What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_brade]

An example is the latest discussion asking you to support that everything published in church publications is to be considered doctrine by the church.

Already addressed. It apparently wasn't pleasing to you. It will never come in the form brade stipulates, and being intellectually dishonest, you and brade deny it's existence.

Ok, everyone, let's recap. The two bits of evidence bcspace has offered for the view he attributes to the Church do not imply that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine. Anyone familiar with elementary logic should be able to grasp that. Now bcspace has told us that the view that he attributes to the Church "will never come in the form [ I ] stipulate."

So just to be clear, I stipulate that to reasonably conclude that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine we would need some official statements that either (1) explicitly state that, or (2) imply it. And again, bcspace's only offered evidence so far does not imply it, and he hasn't offered any evidence that explicitly states it; even better, he now tells us it will never come.

[_bcspace]

OK...it has been a week, and I am officially de-stickying this thread.

BC...You won your Goddess Suite party.

Cheese cake it is! :-)

Sweet! I have already provided some music from the Song of Solomon thread (on the other board). Other good music is welcome.

Everyone knows you have not dealt with it. This is why you keep avoiding this issue. Again I said all you have to do is post what you think addresses it in your next post. If you are really not trolling I see no reason for you not to.

I referenced both Approaching Mormon Doctrine and Teaching, No Greater Call when I did (several times) and showed you the only logical, rational, and consistent manner to look at it, which is how the Church looks at it. Instead of addressing it, all you did was moan and complain. The key to the whole issue is not what the Church has said, but what the Church has NOT said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI

[Guest]

I referenced both Approaching Mormon Doctrine and Teaching, No Greater Call when I did (several times) and showed you the only logical, rational, and consistent manner to look at it, which is how the Church looks at it. Instead of addressing it, all you did was moan and complain. The key to the whole issue is not what the Church has said, but what the Church has NOT said.

And I showed you why neither of those bits of evidence imply separately or together that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine.

liz, I'm curious, do you believe that

(1) saying that X is in Y is to say that everything in Y is X,

and

(2) saying that teaching from Y ensures that pure X will be taught is the same as saying that everything in Y is pure X?

[_Themis]

I referenced both Approaching Mormon Doctrine and Teaching, No Greater Call when I did (several times) and showed you the only logical, rational, and consistent manner to look at it, which is how the Church looks at it. Instead of addressing it, all you did was moan and complain. The key to the whole issue is not what the Church has said, but what the Church has NOT said.

And I showed you why neither of those bits of evidence imply separately or together that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine.

I concur with Brade. Why not post the parts you think support your assertion? Until you do I can only conclude trolling or stupidity.

[_brade]

The key to the whole issue is not what the Church has said, but what the Church has NOT said.

Hey, I agree with you there, bcspace. So far you haven't offered anything that implies the view you're defending, and you haven't offered anything that explicitly states it. Nice.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

I've looked at the link provided by bcspace, and I would have to say it is a good summary of what I would call solid Mormon doctrine. I have not found anything there that would regarding the idea that God the Father has a Father which I think is the main idea most Christians find troubling. If this is the summary of Mormon doctrine it seems to be, it looks as if that particular idea is not considered to be essential doctrine.

But I was taught that God once had a mortal father and that I could someday be a God. Was I just an unfortunate member being taught false teachings?

[_bcspace]

But I was taught that God once had a mortal father and that I could someday be a God. Was I just an unfortunate member being taught false teachings?

Nope. All true teachings and official LDS doctrine. Look back a page where I give the link to the Gospel Principles manual and look at the end of chapter 47.

[_bcspace]

The key to the whole issue is not what the Church has said, but what the Church has NOT said.

Hey, I agree with you there, bcspace. So far you haven't offered anything that implies the view you're defending, and you haven't offered anything that explicitly states it. Nice.

When you come across a statement to the effect of "all official publications are doctrine except [list of official publications]", let me know. Until you do, the only thing left to do is take the Church at it's word when it qualifies something in a publication as not doctrine or opinion or history etc.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

But I was taught that God once had a mortal father and that I could someday be a God. Was I just an unfortunate member being taught false teachings?

Nope. All true teachings and official LDS doctrine. Look back a page where I give the link to the Gospel Principles manual and look at the end of chapter 47.

So this Mormon Defense League or Mormonvoices state that nowhere can it be found on LDS.org that man can achieve Godhood and rule his own planet, yet this is what I was taught. Has a Prophet of God provided clarification of wrong teachings if they exist, or it supposed to just fade away?

[_bcspace]

So this Mormon Defense League or Mormonvoices state that nowhere can it be found on LDS.org that man can achieve Godhood and rule his own planet

The planet part is what makes it not doctrine. While not implausible, it's a bit of a yellow journalistic addition by the critics to make it sound strange or far fetched relative to the rest of Christianity. If they are also referring to man attaining Godhood, they are wrong as even the Bible itself teaches the Deification of Man; not to mention it's expressly stated as official LDS doctrine.

And indeed when I look at the link you provided, this seems to be the case; yellow journalism. The article is correct in that nowhere is it stated in our doctrine that we can become "gods of our own planets".