BC's "Official Doctrine Defined" Mantra

[_Dwight Frye]

There's a good article about the newsroom statement here:

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

Was Robert L. Millet ordained an apostle? He seems to be quite the authority on what is and is not Mormon doctrine....

[_Inconceivable]

There's a good article about the newsroom statement here:

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

Was Robert L. Millet ordained an apostle? He seems to be quite the authority on what is and is not Mormon doctrine....

I don't think so. But perhaps he played one in a road show.

..or stayed at a Holiday Inn


Adam West ascerts his true identity to a cheap Batman knockoff.

[_Scottie]

Was Robert L. Millet ordained an apostle? He seems to be quite the authority on what is and is not Mormon doctrine....

I suppose no more than BC is. He seems to be quite the authority on what is and is not Mormon doctrine....

[_Pokatator]

bc "CFR" space

Just calls them like he sees them, and if he doesn't see them then he makes them up.

Just wanted to post my sig line.

[_cinepro]

Was Robert L. Millet ordained an apostle? He seems to be quite the authority on what is and is not Mormon doctrine....

It may be characteristic of CES personnel (and BYU religion teachers specifically) to view themselves as being inherently inline with the brethren when it comes to such things.

I'm sure they'd be shocked to find out that wasn't the case.

[_Jason Bourne]

Robert Millet seems to have had a similar experience after an inter-denominational fireside in which he was asked to expound on basic LDS doctrine:

“After the meeting, a Latter-day Saint woman came up to me and said, "You didn't tell the truth about what we believe!"

“Startled, I asked, "What do you mean?"

“She responded, "You said we believe in the virgin birth of Christ, and you know very well that we don't believe that."

"Yes, we do," I retorted.

“She then said with a great deal of emotion, "I want to believe you, but people have told me for years that we believe that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary and thereby Jesus was conceived."

“I looked her in the eyes and said, "I'm aware of that teaching, but that is not the doctrine of the Church; that is not what we teach in the Church today. Have you ever heard the Brethren teach it in conference? Is it in the standard works, the auricular materials, or the handbooks of the Church? Is it a part of an official declaration or proclamation?" I watched as a five-hundred-pound weight seemed to come off her shoulders, as tears came into her eyes, and she simply said, "Thank you, Brother Millet."

But did she say, no but I have read it by BY in the JoD, by Bruce McConkie in numerous books, I heard it taught in seminary and have read other GAs saying it and now I am really confused."

And of course I am sure were I to take the time this nugget could be found in some older LDS teaching manual somewhere.

[_TAK]

Sig worthy:

she simply said, "Thank you, Brother Millet."

[_bcspace]

I would suggest that LDS Doctrine Defined in BC's sig line is not "the Church's own definition". By it's own definition, this commentary is not a quote from the standard works, nor was it approved of by the FP/Q12.

The definition itself says that doctrine is proclaimed in official Church publications. The website is an official publication by definition.

[_bcspace]

Was Robert L. Millet ordained an apostle? He seems to be quite the authority on what is and is not Mormon doctrine....

I suppose no more than BC is. He seems to be quite the authority on what is and is not Mormon doctrine....

Except that BCSpace quotes actual doctrine more than Millet does. Oh wait, we saw in the recent MADB thread on the issue that Millet was only being selectively quoted and that Millet is actually closer to what the Church teaches about it's own doctrine than those apologists who use him to unnecessarily narrow the definition.

[_bcspace]

BCSpace's zealous allegiance to that "Commentary" is a little odd.

It is obviously meant to be a guideline for non-LDS journalists who are new to covering the Church, and find a multitude of different claims regarding Church doctrines in their research.

Until that article makes it into a Sunday School lesson (or is even referenced from the official Church website in a talk or other Church publication), it will remain hopelessly unofficial and unbinding.

So the standard for doctrine is different for journalists than it is for the membership? Sounds to me like someone's never taken a teacher preparation class, served a mission, or read the CHI book 2.