Christofferson's talk on doctrine

[_mms]

I thought of BC, too, and thought, "Man, that just blew BC's theory completely out of the water." In fact, Christofferson just put doctrine into the hands of the members at any given time. So, let's say back when Apostle Kimball said Native Americans were literally turning white as they accepted the Gospel, the membership thought he was speaking by the HG. Then it was doctrine. But if today, the members read Apostle Kimball's words from that 1960 General Conference and think he was NOT speaking by the HG, then it is not doctrine anymore. Doctrine is as most critics thought, completely unable to be defined and ever-changing.

[_Buffalo]

I thought of BC, too, and thought, "Man, that just blew BC's theory completely out of the water." In fact, Christofferson just put doctrine into the hands of the members at any given time. So, let's say back when Apostle Kimball said Native Americans were literally turning white as they accepted the Gospel, the membership thought he was speaking by the HG. Then it was doctrine. But if today, the members read Apostle Kimball's words from that 1960 General Conference and think he was NOT speaking by the HG, then it is not doctrine anymore. Doctrine is as most critics thought, completely unable to be defined and ever-changing.

But his talk on doctrine is still unofficial - until the Ensign comes out. Then bcspace's entire world view comes crashing down.

[_sock puppet]

For example, we don't sit in our homes with a special antennae hook up which absorbs the doctrine into our brains.

Really? I thought you believed in "the Spirit".

Instead, we read the magazines, we go to Church and get taught out of the manuals. We watch the videos, surf the web site, hand out the pamphlets, view the artwork, and sing the hymns.

Same modes and methods of any indoctrination. How mundane when you claim "the Spirit." I certainly prefer the appeal of special antennae hook ups which absorbs the doctrine into your brains.

When BKP says something crazy in Conference, it gets corrected in print.

Correlation sanitizes it all, even the Sr Apostle, so that it is palatable. Mary Poppins might have likened Correlation's fixing of BKP crazy statements to a "spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, the medicine go down, the medicine go down. A spoonful of sugar... ."

[_sock puppet]

Would it bother you if someone told you "I am only honest when I am acting as an honest person."?

Why or why not?

Zinger, zeezrom, zinger!

This slicing-and-dicing ought to extend even to temple recommend interviews.

'I am only a tithe payer on the money I earn while I am sitting in the temple recommend interviews.'

'I am morally clean since my last romp in the barn with Fanny.'

It is "the Church" founded by JSJr, isn't it?

[_Drifting]

I thought of BC, too, and thought, "Man, that just blew BC's theory completely out of the water." In fact, Christofferson just put doctrine into the hands of the members at any given time. So, let's say back when Apostle Kimball said Native Americans were literally turning white as they accepted the Gospel, the membership thought he was speaking by the HG. Then it was doctrine. But if today, the members read Apostle Kimball's words from that 1960 General Conference and think he was NOT speaking by the HG, then it is not doctrine anymore. Doctrine is as most critics thought, completely unable to be defined and ever-changing.

But his talk on doctrine is still unofficial - until the Ensign comes out. Then bcspace's entire world view comes crashing down.

Actually, from LDS.org, we don't have to wait too much longer...

Text will be available Thursday.

[_Jason Bourne]

While his talk was limited to the establishment of doctrine he did mention how a certain doctrine was disseminated and it happened to be by publication. No other method has been given. For example, we don't sit in our homes with a special antennae hook up which absorbs the doctrine into our brains.

Instead, we read the magazines, we go to Church and get taught out of the manuals. We watch the videos, surf the web site, hand out the pamphlets, view the artwork, and sing the hymns. When BKP says something crazy in Conference, it gets corrected in print. Publication remains the only way to identify doctrine and since it is the only way, everything published is doctrine unless it says otherwise. This is exactly how the Church itself treats it. It's merely common sense.

BC Please tell LDS FAQ that manuals contain doctrine.

[_brade]

Hi, BCspace, I still haven't seen you address my criticism. The sources you always bring up use the form 'Y is found in X'. Yet, you claim that something of the form 'Everything in X is Y' is true.
The latter form does not follow from the former.

Will you please address how you arrive at the latter from sources that state or imply the former? Again, using official material please present premises from which the conclusion is something of the form 'Everything in X is Y'. Go!

[_moksha]

Notice also that it continues to be established (quoting AoF 1:9 to that effect) whereas the canon is not increasing.

Safe assumption since the Proclamation on the Primacy of Brethren will not be written until 2028 and will not be repealed through revelation until 2070.

[_sock puppet]

... whereas the canon is not increasing.

Yeah. And you still buy into the 'continuing', 'ongoing' revelation myth?

[_bcspace]

But his talk on doctrine is still unofficial - until the Ensign comes out. Then bcspace's entire world view comes crashing down.

Actually, from LDS.org, we don't have to wait too much longer...

It's been published and I've been using it to show how it support's the Church's stance on doctrine. Notice that his humorous comment "Translate that!" has been removed.