Was or was not BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" just that?

[_Scottie]

As always, I feel it necessary to point out that BC's link to the EDITORIAL page of an LDS publication, written by an unknown source, is not an authoritative voice on what is and is not doctrine. It fails it's own doctrinal tests.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Wow. I suppose the hundreds of Mormons I knew, to include my Mission President, should've vetted BRM's book through BCSpace. They were all convinced it was Mormon doctrine.

[_bcspace]

So when an Apostle (1 of the 15) writes a book explaining the doctrine of the Church then that's official interpretation of doctrine?

Only if it's officially published by the Church. In the case of BRM's Mormon Doctrine, this is not the case.

What about when one Apostle contradicts another Apostle on matters of doctrine, how do you decide who is right?

Official publication and latest date.

As always, I feel it necessary to point out that BC's link to the EDITORIAL page of an LDS publication, written by an unknown source, is not an authoritative voice on what is and is not doctrine. It fails it's own doctrinal tests.

The site is an official Church site is an "official resource" as seen at the top. As such, nothing there will remain if not authorized by the Church. Therefore, it passes the test.

[_sock puppet]

So when an Apostle (1 of the 15) writes a book explaining the doctrine of the Church then that's official interpretation of doctrine?

Only if it's officially published by the Church. In the case of BRM's Mormon Doctrine, this is not the case.

What about when one Apostle contradicts another Apostle on matters of doctrine, how do you decide who is right?

Official publication and latest date.

As always, I feel it necessary to point out that BC's link to the EDITORIAL page of an LDS publication, written by an unknown source, is not an authoritative voice on what is and is not doctrine. It fails it's own doctrinal tests.

The site is an official Church site is an "official resource" as seen at the top. As such, nothing there will remain if not authorized by the Church. Therefore, it passes the test.

Who told you that site is "official"? Do you subscribe to the infallible truth of everything that appears on that site? Have you prayed about the site and had HG confirmation about its truthfulness?

[_Jason Bourne]

Official publication and latest date.

.

So if something official is of a later date but contradicts something else official that was of an earlier date is that not a problem?

[_brade]

True or false?

If a statement is official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then it's true.

As long as God is also in agreement, it's true.

True or false?

If a statement is official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then God is in agreement with it.

Just putting this out there again. I know you're getting bombarded a bit BC, but if you get a chance, will you please tell me whether you believe that statement true or false.

[_bcspace]

So if something official is of a later date but contradicts something else official that was of an earlier date is that not a problem?

No. Such would typically signify new understanding and/or inspiration.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Don't you all realize that the formula for the 12 apostles is that if they have a quorum and all agree on a point, it is an official position? It matters not that it is different than or contradicts precedent. Precedent has no real authorized role in setting church direction.

[_Analytics]

However, what you say Infymus, anybody who had any kind of knowledge of general authority publications would have instantly seen the significance of a Bookcraft publication. Not official, and possibly questionable. Some of my more favorite questionable books were those published for Hyrum Andrus. MY least favorite are those published by Cleon Skousen. Since Andrus was excommunicated for his views, I think that says it all.

After publishing Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie was called to be an apostle, not excommunicated as an apostate. It wasn't only the unwashed masses who thought McConkie knew what he was talking about.

[_jon]

However, what you say Infymus, anybody who had any kind of knowledge of general authority publications would have instantly seen the significance of a Bookcraft publication. Not official, and possibly questionable. Some of my more favorite questionable books were those published for Hyrum Andrus. MY least favorite are those published by Cleon Skousen. Since Andrus was excommunicated for his views, I think that says it all.

After publishing Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie was called to be an apostle, not excommunicated as an apostate. It wasn't only the unwashed masses who thought McConkie knew what he was talking about.

That is actually a very good point.