Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan
Oh come on Jay. I don't know how much more clear it could be and it did appear in a church publication. See my cites (the second one anyway). If you really want me to produce a string of quotes on this, I can. I'm not telling you I think it is the doctrine of the church or that it isn't. The lawyer in me tells me that recent precedent is always better, but it also tells me that old precedent is just as good even though it hasn't been ruled on in a long time so long as it hasn't been overruled.
I do think your approach that doctrines have an expiration date when they aren't mentioned for long enough is an interesting little bit of mental gymnastics, however. I don't really blame you, honestly, for taking a position here though I think several are possible. The fact that we are a church without creeds is always going to mean that "doctrine" means something very different to us than it does other religions. It is a much more fluid concept.
|
My definition of doctrine is what is in the canon and what is taught by a living prophet.
I don't have expiration dates for doctrine but silence can be deafening. If something is not being taught and hasn't been for decades, then I think there's a very strong chance that the original teaching was not correct.
If the church through official spokesperson said we don't know how Mary was impregnated, then I'll take that as a refuting of any quack who said God stuck his penis in Mary's vagina.