What Is The Official Doctrine Of The Church?

[AeonJ]

Do we have a catechism or anything like that, which would spell out issues for us?

It seems, not to be crude, that as a lds apologect that we are able to choose whether or not to believe in human exaltation to devinity, Heavenly Father once being a man, Jesus always being God, multiple gods, gods above heavenly father, etc, to fit the tone of a given conversation or just choose personally to believe what we choose.

Many times, people will ask "what do we believe?" but is there a way to answer them specifically without giving an opinion?

Like "Do we believe people can become gods?" or "Do we believe that God was a man?" what would be the straight answer to that?

Depending on how i felt couldn't I say either "yes that's what we believe in" or "no, those are only therorys?"

Wouldn't I be right in either answer?

And yet both answers can't both be true.

Help.

[Freedom]

I think you are trying to create a paradigm that says God has told us all there is to know about everything and therefore we have a set doctrine for all issues. This is impossible because there is simply too much to learn about the eternities. Gospel doctrines are not unlike Science. We know there are fundamental laws, but we also know we donâ??t know them all yet. Scientists keep discovering new facts, disposing of old misconceptions, and formulating new theories. The teachings of the church are the same. We have a number of very clearly laid out doctrines. But there are many other concepts that are introduced in the scriptures but are not fully elaborated upon. This is where the theories come in. And from time to time, these theories are corrected.

What doctrines do we have? Baptism by Emersion for the remission of sins. God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. Eternal exaltation is dependent upon the grace of God, our own obedience, and the application of sacred ordinances performed by priesthood officers. I can go on for some time listing clear doctrines.

The past history of God has not been revealed. We donâ??t know what his life was like eighty billion years ago. Nor should we care. It is a side issue that does not help us to learn to love our neighbor. This does not mean such knowledge will never be revealed. There are many theories that explain the origin of the earth. When more is discovered or revealed, we will then have proper understanding.

I just donâ??t know why people get bothered by the fact that we donâ??t have an official stance on every thought that man conjures, but we donâ??t reject the realities of history because we donâ??t know the name of the guy who designed the wall of China.

[AeonJ]

I think you are trying to create a paradigm that says God has told us all there is to know about everything and therefore we have a set doctrine for all issues. This is impossible because there is simply too much to learn about the eternities. Gospel doctrines are not unlike Science. We know there are fundamental laws, but we also know we donâ??t know them all yet. Scientists keep discovering new facts, disposing of old misconceptions, and formulating new theories. The teachings of the church are the same. We have a number of very clearly laid out doctrines. But there are many other concepts that are introduced in the scriptures but are not fully elaborated upon. This is where the theories come in. And from time to time, these theories are corrected.

What doctrines do we have? Baptism by Emersion for the remission of sins. God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. Eternal exaltation is dependent upon the grace of God, our own obedience, and the application of sacred ordinances performed by priesthood officers. I can go on for some time listing clear doctrines.

The past history of God has not been revealed. We donâ??t know what his life was like eighty billion years ago. Nor should we care. It is a side issue that does not help us to learn to love our neighbor. This does not mean such knowledge will never be revealed. There are many theories that explain the origin of the earth. When more is discovered or revealed, we will then have proper understanding.

I just donâ??t know why people get bothered by the fact that we donâ??t have an official stance on every thought that man conjures, but we donâ??t reject the realities of history because we donâ??t know the name of the guy who designed the wall of China.

Thank you, Freedom. This does make sense now.

[BCSpace]

Do we have a catechism or anything like that, which would spell out issues for us?

Our theology is systematic and it's spelled out in official Church publications. Where it is most organized are in lesson manuals.

It seems, not to be crude, that as a lds apologect that we are able to choose whether or not to believe in human exaltation to devinity, Heavenly Father once being a man, Jesus always being God, multiple gods, gods above heavenly father, etc, to fit the tone of a given conversation or just choose personally to believe what we choose.

A misnomer. We can certainly choose individually what we believe and how much, but official Church doctrine is that we become Gods and that God was once a mortal man.

Many times, people will ask "what do we believe?" but is there a way to answer them specifically without giving an opinion?

Yes, refer them to offcial publications. The Gospel Principles manual spells out most thing quite nicely if the scriptures aren' understood.

Like "Do we believe people can become gods?" or "Do we believe that God was a man?" what would be the straight answer to that?

Yes, absolutely to both.

[Freedom]

There is a good example of this evolution of doctrinal theories being discussed in a different thread at this time. The scripture that says â??until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousnessâ?.

The doctrine is that the sons of Levi will offer a righteous offering. The theory is that, since the sons of Levi in the Old Testament sacrificed animals, this must mean that animal sacrifices will be re-introduced. Joseph Smith expressed this opinion, as well as many other church leaders. Thus, since church leaders taught it, it must be doctrine. Well, the only source of doctrine is in the scriptures. This passage never mentions animals, nor does it define who the sons of Levi are. More recently, church leaders are teaching that the sons of Levi are priesthood holders, and the offering will be temple work. Nevertheless, there is not an official doctrinal explanation of this passage. We know that there if an offering to be given. That much is doctrine. We donâ??t know, however, what that offering might be, nor where, nor by whom.

[kamenraider]

Like "Do we believe people can become gods?" or "Do we believe that God was a man?" what would be the straight answer to that?

Depending on how i felt couldn't I say either "yes that's what we believe in" or "no, those are only therorys?"

Wouldn't I be right in either answer?

No, the right answer would be "Yes that's what we believe in."

IIRC, the First Presidency's statement on the origin of man says that God is an exalted man. Also, how did our Heavenly Father gain his knowledge? What do we learn about it in the temple?

Knowing if what someone teaches to us as revelation is true requires us to receive revelation. It's that simple.

Edit:

Also, Freedom,

D&C 128:24 refers to the sons of Levi as "them" and then speaks of "us" offering a different kind of offering. To me, this is clearly not saying that presenting in the temple a book containing the records of our dead is the same offering by the sons of Levi that is referred to in Malachi chapter 3. Ezekiel saw that sacrifices would be restored in his vision of the future temple, didn't he?

[Bsix]

It feels like we just has this discussion.

A lot of the debate comes down to what makes a doctrine 'official.'

For some, if a concept is mentioned in an publication of the Church, it is official. For other, official doctrine is reserved for those doctrines that have been specifically canonized or the subject of formal First Predidency proclaimation.

Take the idea that God was once a mortal. Some will tell you that it is official doctrine because it has on rare occasion been included in materials published by the Church. Other, like me, believe the doctrine, but do not hold it to be official doctrine.

Regards,

Six

[Freedom]

Other, like me, believe the doctrine, but do not hold it to be official doctrine.

The only source of official doctrine is the scriptures. I do not know of any scriptures that state that God was once a man. As Bsix stated, this does not mean that it isn't doctrinaly correct, it just is not officialy sanctioned. I don't recall any votes in conference to accept it as scripture.

[David Waltz]

In another recent thread - http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...26479&st=20 - I posted the following, and feel that is relevant to this thread:

>>Hello Jan,

You wrote:

>>The KFD, since it was not canonized, is not authoritatively binding on LDS. We can chose to believe or ignore it and be in good standing.>>

Me: Well said. I think your view is spot-on. Jospehâ??s following dictum must always be kept in mind when discussing what is or is not â??official doctrineâ?:

â??â?¦I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.â? (Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church, Vol. 5.265.)

Joseph also stated:

â?¦if anything should have been suggested by us, or any names mentioned, except by commandment, or thus saith the Lord, we do not consider it binding. (Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church, 3:295.)

And:

â??Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.â? (Joseph Smith Jr., in Oliver Cowdery, An Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 31 â??cited in B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol. 1.163.)

Harold B. Lee said:

All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. It ought to be found in the scriptures. If we want to measure truth, we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we many well assume that it is speculation, manâ??s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth. (IE, Jan. 1969, p. 13.)

And just recently, the following was added to the www.lds.org site:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp...0004e94610aRCRD

>>

Grace and peace,

David

[Freedom]

Also, Freedom,

D&C 128:24 refers to the sons of Levi as "them" and then speaks of "us" offering a different kind of offering. To me, this is clearly not saying that presenting in the temple a book containing the records of our dead is the same offering by the sons of Levi that is referred to in Malachi chapter 3. Ezekiel saw that sacrifices would be restored in his vision of the future temple, didn't he?

This proves my point. You have presented a theory that attempts to explain this verse. There is no doctrine in this, only a theory. This verse does not mention animals, blood, sacrifice, burning or anything to suggest the ancient ceremony. It simply says â??offeringâ??. By arguing that this refers to an animal sacrifice would suggest that the only offering the sons of Levi produced was a good steak dinner. This simply is not the case. It was one of the many offerings they produced. So tell me, can you prove that this offering referred to in this passage is specifically referring to an animal sacrifice? You cannot, therefore it is not doctrine. But do read through the ensign for the past several years and you will discover that the current theory is that the sons of Levi are priesthood holders and the offering is temple work. But this also is just a theory.

Doctrine is clear. So is theory. Any time you have to pull together various verses form different times and contextâ??s, you are producing a theory. If you quote a verse and let it stand, you are stating doctrine.

Doctrine: the sons of Levi will be purged as gold and silver

Theory: The sons of Levi are not us but another strange group of mysterious individuals that will show up and burn a cow in Independence. They will probably going to turn the baptismal font into a barbeque pit. The daughters of Levi will bring the fruit salad. Zebulunâ??s kids are responsible for games, and Issachar has clean up duty.

Doctrine: Faith is the first principle of the gospel

Theory: The act of faith affects a physiological change within your spirit entity which allows you to command the elements around you. You can control matter at the atomic level through pure thought. Pure though requires absolute discipline and self control. What we call righteousness, is in fact mastering the true capabilities of our soul. The control of our muscles allows us to walk, the control of our spirit allows us to move mountains.

[Corky Wallace]

I find this question arising over & over again among LDS. "What exactly is our doctrine?"

For example, the questions that many Mormons have about the previous blacks & the priesthood "policy" naturally & predictably prompt earnest inquiry. Like many others, my understanding was this was ironclad doctrine, from the Almighty, directly. The notion that this may have been only a practice, perhaps a misunderstanding on man's part is quite a dramatic change from previous understandings.

I can't remember the source, but a useful framework for categorizing LDS beliefs is a type of tiering:

- Canonized doctrine (ie, zero ambiguity)

- "Practical" doctrine (teaching & interpretations via church manuals, teaching material, etc)

- Folklore & Popular Belief - 3 Nephites, Zelph (heavy interpretation & theorizing)

Another example: I've heard more than one very educated & wise LDS thinker mention that there is no doctrinal basis for women not being able to hold the priesthood. (I don't have the background to comment on this particular topic, it is an example).

If the past is any indication of how things change, presumably if women were granted the priesthood sometime in the future their past exclusion would be categorized as a practice, not doctrine, per se.

Also, doctrines can be revised under the "line upon line" understanding of evolving theology. (Then again is "line upon line" actual canonized doctrine?)

And what exactly is doctrinal about much of the historical account in the BOM? Isn't a lot of interpretation necessary to extract useful meaning from this seminal text? Are scriptural accounts of history absolutely to be taken literally? Or is this a personal interpretation?

Isn't previous doctrine now viewed quite differently? (eg, stoning adulterers, animal sacrifice) What does this mean for today's canonical doctrine? Exactly how much is applicable today?

[cdowis]

If you look at the Gospel Essentials manual, you will find the doctrines of the church pretty well defined.

[Bsix]

I have been pondering this issue and why it seems to be of significance to some people. The points of dispute of Mormonism are almost endless in the sheer volume of claims and in the minute legalistic manner in which Mormonism is parsed.

For some, identifying what is 'official' doctrine comes from a sincere desire to know where the safe harbor is for doctrinal beliefs.

Critic want to be able to dispute Mormonism. Being able to cite something as official doctrine lends creedance to their attacks.

Apologists want to be able to defend Mormonism as it is...not the cartoonish version depicted by propagandists. Being able to point out that a particular claim is not an official doctrine provides a basis for discussion.

Critics and apologists sometimes abuse the "official" doctrine concept. Critics deliberately claim certain things to be official to pump up an attack on Mormonism. Apologists will exploit the fact that a commonly held belief was never formally adopted as official doctrine as a means of denying something that is true.

This makes it difficult to discuss LDS doctrine sometimes. I try to be fair, if I ever point out that something is NOT an official doctrine, I try to state my belief on the subject regardless of how official I think it is. The notion of God having once been mortal is a good example. To me, this is a precept that is as close to being official as it can be without being official doctrine. I believe in the past mortality of God. However, I do not believe the concept to be an official doctrine.

Some object to the fact that there are official and non-official doctines of Mormonism. We have relatively few absolute formalized doctrines. We Mormons tend not to be in the business of designing creeds or endlessly officializing our beliefs. Unless God commands that we edit and canonize a version of McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" we will never have a big thick encycolpedic tome of official doctrine.

To some degree, when critics complain that Mormonism falls short in declaring absolute official doctrine, I think that there is a very large double standard.

I think it is important to recall that traditional Christianity has relatively few 'official' doctrines that are universally accepted. In fact, there is no system or authority within traditional Christianity to formalize doctrine or canonize doctrine. Traditional Christianity has not accepted a new doctrine or revelation for nearly 2000 years. What you have in traditional Christianity are all sort of schisms each disputing over vast amounts of doctrines and only agreeing on a few absolute principles. For the sake of ecumenical unity, most disagreements over official doctrine are deemed non-essential and that only a relatively few doctrines outside of the Bible are universally accepted. And even then, there are significant differences on key doctrinal interpretations of what is in the Bible.

Regards,

Six

[Tsuzuki]

Do we have a catechism or anything like that, which would spell out issues for us?

It seems, not to be crude, that as a lds apologect that we are able to choose whether or not to believe in human exaltation to devinity, Heavenly Father once being a man, Jesus always being God, multiple gods, gods above heavenly father, etc, to fit the tone of a given conversation or just choose personally to believe what we choose.

Many times, people will ask "what do we believe?" but is there a way to answer them specifically without giving an opinion?

Like "Do we believe people can become gods?" or "Do we believe that God was a man?" what would be the straight answer to that?

Depending on how i felt couldn't I say either "yes that's what we believe in" or "no, those are only therorys?"

Wouldn't I be right in either answer?

And yet both answers can't both be true.

Help.

"I once overheard two botanists arguing over a Damned Thing that had blasphemously sprouted in a college yard. One claimed that the Damned Thing was a tree and the other claimed that it was a shrub. They each had good scholarly arguments, and they were still debating when I left them.

The world is forever spawning Damned Things--things that are neither tree nor shrub, fish nor fowl, black nor white--and the categorical thinker can only regard the spiky and buzzing world of sensory fact as a profound insult to his card-index system of classifications. Worst of all are the facts which violate 'common sense,' that dreary bog of sullen prejudice and muddy inertia. The whole history of science is the odyssey of a pixilated card-indexer perpetually sailing between such Damned Things and desperately juggling his classifications to fit them in, just as the history of politics is the futile epic of a long series of attempts to line up the Damned Things and cajole them to march in regiment.

Every ideology is a mental murder, a reduction of dynamic living processes to static classifications, and every classification is a Damnation, just as every inclusion is an exclusion. In a busy, buzzing universe where no two snow-flakes are identical, and no two trees are identical, and no two people are identicalâ??and, indeed, the smallest subatomic particle, we are assured, is not even identical with itself from one microsecond to the next--every card-index system is a self-delusion. 'Or, to put it more charitably,' as Nietzsche says, 'we are all better artists than we realize.'

It is easy to see that the label 'Jew' was a Damnation in Nazi Germany, but actually the label 'Jew' is a Damnation anywhere, even where anti-Semitism does not exist. 'He is a Jew,' 'He is a doctor,' and 'He is a poet' mean, to the card-indexing center of the cortex, that my experience with him will be like my experience with other Jews, other doctors, and other poets. Thus, individuality is ignored when identity is asserted.

At a party or any place where strangers meet, watch this mechanism in action. Behind the friendly overtures there is wariness as each person fishes for the label that will identify and Damn the other. Finally, it is revealed: 'Oh, he's an advertising copywriter,' 'Oh, he's an engine-lathe operator.' Both parties relax, for now they know how to behave, what roles to play in the game. Ninety-nine percent of each has been Damned; the other is reacting to the 1 percent that has been labeled by the card-index machine.

[...]

The mechanism by which authority and submission are implanted in the human mind is coding of perception. That which fits into the code is accepted; all else is Damned. It is Damned to being ignored, brushed aside, unnoticed, and--if these fail--it is Damned to being forgotten.

A worse form of Damnation is reserved for those things which cannot be ignored. These are daubed with the brain's projected prejudices until, encrusted beyond recognition, they are capable of being fitted into the system, classified, card-indexed, buried. This is what happens to every Damned Thing which is too prickly and sticky to be excommunicated entirely. As Josiah Warren remarked, 'It is dangerous to understand new things too quickly.' Almost always, we have not understood them. We have murdered them and mummified their corpses."

- Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson,

The Illuminatus! Trilogy

Mormonism is a Damned Thing that refuses to be labeled by the card-index machine, and this is why it is true. To systematize it is to kill it.

[rpn]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the "True to the Faith" pamphlet the Church published a year or so ago, so that members could know what official church positions were on various topics. It's not very expensive at the Distribution Center, and some bishops have extra copies to hand out to new members.

[Son]

The Holy Spirit is there to reveal ALL truth, as we are worthy to receive it. There are those that know these answers.

Those that do not know, are surely not worthy to receive the answers. It is one barometer to knowing whether one is appointed by man and man's interpretations, or One is appointed by God and carries the crown of truth.

The only thing that limits a man's abiltity to know, is worthiness to the information.

The church will never be led away by one of God's appointed prophets, but as to man appointed..... woe be unto that church that follows him.

son

[kamenraider]

If Joseph Smith, who was then the Prophet, taught that God was once a man in General Conference (where the "KFD" was given) to like 20,000 members, and the Church teaches it to members in the temple, and the First Presidency states it in official statements, and it could be extrapolated from various scriptures, such as John 5:19 which says that the Son can do nothing but what He seeth the Father do (which Joseph Smith coupled with John 10:18 which says that the Son has power to lay down his life and take it up again), and it is written in various Church publications, and LDS members still want to try to assert that it is not "official", then what can I say?

[David Waltz]

Hello kamenraider,

You posted:

>>If Joseph Smith, who was then the Prophet, taught that God was once a man in General Conference (where the "KFD" was given) to like 20,000 members, and the Church teaches it to members in the temple, and the First Presidency states it in official statements, and it could be extrapolated from various scriptures, such as John 5:19 which says that the Son can do nothing but what He seeth the Father do (which Joseph Smith coupled with John 10:18 which says that the Son has power to lay down his life and take it up again), and it is written in various Church publications, and LDS members still want to try to assert that it is not "official", then what can I say?>>

Me: I would say that many assert the KFD may not be â??officialâ? for the following reasons: first, the discourse was never canonized; second, the extant transcriptions of the discourse have differences; and third, if we apply the many of the â??standardsâ? you listed above to Brigham Youngâ??s Adam-God doctrine (the doctrine that the Adam of Genesis and the Book of Moses was the father of our pre-existent spirits), one could argue that it is â??officialâ? doctrine as well.

Grace and peace,

David

[Son]

Hello kamenraider,

You posted:

>>If Joseph Smith, who was then the Prophet, taught that God was once a man in General Conference (where the "KFD" was given) to like 20,000 members, and the Church teaches it to members in the temple, and the First Presidency states it in official statements, and it could be extrapolated from various scriptures, such as John 5:19 which says that the Son can do nothing but what He seeth the Father do (which Joseph Smith coupled with John 10:18 which says that the Son has power to lay down his life and take it up again), and it is written in various Church publications, and LDS members still want to try to assert that it is not "official", then what can I say?>>

Me: I would say that many assert the KFD may not be â??officialâ? for the following reasons: first, the discourse was never canonized; second, the extant transcriptions of the discourse have differences; and third, if we apply the many of the â??standardsâ? you listed above to Brigham Youngâ??s Adam-God doctrine (the doctrine that the Adam of Genesis and the Book of Moses was the father of our pre-existent spirits), one could argue that it is â??officialâ? doctrine as well.

Grace and peace,

David

So JS would make stuff up? He would teach something and because it was not Canonized it was speculation?

Was he a Prophet of God, that was instructed on what to say and not say, or was he not?

[ERMD]

"I once overheard two botanists arguing over a Damned Thing that had blasphemously sprouted in a college yard. One claimed that the Damned Thing was a tree and the other claimed that it was a shrub. They each had good scholarly arguments, and they were still debating when I left them.

The world is forever spawning Damned Things--things that are neither tree nor shrub, fish nor fowl, black nor white--and the categorical thinker can only regard the spiky and buzzing world of sensory fact as a profound insult to his card-index system of classifications. Worst of all are the facts which violate 'common sense,' that dreary bog of sullen prejudice and muddy inertia. The whole history of science is the odyssey of a pixilated card-indexer perpetually sailing between such Damned Things and desperately juggling his classifications to fit them in, just as the history of politics is the futile epic of a long series of attempts to line up the Damned Things and cajole them to march in regiment.

Every ideology is a mental murder, a reduction of dynamic living processes to static classifications, and every classification is a Damnation, just as every inclusion is an exclusion. In a busy, buzzing universe where no two snow-flakes are identical, and no two trees are identical, and no two people are identicalâ??and, indeed, the smallest subatomic particle, we are assured, is not even identical with itself from one microsecond to the next--every card-index system is a self-delusion. 'Or, to put it more charitably,' as Nietzsche says, 'we are all better artists than we realize.'

It is easy to see that the label 'Jew' was a Damnation in Nazi Germany, but actually the label 'Jew' is a Damnation anywhere, even where anti-Semitism does not exist. 'He is a Jew,' 'He is a doctor,' and 'He is a poet' mean, to the card-indexing center of the cortex, that my experience with him will be like my experience with other Jews, other doctors, and other poets. Thus, individuality is ignored when identity is asserted.

At a party or any place where strangers meet, watch this mechanism in action. Behind the friendly overtures there is wariness as each person fishes for the label that will identify and Damn the other. Finally, it is revealed: 'Oh, he's an advertising copywriter,' 'Oh, he's an engine-lathe operator.' Both parties relax, for now they know how to behave, what roles to play in the game. Ninety-nine percent of each has been Damned; the other is reacting to the 1 percent that has been labeled by the card-index machine.

[...]

The mechanism by which authority and submission are implanted in the human mind is coding of perception. That which fits into the code is accepted; all else is Damned. It is Damned to being ignored, brushed aside, unnoticed, and--if these fail--it is Damned to being forgotten.

A worse form of Damnation is reserved for those things which cannot be ignored. These are daubed with the brain's projected prejudices until, encrusted beyond recognition, they are capable of being fitted into the system, classified, card-indexed, buried. This is what happens to every Damned Thing which is too prickly and sticky to be excommunicated entirely. As Josiah Warren remarked, 'It is dangerous to understand new things too quickly.' Almost always, we have not understood them. We have murdered them and mummified their corpses."

- Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson,

The Illuminatus! Trilogy

Mormonism is a Damned Thing that refuses to be labeled by the card-index machine, and this is why it is true. To systematize it is to kill it.

Great quote.

[wjclerk]

Might this be relevant on this topic?

From Was God a Man First?thread

wjclerk

[David Waltz]

Hello Son,

You wrote:

>>So JS would make stuff up? He would teach something and because it was not Canonized it was speculation?

Was he a Prophet of God, that was instructed on what to say and not say, or was he not?>>

Me: Did you read what Joseph himself had to say on the matter in my above post above?

Grace and peace,

David

[e=mc2]

By the way, oh great retired one, next year at FAIR is the clarion call for thee, got it?

We love having you amongst us you apostate Mormon Catholic you.....

[kamenraider]

Hello kamenraider,

...

Me: I would say that many assert the KFD may not be â??officialâ? for the following reasons: first, the discourse was never canonized; second, the extant transcriptions of the discourse have differences; and third, if we apply the many of the â??standardsâ? you listed above to Brigham Youngâ??s Adam-God doctrine (the doctrine that the Adam of Genesis and the Book of Moses was the father of our pre-existent spirits), one could argue that it is â??officialâ? doctrine as well.

Grace and peace,

David

Is Adam-God specifically taught in Church publications? Is it taught in the temple? In the scriptures? In General Conference? No -- in fact those sources contain hardly any statements that support it, and many more statements that either do not support, apparently contradict, or flat out denounce Adam-God.

[Son]

Hello Son,

You wrote:

>>So JS would make stuff up? He would teach something and because it was not Canonized it was speculation?

Was he a Prophet of God, that was instructed on what to say and not say, or was he not?>>

Me: Did you read what Joseph himself had to say on the matter in my above post above?

Grace and peace,

David

And the naval Orange wanted to be apple sauce.......but he couldn't..........no.........he couldn't..........