By what autority?

[JDave]

Thanks for bringing some clarity to that. I am very appreciative, that in the scripture sited you point out a distinction... as Paul did. It gives a frame of reference and perspective. The observation being, that Paul seemed to convey an awareness of a distinction.

However, do we see such distinction being made by the early LDS prophets on some rather unorthodox statements?

Let's look at Paul first, as an example, then at modern leaders.

PAUL

1. We know that Paul gave his personal judgment as counsel to the saints. They were expected to follow it since he was an apostle -- even though they both knew it was his personal opinion.
   
2. We know that there are instances where Paul was speaking authoritatively for the Lord.
   
3. There are other instances where Paul doesn't say what his source is; he just counsels. He doesn't make the distinction, and nobody really expects him to all the time.
   

Modern Prophets

1. There are times that they give their personal judgment to the saints. I am not going to delve and search for a bunch of quotes, but I am quite certain that modern leaders have presented some of their ideas as being personal opinion.
   • Let me just share one of my personal experiences at USU where an apostle spoke to us. He spoke about walking around on campus and seeing people going to class dressed in their pajamas and such. He told us that he thought that we should all dress nicer to go to class, and that the ladies should dress more feminine and 'put on some makeup'. That was just one instance where even today I shook my head and said "Did he just say that? Did an apostle just say that some of the women looked like "death warmed over"???
     

[*]There are times that modern prophets present items as authoritative statements from God, such as The Proclamation to the World on the Family.

[*]There are other instances where modern prophets don't specify the source. They don't make the distinction and nobody really expects them to do so all the time.

It is nice to have instances of #1 and #2, but it is not always the case and never has always been the case. And, again, it is quite important to note that in the case of #3 the vast majority (asymptotically approaching 98.2%) of statements are quite easily understood in context. And out of the remaining 1.8%, nearly all of them (99.1% +/- 0.4%) are esoteric doctrines that are not central to our salvation.

I would agree here. LDS seem to gravitate towards what is most popularly stated as well as stated in multiplicity.

If we assume multiplicity speaks for itself in some form or fashion.

Who determines popularity?

God determines popularity. It is God's plan, and God speaks in repetition regarding the core elements of His plan. Lots of grace, lots of faith, lots of repentance, lots and lots and lots of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. It is no coincidence that LDS gravitate towards the most often stated doctrines -- those are the most important ones. The fringe doctrines are quite fascinating and intellectually stimulating, but mostly just to those theology nuts { } that inhabit niches on the internet such as this.

[soren]

By the simple fact of official publication by the Church. If not so published, it's not doctrine. Never has been. The first presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are equal in authority and therefore, all must agree.

In what official publication of the Church can this limitation to the prophets' and apostles' authority be found?