Doctrine and Revelation

[JohnsonJones]

In another thread a question came up regarding what was Doctrine and what was NOT doctrine.  I think it was actually somewhat off topic (as the topic was about Mormon Culture and the aspect of whether the Counsel we receive was cultural or doctrinal came up, but that specific item is about impactful on the overall Mormon Culture as it is a single sand in an hourglass overall...and the more important item of what composes doctrine I think can be clarified..

Given in the Past 5 years...

How is Doctrine Established

Quote

The following flowchart, based on Elder Christofferson’s April 2012 general conference address, shows how doctrine is established.²

Revelation of doctrine comes from Jesus Christ

When revelation is doctrine for the whole Church, it comes to only the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see Amos 3:7; D&C 1:38; 28:2).

Revelation may come by …

His own person

God appeared to Moses and showed him the workmanship of His hands (see Moses 1:1–9; see also Joseph Smith—History 1:15–20).

His own voice

The Lord spoke to Nephi and commanded him to build a ship to bring his family to the Americas (see 1 Nephi 17:7–8).

The voice of the Holy Ghost

This type of revelation is communicated Spirit to spirit. The New Testament Apostles received a confirmation through the Holy Ghost that they should not require new converts to keep the law of Moses (see Acts 15:5–29).

Messenger

The messengers Moses, Elias, and Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and each committed the keys of his dispensation to the Prophet (see D&C 110:11–16).

Revelation may come to …

The President of the Church Individually

The prophet and President of the Church can receive revelation individually that becomes doctrine when it is sustained by the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see Acts 10; Official Declaration 2).

Prophets Acting in Council

The disciples in the Americas prayed to know what they should name the Church. Christ appeared to them and answered, “Whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name” (3 Nephi 27:7).

From Todd Christopherson (and yes, he is an apostle, not the prophet, but his words are good at defining what it is and how doctrine comes to be

The Doctrine of Christ

Quote

These same patterns are followed today in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2). Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.⁴

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”⁵ President Clark, quoted earlier, observed:

“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …

Now the following is NOT an LDS site per se, but it is FairMormon...this is more of opinion on doctrine rather than what IS doctrine.

What is mormon Doctrine PDF

Prophets and Infallibility on FairMormon

Quote

Some people hold inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets, and assume that the LDS have similar views. This leads some to assume that prophets are infallible. ^[1]

Joseph Smith himself taught that ‘a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such’.^[2] The Church has always taught that its leaders are human and subject to failings as are all mortals. Only Jesus was perfect, as explained in this statement from the First Presidency:

The position is not assumed that the men of the New Dispensation —its prophets, apostles, presidencies, and other leaders—are without faults or infallible, rather they are treated as men of like passions with their fellow men."^[3]

Quote

1902 Joseph F. Smith to Lillian Golsan, July 16, 1902. "[T]he theories, speculations, and opinions of men, however intelligent, ingenious, and plausible, are not necessarily doctrines of the Church or principles that God has commanded His servants to preach. No doctrine is a doctrine of this Church until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority–the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated until proper permission is given.” - Joseph F. Smith Correspondence, Personal Letterbooks, 93–94, Film Reel 9, Ms. F271; cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 221–222. Also in Statements of the LDS First Presidency, compiled by Gary James Bergera (Signature, 2007), page 121. Bergera indicates it is a letter from JFS to Lillian Golsan, July 16, 1902.

 

[Jane_Doe]

A good treatment of the subject!

[Rob Osborn]

On 4/17/2018 at 3:50 AM, JohnsonJones said:

In another thread a question came up regarding what was Doctrine and what was NOT doctrine.  I think it was actually somewhat off topic (as the topic was about Mormon Culture and the aspect of whether the Counsel we receive was cultural or doctrinal came up, but that specific item is about impactful on the overall Mormon Culture as it is a single sand in an hourglass overall...and the more important item of what composes doctrine I think can be clarified..

Given in the Past 5 years...

How is Doctrine Established

From Todd Christopherson (and yes, he is an apostle, not the prophet, but his words are good at defining what it is and how doctrine comes to be

The Doctrine of Christ

Now the following is NOT an LDS site per se, but it is FairMormon...this is more of opinion on doctrine rather than what IS doctrine.

What is mormon Doctrine PDF

Prophets and Infallibility on FairMormon

 

I agree with all that but also believe that not all doctrine is actual truth. Some equate doctrine as unwavering unchangable truth. Doctrine is what the church officially believes and teaches. Doctrine therefore can change and has changed over time. This doesnt mean truth changed, it means we we are moving in the direction of truth and hope to achieve it in all perfection. I think many people (a shout out to my brother The Folk Prophet) are all too consumed by everything a prophet says and accounts it as "truth" which they believe can even trump scripture. 

[MarginOfError]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I agree with all that but also believe that not all doctrine is actual truth. Some equate doctrine as unwavering unchangable truth. Doctrine is what the church officially believes and teaches. Doctrine therefore can change and has changed over time. This doesnt mean truth changed, it means we we are moving in the direction of truth and hope to achieve it in all perfection. I think many people (a shout out to my brother The Folk Prophet) are all too consumed by everything a prophet says and accounts it as "truth" which they believe can even trump scripture. 

I have a hard time buying into that one.  To start, I think it's off the mark to say that doctrine is what the church officially believes and teaches.  The church is a temporal organization, and doctrine is more of an eternal construct.  It seems much more reasonable to think that policies, and commandments, and teachings change based on an ever evolving and developing understanding of doctrine, and how doctrine applies to social, cultural, and sometimes personal circumstances.

As a crude example, if the Church issued a statement tomorrow that it no longer recognizes Adam as the first literal man on earth, that would not be a change of doctrine.  Nothing in our core doctrine is dependent on Adam being the literal first man.  All of the same principles of sin and repentance and the need for the Atonement would be unchanged. Only our understanding of how those principles operate within the body of physical evidence would have changed.

Granted, this means we're really in agreement (and you know how much I hate agreeing with you), but we're arguing over terminology.  So I'll let that be satisfactory for maintaining our status quo.

I will, however, whole-heartedly agree with you that simply accepting everything a prophet has to say as truth or doctrine or whatever is bound to result in error. 

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I will, however, whole-heartedly agree with you that simply accepting everything a prophet has to say as truth or doctrine or whatever is bound to result in error. 

Of course, this is not what those of us like myself do believe. In fact I don't think I've ever met a single person who believed this. It's either a lie that certain people (I'll leave names out of it) perpetuate to discredit folks like me, or else based in complete stupidity.

What I do believe is that not accepting what is commonly taught by the majority of the brethren, which explains the truth of scriptures, is foolish, self-aggrandizing, prideful, ignorance. Some say, "I've figured this out by my own brain-power, reasoning, understanding of words, etc., and therefore the commonly-taught, in-every-church-manual-ever-printed, standard, basic plan of salvation teaching by the church and all the prophets and apostles is wrong". Some say such things subtly. Others say such things more directly, with more audacity, and thereby make bigger fools of themselves. But these are not one-off comments or opinions by Brigham Young or Orson Pratt we're talking about.

The implication that these folks make that I and those like me believe every word out of a prophet's mouth ever spoken must be absolute truth is complete rubbish and only adds further to the case against people who make that sort of claim. Saying such things is evidence that they cannot seem to even understand that there is a whole huge world of difference between believing the core, common, primary teachings of the church are truth and believing that men must live on the moon because Brigham Young said he thought there were.

[bytebear]

I think the "men on the moon" story was a joke that was take seriously only by anti-Mormons.

[MarginOfError]

Whether or not present company believes it, there are those that do. Most recently, I had a missionary attend Institute and he became displeased about how I interpreted something out of the scriptures to prompt a discussion (I will occasionally propose extreme and sometimes ludicrous interpretations to get my students thinking and talking). He corrected my interpretation (in itself, not a problem) by stating that a prophet had made some statement and therefore it was doctrine. 

He got pretty agitated when I said that just because a prophet said it didn't make it doctrine. (He got even more upset when I told him later just because it was in the scriptures didn't mean it was doctrine).

He left class and promptly reported me to his mission president and the bishop. From what I'm told, he was dismayed when the bishop told him I had a pretty good point.

So, long story short, this poor kid had been taught to believe everything from the scriptures and the prophets was literal truth. Such people do exist.

[Anddenex]

@JohnsonJones

Quote

1902 Joseph F. Smith to Lillian Golsan, July 16, 1902. "[T]he theories, speculations, and opinions of men, however intelligent, ingenious, and plausible, are not necessarily doctrines of the Church or principles that God has commanded His servants to preach. No doctrine is a doctrine of this Church until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority–the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated until proper permission is given.” - Joseph F. Smith Correspondence, Personal Letterbooks, 93–94, Film Reel 9, Ms. F271; cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 221–222. Also in Statements of the LDS First Presidency, compiled by Gary James Bergera (Signature, 2007), page 121. Bergera indicates it is a letter from JFS to Lillian Golsan, July 16, 1902.

This quote is truth. This is part of the problem we see today with your Kate Kellys' and Denver Snuffers who think the Lord will reveal something to them that is for the whole Church collectively. If God has revealed further light and knowledge to us, which is not in scripture, then we are wise to thank God for this wisdom and wait for him to reveal it through proper channels that God has set in place for this type of revelation to the Church collectively.

[The Folk Prophet]

32 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Whether or not present company believes it, there are those that do. Most recently, I had a missionary attend Institute and he became displeased about how I interpreted something out of the scriptures to prompt a discussion (I will occasionally propose extreme and sometimes ludicrous interpretations to get my students thinking and talking). He corrected my interpretation (in itself, not a problem) by stating that a prophet had made some statement and therefore it was doctrine. 

He got pretty agitated when I said that just because a prophet said it didn't make it doctrine. (He got even more upset when I told him later just because it was in the scriptures didn't mean it was doctrine).

He left class and promptly reported me to his mission president and the bishop. From what I'm told, he was dismayed when the bishop told him I had a pretty good point.

So, long story short, this poor kid had been taught to believe everything from the scriptures and the prophets was literal truth. Such people do exist.

Not sure I entirely believe that about the kid. I believe your story, but without details of what you were debating it's hard to discuss specifically. But I do not believe anyone LDS person thinks, for example, that it's doctrine that women should not speak in church because it's in the scriptures.

Of course there are naive children that haven't been introduced to reasonable thinking yet, or even really introduced to much at all (flawed parenting), and pointing out to them that the Bible teaches that women shouldn't speak may throw them for a loop a bit, but that's different than believing that the prophet saying we shouldn't have piercings except one pair for women is "doctrine". That may be slightly misguided, but hardly harmful.

But I take your point. There are naive people in the church.

But that's not what Rob was saying. He's arguing that educated people like me who are well versed in scripture, well versed in the teaching of the church, well versed in the fringe "hard" things of the gospel, etc., are burying our heads in the sand because we won't listen to his reasoning instead of trusting that the living prophets and apostles' teachings on the plan of salvation are true and right.

Interestingly Rob and I entirely agree on the definition of doctrine -- it's what the church teaches, and it can and does change over time. (To render it "unchangeable" you have to prepend it with something, specifically, "Christ's" or "eternal" doctrine). What we do not agree on is that core teachings on the plan of salvation and the kingdoms of glory that have been taught pretty much the entire history of the church and are consistently taught by all leaders, manuals, etc., are wrong. It's a matter of faith. I believe God guides and inspires his living prophets, generally speaking, and He would not have all the leaders over the entire course of the church floundering in complete ignorance over the meaning of D&C 76. He considers our leaders all buffoons who don't have a clue about the real meaning of D&C 76. (Oh...he'll say he respects them greatly...but his views show that to be false.)

His declaration that I take everything the prophets say as absolute truth is ignorant drivel. That is my plain point.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I have a hard time buying into that one.  To start, I think it's off the mark to say that doctrine is what the church officially believes and teaches.  The church is a temporal organization, and doctrine is more of an eternal construct.  It seems much more reasonable to think that policies, and commandments, and teachings change based on an ever evolving and developing understanding of doctrine, and how doctrine applies to social, cultural, and sometimes personal circumstances.

As a crude example, if the Church issued a statement tomorrow that it no longer recognizes Adam as the first literal man on earth, that would not be a change of doctrine.  Nothing in our core doctrine is dependent on Adam being the literal first man.  All of the same principles of sin and repentance and the need for the Atonement would be unchanged. Only our understanding of how those principles operate within the body of physical evidence would have changed.

Granted, this means we're really in agreement (and you know how much I hate agreeing with you), but we're arguing over terminology.  So I'll let that be satisfactory for maintaining our status quo.

I will, however, whole-heartedly agree with you that simply accepting everything a prophet has to say as truth or doctrine or whatever is bound to result in error. 

I think we generally agree with the process of truth and how it comes about. A slight semantics issue though with the word "doctrine". Doctrine in the church is defined as whatever beliefs we teach and is accepted- that which is found in manuals, regularly taught by propgets, etc. If the church came out and made a definitive statement regarding Adam that is different than what they now teach it would constitute a change in doctrine..

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Of course, this is not what those of us like myself do believe. In fact I don't think I've ever met a single person who believed this. It's either a lie that certain people (I'll leave names out of it) perpetuate to discredit folks like me, or else based in complete stupidity.

What I do believe is that not accepting what is commonly taught by the majority of the brethren, which explains the truth of scriptures, is foolish, self-aggrandizing, prideful, ignorance. Some say, "I've figured this out by my own brain-power, reasoning, understanding of words, etc., and therefore the commonly-taught, in-every-church-manual-ever-printed, standard, basic plan of salvation teaching by the church and all the prophets and apostles is wrong". Some say such things subtly. Others say such things more directly, with more audacity, and thereby make bigger fools of themselves. But these are not one-off comments or opinions by Brigham Young or Orson Pratt we're talking about.

The implication that these folks make that I and those like me believe every word out of a prophet's mouth ever spoken must be absolute truth is complete rubbish and only adds further to the case against people who make that sort of claim. Saying such things is evidence that they cannot seem to even understand that there is a whole huge world of difference between believing the core, common, primary teachings of the church are truth and believing that men must live on the moon because Brigham Young said he thought there were.

Yeah, some people dont like to address truth found in scripture so they go find some statement by a prophet that supports their worldview but then wont admit they are wrong...just sayin. Then when you corner them with truth they get all arrogant and ignore you and repeat the same quote over and over again...

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

Some people have no idea what "arrogant" means, and try and claim people like me are simply supporting their world view, when it's quite plain that the world view is that of the living prophet's and apostles which people like me are simply quoting. One can call it ignorant and arrogant all one wants, but the fact remains that the living prophets and apostles teach and say what they teach and say, and if one has a problem with that, one should take it up with the living prophets and apostles, not with me. One keeps saying they're going to present their ideas to the living prophets and apostles for confirmation. Why doesn't one shut up and get busy with it? Then one could have some actual weight behind what they preach. When I see a signed affidavit by President Nelson saying "Rob's interpretation of the plan of salvation is right, and what we, the living prophets and apostles, have been teaching and promoting as truth all these years has been a falsehood. All praise the great Rob Osborn", then I'll be on board. Until then...I know where my trust is, and it is not in the arm of Rob Osborn.

Poop or get off the pot already.

Edited April 19, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Some people have no idea what "arrogant" means, and try and claim people like me are simply supporting their world view, when it's quite plain that the world view is that of the living prophet's and apostles which people like me are simply quoting. One can call it ignorant and arrogant all one wants, but the fact remains that the living prophets and apostles teach and say what they teach and say, and if one has a problem with that, one should take it up with the living prophets and apostles, not with me. One keeps saying they're going to present their ideas to the living prophets and apostles for confirmation. Why doesn't one shut up and get busy with it? Then one could have some actual weight behind what they preach. When I see a signed affidavit by President Nelson saying "Rob's interpretation of the plan of salvation is right, and what we, the living prophets and apostles, have been teaching and promoting as truth all these years has been a falsehood. All praise the great Rob Osborn", then I'll be on board. Until then...I know where my trust is, and it is not in the arm of Rob Osborn.

Poop or get off the pot already.

You have to be the most obtuse person I know.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You have to be the most obtuse person I know.

Oh...well... now that you've called me stupid I'll have to abandon the teachings of the living prophets and apostles.

What a fool I've been for not being more intelligent than they are.

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Oh...well... now that you've called me stupid I'll have to abandon the teachings of the living prophets and apostles.

What a fool I've been for not being more intelligent than they are.

Hehehe

Dozens of people over dozens of threads have called him out in dozens of different ways on this issue.  We all know who the real obtuse person is here and it is not you @The Folk Prophet

[Rob Osborn]

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Not sure I entirely believe that about the kid. I believe your story, but without details of what you were debating it's hard to discuss specifically. But I do not believe anyone LDS person thinks, for example, that it's doctrine that women should not speak in church because it's in the scriptures.

Of course there are naive children that haven't been introduced to reasonable thinking yet, or even really introduced to much at all (flawed parenting), and pointing out to them that the Bible teaches that women shouldn't speak may throw them for a loop a bit, but that's different than believing that the prophet saying we shouldn't have piercings except one pair for women is "doctrine". That may be slightly misguided, but hardly harmful.

But I take your point. There are naive people in the church.

But that's not what Rob was saying. He's arguing that educated people like me who are well versed in scripture, well versed in the teaching of the church, well versed in the fringe "hard" things of the gospel, etc., are burying our heads in the sand because we won't listen to his reasoning instead of trusting that the living prophets and apostles' teachings on the plan of salvation are true and right.

Interestingly Rob and I entirely agree on the definition of doctrine -- it's what the church teaches, and it can and does change over time. (To render it "unchangeable" you have to prepend it with something, specifically, "Christ's" or "eternal" doctrine). What we do not agree on is that core teachings on the plan of salvation and the kingdoms of glory that have been taught pretty much the entire history of the church and are consistently taught by all leaders, manuals, etc., are wrong. It's a matter of faith. I believe God guides and inspires his living prophets, generally speaking, and He would not have all the leaders over the entire course of the church floundering in complete ignorance over the meaning of D&C 76. He considers our leaders all buffoons who don't have a clue about the real meaning of D&C 76. (Oh...he'll say he respects them greatly...but his views show that to be false.)

His declaration that I take everything the prophets say as absolute truth is ignorant drivel. That is my plain point.

Well, once again you are mischaracterizing me. I was stating that not all doctrine is truth. I dont have any problem believing we teach some things which I believe are incorrect. Does that mean I think prophets are bafoons? Absolutely not! Does it mean I think prophets are human? Yes. 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont have any problem believing we teach some things which I believe are incorrect. 

Clearly. You don't seem have any problem with telling people the prophets are incorrect at all.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Does it mean I think prophets are human? Yes.

Where "human" is defined as "he's saying something I don't agree with".

I don't know what to do about this. I have done this very thing with the teachings and opinions of some prophets and apostles, especially where there are contrasting opinions from other apostles and prophets. But at some point, we need to get past this and grow up. I see at least three aspects this:

1. We need to try to get past what the prophets say and instead understand what they're trying to teach. I may be wrong, but I suspect when Elder Packer railed against organic evolution, he didn't so much have a problem with the scientific idea as he did with the inevitable baggage it carried, the implicit idea that we are nothing more than animals. I think I realized this, or at least affirmed this opinion, when President Clinton was being dogged by accusations of infidelity, and many of his apologists publicly reasoned that he was simply the ultimate alpha male, and thus should be expected to mate with whatever willing and attractive female offered herself to him.
2. We need to understand that even if our views are in some sense "better" or "more correct" than those of an apostle, we are still wrong in what we believe. Our beliefs are mere models of what exists outside our craniums, and those models are always incomplete (at best). It's one thing to say, "My model is more accurate than your model," and quite another to say, "My model is right and yours is wrong." Along with that, we should remember that "more accurate" is strictly comparative, and depends on exactly what you are examining. If you are looking at models of morality in guiding human behavior, I submit that the model that arises from organic evolution is simply false, regardless of how good a model organic evolution itself might be.
3. Do we value the prophets, or do we not? If we value their teachings and their very existence among us, we will pay them heed. We will never -- not once -- try to show our superior intellect or spirituality or social understanding, or do any other type of worldly virtue-signalling, by raising our disagreements with them. We will keep such opinions to ourselves.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Where "human" is defined as "he's saying something I don't agree with".

I don't know what to do about this. I have done this very thing with the teachings and opinions of some prophets and apostles, especially where there are contrasting opinions from other apostles and prophets. But at some point, we need to get past this and grow up. I see at least three aspects this:

1. We need to try to get past what the prophets say and instead understand what they're trying to teach. I may be wrong, but I suspect when Elder Packer railed against organic evolution, he didn't so much have a problem with the scientific idea as he did with the inevitable baggage it carried, the implicit idea that we are nothing more than animals. I think I realized this, or at least affirmed this opinion, when President Clinton was being dogged by accusations of infidelity, and many of his apologists publicly reasoned that he was simply the ultimate alpha male, and thus should be expected to mate with whatever willing and attractive female offered herself to him.
2. We need to understand that even if our views are in some sense "better" or "more correct" than those of an apostle, we are still wrong in what we believe. Our beliefs are mere models of what exists outside our craniums, and those models are always incomplete (at best). It's one thing to say, "My model is more accurate than your model," and quite another to say, "My model is right and yours is wrong." Along with that, we should remember that "more accurate" is strictly comparative, and depends on exactly what you are examining. If you are looking at models of morality in guiding human behavior, I submit that the model that arises from organic evolution is simply false, regardless of how good a model organic evolution itself might be.
3. Do we value the prophets, or do we not? If we value their teachings and their very existence among us, we will pay them heed. We will never -- not once -- try to show our superior intellect or spirituality or social understanding, or do any other type of worldly virtue-signalling, by raising our disagreements with them. We will keep such opinions to ourselves.

I guess if that works for you...

The most important thing we need to do is seek the confirmation that what is taught is true. The Holy Ghost can confirm that truth. Now, certain doctrines in the church that I have prayed about I havent received that confirmation that they are true. Is it proper or even ethically correct to admit or conclude that doctrine doesnt equate to "truth". Yes, its the right thing to do. The church has beliefs. Those beliefs make up the doctrine of the church. That doctrine may or may not be correct. This also applies to policies in the church too. Lets admit we arent perfect as a religion. The bottom line is that doctrine doent necessarily equate to eternal truth. Coming to that reality is being "grown up".

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Clearly. You don't seem have any problem with telling people the prophets are incorrect at all.

It doesnt matter if its you, my father, my neighbor, or a prophet. We are all human and have our own opinions. We are all prone to error. Theres nothing wrong in stating factually that one believes something is incorrect. We are judged by the light and knowledge we have. For me to say something is true when I feel it is untrue is to be deceptive. I teach what I feel is right as has been confirmed by the spirit to me. Thats all I can do- teach by the spirit.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

It doesnt matter if its you, my father, my neighbor, or a prophet. We are all human and have our own opinions. We are all prone to error. Theres nothing wrong in stating factually that one believes something is incorrect. We are judged by the light and knowledge we have. For me to say something is true when I feel it is untrue is to be deceptive. I teach what I feel is right as has been confirmed by the spirit to me. Thats all I can do- teach by the spirit.

 

On 4/9/2018 at 3:11 PM, Rob Osborn said:

I have never said I have received a personal revelation on this. I have used my mind coupled with experiences I have had to come to this conclusion. But, to have it confirmed as truth will require me to go to priesthood leaders. So, theres no conflict.

Well, well, well.

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

Well, well, well.

Well, well, well nothing.

Did you even read what I was getting at? 

The Lord reveals new light and knowledge that effect church doctrine through his holy prophets. We can then seek confirmation to know if it is truth revealed. Sometimes opinions get put in manuals that isnt revealed truth. We can pray about that too. If the Holy Ghost doesnt confirm it is true, it isnt true. Thats not receiving new revelation concerning doctrine for the church.

Do you understand this principle?

[Vort]

39 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Now, certain doctrines in the church that I have prayed about I havent received that confirmation that they are true. Is it proper or even ethically correct to admit or conclude that doctrine doesnt equate to "truth". Yes, its the right thing to do.

What you stated above is that if you have not been given a witness by the Holy Ghost of Principle X, this lack of witness is proof that Principle X is false.

Do you really believe this? If so, hurry to this site and do all the logic puzzles you can.

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, well, well nothing.

Did you even read what I was getting at? 

The Lord reveals new light and knowledge that effect church doctrine through his holy prophets. We can then seek confirmation to know if it is truth revealed. Sometimes opinions get put in manuals that isnt revealed truth. We can pray about that too. If the Holy Ghost doesnt confirm it is true, it isnt true. Thats not receiving new revelation concerning doctrine for the church.

Do you understand this principle?

What I understand is that you said you'd never gotten revelation on it and then you said have. Which of those times you were not speaking the truth?

Seems like your changing tactics because you aren't getting through. After all, who can argue against, "the Spirit told me I was right".

Your cunning grows.

[zil]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

After all, who can argue against, "the Spirit told me I was right".

(I know, rhetorical question, still...)  I can.  And so can the scriptures!

59 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thats all I can do- teach by the spirit.

No, you can also keep your mouth closed when what you think contradicts what the prophets teach as doctrine, and therefore also contradicts the order the Lord established for teaching doctrine, and therefore has the potential to lead people to reject the prophets - something far worse than whether they have a correct understanding of heaven and hell.

If you want to contradict the prophets on the best ink color and nib size ever, have at it.  But when it comes to doctrine, doing so is contrary to the Lord's explicit instructions - regardless of whether you or they are right.

Edited April 19, 2018 by zil