Funerals/Eulogies - Packer's Policies Were Not Followed

[_Trinity]

Are BYU devotionals doctrinal or official? I didn't think so........

Of course, by your standards (people who answer like you), there hasn't been anything "OFFICIAL" come out of the church since 1979

Incorrect. The Church itself has published standards for doctrine as expressed here....

http://www.newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom ... n-doctrine

...such has been the case for many decades now.

I'm sorry, but that newsroom article is not doctrine, even by its own standards. Therefore it cannot be in the business of authoritatively telling people what is doctrine and what is not.

Dontcha just love how that works.

[_RebelYell]

I think his policy stinkys - a funeral is for the living and to help them celebrate the life of the dead. It is not about the holy ghost, the atonement, or even Jesus Christ. I find if in bad taste to use a funeral as a "missionary" assignment and not to bouy up the family that just lost a loved one. Church is the time and place to preach "your" gospel.

[_bcspace]

I'm sorry, but that newsroom article is not doctrine, even by its own standards.

Yes it is. The LDS website is an official publication.

[_ludwigm]

I'm sorry, but that newsroom article is not doctrine, even by its own standards.

Yes it is. The LDS website is an official publication.

If it is, then please define what does constitute doctrine and what does not, according to that article!

[_Tidejwe]

I'm sorry, but that newsroom article is not doctrine, even by its own standards.

Yes it is. The LDS website is an official publication.

So you are ALSO claiming everything in the Ensign, etc is TRUE and OFFICIAL too, since it's an official publication, AND published on the website? Including Paul Dunn talks, and apostles contradicting each other, etc? What a joke. LDS.ORG fails as a qualification of OFFICIAL Doctrine without a leg to stand on. It's an impossible and ridiculous argument. maybe you could claim it to have some official CURRENT POLICIES, but that's the extent of it. Tell us something you would consider official DOCTRINE in the last 100 years (minus the priesthood declaration) and we'll discuss why that IS official doctrine, and certain other examples are not.

[Guest]

I'm sorry, but that newsroom article is not doctrine, even by its own standards.

Yes it is. The LDS website is an official publication.

If it is, then please define what does constitute doctrine and what does not, according to that article!

All it takes is a simple reading.....

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. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

Of course anyonr who has been on a mission or taken a teacher preparation class knows this. The only thing not really specified is 'of latest date' (yes folks, doctrine can change) but it's implicit in 'consistently proclaimed'.

So you are ALSO claiming everything in the Ensign, etc is TRUE and OFFICIAL too, since it's an official publication,

Official yes. True depends on modern revelation.

AND published on the website?

It's not necessary to be published on the website to be official. Just published by the LDS Church in any format.

Including Paul Dunn talks, and apostles contradicting each other, etc? What a joke. LDS.ORG fails as a qualification of OFFICIAL Doctrine without a leg to stand on.

I believe the Church's own statements about what is and is not doctrine. If you ever hope to successfully address LDS doctrine with LDS people, I suggest you accept this principle.

[Guest]

So you are ALSO claiming everything in the Ensign, etc is TRUE and OFFICIAL too, since it's an official publication,

Official yes. True depends on modern revelation.

It's not necessary to be published on the website to be official. Just published by the LDS Church in any format.

Including Paul Dunn talks, and apostles contradicting each other, etc? What a joke. LDS.ORG fails as a qualification of OFFICIAL Doctrine without a leg to stand on.

I believe the Church's own statements about what is and is not doctrine. If you ever hope to successfully address LDS doctrine with LDS people, I suggest you accept this principle.

So tell me, what is the POINT of something being "Official Doctrine" if you confess that it may not be true depending on modern revelation? Shouldn't all Official Doctrine be true? It's weird to think that something might be Official Doctrine and yet still untrue as you imply here. Most people have the understanding that the nature of "Official Doctrine" implies that it is undoubtably TRUE and from God. Why play semantics like this? Every member I know has a different definition of "doctrine" and "true" etc. I'd think those things should be pretty cut and dry instead of so much division on the matter with disagreements and varying interpretations like this.

The problem with believing the church's own statements about what is and is not doctrine changes all the time. For example, the Adam God Doctrine. Brigham Young actually claimed it was a REVELATION from God, and even went so far as to have it taught in the endowment (Lecture at the veil) for over 40 years till Bishop bunker put his membership on the line to fight against it. Brigham almost excommunicated Orson Pratt for not believing it and forced Pratt to repent and publicly announced he was wrong and that it was all true...or he really would be ex'd. That sounds pretty darn official to me. If Monson did the same thing (claimed something was a revelation, spoke about it publicly, added it to the endowment, and threatened to ex people who didn't profess to believe it, you'd certainly call it official, I'm sure). And yet, while it used to be OFFICIAL DOCTRINE, now it's not. So apparently you can't even trust a prophet when he comes right out and says something is a revelation from God to be true or Official Doctrine. Not to mention all their supposed revelations about how we could never stop practicing polygamy in this life, etc and then suddenly we did stop it in this life. Anyway, I'm just pointing out that your claims as to what constitutes TRUE and OFFICIAL are severely flawed and unreliable in light of church history. There are so many exceptions that it's unreliable test for whether something is actually "OFFICIAL" or even "TRUE".

[_bcspace]

So tell me, what is the POINT of something being "Official Doctrine" if you confess that it may not be <I>true</I> depending on modern revelation?

If modern revelation exists, where is the problem?

The problem with believing the church's own statements about what is and is not doctrine changes all the time.

There has been no change in this standard for 30+ years; as long as I've been cognizant of such things.

For example, the Adam God Doctrine. Brigham Young actually claimed it was a REVELATION from God, and even went so far as to have it taught in the endowment (Lecture at the veil) for over 40 years till Bishop bunker put his membership on the line to fight against it.

This is not a question of what is and is not doctrine. It's a question of what BY actually taught. BY NEVER taught anything like Adam-God. For him to have done so it would've contradicted other statements he made about God in the JoD. Instead, comparing the statements in question with other statements he made in the WWJ, we find something completely different.

As for it being taught as doctrine, even back then it would not have met the standards for doctrine. Current standards are rooted in D&C 107 which gives equal authority to the First Presideincy and the Qo12. Those two bodies would have to agree with BY's statements before such a thing ever became doctrine.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Coffee and tea are NOT forbidden by the standard works.

[_ludwigm]

As this is not a simple structure, my comments are bolded

So tell me, what is the POINT of something being "Official Doctrine" if you confess that it may not be <I>true</I> depending on modern revelation?

If modern revelation exists, where is the problem?

The problem with believing the church's own statements about what is and is not doctrine changes all the time.

The problem is: what is and what is not the doctrine. This is a problem today, too.
There has been no change in this standard for 30+ years; as long as I've been cognizant of such things.
There have been many changes for all the time. I'm sorry, You are not cognizant. Nobody is.

For example, the Adam God Doctrine. Brigham Young actually claimed it was a REVELATION from God, and even went so far as to have it taught in the endowment (Lecture at the veil) for over 40 years till Bishop bunker put his membership on the line to fight against it.

This is not a question of what is and is not doctrine. It's a question of what BY actually taught. BY NEVER taught anything like Adam-God.
BY HAS taught it.
For him to have done so it would've contradicted other statements he made about God in the JoD. Instead, comparing the statements in question with other statements he made in the WWJ, we find something completely different.

As for it being taught as doctrine, even back then it would not have met the standards for doctrine. Current standards are rooted in D&C 107 which gives equal authority to the First Presideincy and the Qo12. Those two bodies would have to agree with BY's statements before such a thing ever became doctrine.
At that time, nobody had to agree to became something as doctrine. Rules are changing, especially in Mormonism. And BY was a dictator.