May be old question in general, but

[_cambreckenridge]

Thank you for responding. Really.

(Again, feel free to ignore my lengthy, posts entirely. Won't bother me to be ignored, only unjustly attacked. Let me say that I tend to get really wordy because I try to be accurate & specific in expressing the specific content & range of what I'm talking about, hoping to avoid things being read into my words that would expand and complicate what I ask about. I apologize for the room & time it takes, per post, but it saves back and forth q & a further down the road, I think. I've never taken a teacher preparation course or served a mission or been in a leadership position. Low level church jobs, yes, and those quite some time ago. My attendance at church died out back in the '90s, although not for spiritual, personal testimony reasons toward the gospel in general. I've always kept a spirituality and belief in the basics. I've not been so successful with Church activities or members, though, so I withdrew from them knowing that unless I could lower my frustration level drastically, I'd only make things worse inside myself by regular exposure to them. I still have regular contact with 2 or 3 ward members who were once either home teachers or class teachers I had.

For the past few months I've been reading & re-reading the Book of Mormon, several old classroom guides, church magazines, speeches, etc. I've got questions I've never thought about asking before, & some of them deal with pretty fundamental concepts (the slavery/Brigham Young question isn't the most important, although being able to explain doctrine v speculation to non-LDS and to myself is a key issue). I haven't found answers in what I've read so far, I've found no help in advice I've been given such as "talk to the missionaries, they know all the basics you need," or "discuss it with your bishop," because the missionaries and my bishop told me they don't have answers for my questions.

So I'm looking around the 'net for discussion sites where I might find pointers to the answers for the 3 or 4 concepts I need help with concerning my church, the LDS church. That's how I landed here. And my post might seem to be 'all over the place' in focus, but only when one thing links directly to another (at least inside my mind), and I think I'll leave gaps if I don't cover it.

I've had years of experience in historical research, so for my own sake, I've read loads of academic & spiritual stuff dealing with many basic concepts that LDS share with nearly all religions all through time & place. That input increased the testimonies I have of many LDS doctrines. Very much. It was eye opening to find so many LDS ideas confirmed & shared by other religions & scholars that I once thought were unique to us.

So...

I appreciate the pointer to the 2007 statement about doctrine. It is helpful, but it leaves miles of unexplained gray areas from past years. It's not enough to help me or any non-LDS understand Pres. Young's words on what the official position of the church was on slavery, nor does it account for the change from Joseph Smith's views to Brigham Young's actions.

I understand the 2007 statement when it says the First Presidency & Quorum of the Twelve work together to establish "doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications," and "official declarations and proclamations." That helps with the most modern words from those 2 bodies since the amount that come from those 2 sources is really pretty limited , assuming I'm right in thinking that Deseret Books, although owned by the holding company that the church owns, isn't "official" in its publications, and that BYU speeches are published by BYU, not "The Church" officially - right?
but the statement doesn't claim to be retroactive back into Young's day when church publishing & publications existed in a very different situation.

The part that says, "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," is the closest it comes to my question about Brigham Young's statement to Greeley, but because his statement was a response to what the position of "The Church" was, he must have intended it to mean that his words were the "Official" position of "The Church."

I have no idea if the church itself published a copy of Greeley's interview with Pres. Young, I don't know if the SLC newspaper at that time was a church publication, or what was a church publication back then. I've not found anything truly 'official' contradicting him until Pres. Kimball.

Personally, I've heard many people - and this has been my practice overall - say that Brigham Young was the right man to lead the saints west. Leave it at that and use other prophets for actual teachings & doctrine, that no one is perfect & his shortcomings might well have included an opinionated, egotistical, know-it-all personality but we all make mistakes.

As a lifelong LDS, I can actually understand that, odd as it sounds, but it's a lame excuse for 120 years of bigotry and pain, and also confusion among people as to what the heck we should believe when a prophet speaks, for all intents and purposes from his own definitions, officially for the church, as in the Greeley / Young interview case.

Heck, I had no clue that slavery was even allowed, much less approved of, among LDS in Nauvoo or Missouri or in Utah until I was in my late 30s when I read an article in one of the historical journals my workplace subscribed to.

Anyway, the statement is 'the' starting point for me from now on, but not for all the years of teachings my parents & grandparents either valued & treasured or questioned and semi-kinda-guiltily rejected in passing knowledge on to me.

Cam,

who really can testify with no qualms at all about the existence of a loving Godhead, an afterlife, of real purpose & meaning in our existence, in our relationships with God & with Christ, in the inspirational source of scripture, of the huge very real value of prayer on so many levels, and who has questions but no desire to dismiss or leave the gospel or the church.

[_Quasimodo]

The part that says, "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," is the closest it comes to my question about Brigham Young's statement to Greeley, but because his statement was a response to what the position of "The Church" was, he must have intended it to mean that his words were the "Official" position of "The Church."

In 1859 Brigham Young WAS the church. He ruled as President, Prophet and (as much as possible) King. The LDS church, as it exists today, is Brigham's creation.

He led the faithful west and created his own world in a wilderness where no one could dispute his authority. Other members of Joseph's religion stayed and formed their own churches. Mostly because they didn't find Brigham Young worthy to lead.

That is the history. Explore it and see where it takes you!

Welcome to the board!

[_cambreckenridge]

In 1859 Brigham Young WAS the church. He ruled as President, Prophet and (as much as possible) King. The LDS church, as it exists today, is Brigham's creation.

He led the faithful west and created his own world in a wilderness where no one could dispute his authority. Other members of Joseph's religion stayed and formed their own churches. Mostly because they didn't find Brigham Young worthy to lead.

That is the history. Explore it and see where it takes you!

Welcome to the board![/quote]

Yep, I know things under Pres Young were like that. The other churches that broke off after Joseph Smith died don't seem to have gotten much right, at least their 'fruits' don't show much to indicate that they did. Certainly, the SLC LDS church fits the descriptions of the saints in our day to whom many of the B of M warnings speak to. (kinda funny, kinda not at all funny)

The latter 19th century, especially Pres Young, contains so many things that can't be dismissed by 'the current prophet's comments outweigh any past ones' guideline. I'd like to find a clear, reasonable, authoritative explanation to help LDS and non-LDS understand why & how solid, firm statements made then could stand for 120 years, then be determined to be totally & painfully wrong.

Non-LDS people have no way of knowing what statements have been published by the church & are, therefore, doctrinal. They're the ones who see things like Pres Hinckley on 60 Minutes, or news articles, magazine articles, etc., & figure those interviews & statements are fact. I guess we're free to ignore everything Pres Hinckley said on 60 Minutes because the church itself hasn't published it? I don't know if the church could publish it, if 60 Minutes owns the copyright. So how do I tell a non-LDS that I'm not bound by anything our prophet says on national television? For a 'missionary church,' the policy on official doctrine as laid out in the policy statement doesn't serve investigators (or inactive but looking to become active again) or LDS members.

as vinnie barbarino always said 'i'm so confused'

Cam

[_basilII]

There is always this tension in LDS belief. On the one hand there is the claim to be the mouthpiece of God, to have the pure version of Christianity directly from modern revelation. Clarity and simplicity on which one can build his/her spiritual life. On the other hand there is the acknowledgement of continuing revelation which in theory could be mean that beliefs (perhaps even fundamental beliefs) are subject to change when new revelation is received. The ground can always shift beneath us if the current prophet feels that he has new knowledge from God. I suppose one could fall back on verifying new doctrines by personal revelation, but that does put a significant burden on one's own spiritual capacity and discernment. And following personal revelation wherever it may lead has taken some far from the LDS mainstream.

By the way, does anyone remember that quote of Joseph Smith about not being constrained by creeds and dogmas, about being able to believe anything he chose?

[_basilII]

Would the LDS benefit from having something like this, one document that people can be pointed towards who have questions about official LDS doctrine and practices?

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.shtml

What would be the advantages and disadvantages of an official document such as this from a LDS perspective?

[_Inconceivable]

I guess we're free to ignore everything Pres Hinckley said on 60 Minutes because the church itself hasn't published it?
Cam

If you can't take the words of the official prophet, seer and revelator at face value when he is representing the church, who can speak for the church?

It appears to me that every doctrine has at least some components that are evolving. Not because the church is not ready for it, but because the shifting is in the best interest of those that govern it.

The best example I can think of is polygamy. It suited those that governed the church even though the body of the church was never prepared or even comfortable with it.

Another would be the word of wisdom. It was not official (enforceable)church doctrine until those that governed were compelled to comply with a portion of it (due to Prohibition in the early 1900's.).

[_stemelbow]

In truth LDS have continued to work on refining the doctrine. I suppose that means things change. I suppose that means ideas of the past are consisdered uninformed speculation these days. Its just how it is. its kinda nice in a way. We're free and open to consider new insights and figure out ways to incorporate those into our beliefs. Many people define LDS teaching as not being systematic theology. Systematic theology "is a discipline of Christian theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology). I suppose that it fits that we aren't exactly the faith that practices that discipline. It makes for a fairly fluid system, although there is the dogmatic hardline element, and it just feels right with the teaching that we accept truths whereever we find them, and expect to see future revelation that adds to and supplements our understanding.

With that, i'm not exactly sure what you are asking so I don't know if I provided any help at all. I can only hope.

[_Buffalo]

The church has no doctrine.

[_cambreckenridge]

Would the LDS benefit from having something like this, one document that people can be pointed towards who have questions about official LDS doctrine and practices?

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.shtml

What would be the advantages and disadvantages of an official document such as this from a LDS perspective?

I'm not sure that anything that detailed could ever be written out & agreed upon by LDS authorities. It would be made even more difficult by the concept of ongoing revelation making adjustments to past revelations.

I'd be happy getting a usable explanation for past statements of Church position (like the BY/Slavery one) better than 'oh, well, he was wrong - let's move on.' If I were an investigator, I'd run & run quickly away from that, and that's all I've found so far.

[_Darth J]

The Church has no official position on whether Joseph Smith was a prophet.