That is exactly the point I am making. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. Blood Atonement is not Doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
A good way to better understand the specific nature of Brigham Young's prophetic office is to look at the Biblical porecedant. A good example is Moses in the OT. Moses, God's prophet, takes the credit for the miracle of causing the water to come from the rock.
Was Moses actinng as prophet (spokesman of God) when he took credit for the miracle? No. Otherwise one could claim God was lying. Moses was later chastened for it and repented. (Num 20, 27, Ex 17, Duet 32) However when he told Pharoah to let the children of Israel go he was speaking specifically on behalf of God.
Anything Brigham Young may have said while not acting under God's direction as prophet is not Doctrine. For example if Brigham woke up and said, "Hmmmm I want ash cakes with maple syrup this morning instead of my usual eggs." He would not be saying anything "prophetic". If however God told him to lead the Mormons across the plains and he then told them to do it he would be acting in his prophetic office.
Blood Atonement is a False Doctrine. My previous post about the how the author of the J of D wrote it 25 years after the actual sermons sheds doubt on its accuracy. (He was not Brigham's scribe). If it was an accurate protrayal of what BY talked about he was not speaking under the influence of the Spirit but probably leaning on his own understanding as a man, as Moses did at times.
The Church actually has a mechanism to deal with things such as this. The Prophet can say something. Then the members are told to go home and pray about it. Each person is free to agree or disagree with what the prophet says based on their own inspiration. For larger issues like Canonized scripture and official manifestos it is presented before the body of the Church which votes on it. In this way the Doctrine and Covenants was presented before the body of the Church and voted in as Canonized scripture. The Journal of Discourses has passed no such mechanism.
Most Churches and even "groups" of churches that band together for political issues have similar types of mechanisms, manifestos, mission statements etc. for deciding what the organization will represent and what it will not.
As for Deseret Book it is run as a business. They sell Harry Potter books. I hope you don't start claiming Mormons believe in Muggles and play Quidditch.
I disagree though when what someone who is not of my faith (especially if they are a murderer) is compared to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as a proof that all Mormons are crazy.
Krakauer writes about the Laffety brothers who attended a fundamentalist "school of prophets" in the county backyard of BYU. Two of the Lafferty brothers were convicted of murdering a sister-in-law and her young child.
Then, in post #168, you hit upon a major theme of one of Krakauer's chapters--that one thing widespread among LDS is the ability to claim personal inspiration (by praying about something).
You stated: The Church actually has a mechanism to deal with things such as this. The Prophet can say something. Then the members are told to go home and pray about it. Each person is free to agree or disagree with what the prophet says based on their own inspiration.
Krakauer says pretty much the same thing...and then mentions that the "school of prophets" would have these meetings so that they could corporately decide whether these revelations (impressions) were ones they were supposed to act upon. You see, it wasn't just that the Laffertys were cold-blooded killers. The eldest Lafferty brother, who was a former LDS bishop of his ward (he was influenced by his brothers to join the fundamentalist sect), said he had a revelation that he was supposed to kill his sister-in-law.
Now, keep in the mind that the fundamentalist school of prophets rejected this as a revelation from God. Yet this former upstanding member of the LDS church maintained his belief it was from God.
All it took was a burning bosom. Now who do you suppose left him with the idea that a burning bosom is all that's needed for a revelation to be true? The fundamentalists? Nope, try again. It's a standard teaching of the LDS church from beginning to current times!
You've got to understand that this one incident was no small matter in God's eyes. I mean look how many God-pleasing things Moses did in his life. A pretty good track record, right? Yet, if God was basing faith upon personal worthiness and spiritual merit badges, then how come God told Moses that it was because of this incident that he would not personally enter the promised land?
In God's eyes, it was a scandalous lack of faith...instead of trusting and taking God at his word, Moses struck the rock in a manner of his own choosing.
Perhaps. But you've spent a lot on these posts saying how the LDS church has disciplinary measures, how a church has a canonization process, how a church has a voting process, etc...but you're neglecting to mention two things:
(1) All of those things are in place for the very reason of giving the average church member a filter so that when they hear a teaching that runs counter to a former teaching, they'll know it right away--or at least somewhere in the middle of all these processes. Yes, not everything a prophet says is going to be prophecy because 100% of a person's words won't be coming from God's direction. But I can at least tell you this much: A true prophet's new teachings will at least keep from militating versus existing teachings. Aside from the what-is-prophecy vs. what-is-not-prophecy issue, there is the issue of consistency and teacher integrity.
(2) Joseph Smith basically said he himself was the canonization process (one quote of his that any of his sermons were "as good as Scripture")...and LDS teachings since have touted (using the book of Amos passage) how the distinction of their church from any other is that they have a living prophet. The LDS church doesn't tout its disciplinary process, its canonization process of new revelations, or its voting process (all things you've highlighted). It touts its living prophet. Therefore, we need to shine a bright light on whatever that "living prophet" has taught others to embrace, whether it was official doctrine or not.
For example if Brigham woke up and said, "Hmmmm I want ash cakes with maple syrup this morning instead of my usual eggs." He would not be saying anything "prophetic". If however God told him to lead the Mormons across the plains and he then told them to do it he would be acting in his prophetic office.
I sit down. A waittress serves my table. She says, "What can I get you this a.m.?" I tell her, "I'll have a stack of blood atonements--but all served up solo, mind you." She says, "coming right up!"
I'm sorry. But I couldn't resist. "Ordering up" an unofficial teaching of blood atonement is not on the same scale as a prophet proclaiming that scrambled eggs is the only way to eat 'em in the Utah territory. You've constructed a false level of equivalency.
Blood Atonement is a False Doctrine.
"Doctrine" is simply "official teaching." You might think we're mincing words here, but basically, you are saying "blood atonement is a false doctrine" and I agree it is. But then you try to turn around and say it was never a false doctrine of the church, and I say, while there's lack of clarity about its "official" status, the fact remains that it was a teaching taught, and therefore it is accurate to say that "blood atonement is a false teaching taught by the prophet of the LDS church."
A teaching is a teaching, whether it's done in some alleged "prophet's uniform" or not!