Close Topic Options

What Is "Official" LDS Doctrine? - Page 3

I think you have a very good point here. In my opinion, though the living prophet speaks in his official capacity doesn't mean he will never be influenced by his own thoughts. But as you say, the four standard works are the measuring sticks...

EJ

Doctrine LDS quotOfficialquot What

I disagree that the Manifesto is not doctrine. It was an official declaration like the revelation on the priesthood (1978). It was a revelation canceling the practice of plural marriage. It is part of the Doctrine and Covenants and is therefore part of the Standard works.

What Is "Official" LDS Doctrine? Studies Doctrine Mormon

Emme:

Then you find what the Church said officially is odd because that's what they said. (Quote provided)

From reading and studying the counsels of our leaders (as the quote you provided states) to them being DOCTRINE of our Church there is a HUGE space in between. A lot of leaders give INSPIRED counsel constantly, but they are not necessarily doctrine. Not every single word that comes from the mouth of the Prophet or a GA is doctrine.

What about these quotes I provided then?

For me, is just a matter of common sense. Not every word that comes out of the mouth of Pres. Hinckley is necessary Scripture.

Kokobim:

Do you consider the "Excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff" PART of the Manifesto?

Page 3 Doctrine LDS quotOfficialquot What

I consider the "excerpts from three addresses" explanatory notes for the Manifesto showing its background, since so many "fundies" (fundamentalists) try to claim that it is not a revelation, but was just something politically expedient for Wilford Woodruff to have done. The excerpts from those addresses show that there was indeed a revelation behind the Manifesto. The text of the Manifesto itself is what is "doctrine." And it is binding since anybody is "ex-ed" for attempting to practice plural marriage when those who have the keys for performing them have withdrawn the authorization from the Church to perform such marriages.

Doctrine LDS quotOfficialquot What

Actually, I agree with you. The Manifesto IS doctrine. The question is whether or not it comes from God, or is the action of men who wanted to become more acceptable to the World.

You are right, it is an "Official Declaration." That doesn't make it a revelation, nor scripture. Yes, it was used to end the practice of plural marriage. However, after its publication, President Woodruff promoted the continued practice of plural marriage, as did Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith. President Smith actually entered into an additional marriage after the Manifesto.

But this leads into a much more important, more interesting discussion.

If the words of the Prophets, especially at conference time, are to be considered scripture, then the words and actions of Heber J. Grant and all subsequent Prophets have been clearly and unmistakably in opposition to previous scripture. And, it wasn't until AFTER the Manifesto that we first hear about the idea that the Prophets can not be led astray, or that they can't lead the Church astray. It wasn't until AFTER the Manifesto that Prophets could contradict former Prophets.

So, let's look at a couple of facts.

The last Prophet to claim a clear, unmistakable "vision" revelation was Joseph F. Smith. President Grant, following President Smith in office, publicly stated that the heavens were as brass above his head - clarifying that he was not receiving revelation at that time.

The last Prophet to have made ANY sort of claim as to meeting the Saviour personally, was President Snow. He had spent HOURS in the Holy of Holies, praying for a manifestation of some sort that his work and ministry was acceptable to the Lord. However, he never received that acceptance. Of course, the Holy of Holies is considered the "official" place of revelation, the place where the President of the Church is clearly and unmistakably acting in his leadership role as Prophet.

When President Snow left the Holy of Holies, Jesus Christ appeared before him. Why did Jesus wait until AFTER he left the Holy of Holies? Why did President Snow NOT publish to the Church what the Saviour said to him? Could it be that Jesus very clearly and fully accepted the work and efforts of the man - Lorenzo Snow - but wasn't so happy with the work and efforts of the Church?

Why was the "Manifesto" not enforced until the 1930's, after President Grant was firmly established, and all polygamist Apostles had died? Why have NONE of the Prophets who have NOT lived the Principle while in office reported a clear and unmistakable visionary revelation? Could it be that the Manifesto is the visible symptom of something not right? After all, the Manifesto, and all that has come from it is in direct contradiction with teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith. Every one of them said, more than once, that if the Church gave up the Principle of Celestial Plural Marriage, it would be in apostasy, and would become just like the World.

One more quick point, then I will retreat to silence again.

It was not a revelation. There is no claim, anywhere, that Wilford Woodruff said it was a revelation. He said that it came AFTER he received a revelation. That revelation he DID receive showed what would happen to the Church. What he never explained was whether what he saw in the vision was because of the Principle, or if it was because the Saints had already apostatized in rejecting the Principle, and refused to allow the Lord to fight the battle for them.

Disclaimer: I am not a fundamentalist. Think what you may, but I am not.

What Is "Official" LDS Doctrine?

Nighthawk:

Not according to what the Church published in their web site just a couple of months ago:

(Check page 1 within this thread)

That's my whole point with the Manifesto. The "declaration" itself is doctrine and binding but right after they have the "Excerpts of three addresses" making it look like is PART of the Manifesto but is not since it was added in the 1981 edition of the Scriptures and it wasn't presented for vote, interesting enough it is within those addresses that Pres. Woodruff talks about the idea of the Prophets not able to lead the Church astray. Why we keep talking about it as it is doctrinal when clearly is not?

What "Official" LDS Doctrine - Page 3

There is a Thread in the LDS Mature Section called, "The Prophet Said So..." which it is easy for this Topic to duplicate. This Thread is mostly about the actual PR output about the Standard Works being the source of OFFICIAL Church Doctrine given in the first Post.

What "Official" LDS Doctrine Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 3

I was just thinking. If we usually hear that the words of the Modern-Day Prophets have more "weight" than the Standard Works, how is the recent statement by the Church (which I placed in page 2) relevant? IF the word of a Prophets have more "weight"...does it mean that the Prophet can give a doctrine that is contrary with the Standard Works?