Seven Deadly Heresies Speech Is Now Doctrine

[_Runtu]

I don't have much interest in the polemical aspect of apologetics either. But I do find a kind of utility in following the overall discussion because I enjoy challenging my own assumptions and perspectives.

Same here. I've learned a lot from people on both sides of things over the years. I've even changed my mind a few times, once in a really big way.

Send me a PM, and let's figure out when we can meet.

[_Morley]

Great thread.

[_J Green]

Runtu,

I sent a PM but it appears to be stuck in my Outbox or something.

You can reach me at joey.green@us.army.mil

Cheers.

[_beefcalf]

J Green,

The PM will stay in your outbox until Runtu next logs in to Mormon Discussions.

[_J Green]

J Green,

The PM will stay in your outbox until Runtu next logs in to Mormon Discussions.

Hey, thanks!

[_bcspace]

I agree. I've long felt that it's not fair to pin beliefs on the church that the church doesn't actually teach,

This is where the Church disagrees with you both (in addition to the IRI fiasco Runtu put up). Being published means the Church teaches it. The Church itself has a program to ensure that the doctrine is taught and clearly defines what it is and is very careful to make sure the members know it. The only way for members to not know this is for members to not have served and/or not be active.

The most honest thing to do is if you don't agree with the doctrine is to just say you don't agree with the doctrine, not change the paradigm of truth and say it's not doctrine.

[_beefcalf]

I agree. I've long felt that it's not fair to pin beliefs on the church that the church doesn't actually teach,

This is where the Church disagrees with you both (in addition to the IRI fiasco Runtu put up). Being published means the Church teaches it. The Church itself has a program to ensure that the doctrine is taught and clearly defines what it is and is very careful to make sure the members know it. The only way for members to not know this is for members to not have served and/or not be active.

The most honest thing to do is if you don't agree with the doctrine is to just say you don't agree with the doctrine, not change the paradigm of truth and say it's not doctrine.

What's all this?

Doctrine are those teachings the church publishes.

The Church published Bruce R. McConkies speech, clearly making it doctrine.

Bruce R. McConkies speech clearly contradicts your position that the gospel and organic evolution can harmonized

Help me out here. I'm not trying to be contentious, I just cannot see how you can continue to believe that evolution can be made to fit within the framework of official Mormon doctrine.

[_Runtu]

I agree. I've long felt that it's not fair to pin beliefs on the church that the church doesn't actually teach,

This is where the Church disagrees with you both (in addition to the IRI fiasco Runtu put up).

So, you think it is fair to pin beliefs on the church that the church doesn't actually teach. LOL. It's not our fault that you don't understand the significance of an IRI publication.

Being published means the Church teaches it.

Correct so far.

The Church itself has a program to ensure that the doctrine is taught and clearly defines what it is and is very careful to make sure the members know it.

That would be Correlation. When something has been through Correlation, it bears an IRI copyright.

The only way for members to not know this is for members to not have served and/or not be active.

We know that. You, on the other hand, glibly dismiss correlated, official church publications as non-doctrinal. Don't blame us. J Green and I both agreed that when the church publishes something official (with the IRI copyright), it is doctrinal.

The most honest thing to do is if you don't agree with the doctrine is to just say you don't agree with the doctrine, not change the paradigm of truth and say it's not doctrine.

We're not the ones insisting that some official church publications are doctrinal and others aren't. That would be you.

I will repeat my simple requests to you:

1. Explain how you determine which official church publications are doctrine and which are not. Official publications are those bearing the IRI copyright.
2. Find a current official church publication that bears a copyright of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

[_Jason Bourne]

This is where the Church disagrees with you both (in addition to the IRI fiasco Runtu put up). Being published means the Church teaches it. The Church itself has a program to ensure that the doctrine is taught and clearly defines what it is and is very careful to make sure the members know it. The only way for members to not know this is for members to not have served and/or not be active.

The debate you had or maybe are still having and MDD shows that you are being dishonest about this. Active members clearly disagree as to what constitutes doctrine. Apologists that you hang with on message boards disagree with you. Are they not active? Do they not serve. This is again as dishonest of you as are your claims that most active members you know are aware of controversial issues such as Helen Mar Kimball's marriage to Joseph.

You know BC I never thought you lied but I am starting to wonder.

The most honest thing to do is if you don't agree with the doctrine is to just say you don't agree with the doctrine, not change the paradigm of truth and say it's not doctrine

Sort of like what you do when confronted with LDS publications that teach something you disagree with. Like Adam God being published by the 19th century Church owned Deseret News and Millennial Star, the two official organs of the Church at that time.

[_Drifting]

Official publications of the Church are going to identified as intellectual property by the IRI, but not everything the IRI identifies as intellectual property is an official publication of the Church.