But this really ends up with an odd result. Nothing before 1971, or 141 years of teaching and none of it is doctrine unless it goes through the correlation machine? What it it was published in an official source such as your example of the December 1970 Improvement Era? I struggle with that concept. I guess the Church can argue that nothing pre 1971 that has not been approved is official doctrine NOW and TODAY. But it cannot argue that things the Church taught and published pre 1971 were not doctrinal for the Church at that time. Thus for example, Adam God, which was published in the Millennial Star cannot be simply dismissed as opinion even if the Church does not accept it today.
Correct. Correlation allows the church to sift through 140 years of official doctrine and dismiss any it wants to. As you mention, Adam-God was taught in conference, published in church publications, and taught as part of the lecture at the veil. You can't get much more official than that without canonizing it. But today it is not doctrine because later church leaders rejected it, and since it was published before Correlation, they can say, not official.
It is a cop-out, plain and simple. What prophets taught and teach matters.
The Church does not appear to have done any of that. For example, instead of denying the priesthood ban, they have said they don't know why, and it remains doctrine.
Franktalk wrote: The Bible is full of prophets being taken to the future to witness first hand the future. In this case we have the Apostle John taken to the future to witness first hand the end times and the coming of Christ. How many of the Apostles were taken to the future we don't know. Why must people place the limitations of the flesh upon God?
That's the question...
The answer: it can't happen in Today's Day and Age, Even if one has scientifically proven Intelligent Design to the dismay of Orthodox Groups.
How many Apostles were taken to the future? I know of 3 and I'm guessing they still don't have a perfect knowledge. I don't know of any person living or dead save it be for Jesus Christ that had a firm solid grasp concerning everything or anything.
hatersinmyward wrote:How many Apostles were taken to the future? I know of 3 and I'm guessing they still don't have a perfect knowledge. I don't know of any person living or dead save it be for Jesus Christ that had a firm solid grasp concerning everything or anything.
The problem is two fold. Our memory of the pre-existence is not available to us so we have no way of placing things in proper perspective. We are also in the very weak form of flesh. So people who do see the future can only deliver the message they are supposed to. They will not give out more than what is required. An example is the thunders in Revelation. Their message was for John but not for us. And why is this so? Because each vision or visit must have doubt so we must live in faith and not proof.
bcspace wrote: When his words are published by the LDS Church as doctrine (without qualification).
So when he speaks at Conference? When he is published in the ensign? When he releases something to the press? When his words appear in teaching manuals?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Franktalk wrote:The problem is two fold. Our memory of the pre-existence is not available to us so we have no way of placing things in proper perspective. We are also in the very weak form of flesh. So people who do see the future can only deliver the message they are supposed to. They will not give out more than what is required. An example is the thunders in Revelation. Their message was for John but not for us. And why is this so? Because each vision or visit must have doubt so we must live in faith and not proof.
I take that as mostly accurate... I believe God chose various circumstances for every person, Just as he did for Christ. But I do not believe in the pre-mortal existence as the LDS define it.
bcspace wrote: When his words are published by the LDS Church as doctrine (without qualification).
So when he speaks at Conference? When he is published in the ensign? When he releases something to the press? When his words appear in teaching manuals?
In order for bcspace's sentence to make sense, it would mean that the church has to do more then just publish a prophet's words, but must also clarify that it is to be considered doctrine. Knowing his views, which most LDS disagree with, he should have taken out the 'as doctrine' bit.
In order for bcspace's sentence to make sense, it would mean that the church has to do more then just publish a prophet's words, but must also clarify that it is to be considered doctrine.
Not at all. If it is not doctrine, there will be a corresponding qualification or context.
which most LDS disagree with
I've never met an LDS person, in person, who, if active in the Church, disagreed with the Church's stand on doctrine or didn't already know what the stance was. Most of you, TBM or critic, by your own posts, operate under the conditions of the Church's stance which shows that while you may publicly disagree, you actually agree in practice.
bcspace wrote: Not at all. If it is not doctrine, there will be a corresponding qualification or context.
Ah, the gospel according to bcspace. To bad you can't back up that it is the gospel according to the LDS church.
I've never met an LDS person, in person, who, if active in the Church, disagreed with the Church's stand on doctrine or didn't already know what the stance was. Most of you, TBM or critic, by your own posts, operate under the conditions of the Church's stance which shows that while you may publicly disagree, you actually agree in practice.
Well first the church never made the stance on doctrine you are trying to make. Second I find it funny you want to say no one you have meet in person, since everyone knows how many disagreed with you here and over at Mad. Most of them are believing active members. To bad we can't actually confirm from all those you have meet in person. LOLOLOLOL