DiscussMormonism.com

I can't anything addressing my specific question through the search engine here, so I'll just ask. And I'm not looking to denigrate any individual here, or defame the church organization, or anything like that. Some things do, however, get very very confusing & I'd feel better about this item if I could have it cleared up for me.

I know there are many postings about how to know if a statement by a general authority, even a prophet, is actually church doctrine. Some say a statement isn't official doctrine unless approved by the entire First Presidency. Others say anything stated in General Conference or printed in church magazines should be considered official doctrine.

When Pres Kimball (and I loved that guy) announced the revelation on giving all worthy males the Priesthood, it was said (or maybe he said) that any attempts to explain the reasons behind the previous restrictions were obviously opinions and speculations.

If a current president and prophet of the church is asked point blank what the official position of the church is on...any topic, and that president answers the question, I would not blame the members of the church for accepting that answer as official church doctrine. I would find it difficult, if not impossible, to explain it any other way. But that is not the case.

I'm sure this has been brought up before, also, but I don't know the explanation for it. When the very famous Horace Greeley interviewed Brigham Young and asked for the church's position on slavery and Brigham Young answered quite directly and in some detail, church members, and the world, from then on - until 1978 - would have no reason to believe Young's statements were only opinion. He gave his answer as "church position." The Greeley series of which that interview was part, was published all over the country and the world. If Brigham Young was misquoted, he surely would have said so loudly and plainly, and seen to it that his objections were in print.

Question(s) 1 - the obvious: how could that happen? What would keep it from happening again today? has it happened at other times on other topics & we just haven't found out about it yet? How can anyone in the church say that if we pray about something the prophet says and get a different answer - we are wrong, not him, when Young WAS wrong and Kimball's revelation proves it? Why would God allow such a heinous and harmful & seemingly very official statement go unquestioned, hurting the church for over 100 years?

Question 2 - Considering Joseph Smiths last statements related to slavery, his abolitionist position for his presidential run, his detailed comments on how to end slavery in the US, etc, WHY did Brigham Young allow slavery in Utah right up until the Emancipation Proclamation? Of course, since he evidently believed & taught all the trash talk he gave Horace Greeley, he'd have no personal problem with slavery (what a sentence - repulsive sentence), but WHY didn't Joseph Smith's position guide Brigham Young's? Joseph Smith is the HEAD of THIS DISPENSATION - so those of his teachings that are basic & fundamental (not time-bound or tied to a specific circumstance at a specific time) shouldn't get dismissed, ignored, or overruled by later prophets in this dispensation.

This whole issue concerns real basics about LDS life - how prophets give out actual official doctrine, how much people are expected to accept or reject flat out statements by the prophet, how reliable are statements, current & past, even by the prophet even when in response to a question about "church positions" on specific huge issues?

Do we simply dismiss all of Young's statements because his extreme opinionated stance makes it all unreliable? If we only dismiss what he said that goes against other definite doctrinal statements, that still allows for the entire church accepting his view of blacks for over 100 years.

Please, someone explain this one to me. Thank you. I have no idea how to explain it to non-LDS who ask, much less to myself. Please...

They way to tell if something is doctrine is if it's published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All 15 of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have to agree and the basis for this is found in D&C 107 wherein we see that both bodies are equal in authority.

Qualifiers would be that which is of latest comparitive where there might be a conflict between two publications and context; I think, probably, in my opinion etc. as well as a direct statement to the effect.

So for example, the Bible Dictionary, though published by the Church, is not doctrine because it says so in it's own introduction.

This is the way it's been for decades and anyone who tells you any different, be they Momron or antiMomorm, might be ignorant but might likely have an agenda that doesn't work in reality because it assumes doctrine where there isn't doctrine.

A concise statement by the Church was given recently here:

http://newsroom.LDS.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

However, anyone who has taken a teacher preparation course, or served a mission or in leadership knows these things.

cambreckenridge,

bcspace is the resident expert on this topic. To save you the trouble of researching bcspace's massive amounts of posting and extensive expertise on this topic, let me boil it all down for you.

The latest Ensign issue (and only the latest Ensign issue) can always be counted on to be official Mormon doctrine. As to all the rest, context is very important. For example, is this a conversation in the Chapel lobby or among apologist on the internet?

Official doctrine is just an apologetic invention. All there is, is doctrine, which is what a church teaches and practices. Doctrine can and has changed in the LDS church and will continue to do so. The church has no list of what is current doctrine so you will have to go by what you can find taught and practices by the church. An example is the Adam God theory. This was doctrine during BY's time, but has since been abandoned and even taught as wrong, so in not considered current doctrine.

The latest Ensign issue (and only the latest Ensign issue) can always be counted on to be official Mormon doctrine

That would not be the case as I clearly explained above.

As to all the rest, context is very important. For example, is this a conversation in the Chapel lobby or among apologist on the internet?

Neither of which would be considered doctrine unless published by the Church. It's not unreasonable to ask an "apologist" or any other member of the Church if this or that is doctrine. But if you want to verify and be sure, such must be found in an official publication.

Official doctrine is just an apologetic invention.

You just expressed the concept of official doctrine and what it is in your next phrase

All there is, is doctrine, which is what a church teaches and practices.

That's right. Notice that it's the church, not necessarily any one member of it.

Doctrine can and has changed in the LDS church and will continue to do so.

Yes, but I think most LDS critics would be hard pressed to name one.

The church has no list of what is current doctrine so you will have to go by what you can find taught and practices by the church.

Official publications yes. Even common sense dictates that this is the case without the Church's own statements.

An example is the Adam God theory. This was doctrine during BY's time, but has since been abandoned and even taught as wrong, so in not considered current doctrine.

Completely incorrect. In addition, BY taught Adam Sr/Jr, not any sort of Adam-God. Never was doctrine though by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course the age of the one you are talking to is important - were they TBM's from the 30's, 50's? 70's etc.

I gather bc is a gen x'er - and of course, no doctrine is good doctrine (safer doctrine anyway)

bcspace wrote: In addition, BY taught Adam Sr/Jr, not any sort of Adam-God. Never was doctrine though by any stretch of the imagination.

Can you provide a reference where BY clearly shows he is using Adam as two different individuals?

bcspace wrote:You just expressed the concept of official doctrine and what it is in your next phrase

I said what was doctrine, official is just an unnecessary addition with no meaning.

Yes, but I think most LDS critics would be hard pressed to name one.

Adam/God

Official publications yes. Even common sense dictates that this is the case without the Church's own statements.

This is not a list.

Completely incorrect. In addition, BY taught Adam Sr/Jr, not any sort of Adam-God. Never was doctrine though by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course it was doctrine, BY taught it multiple times. It's been published so deny all you want, it wont change anything.

80's earily 90's - Adam God was still the "meat" doctrine - to those who had sought it out. Of course this was pre-internet when the pearls had not yet been tossed into the pig pen.

And of course correlection cememted the fact that there would never again be any difference between the milk and the meat.