Lds Prophets - Official Doctrine Vs. Personal Opinions

[BCSpace]

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?

After We Have Endured to the End

What happens when we have endured to the end in faithful discipleship to Christ? The Lord has said, â??If you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of Godâ? (D&C 14:7). President Joseph Fielding Smith said, â??If we will continue in God; that is, keep his commandments, worship him and live his truth; then the time will come when we shall be bathed in the fulness of truth, which shall grow brighter and brighter until the perfect dayâ? (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: â??When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospelâ??you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the graveâ? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: â??It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. â?¦ He was once a man like us; â?¦ God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself didâ? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345â??46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as he did.

Imagine what joy each of us will have when we return to our Heavenly Father if we can say: â??Father, I did what you wanted me to do. I have been faithful and have kept your commandments. I am happy to be home again.â? Then we will hear him say, â??Well done; â?¦ thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lordâ? (Matthew 25:23).

Chapter 47: Exaltation,â? Gospel Principles, 301

[wes]

If this is true then the issue seems pretty clear cut to me and I don't understand why Hinckley would say what he did in the Larry King interview.

This also implies that Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith , Gospel Principles , and Doctrines of Salvation are all official Mormon Doctrine.

[Zakuska]

Personally I like what the Church the Apostles built taught on the subject...

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

[BCSpace]

If this is true then the issue seems pretty clear cut to me and I don't understand why Hinckley would say what he did in the Larry King interview.

The thinking usually is that a general audience is not going to understand without some additional teachings first. I disagree with that assessment but nevertheless, the LK/GBH issue has been the target for a strawman argument.

In order to understand, all you have to do is complete the quote rather than stopping at "I don't know that we teach that".

This also implies that Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and Gospel Principles are both official Mormon Doctrine.

No, it doesn't. Gospel Principles is published by the Church and is therefore doctrine. Only the quote from TPJS, a non doctrinal work, is doctrine because it is quoted in a doctrinal work. It all goes back to the Church statement linked to in my siggy and oft quoted in this thread. Only that which is published by the Church is doctrine.

[wes]

The thinking usually is that a general audience is not going to understand without some additional teachings first. I disagree with that assessment but nevertheless, the LK/GBH issue has been the target for a strawman argument.

In order to understand, all you have to do is complete the quote rather than stopping at "I don't know that we teach that".

Really? Well, here's a more complete transcription of Hinckley's response:

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

The phrase "I don't know" is used 6 times out of the 7 sentences spoken by Hinckley in response to King's question. If he does in fact understand the doctrine, why would he explain himself to King in this fashion?

[saemo]

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?

hi wes, I asked this a while back, really trying to figure it out. What I got is this:

1 - the official doctrine guidelines from lds.org, posted in this thread

2 - personal witness of the Holy Spirit

Where I find this problematic is that what is called opinion today, was taught as doctrine and people of the time received a personal witness of the Holy Spirit.

After you've asked the same question 10 times in 10 different ways and people believe they have honestly answered it...there isn't really anything more to be asked or said.

Also, after numerous conversations with LDS folks, I find that some believe certain doctrines and other don't, and all claim a personal witness of the Holy Spirit for their position of belief, or unbelief.

I gave up on trying to figure this one out. If I ever find myself in a conversation with an LDS person about LDS doctrine, I don't assume what they accept as doctrine. Five different people will give you five different answers, and so I will ask what a person's position if it is relevant to our conversation.

[wes]

hi wes, I asked this a while back, really trying to figure it out. What I got is this:

1 - the official doctrine guidelines from lds.org, posted in this thread

2 - personal witness of the Holy Spirit

Where I find this problematic is that what is called opinion today, was taught as doctrine and people of the time received a personal witness of the Holy Spirit.

After you've asked the same question 10 times in 10 different ways and people believe they have honestly answered it...there isn't really anything more to be asked or said.

Also, after numerous conversations with LDS folks, I find that some believe certain doctrines and other don't, and all claim a personal witness of the Holy Spirit for their position of belief, or unbelief.

I gave up on trying to figure this one out. If I ever find myself in a conversation with an LDS person about LDS doctrine, I don't assume what they accept as doctrine. Five different people will give you five different answers, and so I will ask what a person's position if it is relevant to our conversation.

I agree it is very confusing.

[Pandorian]

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?

Easy. Whatever you agree with is doctrine, whatever you don't is personal opinion.

[LDSMusic483]

Really? Well, here's a more complete transcription of Hinckley's response:

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

The phrase "I don't know" is used 6 times out of the 7 sentences spoken by Hinckley in response to King's question. If he does in fact understand the doctrine, why would he explain himself to King in this fashion?

Well, we don't necessarily "teach it" or "emphasize it". What he's saying is that it isn't something that is regularly taught in the church. It doesn't mean we don't believe it, but what he said is truth. I don't think anyone knows much of what Gods life was as mortal man, regardless of their belief or the validity of the doctrine. He was giving out milk, because meat was not appropriate in that venue.

[urroner]

Not having read the thread, I have a similar problem with the Bible, what is doctrine, what is opinion, what is real, and what is allegorical in the Bible and how can we tell?

Wes if you could please would please answer this question with a well thought out, definitive answer, then I figure you are well on your way to answering your question.

[urroner]

hi wes, I asked this a while back, really trying to figure it out. What I got is this:

1 - the official doctrine guidelines from lds.org, posted in this thread

2 - personal witness of the Holy Spirit

Where I find this problematic is that what is called opinion today, was taught as doctrine and people of the time received a personal witness of the Holy Spirit.

After you've asked the same question 10 times in 10 different ways and people believe they have honestly answered it...there isn't really anything more to be asked or said.

Also, after numerous conversations with LDS folks, I find that some believe certain doctrines and other don't, and all claim a personal witness of the Holy Spirit for their position of belief, or unbelief.

I gave up on trying to figure this one out. If I ever find myself in a conversation with an LDS person about LDS doctrine, I don't assume what they accept as doctrine. Five different people will give you five different answers, and so I will ask what a person's position if it is relevant to our conversation.

From your avatar, I figure you're Catholic. I think I remember you saying you are someplace, but my mind is on vacation once again. In the Catholic Church, there is Tradition and it is non-biblical, in the sense that it's not in the Bible. How does one determine which of the writings are Tradition and which aren't. Are there any Catholics who believe that certain non-Tradition beliefs are Tradition? Whose fault is that?

I have heard Catholics say that praying to the saints isn't the same as worshiping them, yet I have heard some say that it is. I have heard Catholics say that the picking of a new Pope is through revelation and others say that it isn't. So when it comes to deciding often times what is Catholic doctrine and what isn't, like you with us LDSers, I don't assume what they accept as doctrine is doctine.

And I'm not going to get into what Evangelical accept as doctrine and what isn't doctrine. Talk about a brier patch.

[wes]

From your avatar, I figure you're Catholic. I think I remember you saying you are someplace, but my mind is on vacation once again. In the Catholic Church, there is Tradition and it is non-biblical, in the sense that it's not in the Bible. How does one determine which of the writings are Tradition and which aren't. Are there any Catholics who believe that certain non-Tradition beliefs are Tradition? Whose fault is that?

I have heard Catholics say that praying to the saints isn't the same as worshiping them, yet I have heard some say that it is. I have heard Catholics say that the picking of a new Pope is through revelation and others say that it isn't. So when it comes to deciding often times what is Catholic doctrine and what isn't, like you with us LDSers, I don't assume what they accept as doctrine is doctine.

And I'm not going to get into what Evangelical accept as doctrine and what isn't doctrine. Talk about a brier patch.

I am not Catholic.

[LDSMusic483]

I am not Catholic.

He was replying to Saemo. You don't even have an avatar.

[wes]

He was replying to Saemo. You don't even have an avatar.

Oops...my bad.

[wes]

Well, we don't necessarily "teach it" or "emphasize it". What he's saying is that it isn't something that is regularly taught in the church. It doesn't mean we don't believe it, but what he said is truth. I don't think anyone knows much of what Gods life was as mortal man, regardless of their belief or the validity of the doctrine. He was giving out milk, because meat was not appropriate in that venue.

Sorry, but his answer sounds extremely evasive to me. And it's not something that's very difficult to understand so the "milk before meat" explanation doesn't really hold water either.

[wenglund]

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

Hi wes,

I am pleased to hear that you have finally found a way to become more like Christ, and I wish you well with that. It is just that I can't see Christ quibbling about whether a doctrine of one's former faith is "official" or not. Instead, from what I have gathered from the scriptures, he would be anxiously engaged in good and productive causes and exemplifying, by the life he lead, that his ways do best enable one to become the very best person possible and enable one to acheive a fulness of joy and love. But, that may just how I read things.

Anyway, I do find it interesting that you and I have the restored gospel of Christ in common, yet I have found it to be the very best means for becoming like Christ while for you it was supposedly the opposite. Clearly, there is a significant difference in how you and I understand and utilize the restored gospel, and I wonder whatall that difference consists of. Could it have anything to do with you being more concerned with whether a doctrine can be categorized as "official" or not, while I am more concerned with living the doctrine to see if it brings me closer to Christ? Who knows? Perhaps this is a discussion for another thread, but something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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.

I wonder how much of a "problem" that really is outside of scoring points in the relatively rare arguments on subject. I personally don't believe that when we stand before the bar of God that his judgement will consist at all of question like whether we can accurately define what is "official" doctrine or not. Instead, it will be a matter of determining the degree to which we have emulated Christ through living the doctrinal precepts he has given us through his chosen leaders (whether "officially" or not). But, again, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wes]

Hi wes,

I am pleased to hear that you have finally found a way to become more like Christ, and I wish you well with that. It is just that I can't see Christ quibbling about whether a doctrine of one's former faith is "official" or not. Instead, from what I have gathered from the scriptures, he would be anxiously engaged in good and productive causes and exemplifying, by the life he lead, that his ways do best enable one to become the very best person possible and enable one to acheive a fulness of joy and love. But, that may just how I read things.

Anyway, I do find it interesting that you and I have the restored gospel of Christ in common, yet I have found it to be the very best means for becoming like Christ while for you it was supposedly the opposite. Clearly, there is a significant difference in how you and I understand and utilize the restored gospel, and I wonder whatall that difference consists of. Could it have anything to do with you being more concerned with whether a doctrine can be categorized as "official" or not, while I am more concerned with living the doctrine to see if it brings me closer to Christ? Who knows? Perhaps this is a discussion for another thread, but something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

-Let me first say that I do think this is a discussion for another thread and please feel free to start one if you would like-

Thanks for your well wishes, Wade. However, according to Mormon teaching, I will probably be going to outer darkness since I have "known the truth of Mormonism and rejected it" and thus there is no hope for me becoming more like the Mormon Christ who requires that I must earn my way to one of the 3 kingdoms of glory.

As for the importance of doctrine, the Bible seems to indicate it is important:

"Test all things and hold fast to that which is good."

1 Thessalonians 5:21

In my application of this verse I have found that Mormonism preaches a false gospel and is not something I should hold fast to.

[thesometimesaint]

wes:

The only people in LDS theology that have the authority to determine where you will go are you and God. God will plead with you to make the right choice, but is you that will decide if you want it or reject it. If you were ever LDS you seem to have chosen to forget an awful lot.

[wes]

wes:

The only people in LDS theology that have the authority to determine where you will go are you and God. God will plead with you to make the right choice, but is you that will decide if you want it or reject it. If you were ever LDS you seem to have chosen to forget an awful lot.

According to Gospel Principles Chapter 46 I will be in outer darkness:

These are they who had testimonies of Jesus through the Holy Ghost and knew the power of the Lord but allowed Satan to overcome them. They denied the truth and defied the power of the Lord. There is no forgiveness for them, for they denied the Holy Spirit after having received it. They will not have a kingdom of glory. They will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with Satan and his angels forever. (See D&C 76:28-35, 44-48.)

[thesometimesaint]

wes:

Who determines your level of knowledge? Clue, It ain't the Church.

[wenglund]

hi wes, I asked this a while back, really trying to figure it out. What I got is this:

1 - the official doctrine guidelines from lds.org, posted in this thread

2 - personal witness of the Holy Spirit

Where I find this problematic is that what is called opinion today, was taught as doctrine and people of the time received a personal witness of the Holy Spirit.

After you've asked the same question 10 times in 10 different ways and people believe they have honestly answered it...there isn't really anything more to be asked or said.

Also, after numerous conversations with LDS folks, I find that some believe certain doctrines and other don't, and all claim a personal witness of the Holy Spirit for their position of belief, or unbelief.

I gave up on trying to figure this one out. If I ever find myself in a conversation with an LDS person about LDS doctrine, I don't assume what they accept as doctrine. Five different people will give you five different answers, and so I will ask what a person's position if it is relevant to our conversation.

I am pleased that you gave up trying since as previously intimated it is the wrong question to be pursuing. Again, what is of value isn't whether a certain statement by prophets or members may rightly be classified as "official doctrine" or not, or even whether the general membership is monolithic in their beliefs on periphrial matters (we tend to be monolithic on our fundamental and core beliefs), but whether the precepts at issue will lead us closer to Christ.

Try approaching discussions with LDS as I suggest and see if that lessens your confusion. If nothing else, perhaps it may act as a reminder to LDS where their energies should be directed, if not also you good Catholics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wes]

I am pleased that you gave up trying since as previously intimated it is the wrong question to be pursuing. Again, what is of value isn't whether a certain statement by prophets or members may rightly be classified as "official doctrine" or not, or even whether the general membership is monolithic in their beliefs on periphrial matters (we tend to be monolithic on our fundamental and core beliefs), but whether the precepts at issue will lead us closer to Christ.

Try approaching discussions with LDS as I suggest and see if that lessens your confusion. If nothing else, perhaps it may act as a reminder to LDS where their energies should be directed, if not also you good Catholics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Another reason it is important to distinguish official doctrine from personal opinions is because Mormon Leaders in the past have made statements that are anything but Christlike. Are you familiar with the Journal of Discourses, Wade? Consider the following statement made by Brigham Young:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind." Journal of Discourses, volume 4, p. 219.

In light of this statement would you still say that it's unimportant to distinguish what is offical Mormon teaching and what is not?

[ttribe]

Another reason it is important to distinguish official doctrine from personal opinions is because Mormon Leaders in the past have made statements that are anything but Christlike. Are you familiar with the Journal of Discourses, Wade? Consider the following statement made by Brigham Young:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind." Journal of Discourses, volume 4, p. 219.

In light of this statement would you still say that it's unimportant to distinguish what is offical Mormon teaching and what is not?

Wade is more than familiar with the JoD, wes. You may be in over your head with him.

[wenglund]

-Let me first say that I do think this is a discussion for another thread and please feel free to start one if you would like-

Thanks for your well wishes, Wade. However, according to Mormon teaching, I will probably be going to outer darkness since I have "known the truth of Mormonism and rejected it" and thus there is no hope for me becoming more like the Mormon Christ who requires that I must earn my way to one of the 3 kingdoms of glory.

Please don't put words into my LDS mouth. It is not my place or your's to judge where you may end up in the afterlife. That is the purview of Christ.

Besides, we were talking about whether living the restored gospel of Christ would enable one to become more like Christ or not, and not whether rejecting the restored gospel would do the same. You claimed that the way you lived the restored gospel it took you away from being like Christ, whereas it has taken me towards being like Christ. But, I will leave discussing wy the difference to another thread.

As for the importance of doctrine, the Bible seems to indicate it is important:

"Test all things and hold fast to that which is good."

1 Thessalonians 5:21

In my application of this verse I have found that Mormonism preaches a false gospel and is not something I should hold fast to.

That is certainly your choice, and again I wish you well.

But, please note that the scripture you quoted has to do with testing whether something is "good" or not and holding on to the good (which is essentially what I have been suggesting), and not whether something may be classified as "official doctrine" or not. It also doesn't suggest quibbling with your former faith over differences of understanding and perceptions about statements made by LDS Church leaders.

At least that is the way I see it--not that I wish to argue about it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-