No death before the fall

[_Morley]

How about historically?

What about it?

Was it doctrine? You maintain that the Times and Seasons was doctrine.

[_bcspace]

You side-stepped the other half of the question:

The Church has to state that said content is doctrine?

I didn't side step it. You mentioned publication as possibly not being enough. I agreed by mentioning context and qualification. The latter two will determine if officially published content or publication is not doctrine. An example would be the introduction to the Bible Dictionary (not doctrine).

What about it?

Was it doctrine? You maintain that the Times and Seasons was doctrine.

Regarding the D-News, I already stated that it is not doctrine now and that you don;t have much of a case for it being doctrine then. Hence I did not understand your question because I believe I have already answered it. Regarding the Times and Seasons, I agreed that it was an official Church publication.

[_Morley]

Regarding the D-News, I already stated that it is not doctrine now and that you don;t have much of a case for it being doctrine then. Hence I did not understand your question because I believe I have already answered it. Regarding the Times and Seasons, I agreed that it was an official Church publication.

I'm not trying to make a case. I'm attempting to understand your definitions, so I can understand where you're coming from.

[_Morley]

BC. Does the Church have to state that said content is doctrine?

[_bcspace]

Regarding the D-News, I already stated that it is not doctrine now and that you don;t have much of a case for it being doctrine then. Hence I did not understand your question because I believe I have already answered it. Regarding the Times and Seasons, I agreed that it was an official Church publication.

I'm not trying to make a case. I'm attempting to understand your definitions, so I can understand where you're coming from.

I'm coming directly from Approaching Mormon Doctrine and other related statements which tell us that official publication is the only standard for doctrine. What this means is we may take the Church's word on what is and is not doctrine. So if an official publication has a context or a qualification, then the doctrine follows that context or qualification.

So, in the early versions of the D-News, what "does published by the Church" mean? Did the Church exercise full editorial control? Did it have full editorial control but exercised it rarely? Did it merely provide material support? Was the purpose to serve as the curriculum of the Church or an organ of the State of Deseret? Those are contextual issues.

What you're also running up against is this: Since Church publications have been "correlated" for more than four decades, you're not going to see much in the way of context or qualification besides a few examples. Prior to that, I think you're going to see context and qualification play more of a role.

If your goal is to accurately determine official LDS doctrine, it's going to be easier to stick with the modern publications.

BC. Does the Church have to state that said content is doctrine?

No, but you have to take any qualifications or context into account which merely means taking the Church at it's word and is the real world common sense application for the positions taken by any organization.

[_Morley]

So you're saying that publication by the LDS Church is necessary but not sufficient. Is this correct?

[_Quasimodo]

If your goal is to accurately determine official LDS doctrine, it's going to be easier to stick with the modern publications.

And, of course, much less embarrassing for everyone.

[_Morley]

You're also saying that publication by the LDS Church historically may still result in texts that are not doctrinal. Is this correct?

[_Jason Bourne]

I appreciate your admission that you have lost,

Yawn...

but if you're so concerned about it, why not address the BY quotes differentiating between God the Father and Adam and the doctrines invalidated by having an Adam God theory in the first place?

I have done so. I admit BY taught the traditional things about Adam and AG. It is clear from the hearers of his sermons that they believed when he taught AG that they understood him to mean what he said, that the man Adam is/was also our God. I think because if the resistance he received from so many he would still talk about Adam in the traditional sense. Yet he clearly taught something else. Your attempt to pass of Adam Sr still fails because you cannot demonstrate anyone who lived at BYs time understood it that way. And you have now ignored this twice.

So BC please provide contemporaneous evidence of someone understanding BY's AG teachings as Adam Sr/Jr.

[_Jason Bourne]

Sure. Of course that means to be sure of doctrine, you still have to consult an official publication.

The D-news does not meet the official publication standard for the Church. It even differentiates between itself and actual official Church publications such as ldsnews.



No.

The D News was as official as it came for the Church in the 19th century. Isn't it fun to watch BC squirm out of everything?

The D News reported what was said at conference as well. This is how people of the great territory of Deseret got the word. It was as official as today's Ensign is.