Seven Deadly Heresies Speech Is Now Doctrine

[_bcspace]

I had the same formal training that J Green did when I worked at the Church Office Building. I'm not sure what you find funny about that.

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.

And, we're still waiting for a reference that this article is now published by the Church. I do see at least three references to it in Church publications, but the proof must be left to the student here since the student is the one making the claims.

by the way, I get to do the 5th Sunday lesson on the very subject of doctrine in one of the Wards this month. I'm taking bets on whether or not someone will disagree with me or call me out or if I get corrected or released by higher authority.

When you understand the difference between intellectual property and doctrine, let me know.

[_DarkHelmet]

Do you honestly believe the Church says "Teach the Doctrine" and yet has no doctrine?

The critics have been asking the apologists this question for years.

[_bcspace]

Do you honestly believe the Church says "Teach the Doctrine" and yet has no doctrine?

The critics have been asking the apologists this question for years.

The average member of the Church is a better apologist than those you've been asking.

[_bcspace]

[url]Actually, I did quote you, hence the quotation marks.[/url]

A small quote surround by your inaccurate conclusions made up to look like they are mine.

And since you're too lazy to look up the speech,

http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6770

Once again, not published by the Church. Difference between intellectual property and doctrine. IRI deals with the former.

[_Buffalo]

I had the same formal training that J Green did when I worked at the Church Office Building. I'm not sure what you find funny about that.

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.

And, we're still waiting for a reference that this article is now published by the Church. I do see at least three references to it in Church publications, but the proof must be left to the student here since the student is the one making the claims.

by the way, I get to do the 5th Sunday lesson on the very subject of doctrine in one of the Wards this month. I'm taking bets on whether or not someone will disagree with me or call me out or if I get corrected or released by higher authority.

When you understand the difference between intellectual property and doctrine, let me know.

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

[_Runtu]

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.

Two church employees have explained to you how we were trained in our work as to the definition of doctrine and how it is disseminated. That you choose to ignore both of us in favor of a strained interpretation of a press release is not my problem. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

And, we're still waiting for a reference that this article is now published by the Church. I do see at least three references to it in Church publications, but the proof must be left to the student here since the student is the one making the claims.

I have posted the copyright statement at the bottom of the article, which is an IRI copyright. As I noted, if it's an IRI copyright, it's been through Correlation and is published by the church. I can't say I'm all that surprised that you didn't know that.

Why don't you find me something current the church has published that bears a copyright with "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? If official doctrine is to be found with that copyright, it shouldn't be difficult.

by the way, I get to do the 5th Sunday lesson on the very subject of doctrine in one of the Wards this month. I'm taking bets on whether or not someone will disagree with me or call me out or if I get corrected or released by higher authority.

I doubt anyone will. Why would they? Nobody cares about this except you, and the only reason I bring it up at all is because it annoys me that some people might actually think you know what you're talking about.

[_Buffalo]

http://www.LDS.org/legal/terms?lang=eng

Trademarks

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Liahona,” “Book of Mormon,” and “Mormon” are trademarks of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

http://www.LDS.org/liahona?lang=eng

© 2012 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.

[_DarkHelmet]

The average member of the Church is a better apologist than those you've been asking.

Really? Because the average member of the church would agree with McConkies 7 Deadly Heresies talk. The average member believes that when a prophet proclaims something, it is as if the Lord himself said it. The average member believes all Native Americans are Lamanites. In fact, the average Mormon has no idea that there are "issues" with the church and its history and if you mention something controversial, such as Joseph Smmith married a 14-year old, they will tell you not to believe everything you read on the internet.

[_bcspace]

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

We'll probably have to wait a looooong time before anyone can come up with anything new to try and get around the Church's stance on doctrine.

[_Runtu]

http://www.LDS.org/legal/terms?lang=eng

Trademarks

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Liahona,” “Book of Mormon,” and “Mormon” are trademarks of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

http://www.LDS.org/liahona?lang=eng

© 2012 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.

Yup. If it's an IRI publication, it's an official publication of the church.