False Doctrine At Conference

[CV75]

Even if Elder Bednar was referring to a secret revelation that we don't know about*, I think it's been well established that he alone does not have the authority to reveal new revelations for the Church (especially without any type of explanation or exposition other than an oblique reference). 

 

I suspect he would agree, and so I would bet all my money on D&C 20:1 being the "revelation" he was referring to.

 

 

*A hypothetical I raised the day he gave the talk.

Him… “hypothetical,” “suspect” and “bet” vs. “We don’t know,” “know” and “believe”… We are coming from two different perspectives. Why counter my apples with your oranges?

[Senator]

 Does Elder Oaks know a reference?

 

Yes. Himself.............and 14 others like him.

[Thinking]

You totally missed the point.

How do know he is wrong?

 

You missed my point. We don't know that April 6th is wrong. What's wrong is saying we know it is April 6th when we don't know.

[stemelbow]

To some this "mistake" evidences a possibility for other mistakes that have come and will come. It begs the question of how reliable can GC talks be? When do we know if ardent fact based statements are really just guesses and assumptions?

For others this "mistake" is meaningless, it seems. It was one in a million and when mistakes come again they'll be as easily detected and we need not worry.

I admit I favor the former, but the latter carries some merit. So, in the sum, meh....I hear ya all. No big deal that we disagree.

But I'd love to explore the ramifications of what if this mistake evidences other possible mistakes, in the way of assumptions thrust upon us, which could really drastically alter our view of things?

[CV75]

Are we sure that the Lord has directed only men to hold priesthood offices or is Elder Oaks just repeating what he assumes to be true (similar to Elder Bednar here). I've applied Alma 32 to Elder Oak's statement and found it to be false for me. I've also searched the scriptures and known revelations and have found no reference to where the Lord directed "only men" to hold the priesthood. Further, in a talk with 16 footnotes, Elder Oaks didn't have one for this central point that he made. Does Elder Oaks know a reference?

This is an instance where you have a personal revelation that runs contrary to a Church teaching; or, the Church teaches something contrary to your beliefs and knowledge.

 

Anyone may know or believe and teach something of the Gospel based on his intellectual assumption, inspired assumption, or assumption of either kind that is later confirmed by revelation (e.g. Alma 40:19-20; 3 Nephi 28:36-37). Intellectual assumptions can be correct or not, and inspired assumptions can be divine (which is always correct/honest) or not (which is always wrong).

 

Since we are all fallible, one might begin his Alma 32 quest with finding men-only ordination objectionable, or might reject “men-only” after the principle of ordaining women became “sweet” to him (and after planting and nourishing the seed and later nourishing the tree). Does everyone give “men-only” equal attention? Does everyone begin their Alma 32 quest as neutral on the subject?

 

Does our general fallibility mean that everything the Church teaches of the Gospel is equally due the same examination? On what basis do you pick and choose what seed you plant and nourish? What is the balance of intellect (and emotion and other internal drivers) and external divine guidance in making this chocie?

 

I think that our fallibility and having assumptions do not of themselves invalidate a Gospel principle as it is taught. We can claim personal revelation about it, and spread the good news, but we also have to have the inspired buy-in of our brothers and sisters to confirm that it is “real.” After all, Alma is giving this teaching of planting the seed to a multitude of the poor in heart that want to worship God together (see verses 2-6).

 

It is interesting to me that despite his fallibility and without assumptions over which church to join (perhaps an assumption that he might join one of them), Joseph Smith had the faith that he would receive an answer. When we observe others, do we assume their assumptions are a reflection of their faith or of their ignorance, and how is that a reflection of our own approach to applying Alma 32 as one of the multitude of the poor in heart?

[CV75]

But I'd love to explore the ramifications of what if this mistake evidences other possible mistakes, in the way of assumptions thrust upon us, which could really drastically alter our view of things?

I think that the whole of "life" is thrust upon us, and our view is a matter of internal orientation and outside influence, and is both subject to spiritual, temporal and secular influence and inclined to influence.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Since we are all fallible, one might begin his Alma 32 quest with finding men-only ordination objectionable, or might reject “men-only” after the principle of ordaining women became “sweet” to him (and after planting and nourishing the seed and later nourishing the tree). Does everyone give “men-only” equal attention? Does everyone begin their Alma 32 quest as neutral on the subject?

I think your post raises many great questions and thoughts. As you point out I can only speak for me and I do not presume to teach or impose my thoughts on the church or its members (unless you count this message board). Having been raised fully in the church, the seed that I planted and nourished was definitely a men-only priesthood seed. I was certainly not neutral on the subject, but this seed has brought forth bitter fruit for me and I reject it as false.

 

Does our general fallibility mean that everything the Church teaches of the Gospel is equally due the same examination? On what basis do you pick and choose what seed you plant and nourish? What is the balance of intellect (and emotion and other internal drivers) and external divine guidance in making this chocie?

It is my personal belief that all that the church teaches is due the same examination. Yes I might be wrong, but experience and history has taught me that the church might be wrong as well. I have planted and nourished all of the churches teachings and attempted to live them in my life from a faithful perspective. As I have tended the tree and tasted the fruit, I have plucked and pruned out those teachings that have brought forth bitter fruit in my life. How else can I do it? All guidance is internal in that we experience it internally. The church teaches that by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know that Joseph was a prophet. The church teaches that by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know that the Book of Mormon is "true". The church teaches that by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know the "truth" of all things. How can we teach members to trust the Holy Ghost when He prompts them to believe that Joseph was a prophet, but to distrust the Holy Ghost when He prompts them to believe that women should be ordained? Edited May 29, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[teddyaware]

To me, this thread is a perfect example of how some of the Lord's people end up "looking beyond the mark." Elder Bednar's General Conference address of April 6, 2014, "Bear Up Their Burdens With Ease," was a wonderfully inspired discourse and there is much in his words of wisdom for the saints to ponder and implement in their lives for spiritual improvement. But the fact that this thread has totally ignored 99.999% of the inspired counsel of Elder Bednars address, in favor of what appears to be a seemingly endless debate on a point of relative unimportance when it comes to our salvation, is an indicator of spiritual immaturity. And the fact that this someone used the deliberately provocative and presumptuous title of "False Doctrine at Conference" to start this thread is also a clear indicator of spiritual immaturity.

 

Coincidentally, this recent address was used as the subject matter for our combined Elders Quorum and High Priest Group priesthood lesson this past Sunday, and it proved to be a most edifying and empowering 45 minutes as we discussed and commented upon this example of modern scripture from a living Apostle of Christ. At the end of the lesson there were brethren who said they had learned important principles they never really understood.

 

But I suppose this tendency to look beyond the mark will always characterize the way some choose to approach the Gospel; even so, there are always going to be consequences that will have to be paid for doing so...

14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble. (Jacob 4)

Edited May 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[stemelbow]

I think that the whole of "life" is thrust upon us, and our view is a matter of internal orientation and outside influence, and is both subject to spiritual, temporal and secular influence and inclined to influence.

Interesitng. To act or be acted upon, type of stuff?

[stemelbow]

I think your post raises many great questions and thoughts. As you point out I can only speak for me and I do not presume to teach or impose my thoughts on the church or its members (unless you count this message board). Having been raised fully in the church, the seed that I planted and nourished was definitely a men-only priesthood seed. I was certainly not neutral on the subject, but this seed has brought forth bitter fruit for me and I reject it as false.

 

It is my personal belief that all that the church teaches is due the same examination. Yes I might be wrong, but experience and history has taught me that the church might be wrong as well. I have planted and nourished all of the churches teachings and attempted to live them in my life from a faithful perspective. As I have tended the tree and tasted the fruit, I have plucked and pruned out those teachings that have brought forth bitter fruit in my life. How else can I do it? All guidance is internal in that we experience it internally. The church teaches that by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know that Joseph was a prophet. The church teaches that by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know that the Book of Mormon is "true". The church teaches that by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know the "truth" of all things. How can we teach members to trust the Holy Ghost when He prompts them to believe that Joseph was a prophet, but to distrust the Holy Ghost when He prompts them to believe that women should be ordained?

Nicely put. I think we often forget, ignore and perhaps even pretend that individually we can each find goodness and truth. We need not be bound by what Church tells us--teach us principles and let us learn to govern ourselves, huh?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

To me, this thread is a perfect example of how some of the Lord's people end up "looking beyond the mark."

This thread (while poorly titled) is about what it means for an apostle/prophet to declare that something is known by revelation. Which part of that is "looking beyond the mark"?

[stemelbow]

To me, this thread is a perfect example of how some of the Lord's people end up "looking beyond the mark." Elder Bednar's General Conference address of April 6, 2014, "Bear Up Their Burdens With Ease," was a wonderfully inspired discourse and there is much in his words of wisdom for the saints to ponder and implement in their lives for spiritual improvement. But the fact that this thread has totally ignored 99.999% of the inspired counsel of Elder Bednars address, in favor of what appears to be a seemingly endless debate on a point of relative unimportance when it comes to our salvation, is an indicator of spiritual immaturity. And the fact that this someone used the deliberately provocative and presumptuous title of "False Doctrine at Conference" to start this thread is also a clear indicator of spiritual immaturity.

 

Coincidentally, this recent address was used as the subject matter for our combined Elders Quorum and High Priest Group priesthood lesson this past Sunday, and it proved to be a most edifying and empowering 45 minutes as we discussed and commented upon this example of modern scripture from a living Apostle of Christ. At the end of the lesson there were brethren who said they had learned important principles they never really understood.

 

But I suppose this tendency to look beyond the mark will always characterize the way some choose to approach the Gospel; even so, there are always going to be consequences that will have to be paid for doing so...

14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble. (Jacob 4)

You must be better than some of us then. It seems strange to me, that people would rather ignore something that may very well indicate error passed off as revelation. I don't intend at all to put blame on Elder Bednar, even if some here might. I'm just speaking generally on this. If we are told something that is untrue and that something is said to have come by revelation, that could be a problem no? Perhaps in some cases revelation is assumed. Perhaps we are told to do certain things, or say certain things but those things are not God's will. It'd be a shame, but this little case, while insignificant in a sense, can also instruct us to live appropriately. We need to be ready to test and try that which is told us, perhaps. Perhaps we need to be a little more careful to believe, more judicious in whether what we're taught is reflective of what God really wants from us, individually. In this, this concern may actually be as beneficial as any discussion we could have. And that's a shame if you and your HP group missed that, even if there was something else great taken for which you all felt edified.

Indeed, there is always more to learn.

[teddyaware]

You must be better than some of us then. It seems strange to me, that people would rather ignore something that may very well indicate error passed off as revelation. I don't intend at all to put blame on Elder Bednar, even if some here might. I'm just speaking generally on this. If we are told something that is untrue and that something is said to have come by revelation, that could be a problem no? Perhaps in some cases revelation is assumed. Perhaps we are told to do certain things, or say certain things but those things are not God's will. It'd be a shame, but this little case, while insignificant in a sense, can also instruct us to live appropriately. We need to be ready to test and try that which is told us, perhaps. Perhaps we need to be a little more careful to believe, more judicious in whether what we're taught is reflective of what God really wants from us, individually. In this, this concern may actually be as beneficial as any discussion we could have. And that's a shame if you and your HP group missed that, even if there was something else great taken for which you all felt edified.

Indeed, there is always more to learn.

Is it not presumptuous to say that an Apostle of Jesus Christ -- whom we sustain as a Prophet, seer and revelator -- said "something that may very well indicate error passed off as revelation?" How do you know that Elder Bednar's declaration as April 6th as the Lord's birthday "may very well indicate error passed off as revelation?" It's clearly obvious he's in a position to know more than most, so why not move on to something not deliberately calculated by the "great pot stirrer" in hell to undermine the Lord's anointed. That is unless the believing LDS folks on this thread have no problem with participating in a process calculated to undermine the Lord's anointed.

I'm out of this thread, because I've said my piece and don't want to inadvertently encourage more of said undermining.

Edited May 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'm out of this thread, because I've said my piece and don't want to inadvertently encourage more of said undermining.

Thanks for stopping by to pass judgement!

Edited May 29, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[stemelbow]

Is it not presumptuous to say that an Apostle of Jesus Christ -- whom we sustain as a Prophet, seer and revelator -- said "something that may very well indicate error passed off as revelation?" How do you know that Elder Bednar's declaration as April 6th as the Lord's birthday "may very well indicate error passed off as revelation?" It's clearly obvious he's in a position to know more than most, so why not move on to something not deliberately calculated by the "great pot stirrer" in hell to undermine the Lord's anointed. That is unless the believing LDS folks on this thread have no problem with participating in a process calculated to undermine the Lord's anointed.

I'm out of this thread, because I've said my piece and don't want to inadvertently encourage more of said undermining.

Wowser. I know you're done, but I have to say with attitudes like that, it makes me wonder what would be the purpose of discussing anything? It seems obvious Elder Bednar was alluding to a "revelation" that has turned out to not be a revelation. If he wanted to bring to our attention an actual revelation on the matter he certainly could have done so with more authority and flare than any of us. It seems most here agree he probably made a mistake. And mistakes are possible. Accepting this reality is not rubbing shoulders with Satan or nuttin'. Not sure where your fear is coming from.

[DBMormon]

 

You can't have it both ways Scott. 

 

If Elder Bednar really is a fallible Apostle, then it isn't disrespectful or "judgmental" to point out that he made a mistake.  It also wouldn't be disrespectful to want to know exactly why he thinks we have a "revelation" indicating Jesus was born on April 6.  That would just be a garden variety CFR, and since it's well established on this board that something isn't true just because an Apostle stands in conference and says it is, it's an entirely justifiable CFR. 

 

The problem is that the Church has to admit that the leaders are "fallible" (because they do make mistakes), but we are all supposed to pretend that they aren't and when they do make mistakes, pretend like they didn't happen.  But here we have an Apostle stand in conference and claim a certain fact is known by revelation, when it was recently shown that there are very, very good reasons to not believe that fact.  So it's only natural that some LDS might not want to pretend that it didn't happen and try and figure out what it means.

 

Was Elder Bednar referring to some other unknown revelation, and if so, why did he not explain that?  Was Elder Bednar aware of the recent research that calls the efficacy of D&C 20:1 into question, and if so, was this his way of countering that research?  Was he not aware of this, and if so, why didn't someone make him aware of it?

 

And does Elder Bednar's talk mean that it's now an official Church teaching that Jesus was born on April 6, but we're still allowed to not believe it, but we have to not believe it without disagreeing with Elder Bednar?

 

 

You  nailed it Cinepro.  The reasoning methods some here use, to put others down and point out the weakness in anothers argument never gets applied back at the Church itself.  Instead we wiggle, and jump through mental gymnastics to avoid calling a spade a spade.

 

Also the bigger issue Is that the Church chose not to fix it when those at the top privately acknowledged that the birthdate is not doctrine and that a correction of some sort would be made in the upcoming ensign.  While it bothered me that Elder Bednar would repeat a false assumption, I also completely allow such as we all do it.  For me the bigger issue is the Church chose to entrench on a false assumption rather than move beyond it.  That to me is a gross problem that needs to be addressed. 

[DBMormon]

 

 I'm taking a wait-and-see stance on that.

While I certainly allow such a posture as I use it myself on women's issues and LGBT issues, I also see it as a sopout posture that allows you to never deal with the repercussions of such an issue.

[CV75]

How can we teach members to trust the Holy Ghost when He prompts them to believe that Joseph was a prophet, but to distrust the Holy Ghost when He prompts them to believe that women should be ordained?

Referring back to the multitude of the pure in heart that Alma invited to plant the seed, I think we need to recognize that the Holy Ghost has born witness to others also, so that we can align with them and them with us.

 

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:27; the wherewithal to accomplish this level of unity is found in verses 1-5). And of course this is why we have the Church, “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be …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; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” (Ephesians 4:12-16).

 

If we have planted and nourished the seed of the framework of the Church (that being prophets and apostles with the keys to join, fit and work the whole body), we will find ourselves aligned with it (them). We may not be aligned in all matters in which the keys are exercised, but we can certainly seek that level of edification and perfection.

 

I think we teach members to trust the Holy Ghost (period), and also to assess and govern his relationship with the Holy Ghost. So I wouldn’t see disagreement with how the keys are exercised and managed as a reason to distrust the Holy Ghost, but as a reason to rely on Him more (and He does more than just answer questions!).

 

The keys are the basis for baptism, confirmation, receiving the Holy Ghost; administering the sacrament, patriarchal blessings, callings and assignments; temple work for the living and the dead; so much more (missionary work, humanitarian work, all the other things the Church does). I wouldn’t think that any of these “fruits” of the keys and practice of pure religion (presumably confirmed by the Alma 32 process) should be doubted simply because we align with a few principles that the “world” happens to unite on instead of the Church, or with a few practices that the “world” would allow but which have nothing to do with the keys.

[CV75]

Interesitng. To act or be acted upon, type of stuff?

Now that you mention it, yes, I think our use of agency has a lot to do with how well we apply Alma 32.

[CV75]

Nicely put. I think we often forget, ignore and perhaps even pretend that individually we can each find goodness and truth. We need not be bound by what Church tells us--teach us principles and let us learn to govern ourselves, huh?

The Church will never interfere with our agency, so our self-governance can be freely carried out in concert with or outside of the exercise of the keys by our Church leaders. But unity of experience with Alma 32 is "key" in another sense!

[DBMormon]

Wow, impressive way to put words in my mouth.

No, I wouldn't use the phrase "false doctrine" given the Mormon implication of what it means to teach as much.

Perhaps DB hadn't fully considered the Mormon cultural implications of calling it "false doctrine." Perhaps you could be a little more... charitable... in your reading of his OP. I'll try to avoid speaking for him, but perhaps he wouldn't have used that phrase if he was fully aware of how others felt about that phrase. If he's still reading this thread maybe he can offer his own clarification.

 

 

I personally would consider anytime we push forth proposed knowledge with the caveat that it came from God through revelation and said Proposed knowledge ends up untrue or at least not revealed, I would call it "false Doctrine"

 

True Doctrine is "true teachings that come from God" 

Elder Chtistofferson - the truths and doctrine we have received have come and will continue to come by divine revelation.

 

 

Also to say this issue is not a doctrine (true or false ) is ioncorrect as the Church acknowledges that such issues (location of the garden of eden for example) while a lesser doctrine are still Doctrine

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

 

 

So to me to claim a "truth" is inedeed true and that such truth came by way of revelation when indeed it did not, I would call it false Doctrine - It is not a True Doctrine from God therefore it is a false Doctrine.  The word unfortunately carries a lot of negative connotation and perhaps I should have named the op differently, but I know no other way to tackle this than to acknowledge how I define such terms and use them accordingly - I also think I have gone out of the way to not be critical of Elder Bednar in my pointing out my frustration and the problem as I see it.

[stemelbow]

Also the bigger issue Is that the Church chose not to fix it when those at the top privately acknowledged that the birthdate is not doctrine and that a correction of some sort would be made in the upcoming ensign.  While it bothered me that Elder Bednar would repeat a false assumption, I also completely allow such as we all do it.  For me the bigger issue is the Church chose to entrench on a false assumption rather than move beyond it.  That to me is a gross problem that needs to be addressed.

I'm so bad at understanding what people mean sometimes, but what do you mean there was some private acknowledgement? How are you aware of it? And which Ensign upcoming shall we expect this to be addressed as a correction?

[Senator]

To me, this thread is a perfect example of how some of the Lord's people end up "looking beyond the mark." Elder Bednar's General Conference address of April 6, 2014, "Bear Up Their Burdens With Ease," was a wonderfully inspired discourse and there is much in his words of wisdom for the saints to ponder and implement in their lives for spiritual improvement. But the fact that this thread has totally ignored 99.999% of the inspired counsel of Elder Bednars address, in favor of what appears to be a seemingly endless debate on a point of relative unimportance when it comes to our salvation, is an indicator of spiritual immaturity. And the fact that this someone used the deliberately provocative and presumptuous title of "False Doctrine at Conference" to start this thread is also a clear indicator of spiritual immaturity.

 

Coincidentally, this recent address was used as the subject matter for our combined Elders Quorum and High Priest Group priesthood lesson this past Sunday, and it proved to be a most edifying and empowering 45 minutes as we discussed and commented upon this example of modern scripture from a living Apostle of Christ. At the end of the lesson there were brethren who said they had learned important principles they never really understood.

 

But I suppose this tendency to look beyond the mark will always characterize the way some choose to approach the Gospel; even so, there are always going to be consequences that will have to be paid for doing so...

14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble. (Jacob 4)

 

Here......(as I place interlocked fingers under your heel).....let me help you down off your high horse.

[mfbukowski]

You missed my point. We don't know that April 6th is wrong. What's wrong is saying we know it is April 6th when we don't know.

Oh

My

Gosh.

How do you know that "we" (whoever that is supposed to be) don't know?

He knows. That's all that counts for him. There is no other reality to compare it to.

I'm done.

[DBMormon]

Wow, impressive way to put words in my mouth.

No, I wouldn't use the phrase "false doctrine" given the Mormon implication of what it means to teach as much.

Perhaps DB hadn't fully considered the Mormon cultural implications of calling it "false doctrine." Perhaps you could be a little more... charitable... in your reading of his OP. I'll try to avoid speaking for him, but perhaps he wouldn't have used that phrase if he was fully aware of how others felt about that phrase. If he's still reading this thread maybe he can offer his own clarification.

 

to me it is false doctrine.  In the sense that it is not true doctrine (truth revealed from God).  And also in the claiming something is indeed true Doctrine when it isn't is fasle.  If I say God has revealed to the Church that Jesus has three eyes and in fact God never revealed such a thing, I would call that false Doctrine.  It is falsely claiming a revealed truth when indeed it wasn't revealed there fore the claim is false and the issue is doctrinal.  That said I have tried to steer clear of criticizing Elder Bednar personally and see no fault in his holding a false assumption, which we all do.

 

Also to say the date is not Doctrinal is incorrect as the Church itself acknowledges that periphery issues while being lesser Doctrines, are indeed still doctrines

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

 

 

Elder Christofferson - This is to say that while there is much we do not yet know, the truths and doctrine we have received have come and will continue to come by divine revelation.

 

 

If True Doctrine comes by revelation, what do we call that which is purported to come by revelation but in fact doesn't???