Doctrine identified by publication confirmed in GC

[_bcspace]

How does the Savior reveal His will and doctrine to prophets, seers, and revelators? He may act by messenger or in His own person. He may speak by His own voice or by the voice of the Holy Spirit—a communication of Spirit to spirit that may be expressed in words or in feelings that convey understanding beyond words (see 1 Nephi 17:45; D&C 9:8). He may direct Himself to His servants individually or acting in council (see 3 Nephi 27:1–8).

I cite two illustrations from the New Testament.

........[The two examples are then given]

After Paul, Barnabas, and perhaps others spoke in support of Peter’s declaration, James moved that the decision be implemented by letter to the Church, and the council was united “with one accord” (Acts 15:25; see also verses 12–23).

.......

These same patterns are followed today in the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

http://www.LDS.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

Isn't a letter some form of publication?

Q.E.D.

[_bcspace]

bump

[_Buffalo]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23355

Your time is over.

[_lulu]

How does the Savior reveal His will and doctrine to prophets, seers, and revelators? He may act by messenger or in His own person. He may speak by His own voice or by the voice of the Holy Spirit—a communication of Spirit to spirit that may be expressed in words or in feelings that convey understanding beyond words (see 1 Nephi 17:45; D&C 9:8). He may direct Himself to His servants individually or acting in council (see 3 Nephi 27:1–8).

I cite two illustrations from the New Testament.

........[The two examples are then given]

After Paul, Barnabas, and perhaps others spoke in support of Peter’s declaration, James moved that the decision be implemented by letter to the Church, and the council was united “with one accord” (Acts 15:25; see also verses 12–23).

.......

These same patterns are followed today in the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

http://www.LDS.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

Isn't a letter some form of publication?

Q.E.D.

You mean like this? http://www.lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml

"The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure or unholy practice."

[_brade]

How does the Savior reveal His will and doctrine to prophets, seers, and revelators? He may act by messenger or in His own person. He may speak by His own voice or by the voice of the Holy Spirit—a communication of Spirit to spirit that may be expressed in words or in feelings that convey understanding beyond words (see 1 Nephi 17:45; D&C 9:8). He may direct Himself to His servants individually or acting in council (see 3 Nephi 27:1–8).

I cite two illustrations from the New Testament.

........[The two examples are then given]

After Paul, Barnabas, and perhaps others spoke in support of Peter’s declaration, James moved that the decision be implemented by letter to the Church, and the council was united “with one accord” (Acts 15:25; see also verses 12–23).

.......

These same patterns are followed today in the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

http://www.LDS.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

Isn't a letter some form of publication?

Q.E.D.

You mean like this? http://www.lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml

"The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure or unholy practice."

[_bcspace]

Even J Green on the MDD couldn't handle it. His argument was "consistent with doctrine" but he did not identify what doctrine was. He tried to bring in Millet, but there is the little matter of the podcast and Millet isn't the Church anyway. It is impossible to get away from official publication when defining LDS doctrine. Keep grinding those axes, it will avail you nothing.

[_lulu]

Even J Green on the MDD couldn't handle it. His argument was "consistent with doctrine" but he did not identify what doctrine was. He tried to bring in Millet, but there is the little matter of the podcast and Millet isn't the Church anyway. It is impossible to get away from official publication when defining LDS doctrine. Keep grinding those axes, it will avail you nothing.

You mean like this? http://www.lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml
"The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure or unholy practice."

bcspace, ignoring yet another question.

[_Jason Bourne]

Even J Green on the MDD couldn't handle it. His argument was "consistent with doctrine" but he did not identify what doctrine was. He tried to bring in Millet, but there is the little matter of the podcast and Millet isn't the Church anyway. It is impossible to get away from official publication when defining LDS doctrine. Keep grinding those axes, it will avail you nothing.

The OP is a grab at desperation.

But I agree with you BC. However, based on the thread at MD&D you are in the minority. Most apologist will not be held to the published mantra because it often does not suit their agenda (Nor will you in cases like the 19th century Deseret News or Millennial Star). You seem in the minority over there. I have been telling you this for some time.

[_bcspace]

Even J Green on the MDD couldn't handle it. His argument was "consistent with doctrine" but he did not identify what doctrine was. He tried to bring in Millet, but there is the little matter of the podcast and Millet isn't the Church anyway. It is impossible to get away from official publication when defining LDS doctrine. Keep grinding those axes, it will avail you nothing.

The OP is a grab at desperation.

No. But it is pointing out that which was ignored on the other thread and embarrassingly so I might add.

But I agree with you BC.

Almost everyone does by the way they handle it.

However, based on the thread at MD&D you are in the minority.

Church-wide, I am in the majority because most active LDS accept what the Church says about it's doctrine. Related to my statement immediately above, one might ask J Green, for example, how he knew something was "consistent with doctrine" and the answer is going to be, 9 times out of 10, an official publication that is not canon.

Most apologist will not be held to the published mantra because it often does not suit their agenda (Nor will you in cases like the 19th century Deseret News or Millennial Star).

Most is not true because of what I just stated, but the reason you offer is correct. That is why I place those apologists who disagree with the Church on this issue as "another side of the same coin" with anti Mormons. They both have axes to grind and pet theories to maintain and in order to do so, it requires one to deny the doctrine that exists.

They keep looking for a way around it, but the fact of the matter is that there is no line defined other than publication and disclaimer and so everything published must needs be doctrine.

You seem in the minority over there. I have been telling you this for some time.

Yes. Several times in this post alone. Doesn't matter to me. I will continue to take the Church's side and point out all the inconsistencies that occur when one doesn't.

[_Themis]

Isn't a letter some form of publication?

Are all forms of publications letters?