The Challenge of Defining Loyd Ericson?????s Doctrine: Part 1

[_Nightlion]

[] [] [] [] [] []

I certainly hope nobody bites droopy's chum spead.

The doctrine has been handled for thirty years, locked down solid, showing here:
http://www.fireark.org/wonders_of_eternity.pdf
Please take your chum chunks hence.

[_bcspace]

Obviously the Church disagrees with you since it essentially stated that what it published in this case, was incorrect

No. It was corrected. An old chestnut. Try again.

l-dsinc does not have set doctrine on much of anything. One official publication contradict another. One apostle contradicts another. They go to conferences and congregations and teach and preach and have deniability every step of the way when what is said is not popular or some more senior member or quieter member of that quorum disagrees.

Not a single example. Barely lifted your finger to try.

[_the narrator]

I refuse to respond to Droopy, especially when his response presupposes some fantastical secular agenda from me. Needless to say, I am an active Latter-day Saint, was until my move last week an instructor in my elder's quorum, and will be blessing my brand new daughter in two weeks. His pathetic accusations and insinuations are simple nonsense. Had he not been so utterly blinded by his rabid hate, he would have hopefully been able to give a better response.

For those who are interested, my original essay can be read here. In a recent issue of Element, scholars who far exceed Droopy (and myself) in ability and professionalism--Robert Millet and Nate Oman--give thoughtful responses to that paper. A draft of my published rejoinder in the same issue can be read here.

Obviously the Church disagrees with you since it essentially stated that what it published in this case, was incorrect

No. It was corrected. An old chestnut. Try again.

And here is the problem. Was it doctrine when it was initially printed? If not, they why not? If so, was the doctrine false?

l-dsinc does not have set doctrine on much of anything. One official publication contradict another. One apostle contradicts another. They go to conferences and congregations and teach and preach and have deniability every step of the way when what is said is not popular or some more senior member or quieter member of that quorum disagrees.

Not a single example. Barely lifted your finger to try.

I provide several examples in my original essay. The very conservative Millet and Oman both recognize that the Church's doctrines change and add further examples.

[_Droopy]

I refuse to respond to Droopy,

Just as I thought, but I thought I'd give it a try in any case.

especially when his response presupposes some fantastical secular agenda from me.

I'm not at all sure how "fantastical" it is, but it certainly appears to be the inescapable logical implication your entire thesis and analytical approach. The fact of the matter is that your essay simply ignores criteria for determining true doctrine so long as those criteria are interior to the gospel itself and themselves part of the concept of settled, established doctrine. Your methadology relies strictly upon philosophical analysis and criticism of the gospel criteria themselves, but you refuse to allow those very criteria to speak for themselves in an authoritative manner, preferring to question the definitional perimeters of those criteria. This is one reason you have been so traditionally hostile to any argument that refers you to the central and ultimate source of "official doctrine," which is the principle of revelation.

Needless to say, I am an active Latter-day Saint,

So? I don't recall ever claiming you were not "active,"

. His pathetic accusations and insinuations are simple nonsense.

Such as? My OP was a long, detailed philosophical criticism done in a restrained, civil style of philosophical debate and containing clear, detailed argument regarding where I think you are misguided and wrong in your claims.

Had he not been so utterly blinded by his rabid hate, he would have hopefully been able to give a better response.

An example of which I'm sure you can then produce from my OP.

For those who are interested, my original essay can be read here. In a recent issue of Element, scholars who far exceed Droopy (and myself) in ability and professionalism--Robert Millet and Nate Oman--give thoughtful responses to that paper. A draft of my published rejoinder in the same issue can be read here.

I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in my own criticisms of your paper and your philosophy and your responses to them, not Oman's or Millet's. Your Element essay is ancient history, but its opened up a can of worms you don't now want to touch, and do not seem able to defend in open, running debate.

The very conservative Millet and Oman both recognize that the Church's doctrines change and add further examples.

And this is the problem, because what you cannot do is show me a single prophet or special witness of Christ within the Church who will make the assertion that "doctrines change." Doctrines do not change, and this would have to be the case if, as the Church claims, its doctrines are eternal in nature and represent instances of eternal truth or eternal law.

The applicability of doctrine certainly does change, and this is manifest as changes in practices and policies from time to time, and from age to age.

It is not enough, as you attempt to do in your essay, to say that the idea that plural marriage is essential to salvation and exaltation, because it is no longer taught in the Church, would, upon consultation of the "authoritative model," have to be looked upon as in some sense no longer true, or untrue as a doctrinal concept.

It is not enough because you have failed to point out that, according to the doctrines of the restored gospel, anything that becomes known to you as true, or which you are called by priesthood authority to perform or enter into, becomes, for you, essential to your salvation and exaltation. This can be the case both on a personal level, and on a collective level, as with the Lord's of plural marriage as a gospel covenant for the Church generally.

By failing to mention that this concept was taught in an era when plural marriage was a very real possibility and a contemporary practice, you decontextualize the concepts you are criticizing and make it appear as a simply logical inference from a doctrine not being taught any longer to that same doctrine losing its doctrinal truth value.

True, if one is not called to engage in plural marriage, one is under no covenant obligation to do so, and it is not, in this life at least, essential to your salvation and exaltation. That's a major weakness in your entire approach, in my view, because it doesn't adequately take into account the full range of established, consistent gospel teaching on that very subject, preferring instead, to ignore the "keys" (not so much "criteria") the gospel contains within itself for establishing truth from error, and "official" doctrine from other kinds of assertions.

[_Gadianton]

This approach to the question of doctrine not only ignores long and well established criteria within which official doctrine is safely corralled from other kinds of doctrinal discourse, but it implies an ever deeper question regarding the epistemological ground of gospel knowledge;

Can you give an example of a well-established criteria for determining official doctrine, an example of an official doctrine, and an example of an other kind of doctrinal discourse?

[_Droopy]

This approach to the question of doctrine not only ignores long and well established criteria within which official doctrine is safely corralled from other kinds of doctrinal discourse, but it implies an ever deeper question regarding the epistemological ground of gospel knowledge;

Can you give an example of a well-established criteria for determining official doctrine,

1. Matthew 16:17 (note here that this can not only be understood as a criteria, but is also more properly as a method, technique or, in a gospel sense, key for the discernment of authoritative (true) doctrine).

an example of an official doctrine

2. The doctrine of preexistence.

and an example of an other kind of doctrinal discourse?

Joseph Fielding Smith's comments on the theory of evolution and the age of the earth.

[_Gadianton]

I think I follow.

-- Revelation from Heavenly Father is criteria for official doctrine
-- Preexistence is an example of revelation from Heavenly Father, it is official doctrine

Does Brother Ericson disagree?

[_the narrator]

I think I follow.

-- Revelation from Heavenly Father is criteria for official doctrine
-- Preexistence is an example of revelation from Heavenly Father, it is official doctrine

Does Brother Ericson disagree?

If we define 'doctrine' as 'teachings' then I disagree with the first part--as several official doctrines/teachings do not have official revelatory basis. For example, I accept that the 'doctrine' of preexistant souls having gender as taught by the Proclamation on the family is an official doctrine/teaching of the Church, even though it is not found in any revelation. (Also, I think the idea of non-biological gendered beings is grammatical non-sense).

For the latter, I agree that a broad concept of preexistence is taught in LDS revelation, but the specifics of what preexistence actually consists of (especially the Saturday's Warrior version) are not found in revelation.

[_bcspace]

And here is the problem. Was it doctrine when it was initially printed? If not, they why not? If so, was the doctrine false?

If it was corrected, it was not doctrine in the first place.

Not a single example. Barely lifted your finger to try.

I provide several examples in my original essay.

Give them here.

The very conservative Millet and Oman both recognize that the Church's doctrines change and add further examples.

I also recognize that doctrine changes. It's part of our systematic theology. But Millet and Oman (or I) are not the Church. If the Church uses their words, it is not because they were forced to.

[_Gadianton]

If we define 'doctrine' as 'teachings' then I disagree with the first part--as several official doctrines/teachings do not have official revelatory basis.

I think I could have worded better, what I meant was;

-- Revelation from Heavenly Father is a criteria for official doctrine
-- Preexistence is an example of revelation from Heavenly Father, it is official doctrine

Since my question to Droopy was, "give an example of a well-established.."

With that correction, it looks like you agree?

My next question is for Droopy: Does something specific in Ericson's essay preclude The Narrator from believing as clarified above?

And then a question for both of you: Has there ever been a time when a revelation from Heavenly Father hasn't translated into official doctrine?

Considerations:

Are all patriarchal blessings that are revelation by extension, also official doctrine?

The word of Wisdom was given as revelation, but was it official doctrine from day one?

Joseph Smith and others prophets have received some very deep revelations concerning the mysteries of God, some of these are recorded and I will assume some, or many, aren't recorded. Are the revelations that really are revelation -- and this consideration is in the abstract, we do not need to concern ourselves with identifying which revelations qualify -- by extension, official doctrine?