What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[Bob Oliverio]

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.

[Cobalt-70]

BCSpace, yes, I read that paragraph, but it says:

"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."

..which indicates to me that not everything "published" in a manual or other published material (like GC) would, necessarily, be considered LDS Doctrine. Only if it reflects what is already in the Standard Works and AOF.

I agree. The church publishes a lot of material which is not official doctrine. It's only the Standard Works, the temple ceremony, and anything else that the church specifically holds out as official doctrine. Moreover, just because something is official doctrine now does not mean that it will be official doctrine forever. For example, around the turn of the 20th century, the church removed the Lectures on Faith from the D&C. The church has also removed Adam-God material from the temple ceremony.

The church has very good reason for minimizing the amount of material that can be considered "official" doctrine. It allows LDS leaders and missionaries to portray the church as more traditionally Christian than they otherwise would be able to do if "official" church doctrine were based merely on what is taught in church manuals and publications, or what every Mormon actually believes. This schizophrenia within Mormon doctrine, I argue, is a good thing. It allows a place for more traditionally-Christian Mormons within the church (even Trinitarians would have a place within the church, for example), yet allows traditional Mormon doctrines (like Heavenly Mother, God was once a man, etc.) to flourish on a "de facto" basis.

[zerinus]

Keeping this in mind, of course...

I think that Ezra Taft Benson went a bit over the top with that sermon. As for the three points you have highlighted, here is my assessment:

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

That depends on what he means by "vital". If by that he means that the possession of the standard works does not dispense with the office of a prophet, he is right. But if he means that the prophet is an infallible oracle whose every word is perfect; or that the standard works cannot be used to test the accuracy of his teachings, then he is wrong. And unfortunately a lot of people are going to understand it that way, as you appear to have done.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

The same principle applies here. If by that he means that the dead prophets do not allow us to dispense with the role of living prophets, he is right. But if he means that the record of dead prophets cannot guide us in assessing the accuracy of the teachings of living prophets, then he is wrong; and a lot of people are going to understand it that way.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Again, it depends on what he means by that. If he means that the prophet cannot intentionally lead the Church astray, he would be right. That is what Wilford Woodruff meant by it. But if he means that the prophet is an infallible oracle who is incapable of making a mistake in doctrine, he is wrong; and unfortunately a lot of people are going to understand it that way. That is why I think that that speech was over the top, and should not have been given, at least in that way.

So if a Prophet stood and said something that appeared to supercede the Standard Works, I'm not so sure even the scripturally knowledgeable saints would reject him en masse.

That is a very "iffy" statement. It all depends on what was said, when and where it was said, and what other circumstances attended saying it. Generally speaking, a Church member who is well versed in the scriptures, and has the Holy Spirit, will be able to detect an error in doctrine made from the pulpit, regardless of who has made it. How many Church members are actually in a position to do that is a different issue entirely.

[inquiringmind]

"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."

First Doctrine must be established by the 15; then,

"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."

What is established by the 15 resides in the scriptures etc.

Do you mean "A Study of the Articles of Faith," by Talmage?

Is that official doctrine?

Edited January 30, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

Do you mean "A Study of the Articles of Faith," by Talmage?

Is that official doctrine?

No, the Articles of Faith themselves are listed at the end of the Pearl of Great Price and therefore count as scripture: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng

[BCSpace]

So yes, all the LDS Church-published manuals, magazines, pamphlets, handbooks, web sites, helps, etc. are doctrine unless otherwise noted (your Bible Dictionary for example, or something qualified as an opinion, which is merely taking the Church at it's word).

I would agree with this (by manuals, I would also include the 2004 version of

"Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual" and "Doctrines

of Salvation", volumes 1-3, by Joseph Fielding Smith, back in the early 1950's.

The latter is unfortunately not available at the church publications web site but

you can obtain it from other book stores and possibly eBay.

Can't include the latter as it's not published by the Church. But you do bring up the interesting point of older publications. Part of the Church's systematic theology is continuing revelation/inspiration. Therefore, if you see a conflict between two publications, latest date trumps.

But in a general sense, I think that "official doctrine" usually refers to what is in

the standard words, whereas "unofficial" refers to everything written by all future

and past LDS prophets, sermons spoken at General Conference, or books and

magazines having the copyright of the church which are meant to teach the lay

people. In many cases the teachings overlap.

I find that some members do not believe the "unofficial doctrines" because they

are led by the Spirit to conclude these teachings are false or purely speculation

- so they keep their mouths shut so as not wanting to appear to be in opposition

to their church leaders. I have seen this in some evangelical circles too.

The notion of unofficial doctrine does not exist in the Church. The Church does not publish anything it doesn't consider official doctrine unless (rarely) it specifies.

Edited January 30, 2012 by BCSpace

[blackstrap]

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

[BCSpace]

"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."

..which indicates to me that not everything "published" in a manual or other published material (like GC) would, necessarily, be considered LDS Doctrine. Only if it reflects what is already in the Standard Works and AOF.

That's not how the Church sees it. In Approaching Mormon Doctrine, the Church distinguishes between isolated statements and publication. everything the Church publishes IS necessarily doctrine. Approaching Mormon Doctrine is merely a summary of what the Church has been teaching internally for decades. For example, in Teaching, No greater Call, one is to teach from Church published materials to keep the doctrine pure. If there are scattered and unidentified areas in the publications that are not doctrine, then one cannot hope to keep the doctrine pure. Thus we see why in part everything in a publication is neceesarily doctrine.

In addition, you cannot get stuck on the doctrine residing in the Standard Works especially since the identification of official doctrine, publication, was given prior. In addition doctrine is, in a very real sense, more important than scripture; the reason why I have already illustrated:

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.

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.

Edited January 30, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Do you mean "A Study of the Articles of Faith," by Talmage?

Is that official doctrine?

No, the Articles of Faith themselves are listed at the end of the Pearl of Great Price and therefore count as scripture: http://www.lds.org/s...of-f/1?lang=eng

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

[BCSpace]

Nothing comes close to defining the gospel of Jesus Christ better than the scriptures. If it is not found in scripture, then it is not doctrine for anyone.

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.

[Zeta-Flux]

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.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[BCSpace]

Back to BCSPace, regarding my first two sources. They may not be "official church" sources, but they do include quotes from many LDS leaders, on the subject, most of whom state outright that only the Standard Works would be considered "official doctrine".

I would argue that in those two links, there are no such statements except for BH Roberts which is merely an isloated statement published in the Deseret News. The articles themselves make such statement presumably by the authors and are not referenced. But it makes no difference whatsoever unless published by the Church as that is how the Church sees it.

[BCSpace]

The newsroom statement would be much, much clearer if they hadn't included that line.

Cf Teaching, No Greater Call above. One cannot use the publications to keep the doctrine pure if there are bits of unidentified or unqualified "non doctrine" floating around. In addition, the Church has already set the precedent of identifying what is not doctrine (such as the BD or Sorenson's two parter on a Mesosamerican LGT) so you can simply take the Church at it's word which is essentially all Approaching Mormon Doctrine asks you to do anyway.

Since manuals and other church publications are often edited and changed

They are, but it's interesting how doctrine really doesn't change much at all. Not even the doctrines of plural marriage and the priesthood ban have been changed. They remain just as they were prior to OD-1 and OD-2. But if you do find a conflict, in keeping with the doctrine of continuing revelation/inspiration, latest date trumps.

[Calm]

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

While Jesus the Christ is still being published, the Articles of Faith book is no longer offered through Church Distribution, I believe. If so, by your logic, it is no longer official doctrine.

[Libs]

That's not how the Church sees it. In Approaching Mormon Doctrine, the Church distinguishes between isolated statements and publication. everything the Church publishes IS necessarily doctrine. Approaching Mormon Doctrine is merely a summary of what the Church has been teaching internally for decades. For example, in Teaching, No greater Call, one is to teach from Church published materials to keep the doctrine pure. If there are scattered and unidentified areas in the publications that are not doctrine, then one cannot hope to keep the doctrine pure. Thus we see why in part everything in a publication is neceesarily doctrine.

In addition, you cannot get stuck on the doctrine residing in the Standard Works especially since the identification of official doctrine, publication, was given prior. In addition doctrine is, in a very real sense, more important than scripture; the reason why I have already illustrated:

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 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". The concept of a Heavenly Mother is not really doctrine. The Snow couplet that even Gordon B. Hinckley dismissed as "not doctrine" is in the Gospel Principles manual...etc etc. It's probably true that much of what you find in these manuals will be considered official doctrine, but certainly not "all".

Edited January 30, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

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!

[Calm]

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 January 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[Libs]

Yes, exactly.

[inquiringmind]

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.)

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 January 30, 2012 by inquiringmind

[zerinus]

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.

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 January 30, 2012 by zerinus

[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]

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]

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.