Thank you. Believe me, I am not trying to be obstinate, but I have a couple of remarks. The Newsroom sounds official. And I really do look for a source that is reliable now and over time. But I see that the newsroom is "the official resource for news media, opinion leaders, and the public." I know next to nothing about the Newsroom. The article you linked to is identified as "commentary." I would hope for the people who present something as official doctrine, to be accountable. I should think they would append their names to their statements of official doctrine. I'm not saying I reject the Newsroom as an official source. I need to know more about it. I'd like to know who it was that decided to call the Newsroom, "official source". I'd like to know who write the "Commentary," and if they did so on their own initiative, and if they did so as a result of pondering and studying, or of praying and receiving inspiration, or of being assigned by someone who really is an "Authority". Is any of this information available?
The Church owns the site, therefore, it does not matter who the specific individual or individuals were. It's merely common sense to accept that the philosophy or doctrine or rules of an organization are exactly what they say they are.
When the publisher is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Not Bookcraft. Not BYU. Not the Deseret News. Etc.I totally accept that as your standard. No problem. It is a reasonable standard. But is that what the Church says? I mean, is that the official position, or is it one of a number of positions that individual Mormons can choose from?
Yes. See the above comment. Approaching Mormon Doctrine is simply a summary of what the Church has taught for decades.
I sincerely appreciate your boldness. Time and again I have been told by the most fervent of Mormons that the contents of the Ensign are "just that man's opinions. It's not church doctrine unless..." followed by some condition like voting or canonization. Thank you for your gutsy answer.
The only people I know who subscribe to this are a few misguided apologists and a few antiMormon critics.
I don't have an Ensign example of nondoctrinicity off the top of my head, but a similar example would be the Bible Dictionary which, though published by the Church, contains a statement in it's introduction that it is not to be used for doctrine:Well, dang it then, that undoes your statement above that if the Church publishes it, it is doctrine. Sometimes it isn't. And sometimes something is a doctrine that is never published as such. I've just been put back into the Frustration Zone.
I don't see why that should be. Such things are clearly delineated as in the example I gave. If a publication states that such and such is an opinion then the doctrine is that such and such is an opinion.
While I appreciate your explanations, I am pretty much in the same place as before. Different Church members have different ways to identify "official doctrine."
Everyone in every ward and stake I've been in seems to know what doctrine is as well as I do. Every Bishop, Stake President, Regional rep and GA seems to know as well. I've never met an active member face to face who sees it differently.