What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_consiglieri]

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.

The planet part is also published in an official church publication called the Journal of Discourses.

It was Brigham Young who said it.

Only he said "world."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_bcspace]

The planet part is also published in an official church publication called the Journal of Discourses.

The JoD, not being published by the Church, is not a doctrinal work.

[_consiglieri]

The JoD, not being published by the Church, is not a doctrinal work.

It's a good thing nobody ever sustained Brigham Young as a prophet or anything.

[_bcspace]

The JoD, not being published by the Church, is not a doctrinal work.

It's a good thing nobody ever sustained Brigham Young as a prophet or anything.

It's too bad for you that even BY would disagree with your definition of doctrine but instead would beg for a chance to review his statements before declaring them to be official. D&C 107 from way back in 1835 also stands in your way.

[_Droopy]

The JoD, not being published by the Church, is not a doctrinal work.

It's a good thing nobody ever sustained Brigham Young as a prophet or anything.

Which is, of course, irrelevant, as the mantel of prophet is governed by laws, rules, and demarcation lines as to authority and scope.

[_Themis]

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.

I see bcspace is still running away from the issue as usual. I honestly suspected he would never admit being wrong.

[_bcspace]

I see bcspace is still running away from the issue as usual. I honestly suspected he would never admit being wrong.

Not even close. Even the muscle bound Primary pic of Captain Moroni is doctrine (you should check out the writing on the back sometime).

[_brade]

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.

And, again, you haven't addresses the criticisms of the evidence you offered as support of the position you defend. Those statements do not imply the position you attribute to the Church.

bcspace, we can clear this up very easily:

(1) Saying that X is in Y is to say that everything in Y is X.

(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.

Is (1) true or false?

Is (2) true or false?

[_Themis]

I see bcspace is still running away from the issue as usual. I honestly suspected he would never admit being wrong.

Not even close. Even the muscle bound Primary pic of Captain Moroni is doctrine (you should check out the writing on the back sometime).

Then why continue to avoid my and Brade's question regarding it. Man up.

[_bcspace]

Then why continue to avoid my and Brade's question regarding it. Man up.

I've not avoided the question. I merely answered it in a way that gives you no traction which is why you're upset. More rational people seem to understand so I'm not worried about it.