As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

[_Darth J]

Fun Games For Mormon Discussions Readers!

While Why Me and Obiwan continue to assert that the King Follett Sermon is not doctrine, that "doctrine" is different from "teaching," and that the LDS Church is a sola scriptura church, you can have have some fun passing away the time by counting:

1. How many times in this thread it has been pointed out that Gordon B. Hinckley said that the King Follett Sermon is an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church;

2. How many times it has been pointed out in this thread that the essential message from the King Follett Sermon---that God the Father at one time was a mortal man and progressed to become God---is taught in official LDS curricula, making it simply a tautology to observe that this is official doctrine;

3. How many times Obiwan has provided any support in this thread for his assertions about what constitutes official church doctrine (hint: it won't take you very long to add this one up!);

4. How many times it has been pointed out in this thread that the Church teaches that the teachings of modern church leaders are at least as important as the Standard Works (the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price);

5. How many times it has been pointed out in this thread that "doctrine" and "teaching" are synonyms.

*** "Pointed out" means supported with reference to actual evidence.

[_Darth J]

Fun Games For Mormon Discussions Readers, #2!

The Church teaches lots of things that aren't doctrine, from financial principles to moral principles, etc.

The first person who can make sense out of this statement will win a fabulous prize!

(We haven't thought of what this prize will be yet, but we're pretty confident that because winning it requires making sense of the above statement, we won't have to award it to anyone, regardless.)

To help you in your attempt, we provide the following:

From the dictionary:

doctrine

1.
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

teaching

1.
the act or profession of a person who teaches.
2.
something that is taught.
3.
Often, teachings. doctrines or precepts: the teachings of Lao-tzu.

From the thesaurus:

doctrine

article, article of faith, attitude, axiom, basic, belief, canon, concept, convention, conviction, credenda, creed, declaration, dogma, fundamental, gospel, implantation, inculcation, indoctrination, instruction, position, precept, pronouncement, propaganda, proposition, regulation, rule, statement, teaching, tenet, tradition, universal law, unwritten rule

[_Jason Bourne]

I know it's in Gospel Principles..... Chap. 47 Exaltation

It's still not officially doctrine, because it's not in the scriptures. It's a true idea, hence why it's taught. Teaching manuals teach a LOT of things that aren't in scriptures, on all kinds of subjects.

Listen, if you guys are so insistent on calling it doctrine, then call it "unofficial doctrine".
As I've listed before, it's not officially in the scriptures, the KFD is not scripture, there have been no First Presidency announcements indicating it's doctrine, etc. etc.

For something to be actual "official" doctrine, it needs to be in scriptures, Revelation from the Prophets to the Church, the Holy Ghost, and common consent. You have maybe one or two of those, but that's it. It's taught because it is a truth that is to be understood by revelation, not that it's emphasised, not that it's not taught much, etc. If a person didn't go to Gospel Principles, they would basically never hear it taught. Of course, we've been teaching Gospel Principles lessons two sunday's a month in Priesthood and Relief Society for the last year, so, that's not really true at the moment.

Anyway, it's a teaching, not all teachings are "doctrine"..... Period.

So the LDS Church publishes things in its manuals that are not doctrine? Where is BC Space when I really need him!?

WEll Obiwan what about this:

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

04 May 2007 — Salt Lake City

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

* 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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
* Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Doctrine resides in the standard works, official declarations and proclamations ( is the Proclamation on the Family then doctrine?) and the interpretation of such is published in official Church publications. Thus in the manual makes in doctrine.

Once again this is not an obscure one time remark. The ideas of the KFD are and were consistently published by the Church thus based on the above are doctrine.

[_Buffalo]

Oh, snippity snap!

[_Jason Bourne]

I've participated in discussions on this and Hinckley's statements several times before on LDS boards, and most LDS tend to interpret things the same as I.

You may mean most LDS Hobby apologists. Nobody ever used to back away from this till the EV world got in the LDS Church's face about it.

[_Runtu]

You may mean most LDS Hobby apologists. Nobody ever used to back away from this till the EV world got in the LDS Church's face about it.

That teaching, to me, is one of the great and beautiful doctrines of the restoration. The reason it upsets mainstream Christians so much is that it exalts humans and allows for them to become equal with God. Given that most Christians believe that God and humans are on separate planes of exaltation, this is blasphemy. But it's this radical theology that is appealing to me. The idea that God loves us so much that He would provide a way for us to have what He has is an amazing and uplifting doctrine. It makes me wish the church really was true, after all.

I'm genuinely saddened to hear church members denying or minimizing this central doctrine.

[_consiglieri]

I frankly don't like talking about this, because I believe it is a principle in the Church that God wishes us to understand by revelation, not to cast this pearl before swine, as we can see from these discussions.

Bingo, BC!

I think you have just hit on the raison d'etre as to why President Hinckley fudged his answer.

Bravo!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_madeleine]

I frankly don't like talking about this, because I believe it is a principle in the Church that God wishes us to understand by revelation, not to cast this pearl before swine, as we can see from these discussions.

Bingo, BC!

I think you have just hit on the raison d'etre as to why President Hinckley fudged his answer.

Bravo!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

What does that mean? That he didn't want to talk about doctrine that he knew is controversial? So he lied?

[_consiglieri]

What does that mean? That he didn't want to talk about doctrine that he knew is controversial? So he lied?

Although I think it can be more charitably viewed as "fudging" the answer, that is exactly what it means.

As a long-time Mormon, I can tell you that there a number of beliefs we have that we are accustomed to others making fun of; that seem strange and tend to put non-members off. We feel this way because of the way it is mocked and ridiculed by others from time to time.

On the other hand, we are directed that every member should be a missionary, and that this means being a "good example" of the gospel in the way we conduct ourselves, and taking (and making) every opportunity to talk about the gospel with others.

"Talking about the gospel" does not mean talking about the "deeper" or "odder" aspects of our beliefs, but sharing basic concepts such as the Book of Mormon and the restoration through Joseph Smith. Implicit is the idea that we should do nothing with non-members that might cause them to doubt the truth of the restored gospel message, and that bringing up "meat before milk" has a tendency to do just that.

Add all these things together, and you have Mormons who understand that you do not want to talk about Heavenly Mother, or God once being a man, in front of a non-member, and heaven forbid on national TV.

This is so intertwined with what it is to be a Mormon, it is difficult to separate them.

And so, when President Hinckley was asked this question in the media, his natural reaction was to do what any good Mormon would do--fudge the answer. Note he didn't outright deny it. That is what I would have considered a "lie." Instead, he tried to defuse it by admitting that something like it had been taught once in the dim, dark past, but that we don't really know much about it and don't really teach it in church.

I don't know if this makes sense to you, Madeleine, but I guarantee it will resonate with most folks who are or have been Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_why me]

While Why Me and Obiwan continue to assert that the King Follett Sermon is not doctrine, that "doctrine" is different from "teaching," and that the LDS Church is a sola scriptura church, you can have have some fun passing away the time by counting:

I must be writing in Chinese. I have said over and over again that key issues in the KFD are doctrine but the sermon is not. Geez...hopefully what I just wrote is in english.