LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

[twopekinguys]

A one-sentence reference to CAF moderation policy is a “diatribe?”

Who knew?

Sorry, I had to stop laughing before i responded. Your last 4 paragraphs talks about how awful you’ve been treated at CAF, and in doing so, you directly, and indirectly are speaking of moderator actions or lack thereof. (which is a no no by the way).

Personally, I think the mods here do an excellent job with the amount of posters, and post contained on this board.

So yes, it was a diatribe.

Of course I didn’t mention that point; it is not relevant to MA&DB. I likewise mentioned some details there that I didn’t mention here; again, because of relevance.

Or was it because you wanted to tailor the reaction of the audience?

Let’s check that, shall we:

Cinepro: “liberal” or “fringe” Mormon and part-time critic. Raised a question.
John Larsen: about as “Mormon” as SirThomasMore. Disagreed with one point.
Kamenraider: Kind of LDS. Has some funny ideas about animal sacrifices and the end of plural marriage. Took issue with any distinction between “Official” and “unofficial” doctrine.
BCSpace: LDS. Misunderstood point 1. Linked to a Church statement that pretty much agrees with me.
thesometimesaint: LDS. Did not comment on the topic, but took issue with BCSpace.
Storm Rider: LDS. Apparent Jim Morrison fan. Seems to agree with me.
MichaelM: I don’t know his allegiance. Did not comment. Linked to the same statement BCSpace did.
cdowis: LDS. Wonders why such a topic is even necessary. Took issue with nothing in the OP except its existence.
mfbukowski: LDS. Agrees with me.

So lets see here, out of all of the persons you list, only 1 “agreed” with you, 1 “appeared to agree”, and all the rest were either fringe, or funny ideas. That isn’t really helping your position now is it?

I’m not exactly seeing a storm of opposition from faithful Latter-day Saints there.

I am afraid I am not seeing the support that you think you have.

 

[Pahoran]

Sorry, I had to stop laughing before i responded. Your last 4 paragraphs talks about how awful you’ve been treated at CAF,

No, they do not.

The last 4 paragraphs talk about the nasty polemical game of quote mining for mere sensationalism. That does not only happen at CAF; it’s widely practiced on a large number of fora; people even try it at MA&DB from time to time.

It is a nasty little game wherever it is tried.

And I talked about that on MA&DB as well.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, 2PG. If you say I left out the “diatribe” about CAF moderation, then expand my “diatribe” to include four times as much material as what was actually left out, what are you actually asserting?

The only mention of the moderation is the one-sentence, second-last paragraph. All eight words of it.

and in doing so, you directly, and indirectly are speaking of moderator actions or lack thereof. (which is a no no by the way).

Really? I didn’t see it mentioned in the forum rules.

Personally, I think the mods here do an excellent job with the amount of posters, and post contained on this board.

So yes, it was a diatribe.

All eight words of it.

Or was it because you wanted to tailor the reaction of the audience?

Hey, why should I expect to know what my own intentions were? Perhaps I should just ask you, and save myself the time.

I left out what was irrelevant for the forum in question. Simple as that. No mention of CAF on MA&DB; no mention of MA&DB prehistory on CAF. Project all the nefarious ulterior motives you like.

So lets see here, out of all of the persons you list, only 1 “agreed” with you, 1 “appeared to agree”, and all the rest were either fringe, or funny ideas. That isn’t really helping your position now is it?

MA&DB is a fairly big tent; it embraces a wide spectrum of views. There is a decent number of mainstream “orthodox” Latter-day Saints there. Not one of them has chosen to take issue with my post.

I am afraid I am not seeing the support that you think you have.

And I am not seeing the awful problem I’m supposed to be having with orthodox Latter-day Saints on this.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[twopekinguys]

The context of that statement is totally transformed when one attaches percentages to it. (No I do not have the data at my fingertips. LOL)

Perhaps one might do better by looking at LDS under the Nazis and comparing them to SDA’s or JW’s under the Nazis.

And I am pointing out that emulating one’s leaders or fictional heroes is a dangerous practice. One must take a critical look at their behavior, and apply moral standards to it. Judge, if you will.

Good night.

"… ympathy [for some of the Nazi goals] was apparently shared by some members of the [Mormon] Church leadership. The Church’s German magazine, Der Stern, reminded its readers in 1935 that Senator Reed Smoot had long been a friend of Germany, and this attitude seemed to receive official sanction during President Grant’s 1937 visit. The message to the German Saints was clear: Stay here. Keep the Commandments. Try to get along the best you can, even under some limitations. We want to keep the Church intact and the missionaries working.”

• Alan F. Keele and Douglas F. Tobler, “The Fuhrer’s New Clothes: Helmuth Huebner and the Mormons in the Third Reich,” Sunstone, v. 5, no. 6, pp. 20-29

Looks like the lds were told to get along.

 

[Pahoran]

"… ympathy [for some of the Nazi goals] was apparently shared by some members of the [Mormon] Church leadership. The Church’s German magazine, Der Stern, reminded its readers in 1935 that Senator Reed Smoot had long been a friend of Germany, and this attitude seemed to receive official sanction during President Grant’s 1937 visit. The message to the German Saints was clear: Stay here. Keep the Commandments. Try to get along the best you can, even under some limitations. We want to keep the Church intact and the missionaries working.”

• Alan F. Keele and Douglas F. Tobler, “The Fuhrer’s New Clothes: Helmuth Huebner and the Mormons in the Third Reich,” Sunstone, v. 5, no. 6, pp. 20-29

Looks like the lds were told to get along.

Which seems like a wise policy at the time.

Do you know why Pius XII didn’t denounce the really heavy-duty nastiness once it started happening? Not, as some accuse him, because he approved, but because he didn’t want to attract the wrath of a totalitarian regime upon the Catholic faithful.

Now I don’t know if Catholics in Germany in the thirties and forties were the majority or merely the largest minority religion; but I do know that there were an awful lot of them. And if they might be in deadly danger if the Pope spoke up, how much more the followers of a tiny minority group, easily identified as foreign? It would have been trivially easy for an American leader, safely in Salt Lake City, to tell the German Saints to stick their necks out, but how easy would it have been for the Nazis to cart them all off to the death camps once they got on the radar?

And how gleefully would you be trumpeting the failure of the foresight of the Church’s leaders if that had happened?

Please think about that for a moment.

BTW, do you even know who Helmuth Huebener was?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[twopekinguys]

That’s an instance of the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Ok, sure, whatever you say,

Which is not the same as the false accusation that “Actually, it is the Bible just so far as y’all agree with it.”

I don’t see any false accusation. lds are quite firm that they believe in the Bible in as much as it has been translated correctly. Aren’t you familiar with that premise?

Indeed, it does very well. It is an excellent example of the kind of quote mining that some people try to pass of as responsible scholarship.

Here is the very next sentence of that quote:

“Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.”

Just a little bit more nuanced, isn’t it?

Since BY’s talks are so well documented, then maybe you can show me one where he says he never had a chance to correct one.

As vocal as BY was on most everything, I am sure if he didn’t have the chance to correct one, you can provide a reference.

Well, here’s another little nuance for you. On 8 May 1854, Brigham Young said: “It is not the place for any person to correct any person who is superior to them, but ask the Father in the name of Jesus to bind him up from speaking false principles. I have known many times I have preached wrong.”

What he was saying here is that he was superior to everyone else, so they didn’t have a right to challenge him.

He was also saying, “If you don’t like what I’m preaching, pray that god shuts me up.” So, following that thought, god didn’t shut him up, so everything he said must have been right. In his opinion anyway.

There is a saying that “Half the truth is a great lie.” It is true that various Church leaders said various things. A responsible effort to honestly report their actual views will look at everything those leaders said on those subjects, and not simply stop as soon as the most polemically useful tidbit is found.

But there are soooooo many of these quotes, you can’t simply discount them all.

Adam/god
Men on the moon.
God was once a sinful man
etc.

 

[Pahoran]

I don’t see any false accusation. lds are quite firm that they believe in the Bible in as much as it has been translated correctly. Aren’t you familiar with that premise?

Perfectly familiar, thank you. It is in the 9th Article of Faith, which I have taught in Primary.

It is also an irrelevant distraction to the inclusion of the Bible in a list of LDS Scriptural texts.

Since BY’s talks are so well documented, then maybe you can show me one where he says he never had a chance to correct one.

Since BY’s talks are so well documented, then maybe you can show me one where he says he did correct it.

It’s that pesky burden of proof issue, you see.

The JoD were published in England, not America. The talks were all given extemporaneously back then, and electronic recording equipment was unavailable. IOW, every single published talk of his is at best an approximation of what was said.

As vocal as BY was on most everything, I am sure if he didn’t have the chance to correct one, you can provide a reference.

Ditto, did have, ditto.

What he was saying here is that he was superior to everyone else, so they didn’t have a right to challenge him.

He was also saying, “If you don’t like what I’m preaching, pray that god shuts me up.” So, following that thought, god didn’t shut him up, so everything he said must have been right. In his opinion anyway.

Thank you for demonstrating that you can’t read what is right in front of your face if it doesnt match your prejudices. Brigham actually said:

I have known many times I have preached wrong.

Your conclusion directly contradicted his words.

But there are soooooo many of these quotes, you can’t simply discount them all.

Actually there are really only a few, and always the same ones being quote-mined.

At the top of my screen, I see an ad for a 16-volume Catholic encyclopedia. The Journal of Discourses is 25 volumes each of 375 pages in small print, double-column and without illustrations of any kind. The handful of 3x5 cards that are quote-mined from these volumes would amount to less than 1% (that’s one percent) of the total material even if all the talks were included in their entirety.

Which, of course, they never are.

If that’s not selective use of material, I don’t know what is.

To claim that these snippets amount to a fair representation of the real views of those leaders, let alone of the doctrines of the Church, is plainly false on its face.

Adam/god

Never accepted by the Church as doctrine.

Men on the moon.

Not an authentic statement.

God was once a sinful man

Misrepresentation of what was said.

etc.

Indeed.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[twopekinguys]

No, they do not.

The last 4 paragraphs talk about the nasty polemical game of quote mining for mere sensationalism. That does not only happen at CAF; it’s widely practiced on a large number of fora; people even try it at MA&DB from time to time.

It is a nasty little game wherever it is tried.

And I talked about that on MA&DB as well.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, 2PG. If you say I left out the “diatribe” about CAF moderation, then expand my “diatribe” to include four times as much material as what was actually left out, what are you actually asserting?

The only mention of the moderation is the one-sentence, second-last paragraph. All eight words of it.

Really? I didn’t see it mentioned in the forum rules.

All eight words of it.

Try looking at the forum rules under enforcement. Specifically #3.

Judgments by the Moderators can be discussed with the Moderators via private messaging but not on the board itself. Decisions of the Moderators may be appealed to the Super Moderators and Admins.

I am not trying to have it both ways. If you reread that post, you will see that I saw your OP on the other board, minus the diatribe.

Again, your statements about treatment, were made on this forum, therefore, it reflects on the mods here.

Hey, why should I expect to know what my own intentions were? Perhaps I should just ask you, and save myself the time.

I left out what was irrelevant for the forum in question. Simple as that. No mention of CAF on MA&DB; no mention of MA&DB prehistory on CAF. Project all the nefarious ulterior motives you like.

So, by your own admission, you tailored your post, to solicit a particular reaction.

MA&DB is a fairly big tent; it embraces a wide spectrum of views. There is a decent number of mainstream “orthodox” Latter-day Saints there. Not one of them has chosen to take issue with my post.[/QUITE]
A wide spectrum of views that if different, get shut down rather quickly.

vAnd I am not seeing the awful problem I’m supposed to be having with orthodox Latter-day Saints on this.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said “awful problem”. Now who is projecting?

 

[SirThomasMore]

lol

 

[twopekinguys]

Perfectly familiar, thank you. It is in the 9th Article of Faith, which I have taught in Primary.

But are you sure you taught it correctly? Since your OP on this thread is in somewhat of a dispute, it is a valid question.

It is also an irrelevant distraction to the inclusion of the Bible in a list of LDS Scriptural texts.

How is it irrelevant?

Since BY’s talks are so well documented, then maybe you can show me one where he says he did correct it.

It’s that pesky burden of proof issue, you see.

Yes it is, too bad you can’t fulfill it. Since you are the one who pointed out his quote about giving him a chance to correct it.

I’ll keep waiting for the reference.

The JoD were published in England, not America. The talks were all given extemporaneously back then, and electronic recording equipment was unavailable. IOW, every single published talk of his is at best an approximation of what was said.

You realize they speak English in England right? I can’t tell you how many times we have heard from mormon posters that something was “misquoted”, or “misuderstood”. Is this a standard response that lds are taught?

Ditto, did have, ditto.

So, now you’re saying he “did have” a chance to correct them. So his sermons are scripture then. Thanks for finally admitting to that.

Thank you for demonstrating that you can’t read what is right in front of your face if it doesnt match your prejudices. Brigham actually said:

I have known many times I have preached wrong.

Your conclusion directly contradicted his words.

Please show me what he stated he preached wrong. Just one of his sermons will do. Wait, earlier you said he had a chance to correct them, so that means there isn’t one.

Actually there are really only a few, and always the same ones being quote-mined.

There’s more, many more I’m sure. It is just easy to bring the standards out that no lds has ever been able to refute.

At the top of my screen, I see an ad for a 16-volume Catholic encyclopedia. The Journal of Discourses is 25 volumes each of 375 pages in small print, double-column and without illustrations of any kind. The handful of 3x5 cards that are quote-mined from these volumes would amount to less than 1% (that’s one percent) of the total material even if all the talks were included in their entirety.

Which, of course, they never are.

If that’s not selective use of material, I don’t know what is.

To claim that these snippets amount to a fair representation of the real views of those leaders, let alone of the doctrines of the Church, is plainly false on its face.

So, what does that have to do with anything. The encyclopedia shown above is not the be all, end all of the Catholic church.

Apples and Oranges.

Never accepted by the Church as doctrine.

Not an authentic statement.

Misrepresentation of what was said.

Gee, I paraphrased, how awful of me.

 

[Pahoran]

Try looking at the forum rules under enforcement. Specifically #3.

Judgments by the Moderators can be discussed with the Moderators via private messaging but not on the board itself. Decisions of the Moderators may be appealed to the Super Moderators and Admins.

Yes, but I didn’t talk about particular judgements, only about the apparent overarching policy.

In any event, if that’s a naughty, I would gladly edit the OP to fix it. Except that the “Edit” button no longer appears. Why do they disappear like that?

I am not trying to have it both ways. If you reread that post, you will see that I saw your OP on the other board, minus the diatribe.

But including all the stuff about “Quote mining,” which you subsequently said formed part of the “diatribe.”

Again, your statements about treatment, were made on this forum, therefore, it reflects on the mods here.

“Statements” being one sentence of eight words.

A wide spectrum of views that if different, get shut down rather quickly.

I’m sorry, but that’s just not true. Threads go on for dozens of pages (20 to a page) that are very far from everyone just saying “Me too!”

(Would you mind telling me what your screen name was on MA&DB? I really would like to know where you are coming from.)

So, by your own admission, you tailored your post, to solicit a particular reaction.

To quote you: “Please don’t put words in my mouth.” I really had no idea I was trying to “solicit a particular reaction.” I thought I was simply making it relevant to the forum where it was being posted.

But then again, what would I know?

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said “awful problem”. Now who is projecting?

Just like I never claimed to be getting “support.” But you, STM and Rebecca all triumphantly told me that my “LDS brethren” were disagreeing with me.

Except they haven’t; not about anything material.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[twopekinguys]

Which seems like a wise policy at the time.

Do you know why Pius XII didn’t denounce the really heavy-duty nastiness once it started happening? Not, as some accuse him, because he approved, but because he didn’t want to attract the wrath of a totalitarian regime upon the Catholic faithful.

Now I don’t know if Catholics in Germany in the thirties and forties were the majority or merely the largest minority religion; but I do know that there were an awful lot of them. And if they might be in deadly danger if the Pope spoke up, how much more the followers of a tiny minority group, easily identified as foreign? It would have been trivially easy for an American leader, safely in Salt Lake City, to tell the German Saints to stick their necks out, but how easy would it have been for the Nazis to cart them all off to the death camps once they got on the radar?

And how gleefully would you be trumpeting the failure of the foresight of the Church’s leaders if that had happened?

Please think about that for a moment.

BTW, do you even know who Helmuth Huebener was?

Regards,
Pahoran

You are dragging the thread waaay off topic with this. This isn’t about the Pope.

But, I suggest you do some research, and see how many jews were actually saved by the Pope, and the Vatican during that time.

Here is one example.

The Church also answered a request to save 6,000 Jewish children in Bulgaria by helping to transfer them to Palestine.

And another:

In the later stages of the war, Pius XII appealed to several Latin American governments to accept “emergency passports” that several thousand Jews had succeeded in obtaining. Due to the efforts of the Pope and the U.S. State Department, 13 Latin American countries decided to honor these documents, despite threats from the Germans to deport the passport holders

Let’s get back to the topic now shall we.

 

[Pahoran]

But are you sure you taught it correctly? Since your OP on this thread is in somewhat of a dispute, it is a valid question.

It’s not being disputed by any informed Latter-day Saints.

How is it irrelevant?

By not being relevant.

Yes it is, too bad you can’t fulfill it. Since you are the one who pointed out his quote about giving him a chance to correct it.

I don’t have to fulfill anything. Brigham made it a condition; it is up to you to show that the condition was fulfilled.

You realize they speak English in England right? I can’t tell you how many times we have heard from mormon posters that something was “misquoted”, or “misuderstood”. Is this a standard response that lds are taught?

No.

And in fact I didn’t say that.

I said that the JoD were published in England.

And that they were based upon handwritten notes taken of extemporaneous talks.

That’s all.

So, now you’re saying he “did have” a chance to correct them. So his sermons are scripture then. Thanks for finally admitting to that.

No, I did not say that.

Since you didn’t get it, I’ll parse it for you:

You: As vocal as BY was on most everything, I am sure if he
Me: Ditto,

You: didn’t have
Me: did have,

You: the chance to correct one, you can provide a reference.
Me: ditto.

Put it together:

As vocal as BY was on most everything, I am sure if he did have the chance to correct one, you can provide a reference.

Please show me what he stated he preached wrong. Just one of his sermons will do.

He said “many times.” I’ll take his word for it.

There’s more, many more I’m sure. It is just easy to bring the standards out that no lds has ever been able to refute.

The OP refutes them. As a corpus.

So, what does that have to do with anything. The encyclopedia shown above is not the be all, end all of the Catholic church.

I’m not saying it is; I’m just pointing out how huge the JoD is compared to the standard anti-Mormon prooftexts. It’s bigger than an encyclopedia, and it’s not the be-all and end-all of anything either.

Gee, I paraphrased, how awful of me.

There is no LDS source I know of that asserts that “God was once a sinful man.” That “sinful” is an unjustified interpolation that materially changes the meaning of the original statement.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

You are dragging the thread waaay off topic with this.

That’s right; because it was me who started comparing my opponents to Nazis; right?

I may very well have erred in following someone else’s derail; but please don’t blame me for introducing it.

Let’s get back to the topic now shall we.

Excellent suggestion.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[dianaiad]

Try looking at the forum rules under enforcement. Specifically #3.

Judgments by the Moderators can be discussed with the Moderators via private messaging but not on the board itself. Decisions of the Moderators may be appealed to the Super Moderators and Admins.

(timid raising of hand here)…as a fascinated reader, I have to wonder how in the name of all that is wonderful you think that the rules pertaining to CAF are enforcible on any other forum?

Now, I didn’t see what you refer to as Pahoran’s ‘rant,’ so I can’t speak to it. I’m only asking why you think that the moderation rules for CAF, excellent as they are, apply to MADB. After all, thanks to your quoting the pertinant rule here, we can see that even the rule as written applies to ‘the board,’ meaning CAF, not to the entirety of the internet.

After all, it seems to me that if the CAF moderation rules apply to MADB, then don’t their rules apply here, too? In which case, how about this one?

(from the MADB board guidelines) - Do not engage in jeering or mockery of the Latter-day Saints or participants on this board. We like strong debate. We expect disagreement and even some quarreling. But we do not expect anyone to quietly submit to continual abuse simply because the topic of this board is about their religion.

or this one?

• Do not use the boards to proselytize (pro- or anti-) or bash others beliefs. Don’t post why I left the church or why Mormons are not saved sermons

As for me, I’ll take my lumps quietly (Michael, SHHHH!!!) moderator wise, and not take any disgruntlement else where, but that’s because I choose not to do it, not because I think that CAF forum rules trump all others everywhere.

Great googly moogly, sirs.

 

[Pahoran]

(timid raising of hand here)…as a fascinated reader, I have to wonder how in the name of all that is wonderful you think that the rules pertaining to CAF are enforcible on any other forum?

Now, I didn’t see what you refer to as Pahoran’s ‘rant,’ so I can’t speak to it. I’m only asking why you think that the moderation rules for CAF, excellent as they are, apply to MADB. After all, thanks to your quoting the pertinant rule here, we can see that even the rule as written applies to ‘the board,’ meaning CAF, not to the entirety of the internet.

After all, it seems to me that if the CAF moderation rules apply to MADB, then don’t their rules apply here, too? In which case, how about this one?

(from the MADB board guidelines) - Do not engage in jeering or mockery of the Latter-day Saints or participants on this board. We like strong debate. We expect disagreement and even some quarreling. But we do not expect anyone to quietly submit to continual abuse simply because the topic of this board is about their religion.

or this one?

• Do not use the boards to proselytize (pro- or anti-) or bash others beliefs. Don’t post why I left the church or why Mormons are not saved sermons

As for me, I’ll take my lumps quietly (Michael, SHHHH!!!) moderator wise, and not take any disgruntlement else where, but that’s because I choose not to do it, not because I think that CAF forum rules trump all others everywhere.

Great googly moogly, sirs.

Actually Diana, I think he’s saying that what I posted here is in violation of CAF’s rules.

The awful statement in question is the second last sentence of the OP. The one that starts “Even if…” I don’t see how that amounts to complaining about particular moderator judgements. If it does, I wonder if mentioning moderators at all is allowed.

Be that as it may, if it does break any rules, I would gladly remove it, but I can’t any more. Do you know why “Edit” buttons seem to disappear of their own accord after a while?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Michael_Francis]

***Please stick to your topic and leave the moderation to the staff of their respective fora, whether Catholic or Mormon.

Report posts that violate the rules and guidelines found in this link** and insure that all your own posts comply.

About 20 posts have been deleted from this thread. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/nun_slapping_ruler_hg_clr.gif
Thank you very much. *

 

[Pahoran]

Does the LDS church itself have an authoritative standard/statement on what is LDS doctrine?

At the time you asked that, I didn’t know of one. Here is a link to an institutional statement by the Church.

Like my statement, it is not itself sourced from any of the places I (and it) identifies as authoritative. However, it does carry more weight than mine, since it is published by the Church. If anyone finds anything there that contradicts what I have written, you may take the other statement as being more probably correct.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[RebeccaJ]

The President of the Church is the only man on earth authorized by God to go beyond or add to the scriptures. “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard Church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, Well, that is his own idea.” (Harold B. Lee, “The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,” in * Charge, * p. 111.)

“The older I get and the closer the contact I have with the President of the Church, the more I realize that the greatest of all scriptures which we have in the world today is current scripture. What the mouthpiece of God says to His children is scripture. It is intended for all the children of God upon the earth. It is His word and His will and His law made manifest through His ordained and anointed servant to the world. What the President says is scripture, and I love it more than all other. It applies to me today specifically, and to you all.” (“Beware of Temptation,” Brigham Young University tri-stake fireside address, [Provo, January 1963], pp. 7–8.)

 

[SirThomasMore]

Snip gratuitous swipes.

 

[Catholic20064]

Pahoran:

I would like to believe that your original statement is correct. In that case you simply need to find an authoritative statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stating what you have stated.

Specifically, I would like you find a statement from a General Authority in General Conference that states that what Joseph Smith said in the King Follet sermon and in his temple grove sermon are false.

Specifically, find any General Authority statement which contradicts the following from King Follet:

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, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, 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.

And this from the temple grove sermon:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. “Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.” “Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.” All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you myself—“I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one.” The Greek shows that it should be agreed. “Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, art with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us,” and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house. I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. “In order to do that,” said he, “suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist—two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them.”

If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

Find me any statement from a General Authority that declares the above two statements aren’t doctrine. I’m sure you can find many statements that support these doctrines, but find me one that says this isn’t LDS doctrine.

All the LDS Church has to do is state that God the Father did not have a Father. If it isn’t willing to do this I would say we would have to accept Joseph Smith’s statements at face value. The LDS Church has specifically stated the Adam-God doctrine is false. I don’t recall them ever declaring Smith’s teachings aren’t doctrine when it would be very simple for some leader to do so. They wouldn’t even have to call them false doctrine, just declare they aren’t doctrine.