LDS Mormons, who is Heavenly Father?

[BigDaddy4]

Teaching materials help teach doctrine, but are not the source of doctrine (that's scripture). This has been explained and cited.

So your church is teaching and/or endorsing false doctrine?

 

[Jane_Doe]

So your church is teaching and/or endorsing false doctrine?

How in the world are you reaching that false conclusion?

You view your own teaching materials help teach doctrine, but are not the source of doctrine (that's scripture), do you not?

 

[dzheremi]

I thought I had in post 84, and then a follow up in 91. Hence my confusion.

Yes, you did address them in those posts. The issue is that the fallback position of "don't confuse X for scripture" does not address what has been written (where nobody was confusing a manual for scripture), so to see it come up again after those posts (which explicitly affirm that, yes, these other sources are not scripture; we agree on that) and your replies to them makes me think the original questions need to be looked at again in light of your reply that you're not sure that you understand my position. My position is in those posts, so if you need clarification on what I mean, please revisit those posts.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm going to start another thread on this general topic, because I feel that we have kind of evolved away from the specific OP into some interesting epistemological territory. I would appreciate the participation of Jane_Doe, Ironhold, et al., if you all feel so inclined.

 

[Ironhold]

Okay. How is this not at least tacitly admitting that Mormon doctrine changes from one era to the next?

As an example, consider the last two versions of the "Gospel Principles" manual, one circa 1989 and one circa 2010; I taught out of both, so I'm familiar with both.

The 2010 revision replaced a number of dated sermons and conference talks with newer, more recent talks that the class members would likely be more familiar with *and* find more relevant due to their discussing more to-date topics. Some chapters were also re-worded in places to eliminate passages that had been previously deemed verbose or confusing in the hopes of making matters clearer. And the paper stock was changed from the everyday stock in use at the time to a glossy textbook-grade stock, allowing for the old black & white images of paintings to be replaced with color images of actual members demonstrating certain virtues & concepts whenever possible (and when not, the actual color original paintings were on display).

 

[Jane_Doe]

Yes, you did address them in those posts. The issue is that the fallback position of "don't confuse X for scripture" does not address what has been written (where nobody was confusing a manual for scripture), so to see it come up again after those posts (which explicitly affirm that, yes, these other sources are not scripture; we agree on that) and your replies to them makes me think the original questions need to be looked at again in light of your reply that you're not sure that you understand my position. My position is in those posts, so if you need clarification on what I mean, please revisit those posts.

I'll give this a go, but I'm still very uncertain where your confusion lies. The basic question of "why is a manual not doctrine?" is answered "because a manual is not scripture or official revelation. Only those are God-given documents are sources of doctrine." Hence the oft repeated "manuals aren't scripture!".

It's not about the manual as a book, it's about what it contains, right?

No.
It's about who the ultimate author is: God or man.
If Mike reads a passage of Corinthians, then he's reading scripture and that's doctrine. The minute Mike says "this means...." he is putting his fallible lens on the scripture and all of the "...." is of inherently lesser quality.

(I'm assuming that Mike is not a prophet).

And what it contains is official doctrine, or else it wouldn't be in the manual.

Again, a huge difference between contains and is.

so that I can make sense of what it means to object to the manual as 'not official'.)

Because the manual was written by humans it is of lesser quality than scripture and not official doctrine.

 

[dzheremi]

So scripture is itself doctrine? The two are synonymous?

I'm a bit confused about how it is that you can have these other sources which say the exact same thing as scripture does (in the sense of quoting it directly in order to support a particular point of doctrine), and then contextualize it within the context of Mormon doctrine (since it's a Mormon manual), and then somehow the fact that it is being contextualized and/or explained lessens it, rather than strengthening it by being the means by which Mormons understand what it is that they are reading.

It seems like you're treating scripture like a new car or something. Yes, it's perfect and unblemished and all that, but the second some dirty human being sits in it and (gasp!) drives it off the lot (~ puts it in a manual), it's immediately devalued! How could it not be -- a human being touched it!

 

[Jane_Doe]

So scripture is itself doctrine? The two are synonymous?

Doctrines are the Christ's Truths. The ones we have right now are recorded in scripture and official proclamations, with of course many more great and wonderful things yet to be revealed.

I'm a bit confused about how it is that you can have these other sources which say the exact same thing as scripture does (in the sense of quoting it directly in order to support a particular point of doctrine)

Unless the thing being said is literally quoting scripture, then it is not identical.

and then contextualize it within the context of Mormon doctrine (since it's a Mormon manual), and then somehow the fact that it is being contextualized and/or explained lessens it, rather than strengthening it by being the means by which Mormons understand what it is that they are reading.

In can strengthen the instructive power in the terms of formatting, connecting dots, etc. That's why there are lesson manuals in the first place, and when subjects come up (like God the Father here, for example) we link them.

But nothing man does can strengthen God's words to be more Truthful than what they already are.

It seems like you're treating scripture like a new car or something. Yes, it's perfect and unblemished and all that, but the second some dirty human being sits in it and (gasp!) drives it off the lot (~ puts it in a manual), it's immediately devalued! How could it not be -- a human being touched it!

Let's phrase this is terms of sources:
First hand source of God Truth: God Himself gives it (scriptures, for example).

Second hand source: someone telling you what God said. What they are telling you is less than 100% purity because they are filtering things through their small-minded filthy sin-loving fallible lens. Obviously some lenses are more filthy that others, but even the cleanest of lens is only 99% pure.

(Note: again, I'm excluding prophets here)

 

[BigDaddy4]

How in the world are you reaching that false conclusion?

You view your own teaching materials help teach doctrine, but are not the source of doctrine (that's scripture), do you not?

The lds on here keep dismissing the content of the lds teaching manuals as "not doctrine". The same with other "non-doctrinal" sources that Phoebe and others have posted.

If you are going to hide behind the curtain of "it's not doctrine", then your church must be guilty of teaching and/or endorsing false doctrine by supplying the content on its official website and official teaching manuals.

On this page of the lds official website, it states:

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles approved these books as a library of teachings from the prophets of our dispensation for each Latter-day Saint home. They are a valuable resource for individuals and families seeking to learn, live, and teach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

Teachings of Presidents of the Church

This is a collection of teachings from all of the lds presidents. If there are teachings in any of these documents that are not found in the lds 4 standard works, then, by using the lds "it's not doctrine" curtain, the lds church is teaching and promoting false doctrine.

 

[fatboys]

The lds on here keep dismissing the content of the lds teaching manuals as "not doctrine". The same with other "non-doctrinal" sources that Phoebe and others have posted.

If you are going to hide behind the curtain of "it's not doctrine", then your church must be guilty of teaching and/or endorsing false doctrine by supplying the content on its official website and official teaching manuals.

On this page of the lds official website, it states:

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles approved these books as a library of teachings from the prophets of our dispensation for each Latter-day Saint home. They are a valuable resource for individuals and families seeking to learn, live, and teach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

Teachings of Presidents of the Church

This is a collection of teachings from all of the lds presidents. If there are teachings in any of these documents that are not found in the lds 4 standard works, then, by using the lds "it's not doctrine" curtain, the lds church is teaching and promoting false doctrine.

We didn't say the teachings are wrong but that we don't consider thes things as scripture

 

[BigDaddy4]

We didn't say the teachings are wrong but that we don't consider thes things as scripture

If it's on the official website, then the content is endorsed by the lds, thereby making the source "official" even if you don't consider it "doctrine". It is dishonest to say such things are not official.

 

[Jane_Doe]

If it's on the official website, then the content is endorsed by the lds, thereby making the source "official" even if you don't consider it "doctrine". It is dishonest to say such things are not official.

I would invite you to read the thread on this matter. I tried to explain things thoroughly there.

 

[fatboys]

If it's on the official website, then the content is endorsed by the lds, thereby making the source "official" even if you don't consider it "doctrine". It is dishonest to say such things are not official.

In order for these things to be scripture and binding on us as a people it has to go through a process. It has to be desired to make it binding so the prophet would recieve revelation on it. He would then present it to his councilors and if they agreed they would present it to the quorum of the twelve on down the the general membership.

 

[BigDaddy4]

I would invite you to read the thread on this matter. I tried to explain things thoroughly there.

It was a valiant effort, but it does not explain the conundrum of the hypocritical lds stance behind the curtain of "it's not doctrine". If it's on the official lds.org website, or in official lds published material, it is promoted as part of your faith system. You may or may not accept a particular concept, but that doesn't stop your church from advertising as a teaching and/or belief.

For example, the concept of a heavenly mother has been discussed on several threads. The concept is not found in any of your 4 standard works. Some lds on here believe there is one, some may be on the fence or not believe it all.

However, here is what the official lds.org website says about it (bold emphasis mine):

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This understanding is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, our relationship to Deity, and the godly potential of men and women. The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.

Mother in Heaven

There it is, the official lds website saying it is taught, it is a doctrine, and it is a belief. Is lds.org promoting false teachings, doctrines, and beliefs? What happens if an lds does not accept this teaching? Do they lose their "godly potential" or just not a faithful lds? Quite the conundrum.

 

[BigDaddy4]

In order for these things to be scripture and binding on us as a people it has to go through a process. It has to be desired to make it binding so the prophet would recieve revelation on it. He would then present it to his councilors and if they agreed they would present it to the quorum of the twelve on down the the general membership.

Ah, so to paraphrase Jane's words, a reliance on the voting of sinful men (and women) and not God.

 

[Jane_Doe]

It was a valiant effort, but it does not explain the conundrum of the hypocritical lds stance behind the curtain of "it's not doctrine". If it's on the official lds.org website, or in official lds published material, it is promoted as part of your faith system. You may or may not accept a particular concept, but that doesn't stop your church from advertising as a teaching and/or belief.

This makes it sound like you didn't read my post at all... I don't know if that's the case, but it sure sounds like it. *Shrug* Whatever. I can only teach what people what to understand.

 

[fatboys]

Ah, so to paraphrase Jane's words, a reliance on the voting of sinful men (and women) and not God.

The voting is for us to make it binding to us as scripture. As I said it doesn't mean that the teaching is wrong but only if those words are binding as to it being scripture. In my life time the doctrine and covenants has been added to by voting on visions and revelations given to prophets should be made binding on us as a general membership. The teaching has always been there.

 

[KevinSim]

Ah, so to paraphrase Jane's words, a reliance on the voting of sinful men (and women) and not God.

So the men who decided what the New Testament canon would consist of were not sinful?

I'm aware that the traditional Christian position is that scripture is what God decides it to be, and that the Church Fathers merely recognized what God chose, but the fact still remains that at some point a group of men decided what they were going to consider the Canon to be. I see no reason to believe that they were any less sinful than the Latter-day Saints who sustained the addition of the 137th and 138th sections of the Doctrine and Covenants back in the 1970s.

 

[Rescued One]

So the men who decided what the New Testament canon would consist of were not sinful?

I'm aware that the traditional Christian position is that scripture is what God decides it to be, and that the Church Fathers merely recognized what God chose, but the fact still remains that at some point a group of men decided what they were going to consider the Canon to be. I see no reason to believe that they were any less sinful than the Latter-day Saints who sustained the addition of the 137th and 138th sections of the Doctrine and Covenants back in the 1970s.

Now we've come full circle. The Mormons first complained that we believe God inspires sinners.

Who hasn't sinned?

2 Timothy 3
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[BigDaddy4]

So the men who decided what the New Testament canon would consist of were not sinful?

I'm aware that the traditional Christian position is that scripture is what God decides it to be, and that the Church Fathers merely recognized what God chose, but the fact still remains that at some point a group of men decided what they were going to consider the Canon to be. I see no reason to believe that they were any less sinful than the Latter-day Saints who sustained the addition of the 137th and 138th sections of the Doctrine and Covenants back in the 1970s.

That's the crux of Jane_Doe's arguments against Christianity's creeds - that they were created by sinful men and not of God. That's a purely hypocritical position, especially given that the lds bretheren have to vote in any new doctrine.

Every man who ever lived, except for Jesus Christ of course, was sinful in nature. That didn't stop them from doing God's will. It's just another baseless argument from the lds to avoid their hypocrisy of beliefs.