Three Questions (Split from, ‘Vogel Responds …’)

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

My thoughts are you're a gullible dupe, and a waste of time. 25 years of these interactions, and you're still at square one.

[MG 2.0]

My thoughts are you're a gullible dupe, and a waste of time. 25 years of these interactions, and you're still at square one.

What would we do without Herr Heiliger als du?

No thoughts in regards to the question at hand?

Are there issues which at one time caused you to toss aside the core doctrines of the gospel? Which to you see as being of greater import? Core doctrines or periphery issues with incomplete resolution?

At least up to this point.

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

My thoughts are you're a gullible dupe, and a waste of time. 25 years of these interactions, and you're still at square one.

What would we do without Herr Heiliger als du?

No thoughts in regards to the question at hand?

Are there issues which at one time caused you to toss aside the core doctrines of the gospel? Which to you see as being of greater import? Core doctrines or periphery issues with incomplete resolution?

At least up to this point.

Regards,
MG

How do you define a core doctrine?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Imagine being an old boomer lifelong member of a cult, and you don’t know your own cult’s cOrE dOcTrInEs.



What a dope.

[malkie]

As far as 1) goes, if historicity of the Book of Mormon were not a core doctrine - could be considered minor/peripheral - in what sense could Joseph Smith possibly proclaim that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion”?

I'm not sure how that statement could be true at the same time as an admission of even potential lack of historicity.

Fuller context:

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Abiding by its precepts is a loaded phrase, in my opinion. I would suggest that doctrines are included. If that is so, the Book of Mormon isn’t ITSELF doctrine, but that which is included in its pages is. The pure doctrine of Christ is included within its pages. THAT is what is important.

If those doctrines are either followed/believed/rejected THAT is what actually matters.

Regards,
MG

If anyone else would like to respond to MG here, please feel free to do so. If not, that's OK by me. I don't think that his "suggestions" negate my point about Joseph's claims that I quoted. YMMV.

Likewise any other responses he has to any of my comments on this or other topics. I'm trying to stick to my previous decision this time.

[drumdude]

So it appears as though there are certain issues connected with practices and/or certain peripheral doctrines that act as road blocks to accepting core doctrines which are central to belief.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

One through nine.

My suggestion is that one through nine are central to belief and that there are peripheral issues that lead towards disbelief in the greater whole.

It is the greater whole that holds the most importance and is of the greatest consequence to salvation/exaltation in the eternities.

At least that is what the average active member of the church would say in my estimation.

Regards,
MG

This is another one of the LDS' classic shell games, in my opinion. When something comes up that questions a core doctrine, it is shoved aside as "merely a peripheral question."

These aren't road blocks. They're issues that strike at the heart of Mormon truth claims. They question the authority and integrity of the men leading the LDS church.

It's why I think you are much safer to fall back on Jesus Christ, and leave the Brethren and Mormonism behind as a peripheral oddity. Jesus is sufficient for salvation. The brethren and Mormonism are unnecessary, even by their own implicit admission through close reading of church doctrine and teachings.

[Marcus]

...Tithing is a core doctrine at this time. I mentioned that earlier...

And earlier?

...I didn’t even mention tithing as being a core doctrine...

I’m seeing the ellipses again. I would suggest to others going back and looking at things contextually. In my answer to drumdude I made the point that the law of the tithe is a part/subset of the Law of Sacrifice.

Sure let's expand around the ellipses:

Thanks for your response, drumdude. Tithing is a core doctrine at this time. I mentioned that earlier. It is part of the Law of Sacrifice. The law of sacrifice is a key component in living the gospel...

And earlier

...I didn’t even mention tithing as being a core doctrine. Although, yes, it is necessary at this time to obey this commandment to enter the temple...

In spite of your late additions re a law of sacrifice (which, by the way, are not supported as doctrinal by your newest links), drumdude's point was well made:

...2) Tithing is a core doctrine. You cannot get married in the temple if you are not a full tithe payer....

All of these hold great weight because if you go against them you are either excommunicated, or lose out on temple blessings, or are asked not to speak at church. Anything that holds such consequences must, in my opinion, be a core doctrine and not merely be just a peripheral issue.

[Marcus]

If anyone else would like to respond to MG here, please feel free to do so. If not, that's OK by me. I don't think that his "suggestions" negate my point about Joseph's claims that I quoted. YMMV.

Likewise any other responses he has to any of my comments on this or other topics. I'm trying to stick to my previous decision this time.

I agree his "suggestions" don't negate your point, and his last response isn't even supported by his own most recent links:

As far as 1) goes, if historicity of the Book of Mormon were not a core doctrine - could be considered minor/peripheral - in what sense could Joseph Smith possibly proclaim that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion”?

I'm not sure how that statement could be true at the same time as an admission of even potential lack of historicity.

Fuller context:

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Abiding by its precepts is a loaded phrase, in my opinion. I would suggest that doctrines are included. If that is so, the Book of Mormon isn’t ITSELF doctrine, but that which is included in its pages is....

Not according to your most recent link to "1 through 9", more specifically, number 4:

...Some of the key events of the Restoration were the translation of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, and the organization of the Church on April 6, 1830...

Notice that the translation of the Book of Mormon is put at the same level as restoring priesthoods and starting the LDS church.

...The pure doctrine of Christ is included within its pages. THAT is what is important.

If those doctrines are either followed/believed/rejected THAT is what actually matters...

Not according to your source. I agree with Malkie that
"...if historicity of the Book of Mormon were not a core doctrine - could be considered minor/peripheral...",

this would be in severe contrast to the claims made by Joseph Smith, and also in contrast to the claim that the LDS church is THE restored church.

[honorentheos]

I agree with MG in a sense. The realization the issues with the first vision undermined the claims of priesthood authority was a definitive watershed moment for me. I found everything about Smiths polygamy and treatment of Emma abhorrent yet knowing he made up the claim of seeing God was essential to seeing the Church for what it is. Even seeing Smith as morally repulsive somehow didn't prevent the Church from being somehow buffered in my mind to at least some degree. When it was clear it had no claim to having authority independent of obvious lies, I no longer saw any potential good there I couldn't find elsewhere but without the lies and immoral history.

Also turns out the more one learns about the New Testament and the less supportable both the apostasy and resurrection become, the less plausible the Church's claims to authority become.

MG seems confused about what having issue with core doctrines might look like but I think he's right that the core doctrines are foundational to the church's claims. Now didn't someone once say something about houses whose foundations were built on sand?...

[MG 2.0]

MG seems confused about what having issue with core doctrines might look like but I think he's right that the core doctrines are foundational to the church's claims.

Honestly, for rattling off some core doctrines the other day to make a point to drumdude I think I did a pretty good job. Be that as it may, the two links I posted yesterday are probably about as close as we can get to ‘core doctrines’ as they have been established in our day.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on what ‘peripheral’ issues are. Book of Mormon historicity, First Vision Accounts, Priesthood restoration issues, etc. are all, as I’ve said, unresolved. That being the case doesn’t IN TURN mean that core doctrines are unresolved. But they are taken on faith. That faith, however, is built on evidence. A combination of ‘by study and also by faith’. Faith is the evidence of things not seen but which are true.

The doctrines listed in the church links I provided are somewhat dependent on the concept of ‘by their fruits’. Experiential involvement over time with the doctrines and gaining a personal witness or testimony that they are true.

That path of ‘discovery’, granted, is going to vary from person to person. In the end that’s why some people believe and others don’t.

I’ve appreciated the back and forth with those that have practiced civility and kindness. I think I will leave this thread for the time being unless something calls out to me as being something worthwhile to respond to.

Regards,
MG