What is doctrine?

[tesuji]

On 6/26/2016 at 6:10 PM, CV75 said:

Here's a good description http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

Thanks for this link. This definitive statement is the right way to start off this discussion.

[tesuji]

Terryl Givens has some good discussions about what is doctrine in his book Wrestling the Angel.

Unfortunately my copy is in storage. But I can see he has an entry in his index "doctrines, fluidity of" which gives you an idea of how he views LDS doctrine - as fairly fluid, if I recall correctly, although the "core doctrines" are not so fluid.

https://www.amazon.com/Wrestling-Angel-Foundations-Thought-Humanity/dp/0199794928/

Edited June 27, 2016 by tesuji

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Interesting further.

Which ones?

And how did you determine that they were not trustworthy?

I mean, I assume that by "brethren" we mean the general leadership of the church and not just...you know...any of our brethren on earth.

If you had actually read the post I made to Vort - to which you responded to start this exchange - you would realize that your stated assumption above is incorrect and inconsistent within the context of my initial post of this subject.  But to clarify – my trust is consistent and is not dependent on my love or compassion towards an individual – nor it is based on their position of importance or title. 

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

If you had actually read the post I made to Vort - to which you responded to start this exchange - you would realize that your stated assumption above is incorrect and inconsistent within the context of my initial post of this subject.  But to clarify – my trust is consistent and is not dependent on my love or compassion towards an individual – nor it is based on their position of importance or title. 

 

The Traveler

Actually, to be fair, you should have said, "if you read correctly", as in this case I did read the post (apparently too quickly) but missed that you included Vort in "brethren". My bad.

That being said, I don't think anyone else here means Vort when they say "the brethren". Anyone?

Edited June 27, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[LeSellers]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

Reference, please. (By "the Brethren", I assume you mean a First Presidency statement or something of equal gravity.)

Is this good enough?

Lehi

[LeSellers]

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

Interesting response - I consider you to be included in what I understand as brethren - if fact I would even go so far as to say trusted brethren  This despite that we do not always agree - in fact that is one of the reasons I trust you.

Please note that I used the term "the Brethren" not "the brethren". The capital makes a difference, and it's not trivial.

Lehi

[Traveler]

On 6/28/2016 at 6:14 PM, LeSellers said:

Is this good enough?

Lehi

 

Thank you for your contribution.  I had hoped to show  by this thread that what is doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not as well defined as many would believe.  For example - thought it is doctrine that the Saints seek truth of all things - but the truth of all things is not the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As I understand - it is doctrine that the Saints should pursue and desire to understand truth and be willing to contribute to society and the congregation of the Saints according to their talents or if you will - their spiritual gifts.

Though we have experienced a fine line between speculations and false doctrine through out human religious history - the greater sin or false doctrine - according to my understanding is to become angry or upset with others because of their opinions (including speculations).   In short - the Saints of G-d should be willing to openly and loving discuss just about any topic - especially of religious nature or consequence.  Especially to encourage those that have strayed from the love of G-d and their fellow men.  My father said in essence that a saint is not someone that can only discuss the gospel and doctrine with those that agree with them - but to lovingly discuss even those points with those that disagree greatly with them.  Some of my most spiritual discussions have come after going over points of great disagreement.  I do not know how a marriage can survive without the ability to discuss strong disagreements.  Should we not be willing to practice such things where the outcome is not so important?

As many of you have - I have learned by experience not to seek out disagreement with someone (sometimes there is another time and place) that does not want to hear things we may believe to be true.  But at the same time - I have learned the most from those that disagree vehemently with my conclusions.  The problem, however, is talking through disagreements with those of strong opinions.  I have always loved the language of mathematics - because whenever I have encountered another that has logically come to a different conclusions - we have always been able to sit down together and discuss the exact point in our logic steps that we found disagreement.  

I have discovered two things about opinion and logic. 

First is that if we love or have affections for someone - we tend to listen more and accept what their logic than someone that we dislike or have feeling of anger and resentment.  This regardless of their logic or lack of it. 

Second is that those that have poorly thought through or acquired their opinions through questionable means are usually the most angered if asked to review their logic and are less likely to consider any other possibilities. 

And if anyone is wondering these principles apply to me as well.

 

The Traveler

Edited June 29, 2016 by Traveler