What is Considered Doctrine in the LDS Church

[JLFuller]

I was friends with a mormon couple who were expecting twins. Something was wrong with the placenta. The dr.s told them that the placenta, as it was, could not support two growing babies. That they should abort one of them.

I was an atheist at the time, and believed that I would never have an abortion, but believed it was ok for others to make their own choice. They prayed and consulted with their bishop, and decided to abort one of the twins. After the surviving baby was born, I saw them with a cute little girl in a stroller. I just had this awful feeling inside of me that they killed one child, the twin, of the girl in the stroller. I wondered if they were ever going to tell her this.

When I was learning about Catholicism, the church’s teachings on abortion were not a difficulty for me, at all. They make sense, in that, they consider the lives of the unborn equal to those of us who are born. And we consider the lives of two unborn, equal to each other. We would not kill one unborn child. The very idea is horrifying to us.

I am glad I didn’t have to make that choice. I don’t know what I would have done.

 

[JLFuller]

No, you got it across just fine. But we who have been here a long time have seen that what you “report” is very different than what mfbukowski reports, which is very different from what zerinus reports, which is light-years away from what why me reports, which is not in the same ball-park as what dianaiad reports, etc…

There really is no such thing as Mormon Doctrine. At least when I was LDS we had Elder McConkie’s book to go by. It was the closest thing to a catechism the LDS have ever had and everybody wanted to own a copy. Now that he has been largely discredited by the current leadership, no one knows what they are supposed to believe, and so everyone follows after his own wisdom. Mormonism is starting to look more and more like Protestantism.

You guys need a catechism.

I think you have hit upon a problem we Mormons suffer from. Everybody thinks he knows the answer to whatever question is being asked when in fact we are talking past each other. Often we are not talking about the same thing. That must be why the Presdient is so demanding that there is only one source of doctrinal determination and that ain’t the membership.

The second edition Mormon Doctrine is a good book to use as well. But it is the 2nd edition not the 1st. Even McConkie plugged in some of his own opinions in the 1st edition without checking to see if everyone else in the leadeship agreed with him.

If you read one of my other posts you will see I suggest you challenge us on our sources. That is as much for our benefit as other peoples.

 

[JLFuller]

So heavenly father or the holy ghost would give you consent to have your childs head crushed and its arms and legs torn off because the doc doesn’t think it won’t live long? So its ok to kill your baby when god says so and your priesthood leaders give the ok? A game of bingo will have your temple recommend revoked but not a prayerful abortion!?!?! Sorry to be graphic but that’s what happens.

That isn’t what I said. Go back and read it again.

 

[JLFuller]

To the benefit of LDS, the abortion rate here in UT is the lowest in the nation. So while they haven’t got it right, they are much closer than secularism hopes to be. They also live what they believe. I know of no LDS who would abort as a form of contraceptive.

But then, that just brings up another topic: contraception. LDS doctrine does not oppose contraception.

Along these lines. JLFuller, many (including myself) consider the document Humane Vitae to be prophetic. A warning from Pope Paul VI in regards to the resulting social consequences of contracepting.

Here is an article from a Mormon doctor, a Q&A about his thoughts on contracepting and Humanae Vitae.

I am not sure what that is but the size of a family is left up to the couple. We are admonished to not have more than we can care for and to space them far enough apart so as not to endanger the mothers health.

 

[JLFuller]

You must have a different Holy Ghost than we do. Ours would never tell us to murder a baby.

I kind of think much the same way as you do. In my opinion, after careful and prayerful consideration, most folks would opt to give the baby up for adoption. That is why I thnk the Church wants the bishop and prayer involved in the decision - not to give official sanction to the abortion. But not every case is that easy.

 

[hosemonkey]

I am glad I didn’t have to make that choice. I don’t know what I would have done.

The True Church (the Catholic Church) tells us what to do in those circumstances: LET THE CHILDREN LIVE!!! Innocent life is sacred!!! God’s providence will decide the fate of these living children. Mormonism sets it’s sails to the ever-changing winds of the World, not the steady thrust of the word of God. If the practice of polygamy was ordained truly by Almighty God, the mormon elders of the time would have been martyred rather than abrogate the principle. They did not, because fear and the possibility of being denied statehood kept them silent. If the denial of priesthood to black males had been ordained by Almighty God, there would have never been a single black male ordained. mormon “doctrine” seems to be written on whiteboard, instead of being engraved upon stone and the excuse that “we have a living prophet” smells like opportunism and accomodation rather than truth. Having said all that, I recognise the fact that mormonism is the result of a gigantic hoax perpetrated upon the gullible by a canny upstate New York con man who created, with the help of some equally canny henchmen, a new religion out of whole cloth. If the lie is big enough and repeated loudly enough, some people will believe it. mormonism is a fabrication and even scientology, another false “religion” has it’s catechism. mormonism had better get one too, or not. Especially if mormons do not want to get pinned down by eternal truth.

 

[JLFuller]

The True Church (the Catholic Church) tells us what to do in those circumstances: LET THE CHILDREN LIVE!!! Innocent life is sacred!!! God’s providence will decide the fate of these living children. Mormonism sets it’s sails to the ever-changing winds of the World, not the steady thrust of the word of God. If the practice of polygamy was ordained truly by Almighty God, the mormon elders of the time would have been martyred rather than abrogate the principle. They did not, because fear and the possibility of being denied statehood kept them silent. If the denial of priesthood to black males had been ordained by Almighty God, there would have never been a single black male ordained. mormon “doctrine” seems to be written on whiteboard, instead of being engraved upon stone and the excuse that “we have a living prophet” smells like opportunism and accomodation rather than truth. Having said all that, I recognise the fact that mormonism is the result of a gigantic hoax perpetrated upon the gullible by a canny upstate New York con man who created, with the help of some equally canny henchmen, a new religion out of whole cloth. If the lie is big enough and repeated loudly enough, some people will believe it. mormonism is a fabrication and even scientology, another false “religion” has it’s catechism. mormonism had better get one too, or not. Especially if mormons do not want to get pinned down by eternal truth.

Image that! Someone who thinks his church is the only true church.

 

[hosemonkey]

Image that! Someone who thinks his church is the only true church.

Catholics, like mormons, believe that they are members of the True Church. Catholics are…mormons are not.
To say that one church is as good as another is called “indifferentism” and is a mortal sin: ie: a sin which threatens your soul with damnation if not repented of.

There are many “truths”, but only one True Church, The rest contain scraps of truth, but the fullness of truth is found only in the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ Himself. The Catholic Church was not founded by a failed priest or a New York treasure-digger, but by the Son of God and guided by the Holy Ghost and led by the successor of Peter.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am not sure what that is but the size of a family is left up to the couple. We are admonished to not have more than we can care for and to space them far enough apart so as not to endanger the mothers health.

Yes, this is Catholic teaching as well. It is not necessary to contracept in order to be a responsible parent.

 

[twopekinguys]

I suppose that is why the Holy Ghost and bishop are included in the decision process. If someone is bound and determined to have the abortion when there are alternatives, it is best to have someone else advising of other options.

Here is what the website says.
“Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer”

It also says “Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.”

Since this is published on the church website, does that make it doctrine?

If at some point the website is changed, does that mean the doctrine changes?

i.e. a new leader of your church has a “revelation” that all abortions are ok.

Just trying to figure out what “is” your doctrine.

 

[dianaiad]

The JofD contains the sermons of someone you consider to be a prophet. The history of the church was written by Smith. A portion of it is in your Pearl of Great Price.

The Journal of Discourses contains some of the sermons of more than one person that we consider to be a prophet. However, as Brigham Young said IN that same journal of discourses, the only way that what he said could be considered scripture (and thus doctrine) is if he had the chance to review it, pray about it–and to get it canonized. Since the Journal of Discourses was taken down as the speakers gave their sermons (not transcribed from written material) and then published in England without the speakers having a chance to see, review or correct any of them, I think you can dismiss the Journal of Discourses as a source of doctrine.

As a source of historical and sociological information? Great for that. As a source to help understand the life, times and opinions of the speakers? Of course. As a source of doctrine, as in 'it says RIGHT HERE IN THE JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES that if you are a Mormon you HAVE to believe this or that or the other thing?" Not even close.

Sorry about that.

Well that’s the rub isn’t it. You follow someone today who you believe is a prophet. How are you certain that what he is telling you is nothing more than his opinion?

How are you certain that what the Pope declares to be so today is ‘so’ today, when it wasn’t ‘so’ yesterday?

There is a specific process involved in papal declarations that make his words, when he speaks ‘infallibly’ 9ex cathedra) very different from his words at other times, isn’t there?

Well, so there is for us; in order for what a prophet says to be scripture, or doctrine, it has to be more than ‘pass the toast, honey.’ or even 'I rather think there is…" or " it seems to me…" it has to pass a few tests; like being sustained by the Twelve…like being canonized, as the proclamation on the Family was just a few years ago.

Don’t you think that the mormons who lived under Young and Smith believed they were being taught something more than opinion. What would these people think of your view today?

No, actually, they didn’t. The idea behind what was, and what was not, doctrine has been VERY clear to Mormons from the very beginning. That it seems to confuse non-Mormons is your problem. WE know.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Journal of Discourses contains some of the sermons of more than one person that we consider to be a prophet. However, as Brigham Young said IN that same journal of discourses, the only way that what he said could be considered scripture (and thus doctrine) is if he had the chance to review it, pray about it–and to get it canonized. Since the Journal of Discourses was taken down as the speakers gave their sermons (not transcribed from written material) and then published in England without the speakers having a chance to see, review or correct any of them, I think you can dismiss the Journal of Discourses as a source of doctrine.

As a source of historical and sociological information? Great for that. As a source to help understand the life, times and opinions of the speakers? Of course. As a source of doctrine, as in 'it says RIGHT HERE IN THE JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES that if you are a Mormon you HAVE to believe this or that or the other thing?" Not even close.

Sorry about that.

I suggest you notify your church’s CES department that their use of the JoD to teach Mormon doctrine is not doctrinal.

How are you certain that what the Pope declares to be so today is ‘so’ today, when it wasn’t ‘so’ yesterday?

Perhaps you have forgotten the many conversations where it has been explained to you, Catholic doctrine doesn’t change.

Mormon doctrine, does.

There is a specific process involved in papal declarations that make his words, when he speaks ‘infallibly’ 9ex cathedra) very different from his words at other times, isn’t there?

Well, so there is for us; in order for what a prophet says to be scripture, or doctrine, it has to be more than ‘pass the toast, honey.’ or even 'I rather think there is…" or " it seems to me…" it has to pass a few tests; like being sustained by the Twelve…like being canonized, as the proclamation on the Family was just a few years ago.

This is the latest definition.

No, actually, they didn’t. The idea behind what was, and what was not, doctrine has been VERY clear to Mormons from the very beginning. That it seems to confuse non-Mormons is your problem. WE know.

Diana, I would suggest you take a look around and read what other Mormons are saying. They do not agree with you.

And, I think it would be interesting for you to provide evidence that people of JS time to say around 1970 did not believe what was taught in the King Follet sermon was doctrinal. Or, that your ban on African Americans not being priesthood holders, was not doctrinal. Or those that practiced polygamy, that it wasn’t doctrinal. Or that all Native Americans were descendants of the Lamanites, was not doctrinal. Or any number of changes in doctrine found in your church.

Good luck.

 

[JLFuller]

Since this is published on the church website, does that make it doctrine?

If at some point the website is changed, does that mean the doctrine changes?

i.e. a new leader of your church has a “revelation” that all abortions are ok.

Just trying to figure out what “is” your doctrine.

I suppose it is.

 

[JLFuller]

What does this mean to you?
The time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth" (2 Tim. 4:3)

It was prophecy of the upcoming apostasy in the Church. Actually it referenced the teachings of the Greeks and others who poluted the true Chrisitanity of the first, second and third centuries. Read Bart Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus. Dr. Ehrman is a biblical scholar at U of N Carolina, Chapel Hill and has a wondersful series of works about how the Church was manipulated and its original doctrines were changed in the years after Christ and the apostles died. Ehrman isn’t the only scholar who writes about it but he is the easiest for us ordinary people to read. He makes it quite understandable and has lots of footnotes. He comes at it without all the usual prejudices to prove this or that doctrine or religious tradition. It is strictly about what happened.

 

[ParkerD]

I suggest you notify your church’s CES department that their use of the JoD to teach Mormon doctrine is not doctrinal.

Perhaps you have forgotten the many conversations where it has been explained to you, Catholic doctrine doesn’t change.

Mormon doctrine, does.

This is the latest definition.

Diana, I would suggest you take a look around and read what other Mormons are saying. They do not agree with you.

And, I think it would be interesting for you to provide evidence that people of JS time to say around 1970 did not believe what was taught in the King Follet sermon was doctrinal. Or, that your ban on African Americans not being priesthood holders, was not doctrinal. Or those that practiced polygamy, that it wasn’t doctrinal. Or that all Native Americans were descendants of the Lamanites, was not doctrinal. Or any number of changes in doctrine found in your church.

Good luck.

So I suppose you don’t think Christ changed the Law of Moses saying it was fulfilled in Him.

I suppose you don’t think the understanding of the status of infants who die without baptism has changed in the Catholic church during the last 20 years.

 

[JLFuller]

“I suggest you notify your church’s CES department that their use of the JoD to teach Mormon doctrine is not doctrinal.” They are the ones who told us. Read Robert Millet’s paper to the Religion Dept faculty at BYU about what doctrine is and is not.

 

[twopekinguys]

I suppose it is.

Thanks for the answer, however, I don’t think it really helps the mormon position on their doctrine(s).

 

[JLFuller]

Thanks for the answer, however, I don’t think it really helps the mormon position on their doctrine(s).

If you are absolutist in the abortion debate then likely not. That is why God has a living prophet. We need someone to give us guidance on these matters.

 

[JLFuller]

I suggest you notify your church’s CES department that their use of the JoD to teach Mormon doctrine is not doctrinal.

Perhaps you have forgotten the many conversations where it has been explained to you, Catholic doctrine doesn’t change.

Mormon doctrine, does.
This is the latest definition.

Diana, I would suggest you take a look around and read what other Mormons are saying. They do not agree with you.

And, I think it would be interesting for you to provide evidence that people of JS time to say around 1970 did not believe what was taught in the King Follet sermon was doctrinal. Or, that your ban on African Americans not being priesthood holders, was not doctrinal. Or those that practiced polygamy, that it wasn’t doctrinal. Or that all Native Americans were descendants of the Lamanites, was not doctrinal. Or any number of changes in doctrine found in your church.

Good luck.

Of course doctrine changes. But doctrine is not man made. Its made with the authority of Christ. This is not just any other man made religious denomination that broke off of something else. This is the literal restoration of Jesus Christ’s church that He established 2000 years ago. Jesus Christ is the actual living day-to-day leader of this Church. I know that is difficult for most non-LDS to accept but it is true. Jesus Christ leads this church through constant daily communication to His living prophet and living apostles on the earth. He does this through the power of the Holy Ghost. The real honest-to-goodness prophet of God on the earth today is Thomas S. Monson. The apostles in His Church are twelve men who have the very same authority and responcibilities to lead and direct the affairs of the Church just as did the apostles in Christ’s time. Jesus Christ selected these men just has He did his original apostels 2000 years ago. He leads them and directs them directly through the power of the Holy Ghost. When they speak in the authority of their office it is with the authority of Jesus Christ. When they sdpeak it is just like Paul or JOhn or Peter spoke in Christ’s time. Just as they had authority to speak for Christ these living apostles have that same authority to speak for Christ today. It is just as binding in heaven as if Christ spoke it.

 

[twopekinguys]

If you are absolutist in the abortion debate then likely not. That is why God has a living prophet. We need someone to give us guidance on these matters.

I think it applies across the board, not just abortion. If that point of your doctrine can be changed so easily, then why can’t any point?

But since we are on the subject of abortion. Does your church believe that life begins at conception, or at birth?