Ultimate prejudice?

[_beastie]

I have concluded that it is futile to try and make any sense of bc's theory. There is just no way it can make sense.

[_Jason Bourne]

1. Nondoctrinal reference.

Typical apologist cop out. It was only his opinion. The words of LDS Prophets and apostles mean little to LDS apologists. When what they say opr said is inconvenient toss it on the trash heap of opinion.

2. How does my theory preclude Adam being the son of divine parents? LDS doctrine is that we all are sons and daughters of divine parents in that our spirits are the literal spirit children of God. How did God created the physical body of Adam?

I thought you said his mother was not invested with a a spirit child of the father. LDS doctrine is that Adam had no earthly parent.

BY's opinion (often erroneously confused for an Adam-God doctrine) has no place in LDS doctrine and the JST on Luke 3:38 seems to preclude it.

You are an idiot if you deny BY taught Adam God and that as more than his simple opinion. His simple opinion made it into the temple endowment. And most LDS apologist worth any salt admit he taught though they typically relegate it to opinion as well or at least argue it never became doctrine and that thank to Orson Pratt.

[_bcspace]

There is absolutely no way that Adam's mother was a Neanderthal.

I agree.

[_bcspace]

1. Nondoctrinal reference.

Typical apologist cop out. It was only his opinion.

Not at all. Just lazy research on your part, at best. If you want to pin us down, then your references must fit the long standing definition of LDS doctrine.

The words of LDS Prophets and apostles mean little to LDS apologists. When what they say opr said is inconvenient toss it on the trash heap of opinion.

This is what you do to actual doctrinal statements. Because you can't gainsay them, you must rely on nondoctrinal statements to drive your agenda.

2. How does my theory preclude Adam being the son of divine parents? LDS doctrine is that we all are sons and daughters of divine parents in that our spirits are the literal spirit children of God. How did God created the physical body of Adam?

I thought you said his mother was not invested with a a spirit child of the father.

In my theory, that is the case.

LDS doctrine is that Adam had no earthly parent.

Not in the doctrinal sense, no.

BY's opinion (often erroneously confused for an Adam-God doctrine) has no place in LDS doctrine and the JST on Luke 3:38 seems to preclude it.

You are an idiot if you deny BY taught Adam God and that as more than his simple opinion.

I do deny that BY ever postulated anything at all like what people think of as an "Adam-God" doctrine. I do not deny that he taught his opinions for doctrine (noting that alone does not meet the established criteria for doctrine). I do deny that the Church considers this particular opinion as doctrine.

His simple opinion made it into the temple endowment. And most LDS apologist worth any salt admit he taught though they typically relegate it to opinion as well or at least argue it never became doctrine and that thank to Orson Pratt.

Such an opinion does not exist in any LDS doctrinal work.

[_Jason Bourne]

Not at all. Just lazy research on your part, at best. If you want to pin us down, then your references must fit the long standing definition of LDS doctrine.

Please give me that long standing definition of LDS Doctrine.

The words of LDS Prophets and apostles mean little to LDS apologists. When what they say opr said is inconvenient toss it on the trash heap of opinion.

This is what you do to actual doctrinal statements. Because you can't gainsay them, you must rely on nondoctrinal statements to drive your agenda.

Wrong. The average TBM believes what apostles and prophets say. The average apologist dimsissed them and places themselves above the LDS prophets and apostles in defining LDS doctrine. I uses the play this game as well. I was a hobby apologist. Then one day I had a what the hey moment. I realized about 70% of my arguments were "that was just his opinion." Adam God-BYs opinion. Blood atonement-just his opinion. Plural marriage required to become gods-just his opinion and 19th century polemics. KFD-never canonized thus not official doctrine. I realized that about half of all I was taught growing up LDS was tossed on the LDS apologist trash heap of opinion. My integrity would not let me carry on in such a way so I ceased defending things that had to be defended by using the "it was just his opinion."

2. How does my theory preclude Adam being the son of divine parents? LDS doctrine is that we all are sons and daughters of divine parents in that our spirits are the literal spirit children of God. How did God created the physical body of Adam?

I thought you said his mother was not invested with a a spirit child of the father.

In my theory, that is the case.

Then your theory flies in the face of LDS prophets and apostles. Take it up with them.

LDS doctrine is that Adam had no earthly parent.

Not in the doctrinal sense, no.

Yes in the doctrinal sense. The scripture is at least doctrine and the scripture says God created Adam from the dust. Not only does your theory oppose LDS leader is opposes LDS canon.

BY's opinion (often erroneously confused for an Adam-God doctrine) has no place in LDS doctrine and the JST on Luke 3:38 seems to preclude it.

You are an idiot if you deny BY taught Adam God and that as more than his simple opinion.

I do deny that BY ever postulated anything at all like what people think of as an "Adam-God" doctrine.

Then you are an idiot or ignorant of the plethora of teachings he made on the subject.

I do not deny that he taught his opinions for doctrine (noting that alone does not meet the established criteria for doctrine).

Well there you go. He did teach it. He was a prophet of God. Seems to be a bit of a problem that God's anointed got it wrong about who God is don't you think?

I do deny that the Church considers this particular opinion as doctrine.

I agree. They Church does not accept it as doctrine. It was however at one point part of the temple endowment and many members accepted it as doctrinal including members of the 12.

His simple opinion made it into the temple endowment. And most LDS apologist worth any salt admit he taught though they typically relegate it to opinion as well or at least argue it never became doctrine and that thank to Orson Pratt.

Such an opinion does not exist in any LDS doctrinal work.

Sorry. I do not follow your last obscure comment.

[_bcspace]

Please give me that long standing definition of LDS Doctrine.

It's summarized well in my siggy. The first principle of this goes all the way back to D&C 107 wherein we see that the FP and Qo12 have equal authority. Therefore, one cannot make doctrine without the other.

Wrong. The average TBM believes what apostles and prophets say.

The Church presents those sayings it considers doctrine in official publications.

The average apologist dimsissed them and places themselves above the LDS prophets and apostles in defining LDS doctrine. I uses the play this game as well. I was a hobby apologist. Then one day I had a what the hey moment. I realized about 70% of my arguments were "that was just his opinion."

Probably because you weren't paying attention in Church.

Adam God-BYs opinion.

Adam - God is an erroneous and lazily researched interpretation of BY's real opinion which was that HF and HM were an Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve.

Blood atonement-just his opinion. Plural marriage required to become gods-just his opinion and 19th century polemics. KFD-never canonized thus not official doctrine. I realized that about half of all I was taught growing up LDS was tossed on the LDS apologist trash heap of opinion. My integrity would not let me carry on in such a way so I ceased defending things that had to be defended by using the "it was just his opinion."

You should have based your defense on what the Church actually taught as doctrine.

Then your theory flies in the face of LDS prophets and apostles.

How so? So far, no one has been able to show me how or where.

Yes in the doctrinal sense. The scripture is at least doctrine and the scripture says God created Adam from the dust.

I believe God created Adam from the dust. But how did He do it? Did He scoop some mud with His hands or did he use evolution? LDS doctrine is silent on the matter leaving us to fill in the gaps with any theory we want until the Lord reveals further light and knowledge or science speaks to something else.

Not only does your theory oppose LDS leader is opposes LDS canon.

Feel free to specify.

BY's opinion (often erroneously confused for an Adam-God doctrine) has no place in LDS doctrine and the JST on Luke 3:38 seems to preclude it.

You are an idiot if you deny BY taught Adam God and that as more than his simple opinion.

Even if one has read only the JoD, one cannot possibly come to that conclusion and be intellectual honest about it. However, there is more on the subject than just the JoD (such as the WWJ).

I do deny that BY ever postulated anything at all like what people think of as an "Adam-God" doctrine.

Then you are an idiot or ignorant of the plethora of teachings he made on the subject.

Anything doctrinal?

[_Tarski]

Please give me that long standing definition of LDS Doctrine.

It's summarized well in my siggy. The first principle of this goes all the way back to D&C 107 wherein we see that the FP and Qo12 have equal authority. Therefore, one cannot make doctrine without the other..

When did the FP and the Qo12 make that official doctrine?

I think you will find that if you limit doctrine to only those things that were canonized by an official act of the FP amd Qo12 you have very little left.

[_bcspace]

When did the FP and the Qo12 make that official doctrine?

Simply by publishing it.

I think you will find that if you limit doctrine to only those things that were canonized by an official act of the FP amd Qo12 you have very little left.

Indeed. But that's not what is being said. If you want to know the doctrine, then all you have to do is turn to a work published by the LDS Church. It more than just canon, it's all the manuals, websites etc.

[_wenglund]

I have concluded that it is futile to try and make any sense of bc's theory. There is just no way it can make sense.

I don't accept or agree with all of BC's beliefs on the matter, but contrary to what you suggest, I have been able to make sense of it.

But, perhaps that is because I was open-minded and willing to respectfully listen and understand his differing point of view (whether I agree with it or not), rather than being intent on summarily or intolerantly dismissing it because it doesn't comport entirely with my world view. In short, I have attempted to avoid inadvertantly exemplifying the the topic of this thread--i.e. "ultimate prejudice". ;-)

THanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Moniker]

I have concluded that it is futile to try and make any sense of bc's theory. There is just no way it can make sense.

I don't accept or agree with all of BC's beliefs on the matter, but contrary to what you suggest, I have been able to make sense of it.

But, perhaps that is because I was open-minded and willing to respectfully listen and understand his differing point of view (whether I agree with it or not), rather than being intent on summarily or intolerantly dismissing it because it doesn't comport entirely with my world view. In short, I have attempted to avoid inadvertantly exemplifying the the topic of this thread--I.e. "ultimate prejudice". ;-)

THanks, -Wade Englund-

Great news! Perhaps you can summarize his point of view so the rest of us can make sense of it?