Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[rockpond]

My question is, what is the purpose of general conference, manuals, the publication of books by GAs, etc.? Why are they providing those things for us, when in the end, we are just relying on the spirit anyhow?

I think the most important purpose is so that we can hear the prophet and apostles testify of Christ. That's job #1 for them, right? (In terms of their calling.)

After that, I think that we are to take their inspired teachings/instruction/counsel and use them to help facilitate our own study of the gospel... personally, with our families, and in our meetings, quorums, and classes.

I am a firm believer that we each need to seek truth through the Holy Spirit. And for me, conference and the study of what is taught in conference, is a great way for me to learn from the Spirit.

[CASteinman]

Much of Journal of Discourse was given in early General Conferences. Do you include those as Official Doctrine?

Well, you tell me. Official doctrine must be promulgated through official channels and organs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Was the Journal of Discourages published as an official organ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

What does the faceplate say? Whose signature is it over and who published it?

Are there men on the moon? Is that official church doctrine?

Is Adam and God the Father the same person? Is that official church doctrine?

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

I could also go to some 1970s talks and quote a few 'interesting' statements from General Conference. Elder Kimball's talk on sexual 'ills' has some odd statements like suggesting the veneration of the big 'O' and wife swapping are 'similar crazes.' Is that Official Doctrine?!

(https://www.lds.org/...mocked?lang=eng)

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.

Edited March 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

So, CASteinman, did you just say that talks given in General COnference are "official church doctrine"? As in "Official Doctrine"? Or is this some kind of semantic game?

Reports of those talks must be promulgated through the official Organs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Otherwise they are not official Doctrine of the Church.

If they are reported through those organs than they are (or were) official doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints.

By definition.

[Stone holm]

It depends on perspectives. I don't take The God Who Weeps as Church Doctrine - it's not even from a GA. But it's a book that has had more impact on my perspectives on life and its meaning than any other for a long time. I also enjoy reading C.S. Lewis. Not doctrine, but he gets it.

As such, I don't take the words in General Conference to be official doctrine - but I would happily listen to Elder Uchtdorf for several hours a day if he produced the content.

Canard, I think you nailed it, and I used the Weeping God article in our HP Quorum and C.S. Lewis gets used extensively there as well. What constitutes "Official Doctrine" probably only has significance if you are hailed before the Stake High Council on something that you fired out over the pulpit. I remember once in a High Council meeting where the Spirit behind and exposition of a doctrinal point was so strong you could have cut it with a knife and the the High Council not agree with the brother who laid it out in detail and went with some lame platitude that everyone knew instead which was not on point. So -- I don't think too much on the distinction anymore. If something has been said over and over again by GAs, then the average Mormon is going to conclude that it is doctrine until someone rocks the boat rather hard, and none of us like rocking the boat too much because it causes contention and disunity -- so some things just get sort of handed down from generation to generation, until they become so out of sync with the surrounding culture that we are forced to go back and take another reluctant look. That may sound cynical, but it really is how it works.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think President Hinkley would have done a more precise job saying "It is not allowed and is apostate -- we will excommunicate people who do this". I think saying it is not doctrinal however, is reasonable to a broad public audience who does not care about nuances.

But I stand by my view that an examination of his words in context leads a reasonable mind to the conclusion that he was referring not to the doctrine as it was taught by Joseph Smith but to the practice as it is carried on today by apostate groups. Moreover, I am confident that many antagonists intentionally take his words out of context to further their own nefarious ends.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CASteinman]

But I stand by my view that an examination of his words in context leads a reasonable mind to the conclusion that he was referring not to the doctrine as it was taught by Joseph Smith but to the practice as it is carried on today by apostate groups. Moreover, I am confident that many antagonists intentionally take his words out of context to further their own nefarious ends.

Even then.. its doctrine. Its just not OUR doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

Even then.. its doctrine. Its just not OUR doctrine.

I submit that it is clear from context he is referring to our doctrine. Again, this is presupposing a reasonably minded reader or listener.

[Tacenda]

Even then.. its doctrine. Its just not OUR doctrine.

CA there is still sealings of more than one wife to men in the temple, so it is doctrine for the dead so to speak.

[Scott Lloyd]

CA there is still sealings of more than one wife to men in the temple, so it is doctrine for the dead so to speak.

But King's questions -- and President Hinckley's responses -- pertained to the unauthorized practice of polygamy by apostate groups.

Again, be mindful of context.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CASteinman]

I submit that it is clear from context he is referring to our doctrine. Again, this is presupposing a reasonably minded reader or listener.

That is what I would expect also.

[Tacenda]

But King's questions -- and President Hinckley's responses -- pertained to the unauthorized practice of polygamy by apostate groups.

Again, be mindful of context.

Keep forgetting that, my bad!

[CASteinman]

CA there is still sealings of more than one wife to men in the temple, so it is doctrine for the dead so to speak.

When President Hinkley said that he specifically mentioned the laws of the land. I think in that context it is still not "doctrinal" -- that is to say, not the doctrine of the LDS Church.

Regardless of Temple Sealings.

Edited March 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

When President Hinkley said that the specifically mentioned the laws of the land. I think in that context it is still not "doctrinal" -- that is to say, not the doctrine of the LDS Church.

Regardless of Temple Sealings.

Okay, you now have me confused. I agree its not current doctrine to perform living plural marriages. It has always been the doctrine that living plural marriage is not for everyone, and not for every time -- it is just for times when the Lord says it is necessary. On the other hand, we all better hope that plural marriage is a doctrine in the eternal sense since otherwise we are misleading a lot of older members who are sealed to more than one woman, and since women outnumber men by a vast majority in the Church it could eventually get a little dicey providing for just one on one match ups in the hereafter. Just saying....but you get excommunicated for advocating living plural marriages and have to have special dispensation to get rebaptized for that particular sin. So as far as the general public is concerned plural marriage is against the doctrine of the Church -- because hardly anyone else other than some apostate groups believes in eternal marriage any way so he wouldn't have been talking in the eternal sense when talking to Larry King -- I assume there probably won't be anymore such interviews since Larry King divorced his LDS wife?

[CASteinman]

Okay, you now have me confused. I agree its not current doctrine to perform living plural marriages. It has always been the doctrine that living plural marriage is not for everyone, and not for every time -- it is just for times when the Lord says it is necessary. On the other hand, we all better hope that plural marriage is a doctrine in the eternal sense since otherwise we are misleading a lot of older members who are sealed to more than one woman, and since women outnumber men by a vast majority in the Church it could eventually get a little dicey providing for just one on one match ups in the hereafter. Just saying....but you get excommunicated for advocating living plural marriages and have to have special dispensation to get rebaptized for that particular sin. So as far as the general public is concerned plural marriage is against the doctrine of the Church -- because hardly anyone else other than some apostate groups believes in eternal marriage any way so he wouldn't have been talking in the eternal sense when talking to Larry King -- I assume there probably won't be anymore such interviews since Larry King divorced his LDS wife?

The doctrine of the Church is that we do not engage in plural marriages during life -- it is a matter of the law of the land and not authorized by the President of the Church. How is this confusing?

[Stone holm]

The doctrine of the Church is that we do not engage in plural marriages during life -- it is a matter of the law of the land and not authorized by the President of the Church. How is this confusing?

Agreed this statement is not confusing and it is correct.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Stone holm

[pogi]

My question is, what is the purpose of general conference, manuals, the publication of books by GAs, etc.? Why are they providing those things for us, when in the end, we are just relying on the spirit anyhow?

They provide these things for us as an aide for spiritual growth. You are right that we must rely on the spirit in the end, but that is not to say that the GAs are not a great source of spiritual insight, strength, and encouragement. Even though I read the scriptures and pray daily, I still get a lot out of the manuals and other publications. While I don't consider them to be officially binding doctrine of the church, I do find tremendous value in their words and experience.

You say that "general authorities pay careful attention to not deviate from the scriptures." But that's not true, that's why there is this ongoing thread. Because the GAs do at times deviate. Which leaves us to wonder and figure out on our own through the help of the spirit to gain a testimony. Again, why not just skip the middlemen?

I don't believe that they do deviate from the scriptures and create new ideas out of thin air. Even Brigham's controversial ideas have their roots in the scriptures. They obviously have different interpretations and disagreements at times, which is why GC talks are not "official doctrine" and which is why we are taught to rely on the spirit.

I full heartedly agree with you that no middlemen should come between your relationship with God in private devotion and prayer. I do find that the GAs are useful adjuncts and catalysts for inspiration and spiritual growth and am appreciative of their provided services and insights as special witnesses.

[CASteinman]

GC talks are not "official doctrine"

They are official doctrine.

1. They are doctrine.

2. They come from official sources through official channels.

I think what you are trying to say is that they are not necessarily binding. Which is a different matter.

[rockpond]

They are official doctrine.

1. They are doctrine.

2. They come from official sources through official channels.

I think what you are trying to say is that they are not necessarily binding. Which is a different matter.

Yeah, I think that as members we often have a tendency to try to "load" the word doctrine with additional meaning.

Doctrine is just the teachings of a religion.

I agree with CASteinman... GC talks are official doctrine. They may not be binding. They may not be entirely comprised of revealed truth. But they sure seem to fit the definition of doctrine.

Edited March 18, 2013 by rockpond

[CASteinman]

They may not be entirely comprised of revealed truth. But they sure seem to fit the definition of revealed doctrine.

Generally speaking I consider them to be exposition on revealed truth and often inspired exposition. Sometimes, especially a few talks by the Presidents of the Church seem to me to be revelatory expositions. Not that they actually impart some new information but that they are based upon new revelation.

Very very rarely, do we actually get some new revelation. I remember one instance of something sort of unusual. I was the Elders Quorum President and turned to my Bishop and said "Did you hear what he said" He said "Yes, he just told us that he had seen God.". Which is what I had heard.

After the meeting it was very interesting. In visiting with other leaders of the ward, only about 1 in 3 heard what I and the Bishop had heard. The others did not hear it.

After the talk was published I was unable to find any mention of it.

I have been unable to explain this in any ordinary way.

[Stone holm]

Generally speaking I consider them to be exposition on revealed truth and often inspired exposition. Sometimes, especially a few talks by the Presidents of the Church seem to me to be revelatory expositions. Not that they actually impart some new information but that they are based upon new revelation.

Very very rarely, do we actually get some new revelation. I remember one instance of something sort of unusual. I was the Elders Quorum President and turned to my Bishop and said "Did you hear what he said" He said "Yes, he just told us that he had seen God.". Which is what I had heard.

After the meeting it was very interesting. In visiting with other leaders of the ward, only about 1 in 3 heard what I and the Bishop had heard. The others did not hear it.

After the talk was published I was unable to find any mention of it.

I have been unable to explain this in any ordinary way.

Yes, I remember something like that with President Kimball which in effect was a confirmation that his calling and election had been made sure. With regards to Conference talks and Ensign Articles you may be right, but they increasingly say so little of doctrinal substance anymore that they are more just testimonials and pep talks rather than really vehicles of doctrinal instruction so it really isn't much of a risk in according them doctrinal status.

[CASteinman]

Yes, I remember something like that with President Kimball which in effect was a confirmation that his calling and election had been made sure.

It was President Kimball who was speaking in this instance.

[OmnerHimni]

If "official doctrine" is not binding, what doctrine is?

[Tacenda]

It was President Kimball who was speaking in this instance.

Maybe his comment got correlated right out of the written version. BTW, my husband has the cutest photo of Pres. Kimball and my husband together on his mission, (both about the same height) and another with his companion and Pres. and sister Kimball. He and his companion were invited for lunch after a zone conference. Apparently because my husband and his companion baptized a Baptist Minister with quite a big congregation. It was quite the experience for my husband.

[CASteinman]

Maybe his comment got correlated right out of the written version.

I actually expected it might but I think it was something even more different than that. I do not know exactly how to describe it except to say that his words came out audibly saying one thing but almost like a second track they also at the same time said something else. And some people heard one thing and other people heard another.

I don't think it was a "trick" that President Kimball pulled. I think it was a sort of spiritual thing that transformed his words and some people heard something different than what other people heard and perhaps what he actually said.

But to this day I absolutely know what I heard. He said he had seen God and was telling us that it was All True. It came across to me as though he was saying: Other Prophets have testified and you have heard them. Now, I join myself with them arm in arm, to tell you -- God lives, I have seen Him.

Edited March 19, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

I actually expected it might but I think it was something even more different than that. I do not know exactly how to describe it except to say that his words came out audibly saying one thing but almost like a second track they also at the same time said something else. And some people heard one thing and other people heard another.

I don't think it was a "trick" that President Kimball pulled. I think it was a sort of spiritual thing that transformed his words and some people heard something different than what other people heard and perhaps what he actually said.

But to this day I absolutely know what I heard. He said he had seen God and was telling us that it was All True. It came across to me as though he was saying: Other Prophets have testified and you have heard them. Now, I join myself with them arm in arm, to tell you -- God lives, I have seen Him.

Well Brother I also remember an Area Conference which involved Pres Kimball we were down on the floor and I had decided we should sneak out to avoid the traffic jam and as we turned to go suddenly the huge coliseum like indoor stadium we were in containing thousands of people became absolutely quiet and we turned and President Kimball was standing on the stage waving a white handkerchief and it was like time had frozen and the Spirit was so strong it took your breath away. Have only experienced anything like that a few times in my life and never with any GA or other Prophet.