What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_bcspace]

What in LDS Conference today would pass for this as it is all pre-written and therefore not moved upon a speaker by the power of the Holy Ghost?

The Spirit has never helped you write a talk?

My main point thus far has been to argue against the view that literally everything in an official Church publication is doctrine unless it says of itself it isn't. That seems to be bcspace's view and I think I mistakenly though it also your view.

And that view (what you say is mine) is the Church's view. The difference so far seems to be that you are parsing out what you think is unimportant but that is a mistake because it's subjective.

[_bcspace]

The Prophets certainly have claimed God has spoken to them. God gives them revelations through visions, dreams, and the weekly appearance of Christ for potato salad in the Holy of Holies. Additionally, the Prophets claims has told them a lot. Like what?

The Hill Cumorah is in NY.
There really were first parents Adam and Eve.
A literal Sin Flood.
Blacks were less valiant in the Green Room.
Evolution is bunk.
Adam is god.
We are gods.
We are not gods.
Pork is the other white meat.
On and on and on and on.......

Some of those are not published as doctrine by the Church.

[_brade]

And that view (what you say is mine) is the Church's view. The difference so far seems to be that you are parsing out what you think is unimportant but that is a mistake because it's subjective.

What evidence is there that that is the Church's view? Again, bcspace, the Newsroom release that you love to cite states:

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

Questions are asked in Principia Mathematica. It doesn't follow from that that everything in Principia Mathematica is a question. Similarly, doctrine is proclaimed in official Church publications. It doesn't follow from that that everything in official Church publications is doctrine. Saying that X is in Y is not the same as saying that everything in Y is X.

Do you have something to demonstrate to us why we should believe that the Church's view is that everything in official Church publications is doctrine?

[_Nightlion]

What in LDS Conference today would pass for this as it is all pre-written and therefore not moved upon a speaker by the power of the Holy Ghost?

The Spirit has never helped you write a talk?

If it did no way it could start off with:
"Little Sally Jones knew how much Heavenly Father loved her."

A servant of the Lord would follow these commandments and desire such for the people.

Mark 13: 11
11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

D&C 84: 85
85 Neither take ye thought beforehand what ye shall say; but treasure up in your minds continually the words of life, and it shall be given you in the very hour that portion that shall be meted unto every man.

[_bcspace]

Do you have something to demonstrate to us why we should believe that the Church's view is that everything in official Church publications is doctrine?

Yes. I believe I've already quoted from Teaching, No greater Call, that in order to keep the doctrine pure, one uses the official publications. It follows that the doctrine cannot be pure if they contain portions unidentified as "not doctrine". The examples given earlier are merely examples of doctrine that is unimportant when taken alone but very important when understood in context. I'd be willing to bet you can't give an example that isn't important in some larger context.

[_bcspace]

The Spirit has never helped you write a talk?

If it did no way it could start off with:
"Little Sally Jones knew how much Heavenly Father loved her."

Why not? Sounds like an excellent beginning to a talk, perhaps in Primary. Speaking of which, I highly recommend you come back and ask to serve in the Primary. Will do your hard heart some good.

[_subgenius]

If god is talking to the prophets he is incompetent. .... Amazing that an omniscient, omnipotent being is so flat out incompetent.

speaking of incompetent, how can one make such an elemental, almost juvenile, error in basic logic and/or reasoning?
There is no indication that any of your proposed inconsistencies are attributed to God instead of man.

[_brade]

Do you have something to demonstrate to us why we should believe that the Church's view is that everything in official Church publications is doctrine?

Yes. I believe I've already quoted from Teaching, No greater Call, that in order to keep the doctrine pure, one uses the official publications. It follows that the doctrine cannot be pure if they contain portions unidentified as "not doctrine". The examples given earlier are merely examples of doctrine that is unimportant when taken alone but very important when understood in context. I'd be willing to bet you can't give an example that isn't important in some larger context.

bcspace, do you agree that this is a suitable conditional substitution for the what's in bold above?

P1: If one intends to teach pure church doctrine, then one must teach from official church publications.

[_Buffalo]

If god is talking to the prophets he is incompetent. .... Amazing that an omniscient, omnipotent being is so flat out incompetent.

speaking of incompetent, how can one make such an elemental, almost juvenile, error in basic logic and/or reasoning?
There is no indication that any of your proposed inconsistencies are attributed to God instead of man.

If that's the case, then the prophets and apostles are unable to distinguish revelation from their own opinions.

[_brade]

bcspace, in my copy of No Greater Call this is in the front of the manual:

Printed in the United States of America

What is the doctrine being expressed?