Christofferson's talk on doctrine

[_Buffalo]

Looks like I scared him away.

[_Buffalo]

It's been published and I've been using it to show how it support's the Church's stance on doctrine. Notice that his humorous comment "Translate that!" has been removed.

The talk itself dismantles your idea of what is and what isn't doctrine.

[_DarkHelmet]

When BKP says something crazy in Conference, it gets corrected in print.

So bcspace, the Official Video on the Official Website is not "published" (and therefore not doctrine) but the Official Text on the Official Website is doctrine?

You're limiting "published" to text and not to video?

Interestingly, the opposite argument is used for the Journal of Discourses. We can't trust the print version because it may not have accurately reflected what was said from the pulpit. Today, we can't trust what was said from the pulpit and can only trust it after it appears in print. Why the change?

[_Drifting]

Interestingly, the opposite argument is used for the Journal of Discourses. We can't trust the print version because it may not have accurately reflected what was said from the pulpit. Today, we can't trust what was said from the pulpit and can only trust it after it appears in print. Why the change?

Exactly.
Did the printed version of Elder Poelmans talk of 1984 accurately reflect what be said from the pulpit? And which version (original or printed) is to be trusted.

As DH points out, if it's the printed record then the JoD is back in as a trusted source.

[_Drifting]

I've read Christoffersons talk on doctrine and frankly, I don't think he knows what is doctrine and what isn't. His talk is a rambling mess of what doctrine might be and when it might be spoken and by whom.

These same patterns are followed today in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2). Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.4

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”

The point being, members still have no idea if what they are hearing or reading from their leaders is doctrine, God speaking, or just an individuals personal opinion. It's like trying to pin the tail on the donkey when there's no donkey present.

[_ludwigm]

I've read Christoffersons talk on doctrine and frankly, I don't think he knows what is doctrine and what isn't. His talk is a rambling mess of what doctrine might be and when it might be spoken and by whom.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”

The point being, members still have no idea if what they are hearing or reading from their leaders is doctrine, God speaking, or just an individuals personal opinion. It's like trying to pin the tail on the donkey when there's no donkey present.

No. The case is the opposite.