What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[mfbukowski]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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 January 30, 2012 by cinepro

[Cobalt-70]

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]

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.

[Damien the Leper]

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:

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:

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:

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

From Textus Receptus:

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:

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.

[Damien the Leper]

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]

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.

[BCSpace]

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.

Being offered by Church Distribution is not a stamp of official doctrine.

[BCSpace]

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.

How do you figure HM is nor doctrine? It's published by the Church and therefore it is official doctrine. Who or what says it isn't and how does that trump what the Church has said about what is and is not doctrine?

The Snow couplet that even Gordon B. Hinckley dismissed as "not doctrine"

Hicnkley did not dismiss it and even he did, such a dismissal would have to be published by the Church. The FP and Qo12 are equal in authority (D&C 107) so both must agree and what signifies such agreement is publication.

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".

All is official doctrine. If something is not doctrine, it will be identified as such and therefore the doctrine will be, it's not doctrine.

[BCSpace]

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.)

Not a problem. If true, then latest date trumps.

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?

The notion of voting on canon or doctrine to make it official is not extant in the Church. While voting has happened, it has not served to officialize anything and in order to work, we must so vote on a regular basis for anything to be "binding" and that has not been a maintained tradition. I'd just stick with what the Church says.

.

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

Canonization does not official doctrine make.

[BCSpace]

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.

All doctrine even though some may not be very important. Church would not have published them otherwise. Now I understand you may think it silly to think that piano lessons and artwork (have you seen and read the back of that artwork?) are doctrine, but consider the alternative; people blurring the lines of what is and is not doctrine. this is indeed what all critics and some apologist want to further their opinions or favorite chestnuts, but it isn't how the Church sees it.

Edited January 30, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

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

Is new doctrine dead?

I think people are often pampered by the scriptures. They are nonstop inspiration/revelation from God from begining to end so sometimes we miss the fact that they occured over decades or hundreds or thousands of years. In other words, there were often long eras of time in which there apparently is no new doctrine.

Plus, isn't it possible that we have all we need for now? Does God have to command in all things?

Edited January 30, 2012 by BCSpace

[mbh26]

Mark, I'm talking about "official doctrine" for which "the church is willing to be bound" (as B.H. Roberts put it).

In all fairness, one might also ask of the U.S. government what the law is. Even a lawyer trained in the law can never tell you for sure how your case would turn out in court. It sure sounds like it'd have to be a specific judges decision on everything since the principles themselves are contradictory IMHO.

[BCSpace]

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".

That's the rub, the Church DOES consider "non canonized" statements by GA's (or even you or me speaking on Conference or writing an article for the Ensign or the Friend) to be official doctrine if officialy published and therefore it does matter.

[BCSpace]

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.

I have never claimed there is no ambiguity in the doctrine. Not all questions are answered nor are all details given by official doctrine. But the Church teaches a notion of "keeping the doctrine pure" and that is accomplished by using the official publications. That means there exists unambiguously, official doctrine.

[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.

Yes, but when since the Joseph Smith era has new material ever been added to the canon merely to "clarify our beliefs"? Doctrinal additions to the canon have only thus far been deemed justified when there is either new doctrine (D&C 138) or reversals of doctrine (OD 1 and 2). Why would the church even want to clarify its non-traditionally-Christian beliefs? The ambiguity has served church leaders and missionaries well for decades. The church can have it both ways: members can believe unique and "strange" Mormon beliefs like the Heavenly Mother doctrine, while appearing on the "official" record that the church's beliefs are more traditionally Christian. Plus, Mormons who are Trinitarian--and there are many new members and non-U.S. Mormons in that category--are not necessarily "officially" heterodox.

[BCSpace]

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.

Not quite. A question like this about the cirriculum was asked in one of our council meetings in preparation for a conference. Your notion actually restricts official doctrine to the changing yearly cirriculum materials used by the Church. We were disabused of this notion. The way to read it is that the doctrine is consistently published in whatever publication, not that a publication has to be consistently printed. Just because a doctrine is no longer being "emphasized" doesn't mean it's no longer doctrine. For example, plural marriage and the priesthood ban remain doctrines of the Church. That is why you haven't seen them repudiated or apologized for etc. The Church believes those prophets and apostles were acting under the inspiration/ revelation of God.

[BCSpace]

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.

Why canonize official doctrine? Official doctrine in many senses is more important and of greater authority than canon. Canon requires interpretation by the prophets for us to be sure of what it says. Official doctrine is the sure understanding itself.

[Calm]

Being offered by Church Distribution is not a stamp of official doctrine.

Totally agree.

What do you mean then by "being published by the Church"?

[LeSellers]

Doctrinal additions to the canon have only thus far been deemed justified when there is either new doctrine (D&C 138)

Doc&Cov 138 did not give us new doctrine.

The matter was attested in earlier scripture (1 Peter 3~4). There was a clarification and an expansion of the concept, but it was not new.

Lehi

[Calm]

All doctrine even though some may not be very important. Church would not have published them otherwise. Now I understand you may think it silly to think that piano lessons and artwork (have you seen and read the back of that artwork?) are doctrine, but consider the alternative; people blurring the lines of what is and is not doctrine. this is indeed what all critics and some apologist want to further their opinions or favorite chestnuts, but it isn't how the Church sees it.

I think that claiming the recipe for making cookies or playdough or a picture of kids playing in the snow or the song "Popcorn popping on the apricot tree" is doctrine is expanding the term "doctrine" into uselessness.

Edited January 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[BCSpace]

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)

It doesn't matter. The principle in my example would still hold if even you are right. However, it does seem that the official doctrine includes an element of what you are saying but it also includes the notion that being born of the water refers to water baptism:

4. The hope to be resurrected in the morning of the first resurrection ( Revelation 20:6 ).

To come forth in the morning of the first resurrection is to receive, among other things, a celestialized body. Of course, there can be no exaltation without entering in at the gate of baptism ( John 3:3–5 ).

The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles 56-23

In other words, nothing I;ve said changes whether you are right or wrong.

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)

Correct. I never implied that he had to. His credentials come from the Priesthood keys that he holds. But as far as the Church is concerned, all 15 prophets and apostles must agree that the prophet is speaking as a prophet and that is signified, once again, by official publication.