Regarding Doctrine

[inquiringmind]

I'm unclear on something, and I'd appreciate any clarification that any can offer.

If the first president and living prophet teaches something in general conference, does it have to be voted on before it's doctrine?

[TAO]

I'm unclear on something, and I'd appreciate any clarification that any can offer.

If the first president and living prophet teaches something in general conference, does it have to be voted on before it's doctrine?

Nope. But to be official doctrine, yes. There's a difference... and what is the doctrine of Christ is everything that is good =).

Edited July 2, 2011 by TAO

[Honorentheos]

Inquiring,

A while back I started a thread on the board about the many doctrines of the church that had changed over time. Unfortunately, it wasn't one that was archived.

In that thread, I was asked to demonstrate the fact that doctrine had actually changed, and choose one topic from the list to do so. I happen to have copied that post, and I think you may find it interesting as it relates to your question. At the least, it shows one instance of how a question on doctrine was discussed by the 12 and first presidency. I've edited out the banter that only would make sense in the context of that thread, but otherwise, I think as an example it is valuable to consider a real example rather than to speculate:

"The origin of man"

What did the church originally teach about this in 1830? First, we can safely say that the information presented in the standard works must be considered doctrinal. Yet, as we go through this little exercise ... we should recognize that interpretation of what the scriptures mean has been adapted to the changes in scientific knowledge. So I am not including scripture.

Prior to the widespread introduction of the theory of evolution into the world, it would be highly unlikely to find any attempt by anyone to show a nuanced creation process rather than the literal one we read in Genesis. And in the LDS church, with it's prophets, we indeed see this expected view.

Joseph Smith -

We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. . . . How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says 'God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam's spirit, and so became a living body.'

...

Following the widespread introduction and gradual acceptance of evolutionary theory we begin to see conflict in the church. I think this paper outlines it well -

Roberts vs Smith

One could argue that with this statement, President Smith officially trumped the pro-evolutionists -

1909 First Presidency Statement

Note the language towards the end where it seems to strongly imply that any form of evolution, not just of man, is incorrect and against the gospel truths of scripture.

Harold B Lee -

Harold B. Lee, Ensign, December 1972, p. 2 (First Presidency

Message).

[Emphasis added.] I was somewhat sorrowed recently

to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask,

“What about the pre-Adamic people?”

Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.

I asked, “What about the pre-Adamic people?”

She replied, “Well, aren't there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?”

I said, “Have you forgotten the scriptures that says, ‘And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also....’ ” (Moses 3:7.)

I asked, “Do you believe that?”

She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error.…

As late as 1979 we read of this account -

…the following response of Marion G. Romney to a question on the beliefs of the General Authorities makes explicit what might readily be inferred. A student asked, “Are the General Authorities of the Church in one accord on the

subject of evolution?”

Elder Romney replied: “I don’t suppose that any two minds in the world understand exactly alike any statement on any subject. The General Authorities of the Church are, of course, like all other men, different in their personalities.

However, on the fundamentals they are in accord, and one of those fundamentals upon which they are in accord is that Adam is a son of God, that neither his spirit nor his body is a product of biological evolution which went on for millions of years on this earth.”

Pretty clear. Or is it? After the Smith/Roberts debate over Robert’s soon-to-be-published book that included a view of human origins with pre-Adamites, we see an official statement from the Presidency of Heber J Grant in 1931 that states -

Both parties [i.e., Elders Smith and Roberts] make the scripture and the statements of men who have been prominent in the affairs of the Church the basis of their contention; neither has produced definite proof in support of his views…

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world.

Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race.

A more full account of this event can be found here -

Roberts vs Smith Redux

Henry Eyring was very careful in not violating this last ruling, but seems to most clearly convey the modern LDS views -

In my opinion it would be a very sad mistake if a parent or teacher were to belittle scientists as being wicked charlatans or else fools having been duped by half-baked ideas that gloss over inconsistencies. That isn't an accurate assessment of the situation,and our children or students will be able to see that when they begin their scientific studies.

"Now wait a minute," you say. "I thought you weren't an 'evolutionist'!" I'm not. I'd be just as content to find out that God stirred up some dirt and water and out stepped Adam, ready to occupy the Garden of Eden. The only important thing is that God did it. I might say in that regard that in my mind the theory of evolution has to include a notion that the dice have been loaded from the beginning in favor of more complex life forms. That is, without intelligent design of the natural laws in such a way as to favor evolution from lower forms to higher forms of life, I don't think the theory holds water. I can't see randomly generated natural laws producing these remarkable results. So, in my mind, God is behind it all whether we evolved or not.

Probably one of the most difficult problems in reading the scriptures is to decide what is to be taken literally and what is figurative.

Last of all, this is the closing quote from the FAIR wiki on this subject, from Harold B. Lee -

Perhaps if we had the full story of the creation of the earth and man told to us in great detail, it would be more of a mystery than the simple few statements that we have contained in the Bible, because of our lack of ability to comprehend. Therefore, for reasons best known to the Lord, He has kept us in darkness. Wait until the Lord speaks, or wait until that day when He shall come, and when we shall be among the privileged either to come up out of our graves and be caught up into the clouds of heaven or shall be living upon the earth likewise to be so translated before Him. Then we shall know all things pertaining to this earth, how it was made, and all things that now as children we are groping for and trying to understand.

Let's reserve judgment as to the facts concerning the Creation until we know these things for sure.

In short, the evolution of the view within the church has been one that began with a contemporary view of creation with some nuance found in the Pearl of Great Price accounts, that then first demonstrated resistance to scientifically lead change, to a nuanced view that can accommodate evolution if not outright accept it.

........

It appears, inquiring, that it isn't the perview of any one man to declare something as doctrine on behalf of the church as a whole.

[Storm Rider]

I'm unclear on something, and I'd appreciate any clarification that any can offer.

If the first president and living prophet teaches something in general conference, does it have to be voted on before it's doctrine?

This is a good area of discussion. Is it doctrine if spoke in General Conference or written in a book that is published by the Church. I think you will find a wide range of positions within the membership of the Church. I am a purist; doctrine is only found within the scriptures. If any revelation or teaching is to actually be Doctrine it must be added to the Standard Works of the Church. It it has not been added then you know that it is not yet doctrine. There are many cultural teachings found within the LDS community, but they only remain a cultural position and are not doctrine regardless of how many individuals believe. The Doctrine of the Church is based on the fundaments of salvation and Exaltation. It does not spend its time delving into the mysteries of God.

If the Prophet speaks in conference and I receive a confirmation of its truth by witness of the Spirit is it doctrine? No. However, it is true nonetheless. When the Spirit speaks to you, what do you then think? Does it matter if it is not the "doctrine" of your church?

[Jeff K.]

Official doctrine is voted on and is in the Doctrine and Covenants. Honorentheos has shown an excellent example of how opinions change over time, even strongly held opinions. But I note something interesting that perhaps Honorentheos is overlooking in his zeal....

Quote

…the following response of Marion G. Romney to a question on the beliefs of the General Authorities makes explicit what might readily be inferred. A student asked, “Are the General Authorities of the Church in one accord on the

subject of evolution?”

Elder Romney replied: “I don’t suppose that any two minds in the world understand exactly alike any statement on any subject. The General Authorities of the Church are, of course, like all other men, different in their personalities.

However, on the fundamentals they are in accord, and one of those fundamentals upon which they are in accord is that Adam is a son of God, that neither his spirit nor his body is a product of biological evolution which went on for millions of years on this earth.”

Not doctrine, but not a repudiation of evolution, simply a statement of belief that Adam did not necessarily evolve as other things have. Plausible in my view given that Heavenly Father could certainly create such a scenario in the Garden of Eden, or elsewhere for that matter.

I appreciate Honorentheos placement of strongly held opinions and it acts as a book end for the policy of the church in regard to the revelation of doctrine to be officially noted for the church to follow...

Harold B. Lee expressed similar thoughts when he taught that any doctrine, advanced by anyone—regardless of position—that was not supported by the standard works, then “you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.” He recognized that the Prophet could bring forth new doctrine, but “when he does, [he] will declare it as revelation from God,” after which it will be sustained by the body of Church

What is Mormon Doctrine?

Two points that should be remembered:

Doctrine and Covenants 26:2 which states ...all things shall be done by common consent in the church by much prayer and faith, for all things you receive by faith...

and Section 107

26And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.

27And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by theaunanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—

28A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—

29Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men.

30The decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity;

31Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.

and finally in even clearer language....

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

04 May 2007 — Salt Lake City

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

•Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

•Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

•Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.

• Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.

Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

I believe this pretty much covers the issues as presented.

[BCSpace]

If the first president and living prophet teaches something in general conference, does it have to be voted on before it's doctrine?

No, there is no concept of the Church voting as a body on doctrine though the sources are sustained. The fifteen prophets and apostles though may vote or agree unanimously as to what becomes doctrine and if the words are officially published (by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), then they become official doctrine. That is not just for the Prophet or the Apostles, but anyone who speaks in Conference and has their words officially published or whose articles are published in the Ensign, for example, for that matter. This takes care of opinion. If your opinion is not officially published, it cannot be doctrine.

The concept is outlined in Approaching Mormon Doctrine referenced above and to which I link in my siggy.

Edited July 2, 2011 by BCSpace

[CV75]

Nope. But to be official doctrine, yes. There's a difference... and what is the doctrine of Christ is everything that is good =).

I agree with this, and that the role of the Holy Ghost is to reveal and confirm / witness what is good, and make us good as well, so that we ourselves fulfill the doctrine of Christ, which is to become one with Him, end embody the doctrine as He does.

[cinepro]

Official doctrine is voted on and is in the Doctrine and Covenants.

And yet, how many LDS actually believe that the Earth's "continuance" or "temporal existence" will only be 7,000 years?

John Larsen explained how "official doctrine" really works in the Church, and while it's not very romantic, it is the best explanation of how it actually works:

-You are bound to believe the things required by the temple recommend questions (if you want to go to the temple).

-You cannot public disagree with any doctrine held by a current apostle.

-New “doctrines” do not have to be reconcilable to old “doctrines”.

-Old doctrines taught by apostles that have not be renounced or contradicted by later apostles may well have expired without further action.

-There is an “unwritten order of things” both doctrinal and procedural that you may be held to.

-The current brethren may be “speaking as men” but you can take no action on this fact. This only applies to dead apostles.

-The scriptures are not necessarily a doctrinal bind since non scriptural commentary on the scriptures by later brethren may change or obsolete the scripture.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 01 July 2011 - 11:48 PM, said:

Official doctrine is voted on and is in the Doctrine and Covenants.

And yet, how many LDS actually believe that the Earth's "continuance" or "temporal existence" will only be 7,000 years?

John Larsen explained how "official doctrine" really works in the Church, and while it's not very romantic, it is the best explanation of how it actually works:

That isn't a criticism of doctrine, or what doctrine is, or even of the church. You can of course tsk tsk members for not being more in tune as to what doctrine is, versus what it isn't. I would say members bear responsibility to develop that understanding.

I also believe Larsen is using a fairly broad brush when point out a few issues, and it seems he adds confusion rather than decreases confusion from the understanding of doctrine, since he isn't applying the same definition either.