Conference tecrus::mormonism

================================================================================
Note 188.40               "The God Makers" book & film                  40 of 43
DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV                                 34 lines  10-FEB-1989 14:59
                         -< Might still be the goal! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi!
    
    I've got to get into this one!  Even though the concept of
    "Eternally Pregnant doesn't appear  to be taught scriptually
    it has played a part in the teachings of the church in the
    past.  Orson Pratt stated in "The Seer" in his discourse on
    the pre-existance the following; I start off at page 38 sec.31
    "If we admit that one personage was the father of this great family,
    and that they were all born of the same mother, the period of time
    intervening between the birth of the oldest and youngest spirit
    must of been immense. If we suppose, as an average, that only 1
    year intervened between each birth, then it must of required,
    over one hundred thousand million years for the same mother to have
    given birth to this same family"....he goes on to give a dissertation
    on the length of term of pregnancy in the celestial realm, states
    that the term probably is similar to here on earth,etc.  One way,
    he states that the Father of these spirits could have shortened this time
    frame, is through the taking of many wives through the everlasting
    covenant of marriage..... You see, it's difficult for us to deal
    today with many of the early teachings of the church when opponents
    of the church use our very words and concepts that we once taught.
    One of the reasons of plural marriage may have been to populate
    worlds in a shorter time span.  But then, what's time when we are
    talking eternity...  I just wanted to demonstrate that even though
    today we try to explain away these "misconceptions", it is implied
    by what we have taught.  Orson Pratt was charged with the respon-
    sibily of carrying the word to the world in his day by the Prophet.
    Even though today, we don't ever read any of his works, the enemies
    of the church sure do and never miss a beat when it comes to 
    criticism.  So, why did Decker and Hunt present that concept of
    being "Eternally Pregnant"? simple, it was implied in our early
    teachings! 
    
    Kevin

================================================================================
Note 188.41               "The God Makers" book & film                  41 of 43
CLIMB::LEIGH "Blessed are the peacemakers;"          24 lines  10-FEB-1989 16:25
                              -< a goal? no way! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin,

>    it has played a part in the teachings of the church in the
>    past.

>    it was implied in our early teachings! 

Any Mormon is free to speculate about anything, Orson Pratt included.  However,
his speculations do not constitute church teachings or doctrine.  The reason
why his speculations do not constitute church teachings was given by John
Taylor (for the benefit of the non-LDS, John Taylor was the President of the
Church after Brigham Young).  President Taylor said that the church is not
accountable for the statements of any elder; it is only accountable for the
statements of the standard works.  Any elder, whether he be you, me, our
Bishops, our Stake Presidents, or Ezra Taft Benson can say anything he wants,
and it is not church doctrine unless the statement is verified by our standard
works!  The one exception to this is if Ezra Taft Benson gives new doctrine as
Prophet of the Church, as for example when the Priesthood was given to all
worthy men. 

People who oppose the church frequently try and pin statements from individual
Mormons on the church as doctrine, but they are incorrect.

Allen

================================================================================
Note 188.42               "The God Makers" book & film                  42 of 43
RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                       10 lines  10-FEB-1989 19:46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re: Note 188.41 by CLIMB::LEIGH

>The one exception to this is if Ezra Taft Benson gives new doctrine as
>Prophet of the Church, as for example when the Priesthood was given to all
>worthy men. 

    Which, by the way is the way that revelations are added to the standard
    works, and the body of scripture is increased.
    
    Rich

================================================================================
Note 188.43               "The God Makers" book & film                  43 of 43
DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV                                 56 lines  13-FEB-1989 15:57
                   -< In defense of an Apostle of the Lord >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    Hi,
    
    Let us  bring the temple ceremonies into the conversation
    for a moment. Are the ceremonies considered as part of the doctrine
    of the church? I believe that there are doctrines, practises,
    beliefs, whatever you want to call them that are utilized to
    demonstrate, to educate us that are not explicitly contained in
    scripture as such. In a technical sense, they are not doctrine.
    However, they are considered as revealed truth. By the definition
    of doctrine that you are presenting, there has been only a handful
    of revelations received in the past 100 years or so.(as pertaining
    to the entire church).  Given the earlier statement of John Taylor,
    if that statement itself was not submitted and approved as revelation
    then that can be considered as an opinion that may or may not be
    accurate. I submit that there have been a rich abundance of revelations
    that have been recieved over the course of time and the vast majority
    are not revealed at this time. When one looks at the Ensign today
    and reads an article by the 1st Presidency, I see it as being more
    than mere opinions. For me to look at it that way, I could get as 
    much out of the the daily newspaper  But I think what we are grappling
    withis the process that one uses to submit scripture.  I believe that 
    new revealed truths that constitute doctrine do not have to be 
    explicitly entered as scripture. It seems to revolve around the
    definition of what is considered "accepted doctrine." My definition
    may be a bit broader than yours. The early teachings of leaders
    of the Church may not be "doctrine" by our definition, nor by
    John Taylor by his definition, but they were believed then by many,
    including the Prophet of that period.  Maybe we just had alot of
    opinionated leaders then! I do find it dangerous to ignore them
    however.  To do so would deny ourselves of valuable insight into
    the "doctrine" and beliefs of the early leaders of the church.
    When one read some of this early material, the reasons for the
    anti-mormon sentiment becomes clear, at least to me. Regardless
    of whether these early pronouncements were opinions or doctrine,
    the world saw these as a set of beliefs that the saints stood by.
    Today, we find ourselves still explaining them away, or ignoring
    them.  Whether we want to admit it or not, those doctrines, or
    opinions were taught by leaders then, and we can't change that
    fact. I neither defend them or condemn then for it. Their state-
    ments speak for themselves. 
    
     [Kevin's comments about "eternally pregnant" were omitted.  mod]
    
    Kevin
    

Hi Kevin,

>    It seems to revolve around the
>    definition of what is considered "accepted doctrine." My definition
>    may be a bit broader than yours. The early teachings of leaders
>    of the Church may not be "doctrine" by our definition, nor by
>    John Taylor by his definition, but they were believed then by many,
>    including the Prophet of that period.

I think we need to recognize that there is an important distinction between
doctrine of the Church and beliefs accepted by the members.  The Church is an
organization having a specific set of doctrines.  The Church stands by those
doctrines, and it can be criticized for and because of those doctrines.  The
doctrines are given in the canon of LDS Scripture and in any other official
action taken specifically to increase the set of doctrine.  Included in such
official actions would be statements from the First Presidency which are
intended to be the official position of the Church.  This is the way in which
I speak of the teachings and doctrines of the Church, and I think the way that
John Taylor was thinking of.  We also have to recognize that most of the
official pronouncements of the First Presidency are not in giving new doctrine
but are in giving policy clarifications or changes.

Members of the Church may believe certain concepts that are not (from the
above viewpoint) Church doctrine, and we need to recognize that they have
ideas that represent speculation or individual interpretation but
do not represent the doctrine of the Church.  Two examples of this come to
mind.  A number of the General Authorities in Brigham Young's time believed
that Christ was married, and they said so in their sermons which we have
recorded today in the Journal of Discourses.  Even though they were General
Authorities at the time, it seems clear to me that they were speaking their
own ideas and not the official doctrine of the Church, because the Church had
not at that time (or since then, either) made it a doctrine of the Church that
Christ was married.  The second example is the following.  When I was young,
I was taught by my parents that 1/3 of the spirits in the pre-existance were
neutral in the war in heaven and that those spirits became the Negroes.  That
was a common belief in Southern Utah where I lived, but it was not the
doctrine of the Church.


>    When one looks at the Ensign today
>    and reads an article by the 1st Presidency, I see it as being more
>    than mere opinions. For me to look at it that way, I could get as 
>    much out of the the daily newspaper

I agree that the Ensign is much more than the daily newspaper, but I do not
accept the articles by General Authorities as church doctrine.  Almost
everything in the Ensign is (a) policy statements and changes thereof, or
(b) explanations of the doctrines of the Church and counsel to help us
better live the Gospel.  The only examples I can think of of new doctrines
of the Church being given in the Ensign are the new sections added to the
D & C a few years back, and the news release announcing that the Priesthood
would be given to all worthy men.  

I do have friends who believe that *every* statement of a General Authority
is gospel (especially if he is the President), and they accept all articles
in the various church magazines and Church News as the official doctrine of
the Church.  I believe that *every* statement of a General Authority contains
wise counsel that I should prayerfully consider an I plan my life, and I
believe that they pretty much correctly interpret Church doctrines correctly
because they almost always stick to the basic principles.  However, I recognize
that they are individuals with their own backgrounds and experiences.  If I
were to hear them discuss points not found in our canonized scriptures (such
as Christ being married for example), I would recognize that they are
indulging in speculation and it wouldn't bother me; my friends would be
obligated by their attitude to accept such speculation as official teachings
of the church.


>    opinionated leaders then! I do find it dangerous to ignore them
>    however.  To do so would deny ourselves of valuable insight into
>    the "doctrine" and beliefs of the early leaders of the church.

I agree that we should not ignore the teachings of past General Authorities,
but we need to recognize when they are speaking for the church and when they
are speaking their own ideas.  As far as I can tell, Orson Pratt was speaking
his own ideas when he speculated about pregnancy in Heaven.  It doesn't make
any difference whether many other Saints of that time agreed with him or not.
The ideas he advocated about that subject are not in the scriptures, and have
never been adopted by the church organization as doctrine.  To state that
such statements do represent the teachings of the Church is doing, I think,
both the Church and Orson Pratt a disservice.  I think we need to be a bit
more precise in our thinking and differentiate between church teachings and
beliefs held by members of the church, for they are not necessarily the same.


>    When one read some of this early material, the reasons for the
>    anti-mormon sentiment becomes clear, at least to me. Regardless
>    of whether these early pronouncements were opinions or doctrine,
>    the world saw these as a set of beliefs that the saints stood by.

The anti-Mormon literature is fond of taking speculative statements from
church leaders and presenting the statements as official doctrine of the
church.  They always have and probably always will, and in so doing they
are violating principles of historical context.  They do this, because they
recognize that early leaders did hold beliefs not part of the doctrine of the
church, and the anti-Mormons point to such differences as examples (in
their mind) of our leaders being false teachers, or examples of the church
going astray.  The anti-Mormons, and perhaps the world in general, seem to
believe that persons claiming to be Apostles and prophets can not have
individual opinions about gospel topics and must always speak the word of
the Lord.


>    Today, we find ourselves still explaining them away, or ignoring
>    them.  Whether we want to admit it or not, those doctrines, or
>    opinions were taught by leaders then, and we can't change that
>    fact. I neither defend them or condemn then for it. Their state-
>    ments speak for themselves. 
    
We only have to "explain away" the speculation of early leaders if we
make the mistake of accepting such statements as church doctrine.  As
long as we recognize such statements as individual beliefs and not those
of the church organization, we have no problem with such statements and
need not fear them or attempt to rationalize them away.  I enjoy reading
the sermons of our early leaders, and it doesn't bother me at all when I
read of their speculations, for I have a reasonably solid background in the
scriptures, church history, and church doctrine, and I think I can tell
when the early leaders were speaking for themselves and when they were
speaking for the Lord.

Allen
    

> The anti-Mormons, and perhaps the world in general, seem to
> believe that persons claiming to be Apostles and prophets can not have
> individual opinions about gospel topics and must always speak the word of
> the Lord.

    I don't have a problem with persons claiming to be Apostles and
    prophets having an opinion about a gospel topic, but I do have a
    problem with someone who has spiritual authority (such as a prophet or
    an Apostle) stating their opinion and then not clearing indicating that
    it is an opinion.  From Scripture, we see that the Apostle Paul had an
    opinion regarding marriage, but he clearly stated that it was just
    that, an opinion.  If Paul had not clarified that he was speaking his
    own mind and not the mind of God, could we not have assumed that he was
    speaking the mind of God? 
    
    How different is it today?  If todays Apostles and prophets speak
    on spiritual matters, and do not clearly state that they are speaking
    only their own opinion, then, according to the example set by Paul,
    we must consider it to be more than just an opinion.

    I think that many times the church leaders *have* indicated that what
    they say is their opinion. For example, as I recall, Bruce R. McConkie
    states in the front of his book, Mormon Doctrine, that his descriptions
    of the doctrines of the church are his own, and do not represent the
    official church position, although I'm sure he has done his best to be
    as accurate as possible. 
    
    Rich

    Roger, I pretty much agree with you.  When I read the words of Church
    leaders I look for tips that what they are saying is truly doctrine.  
    I look for things like, 'thus sayeth the Lord' and for references
    to the Standard Works.  And, I try to check everything out to see if 
    I think it's right, if I feel it's right, if the Spirit bears witness, 
    and so forth.  But, you're right, leaders should be clear about when
    they are speaking doctrine and when they are speculating.  It is
    so easy for this to be misinterpreted.	
    
    Steve

    Re: .5
    
    Just got the chance finally to read these last responses. Without
    getting into a long discourse, I see that in regards to doctrine
    vs opinions, it lies with the individual whether to believe or
    not to believe statements by leaders are doctrine or opinions,
    or wise counsel.  Only through study and prayer can we through
    the Holy Spirit perceive the truthfulness of all things, whether
    it be the Prophet, Apostles, or other General Authorities, past
    or present.  
    
    I would not limit that to just those of this dispensation.  Perhaps
    we might include the doctrine espoused by the Apostle Paul, to 
    give an example.  Was his epistles "official doctrine" or
    opinions?  To me, his was scriptural. It has withstood the "test
    of time" and was pronounced as scriptural by the various councils
    throughout history. However, they started out as counsel to
    the 1st century saints, and through them developed in part our
    present Christian beliefs.  
    
    I see the same tests as applying then as they do now.  If our
    basis of present doctrine is consistancy with existing doctrine,
    then we must look at the early process also, and see what their
    yardstick that they used.
    
    Kevin

    Re: Note 211.10 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV

>   we might include the doctrine espoused by the Apostle Paul, to 
>   give an example.  Was his epistles "official doctrine" or
>   opinions?  

    Some of the things that Paul said seem like they might fall more in the
    realm of opinion, rather than doctrine. For example, consider his
    statements regarding marriage and those about women not teaching in the
    church. Anyway, I have wondered about this before.
    
    Rich

    I have been thinking about the comments and replies entered thus
    far and have continued reading and searching for answers to these
    questions.  I find myself *again* going back to the early writings
    as expressed by the leaders of the church.
    
    I found an interesting discourse spoken by Brigham Young himself
    on church doctrine as to what is and what isn't.  The discourse
    was given on Feb 19, 1854 as a response to "false doctrine" being
    taught by members of the church, the particular doctrine being
    baby resurrections. An Elder Wooley had taught false doctrine
    concerning this subject and B. Young straightened him out on it.
    I will pick up some key sentences here on this, for the discourse
    is rather long... "I will tell the people once and for all, that
    no man lives, or ever did live, that can teach a doctrine except
    he possess the keys of it"; "I tell you again what I have often
    told you in times past, and what every man will tell you who stands
    before the people to preach the truth; unless a man is filled with
    the visions of the eternity, he has no business to meddle with matters
    that pertain to eternity"; "you can teach things you believe, but
    teach them as matters of your individual belief, and not as things
    acknowledged by this people as a church and forming a part of their
    religious faith"; "every man must be responsible for his own belief,
    in as much as it cannot be substantiated by the doctrines and beliefs
    of The Church of God. A belief in a certain principle is one thing,
    and to know it is true is another.  
    
    Brigham Young goes on to reaffirm the Adam-God theory in his discourse,
    closes it by saying that he had silenced some erroneous doctrine
    a year and a half ago by bringing forth this doctrine, and reaffirms
    that , and continues in saying "What has been written, and what
    the Lord is disposed to reveal touching this doctrine is all I ever
    profess to know. A man has no business with it in particular until
    he shall receive the keys to it. He has as much business with it
    as the world has with the Gospel we preach" 
                                               
    I submit that he taught it as Gospel, set it forth as doctrine,
    said that it was revealed by God to him, and warned against ones
    who offer their opinions without the keys to do so. It passes the
    duck test to me, and hasn't been disputed by any Prophet since.
    Question is: has our definition of the word "doctrine changed 
    since then" or has the "doctrine" changed. He indicated that it
    was the revealed word to him and I wasn't there, so I can't dispute
    it.
    
    The topic he chose there isn't in question in this note, just
    the fact that he was clear that he was speaking as one who was
    teaching "doctrine". Don't believe it as doctrine and by my
    reasoning, you deny this particular Prophet *if* you believe
    him as teaching it as such. To me it is clear what his intent was
    here, given the same definition of "Doctrine" as we share today.
                                                                    
    
    Kevin

    
    Something is only the revealed Word of God when it is the revealed
    word of God. The act of a prophet saying something is revealed doesn't
    make it revealed. Perhaps the best test is both the test of time
    (How is the statement regarded years hence?), and the test of
    credibility as measured against the STANDARD works (is it supported
    by, or in conflict with the BODY of scripture--not just a verse
    or two plucked here or there?).
    
    Not all G.A.s are as careful as they should be, or as careful as
    was J. Reuban Clark with respect to taking responsibility for personal
    opinion and seperating it from official statements of doctrine.
    As a consequence, it is sometimes very difficult to "tell the fly
    specks from the pepper" so to speak.
    jpr

    Hi !
    
    Haven't heard from you for a while. Nice to see you are still reading
    the notes in the conference. I have a statement that concerns canonized
    revelation by Geo. Q. Cannon. I'll repeat it verbatim and open it
    up for comments for you all. I think it follows the line of doctrine,
    revelation, etc.; topics we have discussed.
    
    "I have received a very interesting communication from a gentleman
    in Michigan, in which he asks some questions, the answers, to which,
    I think , may be of interest to the readers of the JUVENILE INSTRUCTOR.
    
    He says..."It is alleged by [certain men]... that when Joseph, The
    Seer, gave a revelation it must be tested in this way-- that is,
    it must first be presented to the High Council or the Twelve Apostles,
    for their approval, and then pass down to the next quorum below
    for their approval, and so on down to the deacon's quorums and if
    it pass down to all the quorums of the Priesthood 'without meeting
    a snag,' than it must be taken as true...It is astounding to me
    that when Joseph himself testified  to anything as revelation from
    God, it could not once be credited at once from God without going
    through some ungainly formula... It seems strange in the extreme
    that the anointed prophet of God, who was the only authorized 
    revelator to the Church, ordained and set apart to stand in the
    presence of God, and carry his word from his own mouth to mankind,
    the man who is of all others supposed to know that he is not deceived,
    CANNOT BE SURE THAT HE IS RIGHT until he is tested in this way by
    men who are supposed TO KNOW THE LEAST ABOUT SUCH MATTERS. Surely
    such a process as the above cannot be true. Please if you know
    anything about such a rule, tell me the particulars about it.--
    
    The writers reasoning upon this point seems quite conclusive,
    and would be difficult to state it better than he has stated it.
    It seems nonsensical that the Prophet of God would submit to such
    a test as this, and not deem the revelations he received  authentic
    until they had the approval of the different quorums of the church.
    They were authentic and divinely inspired, whether any man or body
    of men received them or not. Their reception or non-reception of
    them would not affect in the least their divine authenticity. But
    it would be for the people to accept them after God revealed them.
    In this way they have been submitted to the church, to see whether
    the members accept them as binding upon them or not. Joseph himself
    had too high a sense of his prophetic office and the authority he
    received from the Lord to ever submit the revelations which he 
    received to any individual or to any body, however numerous, to
    have them pronounce upon their validity."
                                                             
    
    
    (Juvenile Instructor,Jan 1, 1891, Vol. 26:13-14)
    
    
    I think Pres. Cannon states it better than I ever could. 
                          
    
    Kevin St Thomas
             

I moved Ed's reply from note 55 to this note, because I would like to keep note
55 on the topic of the Adam-god Theory.  Ed has asked an important question
about the Mormon attitude toward their Prophet, and this note is a better
forum for his question.

================================================================================
Note 55.50                     The Adam-god Theory                      50 of 50
CASV01::PRESTON "Better AI than none at all"         14 lines  23-MAR-1989 17:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  �  Perhaps the best discussion of the Adam-God Doctrine in existence
  �  is a doctoral dissertation done in the late 1960s by Rodney Turner,
  �  a member of the religion faculty at BYU. Bro Turner's conclusions
  �  were simply that BY taught a doctrine that was very popular for
  �  a few brief years, but which was discarded as not correct.

  I thought that the head of the Mormon Church was considered a (the)
  chosen prophet, and, as such, is God's messenger to his people and to
  "discard" his teachings as "not correct" is not an option. 

  Please correct me if I'm wrong...

  Ed

    
    I guess what I have trying to say is that not every word which proceeds
    from the mouth of even THE PROPHET constitutes the word of God,
    and we ought to use one h***of a lot more common sense about it
    than we usually do.
    
    We've got almost a fanatic zealousness bordering on a belief in
    the infallibility of the President of the Church. There is an
    incredible amount of information available to us that shows us the
    Prophet is not infallible (whoever he might be at the time) at its
    our job as individual members of the church to sort out the wheat
    from the chaff. There just arn't the guarantees of perfect truth
    dripping from our leaders lips that we want. We have to find out
    for ourselves if what is said is true or not, whether it comes from
    the pulpit at conference, is published in the church periodicals,
    or is scrawled on the bathroom walls at BYU.
    

This note and note 84 are discussing two phases of the same question: Are all
statements from our Church leaders to be considered "the word of God" and thus
Church doctrine.  I decided to bring the two notes together into one discussion.

================================================================================
Note 84.0              How Perfect Do Prophets Have To Be?             3 replies
USMRM7::KOSSLER                                      20 lines   2-MAR-1988 15:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I have moved my reply 18.12 to a new topic, since its content has
    little to do with the gold digging trial. 
    
        RE: < Note 18.11 by DISSRV::LEZAS >
    
        >And a true prophet of God does not lie.
    
    My question is this: Is it necessary to believe that prophets are
    perfect? No one other than Christ himself ever was free of sin.
    Everyone sins. Therefore every prophet who ever lived sinned also.
    Including Joseph Smith. 
    
    As for me, I am grateful to know that even sinners can be used to bring
    forth God's divine plan. Such knowledge gives me hope that I don't have
    to be as sinless as Jesus, try as I might :-), in order to be an
    instrument in God's hands. 
    

    Thanking God for Prophets,
    /kevin

================================================================================
Note 84.1              How Perfect Do Prophets Have To Be?                1 of 3
USMRM7::KOSSLER                                      35 lines   2-MAR-1988 15:40
                             -< More thoughts... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One can find 'evidence' that Joseph Smith was boastful, envious, etc.,
    etc., etc. If it was all true, then with all his faults he'd sound just
    like me. 8^)
    
    In fact, if the record showed that Joseph Smith was an absolutely
    perfect, never-deviating, always-righteous-to-the-nth-degree Saint,
    then I'd know for sure it was all a lie. 

    RE: < Note 18.11 by DISSRV::LEZAS >

      >[The gold digging trial] makes one question Joseph's credibility - 
      >and that's what is
      >the most damaging about this evidence. 

    Anyone who looks into the Church has a right to evaluate Joseph Smith's
    credibility. In fact, everyone who looks into the Church *ought* to
    spend some time evaluating the history, etc. of the Church as well as
    its teachings. Why? Because underneath all the anti-Church rhetoric you
    find that there are many, many plain and precious truths that came
    forth by way of Joseph Smith the Prophet. And *that* is what is
    important. 
    
    I don't believe everything I read, nor should anyone else. Whenever 
    I have had a question or problem with a Church teaching, I have never 
    failed to receive a very satisfying answer upon sufficient study and 
    prayer. 

    I do not worship Joseph Smith. He is not God. I do not expect him 
    to be anything other than a mortal man. All I do expect is that my 
    understanding of the teachings he brought forth can be submitted 
    to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ for a confirming 
    witness from the Holy Ghost.

    In Christ's love,
    /kevin

================================================================================
Note 84.2              How Perfect Do Prophets Have To Be?                2 of 3
CACHE::LEIGH                                         17 lines  17-MAR-1988 07:30
                       -< ... without direct revelation >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brigham Young felt that prophets are individuals and have their own opinions
about religious matters; it is only when they are acted upon by revelation
from God that they come into harmony with eternal truths.  He implied that
prophets are not always guided by revelation and do have differences in
understanding among them.

    Were the Former and Latter Day Saints, with their Apostles, Prophets,
    Seers, and Revelators collected together to discuss this matter [i.e. the
    eternal attributes of Deity], I am led to think there would be found a
    great variety in their views and feelings upon this subject, without
    direct revelation from the Lord.  It is as much my right to differ from
    other men, as it is theirs to differ from me in points of doctrine and
    principle, when our minds cannot at once arrive at the same conclusion.
    I feel it sometimes very difficult indeed to word my thoughts as they
    exist in my own mind, which I presume, is the grand cause of many
    apparent differences in sentiment, which may exist among the Saints.
    (Deseret News, September 7, 1854, p. 1)

I thought I would mention a couple of other notes that are related to this
topic.

Brigham Young said the sun was inhabited by people, and some Church members
claimed that Joseph Smith had said the moon was inhabited.  This is being
discussed in note 82.

There are (in my opinion) some discrepencies in the Book of Jeremiah, and this
is being discussed in note 100.

Allen

    
 re:.15
    
    Ed,
    
    I don't think that we are in a position to declare the pronouncements
    of The prophet as true or not true. As I have pointed out in my
    other notes, it is up to individuals to decide on whether the various
    revelations are of God or not. The church as a whole (membership)
    might reject such a revelation or teaching and it would not affect
    the validity of such one iota. For some to believe that the heavens
    are closed and any new revealed truth might upset the existing order
    (as it applies to existing doctrine) is saying that we have learned
    all we need to and don't need any more. Even when comparing to the
    standard works one must realise that we, as imperfect men, do not
    understand all there is to know, and contradictory doctrine might
    not be so contradictory, if we had more truths revealed.  I agree
    with you but maybe for different reasons.  Yes, prophets are human,
    they make mistakes, they put their pants on one leg at a time, just
    like the rest of us. However, I am not going to judge any pronounce-
    ment as right or wrong until I've tested them through study, and
    prayer. 
    
    As to John's comments, I see your point on the validity of certain
    pronouncements, that are not necessarily scriptural in basis. I
    don't go as far as sitting spellbound, breathlessly awaiting every
    word uttered from the Prophet, yet I try to prayerfully consider
    his discourses, and apply them to me and my families life. I also
    realise that we are given what we can accept and as a collective
    membership, when we are ready for more, we'll be given it. I don't
    think, by what I've seen, that we're ready for it yet. 
    
    Kevin
    
    
    

    re: -1
    
    Ed,
    
    If indeed it is major doctrine it WILL be canonised as was Spencer
    W. Kimball's revelation concerning blacks holding the Priesthood,
    or the inclusion of D&C 138 as scripture.  Also remember that my replies 
    are based on my own observations and may or may not reflect the
    thoughts of others or of the church. I am simply stating from what
    I have read. I feel that Prophets and leaders ARE fallable.
    If we apply the rule that all of their utterances are canon, we are
    in for a rough ride. We have the process, if you will, of approval
    of the quorum of the twelve on revelations presented to them. Once this
    happens, it may be understood as the Word of the Lord. Also revelations 
    need not be canonised. The prophet may direct leaders to make major
    changes, such as the reorganisation of the Seventies, for example.
    Some members have expressed concerns, but personally, I feel that
    these are inspired decisions that the Prophet has the right to make sure
    the Lord's work gets done.
    
    
   Kevin

    
>    Seriously though, what do you (Mormons) consider this statement
>    to be:  a revelation, Church doctrine, one man's inspired
>    opinion, one man's uninspired observation, or what?  Please
>    explain your answer.  On a higher level, what *rule of thumb*
>    do you adhere to when you hear or read the words of a prophet?
>    How do you know which "classification" his words fall under?


I believe that in this case Brigham may have been speculating, ie.,
if you will, one man's inspired opinion, for you or I to accept,
or reject as it is. I can say that, for I agree with it. others may not,
and that's their privilege. On a higher level I would say it would be
to the extent that it followed existing canon scripture, and in the
absense of it, whether it was submitted as *new* revelation. There are,
*some* revelations that have not been submitted to the church for 
acceptance. This area could be one of further conversation in another
topic.

 The fact that I agree or disagree with it would not affect the validity
of the statement. On Brigham's writing style, the words came from Wilford
Woodruff, who recorded Brigham's statement in this particular meeting.
BTW, Brigham's use of the language is much worse than that.        

Kevin

academic note:  In my opinion, even if something were to be in harmony with
the canon of scripture, unless it were to be revealed through the HG it is 
one man's uninspired opinion.

Chad

And on a higher level,

unless the prophet comes out and says things similar to:

"Thus saitheth the Lord,"
"It was revealed to me..."
"The following is a revelation for the church, ..."

or that manner of speaking, I'd generally say that it was one man's
inpired or uninspired opinion or postition.  It may be inpired and true,
or it may be uninspired, but it isn't church doctrine in my eyes.

Chad

    re .-1
    
    Ah! Chad, the question is if that man revealed something, how 
    can we affirm or deny that it was by the Holy Ghost? Does he have
    to tell us? Or, are we left to gain our own witness? It is strongly
    implied that the Prophet is inspired in his pronouncements. I have
    little doubt that statements by, say, B. Young were accepted as 
    official church *principles* in his time. In O. Pratt's case, non-
    acceptance almost cost him his membership. Pretty harsh judgement based 
    on possibly, a prophet's *uninspired opinion*. Today, we dismiss these
    statements, but then they were quite real and taken as principle.
    Could not the same thing happen now?
    
    In earlier notes in this conference I alluded to Adam-God as being
    taught as part of the endowment ceremony. A pretty sacred place
    for *uninspired opinions* to be revealed. We reject this as a church 
    body today. But, upon close investigation, the teaching did not dis-
    appear immediately. It came in degrees, 1st through removal from
    the endowment, through a gradual shifting away by leaders, to
    now, denial. It did not make a difference that Brigham stated on
    at least 2 occasions that the Prophet Joseph taught it to him.
    What about all that *bad* info the ones in the spirit world received,
    There was, as I can best remember, concern by some, that those
    endowments might be invalid.
    
    My feeling is that regardless of what our leaders say, it is only
    through a witness of the Holy Ghost, that we may know the truthful-
    ness of these things.
    
    Kevin 
                     

================================================================================
Note 284.8                    Does God have faith?                       8 of 27
NWD002::DULL_TA "You gotta love it!"                 90 lines  15-NOV-1989 01:19
                           -< Does God NEED Faith? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          [portions not pertaining to note 211 have been deleted]

    
>Re:  284.4 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV 
    
>    Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had a similar discussion to this
>    in 1860. Brigham took the view that God could increase in knowledge;
>    Orson held that there could be no increase. Brigham won the discussion
>    then; (being the prophet had it's advantages!) Of course, LDS prescribes
>    to Orson's view today. (the pamplets and writings containg Orson's
>    doctrine were ordered destroyed, but some survived)

Kevin again:

Okay, please help me understand this.  I have *always* had trouble
understanding this stuff . . .

Brigham Young was the prophet.  Orsen Pratt, I assume, was an apostle or
seventy, i.e. a General Authority.  These two MEN are discussing this issue
of whether or not God has faith.  Brigham says yes; Orson says no.  Brigham
won?  How did he win?  Did God reveal to Brigham only that he was right
or did he reveal it to both men or what?

Just for a moment, let us all accept that Brigham was indeed a prophet called
of God, and that God revealed to Brigham that "Yes, Brigham, I do have faith."
And as a prophet, Brigham revealed God's "word" to Orson and others as
directed.  Now, as a prophet, you would expect that what he would reveal
to the people would stand the test of time.

So why is it that the "LDS prescribe to Orson's view today"?  Orson wasn't
a prophet.  Why have the LDS folks stopped believing in the words of
a prophet to believe in the words of another man?

I have lots of questions around this - which should probably be addressed in 
another topic.  On that note, I'll stop this line of questioning.


Still as curious as ever,

Tamara

================================================================================
Note 284.10                   Does God have faith?                      10 of 27
DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV                                 91 lines  15-NOV-1989 09:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         [portions not pertaining to note 211 have been deleted]


>>Re:  284.4 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV 
    
>>    Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had a similar discussion to this
>>   in 1860. Brigham took the view that God could increase in knowledge;
>>   Orson held that there could be no increase. Brigham won the discussion
>>   then; (being the prophet had it's advantages!) Of course, LDS prescribes
>>   to Orson's view today. (the pamplets and writings containg Orson's
>>   doctrine were ordered destroyed, but some survived)

>Kevin again:

>Okay, please help me understand this.  I have *always* had trouble
>understanding this stuff . . .

>Brigham Young was the prophet.  Orsen Pratt, I assume, was an apostle or
>seventy, i.e. a General Authority.  These two MEN are discussing this issue
>of whether or not God has faith.  Brigham says yes; Orson says no.  Brigham
>won?  How did he win?  Did God reveal to Brigham only that he was right
>or did he reveal it to both men or what?
    
    Forgive me for my choice of words. Brigham felt it necessary during the
    late 1850's-60's to call down Orson Pratt for some of his "theories" he
    expounded in his many pamphlets. Brigham felt that Orson was philosophising
    in his writings and using the ideas of men, rather than inspiration. I say
    that Brigham "won" in that, even though Orson was scolded and some of his 
    writings were purged, eventually LDS leaders have come over to Orson's 
    view in some areas. The Adam-God doctrine was another point of contention 
    at the same time. Orson couldn't accept it and he was blunt to Brigham 
    about it. I believe Orson wasn't alone, for at because in time the before 
    mentioned items have been changed. As I see it, given time, many older 
    beliefs that may not stand up to scrutiny are eventually discarded, with 
    little fanfare. The early church was full of good men who may have 
    speculated alot. We must understand this and not be disturbed by apparent 
    conflicts in doctrine that arise. 

>Just for a moment, let us all accept that Brigham was indeed a prophet called
>of God, and that God revealed to Brigham that "Yes, Brigham, I do have faith."
>And as a prophet, Brigham revealed God's "word" to Orson and others as
>directed.  Now, as a prophet, you would expect that what he would reveal
>to the people would stand the test of time.

    *My* own belief here is that much that Brigham revealed is truth. Now,
    it is up to all of us to accept or reject his teachings, just as our modern
    prophets teachings. Some of what we teach today may not wash in say, the 
    next 150 years. It doesn't mean that the doctrine of today is not true. 
    It's just the gospel is an evolving thing, some doctrines, teachings just 
    don't stand up to the test of time. A GA recently was excommunicated, 
    in part because he claimed one prevailing doctrine had been changed. 
    It'll be interesting to see if in the next 50 years or so, if the doctrine 
    indeed has changed.

>So why is it that the "LDS prescribe to Orson's view today"?  Orson wasn't
>a prophet.  Why have the LDS folks stopped believing in the words of
>a prophet to believe in the words of another man?

    Just as I brought up before. We need to sort out what is speculation from
    what is doctrine, and our early leaders, sometimes speculated. You see
    today that if there is speculation, it is VERY low keyed, but I believe
    it's still there. Many leaders speculated on the reason for Blacks not 
    receiving the Priesthood up to the point where the revelation was received,
    allowing it. B. Young, on ther other hand taught that the day we allowed 
    them to  receive the priesthood we would be damning ourselves. You need to
    look at the time period when he was speaking and society then. Did he
    assert personal opinions? I can't answer that question. It's up to us as
    individuals to come up with a prayerful answer to that. As it is, the
    new revelation has taken care of the speculation. ALL can share in the 
    blessings today. 

    Kevin
                         

================================================================================
Note 284.11                   Does God have faith?                      11 of 27
ARCHER::PRESTON "Punch it, Margaret!"                14 lines  15-NOV-1989 09:22
                                     -<   >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         [portions not pertaining to note 211 have been omitted]

    It's interesting how - depending upon the circumstances - a prophet's
    or apostle's words (no matter what the potential impact) can be
    categorized into "opinion" or "doctrine" depending upon the need
    of the moment. At least that's the way it's beginning to sound...
    
    Ed
    
    

================================================================================
Note 284.15       All statements from Church leaders doctrine?          15 of 27
NORGE::CHAD "Ich glaube Ich t�te Ich h�tte"          57 lines  15-NOV-1989 15:12
                        -< some thoughts to the matter >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         [portions not pertaining to note 211 have been omitted]

regards: prophets.  This has probably been discussed before.  The Gospel is
unchanging and eternal (the policies).  The procedures do change.  Allen
had a note about this I believe.

Prophets are also humans and can err.  Also, all speculate, and being humans
these speculations must not always be correct.  When speaking as a prophet,
then the pronouncments *are* revelations from God.  When not speaking as
a prophet, they *are not* from God (as revelations), though they may very well
be true.  In the early days of the church, the Lord revealed the Gospel
a step at a time (he still does but he has revealed/restored a lot since the
early days so we grow up with a more complete Gospel).  The early brethren
often got really excited and wrapped up in Gospel thinking and speculated
*a lot* about things the Lord had/has not revealed.  Eventually the Lord 
reveals/revealed the truth of the matter so to speak, showing that some 
speculations weren't true.  That does not make these people less apostles
and prophets.  If the Lord wanted robots, he'd call robots as prophets.  Let's
say I'm the prophet and I'm interested in a point of the Gospel where the Lord
hadn't yet said anything.  Should the Lord force me not to think about that
point?  Of course not, so my active thinking produces a theory about something
where I haven't received better knowledge.  If I tell people about this,
write it down, or the similar, that doesn't make it a revelation nor make
it true.  It could be not true or off a bit.  Then the Lord reveals the truth
of the matter when he feels it important.  True prophets then preach the
revelation no matter what their prior theory was.

================================================================================
Note 284.18                   Does God have faith?                      18 of 27
DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV                                 37 lines  16-NOV-1989 08:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
   
    > > Re:  284.10 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV
    
   > I will be very interested in the references about God
   > increasing in knowledge.  I have a few concerns/issues
   > with this concept - but instead of stating my concerns
   > here, I will start a new note.  


    Tamara,

    This is the gist of Brigham's problem with Orson. In "The Seer",
    Orson proposed that once the Saints reached their exaltation, they
    woould stand on an equal footing with the Father. That we will
    know all, therefore there would be nothing more to learn. When Saints
    reached that point they would become one with the Father and Son,
    that would be the end of their progression. As for God's increase in 
    intelligence, From "The Seer" points 95-97 of  "pre-existance of man" 
    argues the notion that God's intelligence cannot be increased or 
    expanded in the least degree. ("Orson Pratt", England, pg 211.)

    Brigham Young rejected this idea as well as some other points of 
    doctrine. I haven't found any writings by Brigham Young elaborating
    on his doctrine yet. Here is one ref. from 4 Mar 1860, from Brigham
    to Orson. "I corrected O Pratt today I did not say to him that God
    would increase to all Eternity. But I said the minute that we say
    that God knows all things comprehends all things and has a fullness
    of all that He ever will obtain that moment Eternity seases you put
    bounds to Eternity & Space & matter and you make a stopping place"
    (Wilford Woodruff Journal, 4 Mar 1860)
    
    For a statement on present doctrine, McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is a 
    good reference.

    Kevin
    

================================================================================
Note 284.20                   Does God have faith?                      20 of 27
NORGE::CHAD "Ich glaube Ich t�te Ich h�tte"          13 lines  16-NOV-1989 12:01
                                 -< comments >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>    For a statement on present doctrine, McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is a 
>    good reference.

With all due respect to Elder McConkie, "Mormon Doctrine" is not the official
doctrine of the Church, but rather Elder McConkies personal ideas based on
his study, beliefs, etc.  Most of it probably is true however :-)

Also, principles don't change, only procedures.  Therefore, depending on exactly 
what you have in mind for the word doctrine, "present doctrine" should be
the same as "previous or old or ancient doctrine".  The Gospel is unchanging.

Chad

================================================================================
Note 284.22                   Does God have faith?                      22 of 27
ROYALT::LENF                                         34 lines  16-NOV-1989 13:17
                 -< Is God really Omnipotent and Omniscient? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems that the discussion of does God have Faith rests on the assumption that
he know all things, and that if he does then he can't have faith.  So let me 
raise the question of his all knowingness.

I accept that with respect to mey mere limited mortal insight he knows all
things. But is there any scripture or other source that would indicate that
he know all things in the absolute sense?  I will suggest that part of what 
Brigham Young was addressing in this quote relates here.

   Brigham Young rejected this idea as well as some other points of 
    doctrine. I haven't found any writings by Brigham Young elaborating
    on his doctrine yet. Here is one ref. from 4 Mar 1860, from Brigham
    to Orson. "I corrected O Pratt today I did not say to him that God
    would increase to all Eternity. But I said the minute that we say
    that God knows all things comprehends all things and has a fullness
    of all that He ever will obtain that moment Eternity seases you put
    bounds to Eternity & Space & matter and you make a stopping place"
    (Wilford Woodruff Journal, 4 Mar 1860)
    
In otherwords, if God really knows all things in the absolute sense (as opposed
to realitive to us) then there would be an end to his learning, or a 
"stopping place".

So where is it indicated that knows all things in all the eternities of both
time and space?

And by the way, if he did not know all those things would that make him less
of a god? or less to be trusted?  (ie. for a young man learning baseball to
be taught by "the greatest player that ever lived" would be more than enough
without having to worry whether or not the teacher was perfect).

What say ye?

Len

================================================================================
Note 284.23                   Does God have faith?                      23 of 27
NWD002::DULL_TA "You gotta love it!"                101 lines  18-NOV-1989 02:46
                           -< God *IS* Omniscient! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           [portions not pertaining to note 211 have been omitted]

> Re: .18 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV  
    
>    Here is one ref. from 4 Mar 1860, from Brigham
>    to Orson. "I corrected O Pratt today I did not say to him that God
>    would increase to all Eternity. But I said the minute that we say
>    that God knows all things comprehends all things and has a fullness
>    of all that He ever will obtain that moment Eternity seases you put
>    bounds to Eternity & Space & matter and you make a stopping place"
>    (Wilford Woodruff Journal, 4 Mar 1860)
    
    Since this statement is in quotes, I assume that it's written 
    verbatim from the reference.  Goodness gracious - I'm sure glad 
    that the Church leaders today have better writing skills! ;^)
    
    Seriously though, what do you (Mormons) consider this statement
    to be:  a revelation, Church doctrine, one man's inspired
    opinion, one man's uninspired observation, or what?  Please
    explain your answer.  On a higher level, what *rule of thumb*
    do you adhere to when you hear or read the words of a prophet?
    How do you know which "classification" his words fall under?
        
    
    Regards,
    Tamara

I grew up in Utah thinking that my Church leaders were perfect--everything
they said was true and they never made any mistakes.  While serving a mission
in 1958-58 and while reading Church history, I came statements from Joseph
Fielding Smith that disagreed with statements from B. H. Roberts.  I concluded
they were speculating about particular historical events.  My reasoning was
that if the events were clearly documented, the two leaders would agree; hence,
their disagreements were evidence that the events were not clearly understood.

I wasn't bothered by this "discovery" that I made, because I realized that
only Christ was perfect and that I should expect my leaders to differ on
things not clearly understood.  About this same time, I came upon a
quotation from John Taylor that was in one of Joseph Fielding Smith's
missionary pamphlets.  That statement formed the basis of my method of
determining for myself when I think my leaders are speaking for the Lord and
when they are speculating.  Pres. Taylor said that the Church as an 
organization is not accountable for the statements of any Elder but only
for the canonized standard works.  I take his statement literally and
interpret "any Elder" to include General Authorities.  Thus, none of the
conference talks or books by GA count as far as Church doctrine is
concerned (as far as I am concerned).  I realize this is a pretty conservative
viewpoint and that many LDS disagree with me, but that is my attitude, and
its fine for them to disagree.  Please keep in mind that I'm not talking
about whether the GA are speaking truth or not!  I am talking about
whether the GA's statements are binding on the Church as doctrine.

I agree with Kevin that the bottom line as far as a particular person is
concerned is revelation from the Holy Ghost to that person.  One of the
great challenges we face in life is to learn to live by the Spirit and to
make decisions by the Spirit and to literally use the Spirit as our guide.
I don't think we should blindly accept the remarks from any person (GA or not)
without personal prayer to God for a confirmation that those remarks are
true or not.

Allen

    re: -1
    
    I tend to feel the same way about doctrine. The trend in the church 
    is to counsel us to study the scriptures and concentrate on the basics.
    My feeling is that you will not see many earth shaking doctrinal pro-
    nouncements coming out as pertaining to our theology. The established
    canon of scriptures answer *most* questions. Another way to look at it:
    Will Heavenly Father reveal anything more to us when we still need time
    to absorb what He has given us already? There are *many* more things to 
    be revealed, but as Charles Roney pointed out months ago in another
    entry, it will be in His time and in His way, and not in the ways of
    man. Things might be revealed to one of us but not in regards to the
    Church as a body, and until revealed through his appointed servant,
    are not binding to us as a body.

	RE: <<< Note 395.40 by ROCK::LEIGH "Feed My Sheep" >>>

>Whether Elder Packer believes that children are born with feelings of
>homosexuality or not is not important, because he is not the Prophet and does
>not introduce new doctrine to the Church.  ... (keep in mind that comments by
>individual GA do not constitute Church doctrine--only official statements 
>intended to be received as Church doctrine are such, but this is a topic for 
>note 211, not for this note).

	Hi Allen!  Just a little "nit" in your 395 discource that bothered me.

	Elder Packer is a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, and, as such,
	is sustained as prophet, seerer, and revelator.  No, he is not the
	President of the Church and does not give the same binding doctrinal
	force, but I would, IMHO, be a bit careful about saying he does not
	introduce new doctrine *to* the Church.  The whole to-do about food 
	storage was introduced by a GA and not the Church President. Now, 
	whether or not that GA did it under the direction of the Church 
	President, I do not know.

	Bruce R. McConkie introduced "new doctrine" with his last conference
	talk.  It has not been refuted as far as I know (it may not be new
	doctrine, but I have never come across it before).  He stated that
	the Saviour's suffering in the garden of Gethsemine (sic.) returned
	to him while on the cross.  I find this fact to be of great importance
	in understanding the atonement.  

	Now I would not expect something like giving the priesthood to all
	worthy males to come from a GA, but it was interesting to note that 
	President Kimball had the complete agreement of the Quorum of the 
	Twelve before presenting it in conference.

	I can agree that only the President of the Church can cause a change
	of direction in the church as a whole, and the introduction of doctrine
	for the chuch as a whole.  But what is doctrine?  Any servant of God
	acting in their stewardship when moved by the holy Ghost can introduce
	new doctrine, but they do not have the authority to have the church
	act on it as a body.  I think this is where the difference is.

	Charles

Hi Charles,

You've brought up some good points.  It's true that the Apostles are prophets,
seers, and revelators.  It's also true that they have the same keys of
authority as the First Presidency.  And its also true that they must act as a
quorum in order for them to exercise those keys, i.e. individual Apostles can't
act alone in such matters (see D&C 101).

There is a strong tendency in the Church for members to accept as "gospel"
anything and all things any GA says or writes.  This bothers me, because I
think that much of what they say and write is done as individuals and not as
a unified quorum.  A related tendency that bothers me is that of taking books
and statements by President Benson while he was a member of the 12, and once
he became President elevating those writings and statements to be the voice of
*the* prophet.  I think there is a big difference between what a member of the
12 says while a member of that quorum and what he says after he becomes
President of the Church. 

To me, the key thing is that official doctrine comes from the Prophet with the
intent that it be official doctrine.  This includes letters with their
signatures, official bulletins, statements, etc.  If the First Presidency 
assigns a member of the 12 to give new doctrine in a speech then that is ok,
because he is acting under direction of the First Presidency.  I would hope
and expect that he would make it clear that he is acting under the direction
of the FP and that this is new doctrine.

How do we tell when a GA is speaking for himself, i.e. his individual opinion,
and when he is giving the position of the Church?  This can be tough to figure
out, and I guess every LDS probably has a different "algorithm".  My way is to
consider the position of the Church as being (a) the canonized scriptures and
(b) official declarations of the First Presidency in which they make it clear
that this is the position of the Church (this includes GA speaking under the
direction of the FP).

The change that gave the Priesthood to all worthy male members is a good
example of this.  I consider anything else to be individual opinions,
opinions which I respect for their wisdom and knowledge, but not opinions that
establish Church doctrine.

I have formed this "algorithm" over the years because in reading Church history
I have come across disagreements between GA, and I realized that both men were
not giving the position of the Church.  Differences between the GA are uncommon
because they are careful to stick to the basic principles of the Gospel and
avoid things not clearly understood.  People who take the attitude that
everything a GA says is "gospel" have a serious problem in reconciling
differences between GA.  If we recognize that such differences are normal and
to be expected when people speculate about things not fully understood, then no
problem exists.

As previous replies to this note show, persons who oppose the Church push the
idea that *everything* a Mormon GA says is "gospel", and since there are
differences between the GA, then they can't be true prophets and hence the
Mormon church is false.  As long as we recognize that GA do give out their
own opinions about things, then this logic from the anti-Mormons breaks down.

Allen