Church statement on doctrine
 

http://lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.j...004e94610aRCRD

It's an interesting press release. A few statements I liked:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine....

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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted....


Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice....

Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine...



It's an interesting statement. I wonder if a church press release clarifying doctrine can be considered doctrine.

I'm sure they'll issue a press release to let you know! :)

Translation: We do not wish to be held accountable for practices and beliefs once vital to mainstream LDS faith and since abandoned by the LDS Church that were appalling even by contemporary norms when those beliefs and practices were vital to mainstream LDS Faith. In that vein, we take the Fifth as to the source, scope, and content of LDS doctrine today, or at any other time in history or the future. At the same time, we wish to reaffirm our self-proclaimed status as God's exclusive mouthpiece possessing an inviolable right to modify, enlarge, or retract LDS doctrine at our whim when we realize any LDS belief will render us pariahs in our larger culture. If you fail to recognize us as such it is because God has not elected you to receive a spiritual witness.

[QUOTE=YOhio;79001a church press release clarifying doctrine[/QUOTE]

LOL. I trust you were you being ironic in calling it that. You ARE a funny guy Ohio.

The press release should have added, "The leadership is always infallible, unless it's wrong."

I know it's a press release, and therefore nothing but spin and/or fluff, but I wish, just once, the LDS church would own its history and say, "Yeah, we screwed up here, here, and here. Sorry. Won't happen again."

Would that really cause the kingdom to fall?

It's very Orwellian. The reader is intended to understand that opinions are one thing, doctrine another, but the language is very carefully phrased to avoid any admission of wrongdoing or inaccuracy. Indeed, the statement implies that the press is responsible for anything in LDS belief that seems incongruous or abnormal, implying that they haven't given the doctrine enough "thoughtful analysis" or they have taken quotations out of context.

Yeah, that's it. 20th century sanctioned polygamy. Blacks having, then losing, then regaining the priesthood. The contradictions there are all the press's fault.

While I'm sure there are many instances where LDS teachings have been misrepresented, this type of verbal gymnastic only comes off as arrogant, IMO.

With such press releases it makes me wonder what the purpose is for having mouthpieces?

The church, with the advent of mass media, is losing a lot of it's teeth.

It would be interesting to recall from the grave Joseph, Brigham, John and see if the church we belong to today would be one they would support as the kingdom of God.

Let it go, SU. You'll be much happier if you can put it behind you.

Double Translation: I'm a bitter apostate that harbors ill will, resentment and in general loves to bitch and moan like an impotent jerk to get a rise out of those who still believe and thus simply just can't let things go.

You're right. The days of preaching fire-and-brimstone repentance are gone. Now, prophets speak through carefully worded lawyer-approved press releases. How stirring.

Orwellian? LOL. Too funny.

Maybe Solon would've been happy if they'd just said, "Even God screws up from time to time."

While it would definitely be interesting, it would not be definitive. One wonders if Moses, or Abraham, or Peter, or Paul would support the church today, too; or, if they would support the "church" as it existed in each others' days. In fact, there's even an old Rabbinical story about Moses coming back from the dead and not recognizing modern Judaism.

One also wonders if every discussion of the church on Cougarguard must always completely factor out God.