I'll take these responses from Runtu and Harmony in order:
This goes back to the problem of who declares doctrine in the church and what it is. I had always been taught that it was the prophet who declared doctrine, but when I worked for the church, I was told that it was Correlation Committe who made that call. In fact, we were not to quote anything from before 1970 (including the prophets) because those quotes had not been through correlation, unless we had a specific reason to do so and were reasonably sure it would pass a correlation review. Either way, the explanation that was given over and over again was this:
The only thing that is doctrinal is that which is in the standard works. That which has been through correlation is considered to be consistent with the scriptures and thus doctrinally sound.
I note that Coggins unwittingly confirmed that the idea of more valiant spirits (in conjunction with the law of spiritual attraction) was indeed a doctrine of the church, as confirmed by the 1949 FP statement. Is it the doctrine of the church now that "negroes" were less valiant spirits in the premortal life?
And yes, I have heard many people, including apostles and prophets, insist that it's only practices that change, not doctrines.
Loran:
I've never been told or heard any such thing, and I'm not in any position to comment on an ancedote such as the one above. I do know what the doctrine of the church is on this matter, however. The President of the church is the only one on earth at any one time ordained and with authority to receive revelation for the entire church as to doctrine or practice. However, as to what is binding upon the membership of the church, the Prophet is not alone in the substantiation of such doctrine or practice, but his cousellors and the Twelve, unitedly, must sustain any new revelations (even though they as a body or any one of them singly cannot recieve and teach new doctrine or practices without reference to the President of the church and his authority in this matter)and then put them before the church for their acceptance (and the Presidency of the church and the Twelve are so brought before the general membership of the church twice a year and at local ward and stake conferences). Ultimately, of course, the way we know with certainty the nature of any doctine or teaching that comes from any leader of the church is through the Spirit of revelation, which is the spirit of prophecy, which is, if what that church leader has taught is true, the same spirit through which he or she received it and hence, can be confirmed by that same spirit.
My Priesthood manuals, going back well over 20 years, quote church leaders from before 1970 all over the place. Indeed, for almost the last decade, we've been using manuals based on the writings of previous church leaders, almost all of them (previous to Josehp Fielding Smith) originating before 1970, so agian, I have no idea what you're talking about.
The statement that the only thing that is doctrinal is that which is found in the standard works is a false doctrine, if by this one means the only thing that is
true or doctrinally sound, theologically. This is the case because the church also teaches that anything, anywhere, of whatever kind, that comes through the power of the Holy Spirit is scripture, whether that be a conference talk, First Presidency message, or diary entry. The only question remaining is the nature of such revelation (personal, or dealing with the church as a whole or other general subjects) and therefore one's own conduct in relations to it. As far as core, settled doctrine, the standard works are a major frame of reference, but clearly, not the only one. Vegas here creates an interesting catch--22 for defenders of the church, as well as logically, for himself, since if what he says about correlatin is true, little if anything said by past prophets from Joseph Smith through Harld B. Lee is of any worth, and if what he says about the Standard Works is true, this obviates the need for any modern prophets at all and negates the concept of modern, continuing revelation.
I did not unwittingly admit anything. I never denied there were more or less valiant spirits in the preexistence, nor did I deny the concept of having made covenants, promises, and relationships in the premortal state that were to continue here. What I did deny, and what you have provided not a shred of evidence to support, is the idea that these concepts, when combined with theological explanations for the continuing Priesthood ban regarding black people, was ever, under any circumstances, cannonical or "official" church doctrine.
As to the last point, yes, in a way the doctrines never change. In a very real sense, the Law of Moses is true and just as much a part of the eternal Gospel of Jesus Chrsit as is the New and Everlasting Covenant of New Testament Christianity or the greater knowledge now available in the Dispensation of The Fulness of Times. What I should have said was that practies chamge and doctrines are revealed, to a greater or lesser extent, as the people can accept and handle them, and modified so as to be of the most benefit to a particular people at a particular time. Obviously, core doctrines don't "change" if that means they are abandoned or controverted, but most doctrines are known only in part, and alterations, especially additions to them, which provide a fuller meaning, understanding and application, are many times perceived as doctrinal "change".
The Jews of Christ's time were very concerned that he was trying to destroy and eliminate the Law of Moese, and both he and his Apostles were at pains to point out that he had fulfilled and was the culmination of those laws, which were partial and fragmentary, abiet true and part of the whole gospel system.
Now, as to harmony...
Christ fulfilled and did away with the entire ritual life of Israel including its core ordinances and sacrificial rites. He also changed doctrine, both by substantially modifying Mosiac doctrine and by introducing an entirely new system.
Harmony:
Then our temple endowment ceremony is unneeded and nondoctrinal. Plural marriage was unneeded and nondoctrinal. If Christ indeed did away with the entire ritual life of Isreal, why do we use what is purported to be an Old Testament temple ceremony? If Christ did away with the entire ritual life of Isreal, why did Joseph attempt to restore the Old Testament practice of plural marriage?
Loran:
Could you please show me a source for your idea that the church claims the endowment and marriage ceramony are in some way directly derived from Old Testament Mosaic ritural? The endowment, in church teaching, dates from the time of Adam and the Patriarchs. Only a few people actually held the higher Priesthood in Moses' day, including Moses himself, Aaron, and a few others. Not that we don't think that such things went on in that period, but the Temple ceremonies are claimed nowhere to be derived from things that happened in that era under Mosaic law. Indeed, they far predate it.
The ritual life of Israel, as I use it here, means all those laws, ceremonies, including in the Temple of that era, sacrifices, wahings, annointings, and other various ritual observances, that were pointing to Christ, and were prepratory to his eventual mission and teachings. The higher ceremonies of the Lord's house are part of the New, post Mosaic covenant, and are not "schoolmasters", as Paul said, to brings us to Christ, but involve a fulness of the promises and covenants we can make with God in this life. The "law", or gospel of carnal commandments, patently did not, and the church teaches precisely the opposite.
Loran