Official Doctrine Irrelevance: Seriously, Guys!

[_Themis]

Yes, it states that the doctrine IS consistently proclaimed in official Church publications and gives no qualifications or exceptions so it all must be doctrine and that is exactly how the Church sees it.

That is not the same as saying everything published will be doctrine. They do not have to give qualifications. In fact they don't say everything in the four standard works is to be considered doctrine. Songs of Solomon come to mind.

Your Bishop and your Stake pres will tell you that. Any GA according to my long experience, and well before Approaching Mormon Doctrine, will also tell you that.

I did ask you to find a quote saying as such from a GA. Should be easy if what you say is correct. You can't even get believing members here to buy into it.

Does the Church publish that which is not doctrine without identifying it as such? When the Church says to keep the doctrine pure by using the official publications (Teaching, No Greater Call), can one use the official publications and still keep the doctrine pure if there are bits of unidentified or unqualified "non doctrine" floating around?

Church publications contain lots of things that are not doctrine, but may be policy, opinion on nonreligious subjects or subjects that are not bringing up core doctrines. I again ask you to find a GA saying that everything published is to be considered doctrine. Again I am not talking about false doctrine that the church would try to avoid or correct if it does get in. You seem not to get this.

[_Drifting]

God told the Mormon Prophet to use a proportion of the widows mite to secure important historical documents relating to the restoration of the Gospel.
God told the Mormon Apostles to explain the contents of these newly uncovered documents and how they support the beliefs of the Church about how the Gospel was restored.

Sadly, God forgot to mention to the Mormon Prophet, that Mr Hoffman was just having them on.

This is a specific, undeniable (for all but a few) example of Mormon Prophets believing God was speaking to them when if fact, he wasn't.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

When "Mormon Prophets" said any of these things, was it doctrine or opinion? There is a difference.

Was it published by the Church or not published by the Church? That is the answer to life, the universe, and everything on this issue. Critic and apologist alike are bound and limited to what the Church actually believes.

Totally, utterly, completely, incredibly irrelevant as to whether the Mormon Prophets are frauds.

[Guest]

Now show us where the church states everything published by the church is to be considered doctrine?

Yes, it states that the doctrine IS consistently proclaimed in official Church publications and gives no qualifications or exceptions so it all must be doctrine and that is exactly how the Church sees it.

Organic chemistry is taught in my organic chemistry textbook. Now look at the statement "Organic chemistry is taught in my organic chemistry textbook". That statement gives no qualifications or exceptions, therefore everything in my organic chemistry textbook must be organic chemistry.

Serioulsy bcspace? At least we finally have a clear instance of you failing to grasp the difference between saying X is in Y and everything in Y is X. Logic fail. Case closed.

[_SteelHead]

There seems to be a thread on this very topic over at the MAD board. Interestingly enough, even those mopologists can't agree on what constitutes official doctrine, and no one seems to agree with BC's definition. Imagine that.

[_Drifting]

There seems to be a thread on this very topic over at the MAD board. Interestingly enough, even those mopologists can't agree on what constitutes official doctrine, and no one seems to agree with BC's definition. Imagine that.

Gods spokesmans spokesperson confirmed the only places where you can find doctrine (see my sig. Line). All other publications are just people proclaiming or commenting on the doctrine from those sources.

[Guest]

Apologists have taught me that the Mormon prophet is just a guy with opinions, like a Pope, or a Christian Minister. By default, the things he says are his own opinion, subject to human error, unless he comes right out and says thus saith the lord unto me, and even then it could still just be his opinion if it embarrassing enough. Mormon teachings are filled with opinions from these guys. Like all religions, it is the philosophy of man mingled with scripture.

[_Themis]

Organic chemistry is taught in my organic chemistry textbook. Now look at the statement "Organic chemistry is taught in my organic chemistry textbook". That statement gives no qualifications or exceptions, therefore everything in my organic chemistry textbook must be organic chemistry.

Serioulsy bcspace? At least we finally have a clear instance of you failing to grasp the difference between saying X is in Y and everything in Y is X. Logic fail. Case closed.

+1

[_Sethbag]

When "Mormon Prophets" said any of these things, was it doctrine or opinion? There is a difference.

No there isn't.

[_Sethbag]

"Philosophy of man, mingled with scripture" is a redundant formulation.