Tobin wrote:Are you suggesting that Mormons should believe something that isn't true just because it is "taught in Church"? I think the standard in Mormonism to determining the truth of any particular doctrine is for each Member to search it out in their own mind through a diligent process of study and ultimately seek the Lord to learn the truth of all things.
The 'standard' given by you was only valid prior to the formation of the LDS Church. It does not apply after the Church's formation because the process that you state is reserved solely for the sitting prophet.
Tobin wrote: I think the standard in Mormonism to determining the truth of any particular doctrine is for each Member to search it out in their own mind through a diligent process of study and ultimately seek the Lord to learn the truth of all things.
There's an important caveat, which is that if your seeking out of truth comes up with a different answer than that given by ecclesiastical authorities, then keep seeking until you come to an agreement with them. Your job is to find confirmation.
Tobin wrote: I think the standard in Mormonism to determining the truth of any particular doctrine is for each Member to search it out in their own mind through a diligent process of study and ultimately seek the Lord to learn the truth of all things.
There's an important caveat, which is that if your seeking out of truth comes up with a different answer than that given by ecclesiastical authorities, then keep seeking until you come to an agreement with them. Your job is to find confirmation.
I don't believe in that caveat.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Bazooka wrote:Maklelan, I believe you hold an opinion that much (some? all?) of the stories within the Bible and Book of Mormon are simply folk tales or amalgamations of various cultural traditional legends and myths. I tend to agree with you. I guess that there are many General Authorities, perhaps even Apostles, who would privately agree with you. But that is not what is up for discussion here. We are debating what the Church publicly holds as doctrine.
The story of a literal, global flood is: - scripture - in the canon - taught consistently across all the teaching programmes of the Church and has been for generations. - advocated by all the General Authorities of the Church whenever and wherever they have spoken on the subject, including General Conference.
I don't see how, regardless of what 'we' think about the story of a literal global flood, it can be viewed as anything other than official Church doctrine. What set of criteria would something the Church teaches and espouses need to meet for you to consider it official doctrine?
Bumping for maklelan......
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
EAllusion wrote:The concept of "cognitive dissonance" is badly misused in ex-Mormon discussions. For most people, I'd prefer they just make a conscious effort to stop using the term entirely.
BSCpace cynically uses the idea of "not doctrine!" in a way that is both self-serving to his own quirky beliefs self-consciously taunting to others in its incoherence. I suspect Mak is more internally consistent on this point, but it still bears mentioning that if your concept of what constitutes official doctrine is so narrow that the global flood does not count, then the list of things that could possibly count is very small indeed.
And I've stated as much many times here.
EAllusion wrote:This then steers the conversation towards why it matters to make that distinction in the first place. The implication always is that "official doctrine" lists the ideas one must agree with to be a fully believing member of the LDS Church. But the way distinctions are being made, that's a hard argument to sell.
It's a good question that could potentially make for some good discussion.
Bazooka wrote:Maklelan, I believe you hold an opinion that much (some? all?) of the stories within the Bible and Book of Mormon are simply folk tales or amalgamations of various cultural traditional legends and myths. I tend to agree with you. I guess that there are many General Authorities, perhaps even Apostles, who would privately agree with you. But that is not what is up for discussion here. We are debating what the Church publicly holds as doctrine.
The story of a literal, global flood is: - scripture - in the canon - taught consistently across all the teaching programmes of the Church and has been for generations. - advocated by all the General Authorities of the Church whenever and wherever they have spoken on the subject, including General Conference.
I don't see how, regardless of what 'we' think about the story of a literal global flood, it can be viewed as anything other than official Church doctrine. What set of criteria would something the Church teaches and espouses need to meet for you to consider it official doctrine?
Bumping for maklelan......
I've already explained this. I don't recall you actually engaging my points directly.
maklelan wrote: And I've stated as much many times here.
It's a good question that could potentially make for some good discussion.
Where is this list from the church of official doctrine? I don't see the church really using the term official in regards to doctrine. It appears you are creating your own definition of official doctrine where one must believe certain doctrines to be saved or considered a member in good standing. By that definition EA is correct that most things that are considered doctrine by the church, like the global nature of the flood, would not fit into your created definition. The only point I see for doing this is apologetic. I have always fully admitted the church does not require members to believe in a global flood or young earth to be members in good standing.
Bazooka wrote:The official Church position remains....
An Ensign article written by Don Parry constitutes "The official Church position"?
I don't see why it wouldn't. This is the church's premiere source sent out to members each month. If it doesn't there isn't much else that could rise to this level of official position of the church. I suspect the top 15 guys in the church read it once in a while, and have have some say on what gets approved. This article was not some small hidden away article that could have gotten missed. It wasn't some fluff story that just happened to bring up the flood as global. It was written specifically to tell members this is the church's position and that members should believe it. I suspect the reason for the article was because many like myself were not.
Now if you could show this has not been the consistent position of the church that would be wonderful. Good luck.