{"id":378,"date":"2006-01-03T10:29:16","date_gmt":"2006-01-03T17:29:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ourthoughts.ca\/2006\/01\/03\/new-revelation\/"},"modified":"2006-01-03T10:29:16","modified_gmt":"2006-01-03T17:29:16","slug":"new-revelation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ourthoughts.ca\/2006\/01\/03\/new-revelation\/","title":{"rendered":"New Revelation"},"content":{"rendered":"
In response to questions regarding Brigham Young’s teachings and thoughts on the Adam-God theory, President Wilford Woodruff wrote the following in 1897:<\/p>\n
“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)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
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?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In response to questions regarding Brigham Young’s teachings and thoughts on the Adam-God theory, President Wilford Woodruff wrote the following … Continue reading New Revelation<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-378","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-revelation"],"yoast_head":"\n
New Revelation<\/title>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n