Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[CASteinman]

If I understand you right, official doctrine is not binding, is not necessarily true, and may be contradictory at times? In other words it is no different from any other published material or talks given outside of GC from the GAs. Why then the distinction?

Binding doctrine is just about always official doctrine but official doctrine is not always binding.

Doctrine may be contradictory from time to time. This is why we have the Spirit.

I have explained the reason for the description of official doctrine in another post, I will find the number for you.

===

Add: One of the two posts where I discussed this was #206 (I think). Right at the end of that long post. There is one earlier one as well.

Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[pogi]

Did you miss this part:

"This is a matter of plain and obvious definition. If you look up the word "official" in a dictionary it will reveal to you what the term "official" means. And if you look up the word "doctrine" you will see what that means. I trust I do not have to actually post that in such a pedantic manner."

The Authority I am using is the Dictionary. Was I wrong? Do I need to be pedantic and quote it?

No I did not miss that part. As I said, it is not plain and obvious to myself nor to the authorities of the church that I have quoted who obviously disagree with your interpretation of that phrase. The dictionary is not a doctrinal authority for the church. I would like to see a reference from a church authority. Unless you claim that the dictionary supersedes the GA's in matters of doctrine, I think my references (B.H. Roberts, Harold B. Lee, J.F. McConkie, and Joseph Fielding Smith) have more weight in this matter don't you think?

Edited March 20, 2013 by pogi

[CASteinman]

No I did not miss that part. As I said, it is not plain and obvious to myself nor to the authorities of the church that I have quoted who obviously disagree with your interpretation of that phrase. The dictionary is not a doctrinal authority for the church. I would like to see a reference from a church authority. Unless you claim that the dictionary supersedes the GA's in matters of doctrine, I think my references (B.H. Roberts, Harold B. Lee, J.F. McConkie, and Joseph Fielding Smith) have more weight in this matter don't you think?

I did not see you quote a GA who disagreed with my understanding of "that phrase".

====

Separately, you should be sure to recognize something that you might be sort of passing by.

My argument is a bit like the one where a person says "All Fords are Cars but not all Cars are Fords".

If you find someone who declares something to be official doctrine because it was voted on, or because it is in the scriptures or something like that, they are not disagreeing with my view.

You must find someone who says that nothing but that is "official doctrine" . Then they would be disagreeing with my use of that specific term.

FYI.

I also should add, that I 100% believe you might find such a thing because -- "Official Doctrine" is not necessarily complete nor consistent -- and probably it shouldn't be.

Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[MormonMason]

President Brigham Young left us a key to know which is truth and not truth.

In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith, and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the First Presidents must be one in their voice--the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. The Seventies may decide upon the same principle. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true.

(Journal of Discourses 9:91-92)

Right off the bat, Adam-God does not pass this test. Blood Atonement also does not pass this test.

To see the original text in context in scans of the original you can look here:

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/3821

Edited March 20, 2013 by MormonMason

[CASteinman]

President Brigham Young left us a key to know which is truth and not truth.

Right off the bat, Adam-God does not pass this test.

Ironic, eh?

(By my sense of "Official Doctrine", AG Fails).

[pogi]

FYI.

I also should add, that I 100% believe you might find such a thing because -- "Official Doctrine" is not necessarily complete nor consistent -- and probably it shouldn't be.

As of yet, I have seen no inconsistencies from the GAs regarding this issue as you have failed to provide one supporting quote. Believe what you want, in the end it doesn't change anything.

Let me leave it at this, I agree with B.H. Roberts in stating that the standard works are "the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine"

What makes doctrine "official" is that it is "officially" accepted by the church (but you wont find that in the dictionary so it must not be true). This makes it binding. Otherwise "official doctrine" holds no more weight than anything else and is just opinion.

Edited March 20, 2013 by pogi

[CASteinman]

As of yet, I have seen no inconsistencies from the GAs as you have failed to provide one supporting quote.

I didn't know you wanted one. I don't really love to bring those out in the open. Why do you want to do that?

Believe what you want, in the end it doesn't change anything.

Not quite true. That you say that suggests you do not really accept everything Christ said.

Let me leave it at this, I agree with B.H. Roberts in stating that the standard works are "the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine"

OK. Not quite in agreement with what some other GA's have said (including a prophet) but ... it is what it is. You believe it. Which is fine with me.

However, please note -- it has nothing to do with what I have been talking about. And nothing I have said contradicts it.

What makes doctrine "official" is that it is "officially" accepted by the church. This makes it binding. Otherwise "official doctrine" holds no more weight than anything else and is just opinion.

Two questions about the above statement:

1. Do you consider that statement to be official doctrine?

2. Who said it? What is the reference exactly?

[pogi]

I didn't know you wanted one. I don't really love to bring those out in the open. Why do you want to do that?

Why do I want it? To see why you believe what you believe. To see if you have any authority behind your words beyond the dictionary.

Not quite true. That you say that suggests you do not really accept everything Christ said.

You lost me here, what has Christ said about "official doctrine" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

What I meant by that statement is that we both agree on what is binding doctrine, everything else is a matter of following the spirit. I think we can both agree on this.

Two questions about the above statement:

1. Do you consider that statement to be official doctrine?

2. Who said it? What is the reference exactly?

1. No

2. I said it to point out the weakness of your sole claim to authority on the meaning of "official doctrine". One can easily use the dictionary to define "official doctrine" in multiple ways. So far you have provided no evidence beyond the "plain and obvious" definition (which I just made not so obvious) found in the dictionary.

Edited March 20, 2013 by pogi

[CASteinman]

Why do I want it? To see why you believe what you believe. To see if you have any authority behind your words beyond the dictionary.

Ok. Its not a pleasant thing to do but I will come back with some of this.

What I meant by that statement is that we both agree on what is binding doctrine, everything else is a matter of following the spirit. I think we can both agree on this.

Probably. If not absolute agreement, probably really close.

Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I said it to point out the weakness of your sole claim to authority on the meaning of "official doctrine".

Not very well done. After all, the Dictionary is used by courts of law, in the Church and by people all around the world to determine what words mean. The phrase "official doctrine" is not revealed by revelation to have some obscure esoteric meaning. It is not owned by the LDS Church. It is, in essence, public domain. Hence, the Dictionary is an excellent authority -- and I note, that you are unable to provide a different more substantive authority than your opinion (or possibly the opinion of some other random person).

Yet despite not having a better source of authority you somehow make claims to having a superior basis.

The logic of that is what is weak.

The dictionary does not state what or who makes the doctrine official.

Here for example is the dictionary definition of the word "doctrine":

" a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government"

and here is the definition for the word "official".

"of or pertaining to an office or position of duty, trust, or authority: official powers." and "authorized or issued authoritatively: an official report."

Therefore, "official doctrine" would be:

1. "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government by someone in an an office or position of duty, trust, or authority"

2. "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government authorized or issued authoritatively"

In either case, the authoritative nature is clear: "Official Doctrine" comes from an "Authoritative" Source.

This authoritative source in the LDS Church would be "Official Organs" of the Church or "The First Presidency and/or the 12" speaking unanimously or providing unanimous consent -- such as when they put their joint signatures to a document. This directly addresses the "who" part of the issue you raise "who makes doctrine official?".

Examples would be:

Scriptures - Standard Works

Lesson Manuals

Handbook of Instructions

Church periodicals such as the Ensign

[pogi]

It is easy to pick and choose one of many definitions from a dictionary to suit your needs. The word "official" also has reference to a "public body" and the "approval or authorization of such body" according to dictionary.com In that case "official doctrine" can correctly be interpreted to mean that which is approved or authorized by the church by sustaining vote.

I agree that the unanimous consent of the brethren is another means of creating "official doctrine" as I can point out from other sources. GC talks, ensign articles, and other publications, do not have unanimous consent to make it official. If your claim is that there must be consent, you just undercut your whole argument.

Edited March 20, 2013 by pogi

[CASteinman]

As of yet, I have seen no inconsistencies from the GAs regarding this issue

OK.. you insisted that I present something on this matter. It is not a pleasant thing but you insist on raking muck.

The first quote I am going to give is by a General Authority. An Apostle of the Lord. Bruce R. McConkie. He wrote this on official Church letterhead with the Title "Council of the Twelve" for authority. It was a letter to Eugene England in 1981 explaining how President Brigham Young taught false doctrine -- which Eugene England should not, under pain of disciplinary action -- teach as truth.

He starts the letter by saying: "This may well be the most important letter you have or will receive." He then explains the degree of authority he was exercising in the letter: "I want you to know that I am extending to you the hand of fellowship though I hold over you at the same time, the scepter of judgment. " And he explains: "It is axiomatic among us to know that God has given apostles and prophets "for the edifying of the body of Christ," and that their ministry is to see that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:11-16.) This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent."

So that was the authority that he was speaking with. Now, what did he teach? Here it is:

"As Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord."

Then in this same letter, Elder McConkie further established: "Wise gospel students do not build their philosophies of life on quotations of individuals, even though those quotations come from presidents of the Church. Wise people anchor their doctrine on the Standard Works.... There is no need to attempt to harmonize conflicting views when some of the views are out of harmony with the Standard Works. ...We do not solve our problems by getting a statement from the president of the Church or from someone else on a subject. We have been introduced to the gospel; we have the gift of the Holy Ghost; we have the Standards Works and it is our responsibility to get in tune and understand properly what the Lord has revealed and has had us canonize."

And then, as if to put a pin in this, he says, " Those at the head of the Church (he included the prophets) have the obligation to teach that which is in harmony with the Standard Works. If they err then be silent on the point and leave the event in the hands of the Lord."

There is no way around this Epistle from President McConkie. From start to finish it declares that the Standard Works are the key to judge whether a prophet (particularly Brigham Young) is teaching true doctrine.

Now, compare this to the words of two other General Authorities. Brigham Young and Joseph Smith:

"Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ ... When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)

Indeed, compare the words of McConkie with the words of Ezra Taft Benson the very same year that McConkie penned that epistle: "The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works."

The teaching that "Those books do not convey to us the Word of God direct to us now as do the words of a prophet" are not in exact agreement with the teaching that "Sometimes prophets err in doctrine" and so "the Lord has given us the Standard Works" which we use to test to see if the Prophet has taught us right. In fact, Bruce McConkie is very directly contradicting Brigham Young who said: "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture."

Well, Bruce McConkie asserts that Brigham Young is absolutely and damnably wrong.

As I said, I do not like to bring these things up. I wish you had not asked. But you insisted. I hope this does not damage your testimony.

Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

It is easy to pick and choose one of many definitions from a dictionary to suit your needs. The word "official" also has reference to a "public body" and the "approval or authorization of such body" according to dictionary.com In that case "official doctrine" can correctly be interpreted to mean that which is approved or authorized by the church by sustaining vote.

I say use the most common definition. That's the standard used in most cases for law and for ordinary conversation and usage.

GC talks, ensign articles, and other publications, do not have unanimous consent to make it official.

Incorrect. They go out through the official organs of the Church and under the signatures and authority of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

If your claim is that there must be consent, you just undercut your whole argument.

Only if you think their names, all combined as authority on the official organs of the Church do not count. But if that is the case, then they should not be there. However they are. And that is what makes them the official organs of the Church.

[mathonihah]

The vote is what makes it "official" according to many church authorities, and all official doctrine is binding on the members.

No. Its the other way around.

I note you quote a passage that you claim is not official doctrine -- to explain what is official doctrine. By your own standards, what you are trying to do is to convince me I am wrong by showing me something you do not accept as official doctrine -- and also something I do not accept as official doctrine.

Why should I then accept what you are saying as valid since neither of us accepts your quote as official doctrine of the Church?

The quotes he gave (and I gave—e.g. H. B. Lee quotes) are "official doctrine" by your definition of what is "official doctrine"—i.e. published in official publications of the Church. So why do you not consider them to be "official doctrine"?

[canard78]

(Canard asked if it's Official Doctrine that there are men on the moon and if Adam is God)

I don't think so. I am willing to stand corrected if you can find a reference.

Life on the moon/sun (given by Brigham Young in Salt Lake Tabernacle and published in JoD). It seems like speculation to me and probably not 'speaking as a prophet.' But it fits your definition of official doctrine. So is it official church doctrine that there is life on the moon? I rather think not:

We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized.

DISCOURSE BY PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG, DELIVERED IN THE TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, JULY 24, 1870 (Reported by David W. Evans.)

http://pt.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/13/31

Let me be clear, I've no issue with Brigham speculating. It's clear that this isn't being given as a revelation but rather him expressing an opinion (one that some scientists even held). He was also echoing a view held by Joseph Smith (http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_moonmen). I'm fine with fallible prophets. But the fact that it was said in the tabernacle, published in JoD does not make this statement Official Doctrine. FAIR have a decent article on it too: http://en.fairmormon.org/Brigham_Young/Teachings/Moon_and_sun_are_inhabited

As for Adam-God:

A SERMON DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG, IN THE TABERNACLE,GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, APRIL 9, 1852

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as i have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming "great is the mystery of godliness," and tell nothing.

Again, FAIR have a very good article on this quote and have shown that the church have gone out of their way to show that Brigham Young's belief about Adam as God (the Father) is not official doctrine:

Based on these remarks, and others he made in public and in private, it is apparent that Brigham Young believed that:

• Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind, as well as being the first parent of our physical bodies.
  
• Adam and Eve came to this earth as resurrected, exalted personages.
  
• Adam and Eve fell and became mortal in order to create physical bodies for their spirit children.
  
• Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.^[2]
  

Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation, and, on at least three occasions, claimed that he learned it from Joseph Smith.^[3] While this doctrine was never canonized, Brigham expected other contemporary Church leaders to accept it, or at least not preach against it. (Orson Pratt did not believe it, and he and Brigham had a number of heated conversations on the subject.^[4])

The historical record indicates that some contemporary Latter-day Saints took Brigham's teachings at face value and attempted to incorporate the doctrine into mainstream LDS teachings. This response was far from universal, however, and lost steam after the turn of the 20th century.

Adam-God was eventually incorporated into the teaching of some 20th century polygamous break-off sects, who consider it a doctrine whose absence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is proof that the Church is in apostasy.

Rejection of Adam-God by the LDS Church

As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young's successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching in public, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God.

One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.^[5]

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God: We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

In other words

(Canard asked if 'venerating the orgasm' was as bad as wife swapping)

You seem to have uncharacterized a talk by President Kimball. But yes that is official doctrine. That something is doctrine or that it is official -- or both -- is unrelated to whether you like it or not.

I would say this is a one-off... not doctrine

[mathonihah]

Fair enough, but I have a question for you. If an investigator was to ask you, "what is the official doctrine of the church regarding the nature of God's love, whether it be conditional or not?" how would you answer that question given these two recent conference talks?

"While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional" (Elder Russel M. Nelson).

https://www.lds.org/...e-love?lang=eng

"That we may share His eternal, unconditional love with our brothers and sisters everywhere, is my humble prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, amen" (Elder Robert D. Hales).

https://www.lds.org/...y=unconditional

OK, What is your answer? Unconditional or not? Which is "official doctrine"?

Nicely spotted, and an interesting question. I think that both of them are right, in their respective ways of thinking. The distinction is a semantic one. There are scriptural passages which suggest that God's love is conditional, and others which suggest otherwise. Here is an example of conditional love:

"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." (John 15:10)

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36)

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;" (Romans 1:18)

And here are examples of God's unconditional love:

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8 )

"And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?" (Moses 7:28)

Edited March 20, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

I did not see you quote a GA who disagreed with my understanding of "that phrase".

====

Separately, you should be sure to recognize something that you might be sort of passing by.

My argument is a bit like the one where a person says "All Fords are Cars but not all Cars are Fords".

If you find someone who declares something to be official doctrine because it was voted on, or because it is in the scriptures or something like that, they are not disagreeing with my view.

You must find someone who says that nothing but that is "official doctrine" . Then they would be disagreeing with my use of that specific term.

FYI.

I also should add, that I 100% believe you might find such a thing because -- "Official Doctrine" is not necessarily complete nor consistent -- and probably it shouldn't be.

That is why I find this whole argument about what is "official" or "unofficial" doctrine a bit irrelevant. The scriptures never talk about what is official or unofficial doctrine; but only what is true doctrine; and that is the only thing that I am interested in also. Here are some references for you to consider:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable

for doctrine,

for reproof,

for correction, for instruction in righteousness;

” (2 Timothy 3:16)

“And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the

only and true

doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.” (2 Nephi 31:21)

“And in the seventy and ninth year there began to be much strife. But it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi, and many of their brethren who knew concerning the

true points of doctrine,

having many revelations daily, therefore they did preach unto the people, insomuch that they did put an end to their strife in that same year.” (Helaman 11:23)

“And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the

points of my doctrine,

as there have hitherto been.” (3 Nephi 11:28)

“For thus it behooveth the Father that it should come forth from the Gentiles, that he may show forth his power unto the Gentiles, for this cause that the Gentiles, if they will not harden their hearts, that they may repent and come unto me and be baptized in my name and know of the

true points of my doctrine,

that they may be numbered among my people, O house of Israel” (3 Nephi 21:6)

“Yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was ministered unto them, and, behold, they shall not deny that which you have received, but they shall build it up, and shall bring to light the

true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me

.

“And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the

points of my doctrine;

and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.” (D&C 10:62–63)

“Wait a little longer, until you shall have my word, my rock, my church, and my gospel, that you may know

of a surety my doctrine

.” (D&C 11:16)

[mathonihah]

Ironic, eh?

(By my sense of "Official Doctrine", AG Fails).

I thought by your sense of official doctrine, general conference was official.

Edited March 20, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

What makes doctrine "official" is that it is "officially" accepted by the church (but you wont find that in the dictionary so it must not be true). This makes it binding. Otherwise "official doctrine" holds no more weight than anything else and is just opinion.

Two questions about the above statement:

1. Do you consider that statement to be official doctrine?

2. Who said it? What is the reference exactly?

Here is an interesting observation: In the oft-quoted Newsroom article titled Approaching Mormon Doctrine, the phrase "official doctrine" is not used at all. "Official publication" is used, and "official declaration" is used; and also "officially binding" is used; but no "official doctrine". Only the word "doctrine" is used; which could either be understood to mean "official doctrine," or "true doctrine". I think it means true doctrine.

[mathonihah]

OK.. you insisted that I present something on this matter. It is not a pleasant thing but you insist on raking muck.

The first quote I am going to give is by a General Authority. An Apostle of the Lord. Bruce R. McConkie. He wrote this on official Church letterhead with the Title "Council of the Twelve" for authority. It was a letter to Eugene England in 1981 explaining how President Brigham Young taught false doctrine -- which Eugene England should not, under pain of disciplinary action -- teach as truth.

He starts the letter by saying: "This may well be the most important letter you have or will receive." He then explains the degree of authority he was exercising in the letter: "I want you to know that I am extending to you the hand of fellowship though I hold over you at the same time, the scepter of judgment. " And he explains: "It is axiomatic among us to know that God has given apostles and prophets "for the edifying of the body of Christ," and that their ministry is to see that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:11-16.) This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent."

So that was the authority that he was speaking with. Now, what did he teach? Here it is:

"As Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord."

Then in this same letter, Elder McConkie further established: "Wise gospel students do not build their philosophies of life on quotations of individuals, even though those quotations come from presidents of the Church. Wise people anchor their doctrine on the Standard Works.... There is no need to attempt to harmonize conflicting views when some of the views are out of harmony with the Standard Works. ...We do not solve our problems by getting a statement from the president of the Church or from someone else on a subject. We have been introduced to the gospel; we have the gift of the Holy Ghost; we have the Standards Works and it is our responsibility to get in tune and understand properly what the Lord has revealed and has had us canonize."

And then, as if to put a pin in this, he says, " Those at the head of the Church (he included the prophets) have the obligation to teach that which is in harmony with the Standard Works. If they err then be silent on the point and leave the event in the hands of the Lord."

There is no way around this Epistle from President McConkie. From start to finish it declares that the Standard Works are the key to judge whether a prophet (particularly Brigham Young) is teaching true doctrine.

Now, compare this to the words of two other General Authorities. Brigham Young and Joseph Smith:

"Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ ... When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)

Indeed, compare the words of McConkie with the words of Ezra Taft Benson the very same year that McConkie penned that epistle: "The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works."

The teaching that "Those books do not convey to us the Word of God direct to us now as do the words of a prophet" are not in exact agreement with the teaching that "Sometimes prophets err in doctrine" and so "the Lord has given us the Standard Works" which we use to test to see if the Prophet has taught us right. In fact, Bruce McConkie is very directly contradicting Brigham Young who said: "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture."

Well, Bruce McConkie asserts that Brigham Young is absolutely and damnably wrong.

As I said, I do not like to bring these things up. I wish you had not asked. But you insisted. I hope this does not damage your testimony.

LOL! It doesn't damage my testimony; I hope it doesn't damage yours.

My question about that is, is it a disagreement about "official doctrine" or about true doctrine? I think it is a disagreement (or more correctly, a lack of clarity) over what is true doctrine, or how to determine true doctrine. And taken as a whole, the above (apparent) contradictions do not really contradict the foundational truth that the doctrine of the Church resides in the standard works. It may be true that the Prophet has a superior position in the sense that he is capable of adding to the scriptural canon, or amending it, subject to strict guidelines (as stated by H B Lee); but short of that, the scriptural canon becomes the ultimate source of true LDS doctrine, and is binding on the whole Church including the Prophet. There is nothing in the above quotations that contradicts that basic assertion.

[CASteinman]

That is why I find this whole argument about what is "official" or "unofficial" doctrine a bit irrelevant.

If that is the case, you did not need to initiate it with me nor did you have to become rude.

[CASteinman]

I thought by your sense of official doctrine, general conference was official.

When issued through official organs, yes.

[CASteinman]

Only the word "doctrine" is used; which could either be understood to mean "official doctrine," or "true doctrine". I think it means true doctrine.

It might... for some people who are sloppy with language.

[CASteinman]

LOL! It doesn't damage my testimony; I hope it doesn't damage yours.

Are you Pogi?

My question about that is, is it a disagreement about "official doctrine" or about true doctrine?

So, apparently you have come to agree with me that there is a difference between official doctrine and true doctrine.

[CASteinman]

President Kimball was a spiritual giant in a small man's body. You could feel when he entered the room at family reunions, even if you did not see him come in. And, yes, I am related to him by marriage to my wife. Not that that means anything of relevance... But, a spiritual giant he was.

Thank you for that testimony.

I agree with it completely -- and the reason I am praising this post is because your words brought to mind the experiences I had when I met him a couple of times.

There was something about him that was powerful in his Spirit and it is extremely rare.