BCSpace and Official Doctrine--A Few Questions

[_Themis]

What everyone needs to realize is that I have only presented the Church's view on it's own doctrine.

It's to bad that bcspace keeps confusing his stance on what is doctrine with the church's stance.

[_Themis]

I think I'm starting to feel BC's logic is sound. It all makes sense to me. I'm glad he is willing to defend his position on this thread.

He goes past what the church has said by stating that everything published is doctrine. He has for many threads keep avoiding Brade's reasonable question about it.

[_Themis]

The you agree that Adam God was official doctrine. Thanks.

He reinterprets it while at the same time telling you that you are not allowed to. I really think he thinks he is the authority on what is doctrine for the church. :)

[_Buffalo]

I think I'm starting to feel BC's logic is sound. It all makes sense to me. I'm glad he is willing to defend his position on this thread.

He goes past what the church has said by stating that everything published is doctrine. He has for many threads keep avoiding Brade's reasonable question about it.

Yes he has. Just like he has avoided my questions for two days in the Juliann thread. He always cuts and runs when the going gets tough.

[_zeezrom]

Is it his rejection of disturbing doctrines, spoken by an individual prophet in the passion of the moment? Is it his rejection of personal revelation?

Examples?

I suppose I should test the waters here to see whether you reject them or not. Please state yes or no after each item below. Yes, if it is official doctrine and No if it is not official doctrine. K, here we go.

1. Sexual intercourse with Mary: “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood – was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” Journal of discourses vol. 8, page 115. "There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events..." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.)

2. Personal atonement: "There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 247; see also, Vol. 4, pp. 53-54, 219-220.)

3. JofD is scripture: "I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 264; see also page 95.)

4. Spoken word of BY is scripture: "I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95.)

5. Damnation for denying polygamy: "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

6. Adam *is* Heavenly Father (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50)

7. Catholic church is the whore of the earth: It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which was the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this Satanic organization.” McConkie

8. Monogamy is evil: "Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire....Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there,..."
- The Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862

9. Death for mixing races: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

[Guest]

Examples?

I suppose I should test the waters here to see whether you reject them or not. Please state yes or no after each item below. Yes, if it is official doctrine and No if it is not official doctrine. K, here we go.

None of those are doctrinal works (not even by Brigham Young) so how can they be used to say I reject disturbing doctrines?

[_zeezrom]

Look at #3 and #4 in my list. Do you reject the words of BY, stating that JOD and his sermons are scripture?

[_bcspace]

Look at #3 and #4 in my list. Do you reject the words of BY, stating that JOD and his sermons are scripture?

I don't have to reject his words considering some of the things he's said like that found in JoD 13:264. But your own #4 serves the purpose just as well.

[_consiglieri]

I'm talking about what determines what is and is not doctrine.

Why is it you think determining what is and is not doctrine important, BC?

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

For all the world, it looks like you are trying to shrink the target of what constitutes official doctrine in order to give the critics less to shoot at and therefore give you less to defend.

Is that the point?

I think the result of defining doctrine to so narrow a view has resulted in the vanilla-ization of Mormonism.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Fence Sitter]

What was considered doctrine in Brigham Young's time cannot be judged by applying a modern construct as to what defines doctrine.