What is Considered Doctrine in the LDS Church

[twopekinguys]

Melanie,
Just because you have read comments by LDS people, does not make them doctrinal comments. If they quoted directly, specifically, precisely and with other cross-references on the matter in question using the scriptures and/or the unitedly acknowledged, published words of the living prophets and apostles, and didn’t interpret the words or make assumptions such as PaulDupre made above, then it could be said that they quoted doctrine. Otherwise, they stated opinions. Paul has said he doesn’t want opinions, he wants doctrine.

I think you understand the core issue. You seem to have acknowledged that some of the Catholic popes did not act under the guidance of revelation in certain cases. (Is that correct?) I would agree with that.

I was not shying away from exploring this core issue. But I think I have made it very clear what that issue is. How many different ways do you want me to say it?

I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but you seem to be a little hung up on this “living prophets and apostle” thing.

Am I understanding you correctly, that it only matters what the current living prophet and apostles think, say, do, or revelate? What about your previous prophets?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I do want to go, but I also don’t want to have been misunderstood. The apostle John saw what he saw, and wrote what he wrote. The words say what they mean, and mean what they say. They don’t have to be “aligned” or “properly understood” meaning that you will allow them to mean what you want them to mean. But you can tell yourself they mean whatever you want to tell yourself they mean.

No one is forcing you to stay, or to leave.

It is not what we want them to mean. It is what the Church has taught for 2000 years, starting with the teachings of the Apostles, including St. John.

 

[JLFuller]

I do not read things that I know are not written by Christians! This man doesn’t even believe in the Resurrection! Why are you reading his stuff in the first place?

I read a wide variety of work. I have found that people with a particular point of view often get tunnel vision. I read LDS, non-LDS and secular writers. I do this because everyone’s point of view adds something. Usually it is worthwhile but it doesn’t take long to recognioze the phonies from the honest thinkers. Ehrman reports what he found. He doesn’t make judgements on the correctness of one theology over another. He just reports on what the theology was as he understands it. His personal opinons on the merits of the beliefs are not included. I can’t say that about every writer I read.

 

[ParkerD]

You continue to miss the point about evolving Mormon Doctrine Parker. I’m not sure how I can make it clearer, but I’ll try ~

• There are things that have been taught AS DOCTRINE by the Mormon Church that even persons that post to this forum have been taught in the past.
• Some of those things are currently denied as EVER being doctrine by current active members of the Mormon Church.

Get it? People right here in this forum, on this very thread, have personally witnessed this sort of doctrinal shift. .

Melanie,
I don’t care who posted what, if they weren’t quoting doctrine from the scriptures or the unitedly agreed upon written words of the living prophets and apostles, then they were stating opinions.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Melanie,
I don’t care who posted what, if they weren’t quoting doctrine from the scriptures or the unitedly agreed upon written words of the living prophets and apostles, then they were stating opinions.

So you admit that when someone goes to an LDS seminary class, or attends a Gospel Doctrine class, that those things that are taught to them as doctrine are not, in fact, doctrine, they are opinions?

 

[JLFuller]

Really?
In 1891 the First Presidency and Apostles of the Mormon Church made the following statement in a petition to the President of the United States:

I am glad you brought that up. I addressed that else where but I don’t recall just where so I will again. Polygamy is not just an earthly practice. Giving in marriage is. That means, as I am sure you recall, that the ceremoiny has to take place in a temple on earth however the arraingments for can be made on the other side. A little more back ground for those who have never heard of this before: During the millenial reign of Christ, the heavens will be opened and we will have access to those who are on the other side of the veil. That is how we will be able to do all the temple work (baptism, endowments, sealings) for those for whom there is no earthly record. We will be able to get that information from them or others who know of them.

It seems that some arraingments will be made for additional marriages of those on the other side where the ceremony is conducted on earth. We know no one is given (the marriage ceremony) in marriage in heaven. It has to be done on earth. That is how polygamous marriages will be conducted. They are not allowed on earth today but during Christ’s reign it will be sanctioned. It appears to be an eternal practice and ordiance. But it is just for those who achieve the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom - deification.

 

[twopekinguys]

Melanie,

As much as I hate to say this, but I think you are beating a dead horse here.

The quote, “There are none so blind, as though who will not see”, comes to mind.

You have given it a valiant effort.

 

[JLFuller]

I think it is clear that you are not able to discern who is God, and who is not. The laws of of men are not lesser laws of God’s. And certainly, if one believes God has given a law, it isn’t possible for the laws of men to be greater than that law.

I understand this is a difficult concept for someone who views God as merely a man.

Rebecca
We do not think God is just a man. I think you know that.

 

[hosemonkey]

I am glad you brought that up. I addressed that else where but I don’t recall just where so I will again. Polygamy is not just an earthly practice. Giving in marriage is. That means, as I am sure you recall, that the ceremoiny has to take place in a temple on earth however the arraingments for can be made on the other side. A little more back ground for those who have never heard of this before: During the millenial reign of Christ, the heavens will be opened and we will have access to those who are on the other side of the veil. That is how we will be able to do all the temple work (baptism, endowments, sealings) for those for whom there is no earthly record. We will be able to get that information from them or others who know of them.

It seems that some arraingments will be made for additional marriages of those on the other side where the ceremony is conducted on earth. We know no one is given (the marriage ceremony) in marriage in heaven. It has to be done on earth. That is how polygamous marriages will be conducted. They are not allowed on earth today but during Christ’s reign it will be sanctioned. It appears to be an eternal practice and ordiance. But it is just for those who achieve the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom - deification.

That is hay that has already been through the horse.

 

[ParkerD]

I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but you seem to be a little hung up on this “living prophets and apostle” thing.

Am I understanding you correctly, that it only matters what the current living prophet and apostles think, say, do, or revelate? What about your previous prophets?

Melanie,
As to LDS doctrine, “it only matters what the current living prophet and apostles think, say, do, or revelate” as a united group in addition to what has already been written down as the published scriptures (which incidentally have been collectively approved by the membership of the church by vote in general conference). What the previous prophets said, did, or wrote was for the people at the time they were living.

This does not mean God changes His mind. It means what I said before, that He can reveal policy changes or even doctrinal changes (which really are very few during the history of the LDS church), but He is in charge, not man. He reveals His will by revelation.

 

[JLFuller]

Robert
You are getting it correct for as far as you go.
If the FLDS are NOT mormons, then what are they? They have been repudiated by mainstream mormonism for simply practicing the mormonism of your “prophet.” Do they regard the Old Men of Salt Lake City as their “prophet” or does Warren Jeffs occupy that office? And how does their theology differ?
Polygamy is NOT an ancient Christian practice, but instead a practice that Joseph Smith decreed to satisfy his uncontrolable lust in the 1830s. With the State of Utah itself estimating that there are over 30,000 mormons practicing polygamy, are all those people FLDS, or are some “regular” mormons doing a little kanoodling on the side? Hmmmm?

Polygamy was practice by Abraham, Jacob and others. Genesis 16:1–3; 29:23–30; 30:4, 9; Judges 8:30; 1 Samuel 1:1–2.

More info can be found here. That same link will also provide the official statement by the Church that “Groups who teach polygamy today are not part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

 

[ParkerD]

So you admit that when someone goes to an LDS seminary class, or attends a Gospel Doctrine class, that those things that are taught to them as doctrine are not, in fact, doctrine, they are opinions?

How can I make it more clear that if the scriptures and the words of the unitedly written words of the prophets and apostles are quoted in those classes, then the students are hearing doctrine.

If the teachers expand on the quotes or seek to “clarify” or “amplify” or “water down” then they are stating their own opinions, and yes, that happens.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca
We do not think God is just a man. I think you know that.

I think you know that you do.

 

[twopekinguys]

Melanie,
As to LDS doctrine, “it only matters what the current living prophet and apostles think, say, do, or revelate” as a united group in addition to what has already been written down as the published scriptures (which incidentally have been collectively approved by the membership of the church by vote in general conference). What the previous prophets said, did, or wrote was for the people at the time they were living.

This does not mean God changes His mind. It means what I said before, that He can reveal policy changes or even doctrinal changes (which really are very few during the history of the LDS church), but He is in charge, not man. He reveals His will by revelation.

But according to lds, God did change his mind, by the revelation in 1978 that allowed Blacks to receive the priesthood. Right?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but before 1978, it was taught as doctrine by the lds, that blacks could not receive the priesthood due to the mark of Cain, for being less valiant in the pre-existance. Then lo and behold, a revelation in 1978 says they can. Sounds like God changed his mind to me.

Or.

Why weren’t blacks allowed the priesthood prior to 1978?

 

[JLFuller]

That is hay that has already been through the horse.

The verse in scripture that say we should not cast our pearls before swine is not an insult to pigs. It is because they can’t understand the value of the pearl.

 

[PaulDupre]

Polygamy was practice by Abraham, Jacob and others.

Practiced by men, but never commanded or approved by God.

 

[JLFuller]

But according to lds, God did change his mind, by the revelation in 1978 that allowed Blacks to receive the priesthood. Right?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but before 1978, it was taught as doctrine by the lds, that blacks could not receive the priesthood due to the mark of Cain, for being less valiant in the pre-existance. Then lo and behold, a revelation in 1978 says they can. Sounds like God changed his mind to me.

Or.

Why weren’t blacks allowed the priesthood prior to 1978?

You are correct except the mark of Cain and the less valiant part is an opinion by Brigham Young. It is not supported by the Church leadership today. President HInkcly was asked that same question and said he did not know why blacks were not allowed in the priesthood before 1979. It was not a man-made decision.

 

[twopekinguys]

You are correct except the mark of Cain and the less valiant part is an opinion by Brigham Young. It is not supported by the Church leadership today.

Just so I understand your response completely.

God did change his mind regarding blacks and the priesthood when the lds received the revelation in 1978?

But the mark of Cain, and less valian part was supported by the church leadership prior to 1978?

 

[MelanieAnne]

I think you know that you do.

Or maybe the “God as an Exalted Man” is one of those doctrines that has CHANGED

 

[JLFuller]

Just so I understand your response completely.

God did change his mind regarding blacks and the priesthood when the lds received the revelation in 1978?

But the mark of Cain, and less valian part was supported by the church leadership prior to 1978?

The mark of Cain, as far as I know, was a remark by Brigham Young. The only modern apostle I know of who commented on it was Mark E. Peterson as late as the 1960’s but here again it was a personal opinion and not widely supported by the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency.