Official LDS statement on Christ in America

[_cinepro]

No. How do you figure?

People usually invoke legalistic criteria for "doctrine" only when they're trying to exclude something from the scrolls. When was the last time you argued online that something was doctrine based on the Church's own official statements?

[_cinepro]

Uhhhh.....no.

for what it's worth, Elder Petersen wasn't the only apostle to argue that "Quetzalcoatl = Jesus" in an official Church publication. (Not so official anymore; apparently it's been retired with only the French version left for distribution).

But I wouldn't blame any LDS over the age of 25 for still thinking that was the case, regardless of Brant's valiant efforts to the contrary.

[_Inconceivable]

I trusted Mark E. Petersen like a father (just I did the great Bruce R., SWK etc).

They were prophets, seers and revelators. I did not have to ever question God's anointed.

I testified to the truthfulness of this pamphlet. I knew it was true. It was revelation given to us through the Lord Jesus Christ's legal administrators. I baptised people with the influence of this testimony. Our mission alone passed out thousands of these.

If I stood in a mission conference and told Elder Petersen that what he testified of as a prophet was a damned lie, I would have been sent home. And at very least, disfellowshipped for refusing to sustain the pronouncements of the Lord's annointed.

BC "there is no doctrine" Space and Dan "ever coming to the knowledge of the truth" Peterson, After all of the mockery of those that at least walked the talk, who and what in the hell do you actually believe?

posers.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So you mean to say that absolutely everything in the pamphlet is (or was) Church doctrine? Down to the details?

Rather like inerrant scripture?

Sure. Why not?

No particular reason. Except that we don't even believe our canonical scriptures to be inerrant.

So this pamphlet, it would seem, would be superior to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

I'd never realized that.

Okay, how about we boil it down to a concept that was doctrine rather than details. Quetzalcoatl, among other Mesoamerican Gods, was Jesus.

You think it was official binding doctrine of the Church that Quetzalcoatl was Jesus?

I don't.

I think it was a common argument, widely accepted. It never even occurred to me to regard it as binding official doctrine.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If I stood in a mission conference and told Elder Petersen that what he testified of as a prophet was a damned lie, I would have been sent home.

And rightly so.

BC "there is no doctrine" Space and Dan "ever coming to the knowledge of the truth" Peterson, After all of the mockery of those that at least walked the talk, who and what in the hell do you actually believe?

posers.

That was nice.

[_TAK]

Daniel Peterson

You think it was official binding doctrine of the Church that Quetzalcoatl was Jesus?
I don't.

Binding? Nobody said anything about binding.
It was a doctrine at one time and taught as an LDS truth even by you no doubt.

I think it was a common argument, widely accepted. It never even occurred to me to regard it as binding official doctrine.

Is this binding, your attempt to shift the argument you are losing?

[_Inconceivable]

If I stood in a mission conference and told Elder Petersen that what he testified of as a prophet was a damned lie, I would have been sent home.

And rightly so.

BC "there is no doctrine" Space and Dan "ever coming to the knowledge of the truth" Peterson, After all of the mockery of those that at least walked the talk, who and what in the hell do you actually believe?

posers.

That was nice.

You come here to mock those that gave all and yet you base your own current beliefs upon the rock of plausable deniability. I flip the lights on and you seize the moment as if you were on a Vaudeville stage.

"That was nice" ?? I'm calling you out, Dan. What do you got past all of your fluff?

[_John Larsen]

This is a) not “single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion” and b)was “consistently proclaimed in official Church publications” for over ten years thus: it was doctrine.

What was doctrine?

An astute question really. The answer is, whatever we need it to be today.

[_Nevo]

For my general thoughts on the broader topic, see Daniel C. Peterson, “Notes on Historicity and Inerrancy," in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001), 197-215. I don't believe that it's on line.

Actually, it is: http://contentdm.lib.BYU.edu/u?/rsc,2555

[_antishock8]

BC "there is no doctrine" Space and Dan "ever coming to the knowledge of the truth" Peterson, After all of the mockery of those that at least walked the talk, who and what in the hell do you actually believe?

posers.

Oh, ho ho hooooo..... You think Pumpo the Clown will actually have a meaningful interaction with you? Uh. No. You will get the pleasure of talking to someone who obfuscates the meaning of 'doctrine' because it's not helpful to admit that his church taught that Jesus was Mr. Q.... You know... As a doctrine.