Lds Prophets - Official Doctrine Vs. Personal Opinions

[LeSellers]

How about Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie, who was one of the 12 apostles, or Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th prophet of the Mormon Church? Or how about The Journal of Discourses which include sermons by Brigham Young, or The History of the Church which include sermons by Joseph Smith?

No, none of them is "doctrine", although they all "contain" some doctrine.

They do not meet the criteria for being official sources of doctrine: their words were not approved by both "prtimary" quorums, nor were they proclaimed as doctrine.

Lehi

[BCSpace]

No. The publisher must literally be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So do you have an example of something you would like to know is doctrine or not?

How about Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie, who was one of the 12 apostles, or Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th prophet of the Mormon Church? Or how about The Journal of Discourses which include sermons by Brigham Young,

Since they are not published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they are not doctrine. However, any quotes from these works (or any other work) you find in a work published by the Church is doctrine.

or The History of the Church which include sermons by Joseph Smith?

Published by the Church. However, since it is old, under the principle of continuing revelation, if there is a conflict with something later published, the later work takes precedent.

[LeSellers]

How about Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie, who was one of the 12 apostles,

Elder M^cConkie was not an Apostle when he wrote Mormon Doctrine. Where did you get the idea that he was?

Lehi

[Pahoran]

It has been the position of the Mormon Church that not everything said by LDS prophets is considered official doctrine. Thus, my question is this - How is one to determine what is official and what is opinion?

Simple.

One has to gain the knowledge and background necessary to tell the difference.

To do this, one does not leave the Church as a young adolescent, and then never outgrow his adolescent self-absorption.

One learns that such heavy-handed propaganda pieces as Wife No. 19 and Blood of the Prophets are not to be mindlessly and uncritically swallowed.

One continues to study and learn at the feet of the apostles and prophets.

But if all this seems too much like hard work--one should leave the Church alone.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BCSpace]

How about Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie, who was one of the 12 apostles,

Elder McConkie was not an Apostle when he wrote Mormon Doctrine. Where did you get the idea that he was

On top of that, as you stated, it takes the approval of all 15 apostles and prophets. Hence the statement by the 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"

[wes]

Simple.

One has to gain the knowledge and background necessary to tell the difference.

To do this, one does not leave the Church as a young adolescent, and then never outgrow his adolescent self-absorption.

One learns that such heavy-handed propaganda pieces as Wife No. 19 and Blood of the Prophets are not to be mindlessly and uncritically swallowed.

One continues to study and learn at the feet of the apostles and prophets.

But if all this seems too much like hard work--one should leave the Church alone.

Regards,

Pahoran

Which apostle(s) and/or prophet(s) should I have studied and learned at the feet of? Gordon B. Hinckley wasn't even sure about certain doctrines and whether or not they are taught by the Mormon Church.

[BCSpace]

Which apostle(s) and/or prophet(s) should I have studied and learned at the feet of? Gordon B. Hinckley wasn't even sure about certain doctrines and whether or not they are taught by the Mormon Church.

The Church has stated expressly was constitutes doctrine. You would be well advised to heed it if you want to talk to (as opposed to talking at) LDS people.

[Bernard Gui]

Which apostle(s) and/or prophet(s) should I have studied and learned at the feet of? Gordon B. Hinckley wasn't even sure about certain doctrines and whether or not they are taught by the Mormon Church.

When you consider what few sayings of ancient prophets and apostles were chosen to

put in our modern bibles, do you think that everything they ever spoke or wrote

was included? Do you believe that everything they ever spoke or wrote was

the infallible word of God? Do you believe that they were well-versed in every doctrine

of the Gospel?

Bernard

[LeSellers]

Gordon B. Hinckley wasn't even sure about certain doctrines and whether or not they are taught by the Mormon Church.

You love the King interview, but ignore his subsequent statement about that interview that completely refutes your assumption.

President Hinckley understood LDS doctrine as well as any man ever has. His statement "I don't know that we teach that much," is a classic example of understatement. The words do not say what he was actually saying.

Lehi

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

Hinckley was in an oral interview; unprepared and off-the-cuff. Hasty answers follow certain unexpected questions in the first place. He did not deny or renounce what the interveiwer said.

President Hinckley had taken issue with the TIME's report in October 1997 General Conference:

"The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church."

Mormon Doctrine is not by the church, but by non-Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, who was not speaking for the Church when writing his unofficial source, poorly entitled. He wrote the book by himself, and it was entirely his opinions as a schooled Theologian.

Journal of Discourses is not by the church, its a collection of writings of early General Authorities talks, recorded by church clerks, and published in England between 1853 and 1886 for the main intent of providing an income for George D. Watt. There was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. In fact there are occasions when the accuracy is questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s, which finally forced the cessation of the publication.

Doctrines of Salvation is not by the church, but it says, "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside." The standard works it explains, are the "measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every manâ??s doctrine."

[zerinus]

Taken from the article you posted:

"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."

How does a person determine which declarations and proclomations are official versus those that are opinion?

By "official declarations and proclamations" I believe is meant the statements from the First Presidency that are passed on through the stake presidents to the Church. They are usually signed by the First Presidency; and if they are particulary important, as with the proclamation on the family for example, they may also signed by the Twelve Apostles.

zerinus

[Phinehas]

Since they are not published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they are not doctrine. However, any quotes from these works (or any other work) you find in a work published by the Church is doctrine.

Published by the Church. However, since it is old, under the principle of continuing revelation, if there is a conflict with something later published, the later work takes precedent.

So you can change God's mind for Him?

[zerinus]

So you're saying one indicator is venue. Which venues would be considered official?Okay, let's take your example of "all worthy men can hold the prieshood." What constitutes a worthy man?

"Worthiness" in that case is determined by local priesthood officers. All who are eligible for the priesthood are interviewed by their bishops (and stake presidents for the Melchizedek priesthood) for worthiness before ordination. That is how worthiness is determined.

zerinus

[Phinehas]

"Worthiness" in that case is determined by local priesthood officers. All who are eligible for the priesthood are interviewed by their bishops (and stake presidents for the Melchizedek priesthood) for worthiness before ordination. That is how worthiness is determined.

zerinus

The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.

Letting man decide IF you are worthy or not is a snare IMHO

[LDSToronto]

An interesting side-question:

Have any of you been in Sunday School and been asked the question, 'What is scripture in our church?' and everyone begins answering with every scrap of paper under the sun? The Ensign, the Church News, the words of modern prophets, etc.

This, personally, drives me a little batty - The Ensign is, emphatically, not scripture, nor are the other things other than the canonized scriptures! Anyone else, does this drive you up a wall?

H.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

This, personally, drives me a little batty - The Ensign is, emphatically, not scripture, nor are the other things other than the canonized scriptures! Anyone else, does this drive you up a wall?

Sometimes. I give old people a break, but sometimes is they leave a random answer generator running on auto pilot, they spit out old folklore and things they heard once, and they think they're sharing an offical stance.

What I mainly blame are teachers who cause it; when they ask a question that should have a singular answer, but they seem to want a unique answer from everybody in class, and you can watch the apostate ideas fly.

[wenglund]

It has been the position of the Mormon Church that not everything said by LDS prophets is considered official doctrine. Thus, my question is this - How is one to determine what is official and what is opinion?

This continues to be a hotly and oft counter-productively debated question, and I believe that even for those who believe they have found a satifactory answer, it is of little use to them, and it is of even less use to those who aren't satisfied by those answers.

I believe the reasons for this is:

1) the very nature of the restored gospel (which is conveyed more in story than by way of a systematic theology) doesn't lend itself to such absolute or definitive lines of demarcation or categorization. Rather, presumably by design, the lines are somewhat fuzzy and even fluid (hence the justified quips about it being like trying to nail Jello to the wall).

And, 2) it pursues the wrong question. If the primary objective of the restored gospel is for us to become like Christ, then the question should be: "Does such and such statement by the prophet enable me to become like Christ?"

Pursuing this question will tend to be productive, whereas puruing the question of the OP tends to produce the opposite. At least that has been my experience.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BCSpace]

Since they are not published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they are not doctrine. However, any quotes from these works (or any other work) you find in a work published by the Church is doctrine.

Published by the Church. However, since it is old, under the principle of continuing revelation, if there is a conflict with something later published, the later work takes precedent.

So you can change God's mind for Him?

God changes His mind all the time according to Jeremiah 18:1-10 and yes, according to the Biblical example, it would be because of human action.

However, I seriously doubt you could find something that actually contradicts the previous as opposed to building on it.

[wes]

Hinckley was in an oral interview; unprepared and off-the-cuff. Hasty answers follow certain unexpected questions in the first place. He did not deny or renounce what the interveiwer said.

President Hinckley had taken issue with the TIME's report in October 1997 General Conference:

"The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church."

So why didn't Hinckley just clear it up right there in Conference and explain his understanding of that issue?

[BCSpace]

What was there to clear up? He was obviously thinking out loud as he developed an answer that to him would be milk before meat.

[wes]

This continues to be a hotly and oft counter-productively debated question, and I believe that even for those who believe they have found a satifactory answer, it is of little use to them, and it is of even less use to those who aren't satisfied by those answers.

I believe the reasons for this is:

1) the very nature of the restored gospel (which is conveyed more in story than by way of a systematic theology) doesn't lend itself to such absolute or definitive lines of demarcation or categorization. Rather, presumably by design, the lines are somewhat fuzzy and even fluid (hence the justified quips about it being like trying to nail Jello to the wall).

And, 2) it pursues the wrong question. If the primary objective of the restored gospel is for us to become like Christ, then the question should be: "Does such and such statement by the prophet enable me to become like Christ?"

Pursuing this question will tend to be productive, whereas puruing the question of the OP tends to produce the opposite. At least that has been my experience.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hey Wade,

Thanks for sharing your experience. My experience in the LDS church did not lead me to become more like Christ. In fact, it led me to very much the opposite. However, my experience since I have left Mormonism has been very redemptive and healing. Coming to understand the unconditional love of God and free gift of salvation has completely changed my life.

Thanks,

Wes

[BCSpace]

This continues to be a hotly and oft counter-productively debated question, and I believe that even for those who believe they have found a satifactory answer, it is of little use to them, and it is of even less use to those who aren't satisfied by those answers

The only real problem are those who can't bring themselves to accept what the Church itself has said regarding doctrine both within and without the Church. It all comes down to pet theories and arguments that disappear when the real LDS Church comes to the fore.

[wes]

What was there to clear up? He was obviously thinking out loud as he developed an answer that to him would be milk before meat.

Hinckley claimed that he in fact did understand the doctrine discussed on Larry King even though it may have appeared otherwise after watching the interview. So it would seem that the whole matter could be cleared up very easily by giving us his understanding of it as the living prophet of the Mormon Church. Yet he did not which leaves reasonable doubt in many minds. After all, he did say he was "not sure we teach that."

[BCSpace]

Hinckley claimed that he in fact did understand the doctrine discussed on Larry King even though it may have appeared otherwise after watching the interview. So it would seem that the whole matter could be cleared up very easily by giving us his understanding of it as the living prophet of the Mormon Church. Yet he did not which leaves reasonable doubt in many minds. After all, he did say he was "not sure we teach that."

Which, as he was developing his thoughts out loud he ended up on "I don't know that we emphasize it." It seems more like yellow journalism and an anitMormon agenda to stop the quote midstream before Hinckley finished.

[wes]

Which, as he was developing his thoughts out loud he ended up on "I don't know that we emphasize it."

So what is the official LDS position on this issue?