Leadership Broadcast earlier

[nicolasconnault]

Well, if it is doctrine, perhaps they should have the membership vote on it and make it a part of the standard works? I hear, when using the "Lectures on Faith" in discussion, "Well, that isn't doctrine, The church never voted on it." all the time.

The Church has "voted", in stake and general conference, when sustaining the authorities of the Church. This material was presented in worldwide leadership broadcasts, including a stake conference. That cannot be said of the lectures on faith, which were presented to the elders of the school of the prophets. However, the argument that the LoF are not doctrine because they haven't been "voted in" is rubbish, since they used to be part of the doctrine and covenants. They were simply not revelations, but lectures, in contrast with the rest of the book. I consider them to be true, and I don't mind quoting from them.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The Church has "voted", in stake and general conference, when sustaining the authorities of the Church. This material was presented in worldwide leadership broadcasts, including a stake conference. That cannot be said of the lectures on faith, which were presented to the elders of the school of the prophets. However, the argument that the LoF are not doctrine because they haven't been "voted in" is rubbish, since they used to be part of the doctrine and covenants. They were simply not revelations, but lectures, in contrast with the rest of the book. I consider them to be true, and I don't mind quoting from them.

Why were they removed from the D&C by the LDS Church?

[David T]

Why were they removed from the D&C by the LDS Church?

The Lectures, mostly the work of Sidney Rigdon, were doctrinally outdated, and not presented as revelations. In their current form, they were a bit obsolete.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Nick said:

However, the argument that the LoF are not doctrine because they haven't been "voted in" is rubbish, since they used to be part of the doctrine and covenants.

Nack said:

The Lectures, mostly the work of Sidney Rigdon, were doctrinally outdated, and not presented as revelations. In their current form, they were a bit obsolete.

[Jason]

I too noticed the "Book 2 is doctrine" comment by Elder Oaks and thought of this board.

Some things I noticed:

The goals of the new manual are to decrease the burden on the bishopric, increase delegation, and avoid regimentation.

We only request new revelation when there is no existing revelation covering the subject.

What will a wife or child see of the Priesthood? He will protect, provide materially, and provide spiritual leadership to his family. He will take the lead in organizing the family.

We should prehaps be giving more Priesthood blessings to our families than we are.

Leading is teaching.

We should delegate more to those who have the keys, especially the Aaronic Priesthood quorums.

Follow the Spirit and use common sense in adapting the handbooks to your ward's situation.

The Lord loves beginners.

It was a pretty good training.

[Hamba Tuhan]

We should delegate more to those who have the keys, especially the Aaronic Priesthood quorums.

As priests quorum advisor in my ward, can I just say that this absolutely, totally, and completely works.

[Calm]

We only request new revelation when there is no existing revelation covering the subject.

Was there any discussion on how it was identified as there being existing revelation as opposed to something being traditional and assumed to be doctrinal?

[Duncan]

Was there any discussion on how it was identified as there being existing revelation as opposed to something being traditional and assumed to be doctrinal?

None, Elder Holland just said it without any discussion-it was apparently a quotation from Joseph Smith

[TAO]

Nick said:

Nack said:

They are both correct. It was doctrine, it was not revelation, and it was removed by Joseph F. Smith I believe. He had some good reasons for it, if I remember correctly.

[consiglieri]

They are both correct. It was doctrine, it was not revelation, and it was removed by Joseph F. Smith I believe. He had some good reasons for it, if I remember correctly.

It is funny that the inclusion of the Lectures on Faith in the first part of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants is what constituted the "Doctrine" part of the title.

After it was deleted, we were left only with "The Book of . . . Covenants," but the title stuck.

(And I think it was deleted solely because of Lecture Five, teaching a different view of the Godhead than what is currently accepted.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[David T]

It is funny that the inclusion of the Lectures on Faith in the first part of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants is what constituted the "Doctrine" part of the title.

After it was deleted, we were left only with "The Book of . . . Covenants," but the title stuck.

(And I think it was deleted solely because of Lecture Five, teaching a different view of the Godhead than what is currently accepted.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I agree. Although Rigdon's heavy hand in it may have left a sour taste as well.

There are other elements of it that are problematic as well. I enjoy and find profitable many of the key points being made, but I think the vehicle and means by which they are transmitted (IE, use of the Genesis/Moses genealogies to prove points, etc, other prooftexting, etc) are outdated. It's basically an old Institute Manual.

[Jason]

Was there any discussion on how it was identified as there being existing revelation as opposed to something being traditional and assumed to be doctrinal?

Really, this obsession that many seem to have with trying to pick apart any saying of the modern prophets to determine what is doctrine and what isn't is unhealthy. My advice is to get over it.

[LeSellers]

We should delegate more to those who have the keys, especially the Aaronic Priesthood quorums.

As priests quorum advisor in my ward, can I just say that this absolutely, totally, and completely works.

With reasonably careful examination, one sees this is the point of having the BSA (in USmerica) as the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood.

The goal of Boy Scouts is to train boy leaders. It would be far, far better to have a miserable failure of a Court of Honor or summer camp run by the Senior Patrol Leader than a perfect one run by the Scoutmaster.

If the only thing the Deacon's Quorum President does is make assignments (and with Sacrament Meeting first in most wards, even that is rare

[LeSellers]

Really, this obsession that many seem to have with trying to pick apart any saying of the modern prophets to determine what is doctrine and what isn't is unhealthy. My advice is to get over it.

Wish I could give this five (or twenty) rep points.

Lehi

[Senator]

Really, this obsession that many seem to have with trying to pick apart any saying of the modern prophets to determine what is doctrine and what isn't is unhealthy. My advice is to get over it.

Hey, I think you'll find many members which are all for the fluidity of doctrine, and suspension of the "what is doctrine" debate.

These same folks are also not the ones creating numerous manuals and demanding strict fidelity to them and the doctrinal purity they are employed to protect.

[nicolasconnault]

Hey, I think you'll find many members which are all for the fluidity of doctrine, and suspension of the "what is doctrine" debate.

These same folks are also not the ones creating numerous manuals and demanding strict fidelity to them and the doctrinal purity they are employed to protect.

Numerous manuals? Demanding strict fidelity? Me = confused!

[nicolasconnault]

This is one area where I believe that the Church is falling down dreadfully: we want excellent meetings instead of excellent young men. the Young Men';s Presidencies do all of the work, and fail in their own callings (training boy leaders) while molding mediocre boys who fail in theirs, too.

It's a failing of church members, not of the Church. The Church has taught how to train young men for a very, very long time, and correctly so, it simply hasn't been followed in many instances. Quorum presidency meetings are the main place where the training occurs, but the actual benefits are meant to come from taking action on the decisions made (by the young men) in these meetings, in the form of service projects and various other quorum activities. Just watch the recent training videos for the Young Men's program, you will see what I'm talking about. Be prepared for a heavy dose of cheese, though!

And, as I have observed in several wards, the Young Women's Presidencies are even worse: it's the lace doily thang from Relief Society.

This hasn't been my experience, far from it.

[Calm]

Really, this obsession that many seem to have with trying to pick apart any saying of the modern prophets to determine what is doctrine and what isn't is unhealthy. My advice is to get over it.

I asked the question anticipating that it was going to be a topic of conversation, I am more interested in how others view the issue and respond to it rather than the issue myself. The only reason I ever get into 'determining what is doctrine and what isn't' is when others use their own personal understandings as a template to measure others' faithfulness...which behaviour I disagree with in general.

[Calm]

Hey, I think you'll find many members which are all for the fluidity of doctrine, and suspension of the "what is doctrine" debate.

These same folks are also not the ones creating numerous manuals and demanding strict fidelity to them and the doctrinal purity they are employed to protect.

It was 20 years in between new manuals and that was only the Gospel Principles manual, Primary and the rest of SS and as far as I know YM and YW have been the same for 25 or more years. The only one that I know of that is updated on a regular basis is the Family History manual and that is because of technology changes, not doctrine.

I did forget the new manuals for RS and Priesthood which are the Teachings of the Presidents series, which I happen to like as nice resources even if they aren't perfect. I think they are good at demonstrating what each man was concerned with during his lifetime and tenure as president.

add-on and on: Even the majority of the CES manuals were the ones I used in university by in the 70s, they may be older than that.

[Jeff K.]

Numerous manuals? Demanding strict fidelity? Me = confused!

Senator has a propensity to become bombastic and magnifying his presumed personal directive from God. Calling the church and the Lord's prophets to repentance.

[consiglieri]

Senator has a propensity to become bombastic and magnifying his presumed personal directive from God. Calling the church and the Lord's prophets to repentance.

On the contrary, Senator was simply rejoinding to a post that the fault for hair-splitting on what constitutes doctrine lies with certain punctillious members.

I understood Senator to reply that the fault is with the leaders of the church who maintain that what is presently taught is the doctrine of the Lord, and then when it is changed to say that we don't follow dead prophets.

Or something like that.

It is a point that deserves consideration.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I did forget the new manuals for RS and Priesthood which are the Teachings of the Presidents series, which I happen to like as nice resources even if they aren't perfect. I think they are good at demonstrating what each man was concerned with during his lifetime and tenure as president.

And here I thought the Teachings of the Presidents series was good at demonstrating that no church president has ever taught anything different than the currently received and correlated teachings of the Church.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Calm]

And here I thought the Teachings of the Presidents series was good at demonstrating that no church president has ever taught anything different than the currently received and correlated teachings of the Church.

I actually came across some contradictions between two presidents, but I can't remember the specific issue just that is had something to do with the resurrection. The one opinion, IIRC, was something that had not been taught anywhere else

[Hamba Tuhan]

With reasonably careful examination, one sees this is the point of having the BSA (in USmerica) as the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood.

For what it's worth, I live where we have no scouting in the Church, and our ward has sacrament meeting first, but our AP quorum presidencies are very much in charge of their quorums. They plan and execute their weekly activities. It's reached a point where, whenever there's a fifth Wednesday in the month, they still plan and hold 'unofficial activities.' They plan and carry out camps and service projects. Back in January, we discovered at Mutual one Wednesday evening that the priests had earlier in the day all been on the roof of one of the ward's widows, cleaning out the rain gutters. We adults hadn't even heard about this til after the fact. A year-and-a-half ago, our bishop put the teachers quorum in charge of the temporal welfare of a new mum whose husband had been sent overseas for six months. Without any adult intervention at all, they regularly contacted her and took care of her gardens, cleaned her rain gutters, etc. I helped a bit when they asked me by providing transport. They care for the widows and single sisters in the ward, contacting them each week when they're not in church to check on them. Two Sundays ago, whilst collecting fast offerings, they discovered after church that one was sick, and they used my phone to ring Bishop and ask for permission to administer the sacrament in her home. They conduct their quorum meetings and presidency meetings, and they take turns conducting at Mutual. They handle all responsibilities related to the sacrament. And so on.

I'm excited to see what happens when these boys become adults, receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, and serve missions!

[Jeff K.]

On the contrary, Senator was simply rejoinding to a post that the fault for hair-splitting on what constitutes doctrine lies with certain punctillious members.

I understood Senator to reply that the fault is with the leaders of the church who maintain that what is presently taught is the doctrine of the Lord, and then when it is changed to say that we don't follow dead prophets.

Or something like that.

It is a point that deserves consideration.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The trend that senator follows is more of someone calling prophets to repentance than it is worrying about minutae.