Bcspace probably right about what is LDS Doctrine

[_Wisdom Seeker]

They had to expunge the JoD from cannon to get rid of the discarded ideas about God.

The JoD was never canon or an official doctrinal work.

I think it really does not matter in the eyes of the TBM of what Doctrine may have been, but what Doctrine is here and now. Mistakes can always be attributed to men trying their very best to do God's work. Even Joseph Smith said that what he thought was prophesy was in fact a deception when trying to sell the Book of Mormon copyright to Canadians.

Some may think these TBM's who believe this way may be simple minded Kool-Aid drinking folk, but perhaps psychologically this is the only way to cope with changing doctrinal issues. Perhaps 5-10 years from now the Proclamation of the Family will be considered as irrelevant as the JoD and the TBM won't even bat an eye over it. So yes, Bcspace is right about what is LDS Doctrine.

[_bcspace]

I think it really does not matter in the eyes of the TBM of what Doctrine may have been, but what Doctrine is here and now. Mistakes can always be attributed to men trying their very best to do God's work.

Even BY had two criteria. "First, he needed to review the sermon and make any necessary corrections. Second, it had to be identified as scripture." I;m sure you know the relevant references.

Some may think these TBM's who believe this way may be simple minded Kool-Aid drinking folk, but perhaps psychologically this is the only way to cope with changing doctrinal issues. Perhaps 5-10 years from now the Proclamation of the Family will be considered as irrelevant as the JoD and the TBM won't even bat an eye over it.

Keep fantasizing. The Proclaimation will be official doctrine long after you're dead.

So yes, Bcspace is right about what is LDS Doctrine.

Even WW had to bring the Manifesto to the Qo12 for approval. The standard of D&C 107 works very well for the past being given in 1835 as it was.

[_bcspace]

God is Adam.

God and Jesus are the same guy.

God and Jesus are different guys.

The Father is a personage of spirit, the Son is a personage of tabernacle (flesh and bone).

Both are flesh and bone.

Holy Spirit is shared mind of Father and Son.

Holy Spirit is a separate person

And so forth.

Apparently the Holy Ghost is a stutterer.

Weak, even to the point of being non sequitur. All you've done is trace continuing revelation and thrown in something that was never doctrine (never stated even, not in the context you;re presenting) in the first place.

[Guest]

Some may think these TBM's who believe this way may be simple minded Kool-Aid drinking folk, but perhaps psychologically this is the only way to cope with changing doctrinal issues. Perhaps 5-10 years from now the Proclamation of the Family will be considered as irrelevant as the JoD and the TBM won't even bat an eye over it.

Keep fantasizing. The Proclaimation will be official doctrine long after you're dead.

I thought BKP said in GC last fall the Proclamation was doctrine/revelation, but in the days following changed the written account of his GC talk removing mention that it was doctrine/revelation?

[_the narrator]

I thought BKP said in GC last fall the Proclamation was doctrine, but in the days following changed the written account of his GC talk removing mention that it was doctrine?

BKP said it was "revelation." That was removed.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

I thought BKP said in GC last fall the Proclamation was doctrine, but in the days following changed the written account of his GC talk removing mention that it was doctrine?

BKP said it was "revelation." That was removed.

So he removed the mention of it being revelation, but just to be clear, it is still considered doctrine?

[_the narrator]

God is Adam.

God and Jesus are the same guy.

God and Jesus are different guys.

The Father is a personage of spirit, the Son is a personage of tabernacle (flesh and bone).

Both are flesh and bone.

Holy Spirit is shared mind of Father and Son.

Holy Spirit is a separate person

And so forth.

Apparently the Holy Ghost is a stutterer.

Weak, even to the point of being non sequitur. All you've done is trace continuing revelation and thrown in something that was never doctrine (never stated even, not in the context you;re presenting) in the first place.

The problem, bcspace, is that you want to maintain both the 'official teaching' and 'eternal truth' definitions of doctrine simultaneously. Like Millet, you end up tripping over yourself in the progress. Everything is just fine if you want to say that doctrine is simply the official teachings. It's when you want to maintain the latter that you start having to play games with the former to desperately make things work.

The facts are that doctrines haven't just changed line upon line, but have over the years replaced and contradicted each other. This is the main reason why the Lectures on Faith were actually decanonized--because it's teachings about God (with only the Jesus having a physical body and the holy ghost being the shared mind) could not be squared with later LDS doctrines.

[_the narrator]

So he removed the mention of it being revelation, but just to be clear, it is still considered doctrine?

If doctrine is defined as official contemporary Church teachings, than the PofF is perhaps the most doctrinal statement the Church has today.

[_Buffalo]

God is Adam.

God and Jesus are the same guy.

God and Jesus are different guys.

The Father is a personage of spirit, the Son is a personage of tabernacle (flesh and bone).

Both are flesh and bone.

Holy Spirit is shared mind of Father and Son.

Holy Spirit is a separate person

And so forth.

Apparently the Holy Ghost is a stutterer.

Weak, even to the point of being non sequitur. All you've done is trace continuing revelation and thrown in something that was never doctrine (never stated even, not in the context you;re presenting) in the first place.

Continuing revelation, huh? :D Is God an Oceania party member? Continuing revelation isn't the same thing as conflicting revelation, unless you think God's nature changed with each new "revelation."

The Father has no physical body!

The Father DOES have a physical body! We've always believed that.

Holy Spirit is just a hive mind!

The Spirit is a person! We've always believed that.

Adam is God!

Adam was never God! We've always believed that.





These are the actual words of Christ, now, remember that, in the second excerpt.

You get bonus points for downgrading something you claim is a revelation from God into something non-doctrinal. Why is it the policy of the church to disregard revelations from God?

[_Wisdom Seeker]

If doctrine is defined as official contemporary Church teachings, than the PofF is perhaps the most doctrinal statement the Church has today.

I think you are correct in your assessment of the PofF. But for BKP to remove the words revelation in regards to it, leads me to believe that it is merely men who determine what is LDS doctrine. It seems as if the FP and Q12 have stepped away from providing revelation and doctrine and instead simply offer up good advice.

What is the role of the Correlation Committee in regards to determining what goes into the church publications? It seems that if a mistake is made the blame sits squarely on the CC and not the brethren, so why would they (FP or Q12) want or need to participate in what gets put into the publications?