What is the Miracle of Forgiveness? (revisited)

[_bcspace]

Yet as far as I can tell, it also remains a non doctrinal work.

Oh the good old BC escape hatch. Not doctrinal event though it is quoted abundantly in Church manuals.

I have always recognized the fact that which is officially published is doctrine. Is there something from the MoF published in an official work that troubles you?

Not doctrinal even though SWK was an apostle then church president when it was in its hey day.

The Church itself has stated that it requires all 15 to agree.

[_Jason Bourne]

I have always recognized the fact that which is officially published is doctrine. Is there something from the MoF published in an official work that troubles you?

I have opined what I think about the book. I am not a fan of it.

Not doctrinal even though SWK was an apostle then church president when it was in its hey day.

The Church itself has stated that it requires all 15 to agree.

So do all 15 agree on every word published in every magazine, article on the web site, conference talk, every word of every manual? Some things become defacto doctrine BC. If the members take a book written by a prominent leader and act like it is a doctrinal work it in fact becomes doctrinal unless the leaders repudiate it. That is why you and aplogists of your ilk cannot run away from MoF nor Mormon Doctrine, both of which were used by members as if they were doctrinal works. If the leadership was not happy with what these book taught they should have had the back bone to say so. But nope, at least as far as McConkie goes they did not want to embarass this prominent GA. So they let it stand and stand it did.

Same for MoF accept I think most if not all the leader embraced it.

Like it or not BC the LDS leaders set this up. They say follow the brethren and you won't go astray. Keep your eyes on the brethren and you will be safe. The Prophet cannot lead the Church astray because the Lord would take him first. So when an prominent leader writes a book and it takes off like wild fire and is uses over and over and over and it is also quoted in LDS manuals over and over, which in turn lends it more credence, will then it becomes a defacto teaching and doctrine of the Church.

But I know it is easier for you to simply dismiss such things. I would not want to defend much of this either. As I have noted many times, I used to do the same thing.

[_bcspace]

The Church itself has stated that it requires all 15 to agree.

So do all 15 agree on every word published in every magazine, article on the web site, conference talk, every word of every manual? Some things become defacto doctrine BC.

I think they often delegate among themselves and approve such delegation. If a problem arises, say one or more sees something missed, they will talk about it and something will change. Yes, every word in every official publication is ultimately parsed by one or more of them. Teaching, No Greater Call has been in publication for a long time. Approaching Mormon Doctrine has been in publication for nearly five years. I think they are especially careful with statements to the media. Don't you think so too? There were no significant changes to Gospel Principles. All 15 are in agreement.

Some things become defacto doctrine BC.

Relative to some members, but not to the Church.

If the members take a book written by a prominent leader and act like it is a doctrinal work it in fact becomes doctrinal unless the leaders repudiate it.

This has never been the case.

That is why you and aplogists of your ilk cannot run away from MoF nor Mormon Doctrine, both of which were used by members as if they were doctrinal works.

Seek ye out of the best books. Doesn't make it official doctrine.

If the leadership was not happy with what these book taught they should have had the back bone to say so.

If they thought it should be official doctrine, they would publish it.

Like it or not BC the LDS leaders set this up. They say follow the brethren and you won't go astray. Keep your eyes on the brethren and you will be safe.

They like the book. But not enough to make it official doctrine. There are several books that have fallen into this category before such as A Marvelous Work and a Wonder.

As I have noted many times, I used to do the same thing.

You don't seem to have understood the true principles as most active LDS do.

[_Buffalo]

Relative to some members, but not to the Church.

The vast majority of active members, as you well know. And if they don't constitute "the church," then the church doesn't actually exist.

[_bcspace]

Relative to some members, but not to the Church.

The vast majority of active members, as you well know.

No, I don't know. But what I do know is that most members take the Church at it's word for what constitutes doctrine.

And if they don't constitute "the church," then the church doesn't actually exist.

The membership doesn't determine doctrine, so no, they aren't the Church in this sense.

[_Buffalo]

No, I don't know. But what I do know is that most members take the Church at it's word for what constitutes doctrine.

I have yet to see a single believer agree with your interpretation of what constitutes doctrine.

And if they don't constitute "the church," then the church doesn't actually exist.

The membership doesn't determine doctrine, so no, they aren't the Church in this sense.

Doctrine is what is taught. And members teach the doctrine.

[_Jason Bourne]

You don't seem to have understood the true principles as most active LDS do.

Hahaha! You are a funny little boy.

First most do not understand the true principles. Most viewed at one point, MD and MOF as next to their standard works.

Second I certainly understood what you are saying. I used to argue it as tenaciously as you do.

But here is the difference. Integrity and intellectual honesty would not longer allow me to do so. Apparently your heart is harden to such ethics.

[_Jason Bourne]

So do all 15 agree on every word published in every magazine, article on the web site, conference talk, every word of every manual? Some things become defacto doctrine BC

I think they often delegate among themselves and approve such delegation. If a problem arises, say one or more sees something missed, they will talk about it and something will change. Yes, every word in every official publication is ultimately parsed by one or more of them. Teaching, No Greater Call has been in publication for a long time. Approaching Mormon Doctrine has been in publication for nearly five years. I think they are especially careful with statements to the media. Don't you think so too? There were no significant changes to Gospel Principles. All 15 are in agreement.

No I do not think all 15 agree on everything. And delegation to one or the other is not all 15 agreeing. I think often manuals and articles go out only being reviewed be lower level GAs or maybe just Church employees that are part of the correlation committee.

Some things become defacto doctrine BC.

Relative to some members, but not to the Church.

If the members believe something is doctrinal, if they live and act and behave a such then does that not become an integral part of the doctrine of the Church? If not doctrine certainly a teaching at least until it it corrected.

If the members take a book written by a prominent leader and act like it is a doctrinal work it in fact becomes doctrinal unless the leaders repudiate it.

This has never been the case.

I know nothing is ever repudiated but both the books I mention have been looked open at minimum by the members to contain much doctrine. Who is able to distinguish what is and is not when such works become so popular?

That is why you and aplogists of your ilk cannot run away from MoF nor Mormon Doctrine, both of which were used by members as if they were doctrinal works.

Seek ye out of the best books. Doesn't make it official doctrine.

Perhaps not official but certainly defacto.

If the leadership was not happy with what these book taught they should have had the back bone to say so.

If they thought it should be official doctrine, they would publish it.

If they thought it was so bad they had a moral obligation to repudiate it. But they let a work with thousands of errors stand so as not to embarrass McConkie.

Like it or not BC the LDS leaders set this up. They say follow the brethren and you won't go astray. Keep your eyes on the brethren and you will be safe.

They like the book. But not enough to make it official doctrine. There are several books that have fallen into this category before such as A Marvelous Work and a Wonder.

You dodged my point.

[_Inconceivable]

MoF is not that bad of a book.

The last three chapters are pretty good. The rest is an atrocity.

Yet as far as I can tell, it also remains a non doctrinal work.

..What a pile of BS to say it is non doctrinal..

c'mon Jason (and others), I really appreciated the comments you made in the first 3 pages.

let's not give bc access to the gong on this one. Why does everyone fall for this?

(this is why I seldom, if ever post here anymore)

[_Jason Bourne]

Ok! Back on track!