That's Not Doctrine!

[_Aristotle Smith]

I don't think that's all that "good" of a guess. BY's purported Adam-God "doctrine" was addressed before that.

The Adam/God Doctrine was never addressed. Everyone just quietly swept it under the rug after Brigham died.

True. But in 1976 the theory was explicitly categorized as not doctrinal by SWK:

http://library.LDS.org/nxt/gateway.dll/ ... ona%20.htm

Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

Two things to note. One, it took almost 100 years to officially overturn Adam-God. Two, it was officially overturned. Note the year: 1976, which is pre-1978. Back then GAs still made doctrinal statements it appears.

[_DarkHelmet]

Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

I wish we could resurrect all the dead prophets and have a doctrinal smack down. Brigham Young would kick Kimball's ass for saying this.

[_moksha]

As Jesus said in Matthew 18:18-20, if "any two of you" (speaking to the apostles) shall agree on earth as touching any thing" then it shall be so. It wasn't, "shake the dice, examine the entrails, and get your answer."

Matthew 18:18-20
The Message (MSG)


18-20"Take this most seriously: A yes on earth is yes in heaven; a no on earth is no in heaven. What you say to one another is eternal. I mean this. When two of you get together on anything at all on earth and make a prayer of it, my Father in heaven goes into action. And when two or three of you are together because of me, you can be sure that I'll be there."

Would this suggest they obtained the greater light and knowledge on a split decision?

[_lostindc]

Alright, I will go first with a level 1 question:

Blacks are fence sitters. Is this doctrine or not doctrine?

[_DarkHelmet]

all right, I will go first with a level 1 question:

Blacks are fence sitters. Is this doctrine or not doctrine?

It is not as simple as yes or no. God works in mysterious ways. If you are embarrassed by that teaching, it is not doctrine, just opinions of old men who were products of their time. If you an old red neck, of course it is doctrine because the prophets taught it, and it just makes sense that Sanford and Son would have been fence sitters. So it is both doctrine and not doctrine.

[_Themis]

All you have to do is a search for "official doctrine" on the LDS.ORG website. Search all the magazines. I did this a few years ago and found a section of the Ensign that answers random questions from readers. Someone asked about the "man is God was" wondering if it was "official doctrine". The person who wrote a response said yes, and seemed confuse that anyone would even make such a distinction between doctrine and official doctrine. This was published in the late 70's or early 80's I can't remember exactly, and I don't have the reference on hand. But you could look it up.

I do remember the person responding said that everything taught is doctrine, and that only in times of mass confusion does the Church come forth and present "official" statements. They are designed to clear up misunderstanding or confusion. Otherwise, everything taught is to be considered doctrine, period.

Kevin's post pretty much sums it up that there is no offical doctrine, only doctrine. Doctrine is what the church teaches. Adam/God was doctrine and is now not doctrine. The problem as we can see from Yahoo bot's statment is that many members and many in some other religions want to incorrectly define doctrine as truth since they tend to view what ever their church teaches as being true. This may be why some want to try and use the "that's not doctrine" line.

[_DarkHelmet]

Kevin's post pretty much sums it up that there is no offical doctrine, only doctrine. Doctrine is what the church teaches. Adam/God was doctrine and is now not doctrine.

This could explain why Mormons put such a heavy emphasis on attendance. The doctrine could change at any time and the only way you would know is from regular attendance.

[_Aristotle Smith]

All you have to do is a search for "official doctrine" on the LDS.ORG website. Search all the magazines. I did this a few years ago and found a section of the Ensign that answers random questions from readers. Someone asked about the "man is God was" wondering if it was "official doctrine". The person who wrote a response said yes, and seemed confuse that anyone would even make such a distinction between doctrine and official doctrine. This was published in the late 70's or early 80's I can't remember exactly, and I don't have the reference on hand. But you could look it up.

I do remember the person responding said that everything taught is doctrine, and that only in times of mass confusion does the Church come forth and present "official" statements. They are designed to clear up misunderstanding or confusion. Otherwise, everything taught is to be considered doctrine, period.

I think Kevin is referring to this article from 1982:

http://LDS.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a- ... n?lang=eng

Gerald Lund is attempting to answer if the Lorenzo Snow couplet is official church doctrine. Here is his response:

To my knowledge there has been no “official” pronouncement by the First Presidency declaring that President Snow’s couplet is to be accepted as doctrine. But that is not a valid criteria for determining whether or not it is doctrine.

Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.

It seems like what is happening in 1982 is that people are starting to use the term "official doctrine" but people in CES (like Lund) and presumably the GAs think it's a silly distinction. There is no need to distinguish official from non-official doctrine. Maybe because not everyone has learned to play the TnD game yet?

There is an earlier article that uses the phrase "official doctrine" from 1977 which is here:

http://LDS.org/ensign/1977/08/i-have-a- ... octrine%22

However, if you look at the article, the author is clearly not using "official doctrine" in any sense that it is used nowadays. In fact, beyond the title it's clear that he is trying to delineate what is authorized by the church for use in lessons and other church functions. The phrase "official doctrine" probably shouldn't have even been in the title, as it is not even used in the body of the article.

[_Nightlion]

I think there have been a couple of attempts to have something close to systematic theology. I think Sidney Rigdon tried to do this in the mid-1830's. In the second half of the 19th century, Orson Pratt tried to as well. Since then the only real try at this has been Blake Ostler, but he's so far out of the mainstream that I don't think his thought is going anywhere officially.

???

I was put on official church discipline in 1983 by South Salt Lake Stake, President Fitt for outlining my New Mormon Theology on an Elder's quorum blackboard. Then months later the East Millcreek North Stake panned my paper at the behest of President Hinckley (still the power of his own stake and the power of the Church, again and again and again.)

My theology was duly rejected and counts as a REAL TRY. Especially now thirty (almost) years later. No apologist has ever attempted to show me the slightest error. They Shut Their Mouths At Him???? Ever hear that phrase before?

So, kindly, please tell me, when did this Blake Ostler write up some sort of edgy theology? I wonder if he ripped me off. Seriously, what is Ostler's work titled? Excuse my being unread. Just never thought much of uninspired stuff.

Here's mine:
http://www.fireark.org/wonders_of_eternity.pdf

Oh, by the way. The answer to the Negro and the Priesthood apologia was also written by me back in the day. It is found in Isaiah chapter 19.
Here is where all three branched of humanity as counted by the Lord are all the same.

Fantastically, the Egyptians asserting themselves finally with a savior that leads them could be referencing Martin Luther King Jr. The other types and shadows are demonstrated by the Fifties and Sixties. Aswan High Dam. The Six Year War, Israel possessing the Sinai.

Isaiah 19:13-19
13 The princes of Zoan are become fools, the princes of Noph are deceived; they have also seduced Egypt, even they that are the stay of the tribes thereof.
14 The Lord hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit.
15 Neither shall there be any work for Egypt, which the head or tail, branch or rush, may do.
16 In that day shall Egypt be like unto women: and it shall be afraid and fear because of the shaking of the hand of the Lord of hosts, which he shaketh over it.
17 And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, because of the counsel of the Lord of hosts, which he hath determined against it.
18 ¶ In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.
19 In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord.
20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
21 And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it.

How is this not the Egyptians using priesthood? Whereas it is written that before this the head and tail branch or rush could do no work. They also failed to celebrate this illumination, knowing I was daily in the Church Historical Library under their concerned observation. Ask Brent Metcalfe who was a librarian at the time. If he says he does not remember me he is too proud to admit it. Hogwash. I had my face in his buddy's Anthon Transcript for months.

Who ya gonna call?
NIGHTLION

[_lostindc]

all right, I will go first with a level 1 question:

Blacks are fence sitters. Is this doctrine or not doctrine?

It is not as simple as yes or no. God works in mysterious ways. If you are embarrassed by that teaching, it is not doctrine, just opinions of old men who were products of their time. If you an old red neck, of course it is doctrine because the prophets taught it, and it just makes sense that Sanford and Son would have been fence sitters. So it is both doctrine and not doctrine.

All very good points.

I keep trying to explain to my black atheist neighbor that he was a fence sitter and that's why he does not believe and has extra trials but he does not seem to be buying my argument. I told him you need not buy into it but it is a fact because McConkites said so.