Apologist States Doctrine.

[_Bryan Inks]

Some of you may know Tsuzuki from MAD.

I don't. I first met him on a Mormon-themed thread on another forum.

However, he just pinned down exactly what it takes for something to become doctrine.

... That doesn't change the fact that numerous prophets all claimed it.

They can claim whatever they want, but unless they can get every member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to agree with them it ain't doctrine. You know this already.

There you have it folks. If the prophet claims something and can get all 12 to agree, then it becomes doctrine.

That does raise some interesting doctrines, though.

For example, where does Egg-salad for Saturday Brunch fit into God's plan?

And does "Sister So-and-so's cookies were delightful" really have a place in the Gospel Essentials?

Yeah, these are the kinds of thoughts that keep me up at night.

[_The Nehor]

Tsuzuki is wrong as much as I like the guy.

He also makes me look like an absolutely normal Mormon and that's saying something. Tsuzuki is not an Apologist. I think he'd agree with me that his main interest in Online Discussions is to discuss his ways of melding forms of occultism with the LDS faith.

I don't think there is an exact way to pin down doctrine in the LDS faith.

[_truth dancer]

What I have come to discover is...

Mormon doctrine, scripture, teachings, and belief are not equivalent to truth.

"Doctrine" is actually just current and/or popular ideas.

As a believer I had the idea that doctrine meant something was actually true. Not so.

There is absolutely nothing in Mormon doctrine, that can't be changed, altered, undone, revised, reinterpreted, removed, or replaced.

Evidently it means there is continual revelation.

~dancer~

[_beastie]

I think that using the term "doctrine" (or more technically, "not doctrine") is just a game of semantics. Supposedly major teachings of past prophets - teachings they encouraged the entire church to embrace - were "not doctrine", and hence, can't be viewed as real problems for the LDS church's truth claims.

So what this means is that God is ok with his prophet teaching his own incorrect opinion to the members of the church and even, at times, pressuring them to accept it, while functioning in his role as "prophet". I don't care if it's not official "doctrine", it was being taught and members were expected to accept it. And God's ok with that, in his "one true church" that restored plain and precious teachings that were once lost - I guess lost by past prophets doing the exact same thing modern prophets do - teaching their own incorrect opinions and expecting members to embrace them.

[_cksalmon]

What I have come to discover is...

Mormon doctrine, scripture, teachings, and belief are not equivalent to truth.

"Doctrine" is actually just current and/or popular ideas.

As a believer I had the idea that doctrine meant something was actually true. Not so.

There is absolutely nothing in Mormon doctrine, that can't be changed, altered, undone, revised, reinterpreted, removed, or replaced.

Evidently it means there is continual revelation.

~dancer~

This is insightful. I read an article by someone last year who made the argument that the only two unchangeable doctrines in LDS theology were (1) that God exists and (2) that revelation is ongoing. Everything else is mutable.

Best.

CKS

[_beastie]

This is insightful. I read an article by someone last year who made the argument that the only two unchangeable doctrines in LDS theology were (1) that God exists and (2) that revelation is ongoing. Everything else is mutable.

Sounds like Ben McGuire.

This is one way to reconcile yourself with all the past contradictory teachings of the LDS church. But it certainly doesn't make much sense when one considers that, according to God and Joseph Smith, one reason the restoration was needed was that the apostasy had resulted in the loss of plain and precious truths. That makes it sound like the content of teachings is actually important.

So do you think the author of this article would ever feel comfortable making this assertion in a sacrament talk? ;)

[_Pokatator]

Then just what was the purpose of a restoration? Restoration of what? Especially if truth doesn't matter.

This is exactly what the Mormons accuse the early followers of Jesus of doing and all the other church leaders from Jesus to present.

They are hypocrites, this is OK for Mormons but not OK for other churches.

What happened to God is the same, today, yesterday and tomorrow?

[_Runtu]

Then just what was the purpose of a restoration? Restoration of what? Especially if truth doesn't matter.

This is exactly what the Mormons accuse the early followers of Jesus of doing and all the other church leaders from Jesus to present.

They are hypocrites, this is OK for Mormons but not OK for other churches.

What happened to God is the same, today, yesterday and tomorrow?

The problem is that Ben and Juliann and all the other "postmodern" Mormons know that there's very little that can be said to defend the veracity of Mormonism's claims. Even the mainstream apologists are only in the business of making those claims plausible but are not interested in trying to find proof.

Juliann once told me that she adopted the subjective "postmodern" approach (and for the record, I've always thought that hers was a rather poor understanding of what postmodernism is) because for her, the only reality is her testimony. All the other "Enlightenment" approaches (meaning, you know, pesky things like facts) were irrelevant.

[_truth dancer]

Then just what was the purpose of a restoration? Restoration of what? Especially if truth doesn't matter.

Good question. One I have asked several times.

What I gather from apologists, the restoration is not about truth at all, it is more about a gathering of God's chosen people... or something like that.

Some have suggested the restoration is actually about restoring the priesthood, but then this too is subject to change, alteration, revision, and reinterpretation, not to mention its definition is rather nebulous and esoteric without anyone knowing what it is supposed to be.

~dancer~

[_The Nehor]

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.