Do (LDS) prophets have any value

[_bcspace]

4. Do seers/prophets know what is correct and what is incorrect?

Only as it relates to what the Lord is telling them. Otherwise, they are entitle to their opinion.

The problem is that LDS Prophets also have a fundamentally difficult time distinguishing between their own opinion and what the Lord is telling them.

If they can't distinguish between the two, how can others?

Are LDS Prophets also entitled to their opinion as to whether they are getting revelation from God?

Also, bc space, I'm wondering, what's the decision rule for determining whether a prophet is speaking his opinion or relating what the Lord is telling him?

The way to know has been around from nearly the beginning. The first principle is D&C 107 in which we see that the FP and Qo12 have equal authority. The implication is that both bodies must agree on doctrine.

LDS doctrine and policy on this matter has been around since I've been cognizant of the matter (30+ years) and has recently been reiterated by the Church.....

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
Approaching Mormon Doctrine 4 May 2007

In other words, you know for sure if what a prophet or apostle speaks is doctrine when it is found published in an official work of the Church. Minor caveats would be "of latest date" and "presentation". For example, the LDS Edition Bible Dictionary, even though published by the Church, is not doctrinal beause it says so itself in it's own introduction.

This has always been the teaching for as long as I can remember stemming out of the CHI book 2, missionary directives, teacher preparation classes etc. And then there is that pesky (for exmo theories on doctrine) D&C 107......

[_John Larsen]

In other words, you know for sure if what a prophet or apostle speaks is doctrine when it is found published in an official work of the Church. Minor caveats would be "of latest date" and "presentation". For example, the LDS Edition Bible Dictionary, even though published by the Church, is not doctrinal beause it says so itself in it's own introduction.

This has always been the teaching for as long as I can remember stemming out of the CHI book 2, missionary directives, teacher preparation classes etc. And then there is that pesky (for exmo theories on doctrine) D&C 107......

That is a B.S. answer and you know it. If that is true, then the temple is not doctrinal.

[_bcspace]

That is a B.S. answer and you know it.

You don't have a prayer of communicating with LDS people in any meaningful way unless you accept what their own Church has stated about what is and is not doctrine.

If that is true, then the temple is not doctrinal.

The ceremony is not officially published? Have you ever been a temple worker? Esotericism is not a factor here.

[_Jason Bourne]

4. Do seers/prophets know what is correct and what is incorrect?

Only as it relates to what the Lord is telling them. Otherwise, they are entitle to their opinion.

The problem is that LDS Prophets also have a fundamentally difficult time distinguishing between their own opinion and what the Lord is telling them.

If they can't distinguish between the two, how can others?

Are LDS Prophets also entitled to their opinion as to whether they are getting revelation from God?

Also, bc space, I'm wondering, what's the decision rule for determining whether a prophet is speaking his opinion or relating what the Lord is telling him?

The way to know has been around from nearly the beginning. The first principle is D&C 107 in which we see that the FP and Qo12 have equal authority. The implication is that both bodies must agree on doctrine.

LDS doctrine and policy on this matter has been around since I've been cognizant of the matter (30+ years) and has recently been reiterated by the Church.....

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
Approaching Mormon Doctrine 4 May 2007

In other words, you know for sure if what a prophet or apostle speaks is doctrine when it is found published in an official work of the Church. Minor caveats would be "of latest date" and "presentation". For example, the LDS Edition Bible Dictionary, even though published by the Church, is not doctrinal beause it says so itself in it's own introduction.

This has always been the teaching for as long as I can remember stemming out of the CHI book 2, missionary directives, teacher preparation classes etc. And then there is that pesky (for exmo theories on doctrine) D&C 107......

Does this press release constitute doctrine about doctrine? What authority does it posess?

[_John Larsen]

That is a B.S. answer and you know it.

You don't have a prayer of communicating with LDS people in any meaningful way unless you accept what their own Church has stated about what is and is not doctrine.

Where has the Church stated that?

My point is that the Church is full of all sorts of doctrines that are not published in the standard works and their are doctrines in the standard works that are not accepted. This should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

If that is true, then the temple is not doctrinal.

The ceremony is not officially published? Have you ever been a temple worker? Esotericism is not a factor here.

Define "published". I haven't seen it. I cannot accept secret evidence.

[_bcspace]

You don't have a prayer of communicating with LDS people in any meaningful way unless you accept what their own Church has stated about what is and is not doctrine.

Where has the Church stated that?

It's simple logic since you won't accept where the doctrine comes from.

My point is that the Church is full of all sorts of doctrines that are not published in the standard works

Being in the Standard Works is not a requirement for doctrine.

and their are doctrines in the standard works that are not accepted. This should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

Should be if it were true.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

The ceremony is not officially published? Have you ever been a temple worker? Esotericism is not a factor here.

Define "published". I haven't seen it. I cannot accept secret evidence.

I believe it was Young who had the ceremony written down as they found it was becoming different between the temples... so much for inspiration in the Lords house.

However, your point is valid. The ceremony is not PUBLISHED for the general membership and is not part of their cannon. It is all based on hearsay starting with Joseph Smith.

[_bcspace]

The ceremony is not officially published? Have you ever been a temple worker? Esotericism is not a factor here.

Define "published". I haven't seen it. I cannot accept secret evidence.

It is published in any typical sense of the word. Since it is esoteric, there is no need for you to see it as you are not being asked to accept it.

[_harmony]

[

Being in the Standard Works is not a requirement for doctrine.

That is not the case. Every doctrine must be either in the standard works or tied to them, or it's not doctrine. The standard works are the only canonized (which means accepted by vote of the members) source we have. The rest is all off the cuff and results in things like Adam God.

[_bcspace]

Being in the Standard Works is not a requirement for doctrine.

That is not the case. Every doctrine must be either in the standard works or tied to them, or it's not doctrine. The standard works are the only canonized (which means accepted by vote of the members) source we have. The rest is all off the cuff and results in things like Adam God.

Incorrect. That is not what the Church itself says (and I posted above). You can say doctrine does not conflict with canon but it's not the same thing.