Endless said:
What in the world is that suppose to mean?
It means exactly what it says, and what it says isn't exactly rocket science.
Is it a heck of a lot better than the book of Morman then?
(First off -- this is a minor point, but would you mind spelling Mormon correctly in the future, just as a courtesy?)
No, the Discources of Gordon B. Hinckley would not be superior to what you'll find in the Book of Mormon or any of our other "Standard Works." They will, however, give you a far better understanding of LDS doctrine than some of the stuff you're reading. So far, your approach has been to try to tell us what we believe. We don't need you to do that, believe me. We know what we believe; we know what our official doctrines are, and we know what we hear taught in church week after week, month after month. You are telling us that our church teaches things we don't teach at all. And when we tell you that our church doesn't teach these things, it appears to be going in one ear and out the other.
That was written in 1830 - that's 170 years ago, Brigham Young probably knew Joseph? In any case was he not your prophet or something? I'm pretty sure he was qualified enough to write discourses on a guide to LDS doctrine. Unless the Morman doctrines have changed over the years then it shouldn't matter when something was written, especially by your prophet.
The Book of Mormon was translated in 1830; it wasn't written in 1830. Stick to what it says and ask us questions if you feel that something it says contradicts what you believe. We believe it is the word of God and will not deny anything it says.
Brigham Young did know Joseph Smith and he was, in fact, the second Prophet of the Church. That does not make every word he ever spoke "doctrine." He was a human being like you or me. He was not infallible nor did he claim to be. When speaking on behalf of God, his words have been included in the Doctrine and Covenants and are considered doctrinally binding. He also had opinions of his own which, over the nearly 30 years during which he led the Church, were recorded by various individuals. Some of these opinions were undoubtedly correct. In other cases, they were not. We can safely assume that if God had wanted a particular teaching to be accepted as LDS doctrine, we would still be teaching it today and we would be able to cite chapter and verse from the book containing the teaching.
Surely not? 
