This, in a nutshell (a chestnutshell, if you like) is the entire problem with your approach, BC. (And that of your mentor, Elden Watson.)
Sorry, never met him or spoke with him.
You are not interested in understanding what Brigham Young actually taught.
You want to make Brigham Young fit your procrustean bed of official LDS doctrine.
If Brigham Young said something that conflicts with your idea of doctrine, it couldn't be what he actually meant. This is the crux of your argument.
Let me know when you are able to come up with any actual examples.
When you begin with the premise that Brigham Young meant what he said and said what he meant, regardless of what "doctrines" you feel it impacts, his views in this regard are quite plain and consistent over the course of twenty-five years.
In fact, Brigham's views were so plain and consistent that he almost had to oust Orson Pratt from the Quorum of the Twelve for taking public issue with them. A "conflict in the quorum" that never would have happened if people in Brigham's day understood him to be teaching what you claim he taught.
I agree completely and this is the course I have taken. When one take BY at his word, looking at ALL of his word, one cannot justify the notion of Adam God. I notice that you;ve not been able to come up with anything to explain BY's statements that conflict with Adam God whereas Adam Sr/Jr is the only theory so far that has them in harmony and there's not even any guesswork or assumptions, there is only taking BY at his word.
Not in any doctrinal work I'll warrant.
These ideas are "doctrine," whether you agree with them or not.
If they were published in any work, it was by definition a "doctrinal work."
Doesn't seem like BY would agree with here but rather would prefer a chance to look over his words before declaring them official.
This, in a chestnutshell, is your problem with going to absurd lengths to define (and then defend) "doctrine."
All I've had to do is take the Church at it's word as far as the definition of doctrine is concerned. The only lengths that have to be trod is when one tries to add or subtract to make their chestnuts fit. That's why it's been so easy for me. I simply stay within what the Church itself has stated since at least 1835 (D&C 107). I certainly entertain thoughts oustide those bounds, but I am very clear to state when I have crossed them and NEVER teach them for doctrine.
Part of that fascination involves what contortions Mormons will go through to avoid the plain meaning of what he said. (See, BCSpace)
And what contortions would those be? Notice that all consig does is tell you what you want to hear.