Official Lds Doctrine Is:

[SeattleGrunge]

These Doctrine will not change.

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Not necessarily, as a strong member myself I can't deny that church leaders went against this one for a while when it came to polygamy. I guess though, you could argue the doctrine didn't change, just the following of it didn't happen as it should...so as I type this I guess you are right.

[Tsuzuki]

The reality is that members believe their faith is more like math where 1+1 always equals 2 because of the testimony of the Church.

I see it more in terms of probability and statistics.

[blueadept]

I always like it at this point when the AF from an outsider view asks if this is the LDS creed or something and LDS come back with a statement of 'we don't believe in creeds!'The RCC Catechism is broken into 4 parts with one part dedicated to our 'Profession of Faith.' It takes the Creed and further clarifies what is meant by each part of the Creed.IMO, the LDS church would clarify what 'Official LDS Doctrine' is if it would produce a book that would at least further clarify the AF. I always find it amusing that my TBM wife is appalled that I can pull out an official book to help me explain my beliefs. I seem to have a puzzled look at why she's appalled by that. Oh well.

I see it more in terms of probability and statistics.

That's not surprising coming from someone w/ dual membership. It looks like you're upping your odds by probability and statistics.

[Bat-Man]

I always like it at this point when the AF from an outsider view asks if this is the LDS creed or something and LDS come back with a statement of 'we don't believe in creeds!'The RCC Catechism is broken into 4 parts with one part dedicated to our 'Profession of Faith.' It takes the Creed and further clarifies what is meant by each part of the Creed.IMO, the LDS church would clarify what 'Official LDS Doctrine' is if it would produce a book that would at least further clarify the AF. I always find it amusing that my TBM wife is appalled that I can pull out an official book to help me explain my beliefs. I seem to have a puzzled look at why she's appalled by that. Oh well. :unknw:That's not surprising coming from someone w/ dual membership. It looks like you're upping your odds by probability and statistics.

It puzzles me to see some members of the Church who don't realize we have official Church doctrine, too.

... which I believe is any teaching (doctrine) taught by one or more official (authority) of the Church.

[emeliza]

I believe the standard works are doctrine and that is about it. Other things can be helpful to explain doctrine or current intrepretations or current events in the Church, but until it gets added to the standard works, I don't consider it doctrine. However I also believe one should be willing to try and follow policy (not culture) if possible within the Church.

On a side note, I use 'True to the Faith' and the 'Gospel Principles' book anytime I am trying to find something to explain my faith, so I think you are right on BlueAdept for using other books to explain your religion.

[thesometimesaint]

SeattleGrunge:

Some went into hiding, and more went to jail. They appealed all the way the the Supreme Court, they still lost, but they did follow the law, in appealing it.

Be vary careful on how tight you want to make that noose around your own neck.

[blueadept]

On a side note, I use 'True to the Faith' and the 'Gospel Principles' book anytime I am trying to find something to explain my faith, so I think you are right on BlueAdept for using other books to explain your religion.

The difference though is that the Catholic Catechism IS considered official and it IS advised to use in trying to understand/explain the faith.

LDS unfortunately use things like 'True to the Faith' or 'Gospel Principles' it must be noted that it isn't necessarily 'official.'

....and members and critics wonder why it's difficult to talk to each other.....

[Tsuzuki]

Mormon doctrine can be best described by what you can get away with.

[Bat-Man]

The difference though is that the Catholic Catechism IS considered official and it IS advised to use in trying to understand/explain the faith.

LDS unfortunately use things like 'True to the Faith' or 'Gospel Principles' it must be noted that it isn't necessarily 'official.'

....and members and critics wonder why it's difficult to talk to each other.....

Try asking or reading an official statement from an official of the Church concerning what is official Church doctrine, rather than asking or listening to a member who is not an official (authority).

... and yes, we do have officials who are authorized to speak officially for our Church.

[emeliza]

The difference though is that the Catholic Catechism IS considered official and it IS advised to use in trying to understand/explain the faith.

LDS unfortunately use things like 'True to the Faith' or 'Gospel Principles' it must be noted that it isn't necessarily 'official.'

....and members and critics wonder why it's difficult to talk to each other.....

How are they not official? I admit they aren't doctrine, but rather ways to apply doctrine and easy explanations of doctrine....and sometimes just interpretations of doctrine. They are revised to suit the times and the people using them.

However they are very official.

[Scottie]

I'm waiting for BCSpace to pipe up with his iron-clad editorial article written by some unknown, but well meaning member.

It's pretty clear that the LDS leaders have never declared what they believe is official doctrine. Thus members are free to subjectively decide for themselves what they deem to be doctrine.

More often than not, this turns into a cultural thing rather than a doctrinal thing. Don't shop on Sunday, go to church, read your scriptures, pray, do your home teaching, pay your tithing, only wear 1 pair of earrings, etc. because that is what everyone else does... not because it's doctrine.

[Bat-Man]

How are they not official? I admit they aren't doctrine, but rather ways to apply doctrine and easy explanations of doctrine....and sometimes just interpretations of doctrine. They are revised to suit the times and the people using them.

However they are very official.

They are doctrine (teaching), as well as official (authority).

... whether or not you and I agree on this issue.

[SeattleGrunge]

SeattleGrunge:

Some went into hiding, and more went to jail. They appealed all the way the the Supreme Court, they still lost, but they did follow the law, in appealing it.

Be vary careful on how tight you want to make that noose around your own neck.

I agree that continuing to practice while appealing is ok, but saying "we don't do it" boldly and then doing it is another thing.

That fact actually loosens the noose for me. It is proof that the brethren are men and I therefore don't have to be so perfect when they themselves are not either. On the other hand, I don't ever use it as an excuse to not try my hardest. Nevertheless, they did what they did.

[blueadept]

Try asking or reading an official statement from an official of the Church concerning what is official Church doctrine, rather than asking or listening to a member who is not an official (authority).

... and yes, we do have officials who are authorized to speak officially for our Church.

.... which seems to only apply for that moment in time.

There is too many examples where critics will quote GA's or Prophets of the past (even recent) ones and be accused that it's not relevant now.

I'm just saying that an official 'Catechism' would resolve ALL of the reasons why this thread got started.

From my experience though, LDS members seem in general to be against the thought but will stand by that they do have 'Official Doctrine' which is made up of the 4 standard works under the guidance of the HG.

Both sides are

[blueadept]

They are doctrine (teaching), as well as official (authority).

... whether or not you and I agree on this issue.

Sorry, I've been told otherwise when I quote from Gospel Principles in particular.

Your viewpoint is so noted though

[Bat-Man]

.... which seems to only apply for that moment in time.

Yes, or until it is changed or revised or updated.

There is too many examples where critics will quote GA's or Prophets of the past (even recent) ones and be accused that it's not relevant now.

Which is not a bad thing, because teachings should only apply to certain circumstances.

Example: At one point in the past it was official Church doctrine, according to teachings from officials of the Church, that it was acceptable to the Lord to perform ordinances of baptism for the dead in places other than in temples, when we didn't have an acceptable temple for those ordinances, but now that we do have temples, it is not acceptable to do those ordinances in places other than in temples.

I'm just saying that an official 'Catechism' would resolve ALL of the reasons why this thread got started.

My point is to state that we (LDS) do have people who are authorized to officially teach the Church, and to teach in behalf of the Church.

From my experience though, LDS members seem in general to be against the thought but will stand by that they do have 'Official Doctrine' which is made up of the 4 standard works under the guidance of the HG.

In your experience, have you been learning from the official teachings of our Lord's officials in His Church, or from members who are not officials?

Both sides are

Yes, it does seem so, at times, doesn't it, but nevertheless, there are members of the Church who do accept the teachings from our Church officials as official Church doctrine, even though other members of the Church do not.

[Ms. Jack]

More often than not, this turns into a cultural thing rather than a doctrinal thing. Don't shop on Sunday, go to church, read your scriptures, pray, do your home teaching, pay your tithing, only wear 1 pair of earrings, etc. because that is what everyone else does... not because it's doctrine.

I think this is very true.

Here guys, this will resolve the matter!

How to Nail Jell-O to a Wall

[Scottie]

Sorry, I've been told otherwise when I quote from Gospel Principles in particular.

Yeah, isn't it interesting that the apologists have the final say on whether a particular statement by a dead prophet is or is not doctrinal? And it usually seems to follow a pattern. Does it help Mormonism=true doctrine from a prophet of God! Does it hurt=mere opinion of a fallible, imperfect man.

[CMZ]

Just what I thought was going to happen: each person was going to give their idiosyncractic definition of what constitutes "doctrine" then fight about it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah, isn't it interesting that the apologists have the final say on whether a particular statement by a dead prophet is or is not doctrinal? And it usually seems to follow a pattern. Does it help Mormonism=true doctrine from a prophet of God! Does it hurt=mere opinion of a fallible, imperfect man.

I would dare say it isnt like that at all, well for me. Most of the time I am not obligated to try and stick up for a particular teaching. Sometime I use the "that isnt offical doctrine" mainly and clearly when what is being presented isnt offical.

For isntance: God lives on the planet Kolob and has many wives.

[Bat-Man]

Just what I thought was going to happen: each person was going to give their idiosyncractic definition of what constitutes "doctrine" then fight about it.

Are you a pacifist?

[blueadept]

In your experience, have you been learning from the official teachings of our Lord's officials in His Church, or from members who are not officials?

The normal SM talk usually referenced an appropriate GA or Prophet and I listened to enough GC's to believe I have a reasonable understanding of LDS beliefs

I'm still sticking to the analogy from my non-member viewpoint

Non-Member > LDS Belief = Science (Always changing)

Member > LDS Belief = Math (I know it's true)

Now my wife and I get to make it all work out. Which we are doing

Peace

[Bat-Man]

I would dare say it isnt like that at all, well for me. Most of the time I am not obligated to try and stick up for a particular teaching. Sometime I use the "that isnt offical doctrine" mainly and clearly when what is being presented isnt offical.

For isntance: God lives on the planet Kolob and has many wives.

Good example, and here's how I test to see if it is official doctrine of our Church.

1) Was that teaching (doctrine) taught by an official (authority) of our Church?

2a) If no, it's not an official Church doctrine.

3a) If yes, was that teaching over-ruled by a higher official of the Church?

also

3b) If yes, was that teaching later replaced with another teaching from an official with equal authority because the terms and conditions for the previous had expired or been fulfilled.

also

3c) If yes, was that teaching in conflict with another teaching taught by an equal or higher official of the Church?

4a) If no to all of 3 above, it is official doctrine of our Church and it is acceptable to accept it.

4b) If yes to any of 3 above, it was official doctrine (a teaching from an official) but it is not acceptable or no longer acceptable to accept that teaching in the Church, today.

Also realize that, in my mind, official Church doctrine isn't necessarily scripture or information received by a revelation from God, because the Church has officials who are authorized to speak for and in behalf of the Church just as much as any business has officials who are authorized and appointed to officially speak for that business whether or not the other employees or stockholders choose to agree with the teachings or declarations of those officials.

[cjcampbell]

I think it is too easy to confuse doctrine and scripture. They are not the same thing. Scripture recognized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes the four Standard Works, plus (from Gospel Principles, p. 55: )

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired

words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their

words come to us through conferences, Church publications,

and instructions to local priesthood leaders. â??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 Godâ? (Articles of Faith

1:9).

Doctrine may be found in all Church publications, but these are not part of our standard scriptures. I would defy anyone to show something that the Church has published in the last 30 years that is not consistent with the core doctrines of the Church. Anything that the Church publishes nowadays is thoroughly scrutinized by the Correlation Committee to ensure that it is consistent with doctrine.

Like most polls, this one does not include the right answer among its choices.

[Scottie]

I think it is too easy to confuse doctrine and scripture. They are not the same thing. Scripture recognized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes the four Standard Works, plus (from Gospel Principles, p. 55: )

Doctrine may be found in all Church publications, but these are not part of our standard scriptures. I would defy anyone to show something that the Church has published in the last 30 years that is not consistent with the core doctrines of the Church. Anything that the Church publishes nowadays is thoroughly scrutinized by the Correlation Committee to ensure that it is consistent with doctrine.

Like most polls, this one does not include the right answer among its choices.

Great... Now we are trying to define core doctrines?? Could you please list these for us?

I had this discussion before. I believe it was LoaP that boiled the core doctrine of the church down to Faith in Jesus Christ. The rest were all "appendages" as he called them.

So, I agree. All these are consistent with the core doctrine of Faith in Jesus Christ. Of course, now the LDS church is no different than an EV who has been saved because he has Jesus in his heart. Works become meaningless.