Snow

Huh? Is that your point? That Buddhist and Islam are just as valid as Christianity? How so?

Reliable through archaeology and manuscript transmission? Seriously? Could you point me to some substantiation of that claim for any of the important teachings of the Bible? That the Gods created the earth? Existence of Adam and Eve. Existence of Abraham The Flood That Moses saw God That Isaiah was a prophet of God. That Jesus was the Christ That salvation is brought to mankind via the death and resurrection of Jesus, That God exist. Anything?

I imagine that others may have already posted on this but can I ask, why do you believe in creation out of nothing when such a doctrine is not found in the Bible and not believe by God's earlier chosen people, the Jews. If creation from nothing was true and/or important, don't you think God might have said so?

Huh? In what way does it support the LDS tradition?

... because they move to fast to catch em when they're alive.

Deseret Book is wholly owed by the Church so anything published by Deseret is necessarily published by the Church... of course the Church has various publishing businesses and uses them to release different kinds of material... however, I was more interested in the "authorized" part of it. Obviously anything that it published is authorized. Since the Church completely owned Deseret, how is it not true? As far as what it means, it means the First Presidency reviewed and approved the content of the book, so the Church is safe to put it's publish stamp on it. Incidentally, the Church has not published very many books like this. The bulk of what they publish takes the form of manuals and such. But, books that have been authored by an individual? Very precious few.

I understand the publishing arrangements of the Church - the point I don't see is what "authorized" means. The Hymn Book is published by The Church of Jesus Christ so, in some sense it is authorized but what does that mean?

I didn't ask if it was copyrighted. I asked for an official pronouncement that the Church deems it "official doctrine."

I didn't ask if the book was found on a website or whether or it has a preface. I asked for the official reference that the Church deems it "doctrinally correct."

You're missing the point. The poster said that things published by the COJCLDS are 1. published by the Church and 2. authorized by the Church. 1. is redundant and 2. doesn't mean anything. Of course everything published by a publisher is authorized by the publisher... else they wouldn't publish it. Of course being an apostle doesn't 1. Authorize you to speak definitively for the Church in all circumstances, a 2. Such books published by Deseret books, or any publisher, whether written by an apostle or anyone else are COMMENTARY on official doctrine, not doctrine themselves, The Church has a process of common consent to define it's scripture and when people use the word doctrine is such a sense, they are referring to those things that are eternal, accurate, true and unchanging.

Let's see. The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ (not as a private person, but in it's capacity of The First Presidency) made a public announcement and you claim it was a "private announcement." That's a joke. right? You claim it was NOT a denouncement yet a definition found on vocabulary.com of "denounce" is: ... speak out against ... criticize ... find fault with So you would have us believe that when First Presidency publicly said that it "is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation" they weren't criticizing it. Another joke of yours, I'm sure.

I'm sure that you will be happy to provide an "official" pronouncement that "what is done in the temple must be considered 'official doctrine of the Church'".

What does that mean? Anything that is published by Deseret Book is published by the Church. Are you implying the the Church publishes books but doesn't authorize them?

Considered correct by whom? If you mean The Church, please give us an official Church reference.

The worst sinner, besides Canadians, is Satan. Is he redeemable?

What blessings? I assume you don't believe that God blesses you for going to the temple... or if you do believe that He does, wouldn't that imply that He set the criteria for attendance?

You will note that God Himself has remained unsurprisingly silent on the matter. Prophets (presidents) come and go, some leaving not much more than a blip on the screen in the grand scheme of things. On the other hand, The Standard Works outlasts them all and informs everything we do and think in the Body of Christ. Who knows what that even means. Is President Monson more important that Joseph Smith? Paul? How would you measure that? That is demonstrably untrue, if by "astray" you mean teach things that are erroneous. "Required?" No, but that doesn't mean that when the prophet speaks, he will be correct or accurate. Prophets are just as entitled to be wrong as are trained experts. No, but in order for anything said by a prophet to be officially recognized as scripture, the Church needs to agree, by common consent. I am curious if there is any appreciable evidence that is true. No, but the Church's PR arm works very hard to try and make it so.

And it shall be called the New Jerusalem, a bland of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God; And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion. And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety. And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another. And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand. And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy (Doctrine and Covenants 45:66-71).

If you can tell me what/when the earliest expression of the Trinity (one God, three persons, co-eternal, co-equal, same ousia) is, I think you will have answered the question yourself. Here's something to get you started: "The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament" P Achtemeier, editor, Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099. "There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons." Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35. "..there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts...nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head...These passages [i.e. the Pauline epistles] give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula..." Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 14,16, 22-23, 29. That you wouldn't post the scriptures that demonstrate anyone from the New Testament understood the Trinity makes plain that you are aware that it is not found in the Bible, My question to you is: Since you know it is not in the Bible, why do you believe it?

I'm no scriptorian but I think you are making that up. If I am wrong, please post the scripture that says that.

Ummm, how educated are children that die in infancy?

That is not what the "Trinity" is. Mormons believe that Jesus and the Father are one. We just do not the how the Council of Constantinople in 381 or Council of Chalcedon in 451 defined that oneness.

If you found the Trinity in John, they would be the very first ever in all history. Perhaps you are not familiar with what the Trinity is. This will help, One God comprised of three co-eternal, co-equal hypostases, all three being of the same ousia, Can you quote the specific verses in John that say that?

Why do you think it is that no one in the Bible, not Jesus, not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul or Peter demonstrated an understanding of the "trinity" in the same way that you understand the "trinity?"

We don't actually know that Abraham had no game of Monopoly but it doesn't do us much good to speculate on something completely unreasonable.