Are Mormons Christians?

[Fortigurn]

@R. Daneel Olivaw

Individuals members don’t determine what is church doctrine.

I never said they did. I simply pointed out that individual LDS members can’t agree on what’s official Church doctrine, partly because no one really knows how to define it, and partly because what they are taught keeps changing.

I’ve quoted sources including the official church news agency making an official release to the public about the standard for LDS official doctrine and a FARMS release article which quotes a number of prophets saying exactly what I just said.

But a Church news agency isn’t a source of official Church doctrine, and a FARMS article isn’t a source of official Church doctrine. You told me yourself that only the Standard Works are the source of official Church doctrine.

I get my position on what is doctrine from the Church, I didn’t make it up on my own.

If that were the case, I would be able to find your position reflected in official LDS Church literature. But I don’t. You dismissed a Living Prophet speaking in the name of Jesus Christ, saying X is official Church doctrine, as simply speculating. So according to you, your opinion is more important than a Living Prophet speaking in the name of Jesus Christ, who thinks and says he is saying X is official Church doctrine.

You are being disingenuous. My quote was specific to where in the Americas things take place. That the Book of Mormon occurs in North, South, and Central America is a matter of revealed doctrine. If it took place in North America or South America is unknown. And you know perfectly well that’s what was meant.

Well let’s see what you said:

There is no official doctrine on Book of Mormon geography. Anything about that topic is speculation. Period.

You said right there that there is no official doctrine on Book of Mormon geography, and that anything about that topic is speculation, ‘Period’. That clearly isn’t the case.

You must have missed the part where I explained that the Introduction isn’t revealed.

No I didn’t. But you haven’t explained why they would write it if they didn’t want people to believe it. And that returns us to where this all started. You complained that people so often say ‘Mormons believe X’, when (according to you), the LDS Church doesn’t teach X, it’s just a false accusation made up by anti-Mormons. But I go looking and not only do I find plenty of Mormons who believe X, I find that they believe X because they were taught to believe X, and they were taught to believe X through repeated exposure to Church literature telling them to believe X. So you have to explain why the Church would teach X if they didn’t want people to believe X.

However, at least it’s official since it is ratified by Committee of General Authorities. Even though it is not scripture, it’s at least authorized to speak for the Church.

Well there you go, you acknowledge that if something is ratified by the GAs then it’s official. And note that this is a change of official teaching. Did you notice that the GAs also consistently taught that the Hill of Cumorah is in New York?

Thus, speculation as to where the city of Bountiful was, or Hill Cumorah, or any particular event in the Book of Mormon is not a matter of doctrine.

Then why was it consistently taught? And why did the LDS Church continually appeal to North American artefacts as evidence of this? And why did the LDS Church continually teach non-LDS members that so many events in the Book of Mormon were situated in North America? And why was I taught this consistently by the missionaries I spent night after night with? And why did the LDS Church pour thousands of dollars into archaeological expeditions of North America in an attempt to verify this teaching? And why did the LDS Church publish hundreds of articles arguing that so many events in the Book of Mormon were situated in North America?

If you say ‘Well they were speculating’, then why didn’t they say ‘We’re only speculating’? If you say ‘Well they were wrong’, then why should I believe them about anything? This is a colossal demonstration of their unreliability, whichever way you look at it. Now you’re saying that they just don’t know either when or where these events took place, when previously they were so certain. Even the Living Prophets were certain.

Nothing I’ve said is contradicted by standard (meaning ‘official’) Church sources.

According to official LDS Church sources, if a Living Prophet speaks in the name of Christ and declares doctrine, that’s official doctrine. I gave you such a quote and you dismissed it as not official LDS Church doctrine.

Standard works + modern revelation that is received through the established process.

Well that’s a change from what you said earlier, at least.

That means the First Presidency making a joint statement or the full Quorum of the 12 doing the same by unanimous voice. Technically, if all the Quorums of the Seventy got together and had a completely unanimous declaration it would be of equal effect as that of the First Presidency. Nothing outside of that is considered binding or official.

Can you provide evidence of this please? You’ll have to find it in the Standard Works of course, nowhere else.

See Doctrine and Covenants Section 107.

I read the whole thing. It doesn’t say anything relevant to this. It certainly doesn’t say that the only source of doctrine is the Standard Works or ‘the First Presidency making a joint statement or the full Quorum of the 12 doing the same by unanimous voice’ or the Quorums of the Seventy.

I gave you quotes from GAs, a Living Prophet speaking in the name of Jesus Christ, and quotes from the First Presidency. All of them stated explicitly that they were declaring official doctrine. Yet you said none of them were. My choice is to believe that you know more about their jobs than they do, and they were all completely wrong, or that they actually know what they were talking about and they were correct. You’ve given me the choice of your word against theirs. You’ll surely understand which I’m more likely to believe.

I’ve taken my method of determining what is doctrine from the prophets. I’ve linked to where that is what is officially stated.

But it wasn’t stated officially where you linked.

You, on the other hand, have no grounds for your declaration of what is official LDS doctrine or not.

I don’t declare anything, I simply quote official LDS sources which do.

[quote]None of these sources are valid. Not a single one.

What you see are General Authorities discussing Church doctrine. However, these letters do not determine Church doctrine. They do not enjoy any status of being official.

I know you aren’t going to take my word on it, but ask someone who is in authority and I guarantee they’ll give you the same answer. Not one of these sources can be used for doctrine.[/quote]

Well let’s see what they said:

• ‘if no other Prophet spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ’
• ‘the doctrines of the Church’
• ‘it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders’
• I’t is not a matter of policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization’
• ‘According to the doctrine of the Church’
• ‘No consideration is being given now to changing the doctrine of the Church to permit him to attain that status’
• ‘The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro’
• ‘it is the Lord’s doings’

Now you claim they are ‘discussing Church doctrine’, and not determining Church doctrine. You say that none of these enjoy status of being official (even the words of a Living Prophet in the name of Christ). Yet these sources all say that they are repeating official Church doctrine. Again, I have to choose between you claiming that none of them are describing official Church doctrine, and them saying that they are. The choice is obvious.

The above quotes are basically commentaries about Mormon doctrine applied to a discussion of blacks.

The above quotes all say what this official Mormon doctrine was. That’s what I am saying. I am not saying that they are inventing, creating, or revealing an official Church doctrine, I am saying that they are sources teaching what an official Church doctrine was. You have confirmed that this was official Church doctrine. So all of these sources have proved themselves reliable sources for this official Church doctrine. So descriptions of what constitutes official Church doctrine are not merely to be found within the standard works (and of course, the LDS Church has never claimed this).

[quote]The following are (or were, since revelation changed something) official doctrine:
Cain had the mark of black skin.
Prior to the revelation, blacks could not hold the priesthood in the Mormon church.
There was a war in heaven in the pre-existence, and there were valiants spirits who defended the plan of God.[/quote]

But that’s what all these quotes said. Yet you said they weren’t official Church doctrine, and do not enjoy the status of being official, and do not determine Church doctrine. You’ve just contradicted all this by saying that what was in those quotes is official Church doctrine. You have also acknowledged that ‘official Church doctrine’ was changed.

Comments on those doctrines were applied to the discussion by church leaders. But the comments are not official doctrine.

I really don’t understand the distinction you’re trying to make. I presented these quotes as quotes which all said that X was official Church doctrine. You claimed that they weren’t saying it was official Church doctrine, and couldn’t be relied on to say that it was official Church doctrine, but you then turned around and said that it was official Church doctrine (until it was changed).

However, let me make this clear, some of this is still a common Mormon belief, even though it is not official doctrine.

How is that possible? How can it be a common Mormon belief if the LDS Church never taught it? This returns us to where we started. How can LDS members believe X, if the Church never taught them X?

The idea that blacks are mentally or morally inferior is no longer a belief of Mormons (and was never doctrine), but that was a belief of some early leaders.

I didn’t quote any statements on that subject. I suspect you didn’t read what I wrote.

The idea that blacks were denied the priesthood because they were less valiant spirits is not official doctrine, but it is still a widely held belief based on doctrine of the pre-mortal existence.

I didn’t quote any statements on that subject either. You definitely didn’t read what I wrote.

[R_Daneel_Olivaw]

@Fortigurn

I never said they did. I simply pointed out that individual LDS members can’t agree on what’s official Church doctrine, partly because no one really knows how to define it

Once again, I told you how to define it. That’s how it is defined. And it’s in the sources I gave you.

If you choose to reject that, it’s your problem, not mine.

and partly because what they are taught keeps changing.

Bull. You point to things said in an unofficial capacity and say that the Church’s position has changed when it was never the Church’s position in the first place.

But a Church news agency isn’t a source of official Church doctrine

No, it’s not. But it is an official release. D&C 107 establishes the authority within the Church. The news release explains what the Church position is on doctrine.

My views are 100% in line with all these sources, and yet you still want to deny that’s how doctrine is established and call it my personal opinion.

FARMS article isn’t a source of official Church doctrine.

I know. But the FARMS article quoted a number of more authoritative sources and it reflects how members of the church are instructed to judge doctrine.

You told me yourself that only the Standard Works are the source of official Church doctrine.

You are leaving off official pronouncements of the First Presidency, etc. There are sources of modern revelation and there is a recognized procedure for receiving it.

If that were the case, I would be able to find your position reflected in official LDS Church literature. But I don’t.

You do. I cited three sources, one of which is canonical. D&C 107 is official doctrine and establishes the First Presidency, Quorum of the 12, and the full Quorums of the Seventy as official sources of revelation when they speak unanimously as a quorum. The other two sources are either releases from the Church organization (including the Quorum of the 12) or quotes multiple General Authorities.

You dismissed a Living Prophet speaking in the name of Jesus Christ, saying X is official Church doctrine, as simply speculating.

No I didn’t, you added the “speaking in the name of Jesus Christ” part. I said a living prophet prophesying in the name of Jesus Christ and sustained by his counselors is official doctrine. Your quotes were not the same. Some of the things you quoted were a case of a General Authority telling what the doctrine was— that blacks could not hold the priesthood. That’s was doctrine until revelation changed it. But the sources themselves have no authority.

So according to you, your opinion is more important than a Living Prophet

Wrong, and disingenuous. I’ve said where I’m getting my opinion-- revealed doctrine from a living prophet. But ignore that in making that false statement.

[quote] There is no official doctrine on Book of Mormon geography. Anything about that topic is speculation. Period.

You said right there that there is no official doctrine on Book of Mormon geography, and that anything about that topic is speculation, ‘Period’. That clearly isn’t the case.[/quote]
Yes, and were talking about the location of Hill Cumorah and “limited geography model”, etc.

[quote]You must have missed the part where I explained that the Introduction isn’t revealed.

No I didn’t. But you haven’t explained why they would write it if they didn’t want people to believe it. [/quote]
You didn’t ask me to. I am making a distinction for you between revealed doctrine and just an official position. The title page of the Book of Mormon is not considered revealed doctrine, but it is officially sanctioned by the Church. It does not make doctrine, but is believed to be factually correct.

You wanted an explanation of how it could be changed, and that’s how.

And that returns us to where this all started. You complained that people so often say ‘Mormons believe X’, when (according to you), the LDS Church doesn’t teach X, it’s just a false accusation made up by anti-Mormons. But I go looking and not only do I find plenty of Mormons who believe X, [color=red]I find that they believe X because they were taught to believe X, and they were taught to believe X through repeated exposure to Church literature telling them to believe X.[/color] So you have to explain why the Church would teach X if they didn’t want people to believe X.

Did I call it a “false accusation”? No. It’s just an error based on false appeal to authority. There are false accusations out there, but not every thing said by anti-Mormons is false. Mostly it is misunderstood, or evaluated out of context.

You have not shown the Church teaches that. You only have non-doctrinal sources and not anything official from the Church. The sources you have quoted are not used in Church and have not been for instruction. I have shown that to be the case with quotes from canonical sources as well as an official release and a very well written article quoting multiple General Authorities.

[quote]However, at least it’s official since it is ratified by Committee of General Authorities. Even though it is not scripture, it’s at least authorized to speak for the Church.

Well there you go, you acknowledge that if something is ratified by the GAs then it’s official.[/quote]
Ratified. And not just by a single General Authority. A committee. And then it’s still not doctrine, but an official position.

And note that this is a change of official teaching. Did you notice that the GAs also consistently taught that the Hill of Cumorah is in New York?

Yes, because it is. The hill that Joseph Smith found the plates on is called Cumorah. However, is it the same hill in the Book of Mormon? Unknown.

Then why was it consistently taught?

It wasn’t. You really don’t know what you are talking about here because you are only dealing with things from the Net. People discuss it, people bring it up, but a specific geographic model is not taught as fact or truth.

You have nothing to back up this claim that it is taught in the Church. Your attempt to use unofficial sources as proof falls flat because these sources are unofficial.

You ask why did the Church try and learn about the archeology of the Book of Mormon? Should seem pretty simple. And if you were asking the LDS missionaries if these events occurred in North America or South America, and they said it was definitely North America, then they were in error to do so. It’s not their mandate to teach things outside the established doctrines of the Church.

If you say ‘Well they were speculating’, then why didn’t they say ‘We’re only speculating’?

You mean about the location of such events? I really don’t know. Missionaries aren’t authorized to teach things outside the first principles and ordinances of the gospel or stuff outside the discussions.

when previously they were so certain. Even the Living Prophets were certain.

Give me a quote. Don’t tell me you already have, because nothing you have quoted thus far has said that they were certain. I was taught that the precise location of Cumorah and events in the Book of Mormon was uncertain.

[quote]Nothing I’ve said is contradicted by standard (meaning ‘official’) Church sources.

According to official LDS Church sources, if a Living Prophet speaks in the name of Christ and declares doctrine, that’s official doctrine. I gave you such a quote and you dismissed it as not official LDS Church doctrine.[/quote]
No. The quote you gave did not say it was “official doctrine”. The quote you gave told how you could know if something that was not official doctrine was true or not.

Go back to the J. Reuben Clark quote and look at the context. It’s responding to a question about how an individual can know if something that’s unofficial is true or not.

content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume … 5608&REC=1

[quote]Standard works + modern revelation that is received through the established process.

Well that’s a change from what you said earlier, at least.[/quote]
No, it’s the same thing I’ve said from the start. I have said this whole time that the First Presidency speaking with authority in General Conference would also be official doctrine.

[quote]That means the First Presidency making a joint statement or the full Quorum of the 12 doing the same by unanimous voice. Technically, if all the Quorums of the Seventy got together and had a completely unanimous declaration it would be of equal effect as that of the First Presidency. Nothing outside of that is considered binding or official.

Can you provide evidence of this please? You’ll have to find it in the Standard Works of course, nowhere else.

See Doctrine and Covenants Section 107.

I read the whole thing. It doesn’t say anything relevant to this.[/quote]
You must have missed verses 21-29. This establishes the authority of the various quorums.

It certainly doesn’t say that the only source of doctrine is the Standard Works or ‘the First Presidency making a joint statement or the full Quorum of the 12 doing the same by unanimous voice’ or the Quorums of the Seventy.

It says that these quorums have authority to make doctrine while decisions made without such unanimous agreement do not.

All of them stated explicitly that they were declaring official doctrine.

No. They were explaining to a person or small group what doctrine was. They also added a personal interpretation in their explanation. They weren’t making doctrine. They were relating it.

Yet you said none of them were. My choice is to believe that you know more about their jobs than they do, and they were all completely wrong, or that they actually know what they were talking about and they were correct.

You forgot the most important one: that you don’t understand it.

Please, ask any General Authority if what I’m saying is right or not. Refer them to this thread, or quote me word for word-- do not take liberties with my words, because I don’t trust you to relate my meaning accurately if you change my words any.

But it wasn’t stated officially where you linked.

D&C is both official and doctrine. LDS news is not doctrine, but it’s official. The FARMS document is not official or doctrine, but it quotes Church leaders, General Authorities, who are saying the same thing I am. It’s not just my word.

I don’t declare anything, I simply quote official LDS sources which do.

Bull. You take those quotes and spin it your own way. They don’t mean what you are saying.

Was it doctrine that blacks were excluded from the priesthood? Yes. They weren’t making new doctrine, but they were explaining what the doctrine was.

So descriptions of what constitutes official Church doctrine are not merely to be found within the standard works (and of course, the LDS Church has never claimed this).

Sure. I can give a description of what Church doctrine is, too. That doesn’t make it official doctrine, though. What General Authorities say is very reliable, but it isn’t official doctrine unless it comes through the revealed method for receiving revelation in the Church as found in D&C 107.

But that’s what all these quotes said. Yet you said they weren’t official Church doctrine, and do not enjoy the status of being official, and do not determine Church doctrine.

Yes. The quotes you listed did correctly state the official Church doctrine about blacks not getting the priesthood. But, the quotes you listed are not authoritative in making doctrine. If something in one of those quotes is wrong, then it’s wrong. Just as maybe something I say about Church doctrine can turn out to be in error.

They may be right, but they don’t determine doctrine.

You’ve just contradicted all this by saying that what was in those quotes is official Church doctrine.

Yeah, the part about blacks not being allowed the Priesthood. Also the part about their having been a war in heaven and there were some valiant spirits.

You have also acknowledged that ‘official Church doctrine’ was changed.

On multiple occasions. In such a case it must be done through revelation. The ending of the practice of polygamy (between multiple living spouses) and the extending of the Priesthood to every worthy male member were changes in official doctrine.

I really don’t understand the distinction you’re trying to make.

Clearly.

[quote]However, let me make this clear, some of this is still a common Mormon belief, even though it is not official doctrine.[/quote]How is that possible? How can it be a common Mormon belief if the LDS Church never taught it?

Because Mormons have their own thoughts other than just official doctrines. Mormons should believe official doctrine, but they are free to think other things too.

[MikeN]

Jumping late into this, and going back a few pages, is it Mormon doctrine that the God of the Bible, Father of Jesus, was actually at one time in the distant past a human being who reached His current exalted status as Creator of this Universe after a long period of spiritual growrh?

As an atheist, don’t have a dog in this fight- just wondering if that is official doctrine.

[R_Daneel_Olivaw]

@MikeN

Jumping late into this, and going back a few pages, is it Mormon doctrine that the God of the Bible, Father of Jesus, was actually at one time in the distant past a human being who reached His current exalted status as Creator of this Universe after a long period of spiritual growrh?

No, but it is something put forward by some former prophets and something many Mormons believe.

That man can become gods (but still under the authority of God) is official doctrine. It seems a natural leap to go from that to the idea that maybe God the Father wasn’t the first, and it’s backed up by recorded statements by early Mormon leaders.

Despite this speculation, it has not been added to the official canon of LDS Church beliefs.

I looked for a talk I remembered given in General Conference recently, but could not find it. But I do have a quote from Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles in a talk given in Conference some years ago.

[quote]The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Eloheim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.

There is only one Christ, one Redeemer. We accept the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. We accept the promise that we may become joint heirs with Him.[/quote]
Link to full article

[Fortigurn]

RDO, you’ve avoided one critical part of my post, which makes 75% of what you wrote irrelevant:

The above quotes all say what this official Mormon doctrine was. That’s what I am saying. I am not saying that they are inventing, creating, or revealing an official Church doctrine, I am saying that they are sources teaching what an official Church doctrine was. You have confirmed that this was official Church doctrine. So all of these sources have proved themselves reliable sources for this official Church doctrine. So descriptions of what constitutes official Church doctrine are not merely to be found within the standard works (and of course, the LDS Church has never claimed this).

Please read this. And please make up your mind about the GAs. On the one hand you want to tell me that I can’t rely on them to say accurately what official Church doctrine is. On the other hand you appeal to ‘a very well written article quoting multiple General Authorities’, ‘he FARMS document is not official or doctrine, but it quotes Church leaders, General Authorities, who are saying the same thing I am’, and ‘Please, ask any General Authority if what I’m saying is right or not’.

You’re still attacking a straw man. You’re acting as if I’m arguing that anything a GA says must be official doctrine. I have never said that. I have never said that any of the quotes I provided were ‘making official doctrine’.

I did say that when GAs say that X is an official doctrine (not declaring a new one, or inventing it themselves), then I have every reason to believe that it is an official doctrine. I gave an example of GAs saying that X was an official doctrine. You confirmed that the doctrine they said was an official doctrine was indeed an official doctrine. This validated my argument.

So it’s not true to say that I have to read either the Standard Works of wait for Revelation to determine what’s an official doctrine. The writings of GAs can also be a source which identifies (not creates or invents, or declares anew), what’s an official doctrine. That’s the point I’ve been making all along.

And by the way, you’re talking about the Reuben Clark quote. I wasn’t. You haven’t read my post very well.

Meanwhile, here are the backflips I’m recording.

• Previously I asked ‘Did you read the appeal made to the GAs in the letter I posted?’, and you said ‘No’, claiming that no such appeal was made, it was simply the opinion of a secretary.

But today I asked ‘Did you notice that the GAs also consistently taught that the Hill of Cumorah is in New York?’, and you said ‘Yes, because it is’. So today you managed to notice the GAs mentioned in the letter, which you somehow overlooked previously.

You also said this:

The hill that Joseph Smith found the plates on is called Cumorah. However, is it the same hill in the Book of Mormon? Unknown.

Well not unknown, according to the GAs you now recognize:

See that? Apparently the GAs haven’t said it’s unknown, they’ve consistently said it’s the one mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This is described here as ‘the position of the Church’. I’m amazed you don’t know these things, though as we’ve seen LDS rank and file members usually don’t know what’s official doctrine and what isn’t.

• Previously you said ‘There is no official doctrine on Book of Mormon geography. Anything about that topic is speculation. Period’. I proved that false very easily, and now you’ve had to acknowledge that there is an official doctrine on Book of Mormon geography:

That the Book of Mormon occurs in North, South, and Central America is a matter of revealed doctrine.

Likewise, you don’t even know what missionaries are taught to teach people. The missionaries I spent time with week after week (three missionaries over five nights, one night a week, always coming in pairs), had all their material very professionally presented, their flash cards, pamphlets, and books, etc. All LDS Church material. And they explained to me in painstaking detail exactly where and when certain of the events in the Book of Mormon took place in North America. They had maps and everything. Not a word about Central America or South America. But of course, you’re not really in the best position to know what the missionaries are teaching.

• Previously you said ‘Speculation has changed regularly. Revealed truth has stayed constant’, and ‘official doctrine has rarely changed’. But now you say that official doctrine has changed ‘On multiple occasions’. Not exactly ‘rarely’.

• Previously you said ‘For it to be official doctrine, it has to be in the standard works, canonized proclamations, or be issued by the First Presidency’. You also told me that FARMS articles are not sources for official doctrine. But later you appealed to a press release and a FARMS article as sources for official doctrine.

It just goes on and on.

By the way, you said:

That the Book of Mormon occurs in North, South, and Central America is a matter of revealed doctrine.

Can you quote the relevant revelation please? And your quote from D&C 107 doesn’t provide all the information about the process of how official doctrine comes about. You simply quote the part which relates to how decisions are made by the GAs.

One more by the way, you haven’t addressed this:

If you say ‘Well they were speculating’, then why didn’t they say ‘We’re only speculating’? If you say ‘Well they were wrong’, then why should I believe them about anything? This is a colossal demonstration of their unreliability, whichever way you look at it. Now you’re saying that they just don’t know either when or where these events took place, when previously they were so certain. Even the Living Prophets were certain.

Your only response was to say that you don’t know why the LDS Church didn’t say it was speculating when it taught about the issues under question. It’s simple RDO. They didn’t say they were only speculating, because they weren’t speculating. They were teaching people to believe it. That’s the part you keep omitting to address. And no, I didn’t ask ‘You ask why did the Church try and learn about the archeology of the Book of Mormon?’. And no, I wasn’t ‘asking the LDS missionaries if these events occurred in North America or South America, and they said it was definitely North America’. I never asked them that. I didn’t have to. They taught it to me. They taught it to me because they had been taught to teach it to me.

And who taught them to teach it RDO? Anti-Mormons? No. The LDS Church.

[Fortigurn]

[quote=“MikeN”]Jumping late into this, and going back a few pages, is it Mormon doctrine that the God of the Bible, Father of Jesus, was actually at one time in the distant past a human being who reached His current exalted status as Creator of this Universe after a long period of spiritual growrh?

As an atheist, don’t have a dog in this fight- just wondering if that is official doctrine.[/quote]

It was taught repeatedly by a long list of LDS Church authorities. People were consistently taught to believe it as true. It was taught by revelation, so it cannot be contradicted or changed except by another revelation, and there has been no such revelation. So this stands:

[quote]“That exalted position was made manifest to me at a very early day. I had a direct revelation of this. It was most perfect and complete. If there ever was a thing revealed to man perfectly, clearly, so that there could be no doubt or dubiety, this was revealed to me, and it came in these words: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” This may appear to some minds as something very strange and remarkable, but it is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ and with His promises.”

Prophet Lorenzo R. Snow, Unchangeable Love of God, Sunday, September 18, 1898[/quote]

It has always been referred to as a doctrine of the LDS Church’s gospel:

[quote]As a matter of fact, he taught that through this process God himself attained perfection. From President Snow’s understanding of the teachings of the Prophet on this doctrinal point, he coined the familiar couplet: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” This teaching is peculiar to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ."

Elder Marion G. Romney, General Conference, October 1964[/quote]

In more recent years it has become an embarrassment to the LDS Church in their efforts to modify their doctrines in response to pressure from Evangelical Christians, so they have attempted to distance themselves from it and argued that even though it was believed and taught by previous Church authorities and leaders, it is no longer referred to as ‘official’ Church doctrine.

But since it is a revelation of a Living Prophet, and since it has never been contradicted or removed by another revelation, it is still being taught as doctrine to be believed:

[quote]“The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this church.”

Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997, page 34, “The Teachings of Brigham Young”[/quote]

[quote]The Prophet Joseph Smith taught of a much simpler and more sensible relationship: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit … was to make himself visible … , you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.”"

“Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female,” Ensign, Jan. 2005, 48[/quote]

There’s plenty more like this.

[R_Daneel_Olivaw]

@Fortigurn

I am not saying that they are inventing, creating, or revealing an official Church doctrine, I am saying that they are sources teaching what an official Church doctrine was.

If that’s all you are saying, then yes. They are sources for teaching what an official doctrine is. But then, so is a stake president, bishop, or even an elder. (See D&C 20)

“General Authority” is not an office in the priesthood. It is mostly a reference of the scope of a person’s authority. A GA has authority to act anywhere in the world, travel, and set up stakes, mission president’s, etc. Their role is not to define doctrine, but they are excellent teachers and a very good source for understanding things.

However, if what they say cannot be found in the standard works or a Conference Report (which can be found in the Ensign) where they make a proclamations as a quorum, then it is suspect and not official doctrine. In such a case a person should judge their words according to the Spirit.

So descriptions of what constitutes official Church doctrine are not merely to be found within the standard works (and of course, the LDS Church has never claimed this).

You weren’t talking about descriptions of Church doctrine (first time you used this word). You were talking about the doctrine itself. You still can’t quote a book from an apostle or prophet, not to mention the Seventy, and say that this establishes something as doctrine.

You can consider such descriptions as secondary sources, and if there is no reference in a primary source, then it is not official doctrine.

Please read this.

I had. I thought the rest of my response would make that clear enough and responding to that part directly would just be repeating what I had said elsewhere.

And please make up your mind about the GAs. On the one hand you want to tell me that I can’t rely on them to say accurately what official Church doctrine is.

No, no, don’t put words in my mouth. I have been arguing this whole time they they do not determine doctrine and their words cannot be used to establish doctrine.

But are they accurate when they are telling people what the doctrine is as opposed to when they are just giving their own opinion? Yes, very accurate and reliable. However, they aren’t infallible and they sometimes start off relating a matter of official doctrine and then get into how that applies to whatever they are discussing. And yes, they can actually be wrong about what the doctrine is, but I’m more likely to be wrong than they are.

You’re still attacking a straw man. You’re acting as if I’m arguing that anything a GA says must be official doctrine. I have never said that. I have never said that any of the quotes I provided were ‘making official doctrine’.

If you weren’t saying that then there was a misunderstanding. I believed that was actually what you were saying this whole time.

So it’s not true to say that I have to read either the Standard Works of wait for Revelation to determine what’s an official doctrine. The writings of GAs can also be a source which identifies (not creates or invents, or declares anew), what’s an official doctrine.

Well, if you want to rely on other people all the time. The primary way to learn the doctrine is to read the scriptures yourself and pray to understand it. Then, when someone gets up and says something not in harmony with the scriptures you’ll know it-- even if they are a General Authority.

And by the way, you’re talking about the Reuben Clark quote. I wasn’t. You haven’t read my post very well.

There’s a whole lot to read and you’ve made a whole lot of quotes. When you say, “I already gave a quote about that…” you leave it to me to figure out which quote you meant. If you want to avoid me choosing the wrong quote to respond to you should refer to the specific one.

* Previously I asked ‘Did you read the appeal made to the GAs in the letter I posted?’, and you said ‘No’, claiming that no such appeal was made, it was simply the opinion of a secretary.

Because I read the letter and noticed on the bottom that the person responding was an assistant to the First Presidency, and not a General Authority of any kind.

But today I asked ‘Did you notice that the GAs also consistently taught that the Hill of Cumorah is in New York?’, and you said ‘Yes, because it is’. So today you managed to notice the GAs mentioned in the letter, which you somehow overlooked previously.

Ah, I see. You meant that the assistant was using quotes from the General Authorities as a reference, not that the person writing was a General Authority.

[quote]The hill that Joseph Smith found the plates on is called Cumorah. However, is it the same hill in the Book of Mormon? Unknown.

Well not unknown, according to the GAs you now recognize[/quote]
Which General Authorities? That’s an incredibly vague response. The fact that they “maintain that it is the same one” (according to the writer of this letter from an office at Church Headquarters) doesn’t mean that they know it for a fact.

You really need to stop relying on this letter. It’s no doubt authentic, but it is so far away from being reliable to establish doctrine as to be all but worthless. The writer is answering to the best of his knowledge for the benefit of a member of a ward.

There are many possible ways this letter could be wrong (not to mention the possibility that it’s actually correct) and still there’s no problem.

1. The writer made an error. (Probably typed this response up quickly)
2. The writer is referring to a few General Authorities personal opinions, and considering it official Church position when it is not really so.
3. The writer is correct, but the official Church position is based on tradition, not revelation, and could be corrected.

This letter is an example of giving way to much weight to something of very little importance.

Apparently the GAs haven’t said it’s unknown, they’ve consistently said it’s the one mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This is described here as ‘the position of the Church’. I’m amazed you don’t know these things

I can’t remember how many years ago I first read this letter on an anti-Mormon website. But I recognized it then as unimportant, just as I do now. It’s some guy wanting to know details not in official doctrine and pestering his local leader to ask for information, and it getting passed off to someone not in a position of authority to take care of.

You see the name at the bottom of the letter? Is it a General Authority? Not at the time, though he is as of this year.

* Previously you said ‘There is no official doctrine on Book of Mormon geography. Anything about that topic is speculation. Period’. I proved that false very easily

Oh, geez, you’re still going on about that. We weren’t talking about whether or not the Book of Mormon took place in the Americas or not. We were talking about the location of a specific hill and speculation about where (on the continents) specific events took place.

That is completely disingenuous. You knew exactly what I meant. The context for the comment was so plain as to make qualifying it unnecessary.

Likewise, you don’t even know what missionaries are taught to teach people.

Um, I really do know. I still have it memorized and I still have my flipcharts I used.

And they explained to me in painstaking detail exactly where and when certain of the events in the Book of Mormon took place in North America. They had maps and everything.

You making this up? I taught at the MTC just 6 years ago. I taught missionaries what they were supposed to be teaching and I read the manuals cover to cover.

If they were using maps from FARMS or whatever they were not following the missionary handbook.

* Previously you said ‘Speculation has changed regularly. Revealed truth has stayed constant’, and ‘official doctrine has rarely changed’. But now you say that official doctrine has changed ‘On multiple occasions’. Not exactly ‘rarely’.

Multiple=more than one.

But later you appealed to a press release and a FARMS article as sources for official doctrine.

No, I didn’t. I appealed to them to help describe what the official position is. :eyeroll:

You can’t even keep from changing my words.

It just goes on and on.

Your misquotes and misrepresentations do. Just looking back at how you’ve treated my statements, you’re clearly a very unreliable source for anyone wanting a balanced outside opinion on things.

[quote]That the Book of Mormon occurs in North, South, and Central America is a matter of revealed doctrine.

Can you quote the relevant revelation please?[/quote]
Why? This is ridiculous. It’s clear enough in the D&C. However, I should correct my statement-- it should say “and/or” rather than simply “and”.

And your quote from D&C 107 doesn’t provide all the information about the process of how official doctrine comes about.

So? I’ve explained myself more than adequately and been more than patient with you. D&C explains the authority of the quorums and from that the rest can be fairly easily understood.

I’ve been very patient with your barrage of questions, and I’m satisfied that I’ve answered you correctly and effectively defeated your criticisms. You have misrepresented my statements several times (saying I dismissed the prophets, said that they are not good for accurately describing doctrine, etc.) and insulted me based on my not currently attending church.

I’ve about had it. In a case like this where you are not actually seeking to learn anything from me about my beliefs (except maybe, some new thing to attack) I see no benefit in replying to you further on this. It certainly will not benefit you spiritually or intellectually since you have your mind made up on this-- which I can tell from the sophistry of your arguments.

[quote]If you say ‘Well they were speculating’, then why didn’t they say ‘We’re only speculating’? If you say ‘Well they were wrong’, then why should I believe them about anything?

Your only response was to say that you don’t know why the LDS Church didn’t say it was speculating[/quote]
You weren’t talking about the LDS Church. You were talking about the missionaries you talked with. The antecdent of “they” in the above quote is “the missionaries”. And I responded I don’t know why they didn’t say the maps they were using was speculation is because I don’t know.

The Church uses appropriate language to qualify things when something is in question. Read a Sunday School manual and you’ll see that very clearly. Individual missionaries may not know to do that.

They were teaching people to believe it. That’s the part you keep omitting to address.

You mean, the two missionaries? Well, they were teaching speculation as doctrine and somewhere down the line they’ll hear a talk in a priesthood leadership meeting that will correct that errant behavior.

Accountability is a watchword in the LDS Church, and teachers (particularly missionaries) are very frequently reminded that their duty is to teach the first principles and ordinances of the gospel and not to go beyond that.

And no, I didn’t ask ‘You ask why did the Church try and learn about the archeology of the Book of Mormon?’.

Sure you did. Look back at your own post.

They taught it to me because they had been taught to teach it to me.

Most certainly not. Like I said, I went through the MTC and I taught at the MTC. If they taught you that it happened in North America specifically then they made a small error.

Really, though, this is not exactly critical. Nobody goes to hell for thinking speculation is doctrine.
But for some reason you are really concerned with these peripheral details.

[R_Daneel_Olivaw]

@Fortigurn

It was taught repeatedly by a long list of LDS Church authorities. People were consistently taught to believe it as true. It was taught by revelation, so it cannot be contradicted or changed except by another revelation, and there has been no such revelation.

Fortigurn does not know what he is talking about. He is not a member of the LDS Church, has displayed a woeful grasp of what constitutes LDS doctrine.

The quotes he has made are the aforementioned non-officially accepted quotes by prophets, and is not official doctrine of the Church.

The quote from Lorenzo Snow is not official canon, however it is frequently repeated in Church meetings. But keep in mind that Jesus Christ is also God, and Jesus was once a mortal man. So, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be” is most certainly true. Speculation that this means that God the Father once was mortal and lived earlier is not official doctrine.

Once again, Fortigurn is quoting non-canonical works that do not make doctrine and is mistaken in his assertions.

[Fortigurn]

@R. Daneel Olivaw

[quote=“Fortigurn”]It was taught repeatedly by a long list of LDS Church authorities. People were consistently taught to believe it as true. It was taught by revelation, so it cannot be contradicted or changed except by another revelation, and there has been no such revelation.

Fortigurn does not know what he is talking about. He is not a member of the LDS Church, has displayed a woeful grasp of what constitutes LDS doctrine.

The quotes he has made are the aforementioned non-officially accepted quotes by prophets, and is not official doctrine of the Church.

The quote from Lorenzo Snow is not official canon, however it is frequently repeated in Church meetings.[/quote]

RDO, are you denying that this doctrine:

• Is a revelation?
• Is described by the LDS Church as a doctrine unique to them?
• Is taught in standard LDS Church literature?

If you are denying these three points, can you provide any evidence that these things are not so? Can you provide any evidence that this is not an official LDS doctrine? I note that you didn’t address any of the quotes I provided.

[R_Daneel_Olivaw]

[quote=“Fortigurn”]RDO, are you denying that this doctrine:

• Is a revelation?
• Is described by the LDS Church as a doctrine unique to them?
• Is taught in standard LDS Church literature?

If you are denying these three points, can you provide any evidence that these things are not so? Can you provide any evidence that this is not an official LDS doctrine? I note that you didn’t address any of the quotes I provided.[/quote]
Read what I wrote. I addressed the quote from Lorenzo Snow. I explained specifically that none of the quotes you provided are from canonical sources. None have been admitted into canon.

Is the quote a revelation? Yes. But it is not canonized. None of these quotes enjoy official status as determining doctrine. However, I will add that these quotes are from officially approved sources (not-canonical, though) and came through correct channels-- these are officially sanctioned publications, but do not create new doctrine.

Now, what is the doctrine these quotes are explaining?
Does the quote say God the Father (of Jesus) was a man like us? No. It says God. Even the Brigham Young quote says it this way. LDS understand God to be the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The official doctrines that are being referred to in your quotes are:
God is anthropomorphic, having an immortal body of flesh and bone, and is not a shapeless entity.
Man can become like God.
Jesus was once a man.

These three are official doctrines, as opposed to what MikeN was asking about— which is not official doctrine and is not taught.

[Fortigurn]

[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”][quote=“Fortigurn”]RDO, are you denying that this doctrine:

• Is a revelation?
• Is described by the LDS Church as a doctrine unique to them?
• Is taught in standard LDS Church literature?

If you are denying these three points, can you provide any evidence that these things are not so? Can you provide any evidence that this is not an official LDS doctrine? I note that you didn’t address any of the quotes I provided.[/quote]
Read what I wrote. I addressed the quote from Lorenzo Snow.[/quote]

I didn’t see that you said anything about it at all, except that it wasn’t official and wasn’t from an official source.

I explained specifically that none of the quotes you provided are from canonical sources. None have been admitted into canon.

We have been through this before. I am not appealing to the sources as canon. I am asking you if what the sources say is correct. Let me put it more directly:

• Is this a revelation, as claimed by Prophet Lorenzo Snow?
• Is this a doctrinal point, a teaching peculiar to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, as claimed by Romney?
• Is this a doctrine ‘unique to this church’, as claimed in the Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997, page 34?
• Is this taught in ‘Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997’, and ‘Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female’, Ensign, Jan. 2005, 48’?

Is the quote a revelation? Yes.

That’s a start.

But it is not canonized.

Does that mean it isn’t a revelation, it isn’t a doctrine, it isn’t believed by Mormons, it isn’t taught by the LDS Church, or what? From what I know about canonization, this simply means it’s not found in the Standard Works. That’s hardly surprising since it’s a revelation which post dates them. So what? According to D&C 68, ‘whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation’.

None of these quotes enjoy official status as determining doctrine.

I didn’t appeal to them as determining doctrine, I appealed to them as saying that X was a revelation and a doctrine taught by (and unique to), the LDS Church. Is this true or not?

However, I will add that these quotes are from officially approved sources (not-canonical, though) and came through correct channels-- these are officially sanctioned publications, but do not create new doctrine.

You’re on the merry go round again. I didn’t claim that they were creating new doctrine. My question is whether or not they are correct when they describe this as a revelation and a doctrine of the LDS Church (specifically a unique doctrine of the gospel of the Church). That’s all I’m asking.

[quote]Now, what is the doctrine these quotes are explaining?
Does the quote say God the Father (of Jesus) was a man like us? No. It says God. Even the Brigham Young quote says it this way. LDS understand God to be the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[/quote]

Actually no, it identifies this God as the Father. Have you read the article? It’s in ‘Milennial Star’, No. 26 June 27 1892, page 404. The ‘God’ of whom Snow speaks is distinguished from Christ (‘a testimony of God and Jesus Christ’). Not only that, but the ‘God’ is referred to as one person (so it’s not referring to the three persons). But even if what you said were true, that would mean that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were all men once who became God, which doesn’t actually help you get away from what was revealed and taught.

[quote]The official doctrines that are being referred to in your quotes are:
God is anthropomorphic, having an immortal body of flesh and bone, and is not a shapeless entity.
Man can become like God.
Jesus was once a man.[/quote]

No, they’re all addressing:

• ‘As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be’ (no mention of Jesus)
• ‘through this process God himself attained perfection’ (no mention of Jesus)
• ‘The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God’ (no mention of Jesus)
• ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens’ (no mention of Jesus)

These three are official doctrines, as opposed to what MikeN was asking about— which is not official doctrine and is not taught.

It’s a revelation but not an official doctrine? Is it taught in the Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997, page 34? Is this taught in ‘Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997’, and ‘Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female’, Ensign, Jan. 2005, 48’?

I ask again, can you provide any evidence that this is not an official LDS doctrine? Actual statements from the Standard Works would be good, or another revelation.

You see RDO, I am once again faced with a situation in which a Prophet says X is LDS doctrine, a GA says X is LDS doctrine, and two recent LDS teaching guides say that X is LDS doctrine, yet you claim that X is not LDS doctrine. You are reinforcing yet again the original point I have made from the start, that LDS members frequently disagree on what LDS doctrine is, because they are taught different things and frequently disagree on how to determine what is ‘official’ LDS doctrine.

But as we’ve seen, the LDS Church frequently teaches X, Y or Z even if it isn’t ‘official’ LDS doctrine. Yet it is taught, for all that, it is called ‘doctrine’, and people are taught to believe it.

[Satellite_TV]

[quote=“Fortigurn”] You see RDO, I am once again faced with a situation in which a Prophet says X is LDS doctrine, a GA says X is LDS doctrine, and two recent LDS teaching guides say that X is LDS doctrine, yet you claim that X is not LDS doctrine. You are reinforcing yet again the original point I have made from the start, that LDS members frequently disagree on what LDS doctrine is, because they are taught different things and frequently disagree on how to determine what is ‘official’ LDS doctrine.

But as we’ve seen, the LDS Church frequently teaches X, Y or Z even if it isn’t ‘official’ LDS doctrine. Yet it is taught, for all that, it is called ‘doctrine’, and people are taught to believe it.[/quote]

RDO, Prophet of the Positronic Brain, has yet to have his revelations indoctrinated into canon laws.

What does it all mean Fortigurn? when RDO will just twist and turn at every question.

RDO you still have not answered my question from a previous thread. Where was your God before the Big Bang?

Now if it is proven that Anti Matter is real and that there is an ANTI GOD there are going to be some very interesting discussions coming forth.

[R_Daneel_Olivaw]

@Fortigurn

I didn’t see that you said anything about it at all, except that it wasn’t official and wasn’t from an official source.

Then clearly you didn’t read carefully enough.

I am not appealing to the sources as canon. I am asking you if what the sources say is correct.

But you quoted them as if they said it was official doctrine. Which is wrong.

[quote]But it is not canonized.

Does that mean it isn’t a revelation, it isn’t a doctrine, it isn’t believed by Mormons[/quote]
It is revelation to Lorenzo Snow. It is not official doctrine. It is believed by many Mormons.

So what? According to D&C 68, ‘whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation’.

That same scripture applies to what I say. ‘They’ refers to the elders of the church and was given concerning elders who were called on a mission. So, if I say something when moved by the spirit, that would just as well be considered scripture. That doesn’t make it official church doctrine.

You are quoting things of which you have no proper understanding of the context and applying it in ways not in keeping with LDS belief.

You’re on the merry go round again. I didn’t claim that they were creating new doctrine.

No, but you quoted them as if they did.

Actually no, it identifies this God as the Father.

No it doesn’t. You’ve been reading things out of context and put quotes together incorrectly.

It’s in ‘Milennial Star’, No. 26 June 27 1892, page 404.

Go ahead. Look at it. Where does it say it is referring to God the Father as opposed to Jesus?

The Lorenzo Snow quote and the Brigham Young quote are different. The Romney quote was in reference to the Lorenzo Snow quote.

Not only that, but the ‘God’ is referred to as one person

God can refer to any of them, or all of them together.

But even if what you said were true, that would mean that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were all men once who became God

No it wouldn’t. You are trying to force a specific interpretation when that interpretation is not held up by the rest of LDS belief. It’s merely what you think it means, not what it means to LDS.

[quote]The official doctrines that are being referred to in your quotes are:
God is anthropomorphic, having an immortal body of flesh and bone, and is not a shapeless entity.
Man can become like God.
Jesus was once a man.[/quote]
No,[/quote]
Sorry, I’m right and you’re wrong. If you look at the context of the speech and what they had just gotten done saying was false, it’s clear that the doctrines they are referring to are the ones I mentioned.

(no mention of Jesus)

But Jesus is God. In many instances when “God” is said, we understand it to mean Jesus. You realize that LDS doctrine is clear that Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, is Jesus Christ.

It’s a revelation but not an official doctrine?

Sure. I’ve had revelations. All things which a person knows from God directly is revelation. Thus, my knowing that God lives and loves all mankind is a revelation. This revelation to me agrees with Church canon, but I could theoretically get revelation that was not included in church canon. But my getting revelation would not make it official doctrine.

Is it taught in the Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997, page 34? Is this taught in ‘Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997’, and ‘Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female’, Ensign, Jan. 2005, 48’?

The three doctrines I mentioned, yes. That God has a God above him, or that he was once imperfect, no.

I ask again, can you provide any evidence that this is not an official LDS doctrine? Actual statements from the Standard Works would be good, or another revelation.

If you can’t find that as doctrine in the standard works or a revelation given through the proper channel, then it’s not official doctrine. Unless you find it in the standard works or an official proclamation by the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve, then it isn’t official doctrine. That is how official doctrine is official doctrine. The lack of such a quote in an official source (as I’ve already stated) is proof.

You see RDO, I am once again faced with a situation in which a Prophet says X is LDS

What you’re looking at is where you interpret X as LDS doctrine based on a quote, and I’m telling you you’re interpreting things in ways that are not in keeping with official doctrine.

I know what’s been taught in the LDS church and I’ve read every single one of these sources more than once. And as I’ve said, it’s not received officially, it’s not official doctrine.

that LDS members frequently disagree on what LDS doctrine is, because they are taught different things and frequently disagree on how to determine what is ‘official’ LDS doctrine.

The disagreement comes because what’s being discussed is not official doctrine.

But as we’ve seen, the LDS Church frequently teaches X, Y or Z even if it isn’t ‘official’ LDS doctrine.

No, what you’ve seen is that a person reading something with an anti-Mormon slant will take quotes to support something they think is LDS doctrine but actually isn’t intended to support that at all.

Sorry, but you are not an authority on LDS doctrine and you really don’t know what is or is not LDS doctrine. I’m not an authority either, but at least I know the difference.

[Fortigurn]

@R. Daneel Olivaw

But you quoted them as if they said it was official doctrine. Which is wrong.

Please show me from the quotes that they’re not saying it’s LDS doctrine. Again:

• Is this a revelation, as claimed by Prophet Lorenzo Snow?
• Is this a doctrinal point, a teaching peculiar to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, as claimed by Romney?
• Is this a doctrine ‘unique to this church’, as claimed in the Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997, page 34?
• Is this taught in ‘Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997’, and ‘Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female’, Ensign, Jan. 2005, 48’?

It is revelation to Lorenzo Snow.

And?

It is not official doctrine.

Evidence please. I’ve asked several times now.

It is believed by many Mormons.

Why is it believed by any Mormons? Who taught it to them? Anti-Mormons?

That same scripture applies to what I say. ‘They’ refers to the elders of the church and was given concerning elders who were called on a mission. So, if I say something when moved by the spirit, that would just as well be considered scripture. That doesn’t make it official church doctrine.

But it would be canonized, which is the point I was making. If it’s Scripture, it’s part of the canon.

You are quoting things of which you have no proper understanding of the context and applying it in ways not in keeping with LDS belief.

On the contrary, I find that many Mormons understand these quotes exactly as I do. This is hardly surprising, since my understanding of these quotes was taught to me by Mormons!

[quote]You’re on the merry go round again. I didn’t claim that they were creating new doctrine.

No, but you quoted them as if they did.[/quote]

No I didn’t, I quoted them saying that X was LDS doctrine. You claim that X is not LDS doctrine. Why should I believe you over them?

Actually no, it identifies this God as the Father.

No it doesn’t. You’ve been reading things out of context and put quotes together incorrectly.

Where does it say it is referring to God the Father as opposed to Jesus?

I quoted from it directly. Please read what I wrote.

The Lorenzo Snow quote and the Brigham Young quote are different. The Romney quote was in reference to the Lorenzo Snow quote.

Relevance?

God can refer to any of them, or all of them together.

But ‘God’ only refers to one of them in the Lorenzo Snow quote.

It’s merely what you think it means, not what it means to LDS.

On that contrary, that’s what it means to many LDS, as we see from LDS literature, including teaching manuals.

[quote][quote]The official doctrines that are being referred to in your quotes are:
God is anthropomorphic, having an immortal body of flesh and bone, and is not a shapeless entity.
Man can become like God.
Jesus was once a man.[/quote]
No,[/quote]
Sorry, I’m right and you’re wrong. If you look at the context of the speech and what they had just gotten done saying was false, it’s clear that the doctrines they are referring to are the ones I mentioned.[/quote]

I looked:

• ‘As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be’
• ‘through this process God himself attained perfection’
• ‘The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God’
• ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens’

These quotes say something other than God being anthropomorphic, having an immortal body of flesh and bone, not a shapeless entity, nor that Jesus was once a man. Two of them say that man can become like God, and all of them say that God was once like us.

But Jesus is God. In many instances when “God” is said, we understand it to mean Jesus.

But that’s not how ‘God’ is used in these quotes, especially not the Lorenzo quote.

You realize that LDS doctrine is clear that Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, is Jesus Christ.

Yes, but that’s not the referent of these quotes.

This revelation to me agrees with Church canon, but I could theoretically get revelation that was not included in church canon.

According to D&C 68, your revelation would be Scripture, which is canon by definition.

But my getting revelation would not make it official doctrine.

Again, can you provide any evidence that this is not official doctrine, and that it is not called ‘doctrine’ by the LDS Church?

[quote]Is it taught in the Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997, page 34? Is this taught in ‘Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997’, and ‘Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female’, Ensign, Jan. 2005, 48’?

The three doctrines I mentioned, yes. That God has a God above him, or that he was once imperfect, no.[/quote]

The Official LDS Lesson Manual says:

• ‘The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this church.’

You are denying then that this teaches that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God?

The Ensign article says:

• ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret’

You are denying then that this teaches that God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens’?

If you can’t find that as doctrine in the standard works or a revelation given through the proper channel, then it’s not official doctrine. Unless you find it in the standard works or an official proclamation by the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve, then it isn’t official doctrine. That is how official doctrine is official doctrine.

This was a revelation given through the proper channel. And if, as you say, it is not LDS doctrine, then why do these LDS sources keep calling it LDS doctrine? And why does it continue to be taught?

The lack of such a quote in an official source (as I’ve already stated) is proof.

But only according to you.

What you’re looking at is where you interpret X as LDS doctrine based on a quote, and I’m telling you you’re interpreting things in ways that are not in keeping with official doctrine.

I’m not interpreting anything. These sources claim explicitly that this is LDS doctrine:

• Romney says this is a doctrinal point, a teaching peculiar to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ
• The Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997, says this is a doctrine ‘unique to this church’

I know what’s been taught in the LDS church and I’ve read every single one of these sources more than once. And as I’ve said, it’s not received officially, it’s not official doctrine.

Can you explain why these sources refer to it as LDS doctrine, and why it continues to be taught as doctrine?

The disagreement comes because what’s being discussed is not official doctrine.

No, the disagreement frequently comes over what is and what isn’t official doctrine. I’ve buried you in pages of LDS members saying exactly that. I gave you a link to a discussion of this issue involving over 100 LDS members. You keep telling me X, but I can see Y for myself.

No, what you’ve seen is that a person reading something with an anti-Mormon slant will take quotes to support something they think is LDS doctrine but actually isn’t intended to support that at all.

Ok, so when Romney said this is a doctrinal point, a teaching peculiar to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, he was reading something with an ani-Mormon slant, and taking quotes to support something he thought was LDS doctrine, but actually isn’t intended to support that at all?

And when the Official LDS Lesson Manua said this is doctrine ‘unique to this church’, the author was reading something with an ani-Mormon slant, and taking quotes to support something he thought was LDS doctrine, but actually isn’t intended to support that at all?

Sorry, but you are not an authority on LDS doctrine and you really don’t know what is or is not LDS doctrine.

Well RDO I know what is understood as a bare minimum to be official LDS doctrine. And I also know (which you continue to deny in the face of the evidence), that thousands of Mormons disagree on what constitutes official LDS doctrine, and have great difficulty determining what is and what isn’t LDS doctrine, and find that they are frequently taught X by one LDS source, but taught the totally contradictory position Y by another LDS source. No wonder they’re so confused.

You see the point is (and this is the original point, which still stands), that many LDS members believe X, Y or Z, even if it isn’t official LDS doctrine. Why? Not because anti-Mormons told them to, but because the LDS Church told them to. Then when other LDS members come along and tell them that’s not really what they’re supposed to believe, they get all confused. Hence the massive rift currently existing in the LDS Church.

[R_Daneel_Olivaw]

Before continuing, I’m going to have to back off my earlier statements about the Lorenzo Snow quote referring to Jesus Christ. In suggesting that’s how a majority of LDS see it, I feel I made an error. There are a few statements to that effect, but a majority of sources I find from credible sources indicate that most LDS believe it referred to the Father, not the Son.

However, this is still not official doctrine. My answer to MikeN was still correct. It is not official doctrine, many Mormons believe it, and it is not officially taught.

I know, Fortigurn, that you will ask how it is not officially taught if such quotes can be found in official sources like the Ensign and Conference talks. But the point of those quotes is never to teach that God was a man, but to say that people can become like God.

And it may seem like I am trying to say that Mormons don’t believe this. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that it’s not official doctrine. It’s a common belief, yes, but cannot be found in a canonical source and is not a focus of study.

[quote]It is not official doctrine.

Evidence please. I’ve asked several times now.[/quote]
I’ve already explained how official doctrine is determined several times and I’ve already explained that it is not contained therein. That’s the evidence.

[quote]It is believed by many Mormons.

Why is it believed by any Mormons? Who taught it to them? Anti-Mormons?[/quote]
I already covered this. Mormons are free to think a lot of things that are not officially doctrine. However, they are coming to this conclusion not from official teachings of the church.

[quote]That same scripture applies to what I say. ‘They’ refers to the elders of the church and was given concerning elders who were called on a mission. So, if I say something when moved by the spirit, that would just as well be considered scripture. That doesn’t make it official church doctrine.

But it would be canonized, which is the point I was making.[/quote]
No way. I already explained how canon (and hence official doctrine) comes about.

The only way a revelation I receive could possibly become canon would be for me to first become a prophet or an apostle and have the entire quorum also be convinced by God that my revelation was true, and then announce it to the Church as a quorum, and finally have the announcement sustained by the whole Church as true.

Just cause I have a revelation doesn’t mean it’s binding for the entire Church.

If it’s Scripture, it’s part of the canon.

Not in the LDS Church. Scripture in that sense refers to any true sacred writings. Not all scripture is canonical. If it is not canonical then a person recognizes it through the Spirit of God as true, but that is up to each individual to find out and is not binding on them.

[quote]This revelation to me agrees with Church canon, but I could theoretically get revelation that was not included in church canon.

According to D&C 68, your revelation would be Scripture, which is canon by definition.[/quote]
No, not in the LDS Church.

[quote]The Official LDS Lesson Manual says:

• ‘The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this church.’

You are denying then that this teaches that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God?[/quote]
Sorry, there is no publication called “The Official LDS Lesson Manual”. It took me a while to figure out which lesson manual you were referring to. It was the Sunday School manual discussing the teachings of prophets. Basically, it takes excerpts from books and uses them for discussion. The book then advises members to study and pray about what was said.

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young

It does not teach that quote as being doctrinal, but is used to encourage members to study further.

[quote]The Ensign article says:

• ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret’

You are denying then that this teaches that God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens’?[/quote]
This is quoting Joseph Smith from the King Follet discourse— which is not an official source. The point of the article is not to emphasize that God was once a man, but to show that man can be like God.

This was a revelation given through the proper channel.

First off, what exactly do you mean by this? You need to be more specific because of the nature of these threads. You mean the Lorenzo Snow quote? No, that’s not the case. If it were a revelation for the whole Church it would have been presented as such by the First Presidency. This was just a reference made in a talk, not intended to be binding.

If you meant something other than the Lorenzo Snow quote, please specify what exactly you were referring to.

And if, as you say, it is not LDS doctrine, then why do these LDS sources keep calling it LDS doctrine? And why does it continue to be taught?

The doctrine they keep saying is LDS doctrine is that man can become like God. That’s official LDS doctrine and is peculiar to our religion. That can be found in the standard works and it is the key point in all these quotes.

[quote]The lack of such a quote in an official source (as I’ve already stated) is proof.

But only according to you.[/quote]
According to how LDS Doctrine is defined by the LDS. Don’t say “only” according to me. I’ve already shown where the authority comes from in canon and supplied quotes that should be sufficient to establish it.

I’m not interpreting anything. These sources claim explicitly that this is LDS doctrine

Yes, I understand that the quotes say the word “doctrine”. But as I said earlier, you interpret these statements as meaning that God was once a man and lived on a world somewhere else. But from the context of the statements the doctrine referred to is obviously that man can become like God.

[quote]The disagreement comes because what’s being discussed is not official doctrine.

No, the disagreement frequently comes over what is and what isn’t official doctrine.[/quote]
If it were official doctrine they would know it. Official doctrines of the Church can be found in the Standard Works and official proclamations. When people start having to ask if it’s official doctrine or not, it’s a pretty good sign that it isn’t official.

[quote]Sorry, but you are not an authority on LDS doctrine and you really don’t know what is or is not LDS doctrine.

Well RDO I know what is understood as a bare minimum to be official LDS doctrine.[/quote]
If that were the case you wouldn’t be calling this official doctrine. It’s not.

that thousands of Mormons disagree on what constitutes official LDS doctrine

Is that surprising? I’m not surprised in the least. Of course, if they would turn to an official source to figure out the way to determine official doctrine and then listen to the answer they wouldn’t have to disagree. Unfortunately, that’s not human nature.

taught X by one LDS source, but taught the totally contradictory position Y by another LDS source. No wonder they’re so confused.

Not about official doctrine. But about things like Book of Mormon geography where the question is not a point of doctrine but a matter of something that is not revealed, yeah, there will be conflicting points of view. The problem is that people are taking things not intended to be doctrinal and treating them as if they were.

By understanding the difference between doctrine and speculation, most of the problems people seem to be having would be insignificant. They make them more significant by tying the answer to non-doctrinal questions to their faith.

[Satellite_TV]

@R. Daneel Olivaw

By understanding the difference between doctrine and speculation, most of the problems people seem to be having would be insignificant. They make them more significant by tying the answer to non-doctrinal questions to their faith.

Well in that case all simple. All LDS doctrine is based on speculation.

[R_Daneel_Olivaw]

Something else to keep in mind, Fortigurn.

While you don’t know what is taught in LDS churches or what official doctrine is, as compared to things you can find in outside writings, you are aware of a lot of writings that the typical Mormon won’t know. The majority of LDS don’t know the quotes you are using.

Quite often, that’s the accusation made by anti-Mormon groups, that LDS are not informed about their own religion. And LDS members get surprised by things the first time they visit anti-Mormon websites or read anti-Mormon literature.

Why is that? Because it isn’t official doctrine. Because it is not taught in church. Because it is not considered basic to Mormon teachings.

I didn’t start learning about these things until I started doing outside reading. I spent my childhood without hearing any of this and only knew about such teachings before becoming an elder because I took the initiative to look it up. A large number of Mormons barely read the standard works, to say nothing of things outside core doctrine and canon.

The so-called “elite” religion, or “internet Mormons” are a growing segment of the Church because of the ease of getting this information. But does the availability of such information on the Net make these things official doctrine?

Most certainly not.

Your knowledge of details outside official doctrine is likely greater than the average “chapel Mormon” because these things are not actually taught in Church. Sometimes quotes containing this information is used in official Church articles or publications, but then they are often extra reading and are using these quotes not to teach controversial topics, but to illustrate something else within core doctrine-- such as that man can become like God.

I am sure you are sincere in thinking that these things are typical Church teachings and official Church position. But your background is wrong for having a correct understanding and you prefer to rely on what you read than accepting what I’m telling you. But I have the experience in the church as well as having done the reading.

Think about it. I have direct experience in the church, including in leadership positions, and I’m telling you what I do from my direct experience. I’ve done an above average amount of reading both in canonical and non-canonical LDS writings (I say this based on experience in the church with other members).

The fact that some of these ideas are in gray areas does not mean you can’t still make criticisms. The idea of God having been a man before may not be official doctrine or actively taught, but it was still mentioned by LDS prophets and it is a common belief among Mormons. I don’t object to the criticism itself, but I point out that it is not actually official doctrine.

[Fortigurn]

[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]Something else to keep in mind, Fortigurn.

While you don’t know what is taught in LDS churches or what official doctrine is, as compared to things you can find in outside writings, you are aware of a lot of writings that the typical Mormon won’t know. The majority of LDS don’t know the quotes you are using.[/quote]

I have not found that to be the case.

Why is that? Because it isn’t official doctrine. Because it is not taught in church. Because it is not considered basic to Mormon teachings.

If that’s the case, then why is it so easily found in material used to teach LDS members, such as Ensign and Sunday School manuals?

[quote]But does the availability of such information on the Net make these things official doctrine?

Most certainly not.[/quote]

I understand this. What concerns me is when a GA or prophet or president says X is LDS doctrine, and you say it isn’t. If they don’t know what’s LDS doctrine and you do, why aren’t you in charge?

I am sure you are sincere in thinking that these things are typical Church teachings and official Church position.

I’m not only sincere, I’m confident. Not only can I read for myself when a GA or prophet or president says X is LDS doctrine, I can easily find LDS members who affirm it is LDS doctrine, and that they were taught it.

The idea of God having been a man before may not be official doctrine or actively taught, but it was still mentioned by LDS prophets and it is a common belief among Mormons. I don’t object to the criticism itself, but I point out that it is not actually official doctrine.

Why is it a common belief among Mormons, if it was never taught and isn’t taught?

[Fortigurn]

@R. Daneel Olivaw

Before continuing, I’m going to have to back off my earlier statements about the Lorenzo Snow quote referring to Jesus Christ. In suggesting that’s how a majority of LDS see it, I feel I made an error. There are a few statements to that effect, but a majority of sources I find from credible sources indicate that most LDS believe it referred to the Father, not the Son.

Thanks RDO. So in fact it reads naturally just the way I said it did. This is not a surprise to me. That you were wrong about this aspect of the quote and I was right confirms that I can be correct in my reading of a quote like this and you can be wrong. This makes me confident about the way to read the rest of the quote.

I know, Fortigurn, that you will ask how it is not officially taught if such quotes can be found in official sources like the Ensign and Conference talks. But the point of those quotes is never to teach that God was a man, but to say that people can become like God.

Then why do they teach that God was a man, and why do they teach that people can become like God on the basis that they can do what God did?

I’ve already explained how official doctrine is determined several times and I’ve already explained that it is not contained therein. That’s the evidence.

I’m sorry, but you haven’t provided any evidence for your claim regarding how official doctrine is determined. All you did was quote from a newsletter, which is not a canonical work nor an official source.

However, they are coming to this conclusion not from official teachings of the church.

If it’s not an official teaching of the Church, then why does the Church teach it?

Just cause I have a revelation doesn’t mean it’s binding for the entire Church.

I realise that. But this revelation from Snow has been, and is taught, as binding on the entire Church.

[quote]If it’s Scripture, it’s part of the canon.

Not in the LDS Church. Scripture in that sense refers to any true sacred writings. Not all scripture is canonical.[/quote]

This says otherwise:

[quote]Scriptures

When holy men of God write or speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, their words “shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” (D&C 68:4). The official, canonized scriptures of the Church, often called the standard works, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.[/quote]

Can you provide a statement from the Standard Works that not all Scripture is canonical, or that non-canonical Scripture does not contain official LDS teaching?

It does not teach that quote as being doctrinal, but is used to encourage members to study further.

It doesn’t teach that quote as being doctrinal?

• ‘The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this church.’

Cog dis +1.

This is quoting Joseph Smith from the King Follet discourse— which is not an official source.

But this teaching from Smith in the King Follet discourse was confirmed by revelation, which is an official source.

The point of the article is not to emphasize that God was once a man, but to show that man can be like God.

But the article teaches that God was once a man, and supports this by appeal to revelation.

First off, what exactly do you mean by this?

The doctrine that God was once a man.

The doctrine they keep saying is LDS doctrine is that man can become like God. That’s official LDS doctrine and is peculiar to our religion.

Say again?

• ‘The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this church.’

Cog dis +2.

According to how LDS Doctrine is defined by the LDS.

No, according to you and your appeal to a newsletter piece.

Yes, I understand that the quotes say the word “doctrine”. But as I said earlier, you interpret these statements as meaning that God was once a man and lived on a world somewhere else. But from the context of the statements the doctrine referred to is obviously that man can become like God.

Once more:

• ‘The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this church.’

Cog dis +3.

If it were official doctrine they would know it.

Question begging.

When people start having to ask if it’s official doctrine or not, it’s a pretty good sign that it isn’t official.

Fallacy of the false conclusion. What it means is that they don’t know if it’s official doctrine or not.

If that were the case you wouldn’t be calling this official doctrine. It’s not.

I’m not the one calling it official doctrine. LDS writings and LDS members do that.

Is that surprising? I’m not surprised in the least. Of course, if they would turn to an official source to figure out the way to determine official doctrine and then listen to the answer they wouldn’t have to disagree. Unfortunately, that’s not human nature.

But they believe it because they have turned to an official source, or they’ve been taught by LDS teachers that this is contained in an official source.

Not about official doctrine.

Yes, about official doctrine. You’re giving me an example of that right now. By the way, I took those quotes to an LDS site, and asked which doctrine is taught in them, if this was a revelation, if it was official doctrine, and if it was taught by the LDS Church.

To the question of which doctrine is taught in these quotes:

• ‘The doctrine that God once lived as we do now’
• ‘Eternal Progression’ [this was clarified as the Eternal Progression of Heavenly Father]
• ‘As man is G-d once was’
• ‘This is the way our Heavenly Father became God’

No one said that the doctrine being taught here was that man can become like God. They all said it was that God was once man and became God.

To the question of whether or not this is a revelation:

• ‘The church does believe this is revelation, yes’
• ‘Yes’
• ‘Yes, and there are plenty of scriptures to support it as shown below’
• ‘It is pure revelation’

No one said it was only a revelation to Young or Snow.

To the question of whether or not it is taught by the LDS Church:

• ‘Yes, we are taught that God was once a man, like us. Its all in the Doctrine and covenants I believe’
• ‘Yes’
• ‘Yes, it is taught’
• ‘It is taught by the LDS Church and every true Christian’

Not a lot of ambiguity there.

Finally:

[quote]This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).
Chapter 47: Exaltation,” Gospel Principles, 301[/quote]

I have indeed seen some LDS apologists in the past say this was not doctrine unfortunately. I don’t see them taking that stand anymore.

That’s very clear to me.

But about things like Book of Mormon geography where the question is not a point of doctrine but a matter of something that is not revealed, yeah, there will be conflicting points of view.

But earlier you claimed that the issue of Book of Mormon geography has been revealed, and so did the article to which you linked. So does this LDS Bible Dictionary:

[quote]Eden, Garden of

The home of our first parents, Adam and Eve (Gen. 2: 8 - 3: 24; Gen. 4: 16; cf. Isa. 51: 3; 2 Ne. 2: 19-25; Moses 3, 4; Abr. 5), designated as a garden, eastward in Eden. Latter-day revelation confirms the biblical account of the Garden of Eden, and adds the important information that it was located on what is now the North American continent.[/quote]

As demonstrated previously, not only is Book of Mormon geography a central issue in the LDS faith (not a ‘periphery’ issue), it is a matter of revelation.

[R_Daneel_Olivaw]

[quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]Something else to keep in mind, Fortigurn.

While you don’t know what is taught in LDS churches or what official doctrine is, as compared to things you can find in outside writings, you are aware of a lot of writings that the typical Mormon won’t know. The majority of LDS don’t know the quotes you are using.[/quote]
I have not found that to be the case.[/quote]
Because you’re mostly dealing with people you meet on the internet. “Elite religion” Mormons or “internet Mormons” are the minority. The missionaries who were bringing in maps with migration patterns, etc., would also fit into this group. But your means of contact with people in the church will lead you to meet people more likely to be in this minority.

[quote]Why is that? Because it isn’t official doctrine. Because it is not taught in church. Because it is not considered basic to Mormon teachings.

If that’s the case, then why is it so easily found in material used to teach LDS members, such as Ensign and Sunday School manuals?[/quote]
Why is it so easily found? Because you’re using a search engine.

I understand this. What concerns me is when a GA or prophet or president says X is LDS doctrine, and you say it isn’t.

Except, the “it” they are saying is doctrine and the “it” I’m not saying is official doctrine are two different things. Put the quotes back in their context and read back to the point being made. In each case it was about man becoming like God. That is found in the canon of the Church, whereas that God lived on a planet and was mortal is not.

The Brigham Young quote is a different matter entirely. That’s originally from Journal of Discourses, and I’m afraid my only reply to that is that President Brigham Young demonstrated a different idea of official doctrine than the modern church.

I am sure you are sincere in thinking that these things are typical Church teachings and official Church position.

I’m not only sincere, I’m confident. Not only can I read for myself when a GA or prophet or president says X is LDS doctrine, I can easily find LDS members who affirm it is LDS doctrine, and that they were taught it.

You mean, like the two posters on lds.org forums?

Your confidence is misplaced. I’m not basing this on my own opinion, but on the definition of what official doctrine is. The only official doctrine is found in canon. That quote is not from canon.

[quote]The idea of God having been a man before may not be official doctrine or actively taught, but it was still mentioned by LDS prophets and it is a common belief among Mormons. I don’t object to the criticism itself, but I point out that it is not actually official doctrine.

Why is it a common belief among Mormons, if it was never taught and isn’t taught?[/quote]
Earlier you said that you meant “taught systematically”, and all my answers since then have been along those lines. On that basis I say it isn’t taught.

I also asked if you meant “said once at a meeting” or “occasionally discussed”, in which case the answer is yes, but that wasn’t what you were asking. It is occasionally discussed and it is something church members can choose to believe. However, it’s not found in canon.