Do (LDS) prophets have any value

[_ludwigm]

Could be I'm misunderstanding you, bcs?? Are you suggesting the definition of "doctrine" to be: any/every thing published in a "manual"?

By the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sure. It's even more than manuals (such as new releases).

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, Chapter 4: Knowing and Honoring the Godhead, p34:

The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church.

Another prophet - now deceased - has said "we don't teach that".

Should we ask the living prophet, the ultimate judge?

[_harmony]

"Manuals" contain history, biography, personal opinons and statements that in my understanding of "doctrine" are anything but??

Could depend on presentation. For example, the Bible Dictionary, though published by the Church, says in it's own introduction that it is not doctrinal. Therefore, the doctrine is the the BD is not doctrinal.

It's like debating with a child. #1. the Bible Dictionary isn't a manual. #2. the Bible Dictionary isn't canonized. #3. How can doctrine not be doctrinal? That is ludicrous.

Could be I'm misunderstanding you, bcs?? Are you suggesting the definition of "doctrine" to be: any/every thing published in a "manual"?

By the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sure. It's even more than manuals (such as new releases). But we can stick with that for now.

That is downright unbelievable, BC. The manuals go through correlation, which means they are all someone's opinion, someone's interpretation. They have not been voted upon by the members, they have not been canonized; they are not doctrine.

News releases are not now and never have been doctrine. Where do you get this stuff?

There is a process by which we claim doctrine. Publishing a news release is not it.

[_bcspace]

By the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sure. It's even more than manuals (such as new releases).

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, Chapter 4: Knowing and Honoring the Godhead, p34:

The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church.
Another prophet - now deceased - has said "we don't teach that".

Should we ask the living prophet, the ultimate judge?

You're taking GBH out of context. It is doctrine. Assume, for the sake of discussion, GBH said that in context, then it would have no effect on LDS doctrine unless all 15 agreed.

Could depend on presentation. For example, the Bible Dictionary, though published by the Church, says in it's own introduction that it is not doctrinal. Therefore, the doctrine is the the BD is not doctrinal.

It's like debating with a child. #1. the Bible Dictionary isn't a manual. #2. the Bible Dictionary isn't canonized. #3. How can doctrine not be doctrinal? That is ludicrous.

Life would be easier for you if you just took words at face value instead of trying to read into them something that isn't there.

By the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sure. It's even more than manuals (such as new releases). But we can stick with that for now.

That is downright unbelievable, BC.

Why? I've just given you the tool by which you can pin down LDS dcotrine.

The manuals go through correlation, which means they are all someone's opinion, someone's interpretation.

Whose interpretation? 2 Peter 1:20-21. Sounds good to me.

They have not been voted upon by the members, they have not been canonized; they are not doctrine.

CFR again.

News releases are not now and never have been doctrine.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that what the Church says is doctrine?

Where do you get this stuff?

From the Church's own statements.

There is a process by which we claim doctrine. Publishing a news release is not it.

CFR on the process. Ever read the CHI book 2? Ever been to teacher preparation? Do you think the Church is lying in the news release I link to in my siggy about what is and is not doctrine?

[_ludwigm]

By the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sure. It's even more than manuals (such as new releases).

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, Chapter 4: Knowing and Honoring the Godhead, p34:

The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church.
Another prophet - now deceased - has said "we don't teach that".

Should we ask the living prophet, the ultimate judge?

You're taking GBH out of context. It is doctrine. Assume, for the sake of discussion, GBH said that in context, then it would have no effect on LDS doctrine unless all 15 agreed.

The context is: the reporter asks something, then comes the direct answer

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?
A: I wouldn't say that. There was a couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

(President Gordon B. Hinckley with Don Lattin, the San Francisco Chronicle religion writer. The article was dated Sunday, April 13, 1997)

and:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.
A: Yeah
Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?
A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

(President Gordon B. Hinckley in Time magazine of August 4, 1997, in an article titled "Kingdom Come," page 56)

When The President of The Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, takes part in an interview, touching important things of the church, then
1. He IS The President, and this is not a private opinion of a simpleton man ("we ask Jack Streetwalker about new hearsays")
2. There is no time to hold a consultation with the other 14


After those above, G. B. Hinckley said the following in the 1997 October General Conference:

"I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church."

It would have been useful, if he said what words were incorrectly quoted and what words were to understand other way.
It would have been useful to force the magazines to rectify - if some words were incorrectly quoted.

[_bcspace]

The context is: the reporter asks something, then comes the direct answer

Yes. Looks to me like he's trying to go a milk before meat route. He's right about the deep theology. Does God the Father have to have been a Savior on another world for example? That get's into exactly what sort of man he was for which we don't have the answer. I think he could've stated it better, but there is no conflict here.

When The President of The Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, takes part in an interview, touching important things of the church, then
1. He IS The President, and this is not a private opinion of a simpleton man ("we ask Jack Streetwalker about new hearsays")
2. There is no time to hold a consultation with the other 14

Indeed. But he is a man nonetheless. That is why if there is a question, you can always peruse the official publications.

It would have been useful, if he said what words were incorrectly quoted and what words were to understand other way.
It would have been useful to force the magazines to rectify - if some words were incorrectly quoted.

It would be helpful if 'critics' simply followed the Church's own rules for what is and is not doctrine. That God was once a mortal man is clearly stated as doctrine. However, because there usually is some motivation/agenda other than finding the truth, I seriously doubt very many of our critics will ever be intellectually honest about it.