What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_brade]

[_bcspace]

On top of that, Jason's hypothesis puts the Church into conflict with itself which is not reasonable. One the one hand Jason says the doctrine is only the scriptures and on the other hand the Church says the doctrine is the publications.

And I see it's obvious that brade is still stung with the answer as to why Roberta is unhappy making the whole thing doctrinal.

[_Buffalo]

Most apologists reject your position, for good reason.

I doubt it. And none of those who do have come up with an alternative.

The church has so much to lose if anything published in an official publication counts as doctrine.

It has nothing to lose as doctrine can change with new understanding and revelation.

Their standard is "whatever is embarassing now or contradicts an apologetic theory is not doctrinal." And there is no more revelation coming from the COB. Anything new that's coming out is coming from the apologists, but none of it is authortitative. Quite the pickle!

[Guest]

On top of that, Jason's hypothesis puts the Church into conflict with itself which is not reasonable. One the one hand Jason says the doctrine is only the scriptures and on the other hand the Church says the doctrine is the publications.

And I see it's obvious that brade is still stung with the answer as to why Roberta is unhappy making the whole thing doctrinal.

bcspace, there is doctrine behind why Roberta is unhappy. That she is unhappy is not official doctrine, except by the asinine, uncharitable, and logically unsupported view you're attributing to the Church. I think you're trolling.

Moar doctrine!

[_bcspace]

Their standard is "whatever is embarassing now or contradicts an apologetic theory is not doctrinal."

Perhaps only to those who are sun(stone)-kissed. But that's your world perhaps. FAIR and the MDB are by far not the only LDS apologia in the world.

[Guest]

bcspace, there is doctrine behind why Roberta is unhappy. That she is unhappy is not official doctrine, except by the asinine, uncharitable, and logically unsupported view you're attributing to the Church. I think you're trolling.

Is it true (according to the Church) that Roberta is unhappy? Did the Church publish it? It must be doctrine. I think you are straining at gnats and trying to blur the line. There is no negative effect for rejecting the nuance you ascribe to the Church which doesn't exist in any statement. There is potential negative effect by setting up such unwarranted nuances.

[_Yoda]

bcspace, there is doctrine behind why Roberta is unhappy. That she is unhappy is not official doctrine, except by the asinine, uncharitable, and logically unsupported view you're attributing to the Church. I think you're trolling.

OK...I am really lost. Who is Roberta?

[_bcspace]

OK...I am really lost. Who is Roberta?

brade is cherry-picking quotes from the Ensign and other publications. In this case, it was an Ensign article in which Roberta was not happy because she was not married to the father of her children, he was not a member, and she had basically abandon the goals she set earlier in life.

So yes, that Roberta was unhappy is official LDS doctrine though obviously not very important unless you look at the broader context which brade disingenuously did not.

[_subgenius]

I'm surprised that any LDS person would disagree with what the Church says about it's own doctrine. Everyone I talk to at Church in multiple wards and stakes understands it same the way I do. The GA's I occasionally have to meet with understand it this way. The principles have been around for a long long time. And yes, the press release is an official statement from the Church communicating it's stance. Despite unwarranted dismay and disbelief, most of you are adhering to it anyway.

brade is almost there. He just doesn't understand that his desired nuance opens up an ambiguity that just isn't extant in LDS thought and that is why even the little ticky tack things are doctrine. There is nothing stated by the Church regarding the types of sentences used and so one cannot get that nuanced without blurring the line between doctrine and non doctrine. Everything published is doctrine. You really can't drill down any further than what describes what's published is not doctrine. Gnats again.

honestly i think Brade is being more facetious than anything....
the only thing i seem to be misunderstanding from you is the statement that everything published by the Church is doctrine, when in fact, the Church explicitly states that is not the fact. The Doctrine one finds in the Ensign is not doctrine per se, but rather a restatement of the actual Doctrine which "resides" in the mentioned sources of sriptures, AoF, etc..

[_bcspace]

the only thing i seem to be misunderstanding from you is the statement that everything published by the Church is doctrine, when in fact, the Church explicitly states that is not the fact.

I do indeed say this (so does the Church) and I have yet to see any statement from the Church explicitly stating this is not the case.