Blacks as slaves in heaven?

[_bcspace]

It is true I don't make LDS doctrine (pending publication of my evolution hypothesis in the Ensign)

I think most people here would applaud you if you manage to achieve this. I, for one, would read it with interest. And then come here and ask about it!

Let us know if you get published before Schryver!

Am not even trying to publish it. LDS doctrine does not need to change in order for evolution to be compatible with it. But it would make excellent commentary. I brought it up to illustrate that it is possible for me or you (much less likely) to make official LDS doctrine.

[_Drifting]

Am not even trying to publish it. LDS doctrine does not need to change in order for evolution to be compatible with it. But it would make excellent commentary. I brought it up to illustrate that it is possible for me or you to make official LDS doctrine.

You should put it forward.
You and I and, it seems, Elder Jensen, all know that things like the Ensign need more substantial, thought provoking content.

[_bcspace]

You should put it forward.
You and I and, it seems, Elder Jensen, all know that things like the Ensign need more substantial, thought provoking content.

Sure. Would still have to be doctrine unless otherwise noted. But the Church does not want anyone confused about doctrine (hence the exceedingly simple guidelines for it) and some might forget there was a qualification.

[_Themis]

People bring their confusion with them; sometime willfully as in your case.. The Church has made it simple. If it's published by the Church, it's doctrine.

And yet you still can't show where they state this. Seems simple enough. LOL still waiting

[_bcspace]

And yet you still can't show where they state this.

Done. Multiple times. Even Brade had to admit it though he can't accept the answer because it ruins the chestnut he was preparing. Same with you.

[_Themis]

And yet you still can't show where they state this.

Done. Multiple times. Even Brade had to admit it though he can't accept the answer because it ruins the chestnut he was preparing. Same with you.

I think you know you are being dishonest again. Where has Brade admitted you answered this question. Post where you address this. It's telling that every-time we ask, you don't link anything. LOL

[_bcspace]

Done. Multiple times. Even Brade had to admit it though he can't accept the answer because it ruins the chestnut he was preparing. Same with you.

I think you know you are being dishonest again. Where has Brade admitted you answered this question. Post where you address this. It's telling that every-time we ask, you don't link anything. LOL

You already know where because you were there. Let me know when you are out the denial stage.

[_Themis]

You already know where because you were there. Let me know when you are out the denial stage.

Let me know when you can actually start to be honest here and actually post an answer, but then we both know you are wrong. :)

[_ludwigm]

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.

Please give an unambiguous way do determine which of the statements are doctrine. I don't care the nots.
Produce
- a list
or
- a rule to use
or whatever (holigost and burnybosom doesn't count...).

ANY of the programming languages produces simple algorithm to define what is a valid identifier and what is not. 40 years ago my Spectrum's Basic did it with 200 byte code.

[_Drifting]

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

ludwig.
(Good morning to you!)

It's actually an admission that leaders are not inspired.
What it says is that when leaders of the past spoke doctrinally they weren't, in fact, speaking doctrinally.