Comments on: Opinions

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:54:59 +0000

So would I, but many in the wards I’ve attended would disagree with us.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:48:59 +0000

Without wanting to dwell on a mere quibble, I would just say, again, that I view those as nondoctrines, not as “de facto doctrines.”

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:28:13 +0000

Something that people believe is a doctrine, but has never been formally accepted as a doctrine. Things like the Book of Mormon lands taking up all of North and South America, all American indigenous peoples descending from Lehi, blacks never being able to receive the priesthood, and so forth.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:25:13 +0000

Kim, I know what “de facto” means. I’m just trying to undestand specifically what you mean in this case. A doctrine that isn’t really a doctrine, that lacks the force of doctrine, isn’t what I would call a “de fact doctrine.” It’s what I would call a “non-doctrine.”

By: julie

julie — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:22:05 +0000

Yeah, a prophet is just a man when he’s not relying revelation. And the only way you know if he is recieving revelation is when the Spirit tells you. Peace in your mind and heart.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:55:24 +0000

See definition #2.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:54:03 +0000

What’s a de facto doctrine?