Seven Deadly Heresies Speech Is Now Doctrine

[_lulu]

Where we differ from bcspace is in his interpretation of the following statement: "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications."

How he gets that interpretation is a mystery. I see nowhere that it's state that everything in church publications is doctrine, only that doctrine can be found in them. We have asked him to explain how saying x(doctrine) is in Y(church publications) means everything in Y is X. Were still waiting.

"consistantly" Everything that is published in official Church publications is consistant with doctrine.

I don't think that's bcspace's biggest problem.

[_consiglieri]

What's funny is that, if what you claim is true, you still don't have half the understanding of doctrine that the average member has, then or now.

I think the average member would think the words of a senior apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ known throughout the church for his doctrinal and scriptural scholarship would be considered doctrine.

I also think the average member would look askance at BC's attempts to define doctrine out of existence, and wonder what church BC belongs to.

But what do I know?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

P.S. I think "The Seven Deadly Heresies" is the worst speech ever given by an LDS general authority.

The second worst was also given by Elder McConkie.

Anybody want to guess which talk I mean?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_mercyngrace]

P.S. I think "The Seven Deadly Heresies" is the worst speech ever given by an LDS general authority.

The second worst was also given by Elder McConkie.

Anybody want to guess which talk I mean?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hmmm. Based on past discussions, I'm betting you mean this one:

http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6843

[_Runtu]

I hope I'm wrong, but it appears that bcspace has followed his habit and cut and run. But just in case.

I will repeat my simple requests to bcspace:

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."

[_Runtu]

Hmmm. Based on past discussions, I'm betting you mean this one:

http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6843

That talk was given a few months before the beginning of my freshman year. It was a major topic of discussion, and the consensus was that it was a public humiliation for Pace. It seemed totally unnecessary and slightly sadistic to castigate the man in public.

Still nothing from bcspace. If he is true to form, he'll ignore this thread unless someone pesters him about it, at which point he'll tell us that the thread had nothing to do with how doctrine is defined and that responding to it would legitimize an erroneous, apostate belief.

[_Runtu]

Another interesting bit of information:

On the BYU speeches web site, speeches by non-Mormons or non-BYU faculty bear the copyright of the author. For example, Mark DeMoss's January 2012 speech, "Life's Two Big Questions," bears this copyright: "© Mark DeMoss. All rights reserved."

BYU professors, even on religious topics, bear a BYU copyright. For example, Dallan Moody's speech, "What Happens When Life Gets One Degree Colder?" bears the following copyright: "© Brigham Young University. All rights reserved."

With General Authorities, there are two possibilities:

1. No copyright. For example, Elder Patrick Kearon of the First Quorum of Seventy delivered a talk in February 2012 entitled "Messages of Love." It bears no copyright whatsoever, which likely indicates it was not reviewed by Correlation or hasn't yet been approved. If the church considered everything said by GAs to be its "intellectual property," then this talk should have a church/IRI copyright. But it doesn't.

2. IRI copyright. The vast majority of speeches by church leaders bear the IRI copyright. As I've explained, this copyright notice means that the speech has been through the Correlation process and is an official publication of the church. Those who would insist that they can pick and choose between official publications had better have a good reason to do so.

[_Kishkumen]

What I love about this board is that here one can learn the kinds of things one ought to have learned long ago through friendly sources, but obviously were never informed of.

Here we see an ex-Mormon and a current Mormon, both gentlemen who speak from experience, defining these things thoroughly and well, illustrating their point with clarity even, and the run-of-the-mill armchair apologist, who usually browbeats people with his overly simplistic understanding of every issue has flown the coop because he is clearly out of his depth.

It is the latter sort of person who dominates that hellhole known as MD&D. And that is why I refuse to waste my time on that place.

[_Buffalo]

Any minute now, bcspace will disappear from this thread, never to return.

Truly, I am God's prophet in these latter days.

[_Runtu]

What I love about this board is that here one can learn the kinds of things one ought to have learned long ago through friendly sources, but obviously were never informed of.

Here we see an ex-Mormon and a current Mormon, both gentlemen who speak from experience, defining these things thoroughly and well, illustrating their point with clarity even, and the run-of-the-mill armchair apologist, who usually browbeats people with his overly simplistic understanding of every issue has flown the coop because he is clearly out of his depth.

It is the latter sort of person who dominates that hellhole known as MD&D. And that is why I refuse to waste my time on that place.

This isn't personal, but I believe it's important to judge the church by its actual teachings and practices. The church has been clear about what constitutes current doctrine, and that is by the canon, proclamations, First Presidency statements, and the Articles of Faith. They have also been clear that church publications that have been through the Correlation process are doctrinally consistent.

What I find highly ironic is that the same person who insists that church publications are "doctrine" is now saying that only some church publications are doctrine, though he refuses to say how he determines which is which. Obviously, this isn't about what constitutes doctrine but rather an ad hoc attempt to wiggle out of the corner he's painted himself into.