What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_Themis]

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.

CFR. Another straw-man about something I never said.

[_BartBurk]

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.

Let's try an example.

Suppose the Elder's Quorum President was teaching that he didn't believe that God had a Father, but that was only his personal opinion. What would you do if you were the Stake President in charge of the guy?

[_bcspace]

Let's try an example.

Kudos. Someone more intellectually honest than brade or Themis.

Suppose the Elder's Quorum President was teaching that he didn't believe that God had a Father, but that was only his personal opinion. What would you do if you were the Stake President in charge of the guy?

If the notion that God has a Father is in a published work of the Church, I would correct his opinion to fact. Otherwise, I would let him be.

[_Themis]

Let's try an example.

Kudos. Someone more intellectually honest than brade or Themis.

Suppose the Elder's Quorum President was teaching that he didn't believe that God had a Father, but that was only his personal opinion. What would you do if you were the Stake President in charge of the guy?

If the notion that God has a Father is in a published work of the Church, I would correct his opinion to fact. Otherwise, I would let him be.

Stop lying about Brade and I. Bart is not asking of you what we have been. Start addressing that for once. Where do they state that everything published in official church publications is to be considered doctrinal. Even the statement says what they do proclaim has to be consistently proclaimed.

[_BartBurk]

Let's try an example.

Kudos. Someone more intellectually honest than brade or Themis.

Suppose the Elder's Quorum President was teaching that he didn't believe that God had a Father, but that was only his personal opinion. What would you do if you were the Stake President in charge of the guy?

If the notion that God has a Father is in a published work of the Church, I would correct his opinion to fact. Otherwise, I would let him be.

Well, King Follett has been published by the church so I guess it's doctrine no matter how often I see some LDS claiming that it isn't.

[_bcspace]

Stop lying about Brade and I.

Liar! Heathen!

Start addressing that for once. Where do they state that everything published in official church publications is to be considered doctrinal.

Already answered, even in today's posts in this thread.

Even the statement says what they do proclaim has to be consistently proclaimed.

No, it says it IS consistently proclaimed in official publications. Perhaps that is why you're having trouble.

[_bcspace]

If the notion that God has a Father is in a published work of the Church, I would correct his opinion to fact. Otherwise, I would let him be.

Well, King Follett has been published by the church so I guess it's doctrine no matter how often I see some LDS claiming that it isn't.

Sure. As long as you're not misunderstanding any context under which it may have been published such as for historical reference.

[_Themis]

Liar! Heathen!

Your the one making false statements.

Already answered, even in today's posts in this thread

I have yet to see you do this. Why not Answer the question in your next post. Seems easy enough.

No, it says it IS consistently proclaimed in official publications. Perhaps that is why you're having trouble.

So another words if something is not consistently proclaimed in church publications it would then not be considered doctrine. Interesting. :)

Still waiting to see where they say everything published is to be considered doctrine. Such a simple question for you to be dodging it for so long.

[_bcspace]

Already answered, even in today's posts in this thread

I have yet to see you do this.

I know you see it. But it's not the kind of answer that you want and shows how the Church can say something in other ways which is why you rail.

No, it says it IS consistently proclaimed in official publications. Perhaps that is why you're having trouble.

So another words if something is not consistently proclaimed in church publications it would then not be considered doctrine.

No. A qualification is not being made here, just a statement of fact and more evidence that everything published is doctrine.

[_Themis]

[quote="bcspace"]

Still waiting.