Are assumed revelations official doctrine?

[_Paul H Dunn]

Yet according to Dan, it's the members' own fault that we are misinformed, clinging to foolishness and Paul H Dunn stories.

I am sorry you feel this way Harmony about my “stories”. I guess I will have to change the title of my forth coming book to the ‘Nine Most Wanted Women” since you will no longer be in it!

[_bcspace]

Not at all. Jesus himself spoke only to his apostles on occasion; admonishing them to tell no man. Christianity is full of esoteric doctrines, such as the LDS temple rites etc.

Those are not doctrine. We've already had that discussion.

Already defined as doctrine. There has been no discussion showing otherwise.

[_harmony]

Already defined as doctrine. There has been no discussion showing otherwise.

Published, remember? Voted on by the church? Openly acknowledged?

Yeah... not.

[_bcspace]

Already defined as doctrine. There has been no discussion showing otherwise.

Published, remember?

The temple rites are officially published, just not available to everyone. Also, pay closer attention to what I responded to (absolute rubbish).

[_Themis]

Already defined as doctrine. There has been no discussion showing otherwise.

Published, remember? Voted on by the church? Openly acknowledged?

Yeah... not.

The problem is the church has never sated all things published are doctrine. People have been trying to get bcspace to show this for long time with no success.

This one is the closest you will get about it

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.