The Kfd: Official Doctrine Or Theological Speculation

[BCSpace]

Sure. Milk before meat.

Disagree BC.

I think "We don't teach that. We don't know that much about it. I understand the philosophy behind it" accurately reflects Pres. Hinkley's actual beliefs on the topic.

I believe it was a completely honest, genuine answer.

I don't think he's hiding some great secret.

I'm not sure where we disagree at this point.

[Paul Ray]

My interpretation is exactly the same as the Church's....

I heard that too, and I still disagree with you.

"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...."

Yes, I know they do, but the President of the Church also has the authority to make the final decision and determine what is doctrine, all by himself... through revelation from God, of course.

Notice also the unanimity required in D&C 107:27.

Let's get the full context, shall we?

27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the otherâ??

In other words, a decision made by the Quorum of Seventy (about 70 people) must be unanimous to be of the same power or validity as a decision made by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (usually 12 people), and a decision made by the Quorum of Twelve Apostles (usually 12 people) must be unanimous to be of the same power or validity as a decision made by the Quorum of the First Presidency (usually 3 people).

That's the "these" quorums our Lord was referring to. Notice how each quorum gets progressively smaller, with fewer people at the top of the line of authority, and also notice that our Lord was saying that it would take a unanimous decision to arrive at a decision of "the same power and validity" as a decision arrived at in either quorum.

Our Lord did NOT say that a decision not arrived at unanimously would carry no weight whatsoever, nor did he say that any doctrine that any individual member of either quorum taught would be considered to be unofficial doctrine until all of them arrived at a unanimous decision.

28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwiseâ??

Our Lord is saying that one person can execute all of the authority our Lord has given to him, individually, when "circumstances reminder it impossible to be otherwise", even though a decision, including a decision determining what is doctrine, would not be considered to be of the "same power or validity" as a decision arrived at by a unanimous quorum. That makes perfect sense to me, since the decision of one man would be considered the decision of one man, while the unanimous decision of 3 men, or 12 men, or 70 men, would be considered the decision of all of those people.

That still doesn't mean that the decision of one person, including a decision to determine what is doctrine, would carry no weight at all whatsoever as doctrine taught by an official.

When the President of our Church speaks to me, it's as if God is speaking to me, regardless of whether or not anyone else knows that and/or agrees with him, because I know God is inspiring his thoughts.

... and I, for one, testify that God speaks through President Monson every time he "teaches" something, whether you or anyone else, including another person in any quorum, agrees with him.

29 Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men.

That makes perfect sense to me, since there are certain blessings that are given by our Lord when decisions are arrived at by many people who are in agreement with each other that are not given when only one person makes a righteous decision.

I generally try to get everyone to agree with me, and God, so there will be more blessings to go around for everyone, but I can still make a righteous decision on my own, including a decision to determine and teach a true doctrine.

30 The decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity;

Yeah, well, I know I need to work on all of that... and I am trying.

I realize I am nothing without God to help me become all I can be.

31 Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.

Yeah, well, what can I say. I do know quite a bit about our Lord, and I attribute it to being in agreement with God and his authorized servants.

[BCSpace]

Thanks for that Paul, but it doesn't follow and it cannot be reconciled with the Church's own statements on the matter.

Yes, I know they do, but the President of the Church also has the authority to make the final decision and determine what is doctrine, all by himself... through revelation from God, of course.

CFR. D&C 107:24 precludes that and why does the official statement of the Church say something different?

In other words, a decision made by the Quorum of Seventy (about 70 people) must be unanimous to be of the same power or validity as a decision made by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (usually 12 people), and a decision made by the Quorum of Twelve Apostles (usually 12 people) must be unanimous to be of the same power or validity as a decision made by the Quorum of the First Presidency (usually 3 people).

And since the two bodies counsel together to establish doctrine, by definition, each individual body must be unanimous and both are unanimous together.

Yeah, well, what can I say. I do know quite a bit about our Lord, and I attribute it to being in agreement with God and his authorized servants.

Since we both claim the same, this can only be settled by appealing to the Church's own statements.

How is doctrine established? By the two bodies counseling together.

Where is it found? In official publications.

Between us, I seem to be the only one in agreement with them....

[SilverKnight]

I'm not sure where we disagree at this point.

You Say: Pres. Hinkley believes the KFD is official doctrine of the church, but didn;t want to say that on TV. He's not saying how much he really knows because he doesn't want to drop such a big, controversial, doctrinal bomb on national TV, in front of millions on nonmembers. The time is not right for elevating Joseph's funeral sermon to official doctrine status. He purposely "held back".

I Say: Pres. Hinkley said precisely what he knows, and what he generally believes about the doctrine implied by the KFD.

[Paul Ray]

Thanks for that Paul, but it doesn't follow and it cannot be reconciled with the Church's own statements on the matter.

I think it can, and I think I explained what I think.

I don't have the power to get you to agree with me.

CFR. D&C 107:24 precludes that and why does the official statement of the Church say something different?

I don't think you are correctly interpreting the official statement of the Church.

As far as a CFR goes, try thinking about anything that points to the teaching that the President of the Church has all of the keys of the kingdom and the authority to use all of them.

If he is powerless to reveal the mind and will of the Lord all by himself, as you seem to think he is by what I think you are thinking in thinking that he must always act in agreement with the unanimous voice of his quorum AND the quorum of Twelve Apostles, why do we put so much importance on the idea that he, alone, has all of the keys of the kingdom that are given to men on this Earth as well as the authority to use all of them?

And since the two bodies counsel together to establish doctrine, by definition, each individual body must be unanimous and both are unaimous together.

... otherwise... what?... the President of our Church can't reveal the will of the Lord to us?

I do not agree with that idea.

Since we both claim the same, this can only be settled by appealing to the Church's own statements.

... yes, as well as to God, who can TELL us how we should correctly interpret his message.

Between us, I seem to be the only one in agreement with them....

I think the natural tendency of any person is to believe they are right, just because that's what they think. I wouldn't expect you to believe you are wrong.

Let's just both agree to go to God for the final answer.

[Lightbearer]

Why must we accept as absolute doctrine something the prophet allegedly said off the cuff to a TV show host... and yet refuse to believe that which is taught in General Conference is binding on the Church? The mind boggles

[BCSpace]

I'm not sure where we disagree at this point.

You Say: Pres. Hinkley believes the KFD is official doctrine of the church, but didn;t want to say that on TV. He's not saying how much he really knows because he doesn't want to drop such a big, controversial, doctrinal bomb on national TV, in front of millions on nonmembers.

Sure.

The time is not right for elevating Joseph's funeral sermon to official doctrine status. He purposely "held back".

It's already been so elevated by being taught as doctrine in official publications.

I Say: Pres. Hinkley said precisely what he knows, and what he generally believes about the doctrine implied by the KFD.

Agreed. He knows it's official doctrine which is why he ended up with 'not emphasized'.

[Lightbearer]

Also it has been taught this year in ever Priesthood and Relief Society class in the Church:

(â??Chapter 2: God the Eternal Father,â? Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007),36â??44)"â??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,â??I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in formâ??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."

This is even a fuller quote than the Gospel Principles Manual, and if it is not doctrine or not true why was it included in this years manual? You can try to refute it or you can not agree with it, but you can not say that we do not teach it! It may not be something that is emphasized but we do not disown it, we do not reject it. It is not speculation, it is in fact one of the most important teachings that distinguishes us from apostate Christendom.

[Sargon]

Instead of bickering about "who" established official doctrine (the President, the 12, or both), why is noone paying attention to the second part of the paragraph?

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. 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. This doctrine resides in the four â??standard worksâ? of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Until the KFD finds it's way into the Standard Works, an official declaration or proclamation, or the Articles of Faith, it doesn't meet the parameters established in this article for "official doctrine." It isn't clear how authoritative this statement is however, since even it is not part of that list. Nonetheless, this is the most recent statment published by the Church of the matter, and in the absence of any clear instruction from those works included in the list, it is the best we have to work with.

[cinepro]

Instead of bickering about "who" established official doctrine (the President, the 12, or both), why is noone paying attention to the second part of the paragraph?

Until the KFD finds it's way into the Standard Works, an official declaration or proclamation, or the Articles of Faith, it doesn't meet the parameters established in this article for "official doctrine." It isn't clear how authoritative this statement is however, since even it is not part of that list. Nonetheless, this is the most recent statment published by the Church of the matter, and in the absence of any clear instruction from those works included in the list, it is the best we have to work with.

Some might argue that Joseph Smith's properly reported public sermons to the saints are "official pronouncements". Sometimes I wonder if Joseph Smith knew the ramifications of his "Prophet is only a Prophet..." remark whether he would have said it at all. I also wonder if any of the many saints who attended the funeral had doubts as to whether Joseph was sharing official doctrine, personal opinion, or something else. Without the benefit of our modern definition of "Official Doctrine", how could they know that the sermon wasn't official?

But as pointed out above, and perhaps in response to President Hinckley's comments about not teaching it, the Church has seen fit to include this statement in the current Priesthood/RS curriculum:

â??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,â??I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in formâ??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.

Teaching of Joseph Smith Manual

Emphasis added

At the very least, it makes President Hinckley's comment possibly true for the time he said it, but no longer an accurate representation of whether or not that teaching is taught in current LDS lessons (granted, it could be argued that the Prophet is not familiar with the content of the current Priesthood/RS lesson manual, so President Hinckley may not have "known" that it was being taught again before he died, and President Monson may not "know" this either and could honestly make the same statement today.)

[SilverKnight]

Until the KFD finds it's way into the Standard Works, an official declaration or proclamation, or the Articles of Faith, it doesn't meet the parameters established in this article for "official doctrine." It isn't clear how authoritative this statement is however, since even it is not part of that list. Nonetheless, this is the most recent statment published by the Church of the matter, and in the absence of any clear instruction from those works included in the list, it is the best we have to work with.

This.

KFD is not official doctrine.

When was the last time a church leader stated that "God was once a man like us" in GC?

They may bandy about with Deification-Liteâ?¢, but you never hear it talked about to the degree Joseph Smith/Lorenzo Snow did. (Which incidentally was in one of JS's sermons and in one of LS's journal entries).

I don't have any problem with it, but falls in they misty realm of speculation and should not be considered "on par" with other more official pronouncements.

TPJS is full of speculations, opinions and wacky stuff.

[Sargon]

Some might argue that Joseph Smith's properly reported public sermons to the saints are "official pronouncements". Sometimes I wonder if Joseph Smith knew the ramifications of his "Prophet is only a Prophet..." remark whether he would have said it at all. I also wonder if any of the many saints who attended the funeral had doubts as to whether Joseph was sharing official doctrine, personal opinion, or something else. Without the benefit of our modern definition of "Official Doctrine", how could they know that the sermon wasn't official?

It's all fine and dandy to discuss what Joseph thought he was doing at the time. However, we don't belong the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints of 1844. There is much more recent statement on what is considered official doctrine and what is not, and for reasons I don't know, the KFD has fallen outside of those parameters.

[Paul Ray]

Instead of bickering about "who" established official doctrine (the President, the 12, or both), why is noone paying attention to the second part of the paragraph?

Until the KFD finds it's way into the Standard Works, an official declaration or proclamation, or the Articles of Faith, it doesn't meet the parameters established in this article for "official doctrine."

I think you should have highlighted the sentence before the one you highlighted, to get the full context of what that person was saying.

Here it is for you again:

"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. This doctrine resides in the four â??standard worksâ? of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

Notice that the person who gave that list illustrating which bodies of work constitute official Church publications didn't say that ONLY those works constitute official Church publications, as if anything outside that list is not to be considered Church doctrine.

In other words, that persons didn't say that list was to be considered a list of ALL works that are considered official Church publications, as if anything not on that list isn't doesn't fall within the parameters of official Church publications.

... think of the Ensign magazine, which isn't mentioned on that list, specifically.

It might also do you some good to consider his last statement, as well.

Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some people just don't seem to know when they are wrong about something.

[Sargon]

I think you should have highlighted the sentence before the one you highlighted, to get the full context of what that person was saying.

Here it is for you again:

"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. This doctrine resides in the four â??standard worksâ? of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

Notice that the person who gave that list illustrating which bodies of work constitute official Church publications didn't say that ONLY those works constitute official Church publications, as if anything outside that list is not to be considered Church doctrine.

In other words, that persons didn't say that list was to be considered a list of ALL works that are considered official Church publications, as if anything not on that list isn't doesn't fall within the parameters of official Church publications.

... think of the Ensign magazine, which isn't mentioned on that list, specifically.

It might also do you some good to consider his last statement, as well.

It seems clear enough to me that the writer of this statement said "...in official Church publications..." and then continued to clarify exactly what is meant by the phrase "official Church publications", foreseeing the possibility that someone might include the Ensign in the definition.

But, even were we to somehow twist the sentence to make "official Church publications" include any and every book, video, and pamphlet published by the Church, it still wouldn't support your argument. Read it this way:

...to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in [the Ensign]. This doctrine resides in the four â??standard worksâ? of scripture...

The reason the doctrine is official is not because it is in the Ensign, but because it is in the scriptures. Therefore, if it is not in the scriptures, it is not official doctrine, even if it is in the Ensign.

Imagine if next months issue of the Ensign had an article that said "God likes carrots more than green beans." Would you consider that official binding doctrine then?

Some people just don't seem to know when they are wrong about something.

Your telling me.

[Paul Ray]

It seems clear enough to me that the writer of this statement said "...in official Church publications..." and then continued to clarify exactly what is meant by the phrase "official Church publications", foreseeing the possibility that someone might include the Ensign in the definition.

You seem to be trying to read between the lines, while I am simply reading what is written.

The person who wrote that statement didn't use the word ONLY or ALL when listing different forms of Church publications, and I have no reason to believe he or she intended to give an exhaustive list.

I also think it's interesting that he (or she) listed the Articles of Faith after mentioning the Pearl of Great Price. I think someone should tell him or her that it is part of the same body of work, and that it would be helpful for some people if he made another statement to clarify what he/she just said.

But, even were we to somehow twist the sentence to make "official Church publications" include any and every book, video, and pamphlet published by the Church, it still wouldn't support your argument. Read it this way:

The reason the doctrine is official is not because it is in the Ensign, but because it is in the scriptures.

And the reason doctrine is in the scriptures is because an official in the Church has said something.

Without officials, there would be no doctrine.

Therefore, if it is not in the scriptures, it is not official doctrine, even if it is in the Ensign.

I think it might help if you try to separate the idea of "scriptures" from "official doctrine" while realizing that "official doctrine" is simply something that is taught by some official(s).

The Church is an organization, and whether or not it is God's organization, the Church has officials who teach... and whatever they teach is "official doctrine".

Scripture, on the other hand, is something that is written (and possibly spoken) as men write (and possibly speak) through the power and/or inspiration of God.

... in other words, a person can make an official declaration without producing scripture.

I hope that idea will help you a little bit.

Imagine if next months issue of the Ensign had an article that said "God likes carrots more than green beans." Would you consider that official binding doctrine then?

It would depend on who was saying that. An official of our Church may simply be quoting what someone else has said, without personally endorsing it as their own personal belief.

If an official of the Church taught that personally, however, his/her statement would be regarded as doctrine because his/her statement would be something that is being taught by an official of the Church.

... and whether or not God inspired that person to say that would be a separate issue.

Your telling me.

Yes, I was.

[HiJolly]

I love the KFD, and while I don't consider it doctrine, I still think it fits very nicely with my view of God, The Universe, & Everything.

HiJolly

[Helorum]

An insightful view of the King Follett Discourse can be gained by comparing all of the available notes of the sermon found in Ehat and Cook, rev. ed. The Words of Joseph Smith.

After reading all of them in parallel columns it becomes apparent that the version published in the History of the Church could use an upgrade (the compilers evidently did not have all of the notes at their disposal while they pieced the discourse together for publication).

[cinepro]

An insightful view of the King Follett Discourse can be gained by comparing all of the available notes of the sermon found in Ehat and Cook, rev. ed. The Words of Joseph Smith.

After reading all of them in parallel columns it becomes apparent that the version published in the History of the Church could use an upgrade (the compilers evidently did not have all of the notes at their disposal while they pieced the discourse together for publication).

That's not the question. The question is whether or not the compilers of the "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith" manual published in 2007 had all of the notes at their disposal while they pieced the manual together for publication.

I'm guessing they did, and the statement of the prophet was considered acceptable by each General Authority and member of the correlation committee that reviewed it. Remember, the lesson manuals only include statements and teachings that are considered applicable to us in 2008.

Perhaps there is someone here who can enlighten us on the exact quality control methods used to ensure correct doctrine in the Priesthood manuals. But there is no doubt that the doctrine that "God Himself was once as we are now" is official, clear, and currently taught in the CoJCoLdS.

[cksalmon]

The following is an exact reproduction of a post I recently put up at mormonapologetics.org. One might easily conceive of the responses one would most likely receive from exmos and non-member anti-Mormons there, but my intent here is to obtain some feedback from from faithful, practicing Latter Day Saints on this matter. This issue, for some reason, seems always to provoke mixed reactions from the active LDS community, and I'm interested in what the general leanings in this forum might be.

I've long accepted the ideas presented below (including the teaching that God the Father had a Father, who had a Father, and so on). Indeed, I've accepted what I consider to be their deep profundity and implications since I was quite young. Its only in the last, probably ten years, since I discovered the Internet LDS community, that I've run across actual resistance to the concept among active, committed LDS.

What say ye?

I follow this with a quotation from a follow-up post, quoting Joseph from History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479

There is a certain innocent (in a non-pejorative sense) honesty here that I find compelling, C7.

I would love for you to post in a manner such that the statement "I read your posts about as often as I read Tal's" was not actually true. I know you got it in you, bro.

Can't it sometimes be about honest conviction over there rather than endless eye-for-an-eye anti-lefty-communist zingers?

I like you better here.

Chrirs

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

The following is an exact reproduction of a post I recently put up at mormonapologetics.org. One might easily conceive of the responses one would most likely receive from exmos and non-member anti-Mormons there, but my intent here is to obtain some feedback from from faithful, practicing Latter Day Saints on this matter. This issue, for some reason, seems always to provoke mixed reactions from the active LDS community, and I'm interested in what the general leanings in this forum might be.

I've long accepted the ideas presented below (including the teaching that God the Father had a Father, who had a Father, and so on). Indeed, I've accepted what I consider to be their deep profundity and implications since I was quite young. Its only in the last, probably ten years, since I discovered the Internet LDS community, that I've run across actual resistance to the concept among active, committed LDS.

What say ye?

I follow this with a quotation from a follow-up post, quoting Joseph from History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479

My view: It's of God.

[MormonMason]

...

When was the last time a church leader stated that "God was once a man like us" in GC?

...

So far as I know, 1977 (Spencer W. Kimball) and 1978 (Eldred G. Smith).