New Revelation

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 StumbleUpon 0 Email -- Filament.io 0 Flares ×

In response to questions regarding Brigham Young’s teachings and thoughts on the Adam-God theory, President Wilford Woodruff wrote the following in 1897:

“President Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church.” (Letter to A. Saxey, January 7, 1897, LDS Archives)

Is it reasonable then to expect this of all prophets and apostles? If a new doctrine or principle is taught, we should regard it as opinion unless it is explicitly indicated as a revelation from the Lord, and submitted to the councils of the Priesthood and/or the church for ratification?

7 thoughts on “New Revelation

  1. Yes. I believe this would be a requirement for anything to be considered revelation or the mind and will of the Lord.

  2. Perhaps it matters in what “arena” the prophet(s) speaks. We know that there are apostles who have published statements that are not adopted as official policy of the church, such as McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine (did he publish that while he was an apostle?). I think it is “safe” to assume that counsel given through conferences and official church publications are the will of the Lord and if it is not at times, we, as members are doing what the Lord would have us do, which is follow the counsel of the prophet.

  3. This once again falls back to the ‘how precisely are we expected to discern when the prophet is speaking as a man?’ argument.

    I vote for the fancy hat option.
    It should say ‘mouthpiece of God’ on the brim, I think.

  4. “did [McConkie] publish [Mormon Doctrine] while he was an apostle?”

    Should it really make a difference? Whether or not he was an appostle at the time doesn’t change the fact that “Mormon Doctrine” is riddled with personal speculation and misconceptions passed down by tradition.

    To answer your question (from what I remember reading on the topic), no he wasn’t an apostle when the first edition was released.

  5. Is anyone with this blog aware of the revelations of the Second Book of Commandments concerning Adam-God doctrine? These revelations show their was error in President Young’s Adam-God teachings. By the way, the prophet who received these revelations is from Canada.

Leave a Reply