The Folk Prophet

I don't believe that.

I think choice was implicit in the saying in that He was teaching us to choose to be good trees. I'm not sure where you are drawing no choice from the matter.

If you want to be sealed for time and all eternity through the celestial marriage covenant them you must do that. You can be married civilly by a bishop without. But it has no more meaning than doing so at a courthouse or the like.

What!? I can dance?

The question mark makes it work even if it isn't true. It's still a sentence that's asking if it's the final post, even if it's not the final post (which it's not).

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml#source

Covenanted in the temple would simply mean that you have made the temple covenants, or the covenants that are offered and made only in the temple. LDS covenants are a promise between God and us, as established by God, that we will do His will and He will bless us accordingly. The first covenant we make is entering the waters of baptism, whereupon we covenant to take His name upon us, always remember Him, and keep His commandments, and He promises us in return that we will always have His Spirit (the Holy Ghost) to be with us. Temple covenants are similar, relating to obedience and doing God's will in all things. The ultimate covenant God makes with us is the promise of eternal life with Him. (Exaltation, etc.)

To be fair, all sins need to be confessed, but most do not need to be confessed to anyone but God. Not wearing ones garments when one should be does, indeed, need to be confessed to God. But only serious sins need to be confessed to the bishop.

Depends on the Catholic.

This is one person's opinion on the matter. Many of us here disagree with this view. Others fully support it. I'm afraid you will not find a consensus in LDS thinking as to what constitutes "doctrine". In reality, it's mostly a useless semantic argument though. To avoid it, it's better to simply -- well...avoid it. Instead of asking the question "what is LDS doctrine?", ask the question, "what does the LDS church teach?" or something akin.

Final post? * Come on now! That's ^ awesome, right? Self referential via question. :)

Is it not? https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question?lang=eng (2nd section).

Easy

Dull

Callidus lingua Latin

Broken structure sentence is.

Oh...and as far as this goes, just as anatess has explained, it's extrapolation. However, I think it would be a bit silly to declare sermons that Joseph Smith taught as anything less than "authoritative". But...to be fair, some things we have accounts of him saying are clearly not "doctrine". This is, primarily, due to the fact that not all the records we have of what he said are reliable. The King Follett discourse is a great example of this. The different accounts of it do not match up, and it was, reportedly, windy on the day when he gave it. However, it is a fairly common, and quite authoritative, teaching that God was once as we are now. The details of that, however, are, as anatess said, extrapolation. We just don't know lot more than that. All in all, the basics of it are plain. The details...not so much.

^ this. But I tend to trust Joseph Smith's opinion on the matter over others'.

Accusing Vort of shoddy self-referential work in the previous post.

Chicken.

Alliterative application of an activity

Zesty. I dare anyone to prove that said word is not what it claims to be! Are we on Z? I swear, A-Z games give me the willies.

From Introduction to Handbook 2 and Related Principles by Quentin L. Cook Some bishops have asked if there is a clear distinction between what should be addressed in PEC meetings and what should be discussed with the ward council. The general answer is set forth in sections 4.3 and 4.4. The PEC meets regularly to consider priesthood matters, such as quorum priesthood responsibilities, ordinances and blessings, callings and releases, certain temple and missionary items, and administering Church discipline. Generally, the PEC need not discuss matters that will be reviewed by the ward council. “However, it may be beneficial for the PEC to preview some matters that will be on the ward council’s agenda” (Handbook 2, 4.3). On the other hand, the ward council typically discusses matters that benefit from coordination and discussion and are of general concern for the ward as a whole. Participation from all council members, especially the sisters, is essential if the revelatory potential is to be achieved. The bishop may determine that a decision is appropriate at the end of the ward council discussion, or he may feel inspired to make the decision at a subsequent bishopric or PEC meeting. While a bright line of distinction between the two councils is not intended, three principal objectives may give bishops guidance in determining whether to utilize the PEC or ward council: • First, decrease the burden on bishoprics.• Second, increase delegation and revelation through councils.• Third, avoid regimentation that interferes with inspiration. We also pray that common sense and guidance from the Spirit will prevail.

My chiding has nothing to do with your doctrinal stance in the matter. If you recall, I was complaining that you and traveler go at the same thing over and over and over again, and that you constantly go at it with this idea as your go-to point. Sure, there are details of application and the like that we disagree on. But I've never stated your dual beings idea is wrong. You came after me in this thread with "...you don't seem to understand..." and "if you want to ignore that very core of our religion...", which are very different sorts of rebukes than teasing someone for harping on an idea repeatedly. And, decidedly, unfair as a response to the post I had made, particularly where you admit now that your response is an expansion of the idea, rather than contrary. How unfair to imply that by expanding my thought you are proving me wrong-headed and ignorant. You're free to move forward by responding to every idea with the "we're dual beings" approach. Go for it. But when you tell me I don't understand and that I'm ignoring the "core" of the gospel, you're gonna get some backlash.

Yes. Yes I do. Welcome to TFP town.