Bcspace probably right about what is LDS Doctrine

[_Droopy]

Droopy and BC, if the scriptures are not the final arbitrare of LDS doctrine then were Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. lee and BH Roberts incorrect when they said that that if someone taught something that disagreed with the standard works it could be set aside? I can't dig these up at the moment but would be happy to later. But I imagine you are familiar with the statements.

I don't see these statements as logically relevant to the core question Eric has brought up here, which is where official, established core doctrine inherently resides.

Anyone who teaches something in contradiction to anything taught in the Song of Songs can be set aside as spurious? Any and every New Testament or Old Testament verse? I really don't think this is what any of these GAs had in mind.

What they had in mind was that anything taught that is out of harmony with revealed truth as contained in the scriptures can be set aside, but this, by itself, is unexceptional within a Church context.

Since anything that comes through the power of the Holy Ghost is scripture, and the contemporary special witnesses of Christ and the living prophet in our day are authorized and tasked with receiving revelation for the Church, then anything taught that is in contradiction with any of the inspired teachings of the Brethren, regardless of the venue or site of origin or the teachings, may be set aside.

The scriptures are just once instance - but not the only - of a venue within which true, or doctrinally correct teachings reside, but hardly exclusive, in an LDS context.

[_bcspace]

Seems like fair response.

Of course it is. It's published by the Church, the standard for doctrine according to the Church.

The challenge arises not when one wishes to know what the LDS Church teaches in its manuals and what how members are to relate to those teachings, but when Mormons try to ascertain what the doctrines of truth and power are—that the Church has a primary (though perhaps not exclusive) claim on truth is, after all, one of the foundational doctrines of the restoration.

I don't see what the problem is. It goes from admitting the doctrine is clear to complaining the doctrine is not clear.

If it is the case, as Millet and Oman agree, that the doctrines of the Church can and do change, and if the doctrines of the restored Church are true, then how should Mormons understand the truthfulness of these changing doctrines?

Change is being overblown here with no examples being provided.

How do we make sense of a new true doctrine of the restoration contradicting a discontinued true doctrine of the restoration?

What discontinued doctrine? Why can't, for example, the Church accept traditional christian doctrine until revealed otherwise? What significant doctrines have changed?

Droopy and BC, if the scriptures are not the final arbitrare of LDS doctrine then were Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. lee and BH Roberts incorrect when they said that that if someone taught something that disagreed with the standard works it could be set aside?

Nope. Doctrine and scripture are still going to harmonize.

[_the narrator]

Change is being overblown here with no examples being provided.

I document many in my first Element article. Read it.

Or as we already discussed:

1834: true doctrine = beer is good.
1934: true doctrine = beer is bad.

[_bcspace]

One might also use an early Christian example. Back then, it was considered sinful and an offense to God for a man to shave (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3). Yet nowadays, we shave.

Both examples sound more like continuing inspiration to guide us through various societal phases or helping a population wean themselves over time. I don't see how anyone could consider the change (if there was indeed a change) a flaw or a problem.

[_the narrator]

I don't see how anyone could consider the change (if there was indeed a change) a flaw or a problem.

Well, when one sees doctrine as the absolute truth, then it becomes a problem.

[_moksha]

Bcspace and Droopy, what about this latest doctrine of the Church openly supporting what is known as the Utah Compact regarding the treatment of illegal immigrants. Since conservative Mormons are dead set against this, does it change the status of the Church's position as being nondoctrinal?

[_Joseph]

Droppy wrote: "If, however, we lose the prophets, the consequence us general apostasy, or a "Great Apostasy" as occurred after the passing of the Apostles.
"
******************************************

Just one problem with that. Four Apostles with the authority were on the earth the whole time according to lds-inc scripture.

[_Buffalo]

One might also use an early Christian example. Back then, it was considered sinful and an offense to God for a man to shave (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3). Yet nowadays, we shave.

Both examples sound more like continuing inspiration to guide us through various societal phases or helping a population wean themselves over time. I don't see how anyone could consider the change (if there was indeed a change) a flaw or a problem.

Except the earliest form of Christianity was all about removing Pharisaical rules. Mormonism is all about adding them.

[_Runtu]

Except the earliest form of Christianity was all about removing Pharisaical rules. Mormonism is all about adding them.

The big difference is that the early church had no Correlation Department, so instructions and epistles were not vetted by a professional staff.

bcspace is correct that the post-Correlation publications of the church are consistent with doctrine, which officially resides in the scriptures.

[_Buffalo]

Except the earliest form of Christianity was all about removing Pharisaical rules. Mormonism is all about adding them.

The big difference is that the early church had no Correlation Department, so instructions and epistles were not vetted by a professional staff.

bcspace is correct that the post-Correlation publications of the church are consistent with doctrine, which officially resides in the scriptures.

I guess when you can't count on the Spirit to give consistent revelation, then you need something like the correlation department.