Difference between revisions of "Question: Does the repudiation of a doctrine that was once taught by a prophet mean that that prophet is now considered a "heretic"?"

m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|category=(.*)\n}} +}}))
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{FME-Source\n\|title(.*)\n}} +{{FairMormon}}))
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FME-Source
+
{{FairMormon}}
|title=Question: Does the repudiation of a doctrine that was once taught by a prophet mean that that prophet is now considered a "heretic"?
 
}}
 
 
<onlyinclude>
 
<onlyinclude>
 
==Question: Does the repudiation of a doctrine that was once taught by a prophet mean that that prophet is now considered a "heretic"?==
 
==Question: Does the repudiation of a doctrine that was once taught by a prophet mean that that prophet is now considered a "heretic"?==

Revision as of 18:26, 27 June 2017

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Question: Does the repudiation of a doctrine that was once taught by a prophet mean that that prophet is now considered a "heretic"?

If a doctrine that was once taught by a past prophet is rejected by a later prophet, we do not consider the earlier prophet to be a "heretic": We simply consider him to be human

Certain doctrines that applied to 19th-Century and 20th-Century Latter-day Saints were indeed later repudiated. If a doctrine that was once taught by a past prophet is rejected by a later prophet, we do not consider the earlier prophet to be a "heretic": We simply consider him to be human. For example, Brigham Young taught Adam-God and "blood atonement," yet we do not today consider Brigham to be a heretic. We simply disregard those teachings which have been repudiated. Any Latter-day Saint who attends church will be fully aware that Brigham Young is not considered to be a heretic.


Notes