What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_Buffalo]

Mere publication shows the FP and Qo12 approve.

So when that guy recently posted his I'm a Mormon profile talking about how full of shiz the church is, that was official doctrine, right?

[_bcspace]

Mere publication shows the FP and Qo12 approve.

So when that guy recently posted his I'm a Mormon profile talking about how full of shiz the church is, that was official doctrine, right?

What is shiz? Some sort of vitamin rich smoothie?

Beware of contextual issues, but otherwise yes. Official doctrine if on an official site.

[_brade]

Then you don't understand the clearly stated position of the Church. Right, bcspace? Just for Themis' benefit, bcspace, will you lay out that clear position again? Will you post the references again from which we can logically demonstrate that the position of the Church is that literally everything in its publications is official doctrine?

See Approaching Mormon Doctrine for the summary. Feel free to address Teaching, No Greater Call or the CHI or anything else you desire. Notice that Themis has nothing for his "signed by the brethren" hypothesis.

Oh, but will you show us again how the logic goes? Because there isn't a statement like this, "Everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine unless it says of itself it isn't or something else says of it that it isn't". So, how does the logic go again? Please use statements from official Church publications and show us again how those statements entail the conclusion that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine unless it says of itself it isn't or something else says of it that it isn't.

[Guest]

So when that guy recently posted his I'm a Mormon profile talking about how full of shiz the church is, that was official doctrine, right?

What is shiz? Some sort of vitamin rich smoothie?

Beware of contextual issues, but otherwise yes. Official doctrine if on an official site.

Oh, awesome. So even the content of profiles on Mormon.org counts as official Church doctrine? You really are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[_Buffalo]

What is shiz? Some sort of vitamin rich smoothie?

Beware of contextual issues, but otherwise yes. Official doctrine if on an official site.

Great, so it's official doctrine that the church isn't true. Thanks.

[_Themis]

I don't view everything in a publication as doctrine of the church, nor do I think most others would. In some things one has to differentiate between policy and doctrine.

Then you don't understand the clearly stated position of the Church. Right, bcspace? Just for Themis' benefit, bcspace, will you lay out that clear position again? Will you post the references again from which we can logically demonstrate that the position of the Church is that literally everything in its publications is official doctrine?

LOL bcspace's position is his alone. Not the church's position.

[_bcspace]

Oh, awesome. So even the content of profiles on Mormon.org counts as official Church doctrine? You really are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Beware of context yes. That's just common sense. It goes like this, if something published in a doctrinal work has a disclaimer saying it's not doctrine or it's "my opinion", or "belongs to me" then the doctrine is that this thing is not doctrine or, someone's opinion, or belonging to someone else. Most people in the real world have no trouble navigating this but apparently gnat-straining pharisaical critics of the LDS Church do.

Oh, but will you show us again how the logic goes? Because there isn't a statement like this, "Everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine unless it says of itself it isn't or something else says of it that it isn't". So, how does the logic go again?

See above. Now how about your declarative statement rule?

Please use statements from official Church publications and show us again how those statements entail the conclusion that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine

Already have. See my second post up.

unless it says of itself it isn't or something else says of it that it isn't.

Real world common sense. If you want to know the policy or opinion of an organization, wouldn't you look at what that organization has said about itself? Do you disagree that continuing revelation/inspiration is official LDS doctrine?

Great, so it's official doctrine that the church isn't true. Thanks.

Feel free to provide the reference in context.

[_brade]

LOL bcspace's position is his alone. Not the church's position.

No, in a minute bcspace will hopefully consolidate his evidence into a nice valid argument for his view that the Church's view is that literally everything in its publications is official Church doctrine. We will then all be able to clearly see why we should believe that the position of the Church is that literally everything in its publications is official doctrine.

[_Themis]

Quite correct. You'll need to provide CFR now on how those signatures are required to be doctrine.

It's basic logic. Now provide your references here. I have yet to see you show that they all approve of the statement or other doctrinal claims made in all church publications. I would think you would already know that your assumptions don't count. Good luck.

Doesn't matter. The Church will not allow something it doesn't approve to be published or remain published in error.

Another unsubstantiated assumption.

The only requirement mentioned is publication.

Little over your head I guess. Again it does not meet it's own requirement.

Only partly true. It certainly is the way the Church has been operated for the last 40+ years.

Not really. It has been moving in that direction for some time due to many doctrinal claims being shown to be false.

Sure. Doctrine can change. I'm sure you'll accept that modern revelation/inspiration is official doctrine. That is why where ever there is conflict, latest date of publication Trump's.

There is no official doctrine, only doctrine. It may take more then one publication to reverse established doctrine, or at least a signed document from those two bodies saying as much.

I think it's possible some privately might disagree with something, but publicly they assent because it gets published.

Another unsubstantiated assumption. You sure like those as though they should be considered fact. I doub, but I know you will say they do. they have the same concept of what established doctrine as you.

All this would do is provide emphasis. Once again, there is no notion in the Church that official doctrine must either be signed or voted on by the Church.

Official is the new word which really is redundant and used as misdirection. In fact the word is fairly new one in the church in-regards to doctrine. Again I am using logic here in regards to a statement that we can't know who prepared or authorized it, so I does not even meet it's own requirements.

[_Jason Bourne]

On top of that, Jason's hypothesis puts the Church into conflict with itself which is not reasonable. One the one hand Jason says the doctrine is only the scriptures and on the other hand the Church says the doctrine is the publications.

And I see it's obvious that brade is still stung with the answer as to why Roberta is unhappy making the whole thing doctrinal.

I did not say it. Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B Lee and B H Roberts said it. Most apologists I know hold to the canon is paramount position. Many dismiss manuals.

Again I agree with you really. I just want the Church to make it more official than a news release.