Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[CASteinman]

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

Doctrine that has been presented to Members for a vote and/or in Covenant (including Priesthood Ordination and callings).

[mathonihah]

So you say. But he did not say that was his implication. Neither to the standard works. I have it on good authority I can reject your statement merely on that grounds.

He said that what is taught should conform to the standard works. That can only mean all of the standard works, not a distorted understanding of part of the standard works.

The Standard Works never declare that the Standard Works are the end of Truth.

Neither did he, and nor do I.

They also do not declare that the Standard Works and the pronunciations of the prophets in the past, present and future are the end of truth.

And neither did he nor I. You seem to have difficulty comprehending what other people are saying.

Not only that but the scriptures say that we should actively be seeking revelation.

Agreed, and so does he and I.

If we KNOW that not all things have been revealed to the prophets and not all things have been revealed in the scriptures, then when we seek revelation, it should not surprise us if we learn things that are new. Indeed, if the revelations are personalized, they must be new and different.

True also, but still not a contradiction with what he said nor I. But if God were to reveal new doctrine to us (you or me or another), then it is only for our personal benefit, not to be declared publicly to the Church. Here are some references for you to look at:

“And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart

only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men,

according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.” (Alma 12:9)

“But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.” (D&C 28:2)

“For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.

“And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

“But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

“And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

“And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.” (D&C 43:2–6)

The continuation of that is also interesting:

“For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to

teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed

.

“And now, behold, I give unto you a

commandment,

that when ye are assembled together ye shall

instruct and edify each other, that ye may know how to act and direct my church, how to act upon the points of my law and commandments,

which I have given

.

“And thus ye shall become

instructed in the law of my church, and be sanctified by that which ye have

received

,

and ye shall bind yourselves to act in all holiness before me—” (D&C 43:7–9)

Did you get that? The job of all other Church officers (from the General Authorities down) is to “teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed,” not to invent new doctrine. That is what General Authorities do at General Conference. They don’t deviate from what has already been revealed; although I dare say many of them have received personal revelations teaching them mysteries which they are not allowed to publicly disclose.

For example, in the case of Nephi -- who was NOT the prophet at the time -- he was told to kill Laban, despite the fact that such things were forbidden by commandment. He resisted but was ultimately faithful to the Lord.

That is a totally different situation. It is not comparable to somebody teaching new doctrine to the Church.

In the same way, Joseph Smith, who was not yet called to be a prophet, was told to join no Church but to wait on the Lord for a Restoration. That was not something he could have gotten from the scriptures and can't even be said to be taught anywhere in the scriptures -- that you should NOT join any Church until there is a restoration.

Same here. Those are not Identical situations to somebody teaching new doctrine for the Church. There was no “Church” organized in those situations, at least not a true Church. We are not dealing with the same kind of situation.

And we know that ultimately, all truth shall be ours, but not from prophets but rather from God: "The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things" and "By the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things".

Sure; but what has got to do with teaching new doctrine to the Church?

Note that there is place in all the scriptures that say "and by the power of the scriptures and the prophets shall you know the truth of all things".

You do wrest the scriptures quite a lot, not understanding them very well apparently. “Knowing the truth of all things” is not the same as teaching new doctrine to the Church.

But if you read what Harold B. Lee says you would be inclined to think so.

Certainly not. That is not what H B Lee is saying at all.

What he says is not actually in perfect harmony with the scriptures -- if you read it the way you have read it. HOWEVER, if you read it the way I think he intended it is in perfect harmony. The way he intended it is that there are some revelations that are binding upon the members of the Church and some that are not. Those that are, are found in the Standard Works and in the approved statements of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

No, you have misunderstood his teachings. There are two kinds of revelation. There is a kind that exhorts you to righteousness, to repent and keep the commandments of God, to understand and obey his commandments better (without contradicting what has already been revealed—or adding thereto); and another kind that actually reveals new doctrine to the Church. He was referring to the latter kind. Here is another scripture for you to look at:

“And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

“And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” (D&C 68:3–4)

That is done without revealing new doctrine to the Church. You can speak scripture by the power of the Holy Ghost, without revealing new doctrine to the Church. To Oliver Cowdery, who was second in command to Joseph Smith at that time, the Lord gave this counsel:

“And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them; and thou shalt have revelations, but write them not by way of commandment.” (D&C 28:8 )

And to Peter Whitmer he gave this instruction.

“Behold, I say unto you, Peter, that you shall take your journey with your brother Oliver; for the time has come that it is expedient in me that you shall open your mouth to declare my gospel; therefore, fear not, but give heed unto the words and advice of your brother, which he shall give you.” (D&C 30:5)

There is a difference between teaching, preaching, exhorting, expounding etc. by inspiration and revelation; and revealing new doctrine to the Church. The first everyone is allowed to do (who is properly ordained in the Church); the second not everyone is permitted to do.

That, however, is not the definition of official doctrine.

As I said, your definition of “official doctrine” is logically self-consistent, but also a pedantic irrelevance. I am only interested in true doctrine, and I think that that is what everybody else in interested in too. Of what use is “official doctrine” to me, if by definition it also contains false doctrine? One true doctrine that is not “official” is of greater worth to me that a hundred “official” ones which by your definition may contain false doctrine.

Continued in the next post.

Edited March 19, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

The authority I was referring to was you -- your quote of Harold B. Lee. If I use that quote, I may utterly reject your words as being entirely your own opinion. I don't even have to think about it very hard, just reject it out of hand.

Not true. I am only agreeing with what he said (and a lot of other Church leaders have said), which is entirely in conformity with scripture and with what God has revealed.

No, you don't. You sound like an anti-Mormon explaining why the canon of scripture is closed. But that is really irrelevant to the larger issue.

You sound like you don’t know what you are talking about.

That is obviously not true. Anti-Mormons are always interested in attacking us on what is "official doctrine". In so doing they often actually quote lots of things that cannot be validated as official doctrine by any objective standard.

By your definition they do. They quote things which was said in General Conference, which by your definition is “official doctrine”. And in any case, you have already stated that what you term “official doctrine” may indeed contain false doctrine. So how is your definition of “official doctrine” is going to alleviate the problem you are describing? You have openly stated that your definition of official doctrine may contain false doctrine. So what difference does it make which “official doctrine” the anti-Mormons make use of to attack Mormonism? But if you insist on only true doctrine, instead of your flawed understanding of “official” doctrine, then the problem with the anti-Mormons will also be resolved.

Nonsense.

No, what you are saying is nonsense. I stick to what I said: “official doctrine” is meaningless if it is not true doctrine. Of what use is “official doctrine” to me, if it is not true doctrine?

[CASteinman]

He said that what is taught should conform to the standard works. That can only mean all of the standard works, not a distorted understanding of part of the standard works.

I can reject this statement because it is not found nor supported in ALL of the Standard Works. It may however be supported by a distorted understanding of part of the standard works. (This is off topic but you seem to be really interested in going off topic)

Prove that I am wrong. Make sure you do not use a part of the standard works that I can claim you have distorted. Also make sure that you actually address my objection -- something you have not seemed to be able to do. Perhaps because you have not grasped it, though I have made it plain.

Here is a hint: "Official Doctrine".

True also, but still not a contradiction with what he said nor I.

Here is something you said that is not found in the scriptures and so it may be dismissed as false: "I said: “official doctrine” is meaningless if it is not true doctrine."

Well, at least it can be dismissed as false if what President Lee said holds true. (This is off topic but you seem really fascinated to go off topic).

But if God were to reveal new doctrine to us (you or me or another), then it is only for our personal benefit, not to be declared publicly to the Church.

That is not a teaching found in the scriptures. It can be dismissed as false.

Now.. pay close attention because you claim I do not read that well. If you do not read my objection correctly you will respond incorrectly. (Please note though that this is off topic. However, you seem really fascinated to go off topic).

Did you get that? The job of all other Church officers (from the General Authorities down) is to “teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed,”

You need to pay attention to this. Something I have said repeatedly and which you ignore: That is irrelevant to what we were talking about.

I put it in red so you can see it this time. Please note that I have repeatedly tried to get you to focus back on the topic.

That is a totally different situation. It is not comparable to somebody teaching new doctrine to the Church.

Are you sure? It seems to me it has been taught to the whole Church. And are you agreeing that a person can receive revelation from God to murder someone and as long as he does not teach it to others its OK? (Its OK if you do not answer because this is all off topic. However, you seem fascinated by an off topic lecture to me).

Same here. Those are not Identical situations to somebody teaching new doctrine for the Church. There was no “Church” organized in those situations, at least not a true Church. We are not dealing with the same kind of situation.

So at least you agree that you can receive revelation that is not in harmony with the current scriptures and it would be true. You do agree that it is possible to receive by revelation a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works and it would not be false? (Its OK not to answer since this whole line of discussion is off topic, but I know it fascinates you).

Sure; but what has got to do with teaching new doctrine to the Church?

What does teaching new doctrine to the Church have to do with what constitutes Official Doctrine?

You do wrest the scriptures quite a lot, not understanding them very well apparently. “Knowing the truth of all things” is not the same as teaching new doctrine to the Church.

Its not really me wresting things. But you seem to have a desire to be insulting. Are you able to resist that?

Certainly not. That is not what H B Lee is saying at all.

You can only conclude that by ignoring what he said. But this is off topic.

[CASteinman]

As I said, your definition of “official doctrine” is logically self-consistent, but also a pedantic irrelevance.

FINALLY.. you get back to topic.

It is ironic that you claim I am pedantic when you have been more so.

I am only interested in true doctrine,

And yet you fight continually to proclaim the only thing acceptable is not "True Doctrine" but instead "Standard Works".

Its not the same thing.

(This is, however, off topic -- again.).

Of what use is “official doctrine” to me, if by definition it also contains false doctrine?

It is the official doctrine of the Church. It is useful to people who want to know the official doctrine of the Church.

You cannot get away from false doctrine -- if you merely go to the Standard Works. In fact, I would say that to correct the errors in the Standard Works you have to go outside of them -- to the Official Doctrine of the Church. So that is one way that it is useful to you.

Now lets get a bit focused here. You have expressed strong objection to the concept of "Official Doctrine". You said you detested it and wanted to oppose it -- even though you agree it is a correct definition.

When you run off and start talking about what is "True Doctrine" that is not an objection to the concept of "Official Doctrine".

If you would like to change the topic away from "What is Official Doctrine?" to "What is "True Doctrine?" then by all means, make that clear.

And try to be kind in your comments rather than demeaning. You may be surprised to find out you are not superior to me.

[CASteinman]

Continued in the next post.

Just so you know... I am going to ignore the off topic parts and skip to the relevant parts. If you think you said something extraordinarily clever or useful that I passed over, bring it up again.

By your definition they do. They quote things which was said in General Conference, which by your definition is “official doctrine”.

Not exactly. I am a bit more careful than that.

And in any case, you have already stated that what you term “official doctrine” may indeed contain false doctrine.

Absolutely. Because among other things... official doctrine includes the scriptures -- which include false doctrines.

So how is your definition of “official doctrine” is going to alleviate the problem you are describing?

Two ways:

1. By limiting the things that they may call upon. (Journal of Discourses for example is out. The MIA quote you gave from President Lee is out. The TV interviews by President Hinkley -- out. Etc.).

2. By addressing the fact that THEIR official doctrine is also contradictory and contains problems.

But if you insist on only true doctrine, instead of your flawed understanding of “official” doctrine, then the problem with the anti-Mormons will also be resolved.

There is no way to put this wall around anything objective. It is imaginary.

So, lets recognize that, own it, and use it to our advantage.

[Stone holm]

Again, isn't the problem here in equating "doctrine" or "official doctrine" with "truth". Is it not possible that "truth" evolves in the same sense that Newton's laws were true and then Einstein's laws came along, etc. Except in this case, we are provided with some of the truth because we have not the ability to handle the whole truth -- so the doctrine which is revealed at that time is "truth", even though it may be later replaced with a "greater truth" as more doctrine is revealed. And as more doctrine is revealed, is it not possible that the doctrine which worked for a season, no longer functions? Don't we do this all the time with children? So why is it impossible to believe the Lord doesn't do it with His children?

[pogi]

Doctrine that has been presented to Members for a vote and/or in Covenant (including Priesthood Ordination and callings).

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

B. H. Roberts, a General Authority of the LDS church, summarized the issue perhaps as well as anyone has:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.

http://www.lightplan...s/doctrine.html

Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the

What is “Official” LDS Doctrine?

Church.”15 This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine. As Harold B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.”16 To claim that anything taught in general conference is “official” doctrine, notes J. F. McConkie, “makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”17

How do we know then, what is “doctrine”, and what is not? First it must generally conform to what has already been revealed. “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said,” wrote J. Fielding Smith, “if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.” The standard works, he explains, are the “measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.” 18

Harold B. Lee expressed similar thoughts when he taught that any doctrine, advanced by anyone—regardless of position— that was not supported by the standard works, then “you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.” He recognized that the Prophet could bring forth new doctrine, but “when he does, [he] will declare it as revelation from God,” after which it will be sustained by the body of Church.19

http://www.fairlds.o...on_Doctrine.pdf

Edited March 20, 2013 by pogi

[mathonihah]

You employ dishonest methods of argumentation. You do that by shifting your ground and changing the goal posts, while distorting the other sides arguments. Here is a typical example. I am presenting here just one thread of thought as it has developed over several posts:

And it [i.e. your concept of "official doctrine"] can also contain false doctrine by your own admission; whereas a concept of official doctrine based on HBL criterion has all the above advantages without the fatal flaw of containing false doctrine.

Wrong. Even the Standard Works can contain either false or misleading doctrine.

Not really, they don't. The Bible may contain some errors due to faulty translation (or transmission); but the modern scriptures of the Church don't—not doctrinal errors.They may contain printer's mistakes or typographical errors etc.; but not errors that could lead to serious doctrinal misunderstanding. In fact, one purpose of the modern scriptures of the Church is to correct doctrinal errors that many people have fallen into because of the imperfections of the Bible. See 1 Nephi 13:39–40; 2 Nephi 3:12. If you think that the standard works contain (doctrinal) errors, or "false or misleading doctrine," as you have put it, the burden is on you to prove it. Hence I gave you the following reply (emphasis added):

Twice wrong. He is first of all using standard works as a whole as the criteria for correct doctrine, not isolated passages taken out of context and distorted. The standard works are self-correcting in that sense. Secondly, he is applying the standard works as a means of determining incorrect (or speculative) doctrine. In other words, of a doctrine has no scriptural support, then it is speculation; and if it is contradicted by it, then it is false.

To which you gave the following reply:

So you say. But that is not what he said. Apparently your claim on this matter is not true because it does not match what is said in the Standard Works. And I have it on good authority that I may reject it on that basis and that basis alone.

You make declarative assertions without providing evidence to support it. How does it not match what is said in the standard works? I think that it does, and I have given you references to prove it, as in post #202, which you have ignored.

That is the exact implication of what he said.

So you say. But he did not say that was his implication. Neither to the standard works. I have it on good authority I can reject your statement merely on that grounds.

He said that what is taught should conform to the standard works. That can only mean all of the standard works, not a distorted understanding of part of the standard works.

By "all the standard works" I mean standard works taken as a whole (as in my earlier post), not that it should be taught in all the standard works. As I had said, the standard works are self-correcting. It is possible to be misled by scripture if one takes a passage out of context, and ignores what is taught in the rest. That is what the Protestants do, with their "faith alone" doctrine. When President Lee said that the standard works are the standard of true doctrine, he obviously meant not distorting it in that way; and the way to safeguard against that is to read it by the Holy Spirit, and not rejecting modern revelation. And for Latter-day Saints, that should not present a problem.

I can reject this statement because it is not found nor supported in ALL of the Standard Works. It may however be supported by a distorted understanding of part of the standard works. (This is off topic but you seem to be really interested in going off topic)

Wrong. I didn't mean that it should be taught in every single verse of the standard works. I meant that taken as a whole, the doctrine should be supported by the standard works. Try in the future not to distort what people are saying.

[mathonihah]

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

B. H. Roberts, a General Authority of the LDS church, summarized the issue perhaps as well as anyone has:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.

http://www.lightplan...s/doctrine.html

Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the

What is “Official” LDS Doctrine?

Church.”15 This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine. As Harold B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.”16 To claim that anything taught in general conference is “official” doctrine, notes J. F. McConkie, “makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”17

How do we know then, what is “doctrine”, and what is not? First it must generally conform to what has already been revealed. “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said,” wrote J. Fielding Smith, “if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.” The standard works, he explains, are the “measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.” 18

Harold B. Lee expressed similar thoughts when he taught that any doctrine, advanced by anyone—regardless of position— that was not supported by the standard works, then “you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.” He recognized that the Prophet could bring forth new doctrine, but “when he does, [he] will declare it as revelation from God,” after which it will be sustained by the body of Church.19

http://www.fairlds.o...on_Doctrine.pdf

Thank you; very true. And don't forget the scriptures too:

“And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things.” (D&C 33:16)

“And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.” (D&C 42:12)

“Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law, to be my law to govern my church;” (D&C 42:59)

[CASteinman]

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?

Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

You employ dishonest methods of argumentation.

The fact that you do not agree does not make me dishonest. If we both were to play by that rule, we would both soon be calling each other liars.

I request you take this false and unseemly accusation back.

[pogi]

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 since neither of us accepts your quote as official doctrine of the Church?

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/ensign/2003/02/divine-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/general-conference/2008/10/christian-courage-the-price-of-discipleship?lang=eng&query=unconditional

[pogi]

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.

Also, I have provided several quotes from general authorities and presidents of the Church which support my stance (whether they are official doctrine or not). I am still waiting for that CFR which I asked for several pages ago to support your stance (preferably from an official source and through official organs of the church, as you say.)

[Stone holm]

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/ensign/2003/02/divine-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/general-conference/2008/10/christian-courage-the-price-of-discipleship?lang=eng&query=unconditional

Missionaries who resort to firing off quotes of GAs instead of simply stating what they believe to be doctrine as they are inspired to say at the time by the Holy Ghost are not effective missionaries.

[pogi]

Missionaries who resort to firing off quotes of GAs instead of simply stating what they believe to be doctrine as they are inspired to say at the time by the Holy Ghost are not effective missionaries.

My question is not what makes effective missionaries, my question is "what makes official doctrine of the Church?"

If you were that missionary, how would you answer my previous question?

[CASteinman]

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?

I wouldn't refer to the Conference talks. I would refer to the contents of the lessons for investigators. Those are official doctrine also -- and they have the advantage of being developed specifically for just those sorts of questions at just that level of experience with the Gospel and the Spirit.

[CASteinman]

Also, I have provided several quotes from general authorities and presidents of the Church which support my stance (whether they are official doctrine or not). I am still waiting for that CFR which I asked for several pages ago to support your stance (preferably from an official source and through official organs of the church, as you say.)

I do not recall all the people who have asked for a CFR, but I believe I have referred them to post #50.

[CASteinman]

Missionaries who resort to firing off quotes of GAs instead of simply stating what they believe to be doctrine as they are inspired to say at the time by the Holy Ghost are not effective missionaries.

Well, they MIGHT be sometimes. But this is not my preferred approach. I like a conversational style where I express the sense of the scriptures - perhaps reading one or two -- and then affirming them with my testimony in the form of an insight that I gathered from my studies.

[pogi]

I wouldn't refer to the Conference talks. I would refer to the contents of the lessons for investigators. Those are official doctrine also -- and they have the advantage of being developed specifically for just those sorts of questions at just that level of experience with the Gospel and the Spirit.

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

[CASteinman]

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

Are you laboring under the impression that I consider official doctrine to be equal to truth? Or that it is non-contradictory?

If so, please recognize that I do not think so. I don't even thing the Standard Works are exactly the same thing as Pure Truth and that they are non-Contradictory. And they are only a very small part of the overall set of things that can be called "Official Doctrine".

[pogi]

Anything printed by the Church over the signatures of the FP and/or the 12 Apostles is official doctrine or whatever is printed as doctrine by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is a matter of plain and obvious definition.

Obviously not. As I have pointed out with references, many GA's and presidents of the church disagree with your "obvious definition". Please provide a supporting reference from an authority.

[CASteinman]

Obviously not. As I have pointed out with references, many GA's and presidents of the church disagree with your "obvious definition". Please provide a supporting reference from an authority.

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?

[pogi]

Are you laboring under the impression that I consider official doctrine to be equal to truth? Or that it is non-contradictory?

If so, please recognize that I do not think so. I don't even thing the Standard Works are exactly the same thing as Pure Truth and that they are non-Contradictory. And they are only a very small part of the overall set of things that can be called "Official Doctrine".

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?

[MormonMason]

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.

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.