Doesn't matter who actually wrote or if it was a group of persons or an individual. It's published on an official site.
If we claim to be in a church that is led by a prophet who is be able to receive revelation from God then to establish the definition of doctrine by anonymous quotes on "official sites" brings up the question of why such prophets are even necessary.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Doesn't matter who actually wrote or if it was a group of persons or an individual. It's published on an official site.
If we claim to be in a church that is led by a prophet who is be able to receive revelation from God then to establish the definition of doctrine by anonymous quotes on "official sites" brings up the question of why such prophets are even necessary.
Why would the Church allow something false about a matter so great to stay up so long on an official site? No one has signed the manuals used to teach the doctrines of the Church either. Where has the Church stated that a signature is required for doctrine? The fact of the matter remains that:
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.
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.
That does not suggest that everything in said publications is doctrine.
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.
That does not suggest that everything in said publications is doctrine.
bcspace wrote:Doesn't matter who actually wrote or if it was a group of persons or an individual. It's published on an official site.
bcspace wrote:Why would the Church allow something false about a matter so great to stay up so long on an official site? No one has signed the manuals used to teach the doctrines of the Church either. Where has the Church stated that a signature is required for doctrine? The fact of the matter remains that: "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."
What function does a prophet serve when he issues an anonymous statements defining what constitutes "official doctrine"? No one expects him to sign every church related piece of paper, but certainly an issue of this import deserves more authority than anonymity.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
That does not suggest that everything in said publications is doctrine.
Sure it does. The doctrine IS consistently published first of all. Notice that consistent is not a qualifier here, it is a statement of fact. Second, there are no exceptions listed, anywhere, not even in Teaching, No Greater Call.
The only conclusion one can honestly come to is that you should take the Church's word as to what is and is not doctrine. The published material will tell you if something being taught is not doctrine. That's exactly the way the Church sees it and it's exactly the way most people, when they look at any organization, treat it. There is no guessing involved here.
bcspace wrote: Sure it does. The doctrine IS consistently published first of all. Notice that consistent is not a qualifier here, it is a statement of fact. Second, there are no exceptions listed, anywhere, not even in Teaching, No Greater Call.
This must be going way over your head. Stating that doctrine is going to be published is not the same as saying all things published are to be considered doctrine. No one is arguing that the church is not going to try and make sure things are accurate as to what church's position is, not they also are going to feel that they have to be held to everything that is said in every publication. They have already said not everything said is doctrine. Many of the issues covered just involve policies, opinion, etc.