438 replies to this topic

[Libs]

Zeta-Flux, on 29 January 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Libs,

The problem is with the phrase "official LDS doctrine".  It could mean any number of things: (1) what most Mormons believe, or believe should be authoritative, (2) what most Church leaders believe, (3) what Church leaders believe is authoritive, (4) the doctrines with which if you publicly disagree you could be excommunicated, (5) what Church authorities teach regularly, (6) what Church leaders have taught at least once, (7) the core doctrines as presented in Church materials, ( 8 ) any doctrines currently taught in Church produced materials, (9) only those teachings found clearly in the standard works, (10) ditto 9 but with first presidency messages that are also signed by the 12 apostles, (11) ditto 10 but also including official proclamations just from the First Presidency, (12) ditto 11 but also including any talk given by the President of the Church in his capacity as President, etc..., etc..., etc...

Furthermore, there are levels of authoritativeness, interpretation, meaning, and understanding -- even on the questions of what we should take as authoritative, how we should interpret scripture, what certain sermons mean, and what we should understand the gospel to be about.

Let me give you a few examples from my own life to demonstrate how this all interplays.

Example 1:  As a missionary I knocked on the door of a retired Baptist preacher.  This was about the time when the Baptists were coming to Utah, and so they had been taught what the Mormons (supposedly) believe.  As we talked he asked me "Are you saved by grace alone."  Well, I felt that was a tricky question because of the word alone, so I answered "That is a good question" at which point he interrupted me and asked again: "Yes, that is the question.  Are you saved by grace?"  Well, that question was easier to answer.  "Yes," I said, "I believe I am saved by the grace of Jesus Christ."  To which he answered, in utter disbelief, "You don't believe that!"

Clearly this man was wrong.  I did, and do, believe that.  However, implicitly he was making the claim that that is not the "official" doctrine of our church.  In this case, almost all of the different possibilities for "official" I listed above would agree that in fact this is the official position we take.  I imagine that there are the occassional talks from church authorities which may lead some to question this view (especially our view of how works tie into exaltation), but nonetheless this is one of those clear doctrines.

Example 2:  Reading blogs about Mormons, I often come across comments like "Mormons believe that God lives on a planet named Kolob."  Well, Kolob appears in our scriptures right?  This should be an open and shut case of official doctrine right?

And yet, I cannot recall the last time (if ever) I heard in General Conference anything about Kolob.  It just isn't a central part of our teachings.  Further, the scripture itself is not entirely clear.  But even above that, in another place the word "Kokob" is used, which is clearly the transliteration of the Hebrew word for star.  It isn't meant as a name for a certain star, or anything special.  So that makes one wonder if Kolob does not similarly represent the transliteration of a Hebrew word with origins like "Kokob".  Mormons are not punished for offering differing opinions on this subject.

So is "Kolob is God's planet, or God's star, or nearest to His residence" an official doctrine?  In some senses, and not in others.  It certainly is not central, and as stated is highly misleading.

Example 3:  Reading the Journal of Discourse, Brigham taught all sorts of neat things.  Some of them God has told me are true.  I believe them.  Are they official doctrines?  Again, it depends on what one means by the term.

Example 4:  A nonmember sincerely wants to know what Mormons believe about a subject they hear about, like the priesthood ban.  Perhaps they want to be able to even teach others what we believe.  What is our official doctrine on that topic?  It is my belief that one cannot even begin to try to express what Mormons "officially" believe about the ban without first explaining what one might mean by "official", what the history is, what the current theories are, etc...

So to sum up:  I just don't see a simple answer to your question.  Each of the simple answers already given are just specific interpretations of what "official" might mean, and there are multiple meanings available.  Mormons (in my experience) are only interested in what is "official" in the sense that it helps them classify what is standard, and what is authoritative, in an effort to uncover what is true.  Truth is what really matters to us.

Thanks, Zeta..  I am beginning to see that it is, indeed, very complicated!  

[calmoriah]

Libs, on 29 January 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

I think the idea that everything published by the church is "official doctrine", really does run into problems, because I can think of several things that appear in manuals that I know are not "official doctrine".

Check out the Primary manuals and songs, the children's magazine The Friend.  Definitely includes material that is not official doctrine (artwork, poetry, jokes and games, for example, made up stories that generally have morals).  The Ensign and New Era often include biographical stories about members which may be true, but are not doctrine.  The Church publishes a manual on playing the piano, how to prepare home storage....not doctrinal even if it contributes to the missions of the Church.

Edited by calmoriah, 29 January 2012 - 10:42 PM.

[Libs]

Yes, exactly.

[inquiringmind]

BCSpace, on 29 January 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

And the one by Talmadge, is official doctrine, being published by the Church.

I think there might be a problem with that.

The one by Talmage was published in 1890 (before Doctrine and Covenants 138 became scripture in 1918.)

D&C 138 says "...the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them; But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. (Verses 29-30.)

Talmage says "The inauguration of this work among the dead was effected by Christ in the interval between His death and resurrection. While His body lay in the tomb, His spirit ministered to the spirits of the departed: 'By which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." (Articles of Faith, page 147.)

Cobalt-70, on 29 January 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

the church removed the Lectures on Faith from the D&C.

Was the older version of D&C ever voted on?

(i.e. Were "The Lectures on Faith" ever really canonized by the LDS Church?)

Edited by inquiringmind, 30 January 2012 - 12:47 AM.

[zerinus]

blackstrap, on 29 January 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

So,Zerinius,are you saying that the current Prophet of the church,could stand in GC and make a statement that a lay member ,by the Holy Spirit,would know was false doctrine?

No, they would know if he made a slip, a mistake. I distinguish between "making a mistake" and "teaching false doctrine". The implications are different.

Quote

Would that member,and all others in the congregation so informed,be justified in arising to denounce the statement?

Of course not. That would not be the right way to handle it. It would be the same as if my bishop made a mistake in doctrine. I wouldn't "denounce" him. There is no reason to. If it was not serious, I would probably ignore it. If I thought it was a serious mistake, I would talk to him about it privately, and explain to him why. There is no need to "denounce" anybody. I could make a mistake too. I wouldn't expect to be "denounced". You are not an Evangelical or JW by any chance, are you?

Edited by zerinus, 30 January 2012 - 07:19 AM.

[Zeta-Flux]

I disagree with zerinus.  I believe that the Prophet could choose to apostatize, and start preaching evil from the pulpit.  He would then be removed by the unanimous vote of the quorum of the 12 apostles.  I don't find this even remotely likely, but it is technically possible (and even mentioned in the D&C).

[Brian 2.0]

What NEW doctrines have come about within the church in say the last 30 years?

Maybe God just simply isn't choosing to reveal new stuff, but in my lifetime it seems the prophets have simply be reiterating and emphasizing doctrine that has previosly been established.  Most all new stuff has been administrative in nature and policy based.  No cool stuff on say the nature of the pre-existence or spirit world matters.  I used to go to General conference hoping that this might be the time where we get some new revelation and new knowledge of something regarding the eternities, but over time I just realized that that's probably just not going to happen.  Just re-emphazing the same stuff.  What happened?  It seems like line-upon-line has stopped and now it's "let's look back at all the lines and apply them to our modern day."

I know some would say Proclamation on the Family is a new doctrine, but that is reiteration of doctrine always taught and put into a singular document.  Hinkley said this on that Proclamation.  "In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history."

Is new doctrine dead?

[thesometimesaint]

Nope.

We are instructed by God to preach nothing but repentence. I don't believe that to be literally NOTHING but repentence. We don't walk around all day saying just one word "Repent". So it must mean something else far more inclusive.

While I believe that The Proclamation on the Family establishes new doctrine, A Mother-In-Heaven. The PotF has yet to be added to Scripture. So I don't consider it "Official" doctrine. Maybe in this years April General Conference

[mfbukowski]

Libs, on 29 January 2012 - 02:25 AM, said:

They all seem to indicate that the "official doctrine" of the Church, will only be found in the Standard Works.  Is that accurate to say?

Yes.

Easy for me to say, not having read the thread yet  

[mfbukowski]

Bob Oliverio, on 29 January 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

As a newcomer to The Church, this is a frustrating aspect.  As we've witnessed in this very thread, absolutely NO ONE knows what official doctrine is.    And we watch great people like Mitt Romney have to avoid any questions about his Church because even he can't sight or quote from a safe haven of "official doctrine".  I really wish President Monson would avail himself as more of a public and divine spokesman for the Church.  What greater person to  avail himself as the person to speak in public to identify exactly what is "official" doctrine, and explain it openly, than a prophet?

I've watched all these "I'm a Mormon" commercials for almost a year now and still can't see what their purpose is, nor what they've accomplished for our Church.  It would be so refreshing to see President Monson out in front for many obvious reasons.

This may be frustrating to some who like rules and clear definitions, but the fact is, PERSONAL REVELATION is at the heart of this church.   We are given the scriptures- and the Holy Ghost.   Yes we have manuals etc for guidance toward interpretation, but that is about all they are good for.

The bottom line as I see it is that we are to seek our own path with God within the guidlines presented.   At there are some in the churcn- like me- who find this the most important aspect of being a member.   I am free to see things the way I want to see them, and as long as I can honestly answer the Temple Recommend questions correctly, I can attend the temple and seek further guidance and revelation directly from my Father- what more "doctrine" would anyone need?

Blake Ostler speaks of "orthopraxis" and that we don't have real "doctrine"- and I agree totally with him on this particular point.

[mfbukowski]

BCSpace, on 29 January 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

I get plenty of opportunity, which I do take advantage of, to ask visiting GA's what the Church's stance is and I can assure I am accurately communicating it to you.  I have communicated it this way for decades prior to Approaching Mormon Doctrine as this is how is always been communicated to any typical member, especially missionaries and those who take Teacher Prep courses.

I'm not picking a fight- really- I just want to point out that this doesn't matter if non-canonized statements by GA's are not "doctrinal".

They could get up one after another in conference and say so, and I admit that would be VERY convincing.   But if statements by GA's - even in conference- are not "doctrine" then they would remain what they are- statements by GA's.

It's a circular argument ultimately.   And I really don't think that press releases ambiguously drafted are doctrinal either.  The press release doesn't even fit its own crtieria for accepting it as "doctrinal".

[mfbukowski]

BCSpace, on 29 January 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

The problem with that is one cannot tell, merely by pointing to the the scriptures, what official LDS doctrine is.  That is why the publications that are official doctrine.  Yes, the scriptures are also officially published and in that sense, are doctrine as well as canon, but they are usless for this purpose without interpretation by the prophets and those interpretations are published as manuals etc.

As I see it, if we are trying to escape ambiguity, that is impossible.

There will always be ambiguity.   That's why the Catholics have to re-define everything through encyclicals.

To me, the key is, get used to the fact that there are no facts- and then go to the Lord for guidance.

[mfbukowski]

Zeta-Flux, on 30 January 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

I disagree with zerinus.  I believe that the Prophet could choose to apostatize, and start preaching evil from the pulpit.  He would then be removed by the unanimous vote of the quorum of the 12 apostles.  I don't find this even remotely likely, but it is technically possible (and even mentioned in the D&C).

Yup!

Again- and then we would have to decide who was right.   How would we know?   The Spirit- the only source we really have for anything.

And yes, the Spirit may lead us in different directions, or appear to do so.   That is just another fact of life- that God teaches each of us the right path we individually must take to return to him.   He knows the twists and turns of each of our lives and what lessons we all need to learn.

But again- what I love about this church- is that is exactly what it preaches!   If we are deluded on this side of the veil- we will have an opportunity to "get it right" on the other side.   But without the Spirit, we would not even know that this principle itself is "true".   The Spirit is everything.

[cinepro]

calmoriah, on 29 January 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

Check out the Primary manuals and songs, the children's magazine The Friend.  Definitely includes material that is not official doctrine (artwork, poetry, jokes and games, for example, made up stories that generally have morals).  The Ensign and New Era often include biographical stories about members which may be true, but are not doctrine.  The Church publishes a manual on playing the piano, how to prepare home storage....not doctrinal even if it contributes to the missions of the Church.

The newsroom statement says "consistently proclaimed in official Church publications."  In order to establish "consistency", there would have to be repeated instances of the teaching.

We need to keep in mind that the Church has a Correlation Committee made up of apostles and other leaders, and their first given task is presented this way:

Quote

Emphasize that Church correlation was initiated and continues to operate today by revelation from the Lord to His prophets.
Explain that the purpose of Church correlation is to preserve “the right way of God” (Jacob 7:7). Ultimately it is intended to help accomplish the mission of the Church, which is to invite all people to “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him” (Moroni 10:32; see also D&C 20:59).

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve oversee correlation in the Church. Correlation includes:

a. Maintaining purity of doctrine.

So perhaps when we are trying to figure out whether something is "official doctrine", we should conisider if it has been taught in a correlated publication.   Because it seems to be something they think about too.

Edited by cinepro, 30 January 2012 - 11:49 AM.

[Cobalt-70]

inquiringmind, on 29 January 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

Was the older version of D&C ever voted on?

(i.e. Were "The Lectures on Faith" ever really canonized by the LDS Church?)

Yes. the Doctrine and Covenants, including the Lectures on Faith, was voted on and sustained unanimously by the church body in 1835. The Lectures on Faith was the "doctrine" part of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Lectures on Faith was as much part of the canon as the other parts of the D&C.

[Cobalt-70]

thesometimesaint, on 30 January 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Nope.

We are instructed by God to preach nothing but repentence. I don't believe that to be literally NOTHING but repentence. We don't walk around all day saying just one word "Repent". So it must mean something else far more inclusive.

While I believe that The Proclamation on the Family establishes new doctrine, A Mother-In-Heaven. The PotF has yet to be added to Scripture. So I don't consider it "Official" doctrine. Maybe in this years April General Conference

I used to think there was a chance the Proclamation on the Family would be canonized, but the older it gets, the more I doubt it. How does the church benefit by canonizing this? It contains nothing new, yet only has the power to alienate potential new converts and turn them off to the church if it is canonized. As of right now, for example, there is nothing whatsoever within the Mormon canon that suggests there is a Heavenly Mother. Almost every Mormon happens to believe this, but why would the church want to make the Heavenly Mother doctrine official? Then, missionaries would no longer be able to deny the officiality of that doctrine when the issue comes up, and as a result, there is a 100% probability that the church will lose at least a some potential converts. Is canonizing the Proclamation worth a reduction in new Mormon converts?

Same goes with the Proclamation's statement that, essentially, "men are made to lead, women to nuture." How would the church benefit from canonizing the Victorian patriarchal system, which was already dated when the Proclamation was written and will only become increasingly dated as time passes? Keeping the status quo will not hurt proselytizing; however, canonizing the patriarchy will.

[Valentinus]

BCSpace, on 29 January 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

My favorite example is John 3:5.  How do we LDS know that the water in that verse is water baptism and not physical birth as the Protestants teach?  It's because the Church has published the doctrine somewhere.

From GNT Morph:

Quote

John 3:5  ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ

From Textus Receptus:

Quote

John 3:5  ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ

ὕδωρ or hydōr is the word used for water. From what I understand from some concordances, hydōr is not synonymous with baptism.

From GNT Morph:

Quote

Matt 3:13  τότε παραγίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ

From Textus Receptus:

Quote

Matt 3:13  Τότε παραγίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην, τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ

The term βαπτίζω or baptizō is the contextually correct understanding of baptism as opposed to ὕδωρ or hydōr as some LDS may believe or as it has been taught by church leaders.

The reasoning:

The new birth means regeneration, with all believers being equally renewed. It has nothing to do with belonging to a church or baptism.

a) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible (1 Pet 1:23)
b) Be a new creation (2 Cor 5:17)
c) Ye must be born again (John 3:7)
d) Except ye be born again, cannot see kingdom (John 3:3)


Then again some may choose to respond to my post with this:

Quote

Fifth Fundamental:


The Prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. (Fourteen Fundamentals, 27)

Quote taken from Claudio R. M. Costa's General Conference talk Obedience to the Prophets, 2010.

To which I respond with a short chuckle.

[Valentinus]

Bob Oliverio, on 29 January 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

As a newcomer to The Church, this is a frustrating aspect.  As we've witnessed in this very thread, absolutely NO ONE knows what official doctrine is.    And we watch great people like Mitt Romney have to avoid any questions about his Church because even he can't sight or quote from a safe haven of "official doctrine".  I really wish President Monson would avail himself as more of a public and divine spokesman for the Church.  What greater person to  avail himself as the person to speak in public to identify exactly what is "official" doctrine, and explain it openly, than a prophet?

I've watched all these "I'm a Mormon" commercials for almost a year now and still can't see what their purpose is, nor what they've accomplished for our Church.  It would be so refreshing to see President Monson out in front for many obvious reasons.

Ahh, but that would make him somewhat of a Mormon pope or as Stephen Colbert stated, a "Mope". No disrespect intended but once the prophet goes more public and is much more publicly identified...there is no telling what will happen.

[Libs]

mfbukowski, on 30 January 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Yes.

Easy for me to say, not having read the thread yet  

Whew, what a relief.  A nice clear answer!  Thank you!    

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

I believe that the canonization of the PotF would help clarify our beliefs. I also believe that further revelation is needed to "flesh out" the exact role and functions of our Mother-In-Heaven before I would feel comfortable with that canonization. But no one has put me in charge so I just have to go with what we got.

No woman is required in LDS Theology or practice to follow her husband into hell. As the Priesthood holder in my home I have the responsibility to preside in righteousness. If I don't then Amen to my Priesthood. Further my wife is my counselor and only a damn fool disregards what their counselor says.