In Theory, In Principle, In Doctrine, In The Law of the Gospel

[BJ64]

21 hours ago, wenglund said:

I think a more accurate way of stating this is that the "bigger problem" for you is that many of us don't understand fundamental aspects of the gospel the same way you do, 

It has been my observation that there are many members of the church who have very little knowledge of the gospel. Many of them I don’t think could teach a primary class without teaching false doctrine. I have to cringe sometimes at the comments made in Sunday school. However rarely is there anyone bold enough to correct miss statements.

I think many members get there gospel knowledge only from what they hear at church and their once or twice a year scripture reading. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by BJ64
Spelling

[Rob Osborn]

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You really are going down the same road.  Do you not even remember what happened just a couple months ago?  

OK.  Back on the ignore list.  Yeah, that's right.  I literally had you on ignore.  I only read your posts if other people quoted you and made an interesting response.  I was impressed by your apology enough to take you off of that list.  

Back on it again.

Really? I was just asking for your own personal understanding. If you go back and read your own post you do not make it clear what you yourself understand. I was asking for your own personal understanding. I really don't know how to be more clear. If you don't want to engage that's fine, bow out.

[Crypto]

17 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

It is been my observation that there are many members of the church who have very little knowledge of the gospel. Many of them I don’t think could teach a primary class without teaching false doctrine. I have to cringe sometimes at the comments made in Sunday school. However rarely is there anyone bold enough to correct miss statements.

I think many members get there gospel knowledge only from what they hear at church and their once or twice a year scripture reading. 

This is sometimes true and a stance I used to have. I think though I have found that the members in general have a good rudimentary understanding of doctrine, but often every individual will have one or two misunderstandings. Most seem to like how it should guide their life view, style, and actions. Rather than having a strong abstract understanding. I think that is okay.

 

When I hear false doctrine I like to try and have a private discussion about it so as not to create contention. Sometimes there are ways to bring it up directly and tactfully.

Sometimes there are simply diverging opinions on what is correct. Evolution is a great example.

[BJ64]

9 minutes ago, Crypto said:

This is sometimes true and a stance I used to have. I think though I have found that the members in general have a good rudimentary understanding of doctrine, but often every individual will have one or two misunderstandings. Most seem to like how it should guide their life view, style, and actions. Rather than having a strong abstract understanding. I think that is okay.

 

When I hear false doctrine I like to try and have a private discussion about it so as not to create contention. Sometimes there are ways to bring it up directly and tactfully.

Sometimes there are simply diverging opinions on what is correct. Evolution is a great example.

What bothers me most is speculative comments. We aren’t to have speculation in a class discussion. 

An example of teaching a gospel misunderstanding is when in my son's Aaronic Priesthood quorum the instructor said that it’s okay to drink coffee as long as it’s not too hot. My son recognized that it was a false statement but I was left wondering why a member of the bishopric or another adult adviser did not correct the teaching. 

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Crypto said:

Most seem to like how it should guide their life view, style, and actions. Rather than having a strong abstract understanding. I think that is okay.

It occurs to me that having (what one believes to be) "a strong abstract understanding" can be a pronounced detriment to true understanding. When we think we have that aforementioned "strong abstract understanding", we often mount our hobby horse and ride furiously.

Those with such an attitude seem often to view themselves as one of the cognoscenti, possessed of rare insight that their benighted brethren and sisters sadly lack. In such a position, it becomes easier to overlook or ignore the counsel and teachings of leaders -- even apostles -- and assume that one knows better by oneself, because of one's enlightened mind. How easy it then becomes to miss important nuggets of truth, or swallow whole camels of falsehood, because of one's pride in one's own supposed knowledge. Denver Snuffer, John Dehlin, Kate Kelly -- you know the Hall of Shame as well as I do, most or all of whom fell victim to this very thing.

[Crypto]

10 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

What bothers me most is speculative comments. We aren’t to have speculation in a class discussion. 

An example of teaching a gospel misunderstanding is when in my son's Aaronic Priesthood quorum the instructor said that it’s okay to drink coffee as long as it’s not too hot. My son recognized that it was a false statement but I was left wondering why a member of the bishopric or another adult adviser did not correct the teaching. 

This is a great example of my biggest personal pet peeve. 🙃

[Crypto]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

It occurs to me that having (what one believes to be) "a strong abstract understanding" can be a pronounced detriment to true understanding. When we think we have that aforementioned "strong abstract understanding", we often mount our hobby horse and ride furiously.

Those with such an attitude seem often to view themselves as one of the cognoscenti, possessed of rare insight that their benighted brethren and sisters sadly lack. In such a position, it becomes easier to overlook or ignore the counsel and teachings of leaders -- even apostles -- and assume that one knows better by oneself, because of one's enlightened mind. How easy it then becomes to miss important nuggets of truth, or swallow whole camels of falsehood, because of one's pride in one's own supposed knowledge. Denver Snuffer, John Dehlin, Kate Kelly -- you know the Hall of Shame as well as I do, most or all of whom fell victim to this very thing.

Very true.

Knowledge without humility is a closed mind and the start of "hobby horse riding".

Still working on that humility thing though 😆

[Rob Osborn]

I can see that this topic sort of got derailed a bit...

To get beck to the point for instance- was the "Lectures on Faith" ever considered "doctrine"?

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I can see that this topic sort of got derailed a bit...

To get beck to the point for instance- was the "Lectures on Faith" ever considered "doctrine"?

Probably, but so what? Doctrine doesn't necessarily stand still. God never changes of course, but the religious and spiritual truths He reveals through His kingdom's servants certainly evolves. For example, did what the brother of Jared know and teach about God change from Ether 2 to 3? That doctrine changes with advancing revelation means God's authorized prophets are doing exactly what they are supposed to do: ask questions, and receive and convey what God wants us to learn, know and do. it is our choice whether to keep up with them or not.

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, BJ64 said:

It has been my observation that there are many members of the church who have very little knowledge of the gospel. Many of them I don’t think could teach a primary class without teaching false doctrine. I have to cringe sometimes at the comments made in Sunday school. However rarely is there anyone bold enough to correct miss statements.

I think many members get there gospel knowledge only from what they hear at church and their once or twice a year scripture reading. 

My experience is quite different. I view members as being relatively well informed. 

What I do find happening along those lines is that there is a select group of members who believe they really know what the gospel is all about, who notice that few members share their perspective. and draw the conclusion that members are generally uninformed.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[BJ64]

53 minutes ago, wenglund said:

My experience is quite different. I view members as being relatively well informed. 

What I do find happening along those lines is that there is a select group of members who believe they really know what the gospel is all about, who notice that few members share their perspective. and draw the conclusion that members are generally uninformed.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I understand what you mean. There are some very knowledgeable people in our ward. Including former bishops and stake presidents, seminary and institute teachers and I’m sure a lot who just don’t comment but those I’m referring to are those who make plenty of comments but you can judge by what they say that their knowledge of the gospel is shallow. Of course all that is really necessary is a good basic knowledge of the important gospel precepts but many don’t seem to have a good understanding of basics things such as the plan of salvation, the word of wisdom, the fall of Adam or the atonement. 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Probably, but so what? Doctrine doesn't necessarily stand still. God never changes of course, but the religious and spiritual truths He reveals through His kingdom's servants certainly evolves. For example, did what the brother of Jared know and teach about God change from Ether 2 to 3? That doctrine changes with advancing revelation means God's authorized prophets are doing exactly what they are supposed to do: ask questions, and receive and convey what God wants us to learn, know and do. it is our choice whether to keep up with them or not.

The reason I ask is because it  kind of presents an actual case in point to show or define that "doctrine" is what we teach. "Doctrine" isnt defined as unchanging truth. We have a problem where we conflate "doctrine" with "truth" but they are different words describing different things. Truth itself cannot change it is always true and never false. Doctrine though can change, and as LDS history has shown such as with the Lectures on Faith and race and the priesthood amongst others, does change through new light revealing more truth.

 

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I understand what you mean. There are some very knowledgeable people in our ward. Including former bishops and stake presidents, seminary and institute teachers and I’m sure a lot who just don’t comment but those I’m referring to are those who make plenty of comments but you can judge by what they say that their knowledge of the gospel is shallow. Of course all that is really necessary is a good basic knowledge of the important gospel precepts but many don’t seem to have a good understanding of basics things such as the plan of salvation, the word of wisdom, the fall of Adam or the atonement. 

I agree, especially with the plan of salvation.

[BJ64]

Does doctrine also need to be scriptural? 

I have read on lds.org that when a prophet receives revelation and it is approved by the first presidency it then becomes doctrine. I’ve also read there that everything we teach should be found in the scriptures and that if a person teaches anything that can not be found in the scriptures it is either opinion, speculation or false doctrine and that if it is contrary to scripture then it is false doctrine. 

So back to my questions, wouldn’t doctrine have to be contained in the scriptures? Wouldn’t new doctrine have to be added to the scriptures such as the 1978 revelation on the priesthood?

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Does doctrine also need to be scriptural? 

I have read on lds.org that when a prophet receives revelation and it is approved by the first presidency it then becomes doctrine. I’ve also read there that everything we teach should be found in the scriptures and that if a person teaches anything that can not be found in the scriptures it is either opinion, speculation or false doctrine and that if it is contrary to scripture then it is false doctrine. 

So back to my questions, wouldn’t doctrine have to be contained in the scriptures? Wouldn’t new doctrine have to be added to the scriptures such as the 1978 revelation on the priesthood?

No, its too strict. "Doctrine" is, plain and simply, what we teach. These teachings are found in scripture, proclamations, in the temple, etc.

[Rob Osborn]

And, sometimes, two doctrines on one subject can overlap and present separate ideas.

[BJ64]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Doctrine though can change, and as LDS history has shown such as with the Lectures on Faith and race and the priesthood amongst others, does change through new light revealing more truth.

 

Not to go too far off topic but Brigham Young’s Adam God “doctrine” was very controversial in its day and openly opposed by apostle Orson Pratt. It lasted until he died, and was even taught somewhat in the temple but when Young died so did the “doctrine” since it wasn’t generally accepted by the church. 

[BJ64]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

No, its too strict. "Doctrine" is, plain and simply, what we teach. These teachings are found in scripture, proclamations, in the temple, etc.

From lds.org

The prophet and President of the Church can receive revelation individually that becomes doctrine when it is sustained by the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

 

I neglected to say sustained by the quorum of the twelvevin my first statement. 

[BJ64]

“All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. It ought to be found in the scriptures. We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures. If we want to measure truth, we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth” (“Using the Scriptures in Our Church Assignments,” Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, 13).

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

“All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. It ought to be found in the scriptures. We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures. If we want to measure truth, we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth” (“Using the Scriptures in Our Church Assignments,” Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, 13).

I would agree with that statement to a certain extent. However, some doctrines, such as the temple endowment are not found in scripture.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

However, some doctrines, such as the temple endowment are not found in scripture.

They aren't? 

Are you certain?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The reason I ask is because it  kind of presents an actual case in point to show or define that "doctrine" is what we teach. "Doctrine" isnt defined as unchanging truth. We have a problem where we conflate "doctrine" with "truth" but they are different words describing different things. Truth itself cannot change it is always true and never false. Doctrine though can change, and as LDS history has shown such as with the Lectures on Faith and race and the priesthood amongst others, does change through new light revealing more truth.

RE: the bolded part above, not necessarily. Doctrine is also what Christ teaches (see 3 Nephi 11-12), and this does not change (which is why I said, "Doctrine doesn't necessarily stand still"). So some doctrine changes and some doesn't, which is why this part of the doctrine of Christ in 3 Nephi 12:1 is so essential ("Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you..."). It is intended to admonish us from justifying personal, contrary nonsense in the name of "doctrine." If you look at Joseph Smith's earliest, pre-Book of Mormon revelations (D&C 10 and 11), the Lord was instructing him to wait until the Book of Mormon came forth before proclaiming any other doctrine.

Edited May 9, 2018 by CV75

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

They aren't? 

Are you certain?

Yeah, they arent. The endowment along with the covenants and signs and tokens are not discussed in the scriptures. 

 

[BJ64]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, they arent. The endowment along with the covenants and signs and tokens are not discussed in the scriptures. 

 

However much of what’s taught is recorded in scripture. 

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

RE: the bolded part above, not necessarily. Doctrine is also what Christ teaches (see 3 Nephi 11-12), and this does not change (which is why I said, "Doctrine doesn't necessarily stand still"). So some doctrine changes and some doesn't, which is why this part of the doctrine of Christ in 3 Nephi 12:1 is so essential ("Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you..."). It is intended to admonish us from justifying personal, contrary nonsense in the name of "doctrine." If you look at Joseph Smith's earliest, pre-Book of Mormon revelations (D&C 10 and 11), the Lord was instructing him to wait until the Book of Mormon came forth before proclaiming any other doctrine.

I agree. Doctrine is what is taught. Obviously the doctrine of Christ as found in the Book of Mormon is going to be true and unchanging. The doctrine concerning the Godhead on the other hand received several modifications over church history.  The same can be said of heaven and the three glories, race and the priesthood, etc. I personally don't have any problems with changing doctrine or evolving doctrine. I do however take up issue when we claim things like the Lectures on Faith was never doctrine or calling the reasons for the priesthood ban with Negros as mere "theories" and not doctrine. The evidence of their day shows that they clearly were "doctrines". My beef is that it just helps fuel the fire with our critics. Why can't we just admit that we had doctrine in our past that wasn't perfect or even wrong? Is it because we are so stuck on trying to define "doctrine" only as "unchanging truth"?