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.
Huh? By your own criteria--being printed in an official publication--it was an official Church doctrine before it was rescinded. Otherwise, any current teaching found in a publication can not be called a doctrine as it could possibly be rescinded later.
Not a single example. Barely lifted your finger to try.
Huh?
I provide several examples in my original essay.
Give them here.
No. Read my essay instead of ignorantly responding with non-sense.
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.
Who said anything about forcing? What are you talking about?
You're absolutely vile and obnoxious paternalistic air of intellectual superiority towards anyone who takes issue with your clear misapprehension of core LDS doctrine must give one pause. - Droopy
The Narrator wrote: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?
No. As per my example, gendered premortal beings is a doctrine/teaching of the Church, but their is no revelation that claims such.
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?
Revelations for the Church and published as such do start out as doctrine/teaching, but they may lose that status over time. For example, the WofW teaches that beer (mild drinks) are good. That was rescinded in the early 20th century.
For other examples, revelations that are not published and endorsed by the Church are, by extension, never official doctrine/teachings of the Church.
You're absolutely vile and obnoxious paternalistic air of intellectual superiority towards anyone who takes issue with your clear misapprehension of core LDS doctrine must give one pause. - Droopy
Narrator wrote:No. As per my example, gendered premortal beings is a doctrine/teaching of the Church, but their is no revelation that claims such.
That doesn't contradict my statement that revelation is a (one of possibly several) criteria for doctrine/teaching. I'm also pretty sure Droopy did not mean the Mathew verse exclusively established criteria for doctrine.
Narrator wrote:Revelations for the Church and published as such do start out as doctrine/teaching, but they may lose that status over time. For example, the WofW teaches that beer (mild drinks) are good. That was rescinded in the early 20th century.
For other examples, revelations that are not published and endorsed by the Church are, by extension, never official doctrine/teachings of the Church.
We'll see what Droopy comes back with on this one. My gut feeling is that he went for an example that he thought intuitively would never fail to be doctrine.
Narrator wrote:No. As per my example, gendered premortal beings is a doctrine/teaching of the Church, but their is no revelation that claims such.
That doesn't contradict my statement that revelation is a (one of possibly several) criteria for doctrine/teaching. I'm also pretty sure Droopy did not mean the Mathew verse exclusively established criteria for doctrine.
Okay. I thought you were saying it was a necessary criteria. I would say that, alone, revelation is not a sufficient criteria. First, it would have to be a revelation accepted as such by the Church (such as those found in the standard works). Furthermore, the revelation in itself would still not be a doctrine, but rather that it is the officially published/given interpretations of the revelation that would be considered an official doctrine/teaching.
You're absolutely vile and obnoxious paternalistic air of intellectual superiority towards anyone who takes issue with your clear misapprehension of core LDS doctrine must give one pause. - Droopy
Ah, very good. I think a good way to put it is that Droopy believes revelation is a sufficient criteria for establishing "official doctrine". When Droopy comes back to this thread, he may confirm or deny.
I think he's in a tough spot here. He can try to get around all the counter examples, or he can qualify revelation as meaning "revelation for the church" but it's impossible to unpack that meaning from the Mathew verse.