Jesus and other worlds

[bytor2112]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

"Mormon Doctrine" the book is NOT the gold standard for true mormon doctrine. The brethren actually chastized Bruce R for the book and even he himself said it was only his best knowledge at that time and that modern revelation would trump it.

And with regards to Jesus and other worlds, the truest answer is that we really don't know. When it gets added to the canon, then we can say we have an official position on something.

I have to disagree with you just a bit. In 1958 as a Seventy he wrote Mormon Doctrine and there were elements in the book that didn't reflect the views of the brethren.....namely dealing with things like face card playing, reading written talks and taking aim at the Catholic church and also the title had a very official sound. A few years later Elder McConkie with the assistance of Spencer W Kimball and at the request of the First Presidency softened the tone of the original version. You may recall that Elder McConkie was also married to Joseph Fielding Smiths daughter and Elder Smith thought very highly of the volume.

Much of the revised Mormon Doctrine is found in the bible dictionary and I think given the edits done at the request of the First Presidency and also the fact that is still so often quoted by General Authorities and in Church educational material, we can probably feel confident in the inspiration behind the work.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Wasn't the Bible written by apostles?

[bytor2112]

Frankly, the book, while interesting, is N-O-T Mormon doctrine no matter what he named it. If you want to learn actual LDS Doctrine, this is NOT a book I would reccomend.

Funny...the church seems to disagree with you. I refer to it often as a reference book as a lot of church educational material does as well. I know some dislike BRM for his brashness, as he once commented to his son at BYU, "tell them to warm up the tar, I'm coming to speak"......... but none the less, he is responsible for much of the modern LDS scripture rendering and he did soften his tone in the revised Mormon Doctrine.

[martybess]

For an investigator I would suggest what the church suggests for reading and that's "gospel principles". Published by the church and is a great basic book! I still have the copy given me when I started learning the principles of the church some 30 years ago.

-Marty

[beefche]

Originally Posted by bytor2112

Funny...the church seems to disagree with you. I refer to it often as a reference book as a lot of church educational material does as well. I know some dislike BRM for his brashness, as he once commented to his son at BYU, "tell them to warm up the tar, I'm coming to speak"......... but none the less, he is responsible for much of the modern LDS scripture rendering and he did soften his tone in the revised Mormon Doctrine.

bytor, I understand what you are saying. Mormon Doctrine is a good reference book. However, I do not hold it as actual doctrine. If I want doctrine, then I will go directly to the scriptures or even a book published by the 1st presidency/12 apostles, such as teaching manuals for church. If I want to explain doctrine, then I would use Mormon Doctrine as a reference.

The problem (in my opinion) with using Mormon Doctrine as actual doctrine, we run into issues with things that are not doctrinal--like face cards, blacks/priesthood, etc. Too often, people rely on the Mormon Doctrine their parents had and do not consider that there are later editions which corrections. Further, I do believe that the book says it does not reflect the views of the LDS church with their sanction (or some such language). I could be wrong on that, but even books written by current apostles have that caveat in their books.

[allredcon]

Is it just me, or is this getting redundantly redundant, redundant.

[Misshalfway]

Originally Posted by bytor2112

Funny...the church seems to disagree with you. I refer to it often as a reference book as a lot of church educational material does as well. I know some dislike BRM for his brashness, as he once commented to his son at BYU, "tell them to warm up the tar, I'm coming to speak"......... but none the less, he is responsible for much of the modern LDS scripture rendering and he did soften his tone in the revised Mormon Doctrine.

He is also responsible for messing up some people's attitudes about a few things. I am under the understanding, though I can't quote him, that even he understood that he got a few things wrong. You can go ahead and revere the volume all you want and you can revere the man because of who he married, but he was just a man writing about his finite understanding of things. Making it more than that I think is a mistake. I am not saying Bruce R isn't one of the finest men and a person of amazing understanding. I am saying that his writings were NOT doctrinally flawless and therefore shouldn't be considered official church doctrine. That goes for any work published by any of the 12 at any time.

It's interesting that you say that the Church disagrees. I haven't seen "Mormon Doctrine" included in the churches official publications. I will agree with another poster and suggest the Gospel Principles manual and other official church publications. It wouldn't hurt to visit the scriptures as well.

[bytor2112]

It's interesting that you say that the Church disagrees. I haven't seen "Mormon Doctrine" included in the churches official publications. I will agree with another poster and suggest the Gospel Principles manual and other official church publications. It wouldn't hurt to visit the scriptures as well.

I am fairly certain that the Bible dictionary is taken from MD and it is often quoted in church teaching manuals......and yes, he was merely a man after all. The quote you are wanting ( I think) is regarding the 1978 revelation. I have read most of his works and I believe there is a disclaimer in all of them.

[Misshalfway]

Yes. That is the quote I want. I am getting the feeling that Bruce R. knew his own limitations better than those who make him more than he was. We, perhaps innocently and understandably, do that in the church. We make JSmith more than a man and then our testimonies crash when we learn the dude was human. King Benjamin warned his own people not to make the same mistake. Bruce R. wrote a good book. A book that NEEDED some revisions. It's ok if you love the book, Bytor. You aren't alone. It's just not ok to say that the church endorses it......even if they used parts of it for the BD. I'd rather you refer investigators directly to the bible dictionary than to a book that has known doctrinal errors. I honestly think the fall out from using books like this as the gold standard is why the church adopted and promoted the admonition to the church to ONLY teach out of church approved material.

[bytor2112]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

Yes. That is the quote I want. I am getting the feeling that Bruce R. knew his own limitations better than those who make him more than he was. We, perhaps innocently and understandably, do that in the church. We make JSmith more than a man and then our testimonies crash when we learn the dude was human. King Benjamin warned his own people not to make the same mistake. Bruce R. wrote a good book. A book that NEEDED some revisions. It's ok if you love the book, Bytor. You aren't alone. It's just not ok to say that the church endorses it......even if they used parts of it for the BD. I'd rather you refer investigators directly to the bible dictionary than to a book that has known doctrinal errors. I honestly think the fall out from using books like this as the gold standard is why the church adopted and promoted the admonition to the church to ONLY teach out of church approved material.

I hear you...BUT....the book wasn't known for having doctrinal errors. Some have alleged that it did because of a comment made by President McKay. It did have some very strongly worded language that was later softened. That being said, it is a good reference book and nothing more. I don't love the book, but I have heard misleading comments about it in the past and just wanted to defend my brother Bruce.