LDS How is LDS epistemology defined?

[Daniel Marsh]

And, for non LDS how is epistemology defined in your sect?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Truth comes from God, via revelation. God's not dead: He still speaks, and we can come to Him with questions and get answers. 'We' can either be as a group, or as individuals. I'll talk about revelation given to the world first, and after that is well coved & questions answer, then move on to the individual.

 

[Jane_Doe]

--- To the World --- (Useful link: Approaching Mormon Doctrine)

God gave and continues to give revelation to the world via His prophets/apostles. These are the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

A big thing to stress here is the corporative nature here of the prophet, counselors, and apostles counseling together and seeking revelation. Isolated statements made by a Church leader don't constitute doctrine. Individuals leaders are still men whom are allowed to have individual opinions and are still imperfect (only Christ is perfect).


How this relates to "anti-cult" approaches: one thing "anti-cult" people love to do is take some isolated random statement from some random church leader as try to 'prove' something off of that (the Journal of Discourses is a particularly favorite source). However, these isolated statements aren't LDS doctrine at all. So trying to 'prove' something off of them is... just kind of silly. Honestly, it makes the "anti-cult" person look clueless to understanding actual LDS doctrine.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Now what are LDS doctrines about?

I love this quote: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” - Joseph Smith.

That is the central foundation/principle/purpose/etc of the LDS faith. Of my faith.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Am I making sense thus far? Any questions?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Now what are LDS doctrines about?

I love this quote: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” - Joseph Smith.

That is the central foundation/principle/purpose/etc of the LDS faith. Of my faith.

This particular quote is from "History of the Church, 3:30; from an editorial published in Elders’ Journal, July 1838, p. 44; Joseph Smith was the editor of the periodical."

See footnote 5 from this page:
Chapter 3: Jesus Christ, the Divine Redeemer of the World

But yet, we are also told by Jane_Doe in post 3:

...Isolated statements made by a Church leader don't constitute doctrine...

...How this relates to "anti-cult" approaches: one thing "anti-cult" people love to do is take some isolated random statement from some random church leader as try to 'prove' something off of that (the Journal of Discourses is a particularly favorite source). However, these isolated statements aren't LDS doctrine at all...

So, to conclude, the "central element of the LDS faith" (and hers, apparently) is an isolated quote from a non-doctrinal source by some random church leader.

Anyone else see any consistency issues here?

 

[Jane_Doe]

This particular quote is from "History of the Church, 3:30; from an editorial published in Elders’ Journal, July 1838, p. 44; Joseph Smith was the editor of the periodical."

See footnote 5 from this page:
Chapter 3: Jesus Christ, the Divine Redeemer of the World

But yet, we are also told by Jane_Doe in post 3:





So, to conclude, the "central element of the LDS faith" (and hers, apparently) is an isolated quote from a non-doctrinal source by some random church leader.

Anyone else see any consistency issues here?

*rolls eyes*. I'm using a quote because I thought it was well stated. Same as if I were to use a CS Lewis quote.

 

[Ironhold]

Quick reference:

If you see something you're not sure of, check the copyright.

If the copyright says "Copyright Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "Copyright Intellectual Reserve", it's official church material and is officially accepted.

If the copyright is from any other source, then it's not official.

 

[dreadnought]

And, for non LDS how is epistemology defined in your sect?

When you quote God or Jesus from the Bible, you are separating fact from opinion.

 

[Jane_Doe]

When you quote God or Jesus from the Bible, you are separating fact from opinion.

Yes and no.
The quote is what the quote is. But when a person frames something, that's adding their personal view to it.

 

[dreadnought]

Yes and no.
The quote is what the quote is. But when a person frames something, that's adding their personal view to it.

I don't think the problem is so much with how you frame the Lord's words as it is ignoring them.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I don't think the problem is so much with how you frame the Lord's words as it is ignoring them.

I think paying attention to the Lord's words in the proper frame is how things are meant to be done. (This might be me saying the exact same thing you are with different words).

 

[dreadnought]

I think paying attention to the Lord's words in the proper frame is how things are meant to be done. (This might be me saying the exact same thing you are with different words).

There is a difference of opinion how to define "Lord's words." I would define the "Lord's words" as those words spoken by God or Jesus in the Bible.

 

[Jane_Doe]

There is a difference of opinion how to define "Lord's words." I would define the "Lord's words" as those words spoken by God or Jesus in the Bible.

God's words = the words God speaks.

 

[dreadnought]

God's words = the words God speaks.

Some people would define God's words as "The Bible."

 

[Jane_Doe]

Some people would define God's words as "The Bible."

*Shrug* I don't see how this particularly matters for the discussion we were having.

 

[dreadnought]

*Shrug* I don't see how this particularly matters for the discussion we were having.

It would seem to matter to me. We know the Lord spoke the truth, so if we agree with the Lord, then we know the truth. Or do we need to define "epistemoloty"? I had to google that.

 

[Jane_Doe]

We know the Lord spoke the truth, so if we agree with the Lord, then we know the truth.

Agreed with all this, with the obvious statement about having things in context, taking the time to understand, and keeping a prayer in our heart to guide understanding.

 

[dreadnought]

Agreed with all this, with the obvious statement about having things in context, taking the time to understand, and keeping a prayer in our heart to guide understanding.

Yes, I would agree.

 

[BigDaddy4]

*rolls eyes*. I'm using a quote because I thought it was well stated. Same as if I were to use a CS Lewis quote.

*roll eyes* all you want. You were speaking on the doctrinal beliefs of the lds using a non-doctrinal quote of some random lds from a non-doctrinal source and characterizing is as "of central foundation/principle/purpose/etc of the LDS faith". I don't know where you got the authority to speak for the lds church on the matter.

It's okay, then, to use a "non-doctrinal" sources to describe doctrinal beliefs?