Meaningless. Outside legal definitions also do not doctrine make nor do they say, as you have now admitted, who published them. They merely state who is responsible for them in a legal sense. Unless of course you can find a Church statement otherwise. Same for IRI. The Church merely gives publication as the standard. it says nothing about the IRI stamp.
Amen. Also published by the Church which fact alone makes it doctrine.
Assuming that you really are a believing Mormon, from what I've seen on this thread, I've known stake presidents in my day that, if they knew you had these real strong opinions about church doctrine, would more or less tell you you had to "put a lid on it" to other people in the stake, or else you would be invited to a "court of love" to get your twisted thinking straightened out.
Amen. Also published by the Church which fact alone makes it doctrine.
Assuming that you really are a believing Mormon, from what I've seen on this thread, I've known stake presidents in my day that, if they knew you had these real strong opinions about church doctrine, would more or less tell you you had to "put a lid on it" to other people in the stake, or else you would be invited to a "court of love" to get your twisted thinking straightened out.
My SP knows all opinions of mine on doctrine that I have stated here. He agrees with the Church definition of doctrine as well as I do. In fact, I did a 5th Sunday lesson in one of the wards not too long ago on that very subject.
He knows my stance on evolution (most of the members do too since I speak up on it publically when someone else bashes evolution in Church) and he knows I reject a global Flood. by the way, I also do TR interviews in this same Stake.
Meaningless. Outside legal definitions also do not doctrine make nor do they say, as you have now admitted, who published them. They merely state who is responsible for them in a legal sense. Unless of course you can find a Church statement otherwise. Same for IRI. The Church merely gives publication as the standard. it says nothing about the IRI stamp.
Your entire string of circular and self-contradictory assertions rests on who is responsible for a given statement in a legal sense.
So, how's it going coming up with any current LDS material that is not copyrighted or published by Intellectual Reserve, Inc.?
bcspace wrote:My SP knows all opinions of mine on doctrine that I have stated here. He agrees with the Church definition of doctrine as well as I do. In fact, I did a 5th Sunday lesson in one of the wards not too long ago on that very subject.
He knows my stance on evolution (most of the members do too since I speak up on it publically when someone else bashes evolution in Church) and he knows I reject a global Flood. by the way, I also do TR interviews in this same Stake.
by the way, I also do TR interviews in this same Stake.
So if someone tells you in the interview that he/she is a Democrat, do you deny the recommend?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
by the way, I also do TR interviews in this same Stake.
So if someone tells you in the interview that he/she is a Democrat, do you deny the recommend?
There is no specific injunction against it. However, the instructions are that it is a self-certification so generally I wouldn't. Locally, we have denied TR's to known and confessed supporters of Planned Parenthood (supporting abortion, sex education methodology that encourages children to experiment with sex and have sex with adults, etc.) and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. I personally would deny one to Harry Reid and I wouldn't have to say it's because he's a Democrat. I would simply point out things like his rant on the capitol steps against those who support the Marriage Amendment on the same day a representative from the Church was there to put the Church's name in support of it.
