What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_Themis]

What change would that be? Most intelectually honest people accept that if an organization has a website, then it reflects what that organization thinks. Not to mention the word "official" in the banner......

I really wish you would be intellectually honest here. The issue is not about official, but about whether everything in a church publication is to be considered doctrine. We have shown that the statement you use does not say this. You have yet to address this.

Why would the Church publish it then?

The church publishes a lot of things on a lot of different subjects, and some does conflict. Show where they say everything published should be considered doctrine unless otherwise stated. Why not back it up if you are so certain. If you are right it should be so simple to do, yet you don't.

It is actually you guys who are trying to move the posts by setting up a pardigm that you can control rather than accept what the Church says about itself.

This is a straw-man. We have never said that the church does not use it's publications to say what it wants about itself. We are only questioning your argument that the church intends everything it publishes to be considered doctrine.

[_Themis]

Again bcspace,

I've answered this already, in at least two different threads. Am not going back to it until you address it.

You haven't, but it is either going over your head or you just don't want to admit being wrong. Kinda funny wither way.

[Guest]

You haven't, but it is either going over your head or you just don't want to admit being wrong. Kinda funny wither way.

As long as you continue to reject what the Church says about it's own doctrine (and by publishing a qualification the Church certainly is saying something about it's own doctrine) then you will always be behind the curve when trying to address issues of LDS doctrine.

You and brade have been reduced to straining at gnats by giving examples that carry no doctrinal weight so I'm really not worried at all until you can come up with something that has an effect. You've not yet been able to apply your own hypothesis in the way I see that you could and that would conflict with the Church's notion of doctrine.

Plus most people on these two boards essentially agree with the Church's statement and have suborned themselves to the standard of publication whether they agree with the Church or not. The matter was settled in the Church long ago. It appears to be settled here now.

[_Themis]

You haven't, but it is either going over your head or you just don't want to admit being wrong. Kinda funny wither way.

As long as you continue to reject what the Church says about it's own doctrine (and by publishing a qualification the Church certainly is saying something about it's own doctrine) then you will always be behind the curve when trying to address issues of LDS doctrine.

Another straw-man. I am going to keep rubbing this one in your face until you can back up what is being asked of you. I do not reject what the church says about itself, only what you are trying to do here.

[_bcspace]

Another straw-man. I am going to keep rubbing this one in your face until you can back up what is being asked of you. I do not reject what the church says about itself, only what you are trying to do here.

Do what you will, it will have no effect. You've been well answered and now it's up to you to apply.

[_Themis]

Another straw-man. I am going to keep rubbing this one in your face until you can back up what is being asked of you. I do not reject what the church says about itself, only what you are trying to do here.

Do what you will, it will have no effect. You've been well answered and now it's up to you to apply.

Everyone here knows you will not answer this simple question. Tell yourself what ever you like. :)

[Guest]

Everyone here knows you will not answer this simple question.

What question have I not answered? Are you intellectually honest or not? It's not my fault you can't accept what the Church says about it's own doctrine.

[_Themis]

It only states that they will proclaim doctrine in church publications, not that everything in them will be doctrine.

You have yet to offer any good support for your view of what the Church's view is of official doctrine. Neither of the evidences from official Church publications that you've offered entail separately or together that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine unless it says of itself that it isn't or something else in an official Church publication says of it that it isn't. So, again, I ask you to offer some support for the view you're attributing to the Church, and please use statements from official Church publications.

Paging BCSpace.

I think most here know he will not answer this question. I suspect he has a large ego in regards to thinking of himself as some doctrinal guru, and knows his favorite argument has a serious flaw in it. As such he can't bring himself to admit to being wrong

[_bcspace]

I think most here know he will not answer this question. I suspect he has a large ego in regards to thinking of himself as some doctrinal guru, and knows his favorite argument has a serious flaw in it. As such he can't bring himself to admit to being wrong

Yep. Themis is intellectually dishonest. Publication is all there is for any organization and he can't bring himself to admit it.

[_Themis]

Everyone here knows you will not answer this simple question.

What question have I not answered? Are you intellectually honest or not? It's not my fault you can't accept what the Church says about it's own doctrine.

I just repeated it. Brade asks if fairly plainly and easy to understand. Why not go with that and we will see how you do.