Went through the Temple last week...

[_Droopy]

bc has gone over this issue ten thousand times ten thousand, so I'm not going to repeat the obvious. This information can be easily accessed on the web and in official church sources.

Do your own homework on the basics, and stop peddling the old dog and pony show of official vs. unofficial doctrine. It won't wash. I'll go over it again for those who are really ignorant of the subject, but not for those who have been around here for a long time and should have done the basic homework that any new member who's been in the Church for a few months should know with some degree of clarity.

[_harmony]

Do your own homework on the basics, and stop peddling the old dog and pony show of official vs. unofficial doctrine.

There is no such thing as "unofficial" doctrine. There is doctrine and then there's everything else. It's either doctrine or it's not. All that is doctrinal is official. All that is not official is not doctrine. (And there's a lot that is not doctrinal that masquerades as doctrine, because people are too lazy to see through the smoke and mirrors).

[_Ray A]

No spin, I would just like you to elucidate for me in what manner this was official doctrine, binding upon all members as a matter of core belief, and where is the "fence sitter" idea you claimed existed?

I already did. And I predicted the spin was coming.

But continue in your holier-than-thou moral posturing against the Lord's anointed Ray.

You will, no doubt, have your reward.

My pleasure.

[_Droopy]

There is no such thing as "unofficial" doctrine. There is doctrine and then there's everything else. It's either doctrine or it's not. All that is doctrinal is official. All that is not official is not doctrine. (And there's a lot that is not doctrinal that masquerades as doctrine, because people are too lazy to see through the smoke and mirrors).

Another in a long line of statements and assertions that, were it not for the personal testimony of someone else here, would be more than enough evidence to suggest that Harmony, like Scratch, has never been a Latter Day Saint at all.

The fact that she apparently is makes such statements all the more interesting for what they do imply about what really drives her apostasy and perspectives on the Church.

[_Trevor]

Another in a long line of statements and assertions that, were it not for the personal testimony of someone else here, would be more than enough evidence to suggest that Harmony, like Scratch, has never been a Latter Day Saint at all.

I confess that I have had my suspicions. I mean, she should recognize that all but a very few things are "unofficial doctrine" in the Lord's Church. But strangely, she does not. Could it be that she has only been pretending to membership, all the while she is some kind of liberal mainline Protestant who has come here to infect us all with her diluted Gospel mingled with the philosophies of men (more philosophy than Gospel no doubt)?

[_silentkid]

The fact still remains that this idea (as well as Adam-God and other concepts), were never pubically put before the LDS people in an official capacity and through the means in place in Priesthood government through which any such concepts can be understood and accepted by the general membership as official doctrine.

If the bolded word isn't a spelling error, I'm definitely going to need some clarification on your understanding of how doctrine is made official.

It has to do with the thrust of the matter.

[_Doctor Steuss]

It has to do with the thrust of the matter.

I don't know why your guys are giving him the shaft.

[_silentkid]

It has to do with the thrust of the matter.

I don't know why your guys are giving him the shaft.

Because there can only be one cock of the walk.

[_Trevor]

Because there can only be one cock of the walk.

That's why we come here. For the penetrating discussion.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Because there can only be one cock of the walk.

No need to get testy.