DiscussMormonism.com

Funny video about what is and what is not official.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzypKxr9knA

at least I thought it was funny. It's for sure for a niche crowd.

That is very funny! Kinda sad, too.

It's nice to see you posting Tim!

What is and is not official LDS doctrine has been long established and is summarized recently here:

http://newsroom.LDS.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Everything published by the Church is official doctrine. What's not published by the Church may contain doctrine but one can only be certain if the same is found in a work published by the Church. So yes, the manuals are official doctrine.

In keeping with the concept of continuing revelation/inspiration, if there is a conflict, latest date Trump's.

In addition, common sense prevails. If there is a qualification (rare but they do exist such as the preface to the Bible Dictionary) such as "this is not doctrine" or "in my opinion" etc., then the doctrine is that such is not doctrine.

I leave for a few days and come back to discover 3 more threads trying to decide what doctrine is? Boo.

Although the video is good. Thanks for posting.
My favorite part is all of the trophies he got for being a good crossing guard.

Whatever. A guy with a cross around his neck and a cross on his shirt has no credibility when he criticizes another religion.

When Jesus comes back to earth, he won't be too happy seeing so many crosses around this country. He might just high-tail it out of here and let the place burn.

I leave for a few days and come back to discover 3 more threads trying to decide what doctrine is? Boo.

They are not trying to decide. They are trying to maintain a supposed problem as a problem even though it has hardly ever existed.

The Dude wrote:Whatever. A guy with a cross around his neck and a cross on his shirt has no credibility when he criticizes another religion.

When Jesus comes back to earth, he won't be too happy seeing so many crosses around this country. He might just high-tail it out of here and let the place burn.

I was so distracted by the big hair that I didn't even notice the crosses for quite some time.

The Dude wrote:Whatever. A guy with a cross around his neck and a cross on his shirt has no credibility when he criticizes another religion.

I agree, many Christians are guilty of doing more or less the same thing, by declaring parts of the Bible 'figurative.'

bcspace wrote:

I leave for a few days and come back to discover 3 more threads trying to decide what doctrine is? Boo.

They are not trying to decide. They are trying to maintain a supposed problem as a problem even though it has hardly ever existed.

Incorrect. It is most certainly a problem when the church has to disregard and disavow the writings and teachings of former prophets seers and revelators because the things that they taught are no longer socially acceptable and/or no longer fit the teachings of the modern church.

I recognize your stance on doctrine, and I respect it, I really do...but I think that it is disingenuous of you to blow it off as though it isn't a legitimate concern for people in the church.