The Nehor wrote:The reality though is very little of our doctrine has seriously changed. Lots of policy changes. Trimming of a few things in the beginning. Expanding on the things we have. I think if my great-great-grandfather walked into a block meeting he wouldn't find anything objectionable in what was taught. He'd probably appreciate the whole air conditioning thing though.
I think he would be shocked by the "lots of policy changes" part. The more I talk to apologists, the more I realize the stuff I thought was doctrine were really just policies. There is not much doctrine in Mormonism, but there are lots and lots of policies.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
The Nehor wrote:The reality though is very little of our doctrine has seriously changed. Lots of policy changes. Trimming of a few things in the beginning. Expanding on the things we have. I think if my great-great-grandfather walked into a block meeting he wouldn't find anything objectionable in what was taught. He'd probably appreciate the whole air conditioning thing though.
I think he would be shocked by the "lots of policy changes" part. The more I talk to apologists, the more I realize the stuff I thought was doctrine were really just policies. There is not much doctrine in Mormonism, but there are lots and lots of policies.
Okay, not following though.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Nehor's got it right when he observes that Tszuki is just a few degrees past heterodox and moving towards heresy. Nice guy, though.
As far as the incessant refrain from some quarters that doctrine has changed, I would say that was has happened most of all is that the things that some people, or even lots of people believed to be doctrine -- those kinds of things have been renounced or moved away from over the years. I'm quite confident that if my grandfather were to come into our gospel doctrine class this Sunday, he would feel like it was the same church he knew back in the late 19th century, early 20th century (he was born in 1879). Yeah, there have been some doctrinal speculators/extremists through the years, and they have gathered around them cliques of devotees -- people like Orson Pratt, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McConkie. But their fringe ideas were never "doctrine" as I understand it.
As far as Brigham Young's "Adam/God" thing -- I think most people have simply misunderstood what he was trying to say. I think he was just trying to elaborate on his whole notion that God was a man -- an "Adam" -- during his mortal probation. But I don't really want to get into that on this message board. My point is that I don't even consider the Adam/God stuff as doctrine we've "moved away from."
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
What exactly is Mormon doctrine? Is there a list somewhere?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
William Schryver wrote:Nehor's got it right when he observes that Tszuki is just a few degrees past heterodox and moving towards heresy. Nice guy, though.
As far as the incessant refrain from some quarters that doctrine has changed, I would say that was has happened most of all is that the things that some people, or even lots of people believed to be doctrine -- those kinds of things have been renounced or moved away from over the years. I'm quite confident that if my grandfather were to come into our gospel doctrine class this Sunday, he would feel like it was the same church he knew back in the late 19th century, early 20th century (he was born in 1879). Yeah, there have been some doctrinal speculators/extremists through the years, and they have gathered around them cliques of devotees -- people like Orson Pratt, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McConkie. But their fringe ideas were never "doctrine" as I understand it.
As far as Brigham Young's "Adam/God" thing -- I think most people have simply misunderstood what he was trying to say. I think he was just trying to elaborate on his whole notion that God was a man -- an "Adam" -- during his mortal probation. But I don't really want to get into that on this message board. My point is that I don't even consider the Adam/God stuff as doctrine we've "moved away from."
I guess we'll have to disagree. To me it's clear that church doctrine has evolved, and some things, like Brigham Young's teachings on Adam, have indeed been jettisoned. And if Brigham had merely intended to say that God was a human on another earth, Orson Pratt (one of those doctrinal extremists) would not have opposed him, would he? The idea that God lived on an earth as a man and became exalted was standard LDS doctrine in the 19th century. That Orson Pratt and others so vehemently disagreed with Brigham suggests that your reading of Brigham is incorrect.
But either way, I don't much care what Brigham said or didn't. What I have come to understand is that people believe in what the church teaches here and now, not what it used to teach. That the two aren't the same is not important to most church members.
Who Knows wrote:What exactly is Mormon doctrine? Is there a list somewhere?
There have been a few attempts by individuals to explain Mormon doctrine. The problem is, those explanations are not doctrine.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
Who Knows wrote:What exactly is Mormon doctrine? Is there a list somewhere?
There have been a few attempts by individuals to explain Mormon doctrine. The problem is, those explanations are not doctrine.
The only official "doctrine" is contained in the canon. Publications after 1970 are considered "consistent" with doctrine.
The 'canon' is pretty vague. You can pretty much come up with anything.
So again - what is Mormon doctrine? Where's the list?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Who Knows wrote:What exactly is Mormon doctrine? Is there a list somewhere?
There have been a few attempts by individuals to explain Mormon doctrine. The problem is, those explanations are not doctrine.
The only official "doctrine" is contained in the canon. Publications after 1970 are considered "consistent" with doctrine.
The 'canon' is pretty vague. You can pretty much come up with anything.
So again - what is Mormon doctrine? Where's the list?
If I were to hazard a guess, there isn't really one. Even the quasi-canonical Bible Dictionary and Guide to the Scriptures contain disclaimers about their lack of authority. And, yes, you're absolutely right. An open canon without a systematic theology means that Mormon doctrine is whatever the current leadership says it is.
"Canon" is not really an LDS term, but to the extent it is used, it means the things contained within the authorized Quad. Some of the things therein are not approved revelations. (official declarations; chapter headings; footnotes). Canon changes when the church changes the publication contents. No more, no less.
Interestingly, the LDS canon does NOT contain the authorized KJV of the Bible. LDS canon omits the authorized marginal readings, which were dropped to save space. The marginal readings are as much a part of the original KJV as each individual verse.
"Doctrine" is more an etheral term. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism and Mormon Doctrine contain their own definitions, but they don't agree and don't necessarily have to.
I resort to the tried and true formula in the scriptures. You will only know the doctrine if you live the commandments. No more, no less.