Blacks as slaves in heaven?

[_bcspace]

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine.
...
Approaching Mormon Doctrine

Call me rude, but this is a non-definition. The "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" is a double talk.

Not at all. The first bullet point just below defines doctrine as what's officially published.

[_Themis]

Not at all. The first bullet point just below defines doctrine as what's officially published.

Not true at all. It only states that doctrine will be consistently proclaimed in official publications, not that everything published is doctrine. I think you have to either be to stupid to see this is the case or are just trolling again. I tend to go with trolling, which is why I think you are being dishonest.

[_bcspace]

Not at all. The first bullet point just below defines doctrine as what's officially published.

Not true at all. It only states that doctrine will be consistently proclaimed in official publications, not that everything published is doctrine

Doesn't say nuggets of non doctrine are proclaimed therein. Can't use the publications to keep the doctrine pure if there exist unidentified nuggets of non doctrinal. Time to go see your Bishop.

[_Themis]

Doesn't say nuggets of non doctrine are proclaimed therein. Can't use the publications to keep the doctrine pure if there exist unidentified nuggets of non doctrinal. Time to go see your Bishop.

I see you again cannot show where they say what you assert. It's illogical to infer that everything published is doctrine just they don't mention that some information may not be doctrine. Again the only thing the news article state is that they will consistently publish what is doctrine in church publications. It is also illogical to infer this means everything published is doctrine, since that is not contained anywhere in the statement. I think you should man up and answer Brade's question that he broke down nicely into a mathematical model for you.

[_Runtu]

I see you again cannot show where they say what you assert. It's illogical to infer that everything published is doctrine just they don't mention that some information may not be doctrine. Again the only thing the news article state is that they will consistently publish what is doctrine in church publications. It is also illogical to infer this means everything published is doctrine, since that is not contained anywhere in the statement. I think you should man up and answer Brade's question that he broke down nicely into a mathematical model for you.

I've said before that bc's approach leads toward sacralizing church publications. Sort of a manuolatry, if you will.

[_bcspace]

I've said before that bc's approach leads toward sacralizing church publications. Sort of a manuolatry, if you will.

Whatever you call it, it's the approach the Church has taken for decades.

[_bcspace]

Doesn't say nuggets of non doctrine are proclaimed therein. Can't use the publications to keep the doctrine pure if there exist unidentified nuggets of non doctrinal. Time to go see your Bishop.

I see you again cannot show where they say what you assert. It's illogical to infer that everything published is doctrine just they don't mention that some information may not be doctrine.

It is not illogical to take the Church at it's word. If the Church publishes something and says it's not doctrine or it's opinion, then it's illogical to suppose it publishes something that is not doctrine without identifying it. Conversely, you can simply assume that the doctrine is that it's not doctrine when so identified.

Any GA will tell you the same as I've told you; that the publications are all doctrine. You don't see the Church disavowing any of it's publications do you? And many of the same "controversial" things have been published for so many years you'd think the Church would've removed the errors by now.

This IS the answer. It is the same type of answer you will get from any bishop, stake pres, or GA. It is the answer the Church has given you in plain and exemplary language. If you don't swim with it when speaking to most Mormons, you will not be speaking directly to them. Any attempt to go around this methodology is an attempt to blur the lines and create controversy that doesn't otherwise exist.

[_Samantabhadra]

And many of the same "controversial" things have been published for so many years you'd think the Church would've removed the errors by now.

Indeed, a reasonable man might be forgiven for thinking that LDS would have removed the errors by now...

[_Themis]

It is not illogical to take the Church at it's word.

You have yet to show the church making your assertion.

If the Church publishes something and says it's not doctrine or it's opinion, then it's illogical to suppose it publishes something that is not doctrine without identifying it.

That is not logical, just becuase one author or article says he/she is expressing opinion, that all other articles must then be doctrine.

Any GA will tell you the same as I've told you; that the publications are all doctrine.

Then it should be an easy task to quote a GA saying saying this. :)

You don't see the Church disavowing any of it's publications do you? And many of the same "controversial" things have been published for so many years you'd think the Church would've removed the errors by now.

I am not sure the church would correct all errors, but that is irrelevant. Many things contained in church publications have nothing to do with doctrine, but may involve other issues like policy, advice on issues not related to church doctrine, etc. There really is a number of things that would not fall into the doctrine category. I think members and leaders seem to understand this.

[_Drifting]

You don't see the Church disavowing any of it's publications do you? And many of the same "controversial" things have been published for so many years you'd think the Church would've removed the errors by now.

I am not sure the church would correct all errors, but that is irrelevant. Many things contained in church publications have nothing to do with doctrine, but may involve other issues like policy, advice on issues not related to church doctrine, etc. There really is a number of things that would not fall into the doctrine category. I think members and leaders seem to understand this.

The Church disavowing:
Reversing the Priesthood ban
The Journal of Discourse is not official
Removal of the racist parts of chapter headings in the Book of Mormon
Lamanites being literal, then principle, then merely among the ancestors of the NA
Mormon Doctrine should now not be in every home
Removal of elements and wording from temple ordinances
Hinckley saying 'it's not doctrinal'
Hinckley disavowing that we teach that God was once a man
Poelman's conference talk
Packers conference talk(s)
He was speaking as a man

And on...and on...and on....