"True" Churches

Post by **_truth dancer** » Tue May 15, 2007 11:21 am

Hi Gaz...

Could you please cite examples of confusing doctrine.

Thanks

Gaz

I don't even know what is doctrine... seems everything is opinion.

I truly can't think of any "doctrine" that cannot be changed, altered, removed, added to, replaced, eliminated, etc. etc. etc.

Which is why I find the church so confusing!

I understand the idea of change and continuing revelation but to me this basically means... "we go along following the current leaders and whatever they say, whatever is their opinion, is what we go with for a time".

~dancer~

Post by **_The Nehor** » Tue May 15, 2007 11:57 am

truth dancer wrote:Hi Gaz...

Could you please cite examples of confusing doctrine.

Thanks

Gaz

I don't even know what is doctrine... seems everything is opinion.

I truly can't think of any "doctrine" that cannot be changed, altered, removed, added to, replaced, eliminated, etc. etc. etc.

Which is why I find the church so confusing!

I understand the idea of change and continuing revelation but to me this basically means... "we go along following the current leaders and whatever they say, whatever is their opinion, is what we go with for a time".

~dancer~

Solid Doctrine:

1. God exists.
2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of the World.
3. Joseph Smith received the Keys of Presidency of the Holy Priesthood and those keys have been passed down in an unbroken chain to President Hinckley.
4. The canon of scripture (which is not infallible) consists of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
5. There was a Premortal Existence and there will be and is a Postmortal Existence.
6. The ordinances of salvation are administered by the Priesthood.
7. Drinking Dr. Pepper is the equivalent of injecting heroin directly into your eyes.

This is not a complete list, but a good starting point.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Tue May 15, 2007 12:25 pm

Hey Nehor...

1. God exists.

OK... I'll give ya this one! :-) Now... what this means is a completely other thing. Was he once a man? Still a man? Adam? You know?

2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of the World.

This has not always been the doctrine but I do understand it is currently so.

3. Joseph Smith received the Keys of Presidency of the Holy Priesthood and those keys have been passed down in an unbroken chain to President Hinckley.

Which means what exactly? I don't seem much "doctrine" here, just a claim to justify authority.

4. The canon of scripture (which is not infallible) consists of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

A canon of scripture which may or may not be true, which may or may not be accurate, which may or may not hold doctrine, which is open to interpretation by prophets who are just sharing their opinion, and which can be altered at any given time.

5. There was a Premortal Existence and there will be and is a Postmortal Existence.

OK.. I think I agree with this one.... of course it is open to alteration at any given moment but as far as I know, this has been pretty steadily embraced. Of course what the post existence is, is all over the place, even while it seems clear in the D&C.

6. The ordinances of salvation are administered by the Priesthood.

Which ordinances can and have changed. Adminsistered by the Priesthood which can be given to some but not others depending on race or body parts at any given time.

7. Drinking Dr. Pepper is the equivalent of injecting heroin directly into your eyes.

Don't forget tea.... it will send you to outer darkness! :-)

This is not a complete list, but a good starting point.

You speak of current ideas... (which may or may not change), which is fine, but different than the idea that doctrine is truth given by God.

But to be fair... there are a few things that seem to not have changed:

God exists. We live and die. Jesus was resurrected. We can return to God if we believe in Joseph Smith and obey the various commandments (which are completely subject to change). The Priesthood is the power of God.

I think these are about the only things that most likely will remain as official beliefs.

Maybe the prophets should have stuck with these? (smile)

:-)

~dancer~

Post by **_The Nehor** » Tue May 15, 2007 1:59 pm

A few comments on your comments

1. I dunno. My current understanding is that he is an embodied being, very sensual (in the sense of experiencing things and living, he's a doer), passionate, forgiving, understanding, humorous, and that he dwells on a Urim and Thummim in which all things of a lesser kingdom are revealed to him. I assume this also makes it useable as a Star Trek holodeck. I wouldn't hold anyone else to this though.

2. When was Jesus Christ not the Son of God and the Savior of the World? Being in the middle of the Journal of Discourses it's pretty commonly accepted then.

3. I see it as a core doctrine. If the authority is not there then our claims fall apart.

4. Yep, you summed it up well. I have found the Gospel to be big on personal responsibility in figuring what God wants. Treat the scriptures as an aid to revelation (like the stone in the hat) and you'll get results. Treat it as the end-all be-all and you turn into a dogmatic prat who annoys everyone around them.

6. The ordinances changing is why I did not specify specific ones however they are reserved to the Priesthood.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Tue May 15, 2007 3:54 pm

Hey Nehor...

4. Yep, you summed it up well. I have found the Gospel to be big on personal responsibility in figuring what God wants. Treat the scriptures as an aid to revelation (like the stone in the hat) and you'll get results. Treat it as the end-all be-all and you turn into a dogmatic prat who annoys everyone around them.

Yeah but... (smile)... now you speak to the whole "confusion" thing.

If the gospel is really about personal revelation then why in the heck bother with all the "stuff."

I mean why lesson manuals, why "opinions," why teach any "truths" other than.... listen to your personal revelation?

And.. the big problems with the church is... if it is all about personal revelation then what to do with those who believe their personal revelation is telling them something other than what the church teaches?

This was actually my problem.

For years, nay decades, my personal 'revelation' was in opposition to some of the church teachings. At the time I was extremely obedient, prayed with all the "energy" of heart, studied my scriptures for an hour a day (never ever missing a day), did all the stuff and yet, what I felt God was telling me was other than what the church teaches.

Therein lies the problem...

If there is no doctrine and anyone can believe whatever they want then the church needs to come right out and say this.... I haven't heard it.

Some "believers" suggest that the church is the one and only true church with the authority of God but in the same breath they say that you can believe whatever you want and it is all about personal revelation and there is no really true doctrine at all. So why have a church, a prophet, or an organization claiming to have the answers?

Do you understand my point? THIS is exactly what I think is so confusing about the church.

:-)

~dancer~

Post by **_harmony** » Tue May 15, 2007 4:01 pm

The Nehor wrote:3. I see it [restoration of the priesthood]as a core doctrine. If the authority is not there then our claims fall apart.

Please post the chapter and verse in which the revelation of the restoration of the higher priesthood was canonized. Thanks.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Wed May 16, 2007 12:14 am

truth dancer wrote:Hey Nehor...

4. Yep, you summed it up well. I have found the Gospel to be big on personal responsibility in figuring what God wants. Treat the scriptures as an aid to revelation (like the stone in the hat) and you'll get results. Treat it as the end-all be-all and you turn into a dogmatic prat who annoys everyone around them.

Yeah but... (smile)... now you speak to the whole "confusion" thing.

If the gospel is really about personal revelation then why in the heck bother with all the "stuff."

I mean why lesson manuals, why "opinions," why teach any "truths" other than.... listen to your personal revelation?

And.. the big problems with the church is... if it is all about personal revelation then what to do with those who believe their personal revelation is telling them something other than what the church teaches?

This was actually my problem.

For years, nay decades, my personal 'revelation' was in opposition to some of the church teachings. At the time I was extremely obedient, prayed with all the "energy" of heart, studied my scriptures for an hour a day (never ever missing a day), did all the stuff and yet, what I felt God was telling me was other than what the church teaches.

Therein lies the problem...

If there is no doctrine and anyone can believe whatever they want then the church needs to come right out and say this.... I haven't heard it.

Some "believers" suggest that the church is the one and only true church with the authority of God but in the same breath they say that you can believe whatever you want and it is all about personal revelation and there is no really true doctrine at all. So why have a church, a prophet, or an organization claiming to have the answers?

Do you understand my point? THIS is exactly what I think is so confusing about the church.

:-)

~dancer~

Everything else in my experience is an aid to revelation.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Wed May 16, 2007 12:15 am

harmony wrote:
The Nehor wrote:3. I see it [restoration of the priesthood]as a core doctrine. If the authority is not there then our claims fall apart.

Please post the chapter and verse in which the revelation of the restoration of the higher priesthood was canonized. Thanks.

I didn't say it was part of canon, I said it was doctrine.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Wed May 16, 2007 12:34 am

Ok, so Nehor...

The LDS church has doctrine that is not in any canon and not a matter of revelation, canonized scripture that is not doctrine, revelation that is not doctrine.. a restored priesthood without a revelation, the ban of the priesthood without a revelation, commandments that are not doctrinal, commandments that are not scriptural...

And you don't think this is confusing?

;-)

~dancer~

Post by **_The Nehor** » Wed May 16, 2007 12:50 am

truth dancer wrote:Ok, so Nehor...

The LDS church has doctrine that is not in any canon and not a matter of revelation, canonized scripture that is not doctrine, revelation that is not doctrine.. a restored priesthood without a revelation, the ban of the priesthood without a revelation, commandments that are not doctrinal, commandments that are not scriptural...

And you don't think this is confusing?

;-)

~dancer~

Nope.