LDS bishopric calls back into McCraney's show!

Post by **_Scottie** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:50 am

bcspace wrote:
It's like shooting fish in a barrel...

How so? The rules for what is and is not doctrine are clearly defined.

I assume you're talking about your little link.

May I ask who wrote that article?

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:51 am

I don't plan to reply here again this evening. I'm fast approaching all out sarcasm. Logging off.

I do wish you well, bc.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:55 am

How so? The rules for what is and is not doctrine are clearly defined.

I assume you're talking about your little link.

May I ask who wrote that article?

A better question would be "Who published it?".

Post by **_bcspace** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:57 am

How so? The rules for what is and is not doctrine are clearly defined.

The rules? So when the Prophet delivers a sermon, he's not to be taken seriously? Is that what you're saying, bc?

Are you saying the Church never publishes a prophet's sermon?

Post by **_bcspace** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:00 am

I don't plan to reply here again this evening. I'm fast approaching all out sarcasm. Logging off.

<sarcastic syllable replacement response deleted> - bc

I do wish you well, bc.

Thank you!

Post by **_Scottie** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:07 am

bcspace wrote:
How so? The rules for what is and is not doctrine are clearly defined.

I assume you're talking about your little link.

May I ask who wrote that article?

A better question would be "Who published it?".

No, the better question is who wrote it??

Post by **_bcspace** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:18 am

A better question would be "Who published it?".

No, the better question is who wrote it??

Yet an organization chose to publish it as it's own and that goes directly to the heart of the matter. The Church has clearly defined what is and is not doctrine. Now you have no excuse and, from your pov, neither do we. If you can't accept it, you're just talking past us instead of to us.

Post by **_Scottie** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:46 pm

bcspace wrote:
A better question would be "Who published it?".

No, the better question is who wrote it??

Yet an organization chose to publish it as it's own and that goes directly to the heart of the matter. The Church has clearly defined what is and is not doctrine. Now you have no excuse and, from your pov, neither do we. If you can't accept it, you're just talking past us instead of to us.

Except that I really see no clarification in there as to what is doctrine. It's still just as fuzzy as it ever was.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:49 pm

What is the date on the article? It's not prior to 1852, is it? If not, it has nothing to do with BY preaching Adam-God.

Post by **_Scottie** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:59 pm

bcspace wrote:
A better question would be "Who published it?".

No, the better question is who wrote it??

Yet an organization chose to publish it as it's own and that goes directly to the heart of the matter. The Church has clearly defined what is and is not doctrine. Now you have no excuse and, from your pov, neither do we. If you can't accept it, you're just talking past us instead of to us.

By who's authority did it get published? Does the 1st presidency review and authorize every single piece of literature published in any format? Barring that, some wacko web designer could have decided to take it upon himself to decide what is Mormon doctrine and posted this.

GOOD GREIF!!

I just noticed that this is placed in the COMMENTARY SECTION!!! This is an opinion by some unknown person!!!

Come on BC. This is ANYTHING but authoritative!!!