DiscussMormonism.com

Discuss.

If, as BC Space alleges, it is not Doctrine, it will come as quite a shock to my mission president. He had a copy placed in every apartment and we were to use it during comp study at least once a week.
by the way my favorite part is that the section on Blacks is in the "N" section.

In Mormonism, horse doesn't mean horse, chariot doesn't mean chariot, sword doesn't mean sword, principal ancestor doesn't mean principal ancestor, translation doesn't mean translation, eternal doesn't mean eternal, and doctrine doesn't mean doctrine. It's quite simple, really.

BRM's Mormon Doctrine was Mormon Doctrine -- until it wasn't.

When I was growing up, Mormon Doctrine was on the bookshelf of every faithful Mormon family I knew. The Book was seen as the definitive treatise / encyclopedia of Mormon Doctrine for decades. It was read, revered and referenced often.

My TBM father knew the book inside out - backwards and forwards. It was the de facto "Manual of Mormonism" --- until it wasn't.

Equality wrote:In Mormonism, horse doesn't mean horse, chariot doesn't mean chariot, sword doesn't mean sword, principal ancestor doesn't mean principal ancestor, translation doesn't mean translation, eternal doesn't mean eternal, and doctrine doesn't mean doctrine. It's quite simple, really.

There you have it, folks.

Any more questions?

Just because the book is called "Mormon Doctrine" doesn't mean it's Mormon doctrine!!

Just because whole paragraphs were read at countless LDS pulpits and confirmed by the speaker's words, "In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen", doesn't mean it's Christ's teachings.

Just because countless speakers bore testimony to the truthfulness of the things contained in Mormon doctrine by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost doesn't make it so.

Can't you see that Mormonism is a watered down version of Christianity? It's so weak and like a wave in the sea driven by the wind and tossed. The Mormon Holy Ghost is like a shadow that comes and goes. It's not even real. It has no lasting power.

Paul O

It was never published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine. There are quotes from it in various officially published manuals and those particular quotes are doctrine because they are officially published.

bcspace wrote:It was never published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine. There are quotes from it in various officially published manuals and those particular quotes are doctrine because they are officially published.

True or false?

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

It was never published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine.

Says who? You? Who made you the guy who determines what is or is not doctrine for the LDS church?

bcspace wrote:It was never published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine. There are quotes from it in various officially published manuals and those particular quotes are doctrine because they are officially published.

Look, we all get that you are embarrassed by certain teachings of the people you revere as prophets, seers and revelators....I find it hilarious that you have to create some outlandish mental construct and ridiculous rules in order to justify the stupidity that your "prophets" spew forth...Please, continue with your ridiculous rationalizations - we are definitely laughing at you, not with you....