mormon theology'; an authoritative source for everything the church teaches? And if the church is trying, for whatever reason, to distance itself from the work, would it still be a bad thing to read it to learn about Mormon theology (assuming a foreknowledge of the problems with the work?

it's great, but theres a lot of stuff that's easy to misintrepret..... which many do, and many critics do on pupose, and that adds lot of confusion. So my guess if there is a move a way from it its because that the confusion caused is probably the reason.

I think its a great book at least the parts i've read.

However it's good to keep in mind that it's his own discovery and insight to things pertaining to the gospel, both inspiration and also observation and logic.