Close Topic Options

What Is "Official" LDS Doctrine? - Page 7

Name: Michael
Country:

Title: Official Doctrine

Comments:

Wilford Woodruff testified that it came from God, and all living general authorities at the time voted to sustain it, and I have a personal testimony that the suspension of plural marriage was according to the will of the Lord, if not the actual words of the manifesto itself.

One thing that they did NOT want was to lose all the temples of the Church and have all the leaders of the Church thrown into prison, as the Lord had shown to Wilford Woodruff, the living prophet, in vision would happen if they did not suspend the practice of plural marriage when they did. Why did the Lord show that vision to President Woodruff? I have a personal testimony that He knew that if He showed President Woodruff what would happen if he did not suspend the practice of plural marriage, then President Woodruff would take the appropriate action.

No, but as President Woodruff testified at the time, it was based upon revelation received by President Woodruff, just as Official Declaration 2 is not the actual revelation but is based upon a revelation that had been received earlier by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. The Lord had shown to President Woodruff in a vision what would happen if the Church continued to practice plural marriage, and President Woodruff took the action that the Lord knew he would take as a consequence of being shown that vision.

Actually, they did not "Promote" the continued practice of plural marriage, but they did authorize some exceptions to the general rule that was applicable to the members of the Church in general, especially in cases where the parties involved indicated that they planned to move to either Mexico or Canada. The fact that there may have been exceptions to the general rule does not invalidate the general rule any more than the fact that the Lord commanded Nephi to say Laban invalidated the general rule, "Thou shalt not kill."

As did Wilford Woodruff, himself. Again, those were exceptions to the general rule. The Lord did not end all plural marriage at once, but gradually, and the evidence is clear that it was His will that it should end, and the end of plural marriage had actually been prophesied by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Daniel H. Wells, and in the Book of Mormon itself.

To say that what is spoken in Conference is scripture is not to say that every word spoken in Conference is scripture. It is a general statement to which there are exceptions. The Lord defined the word "Scripture" for us, when He said:

>From this it is clear that anything spoken under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost is scripture. Thus, while the Standard Works are scripture, there is much scripture that is not contained in the Standard Works, and the two words are not synonymous. That being the case, it is also clear to me that most of what is spoken in Conference is scripture.

Not necessarily. You would have to give us an example before we could properly evaluate that statement.

Actually, Brigham Young had taught the exact same doctrine in slightly different words, and that statement can be found in Wilford Woodruff's Journal. It would appear that President Woodruff, before he made that statement, was very likely going back and perusing his own, personal journals and ran across the statement by Brigham Young, which seemed to fit his situation perfectly, and decided to appropriate the basic idea Brigham Young, and incorporate it into his talk.

Keep in mind that, according to the Prophet Joseph Smith, "A prophet is not always a prophet." That being the case, to contradict a man who had previously held the office of President of the Church does not necessarily mean that you are contradicting an inspired utterance.

Which, it should be pointed out, was after the issuance of both the first and second manifestos. But to say that he was the last one to claim to have seen a vision is NOT to say that he was the last one to actually see one. That would be an argument from lack of evidence and proves nothing. As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It may be that prophets have seen visions that were intended for their own benefit alone and not for the general membership of the Church.

Not necessarily that he was not receiving any revelation at all but that he could not get an answer to the specific question that he was asking. I have had that experience before myself, so I hesitate to find fault with anyone else for something that I have personally experienced.

Again, it should be noted that this was after the Manifesto. Many years ago, I read an account of the Savior appearing to George Albert Smith and personally dictating the words of the dedicatory prayer for the dedication of the Idaho Temple. Again, there may have been others who have not shared that experience with us because the information communicated at that time may have been for benefit of the Prophet personally, and not for the whole Church. It should be noted that even President Snow did not broadcast his experience with the Savior to the whole Church, and the only way we even know about it was because he told his granddaughter about it and she shared it with others. It may be that the other Prophets did not share their personal experiences with their granddaughters, or their granddaughters have not shared them with us. I have heard that the Brethren made the artist who painted the most recent portrait of the Savior make a series of changes to the original effort, presumably based upon their knowledge of what He actually looks like.

The Savior is a busy man, okay? This is not even close to the only world that He has created. He has created "Worlds without number." I think that we can cut Him a little slack for being a couple of minutes late, but at least He caught President Snow before he actually left the temple.

Again, the information was obviously for him alone, and not for the whole Church. In fact, from what his granddaughter said, the Savior simply told him to go immediately forward with the reorganization of the First Presidency and not to wait as previous presidents had done. That was obviously information that President Snow needed that did not necessarily need to be broadcast to the whole Church.

Absolutely! They weren't paying their tithing. When the ati-polygamy legislation was passed, the government started taking all the Church tithing monies, and the members didn't feel much like paying their tithing to the government, so President Snow had to start preaching the principle of tithing to them to get them to start paying their tithing again. That's the revelation that the Savior gave President Snow for the Church.

Because none of the Brethren ever felt that the Manifesto meant that polygamists should abandon their plural wives that they had married before the Manifesto, so they waited until they had all died before deciding to enforce the Manifesto.

Because the visions that they receive are for them alone, just as the one that I received was for me alone, and not for the general membership of the Church. Why did neither Brigham Young nor John Taylor ever report a clear and unmistakeable visionary revelation?

Could it be that the Manifesto was a fulfillment of prophecies of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Daniel H. Wells, and the Book of Mormon to the effect that the time would come when the Lord would suspend the practice of polygamy?

I'm sorry. I'm just not buying that. Please provide the quotes, if you can.

Promise?

This is strange. On the one hand, you claim that "The Saints had already apostatized in rejecting the Principle," and on the other hand the government was persecuting them for practicing it? Which was it? Were they practicing it or not? And exactly when did they reject it?

The reason for the disclaimer is because even you know that you sound like one. You are using arguments that they have been using for years.

Message Edited...
Persephone: Note, the Guest facility is not meant for constant Posting, if you wish to contribute to many of the Topics please consider creating an account to do so at your leisure.

Doctrine LDS quotOfficialquot What

Chief Mod,

This is a very old post but based on your comment I would like to ask a question. If as you say "measuring sticks are the Scriptures" and Paul indicates in 1 Corinth 11:5 that women should pray with their heads covered or (1 Corinth 14:34) that women should keep silent in church and Joseph Smith or Thomas S. Monson indicates it's okay for women to do both should we reject what Joseph Smith and Thomas S. Monson say because it is contrary to what Paul says?

What Is "Official" LDS Doctrine? Studies Doctrine Mormon

Related to this Topic: The Prophet said so, is that enough? (Former LDS Mature Topic).

Page 7 Doctrine LDS quotOfficialquot What

Michael, perhaps we should ask President Joseph Fielding Smith who coined the term:

However, going back to your particular question I look into it through a historical perspective as well as tradition. At the time of Paul, it was part of their culture and tradition for women to wear a hair covering and the same applies with regards to teaching. And yes, we could probably entered into a discussion to debate what exactly of Paul's teachings were actually written by him and not by later anti-feminist Christians but that's for another thread.

Doctrine LDS quotOfficialquot What

I"m not disagreeing with the premise, only the application. Not only do I not believe in the infallibility of modern prophets but I do not believe in the infallibility of ancient prophets (I.e. Scriptures). Anyone who has spent much time in the Old Testament will see many contradictions in teachings and practices. As you clearly allow that our accepted canon may have been hijacked by "anti-feminist Christians" so the possibility exists that part of our cannon went through the hands of the "Great and Abominable Church" and contains things that are not true. Even in the Book of Mormon 'the most correct of any book on earth" Moroni allows for the "mistakes of men". I guess my point really is that although we look to the scriptures and compare what is taught there to what is taught by modern prophets and apostles we also have to follow J. Reuben Clark's counsel when reading and discerning truth in the scriptures and make sure that "we, ourselves, are "moved by the Holy Ghost,"" then we know that the doctrines we are reading are true doctrine. "In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us." I do believe in absolute truth and true doctrine but I am not sure how much of that has been revealed. The Lord reveals to us what he wants us to know so that we make the very best use of our mortal experience. This is clearly illustrated in Doctrine and Covenants section 19 where the Lord discusses eternal punishment. He uses language to impress people to not commit sin knowing full well that people would misinterpret His words to their own benefit. I have often wondered how many other teachings fall into the same category. The bottom line is Doctrine even that is accepted as absolute today has the possibility of being changed by God through prophets and it is our responsibility through the Holy Ghost and prayer to determine what is true and what is not. In my mind we shouldn't be surprised or disturbed when it does, we just need to make sure we are in a place spiritually where we can discern between truth and error.

What Is "Official" LDS Doctrine?

Name: Freddy
Country:

Comments:

The standard works is the official doctrine and the name says it all - it is the standard. Everything we delve into has to first be based on a standard, if its not then it can't live up to that standard. Therefore the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon make up the the official doctrine of the church.

What "Official" LDS Doctrine - Page 7

Is not Adam or Michael's involvement in the creation doctrine which is enumerated in the temple ordinances but nowhere in the Standard works? Are not the covenants and ordinances of the temple not enumerated in the standard works nonetheless doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? The Standard Works were the Standard works before the revelation on the priesthood which the cynic could point out were not only not in the Standard Works but appear to be contrary to statements in the Pearl of Great Price relative to Cain's seed being cursed as to the priesthood. Even if we do accept that doctrine is contained in the Standard Works do we not also accept that, "we believe that God we yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" which would presuppose that doctrine contained in the Standard Works is only contained as far as it has been revealed?