“This title which the Lord gave when they got out this edition—let me refer to the title page: ‘The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’—is very significant and tells the story of what this book actually is. It contains the doctrine of the Church; it contains the covenants the Lord will make with the Church, if we are willing to receive them.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, May 1987, page 83)

Bring to this the statement that the Doctrine and Covenants will never be a closed book, i guess we now know where to find the official doctrines….

In 1865 the First Presidency counseled the Latter-day Saints: “We do not wish incorrect and unsound doctrines to be handed down to posterity under the sanction of great names, to be received and valued by future generations as authentic and reliable, creating labor and difficulties for our successors to perform and contend with, which we ought not to transmit to them. The interests of posterity are, to a certain extent, in our hands. Errors in history and in doctrine, if left uncorrected by us who are conversant with the events, and who are in a position to judge of the truth or falsity of the doctrines, would go to our children as though we had sanctioned and endorsed them. . . . We know what sanctity there is always attached to the writings of men who have passed away, especially to the writings of Apostles, when none of their contemporaries are left, and we, therefore, feel the necessity of being watchful upon these points.”

and

For me, the plan of salvation…incorporates every system of true doctrine on the earth, whether it be ecclesiastical, moral, philosophical, or civil; it incorporates all good laws that have been made from the days of Adam until now; it swallows up the laws of nations, for it exceeds them all in knowledge and purity, it circumscribes the doctrines of the day, and takes from the right and the left, and brings all truth together in one system, and leaves the chaff to be scattered hither and thither. (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.3 – p.4)

and

If the Lord Almighty should reveal to a High Priest, or to any other than the head, things that are true, or that have been and will be, and show to him the destiny of this people twenty-five years from now, or a new doctrine that will in five, ten, or twenty years hence become the doctrine of this Church and Kingdom, but which has not yet been revealed to this people, and reveal it to him by the same Spirit, the same messenger, the same voice, the same power that gave revelations to Joseph when he was living, it would be a blessing to that High Priest, or individual; but he must rarely divulge it to a second person on the face of the earth, until God reveals it through the proper source to become the property of the people at large. Discourses of Brigham Young, p.338

and

Brethren, leave these themes of profitless discussion alone; keep closely to the teachings of the revealed word, as made plain in the standard works of the Church and through the utterances of the living prophets; and let not a difference of views on abstruse matters of doctrine absorb your attention, lest thereby you become estranged from one another and separated from the Spirit of the Lord.
Joseph Fielding Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.364

Also, lay off the “discovered a personal relationship with Christ by leaving Mormonism” line. It’s absolutely ludicrous as a general statement, because the vast majority of members I know have that type of relationship. If some members didn’t have it as Mormons, I’m happy they were able to find it elsewhere, but it can happen just as easily as a Mormon. Your comment smacks of what I have heard ad nauseum from my Protestant friends who smiled as they consigned me to Hell; I don’t need to hear it here. On this bolg, I dare say you are beating a dead horse.

It might be hard to convince a Mormon that what a dead prophet said even matters, but in principle it’s still important. And it’s difficult for most to deal with the idea of a “true” prophet publicly teaching what Mormon leaders later condemn as damnable heresy.

I know people who have left Mormonism and discovered a personal relationship with Christ largely because of trying to deal with this very issue, so I don’t see it a beating a dead horse.

It makes it hard to nail a Mormon for something Brigham Young said in the 19th century, doesn’t it?

This is an interesting quote from it:

“Within the church setting itself, the avoidance of controversy is even more evident. Open disagreement with one another in religious discussions is explicitly discouraged, and formal lessons in meetings where group discussion is appropriate are usually structured around rhetorical questions which channel members into acceptable responses that are not likely to stimulate disagreement. Teachers in such settings typically compliment any response but are less likely to follow up on comments which deviate from the desired response. Potentially controversial topics are carefully avoided in established church meetings. Religious topics of this kind are typically referred to as “the mysteries.” They are issues considered dangerous to speculate about because they may lead to heresy. Non-religious topics of a potentially controversial nature are labeled “political issues.” They, like “the mysteries,” are considered taboo in a church sanctioned setting. Criticism of any church leader, which is likewise taboo, is sometimes described as behavior such “leads to apostasy.” These patterns of conflict avoidance encourage the repression of any conflict within the church. Members readily acknowledge the existence of “Mormons” who have not been in harmony with the church hierarchy, such as the various polygamous, fundamentalists past and present, other schismatic groups which have arisen throughout the history of the church, and political activists and feminists such as Sonia Johnson, who have received public attention in the news media. However, these are not discussed as examples of debate over contrasting views within the church. Neither is the pathos of the personal conflicts such persons may have experienced concerning church doctrine or practice a normal part of conversations in which they are mentioned. Rather, such people or groups are described as having “fallen away” from the church and its teachings. Dissension, in other words, never happens “within the ranks,” since dissent is merely the act by which individual members separate themselves from the church and its teachings.”

Grass-Roots Deviance from Official Doctrine: A Study of Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) Folk-Beliefs
by Richley H. Crapo
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Dec., 1987), pp. 465-485
doi:10.2307/1387098