Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemidakota
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.
|
Hey Hemidakota,
I respectfully disagree. If Joseph Smith said something that is binding doctrine upon members of the Church, then we would find the doctrine in our current edition of the Standard Works. Not everything that is said by Joseph Smith or any other prophet is to be considered doctrine of this Church. I guess from time to time we have to repost this from the Church's Newsroom. Ceeboo, I think you should read this too, so you can be less confused by the various points of view on these forums.
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine. (Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom)
Though that statement was prepared mainly for public commentators, I think it's important for members to understand as well. It's really quite simple to me. If it is the doctrine of this Church, then show me from the scriptures, and then I am certain that the Holy Ghost will confirm it.
Quote:
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.
|
If there are such principles, that have not been given to the Saints by the process God has established, yet someone thinks they have received them and that they are authorized to teach them in such a public manner, as these forums, then I would be concerned about that.
I would caution against anyone thinking that they have received something by way of revelation that goes beyond what is taught by the Church as doctrine. The Preach My Gospel manual cautions that we should compare the inspiration that we receive with the scriptures and teachings of the
living prophets. We must also be certain that our feelings are consistent with our calling or assignment. (
http://broadcast.lds.org/Missionary/...17_eng_011.pdf)
President Boyd K. Packer counseled:
“I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently. And when they do, they are generally for our own edification, instruction, or correction. Unless we are called by proper authority to do so, they do not position us to counsel or to correct others.
I have come to believe also that it is not wise to continually talk of unusual spiritual experiences. They are to be guarded with care and shared only when the Spirit itself prompts you to use them to the blessing of others” (Ensign, Jan. 1983, 53).
All of that said, I don't believe there were many things that Joseph Smith taught that could not be backed up by scripture. It is the various interpretations and specualtions of his teachings, that go beyond what we have received as doctrine, that I think should concern us.
Regards,
Vanhin