Bcspace probably right about what is LDS Doctrine

[_Droopy]

So, you tangled with Nate Oman, but couldn't handle the Droopster. Don't take it too hard. Many a soldier has fallen to his mighty sword of truth. You haven't faced real competition until you've gone toe to toe with Droopy.

As far as I've followed his posting history since he showed up at the MADboard, Eric has run away from every serious interlocutor he's ever encountered there, at least regarding his favorite preoccupation, the Church's dearth of any settled, core doctrine.

His continued penchant for adolescent sarcasm in lieu of serious philosophical discourse earned him a reputation in short order.

Yes, he does alright in a journal like Element, in which he can express his views without point by point challenge. Having to think and defend himself "on the hoof," however, sends him reeling.

[_the narrator]

So, you tangled with Nate Oman, but couldn't handle the Droopster. Don't take it too hard. Many a soldier has fallen to his mighty sword of truth. You haven't faced real competition until you've gone toe to toe with Droopy.

As far as I've followed his posting history since he showed up at the MADboard, Eric has run away from every serious interlocutor he's ever encountered there, at least regarding his favorite preoccupation, the Church's dearth of any settled, core doctrine.

His continued penchant for adolescent sarcasm in lieu of serious philosophical discourse earned him a reputation in short order.

Yes, he does all right in a journal like Element, in which he can express his views without point by point challenge. Having to think and defend himself "on the hoof," however, sends him reeling.

Droopy, stop being such an ignorant fool. My Element article was responded to with point by point responses from scholars who are far more intelligent and skilled than you. When will you not understand Droopy? I just don't care to debate YOU. You annoy me.

[_moksha]

Would it be fair to say that doctrine is changeable whenever clearer reasoning or pressing exigencies enter the world?

[_the narrator]

Would it be fair to say that doctrine is changeable whenever clearer reasoning or pressing exigencies enter the world?

and revelation (which is usually prompted by the former two).

[_Droopy]

Would it be fair to say that doctrine is changeable whenever clearer reasoning or pressing exigencies enter the world?

and revelation (which is usually prompted by the former two).

How long will it be before you're a regular at Signature Books Eric?

The pace does seem to be picking up here a bit.

[_the narrator]

[quote="the narrator"
and revelation (which is usually prompted by the former two).

How long will it be before you're a regular at Signature Books Eric?

The pace does seem to be picking up here a bit.[/quote]

Who is Eric? And are you saying that reason and pressing exigencies do not prompt revelation???? Seriously? How else does revelation arise? Do you think they just drop out of heaven without any thought? Have you ever read any of the section headers in the D&C????? Ugh.

Ugh. I can't do this with you.

Ugh.

Ugh Ugh Ugh.


ughh.

[_bcspace]

Would it be fair to say that doctrine is changeable whenever clearer reasoning or pressing exigencies enter the world?

If revelation is received, sure.

[Guest]

6y

[_Droopy]

Who is Eric?

Oh, sorry. I had you (Ericson) momentarily mixed up with another particularly obnoxious poster.

And are you saying that reason and pressing exigencies do not prompt revelation???? Seriously? How else does revelation arise? Do you think they just drop out of heaven without any thought? Have you ever read any of the section headers in the D&C????? Ugh.

You are the one, against all prior established Church teachings, who claims that there is no such thing as clear, unambiguous Church teachings - "official" LDS doctrine.

It hardly surprises me then, that you are now moving toward revelation as being dependent upon human "reasoning" and social/cultural "exigencies" relative to alterations in doctrine, policy, or practice. If there is no central core of "Church doctrine" at all, then it makes perfect sense to posit that doctrine as being susceptible to alteration through cultural pressure/human influence on doctrinal trajectory and substance.

Its one thing to say that revelation is "prompted" by such considerations, but quite another to agree with Moksha that "doctrine is changeable" or, as you are apparently saying above, that the doctrinal content of revelation is dependent upon such human considerations, which official Church doctrine teaches it patently isn't. Human reasoning certainly can be said to "prompt" the reception of revelation. What it cannot be said to do is act as a controlling or mediating agency as to its content.

Doctrine, of course, does not "change," but its applicability (practices) are modified over time under certain conditions that are, indeed, human in origin.

Ugh. I can't do this with you.

Give up.

Ugh.

Submit.

Ugh Ugh Ugh.

You are a fluke of the universe.

ughh.

Resistance is futile...