BC's View of LDS Doctrine -- Is It Doctrine?

[_bcspace]

Look at this catch all excuse from that LDS newroom page:
Quote:
Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.
Why not just tell them to read the Book of Mormon/D&C/PoGP/declarations?

Just refer back to the first bullet point. Doctrine is found in the published works of the Church. You want to pin us down? There it is.....

All you have to do is ask "Then why, in this official publication, does it say this?" Never have I seen so many detractors of the Church so afraid to use this ready made weapon. Could it be that they know their arguments have been untrue and false to start with? I think so.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Look at this catch all excuse from that LDS newroom page:
Quote:
Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.
Why not just tell them to read the Book of Mormon/D&C/PoGP/declarations?

Just refer back to the first bullet point.

Doctrine is found in the published works of the Church.

You want to pin us down? There it is.....

All you have to do is ask "Then why, in this official publication, does it say this?" Never have I seen so many detractors of the Church so afraid to use this ready made weapon. Could it be that they know their arguments have been untrue and false to start with? I think so.

Which published works??

The quad?

The Ensign?

The JoD?

[_mms]

I noticed that BC has a link in his signature line to the Church's press release of last year explaining what constitutes "doctrine" of the Church. I am sure this must have been asked before, but it seems under the press release's own description of what doctrine is, the press release itself IS NOT doctrine. So are we not simply left without any "doctrinal" description of what is in fact "doctrine"?

Why do you think the Church would publish such a thing if it weren't doctrine?

Are you serious? You could ask that question many times over with things the Church published that are not, in fact, doctrine. The press release does not state that it was the result of the very process it describes to be that leading to doctrine. It is not signed by the First Pres, the Twelve. We do not even know who authored it. Thus, I think it is pretty clear that it is not doctrine. If it were, a whole lot more Mormons would probably know about it and not be totally dumbfounded when I mention it in a quorum meeting.

[_Tarski]

I noticed that BC has a link in his signature line to the Church's press release of last year explaining what constitutes "doctrine" of the Church. I am sure this must have been asked before, but it seems under the press release's own description of what doctrine is, the press release itself IS NOT doctrine. So are we not simply left without any "doctrinal" description of what is in fact "doctrine"?

Why do you think the Church would publish such a thing if it weren't doctrine?

So is the "the church", that is, the corporate administrative entity more important than the prophets?

One should ask "why would BY say all of the things he said from the pulpit if it were not doctrine?"

[_bcspace]

Which published works??

The quad?

The Ensign?

The JoD?

Look inside the cover. Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publish the JoD?

Why do you think the Church would publish such a thing if it weren't doctrine?

Are you serious?

Yes.

You could ask that question many times over with things the Church published that are not, in fact, doctrine.

Such as?

The press release does not state that it was the result of the very process it describes to be that leading to doctrine. It is not signed by the First Pres, the Twelve.

Where is such a requirement given?

We do not even know who authored it.

But we do know the Church approved it because it's on their web site, which they published.....

Thus, I think it is pretty clear that it is not doctrine. If it were, a whole lot more Mormons would probably know about it and not be totally dumbfounded when I mention it in a quorum meeting.

I think you;re praying for an answer that will never come. You will always be talking past TBM members of the Church unless you accept the Church's own statements on what is and is not doctrine.

[_Scottie]

BC, every time I point this out, you ignore me.

Your link is to the COMMENTARIES section of a church web sponsored website. ANYBODY has a chance of getting something posted here.

There is nothing official about this article AT ALL. Any more than a neat story published by a well meaning member in the Ensign is offical.

The church posting an editorial comment by some random, unknown member is WORLDS different than an official declaration by the church.

[_Runtu]

The church once published the Lectures on Faith, which directly contradict current doctrine in several places, hence their removal from the Doctrine and Covenants.

Why would the church have published it if it wasn't doctrine? And if it was doctrine, does that mean that doctrine has changed?

Once again, the correlation program was instituted in 1970 to make sure that what the church published was consistent with doctrine. Anything published by the church with a copyright of 1970 or later is considered "doctrinal" or at least consistent with the canon.

I had that in writing in our editing handbook when I worked for the church.

[Guest]

BC, every time I point this out, you ignore me.

Probably because the answer is obvious.

Your link is to the COMMENTARIES section of a church web sponsored website. ANYBODY has a chance of getting something posted here.

Who made the comment? The Church or an individual? If it was an individual, why is his name not on it? Because the article is authorized by the Church? Are there names attributed to any of the "Commentaries"? This is not people responding to editorials, it is a section the Church is using to comment on various issues.

Notice the sub title under the main title at the head of the section....

Comments from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on news stories, including corrections.

That's as official as you can get. This is not some part time person in the Church Office Building, it is not an apostle, it is not the Prophet. It is the Church.

There is nothing official about this article AT ALL. Any more than a neat story published by a well meaning member in the Ensign is offical.

Ensign articles, being published by the Church, are doctrinal.

[_truth dancer]

Saying doctrine is found in the published works of the Church, is like saying you can find, Geckos in Obscure Light, in the dictionary, or, a scooglehaden on Mount Rainier.

Technically true but pretty meaningless.

;-)

~dancer~

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Just refer back to the first bullet point. Doctrine is found in the published works of the Church. You want to pin us down? There it is.....

All you have to do is ask "Then why, in this official publication, does it say this?" Never have I seen so many detractors of the Church so afraid to use this ready made weapon. Could it be that they know their arguments have been untrue and false to start with? I think so.

What? Quoting from church publications has been a favorite tactic for all church critics. Who is afraid to use this tactic? I've never met a critic/anti-mormon/ex-mormon who does not LOVE to throw quotes from church publications in TBM's faces. Where do you think the "That's not official doctrine/that was just his opinion" rebuttal started? One of the famouse critics at RfM, Decontructor, has a website devoted to using church publications as his weapon, just as you suggest. http://www.i4m.com/think/history/