Could anyone write Mormon Doctrine?

[creekster]

In some ways, I think all the discussion about BRM's Mormon Doctrine highlights a very interesting aspect of the LDS religion: There is no clear doctrine. Now SU has made this point ad nauseum and in his mind it is virtually irrefutable evidence of the bankrupt nature of the LDS church. I disagree and think it actually illustrates the highly individualized nature of the conversion process and of the religious journey that each of us within the church are on, even though we are all under the same tent. This being the case, could anyone write a comprehensive compendium of Mormon Doctrine and not be found to have made errors of some nature or another? Is ti even possible?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by creekster

In some ways, I think all the discussion about BRM's Mormon Doctrine highlights a very interesting aspect of the LDS religion: There is no clear doctrine. Now SU has made this point ad nauseum and in his mind it is virtually irrefutable evidence of the bankrupt nature of the LDS church. I disagree and think it actually illustrates the highly individualized nature of the conversion process and of the religious journey that each of us within the church are on, even though we are all under the same tent. This being the case, could anyone write a comprehensive compendium of Mormon Doctrine and not be found to have made errors of some nature or another? Is ti even possible?

I think Bruce R. McKonkie was as close to being able to write such a book as any person ever was. The project itself is just not attainable-- not in Mormonism, nor in Catholicism, or any kind of -ism can one write a authoritative fiat that says "We believe this" unless you make it say "And so do you, or else."

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by creekster

In some ways, I think all the discussion about BRM's Mormon Doctrine highlights a very interesting aspect of the LDS religion: There is no clear doctrine. Now SU has made this point ad nauseum and in his mind it is virtually irrefutable evidence of the bankrupt nature of the LDS church. I disagree and think it actually illustrates the highly individualized nature of the conversion process and of the religious journey that each of us within the church are on, even though we are all under the same tent. This being the case, could anyone write a comprehensive compendium of Mormon Doctrine and not be found to have made errors of some nature or another? Is ti even possible?

What is the encyclopedia of mormonism? While not doctrine, doesn't it do a lot of what McConkie tried to do without the authoritative tone?

[MikeWaters]

a book called "Mormon doctrine" should be nothing more than a reference tool to scriptures, talks from prophets and other GAs, books etc.

Then the reader can make their own decision.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

a book called "Mormon doctrine" should be nothing more than a reference tool to scriptures, talks from prophets and other GAs, books etc.

Then the reader can make their own decision.

Which I think is how most LDS viewed the book.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Which I think is how most LDS viewed the book.

Our priesthood instructor on Sunday quoted from Mormon Doctrine. I could almost hear the body of Cougarguard intellectuals cry out in pain as he cracked it open.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

Our priesthood instructor on Sunday quoted from Mormon Doctrine. I could almost hear the body of Cougarguard intellectuals cry out in pain as he cracked it open.

This is a sign you are about to be assimilated.

[SeattleUte]

I'd like to refine Archea's hypothesis and say that Mormonism is a religion that once aspired to be creed-based and sold off its creed division. Too much risk relative to potential return. No one could write Mormon Doctrine because there is no coherent doctrine. In that sense Archea is right. The lore surrounding the godhead is one concrete example. It's an inelegant mess.

[BlueHair]

It's an impossible task. I don't fault him for his mistakes. I also don't fault others for finding fault in him. If you set out to do something impossible, you should expect your mistakes to be pointed out.

My biggest complaint with the church is not that the doctrine isn't absolute. It is the absolutes they desire in appearance and behavior. Image is priority number one. If the appearance and behaviour expectations were changed to match the doctrine expectations, it would be a better organization.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Our priesthood instructor on Sunday quoted from Mormon Doctrine. I could almost hear the body of Cougarguard intellectuals cry out in pain as he cracked it open.

I really think you're exaggerating the issue. There were significant inaccuracies in the book. It was published without the blessing of the first presidency. As an authoritative source of "Mormon Doctrine" it is therefore not a valid work. Because it was written by an apostle, and because it is called "Mormon Doctrine" and because it is sold through Deseret Book, many members, not knowing the deficiencies of the book, hold it as tantamount to scripture as a source of "Mormon Doctrine."

We know there are many errors in the book. We don't know exactly where all the errors are. It is therefore inherently suspect as an authoritative source of "Mormon Doctrine." Because it is called "Mormon Doctrine," its utility as any other type of resource is also suspect. Therefore, knowing all of this, unless you don't really care about potentially erroneous "Mormon Doctrine" being taught in Sunday School, I would expect you to cringe, as well.

Just wondering - is "Mormon Doctrine" found as a source in any of the current church teaching manuals?