bcspace wrote:You have been given the key to make the correct distinction. Is it published by the Church? If not, it is not doctrine.
Let's get a chronology going here, okay?
1852: BY begins teaching Adam-God
2007: Church publishes a statement regarding what constitutes doctrine.
Unless this policy was in place in 1852 and BY had a chance to read the church policy, what he taught would have totally be considered doctrine by his "congregation" since it came directly from the mouth of their own Prophet.
For anyone to deny this is simply intellectually dishonest.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
BC buys into an apologetic idea that when BY talked about what is called Adam God that he was taking about two Adams and two Eves. There is Adam that is really the name of God the Father-Adam Sr. And there is Adam the fellow in the Garden who is Adam Jr. Same for Eve. Eve Sr, and Eve Jr. So you have to place Sr, and Jr in the right plave and then whoala!!! You come up with two Adams and there is no major conflict. The Adam in the garden is not the guy who is the one being called out God and the Father of Jesus.
I understand what it is, Jason. I think it's total and complete nonsense. Dogding, twisting, distorting, wiggling...nonsense.
Well I agree as well. I did not know you were aware of this argument
BC buys into an apologetic idea that when BY talked about what is called Adam God that he was taking about two Adams and two Eves. There is Adam that is really the name of God the Father-Adam Sr. And there is Adam the fellow in the Garden who is Adam Jr. Same for Eve. Eve Sr, and Eve Jr. So you have to place Sr, and Jr in the right plave and then whoala!!! You come up with two Adams and there is no major conflict. The Adam in the garden is not the guy who is the one being called out God and the Father of Jesus.
I understand what it is, Jason. I think it's total and complete nonsense. Dogding, twisting, distorting, wiggling...nonsense.
Well I agree as well. I did not know you were aware of this argument
I didn't know you didn't know. :-)
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
I thought you were smarter than. Who is commenting? Did you see what it says at the beginning of the section?
Comments from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on news stories, including corrections.
So once again you are faced with the Church's own statements on the matter.
My favorite thing about that article is that it never tells you what doctrine is, or how it is defined. It only tells you what the grounds are for wiggle-room.
It says "This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.", but that doesn't mean that all of those things are 100% doctrine. The standard works are only doctrinal when correctly translated correctly and subsequently interpreted by the leaders of the Church, but their interpretations are not doctrinal.
cinepro wrote:It says "This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.", but that doesn't mean that all of those things are 100% doctrine. The standard works are only doctrinal when correctly translated correctly and subsequently interpreted by the leaders of the Church, but their interpretations are not doctrinal.
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe stoning is LDS doctrine!
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
It says "This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.", but that doesn't mean that all of those things are 100% doctrine.
The previous sentence is the key. It will be published in an official work.
The standard works are only doctrinal when correctly translated correctly and subsequently interpreted by the leaders of the Church, but their interpretations are not doctrinal.
Unless all 15 agree.
Maybe stoning is LDS doctrine!
An interesting exercise. Why don't you look it up in the manuals? You'll certainly find references to stoning in the past and while capital punishment is doctrine, do any of the stoning references in the manuals prescibe it for our day?
BC buys into an apologetic idea that when BY talked about what is called Adam God that he was taking about two Adams and two Eves. There is Adam that is really the name of God the Father-Adam Sr. And there is Adam the fellow in the Garden who is Adam Jr. Same for Eve. Eve Sr, and Eve Jr. So you have to place Sr, and Jr in the right plave and then whoala!!! You come up with two Adams and there is no major conflict. The Adam in the garden is not the guy who is the one being called out God and the Father of Jesus.
I understand what it is, Jason. I think it's total and complete nonsense. Dogding, twisting, distorting, wiggling...nonsense.
It's the only thing that works. Accepting the notion of Adam-God makes various BY statements conflict.