Mormon authorities and repercussions on preaching opinion

[Bill the Cat]

So often, I hear when relating speeches, lectures, sermons, and teachings from early Mormon church leaders, and sometimes from recent and current ones too, that they were only speaking their opinion on the matter. These speeches were sometimes declared by the speaker as binding doctrine, or spoken or written in an authoritative manner and claiming to be doctrine, or spoken at General Conference where only doctrine is said to be spoken.

My question is, what are the repercussions of someone doing this? Are they reprimanded? Are their speeches and books declared opinion by the Quorum and the Prophet? What if it is one of the Quotum or the Prophet? What stops a speaker from proclaiming doctrine contrary to established Mormon doctrine? Are there any consequences?

[Bill the Cat]

:bump:

[just Johnna]

So often, I hear when relating speeches, lectures, sermons, and teachings from early Mormon church leaders, and sometimes from recent and current ones too, that they were only speaking their opinion on the matter. These speeches were sometimes declared by the speaker as binding doctrine, or spoken or written in an authoritative manner and claiming to be doctrine, or spoken at General Conference where only doctrine is said to be spoken.

My question is, what are the repercussions of someone doing this? Are they reprimanded? Are their speeches and books declared opinion by the Quorum and the Prophet? What if it is one of the Quotum or the Prophet? What stops a speaker from proclaiming doctrine contrary to established Mormon doctrine? Are there any consequences?
We've all got to live together so we tend to be gentle to each other when someone out of no ill intent presents something less than doctrine. We don't have the option of changing which service we attend, or skipping out to the church down the block. We're here to stay, with each other. In the meetinghouse, someone like the Bishop presides, and he would, usually with tact and compassion, restate a correct understanding of doctrine if someone gave an misguiding talk in Sacrament Meeting.

So, the examples of someone being publicly corrected are far between and are shocking for the drama, especially at the level of leadership that you are interested in. Bruce McConkie's March 1982 talk against the work of George Pace--which didn't mention President Pace or his books by name but instead laid out a corrected understanding--is a good example. And the way that was handled was a scandal and a wonder to everyone at the time, when he might have spoken to Brother Pace privately or entirely avoided Brother Pace making a public apology and retraction.

The classic case for "what if it is one of the Quorum" is the first edition of Bruce McConkie's ill-titled book _Mormon Doctrine_.

It's pretty much axiomatic that the Prophet will not lead us astray. It's praxis that the Prophet leads in consensus with the Quorum. You might look into discussion of the 1978 Revelation on the Priesthood and the story of speculating whether that revelation could have been received in the decade or two beforehand.

One of the questions now is if some folk doctrines will be formally disavowed. There is a great desire among many saints to have certain folk doctrines officially cast aside, rather than the expected course of abandoning them to attrition.

[QuantaFille]

One of the questions now is if some folk doctrines will be formally disavowed. There is a great desire among many saints to have certain folk doctrines officially cast aside, rather than the expected course of abandoning them to attrition.
Could you elaborate on that? What doctrines are you referring to?

Q.

[just Johnna]

Could you elaborate on that? What doctrines are you referring to?

Q. Well, me and my big self-important mouth. :uneasy:

Here's the best example. Some saints have wondered if we could have a more extant repudiation of some of the old ideas clinging to the Pre-1978 priesthood ban. The idea that some were less than valiant in the pre-existence has been publicly and formally dismissed, but there are other old ideas that could go and are going. I, for one, am a believer who does not believe there ever was a lineal curse.

Darron Smith has written, and been talked about, with respect to this issue.


==
an unrelated note: the other day you put up a CHI link. my mormon reaction was "that was tacky."

[Sparko]

:mummy:

[Cow Poke]

So often, I hear when relating speeches, lectures, sermons, and teachings from early Mormon church leaders, and sometimes from recent and current ones too, that they were only speaking their opinion on the matter. These speeches were sometimes declared by the speaker as binding doctrine, or spoken or written in an authoritative manner and claiming to be doctrine, or spoken at General Conference where only doctrine is said to be spoken.

My question is, what are the repercussions of someone doing this? Are they reprimanded? Are their speeches and books declared opinion by the Quorum and the Prophet? What if it is one of the Quotum or the Prophet? What stops a speaker from proclaiming doctrine contrary to established Mormon doctrine? Are there any consequences?

So far, it looks like Brigham Young gets routinely thrown under the bus, but, other than that, I think everybody gets a free pass.
OH... and the official position is .. ."they were not speaking "officially", even if they said they were at the time".
Convolution to the max.

[digits]

We've all got to live together so we tend to be gentle to each other when someone out of no ill intent presents something less than doctrine. We don't have the option of changing which service we attend, or skipping out to the church down the block. We're here to stay, with each other. In the meetinghouse, someone like the Bishop presides, and he would, usually with tact and compassion, restate a correct understanding of doctrine if someone gave an misguiding talk in Sacrament Meeting.

So, the examples of someone being publicly corrected are far between and are shocking for the drama, especially at the level of leadership that you are interested in. Bruce McConkie's March 1982 talk against the work of George Pace--which didn't mention President Pace or his books by name but instead laid out a corrected understanding--is a good example. And the way that was handled was a scandal and a wonder to everyone at the time, when he might have spoken to Brother Pace privately or entirely avoided Brother Pace making a public apology and retraction.

The classic case for "what if it is one of the Quorum" is the first edition of Bruce McConkie's ill-titled book _Mormon Doctrine_.

It's pretty much axiomatic that the Prophet will not lead us astray. It's praxis that the Prophet leads in consensus with the Quorum. You might look into discussion of the 1978 Revelation on the Priesthood and the story of speculating whether that revelation could have been received in the decade or two beforehand.

One of the questions now is if some folk doctrines will be formally disavowed. There is a great desire among many saints to have certain folk doctrines officially cast aside, rather than the expected course of abandoning them to attrition.

Can you give us examples of anything new that the leader has said doctrinally say in the last 50 years?

Also... I am not familiar with the controversy about McKonkie. Can you explain this?

thanks,

D.I.