Was or was not BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" just that?

[_Joey]

BC,

Who did the Mormon's heavenly father pray to in becoming God while he was just a man as Joseph Smith described.  Who atoned  the Mormon God and why didn't such atonement last?  Why did Christ have to atone all over again?

[_Joey]

BC,

Who did the Mormon's heavenly father pray to in becoming God while he was just a man as Joseph Smith described.  Who atoned  the Mormon God and why didn't such atonement last?  Why did Christ have to atone all over again?

[_consiglieri]

I think it's fair to say that "Mormon Doctrine" cannot be classed in and of itself as Mormon doctrine. However, it's content is obviously all about Mormon doctrine and so "Mormon Doctrine" can be said to contain Mormon doctrine along Bruce's explanation of it.

Coming late to the party, but when I joined the LDS Church in 1978, Mormon Doctrine was used by virtually every speaker in sacrament meeting; to the point where I began to think of it as the Fifth Standard Work.

I think I was getting in toward the end of its popularity, but even then I thought the reason it was so frequently quoted was because of the ease of finding any subject in it alphabetically.

In other words, it was the easy way to find information about a subject one was asked to speak on.

Although the book Mormon Doctrine is off the shelves, I understand a good chunk of it lives on anonymously in the LDS Bible Dictionary.

It's like the last scene in Carrie.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_brade]

bcspace, after my last post do you agree that you have yet to post truth-value assessments or anything that would imply a truth-value assessment of (1) and (2)? Also, do you agree that if it's true that you do not have enough information to answer whether (2) is true or false, then you cannot say whether (1) is true or false?

[_sock puppet]

bcspace,

does every official LDS position = god's truth?

[_brade]

bump to hopefully get bcspace's attention.