FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
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 21:42, 7 June 2017 by FairMormonBot (talk | contribs) (Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|category=(.*)\n}} +}}))
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