Thats Not Doctrine! Is That Doctrine?

[Olavarria]

Often times when ever we get on some kind of doctrinal conversation, or debate with an "anti" some one alaways says "thats not doctrine". SOme of these issues include: eternal polygamy, Adam-God(which ever 1 of 4 versins you think of), Married Jesus, sexual conception of Christ, BoM Geography, black lineage curses, infinite regression of gods etc.

My purpose of this thread is not to defend or debunk any of these things. I want to talk about "Doctrine".

Merrim-Webster definds doctrine this way:

Main Entry: doc

[BCSpace]

The only iron rod I know of are the revelations, but the revelations dont teach everything, just the essentials.

Other than the fact that the Church itself has a slightly broader definition of doctrine than you gave, I can agree.

[soren]

Millet's standard is pretty good: 1)is it in the standard works, 2)is it in Official Proclamations, 3) is it in the most recent manuals etc.

Where in the standard works, official publications, and official proclamations can such a standard as this be found?

The closest thing to a standard of doctrine that I can find in Mormon Scripture Articles of Faith #9:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Not the most user-friendly standard, but the closest thing to it that I know of.

[BCSpace]

Where in the standard works, official publications, and official proclamations can such a standard as this be found?

The closest thing to a standard of doctrine that I can find in Mormon Scripture Articles of Faith #9:

You might be interested in this news release from the Church....

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four â??standard worksâ? 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.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine, May 2007

It's essentially a summarization of what's been taught in Teacher Prep and the CHI for decades.

Notice that while the doctrine resides there, scripture is not the standard for doctrine. Rather, the standard is based on something like 2 Peter 1:20 (inspiration) and D&C 107 (the unity of the FP and Qo12). Inspiration determines how the scriptures are interpreted for doctrine and those doctrines are then put in official publications (manuals, pamphlets, study guides, the backs of pictures held up by Primary children, etc.)

Remember also that the doctrine residing in D&C 68:4 shows that doctrine need not be found explicitly or even implicitly in the four â??standard worksâ? 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. Although I can't think of any doctrine offhand that isn't at least implied in the canon etc.

[Tchild2]

Just because it aint doctrine, dont mean it aint true. All doctrine is truth, but not all truth is doctrine.

Well, unfortunately, what is true that ain't doctrine is pretty hard to pin down, especially on this board. Apologists love to squirm out of uncomfortable past teachings with the trump card of "that ain't doctrine". Got to pick one or the other I guess. Is it doctrine or not? If not, don't expect to use it to advance any apologetic reasoning either. Can't have it both ways.

I consider "doctrine" all that is part of the cultural and common teachings found in the church. Maybe it is wrong? Well, then don't teach it if it isn't truth. Right?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Christ explicitly defined the essential doctrine in the 3rd book of Nephi, Book of Mormon, while He visited the Nephites.

3 Nephi 11:30-41

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.

Elsewhere He went into detail again, 3 Nephi 27

Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto youâ??that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil...

And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words. And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end (3 Nephi 27:13-19).

Here the gospel is defined as (1) Christ coming into the world to do the Fatherâ??s will, (2) the will being that He is crucified and dies for the sins of the world, (3) because of this atonement all men will be judged according to what they do in life, accepting or rejecting what Christ commands, (4) those who have faith then must repent and be baptized, then receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, (5) they then must endure to the end, continue faithful to Christ or (6) be cast out of His presence. (7) The words of Christ shall all be fulfilled.

[kamenraider]

LifeOnaPlate, is the necessity of keywords, signs and tokens to regain the presence of God an essential doctrine?

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeOnaPlate, is the necessity of keywords, signs and tokens to regain the presence of God an essential doctrine?

Endure to the end and find out!

[BCSpace]

Apologists love to squirm out of uncomfortable past teachings with the trump card of "that ain't doctrine".

Not this one. I freely admit all doctrine unless it's esoteric. In which case I say "It's esoteric." instead of "Not doctrine."

Got to pick one or the other I guess. Is it doctrine or not? If not, don't expect to use it to advance any apologetic reasoning either. Can't have it both ways.

Indeed.

I consider "doctrine" all that is part of the cultural and common teachings found in the church. Maybe it is wrong? Well, then don't teach it if it isn't truth. Right?

Can't use that standard. It erroneously assumes that the prophets and apostles mouth's are guided directly by God 24/7. It also erroneously gives doctrinal weight to those who are not part of the unified body of the FP and Qo12.

I say most, if not all, churches have a similar "official publication" standard.

[Mudcat]

Well, unfortunately, what is true that ain't doctrine is pretty hard to pin down, especially on this board. Apologists love to squirm out of uncomfortable past teachings with the trump card of "that ain't doctrine". Got to pick one or the other I guess. Is it doctrine or not? If not, don't expect to use it to advance any apologetic reasoning either. Can't have it both ways.

I consider "doctrine" all that is part of the cultural and common teachings found in the church. Maybe it is wrong? Well, then don't teach it if it isn't truth. Right?

Looking at this from the other side of the fence, so to speak, I agree with you.

Take Mormon Doctrine for instance. A lot of my thoughts about the LDS church came from this text. I've seen apologists say its a great book and maybe has an error or two where Bruce inserted personal thoughts.

I tried to draw a parralell from it once and got fairly well bashed about it having over a thousand errors and I don't neccessarily think the part I was using was one of the erroneous parts.

I've come to the conclusion that it is a pretty good book if you are LDS. But if your not LDS....well its got a thousand or so errors...better not put it on the table against and apologist.

So maybe you can have it both ways. I am inclined to think at least some people do.

Edit add to beat BCSpace to one point...which is...

BTW...I am aware this book is not an official church publication.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This is doctrine...

THE ARTICLES OF FAITH

OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535â??541

1 We abelieve in bGod, the Eternal Father, and in His cSon, Jesus Christ, and in the dHoly Ghost.

2 We believe that men will be apunished for their bown sins, and not for Adamâ??s ctransgression.

3 We believe that through the aAtonement of Christ, all bmankind may be csaved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4 We believe that the first principles and aordinances of the Gospel are: first, bFaith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, cRepentance; third, dBaptism by eimmersion for the fremission of sins; fourth, Laying on of ghands for the hgift of the Holy Ghost.

5 We believe that a man must be acalled of God, by bprophecy, and by the laying on of chands by those who are in dauthority, to epreach the Gospel and administer in the fordinances thereof.

6 We believe in the same aorganization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, bprophets, cpastors, dteachers, eevangelists, and so forth.

7 We believe in the agift of btongues, cprophecy, drevelation, evisions, fhealing, ginterpretation of tongues, and so forth.

8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

9 We believe all that God has arevealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet breveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10 We believe in the literal agathering of Israel and in the restoration of the bTen Tribes; that cZion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will dreign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be erenewed and receive its fparadisiacal gglory.

11 We claim the aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the bdictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them dworship how, where, or what they may.

12 We believe in being asubject to bkings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the dlaw.

13 aWe believe in being bhonest, true, cchaste, dbenevolent, virtuous, and in doing egood to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paulâ??We believe all things, we fhope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to gendure all things. If there is anything hvirtuous, ilovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Joseph Smith

[BCSpace]

Edit add to beat BCSpace to one point...which is...

BTW...I am aware this book is not an official church publication.

I've been keeping a record of who believes what and I had already noted that you knew this.

[Scottie]

There seems to be a VERY wide disconnect from the teachings in the chapels to the authorized teachings of the church.

This is bound to happen when your religion uses a lay-clergy. The everyday men and women of the church are put in positions of teaching. I don't believe there is malice in it, they are just trying to make the lesson interesting, and, perhaps putting a bit of what they've heard into the lesson.

Except, the problem with this is that the teacher may not clarify this as opinion, and the members in the seats may take this as doctrine. So, when they are called to teach, they will include this little piece of doctrine as well. Pretty soon, it has become a church wide "doctrine", even though it isn't taught anywhere in the doctrines of the church.

Sort of like, "There is TONS of evidence in South America that PROVES the BoM is true!!" (yes, I've heard this taught in SS, and, more recently by a member I sat next to on a plane ride)

[Obiwan]

Thats Not Doctrine! Is That Doctrine?, WHat the heck is doctrine?

Easy, what the Church SAYS is doctrine and is found in scripture. That's doctrine, pure and simple.

[Obiwan]

There seems to be a VERY wide disconnect from the teachings in the chapels to the authorized teachings of the church.

Not even close.... I've attended well over 50 different Wards in the Church over the years, and there is no difference at all. Now, maybe 1 in a 1000 times you will hear an "opinion" that maybe isn't doctrine, but since we have the Gift of the Holy Ghost and scriptures ourselves, we do pretty well in knowing the difference.

Also, if you think teachings are "wide" in our Church, go to any other religion.

You will find no better consistency of teaching, understanding and ideology from building to building than in this Church. So much so, that it's near perfect.

This is bound to happen when your religion uses a lay-clergy. The everyday men and women of the church are put in positions of teaching. I don't believe there is malice in it, they are just trying to make the lesson interesting, and, perhaps putting a bit of what they've heard into the lesson.

That's why the Church has approved materials to teach from, and why most follow that instruction, and if they don't, they do so in wisdom. Thus, there is little problem at all with our "lay-clergy".

Except, the problem with this is that the teacher may not clarify this as opinion, and the members in the seats may take this as doctrine. So, when they are called to teach, they will include this little piece of doctrine as well. Pretty soon, it has become a church wide "doctrine", even though it isn't taught anywhere in the doctrines of the church.

I don't know what planet you are on, but we aren't THAT "gullible".

Sort of like, "There is TONS of evidence in South America that PROVES the BoM is true!!" (yes, I've heard this taught in SS, and, more recently by a member I sat next to on a plane ride)

Well, given my own study's all these years, they are mostly right, even though such is a bit of an exageration.

Just because you don't see any of the evidence, or it's not the kind of evidence your interested in or expect to see, doesn't mean there ISN'T lot's of evidences which essentially "prove" that it's a true work.

Although personally, I would say that only Lehi's entire journey in the old world has been sufficiently "proven". The New World evidences contains a lot of "proof", but personally I wouldn't say proven yet.

[Scottie]

Not even close.... I've attended well over 50 different Wards in the Church over the years, and there is no difference at all. Now, maybe 1 in a 1000 times you will hear an "opinion" that maybe isn't doctrine, but since we have the Gift of the Holy Ghost and scriptures ourselves, we do pretty well in knowing the difference.

Seeing as we can't even nail down what exactly constitutes a doctrine HERE, what makes you think that they are teaching it in class?

Also, if you think teachings are "wide" in our Church, go to any other religion.

This may be, but we're on an LDS board talking about LDS doctrine.

You will find no better consistency of teaching, understanding and ideology from building to building than in this Church. So much so, that it's near perfect.

With such an impressive resume of wards, I'm surprised that you have been taught so consistently. That has certainly not been my experience. Personal interpretation of doctrine seems to creeps in often.

That's why the Church has approved materials to teach from, and why most follow that instruction, and if they don't, they do so in wisdom. Thus, there is little problem at all with our "lay-clergy".

If you say so.

I don't know what planet you are on, but we aren't THAT "gullible".

Actually, you are. Why else would you believe in such an obviously false religion? Seriously though, who's to say that someones false teaching doesn't prompt a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the teaching for someone else? That's all the truth they need.

Well, given my own study's all these years, they are mostly right, even though such is a bit of an exageration.

Huh. Well, I've got a few non-LDS archaeologists who might disagree with you.

Just because you don't see any of the evidence, or it's not the kind of evidence your interested in or expect to see, doesn't mean there ISN'T lot's of evidences which essentially "prove" that it's a true work.

Oh, it's not just me. In fact, the only people that see correlation between ancient mesoamerica and the BoM are LDS.

Although personally, I would say that only Lehi's entire journey in the old world has been sufficiently "proven". The New World evidences contains a lot of "proof", but personally I wouldn't say proven yet.

It's really hard to take you seriously here.

[consiglieri]

Looking at this from the other side of the fence, so to speak, I agree with you.

Take Mormon Doctrine for instance. A lot of my thoughts about the LDS church came from this text. I've seen apologists say its a great book and maybe has an error or two where Bruce inserted personal thoughts.

I tried to draw a parralell from it once and got fairly well bashed about it having over a thousand errors and I don't neccessarily think the part I was using was one of the erroneous parts.

I've come to the conclusion that it is a pretty good book if you are LDS. But if your not LDS....well its got a thousand or so errors...better not put it on the table against and apologist.

So maybe you can have it both ways. I am inclined to think at least some people do.

Edit add to beat BCSpace to one point...which is...

BTW...I am aware this book is not an official church publication.

I think there is somewhat of a tension within the Mormon church membership, and the book Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie tends to throw it into sharp relief.

When I joined the Church back in 1978, it seemed you couldn't hear a talk given in sacrament meeting without somebody hauling out Mormon Doctrine and reading from it. That time has passed in large measure.

But as I was saying, Mormonism was created in an atmosphere where free thinking about religious matters was encouraged. Joseph Smith famously said regarding freedom of belief and not being dictated to, "It feels so good not to be trammeled. It doesn't prove a man isn't a good man just because he errs in doctrine."

It appears that, over the years and as the Mormon church has grown far and wide, it has been deemed important to try to control and systematize the teachings of the Church into some form of doctrine. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is a classic example of this.

As a new member, I felt that becoming a "scriptorian" meant that I was to master this systematized theology and the scriptural proof-texts that supported them.

After I had done that (which took a number of years, mind you), I started to see that maybe there were some things in the systematized LDS theology that were not supported by the scriptures; or sought to fill in holes where the scriptures were silent; and that alternate and expanded explanations were possible.

Things became grayer for me, and shifting from living with certainty to living with some ambiguity was uncomfortable. As I began to become accustomed to the ambiguity, I found that my horizons of spiritual possibilities were expanded.

Though I now know I don't know everything, I seem to know more than when I thought I did.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mudcat]

I've been keeping a record of who believes what and I had already noted that you knew this.

So do I get a gold star for remebering the last time we talked about this?

Or do I get a demerit for even bringing it up?

And..Most Importantly....Do your notes have any impact on Santa's naughty/nice list?

[Obiwan]

Seeing as we can't even nail down what exactly constitutes a doctrine HERE, what makes you think that they are teaching it in class?

The only people I see not being able to "nail" LDS Theology is people like you.

Faithful and educated LDS ALL know what's it's theology is.

With such an impressive resume of wards, I'm surprised that you have been taught so consistently. That has certainly not been my experience. Personal interpretation of doctrine seems to creeps in often.

Well, I'm simply responding to your clear exageration in my view.

Actually, you are. Why else would you believe in such an obviously false religion? Seriously though, who's to say that someones false teaching doesn't prompt a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the teaching for someone else? That's all the truth they need.

Article of Faith 11 seems appropriate here.

I don't deny anyone their personal journey, but I know my Faith, and it's not your version of it.

Huh. Well, I've got a few non-LDS archaeologists who might disagree with you.

There are more fields of the sciences and intellect than simply "archeology". The "evidences" come from many fields.

Plus, pleace tell me how many of those non-LDS "archaeologists" have even tried to use the BOM as a guide in their research of the Americas? NONE.... I would say.

Oh, it's not just me. In fact, the only people that see correlation between ancient mesoamerica and the BoM are LDS.

You ever think that that's because WE are the only ones who USE the Book of Mormon?

So, since we are the ones who know the BOM the most, it would be obvious why we at the beginnings of BOM evidences would be the only ones starting to see such. Is that really so hard to grasp?

[kamenraider]

I think that (unless we're representing the Church officially) it's more important to consider whether something is true than whether it is doctrine. The only way that can be done is by receiving revelation -- those without oil in their lamps will be out of luck.

[BCSpace]

So do I get a gold star for remebering the last time we talked about this?

Or do I get a demerit for even bringing it up?

And..Most Importantly....Do your notes have any impact on Santa's naughty/nice list?

Naw. I just report it all to the SCMC. But if the water in your cup on Sunday turns red, don't drink it!