Uncomfortable Doctrine

[Guest ceeboo]

Um... The "rock" is not and never was Joseph Smith. Never.

HiJolly

Hello HiJolly,

To be clear ( obviously ) you don't think that I suggested that JS was the " rock " ??

Sorry, I am a little confused because you posted my quote :confused:?

At any rate, I was answering richlittell suggestion to me.

God bless,

Carl ( one of your best spelling friends :lol:)

[HiJolly]

I do appreciate your efforts in explaining that you do not see a contradiction in regards to Peter being the " rock " and suggesting that JS is the " rock " in which the Lord has restored the Church.

Sorry for the confusion. This is what I was responding to. No one here should suggest that JS is the "rock". So I guess I should have responded to richlittell. Oops.

LDS teaches that the "rock" is revelation -- no matter who it is receiving it. Of course in context of the scripture, it is speaking of the leaders of the Church. And we feel a leader cannot lead the Church if they don't have that 'rock'.

HiJolly

[Guest ceeboo]

Sorry for the confusion. This is what I was responding to. No one here should suggest that JS is the "rock". So I guess I should have responded to richlittell. Oops.

LDS teaches that the "rock" is revelation -- no matter who it is receiving it. Of course in context of the scripture, it is speaking of the leaders of the Church. And we feel a leader cannot lead the Church if they don't have that 'rock'.

HiJolly

More confused now!!! now you have quoted my post AGAIN USING BOLD LETTERS.

To try and be very clear ( due to your posting my qoutes twice completly out of context and which possibly implies that JS being considered the rock is my offering ), I OBVIOUSLY DO NOT BELIEVE JS IS OR WAS CONSIDERED THE ROCK IN WHICH THE LORD RESTORED THE CHURCH, AN OFFERING GIVEN BY ME TO ANOTHER POSTER.:)

God bless,

Carl

[HiJolly]

More confused now!!! now you have quoted my post AGAIN USING BOLD LETTERS.

To try and be very clear ( due to your posting my qoutes twice completly out of context and which possibly implies that JS being considered the rock is my offering ), I OBVIOUSLY DO NOT BELIEVE JS IS OR WAS CONSIDERED THE ROCK IN WHICH THE LORD RESTORED THE CHURCH, AN OFFERING GIVEN BY ME TO ANOTHER POSTER.:)

God bless,

Carl

Right -- my bad twice over, and even though I named rich in my post, I didn't quote his comment. I think I'd better go to bed.

HiJolly

[Guest ceeboo]

Right -- my bad twice over, and even though I named rich in my post, I didn't quote his comment. I think I'd better go to bed.

HiJolly

HiJolly,

NOOOOOO PROBLEM at all my friend, I was just confused a little also:)

I would add ( to be fair ) your posts ( although a little confusing ) certainly did not come anywhere near the top 10 " all time worst " ( Polycarp ):lol:

God bless,

Carl

[Vanhin]

The rock was not Peter but revelation " I have heard this from others, I simply do not agree nor see any scripture to support that, rather IMHO, it is very clear that the " rock " was Peter.

Ceeboo,

Let's take a look at the scripture. Jesus asked Peter "...whom say ye that I am?", to which peter answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matt. 16:15-16) What did Jesus Say next?

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Matt. 16:17)

In other words, Jesus is saying that Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ, because of revelation. That is the scripture that supports it, because then the Savior continues:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock [revelation] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt. 16:18-19)

After he explains to Peter that he will build his Church upon the rock of revelation, he gives Peter the keys of the priesthood. The keys of the priesthood authorizes Peter to direct the affairs of the kingdom of heaven on earth (by revelation, nonetheless), and also the sealing power (bind and loose).

The "gates of hell" means death. Though Peter and others died as martyrs, and the keys went with them before they could be bestowed upon others, death did NOT prevail. It was, in fact, the resurrected Peter, James, and John who appeared to Joseph Smith and restored the priesthood, and the keys.

So, Christ was right, whether he mean Peter or revelation. I personally think he meant both, and it is clear that he was right.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=id$id=tchg-pix.nfo:o:1c8$cid=tchg-pix.nfo$3.0$p=

What Jesus told Peter that day, was both a statement of how the Church operates, and a prophecy of the restoration.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Misshalfway]

Line that super concerns me in red...that implies we will be worshipped.

Hi Fiona!

I feel like saying "OH hello! There you are!" after all of this varied conversation. Bet you never thought your thread would be this exciting....yeah?

When I read the D&C 132:20 (Below), at first glance I start to feel the same way. But as I read a little closer, I start to wonder if being a god (with a little g) is tied with progression. It has also been taught to us that progression is possible in the other kingdoms and even the celestial one but only to the limits of that kingdom. It is only thru the highest degree of glory that make true eternal progression possible. In my mind, attaining "godhood" in this sense, means that such opportunities will be open to us because we have learned to obey and have been changed by Christ. I see no where in these passages that explain that we will be worshipped in the same way Father and Son are worshipped. I see nothing that takes their influence and grace and leadership out of the equation.

When I read about this concept and the sometimes misunderstood terms used to describe it, it helps me to generalize it into thinking of eternal progression.....not attaining or becoming a "deity" in the limited understanding of such. I think it also helps me to think of these progressional opportunities all happening "unto the most high God" and always under his supervision or guidance.

Now....please understand that these are my thoughts.....and my thoughts only. I think the best answer is that we have been given a glimpse into the eternities. It is difficult to understand with such microscopic information. I learned that once when I peeked at a Christmas present before the big day one year. I had a beautiful ball gown all imagined in my mind, but was seriously disappointed to discover that it was only a lousy sweater.

Good luck in your studies on this subject. Always appeal to the most high for clarity on what all these earthlings have said. :)

Best wishes....mhw

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

[Guest ceeboo]

Ceeboo,

The "gates of hell" means death. Though Peter and others died as martyrs, and the keys went with them before they could be bestowed upon others, death did NOT prevail. It was, in fact, the resurrected Peter, James, and John who appeared to Joseph Smith and restored the priesthood, and the keys.

What Jesus told Peter that day, was both a statement of how the Church operates, and a prophecy of the restoration.

Regards,

Vanhin

Hi Vanhin,

Thanks for the contribution as well as sharing your thoughts on this " rock " thing.:)

The dots you connect seem to me to be an enormous effort, IMHO. :)

To be clear, are you suggesting the " keys " were absent from this earth from the early Church days of Peter until the 1800's. If so, are you also suggesting that Jesus' Church did not fall but just "went away" for 1700 years or so and then returned to stand again??:confused:

You are also suggesting that on that day Jesus was telling Peter of how the Church operates and a prophesy of the restoration ??:confused:

Thus Jesus was telling Peter ( before the claimed great apostasy ) about a restoration in 1820??.

IMHO, Jesus was talking about HIS CHURCH ( the Christian people, believers, and the the promise he made to all of us that HIS CHURCH would NEVER fall and indeed would stand against ALL to the very end). Furthermore, IMHO, His promise of his Church had nothing at all to do with how it operates and certainly had nothing to do with a prophesy concerning JS in 1820.

I do appreciate your perspective though I simply disagree.:)

God bless,

Carl

[Vanhin]

Hi Vanhin,

Thanks for the contribution as well as sharing your thoughts on this " rock " thing.:)

The dots you connect seem to me to be an enormous effort, IMHO. :)

Obviously I connected the dots with a great deal of ease. All the scriptures were right next to each other (Matt. 16:15-19).

To be clear, are you suggesting the " keys " were absent from this earth from the early Church days of Peter until the 1800's. If so, are you also suggesting that Jesus' Church did not fall but just "went away" for 1700 years or so and then returned to stand again??

That is exactly right. Each of the apostles held the keys, and Peter, being the lead apostle, was authorized to direct the use of the keys after Christ's ascension into heaven. The Church of Jesus Christ, is led by revelation through his authorized servants, the apostles (who are also prophets, seers and, revelators). That is how God operates. So, Jesus Christ himself is at the head of the Church, and he reveals his will to prophets and apostles, who direct the affairs of the kingdom of God on earth.

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; (Eph. 2:19-20)

Without the keys of the priesthood, men are not authorized to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ or perform ordinances, like baptism. Men do not take upon themselves to be ministers, but are called of God by prophecy. The keys of the priesthood are transmitted from one having the keys to another, by the laying on of hands. Christ himself restored the priesthood and it's keys to the people in Jerusalem after a period of apostasy preceding his earthly ministry. He ordained the apostles of the early Church.

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. (John 15:16)

Here's another picture to enjoy.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=id$id=tchg-pix.nfo:o:14c$cid=tchg-pix.nfo$3.0$p=

You are also suggesting that on that day Jesus was telling Peter of how the Church operates and a prophesy of the restoration ??:confused:

Thus Jesus was telling Peter ( before the claimed great apostasy ) about a restoration in 1820??.

Of course Jesus knew the apostasy would happen. He is God, after all. And he also knew that the death of Peter and the other apostles would not prevail, and he was right. Peter, James, and John restored the priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

IMHO, Jesus was talking about HIS CHURCH ( the Christian people, believers, and the the promise he made to all of us that HIS CHURCH would NEVER fall and indeed would stand against ALL to the very end). Furthermore, IMHO, His promise of his Church had nothing at all to do with how it operates and certainly had nothing to do with a prophesy concerning JS in 1820.

I can understand your interest in clinging to the belief that Jesus said that, but you haven't actually produced any scripture that states that "HIS CHURCH would NEVER fall and indeed would stand against ALL to the very end." Jesus said the "gates of hell" would not prevail against his Church, and they did not prevail.

I do appreciate your perspective though I simply disagree.:)

God bless,

Carl

Thank you, and I appreciate the conversation. :)

Sincerely,

Vanhin

Edited September 1, 2008 by Vanhin
Correction in doctrine.

[Guest ceeboo]

Hello again Vanhin,

I know I have mentioned this before but I really do appreciate you sharing your perspective.:) Rather than continue to offer the same differing perspective that I have already offered, I would simply and respectfully suggest we agree to disagree to a large extent on this matter.

If I may, to ask a further question as to your beliefs on this. What happened to all of the creations ( people ) that lived on earth between the year 100 and 1820 ? They were obviously living for 17 centuries in total darkness and with no Church of Jesus, no ?

Furthermore, what is your thoughts on the countless early Church writers, Saints, and devout Christians ( many of who gave there lives proclaiming Jesus as the Savior ) who lived during this 1700 year absence of Jesus' Church?

Thanks again for the back and forth.:)

God bless,

Carl

[Vanhin]

Hello again Vanhin,

I know I have mentioned this before but I really do appreciate you sharing your perspective.:) Rather than continue to offer the same differing perspective that I have already offered, I would simply and respectfully suggest we agree to disagree to a large extent on this matter.

Hey, that's fine. :) I don't expect that you will agree with Mormonism because of anything I have said. Like with Peter, only when God reveals truth to us by the way of the Holy Ghost, can we truly know for ourselves what is right.

If I may, to ask a further question as to your beliefs on this. What happened to all of the creations ( people ) that lived on earth between the year 100 and 1820 ? They were obviously living for 17 centuries in total darkness and with no Church of Jesus, no ?

Excellent question. I would expand the question like this; What happens to all the people who have ever lived, who have not even had a chance to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, even when it has been on the earth in it's fullness?

It is evident from the scriptures, that baptism is necessary for those who are accountable for their actions. It is for the remission of sins, and follows faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and repentance. When we are baptized, we make a covenant with God, to keep his commandments, and in return, we receive a remission of our sins, and God promises that his Spirit may always be with us. We call this confirmation, or receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Baptism and Confirmation are the first two ordinances of the gospel, and they must be performed by priesthood authority.

Even Jesus Christ went to John the Baptist, to be baptized, because John had the authority (priesthood) to baptize with water (Matt. 3). John did not, however, have the authority to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Or in other words, he did not have the authority to baptize with fire (Matt. 3:11). Jesus Christ had this authority and itwas restored by Jesus to his disciples.

Not just anyone can baptize and bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost on someone. He must be a duly authorized servant of the Lord, like the Apostles were. So, for all those years during the apostasy, people were not being baptized by proper authority. On top of that, many people have lived out their entire lives, and have never even heard of Jesus Christ, much less his authorized servants.

God, of course, is on top of things, and this is where our temple work comes into play. When people die, their spirits go to a place called the spirit world where they await final judgment and resurrection. The spirit world is divided into paradise, which is for those who have received the gospel and have been true to it, and prison, for those who have not yet received it, and those who were wicked.

After his crucifixion, and before his resurrection, Christ organized a missionary effort in the spirit world, so that those who had not yet accepted the gospel, might have a chance accept it.

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:18-20)

This missionary effort continues today! Through Joseph Smith, God restored temple work for both the living and the dead. Those who accept the gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit world, can receive baptism by way of proxy. We the living can be baptized for the dead, and if they accept it, it is as if they had been baptized themselves while in mortality.

Temple work for the dead, is something that was lost due to apostasy, but reference to it is made in the Bible.

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? (1 Cor. 15:29)

So in the resurrection, when those people are brought before the judgment bar of Christ, they will be judged according to their hearts, thoughts, words, and deeds. Christ will know their hearts and how they would have been if they had accepted the gospel in mortality.

This is why Mormons do genealogy work. We, the living, seek out our kindred dead, and perform the ordinances for them in our temples, just in case they accept it in the spirit world when it is preached to them.

Furthermore, what is your thoughts on the countless early Church writers, Saints, and devout Christians ( many of who gave there lives proclaiming Jesus as the Savior ) who lived during this 1700 year absence of Jesus' Church?

Thanks again for the back and forth.:)

God bless,

Carl

Many of them played a role in preparing the world for the restoration. God inspired righteous men, like the reformers, and early church writers, and He ultimately prepared a place (United States) where religious freedom could flourish. In this environment, the world was finally ready for the restoration.

On the other hand, some of the leaders of the "church" during the apostasy, did some pretty terrible things in the name of God. All we have to do is open our history books to remind us. But we don't really have to get into all that.

Things were pretty bleak at times, but some really positive things came about because of God inspired men, that led to the restoration, and the dispensation of the fullness of times.

It's important to understand that God did not cause the apostasy. It was caused by the general falling away of many of the members of the Church, and by the death of the apostles. The New Testament is full of evidence that the apostles were fighting back apostasy even during their life time. They were constantly having to write to various congregations (churches) to correct false doctrines, and call them to repentance.

Anyway, that's probably a good place to stop, in case you have comments/questions.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Moksha]

Furthermore, what is your thoughts on the countless early Church writers, Saints, and devout Christians ( many of who gave there lives proclaiming Jesus as the Savior ) who lived during this 1700 year absence of Jesus' Church?

I think they are blessed for their efforts in the name of Christ. Where would the restoration be without them? Was the world not ennobled for Ignatius of Antioch being the "wheat of Christ ground in the lion's jaw" or the efforts of pure devotion to love and charity as practiced by St. Francis of Assisi? I think it was.

[Guest ceeboo]

Good morning my friend Vanhin,

Thanks AGAIN for a very detailed view of your ( LDS ) perspective.:)

To be completly honest with you, in return for your detailed and lengthy efforts, your last post really did clear alot up for me in my " bias Catholic " mind. I greatly apprciate the time you took in trying to explain these LDS beliefs to me.:)

In addition, I would extend a hand of total agreement with regard to some members of the early Church ( as well IMHO as not so early and currently ) with respect to immorality,corruption, or in your very charitable words " terrible things in the name of God". The only disagreement we have on this ( obviously ) is to what end that resulted in.

I would also like to comment on your contribution regarding the " work " and efforts made by the LDS missionary. IMHO, there efforts are not only admirable but as I see it there work in many many ways help people change there lives for the better as well as at the very least teach love, Jesus, and the way of peace on this unstable world we all live in today.:) For that, I truly believe they ( missions ) are indeed a blessing to many.

Thanks again for the manner you " trade " thoughts with me.

God bless,

Carl

[Guest HEthePrimate]

Hi Fiona,

Yesterday at sacrament meeting we had a high council speaker and he made me really uncomfortable. He kept calling God/Heavenly Father just 'Father' and while that sounded odd to me, what really bothered me what how he kept referencing us becoming gods and goddesses in the afterlife.

I have always had a hard time with this doctrine. When he spoke, I felt awful. I felt uncomortable, like a jolt of annoyance shot through me. I saw a few people give eachother 'looks', as well.

To make it worse I had my nonmember, investigating husband with me who has no idea what any of that means.

I left in a bad mood after Relief Society. That doctrine is really a testimony killer for me. I just cannot believe that we will become gods and goddesses, it seems really blasphemus and counter to what is taught in the scriptures.

I hate having these doubts about god-hood, and I have prayed and prayed but I cannot feel the spirit when praying about this.

To make it worse I always think of Pres. Hinkley saying "I don't know that we teach that" when asked about the godhood doctrine on Larry King. It seems like even he was uncomfortable with that!

I sincerely would like some help with this. What do you guys think? When was this first taught and how can it be compatable with us believing in God and Christ? Maybe some history will make me feel better?

First, about calling God "Father" or "Heavenly Father": We call Him that because He created us and because the nearest earthly thing we can think of to describe our relationship with Him is our relationship with our earthly parents. God created our spirits and our earthly parents gave birth to our physical bodies. We also perceive God to be loving. Parents typically love their children so much they'd die for their sake, and God loves us even more! (Isaiah 49:15 ; 1 Nephi 21:15)

About godhood: I tend to believe that this means primarily becoming like God in terms of character traits. What we are trying to do is imitate God--we see how great and how good He is and we want to be like Him. He is loving, so we try to be loving. He is patient, so we try to be patient. He is longsuffering and forgiving, and we try to become like that. He is trustworthy, so we try to be.

By attempting to be God-like, we are not challenging Him--rather, we are praising Him, just as a child (knowingly or not) flatters her earthly parents when she imitates them. God will always be the ruler of the universe, and we will always serve Him.

ETA: When do members first get taught this? I never heard a thing about it until I was past YW, and that bothers me. It certainly wasn't mentioned when I got the discussions and the whole 'secrecy' about it makes me dislike it even more.

Missionaries tend not to discuss the idea in detail with investigators partly because there is some question as to what, exactly, the doctrine is, and partly because it can so easily be misunderstood as blasphemous. I was raised in the Church and do not remember when I was first taught or understood the concept.

I hope this helps.

((Care))

DH

[bmy-]

Missionaries tend not to discuss the idea in detail with investigators partly because there is some question as to what, exactly, the doctrine is, and partly because it can so easily be misunderstood as blasphemous. I was raised in the Church and do not remember when I was first taught or understood the concept.

I hope this helps.

((Care))

DH

As a convert.. I was the one who asked the missionaries. I had to bring it up or it would have gone unsaid. It was a sore spot for me.. and I was taking discussions weekly (and attending) for 7 months before I got baptized.

Edited September 3, 2008 by bmy-

[jazzy225]

And please understand that the subjects of godhood and mary's conception are NOT the core doctrine of this church. We are talking about the fringe.....the tiny budding limbs of the tree. Not the trunk or even the branches.

Is that clear as mud?

Ceeboo,

After talking about exaltation with misshalfway, she gave me a similar answer.

"I say again. I think we are in the areas of deep doctrine.....and area of the vineyard that we must tread lightly....especially when posting on this type of public forum."

I would consider this a warning, even though a lot of people are really interested in this.

I talked to some missionaries yesterday, I asked why is it so hard for mormons to admit they teach, "they will become gods". They denied they do, I then quoted the Blessing of Exaltation chap 47, they still said we dont' teach that. :huh:

Isn't this what this forum is for, talking about lds doctrine......If we are asked not to discuss deep doctrine, are we to seek this information elsewhere, say from Anti sites?

[Misshalfway]

Ceeboo,

After talking about exaltation with misshalfway, she gave me a similar answer.

"I say again. I think we are in the areas of deep doctrine.....and area of the vineyard that we must tread lightly....especially when posting on this type of public forum."

I would consider this a warning, even though a lot of people are really interested in this.

I talked to some missionaries yesterday, I asked why is it so hard for mormons to admit they teach, "they will become gods". They denied they do, I then quoted the Blessing of Exaltation chap 47, they still said we dont' teach that. :huh:

Isn't this what this forum is for, talking about lds doctrine......If we are asked not to discuss deep doctrine, are we to seek this information elsewhere, say from Anti sites?

Jazzy, sweetie, have you been reading me at all????

Do I believe we teach eternal progression? Yes. Do I believe that godhood in some form is attainable? Yes. Have I said we don't teach the concept? No. Have I said we such be careful about distinguishing speculation from doctrine on a forum such as this so that confusion stays at a minimum?........YES!!!!!!!

I need a cup of coffee! Oh yeah......we don't drink that. Dang.

[Hemidakota]

There is no "deep doctrine" concerning topic called 'Godhood.' I amazed how many members will list there own naive perception without appropriate research with the aid of the man who did declare openly and plain - namely Joseph Smith.

[Guest ceeboo]

Why was my post deleted ???????:confused:

[Misshalfway]

There is no "deep doctrine" concerning topic called 'Godhood.' I amazed how many members will list there own naive perception without appropriate research with the aid of the man who did declare openly and plain - namely Joseph Smith.

Are you referring to me, Hemi? I just need to know.

[Hemidakota]

To all membership...not just you. :)

To all...example of deep doctrine is - what is next stage of life beyond the Celestial State. What is beyond the limited universe? Who was the first man? ...and so forth.

[Guest ceeboo]

There is no "deep doctrine" concerning topic called 'Godhood.' I amazed how many members will list there own naive perception without appropriate research with the aid of the man who did declare openly and plain - namely Joseph Smith.

Hi Hemi,

Would a sermon given from the pulpit speaking as a prophet be considered doctrine ( teaching)??? I would certainly think so. King Follet sermon given by JS from the pulpit cleary teaches ( doctrine ) that " God himself was once as we are now, an exalted man "

" I will take away the veil so you all can see God once lived as man on an earth "

" You must learn how to become Gods yourself " and so on and so on.

This is why I am so confused as to why the LDS members offer things like " speculation" or Prophets not really speaking as prophets, or not really an official teaching of the LDS.

What can possibly be more official teaching than the First prophet JS giving a semon on the matter????

GOd bless,

Carl

[Misshalfway]

To all membership...not just you. :)

To all...example of deep doctrine is - what is next stage of life beyond the Celestial State. What is beyond the limited universe? Who was the first man? ...and so forth.

I am trying to understand what you are saying. It sounds like what you are saying is that everything that is stated amongst us concerning the subject of "Godhood" is actually true and that there is no speculation whatsoever. And those of us who identify such ideas as speculation are naive and failing to do proper research.

Am I getting you correctly?

[Guest ceeboo]

To all membership...not just you. :)

Who was the first man? ...and so forth.

Hi again Hemi,

The answer prophet BY gives on this is also clear to me, BY claims Adam and God are one in the same.:confused:

[Hemidakota]

I am trying to understand what you are saying. It sounds like what you are saying is that everything that is stated amongst us concerning the subject of "Godhood" is actually true and that there is no speculation whatsoever. And those of us who identify such ideas as speculation are naive and failing to do proper research.

Am I getting you correctly?

If Joseph said it, consider it doctrine. Anyone else who wants to say different, I would caution them to seek out the Holy Ghost for a confirmation then deny what was given by him.

There are doctrine and principles that Joseph could not give to the Saints due to their spiritual immaturity. This comes by personal revelation for your own spiritual edification.