To Ardis E. Parshall—
I applaud your understanding of your role as a gospel doctrine teacher. You understand that your responsibility is to “teach so no one can misunderstand” and that your role is not confined to the classroom. As a “storied” role model in your ward you must act at all times to teach and reinforce the plain and precious gospel truths even as you seek greater understanding in your personal and/or companion study. That is a message that we seek to define and impart in our Stake. As Elder Holland has said about teaching in the church, it does not take a gospel scholar but just someone intent on obtaining and teaching by the Spirit.

One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus — such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of showing Himself to His chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them — namely, Mary Magdalene. Now it would be natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were His wives

He lays out his thought process, he appeals to common sense with his “it would be natural,” he admits that he is filling in gaps in an incomplete record, he uses the subjunctive mode, and nowhere does he say that the Spirit testified to him, or that he received a revelation, or that he learned this idea from the president of the church, the only man authorized to announce new doctrine (although an apostle, he himself did not have that right). It’s speculation, and he is quite open about that.

Other people repeated this idea, and they weren’t always careful to mention the aspect of human reason that was involved, and so other, lesser, sensation-hungry, lazy, mystery-seeking (or any other word suggested in the comments to explain why people do this) folks taught it — incorrectly, without justification — as doctrine. That doesn’t make it doctrine, as Researcher and Ben S so clearly said.

The same could be said about any of the other speculations I used as examples. There is no justification for them — no authority in scripture, no claim of revelation — nothing more than human reasoning without sufficient data to consider the case proven. I call that speculation.

Church leaders — even prophets — don’t “lose their authority in the church” even when or if they repeat obscure and incorrect/unsupported bits of lore they heard from the same sources we all heard them from. Nor do they “lose their authority” because you or I mistakenly believe that a speculation was presented as revelation. Nor do they “lose their authority in the church” when they themselves originate a new speculation. To the best of my knowledge, no prophet has ever taught any of my examples accompanied by a claim of revelation. Prophets are not infallible, especially when they’re exercising human reason rather than conveying divine revelation. They don’t lose their authority if they reason beyond the evidence, or even if they reason incorrectly.

Except that sometimes what we are labeling as speculation was once taught _by Prophets as truth, as revelation. The “speculation” label is a nice story to sweep some of the eccentricities of early Mormon teaching under the rug, but it’s a little dishonest. If you can disregard a Prophet who is saying this is Truth, even revelation, as simply “speculating”, then the Prophets loses his authority in the church.

A thing does not become true or become more true by saying it loudly or by saying it repeatedly.

True.

“Dogmatic assertions do not take the place of revelation…

Your brethren, (Signed) JOSEPH F. SMITH, ANTHON H. LUND, CHARLES W. PENROSE. First Presidency. ”
-(James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75], 4:264-65.)

they were taught a lot more forcefully than a mere offhand speculative aside

Just because a thing is taught with force doesn’t mean it’s true. Force has little to do with truth. A thing does not become true or become more true by saying it loudly or by saying it repeatedly.

Personally, I find the concept that just because it isn’t taught in General Conference, etc… today that it is no longer doctrine more than a little bit disingenuous. Sure, there are topics that were pure speculation at the time. But, there are also topics that are considered non-doctrinal today that were once taught and considered as pure doctrinal truth by previous prophets. There are also topics that were emphatically taught as plain and precious doctrinal truths by past prophets that are no longer mentioned today.

Yes, there certainly is some human nonsense in that category (race is a good example). However, as much as we may wish it otherwise, some of what is considered speculation today was once taught as doctrine; saying that earlier comments on race were merely speculative understates the reality that they were taught a lot more forcefully than a mere offhand speculative aside.

On a slightly different note, given that we base so much of our lives and doctrines around what some prophet said 6,000 years ago; I think we need to have a higher standard of discarding concepts testified again and again by a prophet 100 years ago just because it didn’t make the cut at recent general conferences. How many general conferences until a doctrine ages out into the category of historical speculation? If word of wisdom doesn’t make the cut at the upcoming conference, do I get a pass to go get drunk?

Here’s a consideration–if history repeats itself, then it will be interesting to see what concepts in your mentioned gospel doctrine lesson may very well be whispered in the hallway in hushed tones after a future lesson 100 years ago when some of today’s doctrines become historical artifacts.

Sure, when we’re teaching Sunday School or giving a talk, we should confine ourselves to topics that are considered good, clean, kosher doctrine. But, I very much reject the idea that we shouldn’t be open in our private discussions between church members. If nothing else, it helps us check ourselves and each other in our private understandings. Shared, open discussions of our beliefs and understandings drive us more towards doctrinal unity than eschewing such things in favor of only discussing “correlated” topics–anyone who takes the counsel of “search, ponder, and pray” will arrive at ideas, some of which are more true than others. Relegating them to some “personal truth” realm just means that half-truths will fester in their minds unchecked.

Thanks, Steve (no. 108). And thanks again to you, Ardis.

I guess I don’t mean to demean revelations and the unveiling of God’s mind to us through the Restoration, but as I get older I have the sneaking suspicion that our desire for deep doctrine can cloud our ability to savor simple truths.