Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[canard78]

I am not trying to be confrontational or a flip but if you want to save your confidence in the church you should get back to the basics. You should also consider that all of these brethren were/are not infallible and are subject to being swayed by contemporary ideas.

You're probably right. I should probably put all these nuisance issues back on my mental shelf and go back to the Sunday School answers. The problem is, I now know that some of the Sunday School answers are unsatisfactory or actually incorrect (e.g. The WoW D&C lesson suggests it became binding in 1851... When it didn't). Why spend time on a source that I know is selective at best and misleading at worst? I also agree that I should spend more time in the scriptures and in prayer.

Segregation of people is a common theme in he Bible. God segregated himself out a chosen people complete with prohibitions on intermingling in marriage. Are you also losing your confidence in the Bible? God has often admonished his chosen people to keep themselves separate and pure.

But that's mostly an Old Testament theme and based on religious covenant keeping grounds. The new law succeeded the old. And McConkie is not talking about marrying outside your covenants 1000 BC. He's talking about marrying outside your race 1960AD (and left in print and uncorrected into the 1980s).

It has been a long time and I did not remember the Jews statement in there. It is and was common to conflate House of Israel and Jews as Jews are what is left of the House of Israel. As stated above I do not expect infallibility.

How dare you expect them to measure up to your standards. Do you expect Moses,to measure up to your expectations? A man who married numerous women for political reasons. Who murdered. A man who led armies in war. What about a prophet who would have a bear kill a bunch for ridiculing him? We could go on about the shortcomings of various prophets until we talked our way out of believing in any of it.

I do not expect infallibility for one minute. I am very aware of my own fallibility. I know that I have made several wrong calls as a priesthood leader. But we are also taught that a prophet will never lead us astray. Given there are several examples of prophets/apostles being fallible, we have to conclude that occassionaly they do lead us astray, even in little ways. We have to spiritually independent enough to not simply hang on their every word.

So within the theme of this thread, when the OP asks why some people discredit the words of some leaders. Parts of Elder McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is a good example of why that's sometimes needed.

Like all church leaders, sometimes he spoke as 'Elder' and sometimes he spoke as 'McConkie.' The problems arise when he or we think he's speaking as 'Elder' but he's actually speaking as 'McConkie.'

[williamsmith]

I have seen a number of apologists deride various past Church authorities' works when someone uses them as a support for some position or other. I do not always understand where this comes from. I am starting this thread to discuss this. John A. Widtsoe and B.H. Roberts are two. I have also seen statements by Talmage as held in contempt as well. Not to mention the huge amount of this occuring with BY. I am wanting to understand this better.

If there is a particular authority you view in this manner, or know of one that others view in this manner, I am interested in the reasoning behind such a view. The same goes for an authority's specific work if it is only a specific work that is critiqued in this manner.

The comments by these members, some of which are not orthodox, some ex-mormon, is entirely "painting with a broad brush".

Because some LDS leader said a couple of wrong or false things, they paint the entire person and everything they did as bad.

I'm entirely irritated when members do this also. It's wrong.

[canard78]

Yes there is a huge difference. Personally I have no problem with the judicious use of contraception. BRM did.I suppose he had his reasons and I assume they had good logic behind them.One thing I do know ,the earth will be inherited by the fertile as well as the meek.

Sorry if you took this as a swipe at you personally.Not meant to be so. My point was to suggest GENERALLY,that people can always find reasons to disagree with and ignore GA thinking. Now ,how about that " one set of earrings rule " ?

Thanks - I was probablly too quick to take offense.

As to the first paragraph, I'm not sure fertility as much to do with what we inherit. Infertile saints will hopefully be inheriting too.

[Stone holm]

You're probably right. I should probably put all these nuisance issues back on my mental shelf and go back to the Sunday School answers. The problem is, I now know that some of the Sunday School answers are unsatisfactory or actually incorrect (e.g. The WoW D&C lesson suggests it became binding in 1851... When it didn't). Why spend time on a source that I know is selective at best and misleading at worst? I also agree that I should spend more time in the scriptures and in prayer.

But that's mostly an Old Testament theme and based on religious covenant keeping grounds. The new law succeeded the old. And McConkie is not talking about marrying outside your covenants 1000 BC. He's talking about marrying outside your race 1960AD (and left in print and uncorrected into the 1980s).

I do not expect infallibility for one minute. I am very aware of my own fallibility. I know that I have made several wrong calls as a priesthood leader. But we are also taught that a prophet will never lead us astray. Given there are several examples of prophets/apostles being fallible, we have to conclude that occassionaly they do lead us astray, even in little ways. We have to spiritually independent enough to not simply hang on their every word.

So within the theme of this thread, when the OP asks why some people discredit the words of some leaders. Parts of Elder McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is a good example of why that's sometimes needed.

Like all church leaders, sometimes he spoke as 'Elder' and sometimes he spoke as 'McConkie.' The problems arise when he or we think he's speaking as 'Elder' but he's actually speaking as 'McConkie.'

I always took the never lead us astray , to be something like a safe harbor thing, that you would not normally be held accountable or be challenged for following the Prophet. I remember reading a curious comment by Brigham Young saying that he remembered that when the Prophet Joseph proposed the Safety Society in Kirtland that he thought that was not a good idea, but he resolved that if he believed in a living prophet then he better follow him, and he always did come more or less heck or high water. Those weren't his exact words , but basically what he meant. Well we know that the Safety Society turned out to be a full fledged fiasco which resulted in huge numbers of Saints falling away in Kirtland, but the blame fell on Joseph and not those that followed him, so I kind of view it in that light.

[blackstrap]

The fertile in mortality, the meek in eternity.

[rodheadlee]

Lol, I hope you have the pleasure of kids one day. I love mine dearly. But after 2 or 3 you may consider contraception to be a gift not an evil.

You're right, I would say that Joseph F Smith said some unhelpful things that I don't consider to be true.

Uhmmm, I'm 59 so no kids unless Heavenly Father wants to really have a laugh.

[Nathair/|\]

Uhmmm, I'm 59 so no kids unless Heavenly Father wants to really have a laugh.

Maybe your wife should change her name to Sarah?

[rodheadlee]

Maybe your wife should change her name to Sarah?

just what I was thinking

[why me]

Not sure what you are referring to. I am not aware that Hinckley has denounced polygamy as a matter of principle. His teaching has been that it is a valid principle when approved by God. The Church has discontinued the practice, not disavowed the principle.

I was referring to an interview that Gorden B. Hinckley gave on television. He misspoke about polygamy and this is what Tacenda was referring to.

Larry King was asking him about polygamy and Gorden B. Hinckley said:

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. it is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

I know that it may seem unbelievable but the critics seem to make much ado about nothing over this. But around it goes on the internet...implying that the church lies.

Edited March 17, 2013 by why me

[why me]

He was sustained as a prophet every six months.

Here's the words used in conference:

"It is proposed that we sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

All in favor, please manifest it.

Contrary, if there be any, by the same sign.

So yes, Elder McConkie was considered a prophet, a seer and a revelator.

Yes, I know that. But if one listens to Edward kimball's interview about his father, it does not mean that one is constantly in touch with God about everything one says. The problem with being a general authority then and now is that all words are deemed from god. All public speeches about religion can not be a matter of opinion when one is a general authority. But these people are just human beings with a calling. They have their ideas and beliefs and they share them. But what I do know is really quite simple: when it comes to lifestyle and how one should live life on this earth, they seem to be guided well. I see no teaching that would lead someone to a lack of morals or ethics. I just see good clean living practices in how to treat one own life and how to treat one's neighbor. And how to keep the body as a temple, which was created by our heavenly parents.

[mathonihah]

I was referring to an interview that Gorden B. Hinckley gave on television. He misspoke about polygamy and this is what Tacenda was referring to.

Larry King was asking him about polygamy and Gorden B. Hinckley said:

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. it is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

I know that it may seem unbelievable but the critics seem to make much ado about nothing over this. But around it goes on the internet...implying that the church lies.

He didn't misspeak. He is condemning the unauthorised practice of it. He is not saying that the original practice was not revealed.

[why me]

He didn't misspeak. He is condemning the unauthorised practice of it. He is not saying that the original practice was not revealed.

The critics quibble over semantics. Of course he could have given a better answer than he did. But I have to give him credit for appearing on larry king and fielding questions the way he did. The problem is that the critics will use any excuse to discredit a church leader including misinterpreting or misrepresenting what a church leader has said.

[CASteinman]

I think that you are confusing what is official Church publication with Church doctrine.

No.

Official Doctrine is found ONLY in Official Publications. No where else. Hence there is an overlap.

But, whereas some publications are not Doctrinal (say, a public affairs announcement about a Church leader being called) others are (for example, Handbook of Instructions).

Inside the Ensign, there is a table of people responsible for the publication of the magazine. These are non-Doctrinal parts of an Official Publication. However, other parts of the Ensign are doctrinal and are official. They are thus, "official doctrine".

This has nothing to do with them being correct or true or anything like that. They are simply "official doctrine". And as such they may not be consistent one with another, although there is some effort to make them consistent.

I suspect that people who have problems with my view on this are those who are troubled by inconsistency and want to wall things up and provide a hedge to narrowly define things down to a minimum core where no inconsistency can exist.

But there is even inconsistency in the Scripture.

You will never get away from it in this earth life.

[CASteinman]

Not sure about the correctness of that statement , I normally believe that it needs not only the FP official approval, but the approval of the Quarum of the 12 and the sustaining vote of the Saints. But their are degrees of validity for our guidance like the stamp of approval the Church has given the hymn book, The Gospel Principles Manual, and Jesus The Christ by Talmage

I am pretty sure it is correct by definition.

I think what you are trying to narrow things down to are those things that are considered "binding" upon the members to accept, believe and follow.

Which is a little bit different in a way.

[CASteinman]

I personally don't find the term "official doctrine" very helpful in this context. "Official doctrine" makes sense if there is such thing as "unofficial doctrine". Since there is no "unofficial doctrine," there can be no "official doctrine" either.

But there is such a thing as unofficial doctrine. If you would like an example, pick up a copy of "Mormon Doctrine". Its Doctrine and it is Unofficial.

However, there is a point you are probably making: That the term "official doctrine" may not be helpful in solving the so-called dilemma put forward by the attackers of our Faith.

I agree. And not only do I agree, but I actively live and teach according that rule -- and thus -- There is no definition of "doctrine" that will appeal to them and that will at the same time answer their issues. That is how they configure the issue -- intentionally.

The secret to this configured doubtfulness (by them) is an axiomatic hypocrisy and unreasonableness. Those two factors constitute the whole basis of their attacks and to ask them to abandon those things is generally futile. Hence... you are right the term "official doctrine" is not helpful.

Nothing really is.. including the very very reasonable statement by the Church on what constitutes "doctrine".

Doctrine is either correct or incorrect. It is either true or false. It is either accurately stated, or sloppily expressed. It is either received by inspiration, or given by speculation.

Maybe. Maybe not. There is a specific scripture I am thinking of that indicates that Doctrine revealed by God at one time may contradict Doctrine revealed by God at another time.

I would not be willing to stand in any line to call either instance "False", "Incorrect", or "Sloppy".

The fact that it is "officially published" by the Church (i.e. has the Church's logo and imprint on it etc.), doesn't guarantee any of those things.

I agree 100%

My obligation (to myself at least) is to accept true doctrine, not "official doctrine". And Church leaders have generally concurred that true doctrine is ultimately what is contained in the standard works.

You really are supposed to accept official doctrine as promulgated by the FP and the 12 and upheld by the sustaining vote of the members. Even if it might not be "True".

The only way to answer those kinds of misrepresentations is to teach the correct doctrine with reference to the standard works. I believe that is what God would expect me to do.

I think that there are other ways, but it seems that on the internet that is what we devolve to. Which is why it is not a very good medium for teaching truth, generally. (There are exceptions).

[CASteinman]

Good to see you again CASteinman, I always appreciated your strong testimony of the church. But on the case of the book " Mormon Doctrine" being official, I have to side with Canard here. My husband carried that around with him on his mission in 1980 and my son did in 2010!

I don't know what Canard said about the book "Mormon Doctrine" -- nor do I know what it is that you think of it, so I am not able to express agreement or disagreement or even neutrality.

However, "Mormon Doctrine" is indeed "doctrine". It obviously contains official doctrine. And official doctrine contains bits of the book "Mormon Doctrine".

But the book "Mormon Doctrine" is not "Official Doctrine".

[CASteinman]

I have seen a number of apologists deride various past Church authorities' works when someone uses them as a support for some position or other. I do not always understand where this comes from. I am starting this thread to discuss this. John A. Widtsoe and B.H. Roberts are two. I have also seen statements by Talmage as held in contempt as well. Not to mention the huge amount of this occuring with BY. I am wanting to understand this better.

If there is a particular authority you view in this manner, or know of one that others view in this manner, I am interested in the reasoning behind such a view. The same goes for an authority's specific work if it is only a specific work that is critiqued in this manner.

There is no authority whose writings I hold in contempt.

There are some whose writings I often do not pay much attention to.

There are a few whose logic I consider to be ineffective.

There are some who I disagree with.

There is one President of the Church that I believe to have been released from his calling by virtue of errors he was seeking to introduce.

But there is not one of them that I hold in contempt.

[Stone holm]

I am pretty sure it is correct by definition.

I think what you are trying to narrow things down to are those things that are considered "binding" upon the members to accept, believe and follow.

Which is a little bit different in a way.

Possibly, I am not sure if there is any totally reliable way to to predict what is or is not doctrine. We have a rather naive belief in the uniformity of opinion amongst GA. Often we have this view that they all think and behave alike and are these chummy grandfathers who hang around each other and the light of heaven just constantly pours down on them. Instead they actually at times have heated disagreements and personality conflicts that only occasionally boil over into public view. Brigham Young and John Taylor couldn't stand one another. Ezra Taft Benson and David O. McKay had very sharp disagreements on church policy. We all by and large avoid criticizing the Brethren which is as it should be, but lets face it some are or were more likely to be off the mark than others -- McConkie being one of the more notable, probably because he wrote and published more. Some tended to be more cautious in their statements. Am thinking here of Pres. Kimball when noting a disagreement between talmage and Joseph S Smith on Judas which had important implications on forgiveness, said, "I don't know, and you can quote me on that."

[CASteinman]

Possibly, I am not sure if there is any totally reliable way to to predict what is or is not doctrine.

I am fully willing to accept the standard dictionary definition of the term and as a result -- I am willing to say that ANY teaching or defined procedure is doctrine -- whether true or false, in the Church or out, religious or a-religious:

doc·trine

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated,as of a religion or government:Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

OR

doc·trine

noun \ˈdäk-trən\

1 archaic : teaching, instruction

2 a : something that is taught

b

:

a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief

:

dogma

c

:

a principle of law established through past decisions

d

:

a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations

e

:

a military principle or set of strategies

This understanding informs my reading of passages such as this:

• "[They] continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine"
  
• "ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you."
  
• "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
  
• "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying."
  
• "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive"
  
• "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils"
  
• "nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine"
  

And then when I see it come in the words of Christ -- that is when I sit up and pay special attention:

"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"

And the most important passage of Scripture in ALL of the Standard Works regarding the Doctrines of Christ which I shall not quote but you can find them... III Nephi 11:28-41. There is no other place in all of Scripture where Jesus elucidates HIS Doctrine -- unless you add the only time that He expressly describes HIS Gospel, also found in III Nephi. (The Book of Mormon is of incalculable value in learning of Christ).

I accept that there are all manner of doctrines in the world. And in the Church. A few are true in the eyes of God.

Edited March 17, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

I am fully willing to accept the standard dictionary definition of the term and as a result -- I am willing to say that ANY teaching or defined procedure is doctrine -- whether true or false, in the Church or out, religious or a-religious:

OR

This understanding informs my reading of passages such as this:

• "[They] continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine"
  
• "ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you."
  
• "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
  
• "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying."
  
• "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive"
  
• "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils"
  
• "nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine"
  

And then when I see it come in the words of Christ -- that is when I sit up and pay special attention:

"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"

And the most important passage of Scripture in ALL of the Standard Works regarding the Doctrines of Christ which I shall not quote but you can find them... III Nephi 11:28-41. There is no other place in all of Scripture where Jesus elucidates HIS Doctrine -- unless you add the only time that He expressly describes HIS Gospel, also found in III Nephi. (The Book of Mormon is of incalculable value in learning of Christ).

I accept that there are all manner of doctrines in the world. And in the Church. A few are true in the eyes of God.

Ah you are using doctrine in a more restricted sense. I guess I would agree in that sense.

[mathonihah]

Official Doctrine is found ONLY in Official Publications. No where else. Hence there is an overlap.

My point is that strictly speaking, there is no such thing as “official doctrine” at all—as you want to define it—only official Church publications. If you want to press the point, the only kind of “official doctrine” I would recognise is the standard works. Of course, the standard works are also part of official Church publications, so I agree that official doctrine is ONLY to be found in official Church publications. But that is not the real point you are making, which I am disagreeing with. Your real point is that every doctrine found in every “official” publication is “official doctrine”. Those are two different things. That is why I am uncomfortable with the idea of “official doctrine” altogether, and prefer to talk in terms of correct doctrine, or scriptural doctrine, or revealed doctrine.

Inside the Ensign, there is a table of people responsible for the publication of the magazine. These are non-Doctrinal parts of an Official Publication. However, other parts of the Ensign are doctrinal and are official. They are thus, "official doctrine".

That illustrates well the problem I am having with your point of view. I don't feel I have an obligation to accept every doctrine taught in the Ensign.

[CASteinman]

My point is that strictly speaking, there is no such thing as “official doctrine” at all—as you want to define it

If the standard is how I want to define it, then there is no question on the matter: There is indeed official doctrine.

I think the question is not really about how I want to define it. In my mind definitions are the purview of dictionaries and that is how I tend to look at such things. Based upon dictionary definitions, there are doctrines in the Church and many of them fall under the concept of "official".

Your real point is that every doctrine found in every “official” publication is “official doctrine”.

You are right. When the Church owns it and publishes it in their name, and in their official organ, that becomes official -- and it is doctrine.

That illustrates well the problem I am having with your point of view. I don't feel I have an obligation to accept every doctrine taught in the Ensign.

I agree. You are under no such obligation. But that does not change its nature nor the meaning of words.

[mathonihah]

You really are supposed to accept official doctrine as promulgated by the FP and the 12 and upheld by the sustaining vote of the members. Even if it might not be "True".

You are now shifting your ground, or changing the goal posts. What is “official doctrine” after all? Is it only what is promulgated by the FP and 12, or everything that is in the Ensign? It looks like by your standards, some “official doctrines” are more “official” than others.

I also question your assertion that I have to accept any doctrine even if it is not true.

Edited March 18, 2013 by mathonihah

[CASteinman]

You are now shifting your ground, or changing the goal posts. What is “official doctrine” after all? Is it only what is promulgated by the FP and 12, or everything that is in the Ensign? It looks like by your standards, some “official doctrines” are more “official” than others.

I also question that I have to accept any doctrine even if it is not true.

I don't see how I have shifted any ground. I don't understand what you mean.

I have said that official doctrine is that doctrine that is promulgated by official channels. I have merely distinguished what is official doctrine from that which is binding upon the members.

I do not see them as the same things.

As for accepting the doctrine.. well, you don't HAVE to but you also don't HAVE to be a faithful member of the Church. We have our agency in all things. (And don't get excited to imagine that I have said if you don't accept it you are faithless or something, because I did not do that -- its just a comparison).

[Stone holm]

You are now shifting your ground, or changing the goal posts. What is “official doctrine” after all? Is it only what is promulgated by the FP and 12, or everything that is in the Ensign? It looks like by your standards, some “official doctrines” are more “official” than others.

I also question that I have to accept any doctrine even if it is not true.

Yep, I would agree some doctrine is more official than other doctrine, and some doctrine is truer than other, and its kind of up to you to decide which level of truth you are willing to abide. If you require to high of an immediate level and voice your beliefs too strongly. It may not matter because you may find yourself on the outside looking in. Safer to develop a more flexible view as to the meaning of official and an evolving notion of truth rather than expecting everything that is uttered by the prophets to be "truth" in some ultimate sense given at least one prophet was rebuked by an ***.