What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_bcspace]

Since it's an official site, it does. It does not matter if they all read and approved it or if they delegated responsibility or a few or one, it still meets the requirement. Been up there for quite a while now and when they changed format to the new website (vs. the classic website), I was the one who got it transferred over when it went missing for about a week. I have first hand knowledge that the Church considers all this to be official.

Oh you do, do you?

Why would anyone need special first hand knowledge on this?

They don't. It's all clearly spelled out.

Why won't the FP and Qo12 really make it official and publish it as a proclamation on Church doctrine under their signatures?

Because "signatures" are not extant, nor have they ever been, markers of doctrine.

Why a mere press release? Why not present it to the Church.

Already taught elsewhere such as Teaching, No Greater Call, which I have already quoted, or any Teacher preparation class, etc. The Official News Release merely summarizes it. So tell me why you think the Church would tell them something different?

[_BartBurk]

There are a variety of systems. Here is one:

http://LDS.org/study/topics?lang=eng

So if it is there it is doctrine and if it is not there it isn't doctrine?

[_bcspace]

So if it is there it is doctrine and if it is not there it isn't doctrine?

All of our official doctrine can be found on LDS.org and other official sites. One does not need everything to be found in one precise place, book, or paper, or site to be considered an orderly, rational, and coherent account of our beliefs. if it is published by the Church, it is official doctrine. Continuing revelation/inspiring is not extant in your theology as I understand it. It is in ours and therefore latest date is going to be a qualifier and it is constantly growing.

[_BartBurk]

So if it is there it is doctrine and if it is not there it isn't doctrine?

All of our official doctrine can be found on LDS.org and other official sites. One does not need everything to be found in one precise place, book, or paper, or site to be considered an orderly, rational, and coherent account of our beliefs. if it is published by the Church, it is official doctrine. Continuing revelation/inspiring is not extant in your theology as I understand it. It is in ours and therefore latest date is going to be a qualifier and it is constantly growing.

The Catholic Church has no need for more public revelation because the last public revelation was Jesus Christ. In Christ we see everything we need to know about God. There is however church approved private revelation which the faithful can believe or dismiss -- the visions at Fatima and Lourdes are church approved private revelation. One of the attributes of approved private revelation is that it must not contradict any previous revelation.

[_Themis]

So if it is there it is doctrine and if it is not there it isn't doctrine?

All of our official doctrine can be found on LDS.org and other official sites. One does not need everything to be found in one precise place, book, or paper, or site to be considered an orderly, rational, and coherent account of our beliefs. if it is published by the Church, it is official doctrine. Continuing revelation/inspiring is not extant in your theology as I understand it. It is in ours and therefore latest date is going to be a qualifier and it is constantly growing.

Yet you still cannot show where it says everything published by the church is to be considered doctrine. The is the fundamental problem you are having here. As such there will continue to be confusion by members until the leadership can be more clear. You don't back this assertion of everything published is to be considered doctrine because you can't. It is not there.

[_BartBurk]

All of our official doctrine can be found on LDS.org and other official sites. One does not need everything to be found in one precise place, book, or paper, or site to be considered an orderly, rational, and coherent account of our beliefs. if it is published by the Church, it is official doctrine. Continuing revelation/inspiring is not extant in your theology as I understand it. It is in ours and therefore latest date is going to be a qualifier and it is constantly growing.

Yet you still cannot show where it says everything published by the church is to be considered doctrine. The is the fundamental problem you are having here. As such there will continue to be confusion by members until the leadership can be more clear. You don't back this assertion of everything published is to be considered doctrine because you can't. It is not there.[/quote]

I've looked at the link provided by bcspace, and I would have to say it is a good summary of what I would call solid Mormon doctrine. I have not found anything there that would regarding the idea that God the Father has a Father which I think is the main idea most Christians find troubling. If this is the summary of Mormon doctrine it seems to be, it looks as if that particular idea is not considered to be essential doctrine.

[_consiglieri]

You know, all this back and forth seems to stem from the decidedly undoctrinal position that doctrine cannot change.

One we stipulate, as I will here and now for the record, that LDS doctrine is subject to change, the entire argument is moot.

What do you say, BCSpace?

Do you believe that LDS doctrine can change?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_brade]

You haven't, but it is either going over your head or you just don't want to admit being wrong. Kinda funny wither way.

As long as you continue to reject what the Church says about it's own doctrine (and by publishing a qualification the Church certainly is saying something about it's own doctrine) then you will always be behind the curve when trying to address issues of LDS doctrine.

You and brade have been reduced to straining at gnats by giving examples that carry no doctrinal weight so I'm really not worried at all until you can come up with something that has an effect. You've not yet been able to apply your own hypothesis in the way I see that you could and that would conflict with the Church's notion of doctrine.

Plus most people on these two boards essentially agree with the Church's statement and have suborned themselves to the standard of publication whether they agree with the Church or not. The matter was settled in the Church long ago. It appears to be settled here now.

bcspace, you continue to demonstrate that you don't understand the criticism I'm making (e.g. "You and brade have been reduced to straining at gnats by giving examples that carry no doctrinal weight so I'm really not worried at all until you can come up with something that has an effect."). Again, I'm not trying to find examples of contradictory statements. What I'm doing is showing that by your utterly ridiculous and unsupported view, really stupid and absurd things are doctrine, including linguistic elements that don't even function in a way to convey teachings. You keep failing to grasp this.

Additionally, you have still failed to support the position you attribute to the Church and have failed to address my criticisms of the only two evidences you've cited. I'm going to call trolling on this one. Out of charity I can't bring myself to believe you're this dense.

[_why me]

The Catholic Church has no need for more public revelation because the last public revelation was Jesus Christ. In Christ we see everything we need to know about God. There is however church approved private revelation which the faithful can believe or dismiss -- the visions at Fatima and Lourdes are church approved private revelation. One of the attributes of approved private revelation is that it must not contradict any previous revelation.

This is not exactly true. The apostle Paul and other writers of the new testament acted as seers when addressing members of the early church. They were in the business in guiding the church through prayer and revelation.

[_why me]

I've looked at the link provided by bcspace, and I would have to say it is a good summary of what I would call solid Mormon doctrine. I have not found anything there that would regarding the idea that God the Father has a Father which I think is the main idea most Christians find troubling. If this is the summary of Mormon doctrine it seems to be, it looks as if that particular idea is not considered to be essential doctrine.

I think that the problem stemmed from the words of past GAs in the LDS church. I think that as time moved on GAs became more careful with what is doctrine and what isn't doctrine but verbal ideas and speculations. But in the past, GAs were not so careful. They did not see the advent of the internet recording their every word or thought at the push of a button that they may have said from second hand sources.