David Miller wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
> > I am stating the OFFICIAL General Authority Position.
> > This is the ONLY position. According to LDS prophets
> > they are the only ones allowed to state LDS doctrine.
>
> I would like to hear from DaveH and Blaine about this. Has Kevin been
> giving official General Authority Position?
DAVEH: Not in my opinion.
> It seems to me that Glenn
> would quote from the Journal of Discourses like Kevin does, and the
> response was that this was not considered Mormon doctrine.
DAVEH: Correct. Material found in the JofD may or may not be official LDS doctrine.
The JofD are simply an accumulation of sermons (for the most part....there may be some
that were not ever sermons---I'm not sure) preached back in the days (19th
Century) before modern communicational methods. They were published in England so the
LDS folks there would have some idea of what the LDS folks on this side of the pond
were hearing.
I have found a lot of detractors claim that anything spoken by a latter-day
prophet is absolutely correct and can be taken as doctrine. I personally disagree
with such a supposition, and don't know any LDS folks who think differently....though
there
may be some.
There is a popular joke floating around (the LDS world) that says Catholicism
teaches the Pope is infallible, but no Catholics believe it. And.......Mormon
theology teaches the Prophet is fallible, but no Mormons believe it. I don't know if
any
TTers find that funny, but in Mormonism it is quite humorous.
FTR........Let me say that LDS theology teaches that anything revealed by God is
'scriptural'. But that is distinctly different than saying it is canonical. We
have 4 books that we consider canon of scripture.....the "Standard Works". What if
found inside those works is considered doctrinal in the Church. That does not mean
that some LDS folks don't interpret some of what's found there differently though. As
in reading the Bible, there can be several different ways passages can be
understood.
When the GAs (General Authorities) say something, it can be considered to be
conjecture on their part, guessing, speculation.......or......more than likely it is
considered to be material they/we believe is revealed to them from the Lord. Most
often,
that is what they preach in their sermons. One seldom hears GAs speculating when they
preach. But they may do so in other situations or even in their writings. What most
LDS folks consider to be the most important words from one of our Church leaders
is when/if they say "thus saith the Lord". However, even using such language does not
make it canonical. For it to be canonized, their words would have to be included in
the Standard Works.
I hope that clarifies it to your satisfaction, DavidM. And......I hope what I've
said is reasonably accurate. Blaine.....feel free to correct me or add upon what I've
said if you feel compelled.
> Can I get
> some clarification on this please?
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
