Who Determines LDS doctrine?

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Focus…you jumped into a conversation, between BOJ and I, then contradicted what he wrote. LOL…Ralf I love ya man.
Your interpretation is whacked. He never said that if all 15 say it, that makes it doctrine. I agreed that it's a good rule of thumb and I do too. Now if you can produce references that all 15 apostles have taught it, then we'll see if that rule of thumb works.
 

dberrie2020

Super Member
Your post once again are a vain attempt to beg credibility for the church by trying to compare it to the Christian Faith,

Why would a church which is patterned after the NT testimony--have to beg anything?


Acts 16:4-5---King James Version
4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

That's the same pattern The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have. They have the living, mortal apostles and prophets to do so.

mostly to justify th eGod complex that the church forces of worthy TBM males.

That's just a polemic against the Biblical witness above.

How many time have you been told that a foundation is laid one time, not many times…

And it remains the same:

Acts 14:14---King James Version
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Where do we find anything about the foundation having to be the SAME apostles and prophets throughout time? Where is that?

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

If you are claiming the same apostles and prophets--then Acts14:14 seems to disagree--as neither Paul nor Barnabas were part of the original twelve--and neither was Matthias:

Acts 1:21-25---King James Version
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

I am in construction and have been for over 45 years…and th e foundation always support the structure or building. Yet you keep trying to force a false narrative that you need to keep building a foundation under the building, in this case “the church.”

The foundation has to maintained--that's obvious:

Acts 14:14---King James Version
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

It's still the foundation of apostles and prophets. How does new apostles change that?

LOL the difference is that the church is Jesus Christ, and foundation is symbolically the chosen apostles. Not 12 white guys in Utah ....

Or twelve Jews situated in Jerusalem?

Ther are other church that claim exactly the same as you said above,

Not that can give a testimony to the visitation of heavenly Beings--with witnesses:


SECTION 110

Visions manifested to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery in the temple at Kirtland, Ohio, April 3, 1836. The occasion was that of a Sabbath day meeting. Joseph Smiths history states: In the afternoon, I assisted the other Presidents in distributing the Lords Supper to the Church, receiving it from the Twelve, whose privilege it was to officiate at the sacred desk this day. After having performed this service to my brethren, I retired to the pulpit, the veils being dropped, and bowed myself, with Oliver Cowdery, in solemn and silent prayer. After rising from prayer, the following vision was opened to both of us.


D&C 110
1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.
2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.
3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:
4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.
5 Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice.
6 Let the hearts of your brethren rejoice, and let the hearts of all my people rejoice, who have, with their might, built this house to my name.
7 For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.
8 Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not pollute this holy house.
9 Yea the hearts of thousands and tens of thousands shall greatly rejoice in consequence of the blessings which shall be poured out, and the endowment with which my servants have been endowed in this house.
10 And the fame of this house shall spread to foreign lands; and this is the beginning of the blessing which shall be poured out upon the heads of my people. Even so. Amen.
11 After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north.
12 After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed.
13 After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said:
14 Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi, testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come
15 To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse
16 Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.
 

Richard7

Well-known member
Revelations come from JC according to the LDS church. It is written down in Scriptures, and then taught as doctrine. Doctrine is a set of teachings, and not necessary religious in nature, such as the Monroe Doctrine, or the Kennedy Doctrine.
Chuckle... not a good answer, good buddy.
 

Richard7

Well-known member
What is the definition of doctrine?
Christs teaching of core principle and all its appendages found in the four basic scriptures we use... can doctrine change? what say you Markk?

Joseph Fielding Smith

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.[3]
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Ralf, it is how LDS doctrine is produced in regards to distribution to the folks…yes. Doctrine according to the LDS church is God’s teaches as revealed by the prophets, wether official canonized or direct teachings. There are 15 prophets in the LDS church with the one head prophet or president who is “the” prophet. These prophets and apostles, are sustained by the folks to interpret the the official canonized doctrines of the church, and whether you want to accept the current process of not, they chose some time ago to do this through correlation, which is a group of paid employees, putting together teaching manuals under the supervision of the GA. The church also is clear that God speaks to the folks by these 15 prophets.
This is all true. And, remember, as a quorum, they must be unified
The problem with this is that no member really knows what is truth coming it of these folks mouths…What one of these men say might be a long standing agreed upon doctrine, or a temporary doctrine later discarded as just an opinion
Yes. That's part of the ongoing restoration, a lot of beliefs are generational, built out of the culture of the times.
Over time what the church has sought to make a central tenet turns out that it's not the end all be all for all eternity.
Those that have made a precept of men (polygamy) trump over more basic concepts (ie. faith, repentance, etc.), or in other words - confusing that which is "sanctifying" with that which is "justifying" will get seriously confused and eventually fall away. That's why it's important to have our own personal line of revelation with the Lord, and not rely on the arm of the flesh to determine truth.

. In a strict sense a doctrine is nothing more than a fundamental teaching. The reality in the LDS church is, a doctrine is more or less whatever someone wants it to be according to their personal interpretation of what a prophet teaches or what the standard works read To then through the HG. Aaron‘s interpretation of doctrine is different than yours as an example…and your way around it for you is to just throw him under the bus and claim you are not really sure he is a Mormon because he does not interpret the same way as you.
I'm sure Ralf (@Richard7 ) agrees with me that the Doctrine of Christ is the MOST fundamental of teachings. Everything generally discussed on this is usually stuff that isn't pertinent to our salvation, so it's rather dumb to contend or condemn anyone over it. I certainly don't condemn Ralf for any of his beliefs. (anything that I've seen anyway, I don't pay that close of attention.) BoJ, IMO, is a different story - he seems to be all over the place.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
So, BoJ was incorrect that only “The” prophet can say it is from the Lord, and the other prophets can’t?
The prophet is the only one who has the authority to receive revelation for the entire church. He does not have the authority to redefine doctrinal beliefs of his own accord, and contradicting the scriptures. If a priesthood authority (over a given stewardship) claims to have received revelation by the Holy Ghost, each person within that stewardship has a right to receive confirmation by the Holy Ghost.

…he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth.
Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.
Doctrine & Covenants 50:21-22
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Your post once again are a vain attempt to beg credibility for the church by trying to compare it to the Christian Faith, mostly to justify th eGod complex that the church forces of worthy TBM males.

How many time have you been told that a foundation is laid one time, not many times…I am in construction and have been for over 45 years…and th e foundation always support the structure or building. Yet you keep trying to force a false narrative that you need to keep building a foundation under the building, in this case “the church.”

LOL the difference is that the church is Jesus Christ, and foundation is symbolically the chosen apostles. Not 12 white guys in Utah that think they are a God, because they received a second anointing?

Ther are other church that claim exactly the same as you said above, and their prophet who claims to hold the same keys that you do is in jail in Arizona…just as Joseph was in Jail when he was killed. So that is my dare I challenge you to defend? Warren Jeff make the exact same claims that Russel Nelson does.
These are valid points. The "12 white guys" have agency. Priesthood authority can be abused (see D&C 121).
That's the problem with our critics. They only want to present that in which former authorities could have been wrong, and on the flip side there's people here on the mormon side that want to defend all authorities in all times at all costs.
What's being overlooked is the role of the Holy Ghost, our intent and personal relationship with the Lord, and extending grace to those who are sincere.

I don't know the teachings of Warren Jeffs, but my guess is that which he reveals is probably self-serving.
If the "fundamental"-ness of the restored gospel relies in polygamy resulting in what others perceive as sex-crimes, really isn't much different than infant baptism. Maybe there are the honest in heart following him, but if that's true they can't turn a blind eye to the victims.
Having said that, I have acknowledged potential victims and repudiated the actions of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. I'm not aware of any current victims other than certain bishops abusing their authority, and the Church has put in measures to prevent those things from happening again - still it goes back to people having agency. Even so, it doesn't justify using an "all or nothing" fallacy.
 

Markk

Super Member
These are valid points. The "12 white guys" have agency. Priesthood authority can be abused (see D&C 121).
That's the problem with our critics. They only want to present that in which former authorities could have been wrong, and on the flip side there's people here on the mormon side that want to defend all authorities in all times at all costs.
What's being overlooked is the role of the Holy Ghost, our intent and personal relationship with the Lord, and extending grace to those who are sincere.

I don't know the teachings of Warren Jeffs, but my guess is that which he reveals is probably self-serving.
If the "fundamental"-ness of the restored gospel relies in polygamy resulting in what others perceive as sex-crimes, really isn't much different than infant baptism. Maybe there are the honest in heart following him, but if that's true they can't turn a blind eye to the victims.
Having said that, I have acknowledged potential victims and repudiated the actions of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. I'm not aware of any current victims other than certain bishops abusing their authority, and the Church has put in measures to prevent those things from happening again - still it goes back to people having agency. Even so, it doesn't justify using an "all or nothing" fallacy.
Hey Aaron,

Jeff’s and the Fundamentalists, take section 121 literally…they are closer to the Navuoo church, that todays LDS church is. They stil practce as Joseph taught and did…and not as todays LDS church teaches. I recommend yo study their doctrines, practices, and polices. You can find it easily on the net.

Thansk
 

Richard7

Well-known member
Hey Aaron,

Jeff’s and the Fundamentalists, take section 121 literally…they are closer to the Navuoo church, that todays LDS church is. They stil practce as Joseph taught and did…and not as todays LDS church teaches. I recommend yo study their doctrines, practices, and polices. You can find it easily on the net.

Thansk
Thank goodness for us fundamentalists, black and white forever good buddy.

1–6, The Prophet pleads with the Lord for the suffering Saints; 7–10, The Lord speaks peace to him; 11–17, Cursed are all those who raise false cries of transgression against the Lord’s people; 18–25, They will not have right to the priesthood and will be ------; 26–32, Glorious revelations promised those who endure valiantly; 33–40, Why many are called and few are chosen; 41–46, The priesthood should be used only in righteousness.

So Markk do you have the Priesthood, hmm..... prophesy comes true...
 

Markk

Super Member
Thank goodness for us fundamentalists, black and white forever good buddy.

1–6, The Prophet pleads with the Lord for the suffering Saints; 7–10, The Lord speaks peace to him; 11–17, Cursed are all those who raise false cries of transgression against the Lord’s people; 18–25, They will not have right to the priesthood and will be ------; 26–32, Glorious revelations promised those who endure valiantly; 33–40, Why many are called and few are chosen; 41–46, The priesthood should be used only in righteousness.

So Markk do you have the Priesthood, hmm..... prophesy comes true...
LOL…do you agree with Jeff’s? No I do not have any special PH other than by faith (RPHoB) , I am an adopted child of God. I can only offer a sacrifice of thanks, through by good works…post salvation.

But I am glad you admit you agree with Jeff’s…do you know who he is?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Hey Aaron,

Jeff’s and the Fundamentalists, take section 121 literally…they are closer to the Navuoo church, that todays LDS church is. They stil practce as Joseph taught and did…and not as todays LDS church teaches. I recommend yo study their doctrines, practices, and polices. You can find it easily on the net.

Thansk
A couple thoughts:
Rather than telling me about it, why don't you show how Warren Jeffs complies with D&C 121 better than the LDS does? Because I believe what happened in Nauvoo is the opposite of what should have happened. I'd be interested in getting your take.

Shouldn't the word "fundamental" apply to the original movement, not the end? You'd think "fundamental" would apply to a time where everyone is unified, not divided - identifying the principles that unite LDS, RLDS, and Mormon break-offs.
 

Richard7

Well-known member
LOL…do you agree with Jeff’s? No I do not have any special PH other than by faith (RPHoB) , I am an adopted child of God. I can only offer a sacrifice of thanks, through by good works…post salvation.

But I am glad you admit you agree with Jeff’s…do you know who he is?
Nope! So again, my take is that Prophesy has taken place, you left and also left the Priesthood behind... amazing how that works..
 

Markk

Super Member
A couple thoughts:
Rather than telling me about it, why don't you show how Warren Jeffs complies with D&C 121 better than the LDS does? Because I believe what happened in Nauvoo is the opposite of what should have happened. I'd be interested in getting your take.

Shouldn't the word "fundamental" apply to the original movement, not the end? You'd think "fundamental" would apply to a time where everyone is unified, not divided - identifying the principles that unite LDS, RLDS, and Mormon break-offs.
Sorry it was a typo, I meant section 132. Although I bet Warren, who in prison, would and does use 121 as a champion for his being in prison. I typed it a search and all that came back is he 121 children. Which is sad because they will be raised in a section 132 environment.

But the community in Arizona where the FLDS live, is a model of sorts for early Navuoo, at least the secret part of it...served as the Model for the FLDS church.

Shouldn't the word "fundamental" apply to the original movement, not the end? You'd think "fundamental" would apply to a time where everyone is unified, not divided - identifying the principles that unite LDS, RLDS, and Mormon break-offs.

"Fundamental" is a word people often used to keep what they believe current...it can be a good thing and bad thing I suppose. The original LDS church is probably the RLDS...or maybe the Temple Lot sect...

I was listening to a podcast the other day while driving, and it was about the power struggle for control after Jospeh died, and how Brigham bullied his way in. But Emma was the one that originally in control, and BY, Rigdon, and others understood this. BY hated Emma, as did Emma he, and that division is one reason BY went west. It is a fascinating part of Mormon history, with much written about it. And it really drive it home for me in that my genealogy goes back to Nauvoo and even Ohio.

Samuel Smith, who was said to be very bright, was really the Smith that the people probably would have rallied around, with the backing of Emma, but he died right after Joseph and Hyrum...I think a month or two, and some say he was poisoned, by "Bloody Brigham Young." Again there is so much written and so much to read and go through it is mind boggling.
 

Markk

Super Member
Nope! So again, my take is that Prophesy has taken place, you left and also left the Priesthood behind... amazing how that works..
Ralf, you said you agreed with the FLDS...but I suppose you didn't read and understand the conversation. Yes, Ralf I left...and you stayed...I am not sure why that is amazing?
 

Richard7

Well-known member
Ralf, you said you agreed with the FLDS...but I suppose you didn't read and understand the conversation. Yes, Ralf I left...and you stayed...I am not sure why that is amazing?
I don't agree with FLDS, its a fake Church... what is amazing is that prophesy has come true about you losing the Priesthood....
 

Markk

Super Member
I don't agree with FLDS, its a fake Church... what is amazing is that prophesy has come true about you losing the Priesthood....
Why is it a fake church? You wrote you were a fundamentalist like Jeff's, I'll write that off as you're not following the thread.
 
Top