The Church of the devil

[_Bazooka]

Meaningless. I'll be willing to bet you cannot find actual doctrine supporting your "I was not allowed to play with non member kids in my youth" rule.

As you seek to be a friend to others, do not compromise your standards. If your friends urge you to do things that are wrong, be the one to stand for the right, even if you stand alone. You may need to find other friends who will support you in keeping the commandments. Seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost as you make these choices.

"For The Strength Of Youth"

This would certainly seem to be guidance (published by the Church, therefore doctrine) that would be deemed to support the stance where a parent has determined on behalf of the child that their friends weren't appropriate.

[_subgenius]

Meaningless. I'll be willing to bet you cannot find actual doctrine supporting your "I was not allowed to play with non member kids in my youth" rule.

As you seek to be a friend to others, do not compromise your standards. If your friends urge you to do things that are wrong, be the one to stand for the right, even if you stand alone. You may need to find other friends who will support you in keeping the commandments. Seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost as you make these choices.

"For The Strength Of Youth"

This would certainly seem to be guidance (published by the Church, therefore doctrine) that would be deemed to support the stance where a parent has determined on behalf of the child that their friends weren't appropriate.

um, that particular "doctrine" is applicable to any parent/child regardless of church, faith, race, color, creed, or political affiliation.
What parent encourages their child to be friends with one which urges them to do what they consider as wrong?

You still have not responded to the original challenge of finding doctrine that promotes avoiding "non-members".
After all, you surely would concede that there are "members" which might encourage another to "do wrong"....correct?

[_Bazooka]

um, that particular "doctrine" is applicable to any parent/child regardless of church, faith, race, color, creed, or political affiliation.

Certainly seems to be doctrine rather than "doctrine"...
https://www.LDS.org/youth/article/q-and ... y?lang=eng

What parent encourages their child to be friends with one which urges them to do what they consider as wrong?

One that is trying to get their child to reactivate the one who isn't living Mormon Church standards.
I believe it's called the "Reach Out" programme or "The Rescue".

You still have not responded to the original challenge of finding doctrine that promotes avoiding "non-members".

Yet clearly, I have.

After all, you surely would concede that there are "members" which might encourage another to "do wrong"....correct?

I would also concede that there are members (as opposed to "members") who (as opposed to 'which') might (and indeed do) encourage all sorts of wrong behaviour.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bottom line is:
1. "For the strength of youth" is Church doctrine
2. "For the strength of youth" advises Church youth to avoid any non member who isn't deemed to be living Church standards
3. "For the strength of youth" encourages Church youth to 'sell' the Church to any non member friend who is deemed to be living church standards and so is acceptable as a friend and therefore a potential new source of income....erm...I mean convert.

Brother Beck: The world needs young people who understand the value of these blessings and how to qualify for them. There are many among your friends and your peers who are looking for an alternative to the world’s ways, who want true principles to build their lives upon. All they need is your example and testimony.

"sell, sell,sell!!!!!"

[_subgenius]

I would also concede that there are members (as opposed to "members") who (as opposed to 'which') might (and indeed do) encourage all sorts of wrong behaviour.

and with this your entire point is lost.
Member or not, either is irrelevant to whatever doctrine you are trying to infer as supporting your untenable position.
There is no church doctrine that states that a member should avoid non-members.
Even your own feeble citation does not specify anything about church affiliation.

You, as usual, rely on supposition and inference to construct some fantasy of a conclusion.
try again
actual doctrine, please...(at this point you could even offer "doctrine" if you prefer).

[_Bazooka]

I would also concede that there are members (as opposed to "members") who (as opposed to 'which') might (and indeed do) encourage all sorts of wrong behaviour.

and with this your entire point is lost.
Member or not, either is irrelevant to whatever doctrine you are trying to infer as supporting your untenable position.
There is no church doctrine that states that a member should avoid non-members.
Even your own feeble citation does not specify anything about church affiliation.

You, as usual, rely on supposition and inference to construct some fantasy of a conclusion.
try again
actual doctrine, please...(at this point you could even offer "doctrine" if you prefer).

For the hard of hearing subgenius...

The bottom line is:
1. "For the strength of youth" is Church doctrine
2. "For the strength of youth" advises Church youth to avoid any non member who isn't deemed to be living Church standards
3. "For the strength of youth" encourages Church youth to 'sell' the Church to any non member friend who is deemed to be living church standards and so is acceptable as a friend and therefore a potential new source of income....erm...I mean convert.

Which do you dispute and specifically why?

[_ZelphtheGreat]

Gordon Hinckley stated it well: "Tolerate your non Mormon neighbors".

While it may not be preached from the highest pulpits the idea of avoiding Non-LDS who won't convert is a practice in much of the LDS world. It goes to extremes of not even allowing your children to play with non-members children. In some places I lived in Utah homes were not sold to non LDS people.

Too many have exerienced the warm friendship and fellowshipping that immediately turned cold when those 'friends' found the person did not want to hear the Mormon message.

It is a sad way to live and almost criminal to teach children this is acceptable.

[_bcspace]

Meaningless. I'll be willing to bet you cannot find actual doctrine supporting your "I was not allowed to play with non member kids in my youth" rule.

As you seek to be a friend to others, do not compromise your standards. If your friends urge you to do things that are wrong, be the one to stand for the right, even if you stand alone. You may need to find other friends who will support you in keeping the commandments. Seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost as you make these choices.

"For The Strength Of Youth"

Once again, meaningless as such a qualification was not present in the original assertion. Every parent worth their salt is going to counsel or even forbid their children to find new friends if the current ones urge them to do things that are wrong.

What K&J is implying is that his/her father said he/she could not play because they were not LDS. There is no LDS doctrine for such.

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

Once again, meaningless as such a qualification was not present in the original assertion. Every parent worth their salt is going to counsel or even forbid their children to find new friends if the current ones urge them to do things that are wrong.

What K&J is implying is that his/her father said he/she could not play because they were not LDS. There is no LDS doctrine for such.

I'm not implying anything. I' m stating it outright.

This was common among LDS families here in the Salt Lake Valley when I was growing up. It doesn't matter if you consider it doctrine. There are a lot of things that we were taught growing up that you don't consider doctrine, but we were taught it and believed it as our parents did. I don't recognize the church you and the apologists describe. It certainly isn't the church I grew up in I think the actual practices and beliefs of actual members are more important than what official doctrine is.

Look at the butchering of the WoW, for example. If you asked the average member to describe it they would say it prohibits the use of tobacco, alcohol, tea, coffee and illegal drugs. That leaves a lot of stuff out and adds illegal drugs, when they were never mentioned in the WoW.

[_moksha]

I remember a school administration brouhaha from my grade school years involving a Catholic student and his use of the word "trespass" rather than "debt" when that Catholic student gave the recitation of the morning Lord's Prayer.

The final ruling was that he could continue to do so unimpeded at my Utah elementary school.

[_subgenius]

For the hard of hearing subgenius...

The bottom line is:
1. "For the strength of youth" is Church doctrine
2. "For the strength of youth" advises Church youth to avoid any non member who isn't deemed to be living Church standards
3. "For the strength of youth" encourages Church youth to 'sell' the Church to any non member friend who is deemed to be living church standards and so is acceptable as a friend and therefore a potential new source of income....erm...I mean convert.

Which do you dispute and specifically why?

#1 specifically
The Chiurch clearly states that FSY is a booklet of standards and while Doctrine is the genesis of those standards, the standards themselves are not Doctrine. Nevertheless, there is no "standard" specific against non-members nor is there a generic non-member condemnation in any Church Doctrine.
#2 specifically
It is not church doctrine to avoid any "non-member", but rather any person...thus inclusive of non-member and member alike.
You are trying to claim that the church has doctrine specific against "non-members" but you can not provide the actual doctrine...you re-write, re-phrase, and flat-out deceive in order to claim that it does.
A similar strategy for me would be to insist that your list of items above actually has #4 and that #4 states "For the strength of youth recommends fried chicken", even though anyone can read and know that you listed only 3.
#3 specifically
FSY does not encourage any selling of the church nor promote that the youth seek income.

as usual your post relies on deception and confusion as a means to poison <----and that is the actual bottom line.