The Confounding World of LDS Doctrinal Pronouncements...

[_Runtu]

It's a hilarious, but typical, sign of a weak and desparate faith that will take the abundant evidence that their Prophets, Seers, and Revelators are just making it up as they go along, and turn it into a feature, ie: a ziz-zag course by fallible humans leading us eventually to some truth.

So, the past sureness that LDS prophets had when testifying strongly of certain "facts" that they claimed were absolutely true were just one zig along the path, now perhaps over-corrected by the zag of the more recent LDS apologetic trend to disclaim that we know really much of anything at all about anything at all. I suppose these paths will eventually converge on a point where the Lord really will appear to some LDS Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and tell him a few things, and then we'll meet somewhere in the middle, ie: knowing a few things at least. How's that sound?

It is interesting, isn't it? We are criticized because we actually expected prophets to teach us something about God. Nope, we're told we're binary thinkers, fundamentalists, and rigid because we see serious contradictions in the teachings of men who claim to know God and His ways.

So, to sum up:

Contradictory teachings between prophets: good, "postmodern" way of looking at life.
Consistent doctrine: bad, "fundamentalist," rigid thinking.

[_wenglund]

It's a hilarious, but typical, sign of a weak and desparate faith that will take the abundant evidence that their Prophets, Seers, and Revelators are just making it up as they go along, and turn it into a feature, ie: a ziz-zag course by fallible humans leading us eventually to some truth.

So, the past sureness that LDS prophets had when testifying strongly of certain "facts" that they claimed were absolutely true were just one zig along the path, now perhaps over-corrected by the zag of the more recent LDS apologetic trend to disclaim that we know really much of anything at all about anything at all. I suppose these paths will eventually converge on a point where the Lord really will appear to some LDS Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and tell him a few things, and then we'll meet somewhere in the middle, ie: knowing a few things at least. How's that sound?

It sounds to me like you have a fundamentalistic way of looking at this. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Blixa]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yours truly,

Hollis Greene



(sorry, couldn't resist)

[_Jason Bourne]

I see. Here's how it goes:

Joseph Smith sees Jesus and Heavenly Father.

After that apparition, Joseph Smith initially teaches that Heavenly Father, whom he saw, is a personage of spirit while Jesus has a tabernacle of flesh.

Later, Joseph Smith changes that teaching to state that HF also has a body of flesh.

And this, according to wade, is just the evolution of knowledge. Even more, for me to regard this as an example of the unreliability of LDS teachings means that I expect perfection and infallibility.

While I think the theologicl implications of Lecture on Faith Five, that declares the Father a personage of spirit, it is not unreasonable to suppose the Joseph Smith did not know the Father had a body at this time. An interesting study I think in BYU studies, by David Paulsen, Called the Divine Emodiment of God, clearly shows that even though early LDS theology may have considered God the Father being a spirit, He was considered and emobodied spirit, not a spirit that filled the immensity of space. Read the Book of Moses and it comes clear that even in 1831 LDS believed God was emodied though they may not have known or taught that he had a tangible body.

[_Runtu]

While I think the theologicl implications of Lecture on Faith Five, that declares the Father a personage of spirit, it is not unreasonable to suppose the Joseph Smith did not know the Father had a body at this time. An interesting study I think in BYU studies, by David Paulsen, Called the Divine Emodiment of God, clearly shows that even though early LDS theology may have considered God the Father being a spirit, He was considered and emobodied spirit, not a spirit that filled the immensity of space. Read the Book of Moses and it comes clear that even in 1831 LDS believed God was emodied though they may not have known or taught that he had a tangible body.

I've heard this as well. What's harder to explain is how the Holy Ghost became the third member of the Godhead. At the time of the Lectures on Faith, there were only two members of the Godhead. Mosiah 15 also seems to suggest a more traditional reading of God as Spirit and Jesus as God in the flesh.

[_Jason Bourne]

The LDS Church has very, very little doctrine.

I do not think those who lead would agree. But don't you really find that a bit odd?

The Church is not a babysitter for anyones spiritual life. If you want to know the answer to more questions you have to read a lot, ponder a lot, and pray a lot

.


To expect and organization that claims to be the Only True and Living Church to declare what its doctrine is and to be consistent about it does not seem unreasonable. And really one cannot just preach whatever in Church and have it accepted. The Church does have a parameter for doctrine and it is fairly established. The problem is some significant things have changed and others that are less mainstream seem to be played down.

One moment we're accused of "When the Brethren have spoken, the thinking has been done". Then we're accused of not having firm enough doctrine. We can't win that game.

With this one I agree.

In truth the LDS Church is very free about what it's members can believe. Which is why an eccentric nutcase like me is still in good standing :)

You can believe whatever you want but certain beliefs are required for membership and a temple recommend. Plus you cannot preach whatever you want without repercussions. Ask Margret Tuscano about that.

[_Who Knows]

Throw in the different versions of the first vision over the years, and it gets even trickier.

[_Jason Bourne]

I am convinced that this hair-splitting nonsense about “official doctrine” is relatively recent concept in the Church and it is deeply rooted in the apologetic movement. I was thinking about this lately because I am in the middle of a discussion over at MAD where I am told that the LDS notion of Elohim = God the Father was only a “recent” thing in Mormonism as if that was somehow supposed to make LDS less tied down to it as doctrine.

For me this was one of the reasons I stopped doing apologetics. So often I said, when faced with something strange or discomforting from say BY or some other leader "That was never or is not official doctrine." Problem is it sure seemed that much of what was not official was though of as at least doctrine by those who said it and those who heard it. But the apologist simply dismissed it with this plea. It makes LDS apologetics much easier. Another example is the idea of becoming a God, creating your own world and peopling it. Growing up in the 60's and 70's this was taught often. Now, because this is not explicit in the canon it is not really doctrine, or official. The target just seems to move too much.

If you don’t believe me when I say “official doctrine” is a recent innovation in Mormonism, just do a search for it on the LDS website. Only seven hits come up, the earliest during the 70’s.

To nail home the apologetic purpose of all this, take a long close look at this Ensign article from 1982. Someone asks the question, “Is President Lorenzo Snow’s oft-repeated statement—“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”—accepted as official doctrine by the Church?”

What a great example. And a great point.

[_Jason Bourne]

An understanding that God knows all things, and that there is nothing which he does not know, is essentially necessary for man to have in order to excercise faith and gain salvation. As the Prophet said: "Without the knowledge of all things God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures; for it is by reason of the knowledge which he has of all things, from the beginning to the end, that enables him to give that understanding to his creatures by which they are made partakers of eternal life; and if it were not for the idea existing in the minds of men that God had all knowledge it would be impossible for them to excercise faith in him." ( Lectures on Faith, p.44) Not only does the Father know all things, but so likewise does the Son (D&C 38:2; 93:26) and the Holy Ghost. (D&C 35:19; 42:17)

Gaz quotes the Lectures. Gaz are the Lectures doctrine? Were they ever official doctrine?

[_Jason Bourne]

Actually, I think the so-called "hair-splitting nonsense" has been a function of rigid and narrow-minded critics and members attempting to pigeon-hole the restored gospel of Christ in ways that were never intended--I.e. as a systematic theology. These good folks tend to forget that the essence of Christ's gospel is not so much a matter of intellectual and legalistic epistemic, but rather changing personal natures to become Christ-like and bearing Christ-like fruits: feeding the spiritual and physical hungry, healing the spiritual and physical sick, assisting a neighbor in need, etc. The gospel is about Godly love, which lends itself less to doctrines exactitudes (official vs unofficial) and more to doing good works and living edifying lives. To me, an hour laboring at welfare square or the Sort Center teaches me far more about Christ and his gospel than a week of scholarly lectures on Christology or endless debates and disputes thereon.

There is orthodoxy and orthopraxy. You are talking about orthopraxy. All church's have both. The LDS Church currently emphasizes practice far more then doctrine. Just look at the Ensign articles and read the conference talks. But there was a time both were heavily emphasized. For some reason doctrine that was once heavily discussed seems to be down played. And doctrine that was taught as such is now just someone's opinion. In the Church that claims to be the One True Church it would seem that it should do better.

In short, the real nonsense is in quibbling over what doctrines are "official" or not, rather than striving to follow Christ.

THis is just plain silly. Both can be accomplished and a Church should have doctrine, explain what it is and so forth.