What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_bcspace]

Printed in the United States of America

What is the doctrine being expressed?

Is that what's been published or is that identifying what's been published? Like gnats much?

[_BartBurk]

It depends upon who the LDS Church wants to get ... in or out.

[_SteelHead]

Is the whole translation process not acredited to divine power. Said divine power can not even conjugate English verbs.

[_subgenius]

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?

article of faith #12

[_brade]

Printed in the United States of America

What is the doctrine being expressed?

Is that what's been published or is that identifying what's been published?

That's what's in the publication. Remember, everything in the publication is doctrine on your view.

[_Themis]

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?

LOL That one went right over bcspace's head.

[_bcspace]

Is that what's been published or is that identifying what's been published?

That's what's in the publication. Remember, everything in the publication is doctrine on your view.

When did I ever say that?

What is the doctrine being expressed?

LOL That one went right over bcspace's head.

No. But I anticipated this type of question long ago which is why brade will be unable to give a satisfactory answer.

[_Themis]

No. But I anticipated this type of question long ago which is why brade will be unable to give a satisfactory answer.

I think he showed precisely that not everything in a publication is to be considered doctrine. Is everything written in a article in the ensign which gives martial advice from a professional member in the field to be considered doctrine?

[_brade]

Is that what's been published or is that identifying what's been published?

That's what's in the publication. Remember, everything in the publication is doctrine on your view.

When did I ever say that?

My bad. At the very least you believe that that is the Church's view (you have said that). So now let me ask, is that also your view or do you disagree with what you believe to be the Church's view?

[_brade]

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.

The point of the examples I've been offering is to show the absurdity of the view that you at least attribute, uncharitably in my view, to the Church - that literally everything in official publications is doctrine or expresses doctrine.

But, here, I'm happy to concede that I cannot give an example of something from an official Church publication that can't be seen as important in some larger context. But here's why I'm happy to concede that point - per bcspace, since a condition for seeing previously unimportant things as important is that they can be so seen in some larger context, I don't think there's anything that anyone can present to anyone on this forum that in isolation seems unimportant but that can't be seen as important in some larger context.

But, look, I'm not bent on convincing you that your view of what the Church's view of doctrine is is wrongheaded. If you want to attribute to the Church that some of its doctrine - its teachings - include things like 'Printed in the United States', or 'Mary Sue was sad', or 'What did you think of the lesson?', or any of the other thousands of mundane statements, interrogatives, or imperatives, then be my guest. Go ahead, call those things the unimportant official doctrines if you like; they're doctrines nonetheless, no?