What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[Brade]

Yes.

Yes. Approaching Mormon Doctrine isn't the only word on the subject. It's just a summary. For example, in Teaching, No Greater Call, one uses the official publications to keep the doctrine pure. That can't be done if the official publications contain unidentified doctrine.

If one were teaching a prep course for an American Chemical Society exam, then one uses official ACS examination materials to keep the chemistry pure. That does not mean that everything in ACS examination materials is pure chemistry. It just means that there's pure chemistry in there.

And again, your favorite Newsroom release does not say that everything in Church publications is official Church doctrine. Rather, it says that Church doctrine is in publications. And, again bcspace, saying that X is in Y is not the same as saying that everything in Y is X.

You have yet to offer a single bit of good evidence to support the absurd view you attribute to the Church. It's telling that even here nobody seems to agree with you.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Brade

[Senator]

If the Church teaches X, then X is Church doctrine. That by definition, is what doctrine is. Period.

This notion of "official" doctrine is something that didn't exist prior to the 80's. Apologists gradually latched onto it as a means to distance the Church from many of its past embarrassing teachings, comments, etc. Instead of explaining how God would allow his one true Church to engage in false or ridiculous teachings, they just say it isn't "official, chalk it up as "opinion," and then drop the subject as if that resolves the matter.

Anyone with access to an LDS database go ahead and search the phrase "official doctrine" in all LDS literature published from the early 19th century to the present, and tell me what you find.

I will agree with you on this one thing. Thanks to this apologetic I no longer automatically ascribe "from God's own mouth" to anything, let alone everything, that a GA says.

[orion88]

This notion of "official" doctrine is something that didn't exist prior to the 80's. Apologists gradually latched onto it as a means to distance the Church from many of its past embarrassing teachings, comments, etc. Instead of explaining how God would allow his one true Church to engage in false or ridiculous teachings, they just say it isn't "official, chalk it up as "opinion," and then drop the subject as if that resolves the matter.

Another common expression used by some is, "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."

Fortunately, people still have the ability to obtain and view some of these older appendages

(History of the Church volumes 1-6, Doctrines of Salvation and Journal of Discourses).

I especially like the authoritative work called Doctrines of Salvation (3 volumes). It seems to

go even deeper than the 1997 version of Gospel Principles. But if you really want to grasp

the doctrine of why Blacks were denied the priesthood, then I would suggest "The Way to

Perfection" (by former President and Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith).

[Cobalt-70]

If the Church teaches X, then X is Church doctrine. That by definition, is what doctrine is. Period.

This notion of "official" doctrine is something that didn't exist prior to the 80's. Apologists gradually latched onto it as a means to distance the Church from many of its past embarrassing teachings, comments, etc. Instead of explaining how God would allow his one true Church to engage in false or ridiculous teachings, they just say it isn't "official, chalk it up as "opinion," and then drop the subject as if that resolves the matter.

Anyone with access to an LDS database go ahead and search the phrase "official doctrine" in all LDS literature published from the early 19th century to the present, and tell me what you find.

I would agree in substance, but I wouldn't put it like that. I think that what happened beginning in the 1980s was a separation between core doctrines and peripheral doctrines. Part of this was to help position Mormonism as (at least on the surface) a more traditional form of Christianity. However, over the course of generations, surface becomes substance. We are now in an era where surface has not yet become substance, and that looks to outsiders like deception. And in some cases, it is.

[BCSpace]

So did anyone notice Dallin H Oaks continue to support what the Church has said about it's own doctrine and refer to the Handbook as "Doctrinal" about 4.5 minutes into his talk? The broadcast is up on the Church site so feel free to verify.

http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/worldwide-leadership-training/2011/02?lang=eng

[Libs]

I'm sure most things printed by the LDS Church are full of doctrine, but would you hand that book to someone and tell them it was "official doctrine"?

[BCSpace]

I'm sure most things printed by the LDS Church are full of doctrine, but would you hand that book to someone and tell them it was "official doctrine"?

If published by the Church, it is the only logical thing to do. What good is the work if there is non doctrine within that is not identified as such? How would you be able to accurately point out what is and is not the doctrine of the Church?

[Libs]

A lot of things printed by the Church in the past have had non-doctrinal things in them. Isn't the Journal of Discourses printed by the Church?

[Brade]

If published by the Church, it is the only logical thing to do. What good is the work if there is non doctrine within that is not identified as such? How would you be able to accurately point out what is and is not the doctrine of the Church?

bcspace, you seem to be the only one who has this difficulty. And, no, I didn't hear Oaks affirm the view you attribute to the Church.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

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

[cdowis]

I am copying a post from mariner from another thread.

As I understand it, and as so often repeated by bcspace and others, on this board and elsewhere, statements by LDS General Authorities that appear in official Church publications are to be considered as LDS Church doctrine.

If such statements, when they turn out to be demonstrably false as in this case, can simply be moved from "doctrine" or official Church teachings of God-inspired men, to mere personal "opinion", then on what basis is one to rely on the statements of Church Leaders in the first place, or indeed at all?

And there is another problem. If these statements are indeed opinion and turn out to be wrong, then one would think that an honest individual would recognize their error and thereafter take pains to correct it, less others be mislead by their unintentional false statements.

One of the most valuable among the self-correcting features of the enterprise of science, for example, comes from peer review, the practice of openly recognizing contrary evidence, and acknowledging and correcting mistakes when they are made. A great example of this was provided recently by the group at CERN that released data to the public on supposedly faster than light neutrinos and later traced this erroneous result to loose cables in their equipment. If there are examples of Church leaders doing this (other than in egregious cases such as that of Elder Paul Dunn, for example) I am not aware of them.

Is he correct? If a church leader opens his mouth, is it official doctrine? Is the Ensign magazine cannonized scripture?

Do Mormons actually believe that?

[cdowis]

If published by the Church, it is the only logical thing to do. What good is the work if there is non doctrine within that is not identified as such? How would you be able to accurately point out what is and is not the doctrine of the Church?

Is the Ensign magazine canonized scripture? Should I have my copies of the Ensign bound in leather?

For example, if a church leader states his view that the NY Hill Curmorah is the same hill mentioned in the BOM. It is published in the Ensign, is that official doctrine, or simply his opinion. Is the thinking and discussion over with -- we no longer require scientific investigation in BOM geography?

I think I will follow BY's advice on how to handle statements from church leaders.

Edited March 2, 2012 by cdowis

[Nofear]

I think I will follow BY's advice on how to handle statements from church leaders.

Nevermind, the official statement of the Church for the news media:

The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine. (source, emphasis added)

I might add, that "publications" here includes official Church publications. So, either the Church is being very disingenous and saying one thing to the media/world while holding an entirely different standard to its own or.... I hesitate to mention it for the awfulness of the thought... BCSpace is completely wrong with his extremist position.

[BCSpace]

A lot of things printed by the Church in the past have had non-doctrinal things in them. Isn't the Journal of Discourses printed by the Church?

No.

bcspace, you seem to be the only one who has this difficulty.

I don't have any difficulty identifying doctrine.

And, no, I didn't hear Oaks affirm the view you attribute to the Church.

You didn't hear Oaks disaffirm either.

I am copying a post from mariner from another thread.

As I understand it, and as so often repeated by bcspace and others, on this board and elsewhere, statements by LDS General Authorities that appear in official Church publications are to be considered as LDS Church doctrine.

If such statements, when they turn out to be demonstrably false as in this case, can simply be moved from "doctrine" or official Church teachings of God-inspired men, to mere personal "opinion", then on what basis is one to rely on the statements of Church Leaders in the first place, or indeed at all?

What case? The basis is continuing revelation inspiration. LDS doctrine can and does change, but it certainly hasn't changed in the manner the critics have postulated. For example, plural marriage and the Priesthood ban are still doctrine. Neither has changed at all.

Is the Ensign magazine canonized scripture?

No. It is official doctrine though.

For example, if a church leader states his view that the NY Hill Curmorah is the same hill mentioned in the BOM. It is published in the Ensign, is that official doctrine, or simply his opinion. Is the thinking and discussion over with -- we no longer require...

Might depend on the context. What is your example?

Nevermind, the official statement of the Church for the news media:

Notice how nothing has changed with regards to the Church's position on the matter.

Edited March 2, 2012 by BCSpace

[JDave]

BCSpace,

Is there anyone here that agrees with your position?

I believe you are stating that any officially published statement (that isn't explicitly called out as opinion) is doctrine until it is completely repudiated, correct?

Edited March 3, 2012 by JDave

[BCSpace]

Is there anyone here that agrees with your position?

Yes. The Church. I've had opportunity to ask visiting GA's from time to time about this subject and apparently it's as good a summary as any which is why it agrees with the Church's recent statement on doctrine (my siggy) in every whit. For example:

"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."

Feel free not to take my word for it. What are the rammifications of the various parts of "Approaching Mormon Doctrine"? Have you read "Teaching, No Greater Call"? What does it mean when it counsels "Teach the Doctrine"? Ask your Bishop or Stake President. The MTC taught this expressly when I was there in the mid 80's. Nothing's changed about the Church's view of doctrine since then or since a several decades before if not longer.

Not only that, but there are more here who agree with me than you think because they essentially adhere to it even though they might publically doubt it. But for sure, online is the only place I've eaver heard disagreement from LDS persons with the Church's position.

I believe you are stating that any officially published statement (that isn't explicitly called out as opinion) is doctrine until it is completely repudiated, correct?

Basically correct. Doubters should feel comfortable in taking the Church's word for it. So if in an official publication, you see something stated as "this is my opinion" or "this is not doctrine" which does occur from time to time, then it's not doctrine.

Open the printed version of your Bible dictionary to it's introduction. What does it say? Is it doctrine or not?

[JDave]

One simple question for you, then, is why does your definition cause the church to have doctrine on how to create lingerie? Nothing about what is or is not modest, just an entire article of supposed "official LDS doctrine" on how to sew lingerie.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/08/lingerie-feminine-and-modest?lang=eng

[BCSpace]

One simple question for you, then, is why does your definition cause the church to have doctrine on how to create lingerie? Nothing about what is or is not modest, just an entire article of supposed "official LDS doctrine" on how to sew lingerie.

http://www.lds.org/e...modest?lang=eng

An excellent question!

1) It's not my definition.

2) Rhetorical question: Where should the Church draw the line? We already know it can't be drawn at the scriptures:

Consider the scripture only argument for doctrine, which is contrary to the Church’s statement in that the doctrine only resides there but it is the FP and Qo12 who establish it. If scripture only were the case, not a single one of us could point out what official LDS doctrine is.

For example: Evangelicals say the water in John 3:5 is physical birth. LDS say it is water baptism. How do we LDS know it is water baptism and not physical birth? Because it is officially published somewhere like in a manual. Neither you nor I nor anyone else but the 15 apostles and prophets together is qualified to establish what official doctrine is and as per the Church’s own statement the sign for that is official publication.

And we already know we can't draw the line at "over the pulpit":

Consider also how the Church has on occasion changed the wording of a Conference talk before publication (the recent BKP incident comes to mind). That is the sign that “over the pulpit” is also not official doctrine until it’s published.

3) Solution: Everything published is doctrine because all minutia has to do with some larger doctrine or another. In the case you mentioned, modesty. Another case might be record keeping (which is a doctrine) as in "Enter name here". Obviously, some details of the doctrine are not important and I think you are capable of knowing those when you see them.

[cdowis]

Yes. The Church. I've had opportunity to ask visiting GA's from time to time about this subject and apparently it's as good a summary as any which is why it agrees with the Church's recent statement on doctrine (my siggy) in every whit. For example:

"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."

Feel free not to take my word for it.

I take your word for it, and I also find that you are confused ++> for example, is BOM geography a doctrinal issue? If a general authority states that the NY Hill Cumorah is the same hill as named in the BOM, is that doctrine, even when it is inconsistent with the description in the BOM, and the physical geography.

May I suggest that your use of the word "doctrine" is rather loose. You seem to conflate doctrine with opinion.

Some things are subject to factual investigation and can be classified as one opinion among many differing opinions. I realize that concept makes life more difficult for us because it is much easier to let the church leaders do the thinking for us, even in factual (non-doctrinal) issues.

Edited March 3, 2012 by cdowis

[BCSpace]

I take your word for it, and I also find that you are confused ++> for example, is BOM geography a doctrinal issue? If a general authority states that the NY Hill Cumorah is the same hill as named in the BOM, is that doctrine, even when it is inconsistent with the description in the BOM, and the physical geography.

There is no doctrinal problem with Cumorah being in New York. How many years of wandering are there between the last battle and when Moroni finally hid up the plates? Also, has the Church disavowed Sorenson's two parter? The context there is that the Church opens up a world of LGT possibilities.

Some things are subject to factual investigation and can be classified as one opinion among many differing opinions. I realize that concept makes life more difficult for us because it is much easier to let the church leaders do the thinking for us, even in factual (non-doctrinal) issues.

There are indeed doctrines that are absolute, however, many other doctrines, such as the location of Book of Mormon lands or the creation of man don't have enough details to warrant this unthinking nature you are proposing.

Edited March 3, 2012 by BCSpace

[JDave]

An excellent question!

I thought so.

1) It's not my definition.

That's part of the problem. It's not yours, so why should your interpretation of the Church's definition of doctrine be given preference?

2) Rhetorical question: Where should the Church draw the line? We already know it can't be drawn at the scriptures:

3) Solution: Everything published is doctrine because all minutia has to do with some larger doctrine or another. ... Obviously, some details of the doctrine are not important and I think you are capable of knowing those when you see them.

You are apparently drawing your own line anyway in what you choose to be important. Because if someone makes lingerie different than how was proscribed in official LDS publications, then they are contrary to the Church's position on the matter. That is a big deal. Unless you get to arbitrarily decide what is important and what is not.

[BCSpace]

1) It's not my definition.

That's part of the problem. It's not yours, so why should your interpretation of the Church's definition of doctrine be given preference?

Of course it;s the Church's definition. I've given the relevant references. Every Bishop and Stake President understands it that way (have you asked them?). It's even part of my jurisdiction in my calling and that's how we all present it.

2) Rhetorical question: Where should the Church draw the line? We already know it can't be drawn at the scriptures:

3) Solution: Everything published is doctrine because all minutia has to do with some larger doctrine or another. ... Obviously, some details of the doctrine are not important and I think you are capable of knowing those when you see them.

You are apparently drawing your own line anyway in what you choose to be important.

No, I don't think it unreasonable for the Church to expect you to take it at it's word.

[mfbukowski]

Every Bishop and Stake President understands it that way (have you asked them?).

You're wrong.

[BCSpace]

Every Bishop and Stake President understands it that way (have you asked them?).

You're wrong.

Never met one yet who doesn't know in our 12 stake region. What does "Teaching, No Greater Call" say about keeping the doctrine pure? This is the manual that the SS Presidencies, both ward and stake, use "to improve gospel learning and teaching".

[BCSpace]

Is there anyone here that agrees with your position?

Yes. The Church.

I'm also noticing a HUGE run on the latest LDS Newsroom statements by some folks who, until recently, had pooh-poohed the notion that such could possibly be doctrine.......