I once had a conversation with a stake president where I commented how I appreciated the doctrine contained in Pres. Lorenzo Snow’s couplet. He responded that it was not doctrine. When I stated that I was sure I had heard it at General Conference, he stated that if so, it would have been said without authorization. Of course, I did a search at lds.org and found 6 or more instances of it being referred to by an apostle or member of the first presidency, including Elder Gordon B. Hinckley.

So according to my stake president, something said at General Conference, even many General Conferences, is not necessarily doctrine. Do you believe that? Don’t the Qo12 and the FP know any better ;=)

The issue of Adam-God is another interesting point. Brigham Young, a prophet of God, declared that he had learned it from heaven and from Joseph. A later president of the Church declares it wrong. What is a humble member of the Church to do? What if yet a later president declared it as truth? Surely the truth of the matter would not have changed from one president to another. What would have changed? The acceptance of the doctrine by the church. Somehow this seems like it could be a bit of a roller coaster ride.

Another interesting doctrine is the identity of Jehovah. It seems in the early Church (pre-James E. Talmage) that most of the sermons pointed to the Father as the personage known as Jehovah. However, since then we preach that, no, it is the Son who is Jehovah. Now, the scriptures which show that the Father is Jehovah (i.e. D&C 109 and Psalms 110) have for the most part not changed. Some of the hymns have. But the scriptures have not. However, the doctrine has altered. How could that be? Particularly on something so fundamental as the knowledge of God?

It seems to me that the end of the matter is that all of us must know by the witness of the Spirit the truth of these things. That way we do not have to worry about being dragged down by the incorrect opinion of one who is set as a light for us (JST Mark 9:40-48).

In the end salvation is an individual affair and we must learn our lessons ourselves and depend on the Spirit and not on man.

Steve

D&C 86:9-11 (recorded in 1832) refers to a restoration that had yet to begin, but was possibly completed as of D&C 132:40 (~1843).

D&C 103:13 refers to a restoration that has never occurred. Of course some people, like Elder McConkie think that D&C 103 is moot.

one of the things I like in your opinions is that you tend to give an historical perspective rather than having a straight foward openion. for instance some of the people that came from there USA, on missions came with a straight openion that Catholicism was sick and there is nothing good in it, I think that hinckley is actually making much effort to open the bounderies from some people´s minds in this case. With time and looking at this old churches with centuries of existence( as I can see them in every corner over here, I try to get a feeling of some apreciation. Would´t have been for this buildings and the history behind it as darken as it can be, we would not be a christian nation, so wouldn´t you and half of this world. if instead we could dream as some people might have dreamt that behind any building of worship remains the attatchment to a higher prespective. The spirit was what left this buildings. The same with the wood analogy, I can enter this churches and try to smell them and stop there….I try now to go a bit behond. The difference is that the skies were opened and we can see through it if we want, or we might choose not too and look down and centuries would pass and the buildings over there would also rotten and become dry, and dark…..
The way I see apostasy was also a long time process, the same as restoration….we can see through some times if we decide to.

curiously i am writting to you from Portugal. I have to say that I have got both your books. I must admit that they have unlightend my mind in many aspects. It its very hard sometimes to get the kind of openess over here. My father being a stake president and a faithfull teacher in the institute together with the fact that I served a mission gave me much of the light to understand many of the things we have.
When I say openess i do not refer to the new so called left or right ideas within our church.I dont agree with those positions. people tend to use similar terminologies to define spiritual things i think its all wrong. I see scriptures as a piece of wood. some people will stay with the piece of wood (doctrine in it self) and do nothing with it. they will smell it, take it whatever they go, but the piece of wood will stay the same. I believe we are to give life to the piece of wood as to get the idea of where did it come from. We have to stop seeing things as there were dead. We tend to limit our selves many times and we restrict interpretation that goes behond the solidity of things. Like people would say hell or heaven as if they were places with locked doors. I dont think those places exist in that form.
Another think I deslike in many people is to put the word restoration as a past thing. (Please give your openion on this). Restoration is an ongoing process, we are always being restored, we are always being guided to get into the light in an on going process, as light grows or goes short so does darkeness. in my interpretation some of our people may live in the darkness, its also true that some people see well in the darkess or they relly more on their hands to hold them to the correct path…. Some other people may not be so cautios and fall…
For instance people see God as the ultimate position as if he goes and sits in a chair all eternity, that is so no true in my eyes, limiting the position by taking space and time from it is not acceptable in my mind. Now I do think that joseph smith gave a great step in order to restore truth others followed him in maintaning the path, but we have to go on and restore even more, that is what missionaries do. I do believe lds philosophy to be the most evoluted of all. our interpretations of things goes on to clean the separation Plato created from Church and reason. Its funny how deep greeks influenced the world to into the state is is now.
your free agency explanation gave me light in the interpretation of evolution versus Design, even though you did not give much objectivity i think I got your openion. free agency is a beautifull thing, it just answers it all, if somebody asks me the question again of wether do I believe in evolution or design I answer free agency. It is with us all by choosing the right we grow, together. One of the most accurate truths of all in my mind is our interpretation of the family salvation as a whole. others prefer to refere to salvation as an individual path…
My friends that are non mormons know what I think and they love my explanations, they all come from the fact that we are trully iluminated in terms of our interpretation of God. The way you put it is absolutly beautifull in your book. I so wish we could have your books in Portuguese, my father would love to read you.
Please reply

In some senses, yes, I think we are in agreement. But I think we “weigh” things slightly differently when trying to come to a knowledge of the truth. Let me give a very concrete example, which I think will help.

As far as I can find, the old priesthood ban was started with Brigham Young. He claimed it as part of a revelation. Now, this wasn’t ever presented for ratification to the church, and as such it just became the de facto policy to deny the priesthood to certain people. I think we both agree that, when the ban was still active, it would be stepping beyond one’s bounds to contradict the Lord’s servants by claiming the ban was not of God (whether or not it was of God). On the other hand, it was entirely within bounds to pray that it end (whether or not it was of God). Where we seem to disagree (and after wading through this big discussion, it seems a minor point–but I guess all points are minor when not affecting ones salvation) is what level of attention we should give to Brigham’s words, and how we should use them to interpret scripture.

For me, these words are very authoritative, even though they were not spoken in General Conference. And, as such, I give them serious contemplation. In terms of an “interpretive tradition”, I think our tradition would place such things high on the scale of what we (collectively) used to preach to the world.

Similarly, I view the 1st presidency statements (even if just statements of current belief) as coming from the highest priesthood quorum, and representative of the Church’s position. As such, I weigh them very highly.

It seems to me that you are a bit more conservative in what you view as inspired writings/sermons. If a prophet seems to contradict your understanding of scripture, I read you as not caring too much unless the prophet is clearly claiming revelation in some manner. I’m much the same way actually, EXCEPT when the prophet speaking is the Presiding High Priest. In that case, there is more authority in revealing new doctrine, and so I feel obligated (via my sustaining) to carefully ponder his words. And when the stamp of the 1st presidency is on a statement, I feel even more obligated. Such statements are not commonplace, and (in my opinion) represent the will of the Lord more fully than statements given by just one member of the quorum.

If I had to choose which statements to ponder the most, among all of those spoken by the prophets, I would probably first choose the scriptures. But I wouldn’t say this makes them more “authoritative” in interpreting church doctrine. Next in line, I’d choose those statements made by the current prophets over and above Joseph Smith’s sermons, especially the recent documents signed by all of the prophets, seers, and revelators.

—————–

Thinking about it some more, maybe this is the difference:

You seem to be coming from a “context-oriented” interpretive paradigm. I come from an “authority-oriented” interpretive paradigm. You “weigh” things by their contextual significance. As such, the scriptures trump everything in establishing context, and then come Joseph Smith’s early revelations and sermons, etc… On the other hand, I “weigh” things by their authoritativeness with regards to our public doctrine as a Church. It doesn’t matter (as much) to me that Joseph F. Smith might have misheard Joseph Smith when teaching about the salvation of little children–the main thing that matters to me is whether Joseph F. Smith was the president of the church, and claimed in his authority that such teachings are true.

Does this seem a fair assessment? From a context-oriented paradigm, Brigham’s comments are thought of in terms of the culture of the day, whether Brigham was understanding Joseph correctly, and so forth. From an authoritative-oriented paradigm, Brigham’s comments are thought of in terms of whether he had authority to pronounce such doctrines, whether other prophets later clarified his remarks, etc…

Best,
Pace

Given this, aren’t we in agreement?