
There has been considerable debate on the Internet among
LDS and our friends of other Christian faiths about what constitutes official
LDS Doctrine and what does not. The First Presidency of the
LDS Church has released an official statement that reads that not everything a church leader has said on any occasion is necessarily official church doctrine. Instead, some teachings fall under the category of "well-meaning opinion." The criteria for doctrine by the
LDS church according to this official statement is that the teaching should be clearly found in
LDS scripture, in current
LDS Sunday School Manuals, in official First Presidency statements, and/or repeated multiple times by past and present General Authorities of the
LDS Church at General Conference and in current church publications such as the Ensign.
Some Christians of other faiths seem to have a difficult time with this statement because the
LDS claim its General Authorities are Prophets, Seers, and
Revelators like the Apostles and Prophets in the Bible. They tend to expect that these men should be infallible. But the
LDS church does not teach a doctrine of infallibility of its leaders. The
LDS church teaches that on the whole the Prophet and the majority of the Apostles would never lead the church astray. In other words, not everything said (as we understand it) is necessarily true just because of who these men are. But, if truth is to be revealed by God to man, we know where to look because the Prophets and Apostles of the
LDS church hold the keys and authority to receive revelation for the whole church.
That brings up another important issue about the difference between core doctrine and opinion. And that has to do with individual testimony and a personal witness of truth by the Holy Ghost. See, the
LDS church does not expect its members to blindly follow our leadership. Every member is expected to pray and ask God if the foundation doctrines of the
LDS faith are true and are promised that if we ask with faith that God will reveal the truth of these foundation doctrines to the
asker by the Power of the Holy Spirit. In fact, investigators of the
LDS church are specifically asked before they are baptized if they have received such a witness and testimony as a prerequisite for baptism. This is done so that the individual member will have an independent witness that the doctrine is true directly from God Himself with no intermediary but Christ. By these means, the individual member develops a personal relationship with Jesus Christ who is our only mediator with the Father. Church leadership assist members with our relationship with Christ and help point us too Christ, but Christ is the only mediator between man and the Father.
So, how does this apply to the conversation with those of other faiths? Some have gone to great effort to scour
LDS archives or archival publications such as "Journal of Discourses" and expect
LDS to defend any quote they dig up. In some cases, some quotes in older books like "Journal of Discourses" and Orson Pratt's "the Seer" have taken a life of their own. Because some of these quotes are over 100 years old, and have not been commented on by more modern church leaders, it is difficult in many cases to even understand the true meaning and intent of the quote. In fact, many former-
LDS I have talked to who question some of these teachings confess that they did not hear these teachings by the missionaries, from
LDS scripture, from official
LDS Sunday School Manuals, during weekly
LDS church services, from current General Authorities of the
LDS church in General Conference or in the Ensign (Official monthly
LDS publication) or the
LDS temple. They routinely say they read it or discovered it on their own.
But there is a more important issue here. And that issue is one of testimony. It is difficult for some to realize that to the
LDS, there is a hierarchy of what we know to be true. Others think that everything the
LDS church leaders say should exist on the same level. However,
LDS believe what we believe because we feel that God Himself has revealed and confirmed to us that certain things are true by the Holy Spirit. What are those things? They are the foundation doctrines of the church such as that God Lives, Jesus is the Christ, the Bible and the Book of Mormon are God's word, that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, and that the authority of Christ's church was lost from the Earth and priesthood authority was again restored to Joseph Smith and God continues to call Prophets and Apostles today and continues to reveal His will and word through modern prophets.
Now, it is much easier for
LDS to discuss any of these issues because we feel we have a testimony and spiritual witness of them. However, when it comes to other esoteric topics that routinely come up in discussion, it is more difficult because although we might have heard the quotes before, we don't necessarily have a divinely acquired witness and testimony that they are true or that we understand what the original intent of the quote. So, we say that such-and-such a quote in not doctrinal and should be considered a well-intended, well-meaning opinion. What adds to the debate is that often,
LDS and non-
LDS interpret these quotes differently and both sides lack modern, official commentary on these older quotes by Brigham Young or Orson Pratt, for example.
After assigning a particular quote to the level of "well-meaning opinion," The non-
LDS often asks how can we consider so-and-so a prophet or apostle and not accept everything they say as absolute, universal, inviolate, inerrant, infallible truth? The reason is that our testimony and belief in Christ does not come from a faith in these leaders alone. Our testimony in Christ and His gospel comes from a spiritual witness from God through the Holy Spirit through prayer to Our Eternal Father in the name of Jesus Christ. Consequently, there are many topics which individual members have not received a spiritual witness on. We may have a spiritual witness from God that Brigham Young was a prophet so, anything Brigham Young says we will keep in consideration. But until more modern Prophets and Apostles comment on the particular quote in question or I receive a personal witness on a certain topic or about certain specific quote, I really cannot defend them.
I consider such quotes to be well-meaning opinion. In other words, because I believe Brigham Young was a true prophet, I will not outright reject what he said, but without personal revelation, I can neither support or reject the quote. I do try to point out if I think someone, who asks about a quote or teaching, is misinterpreting the quote and I will often give my opinion to help that person understand the context of the teaching. But in many cases, the teaching could be true as we understand it, or it could be inaccurate as we understand it, or maybe we misunderstand what is being said entirely. But the quotes themselves are not going to affect my belief in the
LDS faith, because my belief is based on my trust in God alone and my testimony of truth in the core doctrines of the
LDS faith which I have received through study, pondering, fasting, prayer, and revelation by God through His Holy Spirit.
There are those which read this and say that while these topics are not core doctrine today, they were the core doctrine then, and the early church members sacrificed to defend them and how could I turn my back on those teachings that the early church members believed in so much they gave their lives for them. Truth is that the core, fundamental doctrines of the church haven't changed.
My wife's has 3/4-
th pioneer
ancestry, and 1/4-
th converted Missouri
Mobbocrat ancestry. This
ancestry includes
surviving members of the Martin and Willie Handcart Company. According to their recorded journals and testimony (which I have and have read), they were converted by the same foundation doctrines that I was. They bore testimony of the same foundation teaching that I do. They were converted based on a spiritual witness that God lives, Jesus is the Christ, the Book of Mormon is God's word, and Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ and was called as a modern-day prophet. I didn't read any testimony by them based on the pet-topics I often hear on the
Internet such as blood atonement, or Adam-God. I don't know of anyone who joined the church because of polygamy either. If
LDS testimony is conditioned and automatic, then I would expect early
LDS members to be testifying of Adam-God right along with everything else if it was such a core doctrine. Fact is, they don't. A good sign that the theory is
completely contrived or a grave misunderstanding is that these odd teachings are not taught by other church leadership contemporary with Brigham Young and they are not found in early
LDS testimonies.
Again, my evidence against theories like Adam-God and Blood Atonement being core doctrines is that no contemporaries of Brigham Young taught it and no early LDS member mentioned it in their testimony. If LDS testimony is as conditioned and automatic as some claim, then I would expect testimonies back then like "I would like to bare my testimony.... i know the church is true .... I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet ..... I know that the Adam is God .... I know that murderers must confess their sin and have their blood shed on the ground to be saved .... etc."
With regard to polygamy. These ancestors accepted the practice of polygamy only because they had a witness of the other truths of the gospel. The practice was a trial of their faith. And only because of this testimony, did the early Saints accepted that God required polygamy. In the same way, because of my testimony, I accept that God no longer requires that practice.