Doctrine is a teaching of the Church. We also have scripture which are writings the Catholic Church has declared inspired by God. There is overlap between scripture and doctrine but they are not the same. The Catholic Church also has dogma. Dogmas are doctrine, which we are required to believe, and will never change.
I had assumed that the Mormon Church was the same. In addition, I had assumed when the Prophet and founder of Mormonism taught anything, especially about the natural of God, it would be dogma. Until now, you have led me to believe that scripture and doctrine were the same. Also, when I’ve asked questions in the past, to other Mormons, about the King Follett Discourse, their first response was, “it is not doctrine.” Now you are leading me to believe I was right all along: Mormons believe scripture and doctrine may overlap but are not the same. Is the King Follett Discourse doctrine? Is doctrine only found in scripture? Is all scripture doctrine?
The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a teaching document like the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Encyclopedia is just the opposite of ambiguous. It is extremely precise, which is the hallmark of Catholic thinking. I am critical of Mormon doctrine because it is irrational and at times seems to conflicts with itself. I am not making fun of Mormon doctrine as much as asking questions which will either give a Mormon a chance to clear up their beliefs or show how irrational their beliefs seem to be. Yes, you are helping me prove to myself that Mormonism is irrational.
Stephen,
You have defined doctrine, “Doctrine is a teaching of the Church.” By that definition, you already knew the answer to your question when I had said statements by Joseph Smith in the King Follett Sermon were quoted and printed in the latest teaching manual used by the LDS church for Melchizedek Priesthood (men) and Relief Society (women).
The Pharisees thought Christ taught irrationally also, and tried to “catch Him in His words”. I’m not calling you one, but it is something to think about.
For you and anyone else whose thinking says, “If I can’t understand this intellectually in an ‘extremely precise’ way, then it is irrational and not worthy of my attention,” the result will be as noted by the Apostle Paul:
1 Cor 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I guess that I won’t comment or give examples about ambiguity in the encyclopedia here, as I absolutely do not wish to offend anyone. I’m sincerely glad you have what you want in your doctrinal beliefs, your dogmas, the scriptures you believe. I wish you all the best with all those things you believe. You’re just fine, and there is so much in the Bible to learn and understand, that a person can learn more and more reading it over and over for their whole life and seeking to apply especially Christ’s teachings.
If you wish to call me irrational, that is not only fine with me but I would expect it all along. I would expect someone looking at my religion to say it is “foolishness” unto them.
