Mormon Doctrine Project

[_Daniel Peterson]

this will likely put you in the crosshairs of some of the more militant TBMs.

Which, being interpreted, means that I and my evil minions will, for sport, attempt to ruin your life.

Or some such nonsense.

[Guest]

This seems like an interesting project, Seth, though like Doug the Hutt and BCSpace, I'm a little perplexed as to what you're hoping to accomplish. Or, maybe it's more accurate to say that I'm worried about the likely outcomes of this. As I think you realize, this will likely put you in the crosshairs of some of the more militant TBMs.

What am I trying to accomplish? Mostly, I'd say, to just have fun with a subject in which I have a great interest.

Frankly, I'm not worried about what TBMs may think. Anyone including TBM, critic, or flaming anti-Mormon is welcome to participate given that their articles meet the minimal standards I identified in my original post.

I posted the first article this morning:

http://www.mormonstudies.com/index.php? ... b&Itemid=6

[_sethpayne]

this will likely put you in the crosshairs of some of the more militant TBMs.

Which, being interpreted, means that I and my evil minions will, for sport, attempt to ruin your life.

Or some such nonsense.

For the record, I'm not worried.

[_Daniel Peterson]

For the record, I'm not worried.

Very wise.

I posted the first article this morning:

http://www.mormonstudies.com/index.php? ... j&Itemid=6

Good job. It seems to me a fair, concise, helpful summary.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Seth,

Good job. I look forward to the rest of your articles.

[_sethpayne]

Seth,

Good job. I look forward to the rest of your articles.

Thanks.... but the credit for article 1 really goes to Stephen Smoot, the first contributing author. He wrote a great job summarizing the issue and providing good references for interested readers to dive deeper into the subject if they like.

*Please* .... anyone else who would like to contribute please do!

[_bcspace]

I think the crux of our disagreement is that you maintain that the Church *alone* defines doctrine and, I agree that in an "official" of authoritative sense this is true.

Indeed, that is all I am speaking of

However, I maintain that Mormon Doctrine is constituted of much more than what is given the official stamp of approval by the correlation committee. Doctrine is defined by culture, practice, folk beliefs, politics, etc... not just for Mormonism, but all faiths.

Putting the Church's stamp on 'Mormon' mythology fosters apostasy. There's a reason why the Church counseled BRM not to publish his work with so ostentatious a title.

So we do agree that official doctrine is determined by institutional edict (publication in your view). I think you should consider the fact that cultural and folk beliefs - especially those that have heavy influence on members of the Church -- are also part of Mormon Doctrine.

The Church itself teaches against such. If you want to discuss, for example, Lilith, you can't do it and apply it as 'Mormon' doctrine without being in a state of apostasy harmless though it may seem at first. For my part, I enjoy discussing Lilith, but I don't put the Church's stamp of approval on any of that mythology because it doesn't exist and I wouldn't want to give people the false impression that the Church has a position on the matter.

Consider also the example of the LoC. While the Church says it's practice by the early LDS should not be looked upon as the proper example of it's practice, if one writes about it without that tidbit of information prominently included, one could easily get the false impression that the Church supports some sort of 'Christian Socialism'.

So I would argue, and I'm sure the Church would agree, that it's all essentially meaningless and even harmful without the presence of authoritative doctrine where such exists.

[_moksha]

So we do agree that official doctrine is determined by institutional edict (publication in your view). I think you should consider the fact that cultural and folk beliefs - especially those that have heavy influence on members of the Church -- are also part of Mormon Doctrine.

Past unwritten speculations can hold as much sway as the written ones, sometimes even more sway like the "this is the place" epiphany of the Salt Lake Valley, rather than being the preset rendezvous point to meet the Mormon Battalion who had already begun planting crops.

[_sethpayne]

So we do agree that official doctrine is determined by institutional edict (publication in your view). I think you should consider the fact that cultural and folk beliefs - especially those that have heavy influence on members of the Church -- are also part of Mormon Doctrine.

Past unwritten speculations can hold as much sway as the written ones, sometimes even more sway like the "this is the place" epiphany of the Salt Lake Valley, rather than being the preset rendezvous point to meet the Mormon Battalion who had already begun planting crops.

Very well said.

[_sethpayne]

http://www.mormonstudies.com/index.php? ... b&Itemid=6