By what autority?

[Mudcat]

I won't bother taking a trip to the Quote Mine to bring up specific quotes on Adam-God, Blood Atonement, Men on the Moon and so forth. I am sure those who know what I referred to, are equally aware of their sources.

One of the most intriguing topics to me on this forum, has been in regards to when an LDS authority is speaking as one and when he isn't.

IMO, this concept of when a Prophet is prophetic is rather profound.

By what authority do LDS make such a determination?

[Notquitewetyet]

I won't bother taking a trip to the Quote Mine to bring up specific quotes on Adam-God, Blood Atonement, Men on the Moon and so forth. I am sure those who know what I referred to, are equally aware of their sources.

One of the most intriguing topics to me on this forum, has been in regards to when an LDS authority is speaking as one and when he isn't.

IMO, this concept of when a Prophet is prophetic is rather profound.

By what authority do LDS make such a determination?

I guess it depends on how seriously you take Prophets of God when they make repeated declarations over the pulpit for years.

[Mudcat]

I guess it depends on how seriously you take Prophets of God when they make repeated declarations over the pulpit for years.

Could you be a bit more specific?

[Notquitewetyet]

Could you be a bit more specific?

I guess I have the same problem you do when it comes to such things, only I have a bit of a different perspective. I would personally understand a "prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" as episodes like the one when Joseph invited the converts from Michigan and Emma asked if they wanted coffee or tea and they got offended, or episodes such as Sylvester Smith abusing Old Major and Joseph telling him to leave the dog alone or he'd kill him. I'll be interested to see how the mainstream LDS respond.

[BCSpace]

By what authority do LDS make such a determination?

By the simple fact of official publication by the Church. If not so published, it's not doctrine. Never has been. The first presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are equal in authority and therefore, all must agree.

[Notquitewetyet]

By the simple fact of official publication by the Church. If not so published, it's not doctrine. Never has been. The first presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are equal in authority and therefore, all must agree.

Hi BCspace,

Go read the Millenial Star issue for December 10, 1853 titled "Adam, the Father and God of the Human Family." Since the Millenial Star was a Church publication, does that mean Adam-God was official doctrine for the Saints in England?

[Mudcat]

By the simple fact of official publication by the Church. If not so published, it's not doctrine. Never has been. The first presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are equal in authority and therefore, all must agree.

Hi BC,

Emphasis mine. You know this seems to be your mantra on the subject. As a whole, I have seen your statements accepted carte blanche by many.

I am CFR'ing you on this. I am sure there is a good reason you say this, but I would like to know what it is.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[ERayR]

The process is spelled out in the D&C. Right now I haven't got the time to research the exact reference. It has however been discussed before, not too long back, on this board so you should ber able to find it. It's not just publishing it first has to be approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and then approved by the membership of the church to be accepted as doctrine.

[BCSpace]

Go read the Millenial Star issue for December 10, 1853 titled "Adam, the Father and God of the Human Family." Since the Millenial Star was a Church publication, does that mean Adam-God was official doctrine for the Saints in England?

Are you absolutely sure an Adam God hypothesis is being expressed here? I've never seen such a thing taught by BY, even in his opinion, so it makes sense that it doesn't appear here either. Consider...

by the first man adam came death the triumph of evil and by the second [Christ] came life everlasting the triumph of good each was necessary in the order he appeared if the first adam had not performed his part the second could not have had his work to do both acted the part assigned to them in a most godlike manner and the Great Eloheim accepted the work at their hands as hisown for by the power of my spirit created I them yea all things both spiritual and temporal firstly spiritual secondly temporal which is the beginning of my work and again firstly temporal and secondly spiritual which is the last of my work thus the great I AM owns all things the temporal and the spiritual the justice and the mercy to be his own work then why may not adam be a god as well as any of his sons in as much as he has performed the work to which the Great Eloheim appointed himin ancient times they were called gods

In fact, the context of the statement that Adam is God is found on the first page, that he is a God ala "gods many and lords many" and that he did Godlike things as any God would. It does not say that Adam is God the Father.

I am CFR'ing you on this. I am sure there is a good reason you say this, but I would like to know what it is.

See the link in my siggy.

[BCSpace]

The process is spelled out in the D&C.

Only implicitly in D&C 107 wherein we see that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority.

Right now I haven't got the time to research the exact reference.

My siggy.

It has however been discussed before, not too long back, on this board so you should ber able to find it. It's not just publishing

It is just that.

it first has to be approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve

Yes.

and then approved by the membership of the church to be accepted as doctrine.

No.

[Mudcat]

See the link in my siggy.

From the link..

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

Emphasis mine.

When did they do this?

Can you quote or provide a specific link that ratifies the statement?

[BCSpace]

From the link..

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

Emphasis mine.

Excellent. You found it.

When did they do this?

This is how it's been taught to missionaries, teacher prep classes, the CHI book 2 etc. for over 30 years; as long as I've been cognizant of the issue.

Can you quote or provide a specific link that ratifies the statement?

That is the one. It is a statement by the Church itself.

Comments from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on news stories, including corrections.

[Notquitewetyet]

Are you absolutely sure an Adam God hypothesis is being expressed here? I've never seen such a thing taught by BY, even in his opinion, so it makes sense that it doesn't appear here either. Consider...

by the first man adam came death the triumph of evil and by the second [Christ] came life everlasting the triumph of good each was necessary in the order he appeared if the first adam had not performed his part the second could not have had his work to do both acted the part assigned to them in a most godlike manner and the Great Eloheim accepted the work at their hands as hisown for by the power of my spirit created I them yea all things both spiritual and temporal firstly spiritual secondly temporal which is the beginning of my work and again firstly temporal and secondly spiritual which is the last of my work thus the great I AM owns all things the temporal and the spiritual the justice and the mercy to be his own work then why may not adam be a god as well as any of his sons in as much as he has performed the work to which the Great Eloheim appointed himin ancient times they were called gods

In fact, the context of the statement that Adam is God is found on the first page, that he is a God ala "gods many and lords many" and that he did Godlike things as any God would. It does not say that Adam is God the Father.

The first paragraph of this piece is:

The above sentiment appeared in Star No. 48, a little to the surprise of some of its readers; and while the sentiment may have appeared blasphemous to the ignorant, it has no doubt given rise to some serious reflections with the more candid and comprehensive mind. A few reasonable and Scriptural ideas upon this subject may be profitable at the present time. MS, Vol. XV no 50 Saturday December 20 1853

Right above it in all caps is "ADAM, THE FATHER AND GOD OF THE HUMAN FAMILY" How can that not possibly be an Adam-God teaching? I mean, can we get a clearer statement than that? Yes, Adam-God does not say and (never has) Adam = Eloheim, but that does not mean Adam =/= God the Father. Here we have an official Church publication teaching something that would get you exed today.

[Mudcat]

This is how it's been taught to missionaries, teacher prep classes, the CHI book 2 etc. for over 30 years; as long as I've been cognizant of the issue.

Well, I don't know the age of the statement. Though the age of the statement is something I would think is significant.

Do you know when it was first stated?

[BCSpace]

The first paragraph of this piece is:

The above sentiment appeared in Star No. 48, a little to the surprise of some of its readers; and while the sentiment may have appeared blasphemous to the ignorant, it has no doubt given rise to some serious reflections with the more candid and comprehensive mind. A few reasonable and Scriptural ideas upon this subject may be profitable at the present time. MS, Vol. XV no 50 Saturday December 20 1853

Yes I know. Did you continue reading? I referenced the rest of the first page and quoted form the second.

Yes, Adam-God does not say and (never has) Adam = Eloheim, but that does not mean Adam =/= God the Father.

The quotes I gave explicitly show the context and show that Adam is not God the Father. They show both Adam and Christ getting their missions from God the Father.

Here we have an official Church publication teaching something that would get you exed today.

Such as?

[Notquitewetyet]

Yes I know. Did you continue reading? I referenced the rest of the first page and quoted form the second.

Yes I've read this article several times. It mainly was to introduce and give backing to this teaching which was being taught to the Church as a whole for the first time (although Joseph Smith taught it in private).

The quotes I gave explicitly show the context and show that Adam is not God the Father. They show both Adam and Christ getting their missions from God the Father.

Yes, they show Adam and Christ receiving their commission from the God above them, their God the Father. Adam is Our God the Father.

Such as?

So if someone updated the language in this piece but went through it verbatim as a talk for sacrament meeting, you'd think the bishop would be fine with it?

[HiJolly]

I won't bother taking a trip to the Quote Mine to bring up specific quotes on Adam-God, Blood Atonement, Men on the Moon and so forth. I am sure those who know what I referred to, are equally aware of their sources.

One of the most intriguing topics to me on this forum, has been in regards to when an LDS authority is speaking as one and when he isn't.

IMO, this concept of when a Prophet is prophetic is rather profound.

By what authority do LDS make such a determination?

I do it by the witness(pro or con) of the Holy Ghost if it's an alarming or disturbing teaching; I follow in faith if it's just something ordinary.

HiJolly

[BCSpace]

Yes, they show Adam and Christ receiving their commission from the God above them, their God the Father. Adam is Our God the Father.

Correction:"Adam the Father and God of the Human Family."

That's quite a difference from what you are proposing. Are you sure Adam God isn't a favorite chestnut of yours that you've pinned a whole lot of things that come crashing down when the fact is realized that Adam God never was a doctrine of the Church or even taught by BY? I think the fact that you quoted it incorrectly and are ignoring the context by which Adam is considered a God shows that it is.

Such as?

So if someone updated the language in this piece but went through it verbatim as a talk for sacrament meeting, you'd think the bishop would be fine with it?

It could stand as is.

[Scottie]

My siggy.

Once again, BC, the link of your siggy is nothing more than an editorial in the commentaries section of the LDS web site. It could have been written by a housewife in Provo for all you know. There is nothing, let me say it again, NOTHING binding about your little pet link.

[TOmNossor]

Mudcat,

I may get a respond to you elsewhere eventually, but here is my favorite thread on what is and is not LDS doctrine. It occurred over 8 years ago and should definitely include a link to this too:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/inde...0004e94610aRCRD

Here is the thread:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/10382

Charity, TOm

[Darth_Bill]

>Once again, BC, the link of your siggy is nothing more than an editorial in the commentaries section of the LDS web site. It could have been written by a housewife in Provo for all you know. There is nothing, let me say it again, NOTHING binding about your little pet link.

Then what would be binding in your opinion? The declarative line in the "Commenary" section of that site is "Comments from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on news stories, including corrections." It doesn't say that such comments are written by a housewife in Provo but are from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through the PR department, I assume. Does the PR department have freedom to publish commentary from a housewife in Provo and label it as coming from the church?

What would be binding?

[Scottie]

>Once again, BC, the link of your siggy is nothing more than an editorial in the commentaries section of the LDS web site. It could have been written by a housewife in Provo for all you know. There is nothing, let me say it again, NOTHING binding about your little pet link.

Then what would be binding in your opinion? The declarative line in the "Commenary" section of that site is "Comments from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on news stories, including corrections." It doesn't say that such comments are written by a housewife in Provo but are from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through the PR department, I assume. Does the PR department have freedom to publish commentary from a housewife in Provo and label it as coming from the church?

What would be binding?

No, that isn't binding. It's a commentary!! It wasn't approved by the first presidency as doctrine.

The irony is that by the commentary's own definition of doctrine, the commentary isn't doctrine.

What would be binding? If the president of the church would get up and actually TELL the members what is considered doctrine. That really doesn't seem like too much to ask, does it?

[thesometimesaint]

Scottie:

We still do it. Just get a copy of D&C printed after 1978.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

I may get a respond to you elsewhere eventually, but here is my favorite thread on what is and is not LDS doctrine. It occurred over 8 years ago and should definitely include a link to this too:

Here is the thread:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/10382

Charity, TOm

Your right Tom, it is an excellent thread, I have only read the first responses but it is very informative.

[Mudcat]

Thanks for the comments so far. Hopefully the thread won't degenerate into a specific dissection of BC's sig line.

The thing that strikes me about the topic, is in relation to the restoration philosophy of LDS. One of the primary tenets seems to be a restoration of authority, through Prophets, Apostles, Priesthood, Keys. Part of this would include the power to dispense new doctrine and correct percieved errors in the broader sense of long standing Christian doctrine.

However, given statements of past LDS Prophets and Apostles that seem to pose some sort of conflict with what LDS seem to regard as "true" doctrine, it appears a situation has been created. The situation being, the words of LDS authorities given must be judged to determine their nature as either opinion based or divine ministration.

What I would really like to know, is by what authority is this possible?

Who has a right to do this? The concept seems to be one that would invalidate authority rather than reinforce or further establish it.