Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[CASteinman]

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"?

Actually they aren't. I have mentioned this before, but I am not making a big deal of it.

[CASteinman]

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.

No, it does not. You have not been paying attention.

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

It isn't. By definition.

[canard78]

No, it does not. You have not been paying attention.

It isn't. By definition.

I'm fairly sure I've read every post directed to me, but I might not have read every post you've written. You said earlier in the thread that things said in General Conference and things published in official channels (which would include Official Doctrine). Or did I imagine that?

Both the moon and Adam/God statement fit the criteria you set up. Have you recently changed the definition?

[CASteinman]

I'm fairly sure I've read every post directed to me, but I might not have read every post you've written. You said earlier in the thread that things said in General Conference and things published in official channels (which would include Official Doctrine). Or did I imagine that?

Misread or misinterpreted.

My post #50 was directed to you and describes what I will say again here:

I have said that "Official Doctrine" are those things published in the official organs of the Church or publications that are sent out over the signatures and by the authority of the First Presidency and/or the Twelve -- as quorums.

That includes many of the General Conferences but excludes the Journal of Discourses. I have specifically excluded the Journal of Discourses a few times now -- because it is not an official organ of the Church, published by the Church with the imprimatur of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12.

[Stone holm]

There are problems with the Journal of Discourses because frequently the scribes who wrote the stuff down didn't always get it right. Its like someone writing down what a speaker said at a Stake Conference, without having it proofread by anyone. Even the King Follett sermon as set forth in the Journal of Discourses has a bunch of gibberish in it, who knows what for sure Brigham Young said about Adam/God or whether it was taken out of context. I love the Journal of Discourses because they actually provided meat back in those days, but you have to read them with a certain level of discernment and an understanding that even the Prophet gets it wrong every now and then -- more frequently if he isn't pulling his punches and worrying about investigators in the audience, which they apparently didn't back then. I don't like to see our GAs so hemmed in by a presumption of infallibility that they are scared to say anything of substance about God, Heaven, Biblical History, and etc. These are men called of God, that doesn't mean they are gods already, but let's hear what they have to say about anything that pertains to the Kingdom of God. Most will presume they are getting it right, others will pray about it, others will dismiss it out of hand if it hits them as blatantly wrong. I hate all this milk toast stuff we tend to get because everyone is afraid of offending the Evangelicals and investigators.

I suppose, however, I would prefer it if GAs would not mix in their personal political bias as outsiders tend to view us as monolithic in our political views -- but I am willing to forgive them that, if they would at least provide us with some real spiritual, Gospel meat once in awhile.

[mathonihah]

Actually they aren't. I have mentioned this before, but I am not making a big deal of it.

Of course they are. The first (longer) quote was spoken at the European Area Conference of the Church, in Munich, Germany, 1973, and was published in the official "Reports" of that conference printed as a separate booklet with that title by the Church. That is how all "Conference Reports" used to be published at that time (as well as in the Ensign); and may still be the case today, I am not sure. The second was published in Church journals (at least), which by your definition also amounts to "official doctrine".

[ERayR]

As for Adam-God:

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

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:

http://en.fairmormon...Adam-God_theory

In other words

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

It's not doctrine but they didn't say it wasn't true. There are a great many things that are true that are not official doctrine. Before you go reading more into this post than I am saying: I do not know enough about what Brigham was talking about to form an opinion one way or the other. The post was merely to refute your implied assertion that if it wasn't doctrine it was false. I apologize if I have read more into your post than you intended.

[ERayR]

I would prefer it if GAs would not mix in their personal political bias as outsiders tend to view us as monolithic in our political views -- but I am willing to forgive them that, if they would at least provide us with some real spiritual, Gospel meat once in awhile.

You shouldn't have to be spoon fed the meat and it really helps if one is able to digest the milk before chewing on the meat.

[MormonMason]

It's not doctrine but they didn't say it wasn't true. There are a great many things that are true that are not official doctrine. Before you go reading more into this post than I am saying: I do not know enough about what Brigham was talking about to form an opinion one way or the other. The post was merely to refute your implied assertion that if it wasn't doctrine it was false. I apologize if I have read more into your post than you intended.

See Brigham Young's key to one way that we can know what is true and what is not, which I quoted here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60311-help-past-church-authorities-and-their-words/page__st__220#entry1209237800

[ERayR]

See Brigham Young's key to one way that we can know what is true and what is not, which I quoted here: http://www.mormondia...entry1209237800

I am well aware of what it takes to make something official doctrine. I am also aware that official doctrine does not encompass all that is true. I am also aware that to know for ones self whether or not something is true one must get a confirmation from the Holy Ghost. In order to do that it requires effort and study. I have received numerous confirmations of truth. I await confirmations on many other topics and so I continue my studies. I do not believe in waiting for church leaders to receive my revelation for me.

[Stone holm]

You shouldn't have to be spoon fed the meat and it really helps if one is able to digest the milk before chewing on the meat.

Yeah, milk before meat, which turns into a constant diet of milk, and then when people go out and are confronted with meat they question whether or not it is doctrine, and then a Prophet says, "Well we don't emphasize it much..." and half the Church thinks it is some discredited mystery. We have people running around thinking that plural marriage was never really a true doctrine. People convert from a protestant sect and carry 90% of their religious education baggage with them -- and then someone remarks about some sound doctrine in the church and they go running to the Bishop about false doctrine. I think there is possibly a limit to the wisdom of maintaining everyone on a constant milk diet and when that limit is passed, then people start to forget the stuff that differentiates us doctrinally from Protestants and Catholics.

[pogi]

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.

Perhaps you misunderstand my intentions. I am not raking muck. I am trying to understand how you have come to the conclusion that you have. I don't know how anything you have provided could damage my testimony. I don't have illusions of infallible and perfectly consistent leaders. Such illusions are extremely dangerous to testimony (which damaging illusion you seem to want to perpetuate).

Thank you for finding these quotes, but I still do not see one quote which supports your stance that GC talks and ensign articles are official doctrine. The closest thing I can find is Brigham's statement that everything he said is scripture, but modern leaders (not just McConkie) teach that this is not true doctrine. Even if it was true, he was only giving validity to his own words and not setting any "standard" of "official doctrine" for the church. Please show me the quote which states that conference talks and ensign articles are "official doctrine" of the church. If you cannot do this, then I see no inconsistencies with the teaching that the standard works are the "only source of absolute appeal for our doctrine." Richards, Joseph Fielding, and Mckonkie, and Joseph Smith (as you have pointed out) all provide evidence to substantiate this claim. I'm not sure which quote you were hoping would substantiate your claim, but I didn't see it.

Yes, the living oracles are more vital to us than the standard works. I think McConkie would agree with that. Perhaps you are misunderstanding him. He is not saying that the scriptures are more vital than the living oracles, he is simply stating that they are the only source of absolute appeal for our doctrine. Please keep in mind that the cannon is open, and the living oracles are more vital for our day. In the absence of the standard works, the living oracles can easily create new cannon through revelation which is accepted by the sustaining vote of the church, thus creating a new source of appeal for our doctrine.

Edited March 20, 2013 by pogi

[Ahab]

Yeah, milk before meat, which turns into a constant diet of milk, and then when people go out and are confronted with meat they question whether or not it is doctrine, and then a Prophet says, "Well we don't emphasize it much..." and half the Church thinks it is some discredited mystery. We have people running around thinking that plural marriage was never really a true doctrine. People convert from a protestant sect and carry 90% of their religious education baggage with them -- and then someone remarks about some sound doctrine in the church and they go running to the Bishop about false doctrine. I think there is possibly a limit to the wisdom of maintaining everyone on a constant milk diet and when that limit is passed, then people start to forget the stuff that differentiates us doctrinally from Protestants and Catholics.

The people who can handle meat don't need someone else to tell them it's meat, or "official doctrine". They can learn from the Holy Spirit to know whether or not something is true regardless of what anyone else says, relying on God as their guide into all truth. It's only the people who can't handle the meat who whine like babies when their food isn't regurgitated for them into the milk they can handle by some persistent spoon feedings.

[CASteinman]

I don't know how anything you have provided could damage my testimony. I don't have illusions of infallible and perfectly consistent leaders. Such illusions are extremely dangerous to testimony (which damaging illusion you seem to want to perpetuate).

I don't know how you get that from me when I have said, several times now that even the scriptures are contradictory. In fact, it was me saying this that led you to require me to find a time that the GA's contradicted themselves on the matter of what constitutes correct doctrine. If you already were aware of such issues, why would you have asked me to prove this?

Thank you for finding these quotes, but I still do not see one quote which supports your stance that GC talks and ensign articles are official doctrine.

They don't. That is not what you asked me to demonstrate. You asked for an example of GA's disagreeing on matters like this. So I did that -- even though I did not want to. If that was not what you wanted, you should have asked for what you wanted.

Even if it was true, he was only giving validity to his own words and not setting any "standard" of "official doctrine" for the church.

That is incorrect. But also.. that is a different conversation.

Please show me the quote which states that conference talks and ensign articles are "official doctrine" of the church

Maybe you have missed it. Goodness knows it seems I have to repeat myself over and over and over in this thread. I have said this before, and now I have to say it again. Here goes... again.

The term "Official Doctrine" is not owned by the Church. It is a phrase of English, subject to the rules of English. It is no different than the term "hand made furniture". No one owns that term. No one gets to "define" it. It is already defined. It is from its component parts in the dictionary.

This is similar to how the Church does not bother to define the words "seating arrangements". And how the Church does not attempt to define the words " Bible Videos". Or the words -- "Daily Messages". These are all phrases used in and by the Church that are not defined by the Church.

Its ok for the Church not to invent every word or every phrase it uses.

The term "Official Doctrine" is a term that means.. by definition .. doctrines that are officially promulgated. That is all. That is the definition.

I don't get why this is a problem for you -- or for other people. It is beyond obvious that Official Doctrine are those things put forward as doctrine in the Official (doctrinal) Organs of the Church. And by Revelation, the specific authorities with this power for the Church are the First Presidency, the Twelve and the Seventy -- any one of them in unity or all of them together.

If you cannot do this, then I see no inconsistencies with the teaching that the standard works are the "only source of absolute appeal for our doctrine."

Whether I can or cannot do this, is irrelevant. There is no inconsistency. I never claimed that there was an inconsistency there. And my ability or inability to find a Church statement as you requested would not change that either way.

Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[pogi]

I asked for a quote from a GA which supports your stance on "official doctrine". That is all. You have not provided it, and I do not accept you as an authority. You can arrange definitions as you please using dictionaries to define official doctrine, but I will follow the prophets in deciding what I should and should not necessarily accept as doctrine.

The term "Official Doctrine" is a term that means.. by definition .. doctrines that are officially promulgated. That is all. That is the definition.

I don't get why this is a problem for you -- or for other people.

I have a problem with this because you are using one possible understanding which is incoherent with the teaching of the GAs, when you could be using another equally plausible understanding from the dictionary which is in-line with their teachings.

I have a problem with this because l do not believe every teaching which you consider to be "official doctrine," which connotes that I should accept it and willingly promulgate it (or at least not deny it) as an official member of this church. I am accountable, as a member of the church, to follow the doctrines.

I have provided quotes from five general authorities (you actually gave me two) which all agree that the standard works are the only source of absolute appeal for our doctrine, two of which were presidents of the Church including Joseph Smith. Your one source of authority (the dictionary), agrees with me too, so I am sorry but you are less than convincing.

[CASteinman]

I asked for a quote from a GA which supports your stance on "official doctrine". That is all. You have not provided it, and I do not accept you as an authority.

But I have not claimed to be an authority. I have claimed the Dictionary is an authority.

You can arrange definitions as you please using dictionaries to define official doctrine, but I will follow the prophets in deciding what I should and should not necessarily accept as doctrine.

Where did you get the idea that I was telling you what to accept or not accept as doctrine?

I have a problem with this because you are using one possible understanding which is incoherent with the teaching of the GAs, when you could be using another equally plausible understanding from the dictionary which is in-line with their teachings.

Would you please show me the definition you prefer?

I have a problem with this because l do not believe every teaching which you consider to be "official doctrine,"

Are you sure? Can you tell me which ones you disagree with? I suspect you can't.

I have provided quotes from five general authorities (you actually gave me two) which all agree that the standard works are the only source of absolute appeal for our doctrine,

So what? I have not disagreed with that. Why is this a big deal to you that you keep repeating it like a disagreement when we are not disagreeing?

I am sorry but you are less than convincing.

That may be, but it seems that part of this failure to convince is that you have somehow gotten some wrong ideas into your head about what I said.

Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[pogi]

Are you sure? Can you tell me which ones you disagree with? I suspect you can't..

One quick one. I do not believe that God's love for us is conditional and do not accept this as doctrine of the Church. I do believe, however, that our realization of His love is conditional.

I think we are talking past each other and should stop.

Edited March 20, 2013 by pogi

[CASteinman]

One quick one. I do not believe that God's love for us is conditional and do not accept this as doctrine of the Church.

you picked something odd and interesting. Are you saying that this is, by the standards I have outlined, an "Official Doctrine" of the Church, but it is not attested to by the Standard Works?

Because I sort of think that there are passages in the Standard Works that say that even His Love is conditional. I'd have to research that a bit but I believe I have noticed it a time or two and thought it was odd.

On the other hand, I have never really heard something outside the Scriptures but approved by the First Presidency or the 12 say that. I might have missed something though... but it does not ring a bell.

[Scott Lloyd]

you picked something odd and interesting. Are you saying that this is, by the standards I have outlined, an "Official Doctrine" of the Church, but it is not attested to by the Standard Works?

Because I sort of think that there are passages in the Standard Works that say that even His Love is conditional. I'd have to research that a bit but I believe I have noticed it a time or two and thought it was odd.

On the other hand, I have never really heard something outside the Scriptures but approved by the First Presidency or the 12 say that. I might have missed something though... but it does not ring a bell.

For one thing, though the Book of Mormon states that God invites all to come unto him, black and white, male and female, young and old, bond and free, etc., and it states God is no respecter of persons, it also states that He favors those who will have Him to be their God. This sounds rather conditional to me.

I don't have chapter and verse at the ready but can provide it if pressed.

[pogi]

you picked something odd and interesting. Are you saying that this is, by the standards I have outlined, an "Official Doctrine" of the Church, but it is not attested to by the Standard Works?

By your standards, the official doctrine of the church is that God's love is both conditional and unconditional depending on who you ask. I do not believe that the church would uphold both positions as official doctrine of the church, but would consider them matters of opinion.

I interpret the standard works, and agree with those apostles who say that God's love is unconditional. For example: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." No conditions there. God is love. If we do not experience God's love, it is because we do not love Him, not the other way around. I do not accept that the church has made an official stance on the matter as you claim the GC talks to be.

On the other hand, I have never really heard something outside the Scriptures but approved by the First Presidency or the 12 say that. I might have missed something though... but it does not ring a bell.

See post #213. Both quotes are from recent GC talks which you claim are "official doctrine." There is no way that they are both doctrine as the brethren are obviously not united on the matter.

[ERayR]

Yeah, milk before meat, which turns into a constant diet of milk, and then when people go out and are confronted with meat they question whether or not it is doctrine, and then a Prophet says, "Well we don't emphasize it much..." and half the Church thinks it is some discredited mystery. We have people running around thinking that plural marriage was never really a true doctrine. People convert from a protestant sect and carry 90% of their religious education baggage with them -- and then someone remarks about some sound doctrine in the church and they go running to the Bishop about false doctrine. I think there is possibly a limit to the wisdom of maintaining everyone on a constant milk diet and when that limit is passed, then people start to forget the stuff that differentiates us doctrinally from Protestants and Catholics.

You are responsible for getting your own meat. You shouldn't expect to be spoon fed.If you did you wouldn't have to wonder what he meant when he said "Well we don't emphasize it much..."

[CASteinman]

By your standards, the official doctrine of the church is that God's love is both conditional and unconditional depending on who you ask. I do not believe that the church would uphold both positions as official doctrine of the church, but would consider them matters of opinion.

I interpret the standard works, and agree with those apostles who say that God's love is unconditional. For example: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." No conditions there. God is love. If we do not experience God's love, it is because we do not love Him, not the other way around. I do not accept that the church has made an official stance on the matter as you claim the GC talks to be.

See post #213. Both quotes are from recent GC talks which you claim are "official doctrine." There is no way that they are both doctrine as the brethren are obviously not united on the matter.

I get it now.. I see.

Well, yes, they are both official doctrine.

And here is the interesting thing about that. The talk you do NOT like supports its positions by an appeal to the Standard Works in very fine detail -- which you seemed to agree was the correct way to do it.

On the other hand, the talk you like, merely passes it off, almost without thinking and without any appeal to the Standard Works for support.

But all of that sort of skirts the issue, so let me make it more pointed.

Your whole reason for not wanting official doctrine to be official doctrine is because you do not like some of it.

Yet --- and this is really where the crux of the problem lies -- you do NOT mind recognizing that the Standard Works are official doctrine, even though they also contain those same things you do not like.

Edited March 21, 2013 by CASteinman

[mathonihah]

I recall having read statements (“official” statements, by your criterion) made by past Church leaders to the effect that all truth belongs to Mormonism. Every true principle and correct doctrine, be they secular or divine, scientific or theological, are a part of, accepted by, and belong to Mormonism. Mormonism accepts all correct principles, and rejects all false ones. That is official. However, since according to your definition of “official doctrine” it may contain false as well as true doctrine, therefore according to you “official Mormon doctrine” includes both what is accepted as well as what is rejected by Mormonism. Ummm, go figure!

[Stone holm]

I recall having read statements (“official” statements, by your criterion) made by past Church leaders to the effect that all truth belongs to Mormonism. Every true principle and correct doctrine, be they secular or divine, scientific or theological, are a part of, accepted by, and belong to Mormonism. Mormonism accepts all correct principles, and rejects all false ones. That is official. However, since according to your definition of “official doctrine” it may contain false as well as true doctrine, therefore according to you “official Mormon doctrine” includes both what is accepted as well as what is rejected by Mormonism. Ummm, go figure!

Yeah I would be very careful about putting a lot of stock in that saying.

[pogi]

Your whole reason for not wanting official doctrine to be official doctrine is because you do not like some of it.

Yet --- and this is really where the crux of the problem lies -- you do NOT mind recognizing that the Standard Works are official doctrine, even though they also contain those same things you do not like.

That's not true, it's not that I don't like some of it. It's that the brethren are not unanimously united and agreed on the issue. That is something which we have both acknowledged as necessary for establishing official doctrine. I have seen no official declaration, agreed upon and sustained by the brethren, like the proclamation to the world. What I have seen are two different peoples interpretations of scripture (their opinions about scripture) which they both shared in conference. This is a church of order, they would not uphold conflicting doctrines, but would consider them matters of opinion until either the church as a whole declares one or the other official doctrine through sustaining vote or the brethren unanimously uphold it as doctrine and declare it to the church, or the president says "thus sayeth the Lord..." None of the above has happened.

Just to show that this is not a matter of me not liking the doctrine, there are other official doctrines (which I consider official by my definition) which I have a problem with and have difficulty explaining, but accept as doctrine as outlined in scripture and practiced through history. I do not question it as doctrine, I simply admit that I don't understand it.