Bcspace probably right about what is LDS Doctrine

[_the narrator]

I assume that he has enjoyed it as well. Furthermore, my publication on the topic was discussed in print with Robert Millet and Nate Oman (with my rejoinder being a response to both of their responses).

In other words Droopy, I have discussed these topics with others and have enjoyed doing so and want to do more. I just have no desire to do it with you Droopy. And please, do take it personally.

So, you tangled with Nate Oman, but couldn't handle the Droopster. Don't take it too hard. Many a soldier has fallen to his mighty sword of truth. You haven't faced real competition until you've gone toe to toe with Droopy.

I couldn't do it. I started to try, but my knees trembled too much and I pee'd a little.

[_the narrator]

Ironically, at the same time that I have Droopy fantasizing about me being some anti-Mormon who is scared of him, I've got Will Bagley in an emails calling me a faithful Mormon scared of revisionist historians.

[_bcspace]

Okay okay. I get it. bcspace is right about what is LDS doctrine. Now what?

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Okay okay. I get it. bcspace is right about what is LDS doctrine. Now what?

Tell us what is and what isn't doctrine.

[_bcspace]

Okay okay. I get it. bcspace is right about what is LDS doctrine. Now what?

Tell us what is and what isn't doctrine.

What is and is not officially published and of latest date if there is a conflict.

[_jon]

"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. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. 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."
From LDS.org

This is officially what doctrine is.
Perhaps what we should be asking is "if there are conflicting doctrines within the standard works which one is right...?"

[_the narrator]

"
Perhaps what we should be asking is "if there are conflicting doctrines within the standard works which one is right...?"

This is why scripture is not a source of doctrine/teachings. (By this I mean that one cannot point to a particular passage of scripture and say that by virtue of this belief being purportedly taught in the passage it can be declared as being doctrine). Doctrine is not discerned from the scriptures themselves, but is always discerned through the official interpretations offered in sermons, manuals, etc. Because scripture is always interpreted, appealing to scripture as doctrine would leave doctrine endlessly open, varied, and undefined. Any person could point to any verse of scripture and offer their own interpretation of that verse as being doctrine; or any person could point to a passage of scripture that is contradicted by newer scripture and say that X is a doctrine (for example, Alma's teachings about the afterlife would not at face value seem to be considered doctrine today).

While the Church's Newsroom's statement on doctrine (which was initially drafted/proposed by Millet) states that scripture is a source of doctrine, I think this is statement is far too simplistic and ignorant of the issues that arise from such a premise. Of course, being an official statement by the Church, we are left with the problem of it is a doctrine that what is contained in the scriptures is doctrine.

Or similarly, as I have pointed out already, when the facts of changing and contradicting doctrines over time are recognized what does this mean when Church leaders and publications repeatedly say that doctrines are true and do not change with time?

[_bcspace]

"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. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. 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."
From LDS.org

This is officially what doctrine is.
Perhaps what we should be asking is "if there are conflicting doctrines within the standard works which one is right...?"

Well no, the way you emphasized it is not what the doctrine is. The doctrine merely resides in the Standard Works etc. It is the FP and the Qo12 working together which actually establishes doctrine as the paragraph says. Neither you nor I are qualified to point to a verse and interpret what the doctrine is (2 Peter 1:20). The only reason why we can look at scripture and tell someone what the doctrine from it is is because the Church has published it somewhere.

Consider the following example:

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:5

The are at least two interpretations of this verse extant in the world.

1) The water represents physical birth.
2) The water represents water baptism.

How do we know that 2) above is LDS doctrine? Because the LDS Church has published it. Without such publication, it is not a stretch to think that someone would inaccurately represent it. This also illustrates why doctrine is more important than scripture.

While the Church's Newsroom's statement on doctrine (which was initially drafted/proposed by Millet) states that scripture is a source of doctrine, I think this is statement is far too simplistic and ignorant of the issues that arise from such a premise.

It's a perfectly cromulent statement and is simply a summary of all the Church teaches on the subject and has taught for many decades now.

[_the narrator]

While the Church's Newsroom's statement on doctrine (which was initially drafted/proposed by Millet) states that scripture is a source of doctrine, I think this is statement is far too simplistic and ignorant of the issues that arise from such a premise.

It's a perfectly cromulent statement and is simply a summary of all the Church teaches on the subject and has taught for many decades now.[/quote]

I meant 'source of doctrine' in the way I defined it in the preceding paragraph: "By this I mean that one cannot point to a particular passage of scripture and say that by virtue of this belief being purportedly taught in the passage it can be declared as being doctrine."

In this sense I think we agree, as it seems to be the point that you were making in your example with John 3:5.

[_the narrator]

You there Nomad?