Runtu wrote: I'm for one glad to belong to a Church filled with people allowed to believe in Zeus, Bigfoot-as-Cain, alien abductions as Satanic/angelic visitations, ice-cave Israelites, the continuing Danite society, that garments are flame-retardant, reptilians, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostates, that Enoch's Zion fits in the Gulf of Mexico, that Pokemon exist on other worlds, that Star Wars is the best gospel analogy ever, and that everyone should have a seerstone. I personally know that each of these beliefs is held by at least one person in the Church. Isn't it great?
Ya!
Dude, I get the same feelers, when I listen Monsoon, Hinkley, Kimball.....
PS: Make sure you pay full tithing to be counted among the total 100% suckers.
He has an iron clad editorial comment from some random, unknown lay-member somewhere that ABSOLUTELY defines what is and is not doctrine.
It's an official statment of the Church found linked to in my siggy. While it's true anyone can decide for themselves what doctrines they will believe (the application of Nehor's HG comment above), anyone cannot determine for the Church (the first presidency and the Qo12) what the Church's doctrine is.
He has an iron clad editorial comment from some random, unknown lay-member somewhere that ABSOLUTELY defines what is and is not doctrine.
It's an official statment of the Church found linked to in my siggy. While it's true anyone can decide for themselves what doctrines they will believe (the application of Nehor's HG comment above), anyone cannot determine for the Church (the first presidency and the Qo12) what the Church's doctrine is.
Commentaries are NOT official statements.
I have still seen nothing official about it.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
He has an iron clad editorial comment from some random, unknown lay-member somewhere that ABSOLUTELY defines what is and is not doctrine.
It's an official statment of the Church found linked to in my siggy. While it's true anyone can decide for themselves what doctrines they will believe (the application of Nehor's HG comment above), anyone cannot determine for the Church (the first presidency and the Qo12) what the Church's doctrine is.
Commentaries are NOT official statements.
I have still seen nothing official about it.
Doesn't official policy have to be put to a vote and sustained in General Conference?
It's published by the Church. There is no higher temporal stamp than the approval of the FP and Qo12.
Just because it is hosted on a Church web site does NOT mean it is published by the church.
So, let me ask this, BC. When someone writes into the Ensign and they publish a letter there, does that make it true just because it was "published by the church"??
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
He has an iron clad editorial comment from some random, unknown lay-member somewhere that ABSOLUTELY defines what is and is not doctrine.
It's an official statment of the Church found linked to in my siggy. While it's true anyone can decide for themselves what doctrines they will believe (the application of Nehor's HG comment above), anyone cannot determine for the Church (the first presidency and the Qo12) what the Church's doctrine is.
Commentaries are NOT official statements.
I have still seen nothing official about it.
Doesn't official policy have to be put to a vote and sustained in General Conference?
Well, it certainly has to be more than a random, unsigned letter in the Commentaries section of the church web site.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo