How is official church doctrine determined,

[mfbukowski]

It's perfectly clear. Can you or I establish LDS doctrine by reading the scriptures? No, we can't. Only the FP in combination with the Qo12 can do that. Therefore, by simply reading the scriptures, we do not know what LDS doctrine is. It is only in the published works of the Church that we know what that is. For example, that John 3:5 refers also to water baptism and not just a spiritual rebirth as opposed to physical birth is LDS doctrine. You might guess it, but you could not establish that on your own. And you will only find that in the Church's publications.

I don't know- that seems pretty obvious to me in that example, but I get your point. So you are saying that doctrine is the standard works as interpreted by the brethren and published in church publications? Sounds reasonable. I didn't read it that way at first, but it makes sense.

Why doesn't it just say that?

[BCSpace]

I don't know- that seems pretty obvious to me in that example, but I get your point. So you are saying that doctrine is the standard works as interpreted by the brethren and published in church publications? Sounds reasonable. I didn't read it that way at first, but it makes sense.

Yes.

Why doesn't it just say that?

I think it does say just that. It states who establishes doctrine and how and then it states the source. I just work it backwards for those who get hung up on the standard works thing.

But I've known this to be the stance of the Church for many many years since before the 2007 statement so that probably makes it more recognizable to me. What troubles me is why isn't it just as recognizable to some others on this board? Everyone I know in the Church over the years and in many wards and stakes throughout the US seems to know this exactly as I do.

[mfbukowski]

Yes.

I think it does say just that. It states who establishes doctrine and how and then it states the source. I just work it backwards for those who get hung up on the standard works thing.

But I've known this to be the stance of the Church for many many years since before the 2007 statement so that probably makes it more recognizable to me. What troubles me is why isn't it just as recognizable to some others on this board? Everyone I know in the Church over the years and in many wards and stakes throughout the US seems to know this exactly as I do.

Well the bugaboo is that it changes, as we saw in the Gospel Principles book changes to an extent. I of course have no problem with doctrine changing but that is often a main target for critics. So apologist types want something more firm and defined I suppose? But we know that a living church means continuing revelation which means changing revelation.

But I still think that every manual is certainly not "infallibly" interpreted by some correlation committee, and if I think I see a conflict, I am going with the standard works.

There are so many nuances of language in the st. works and I think that sometimes being led by the spirit is more important than being led by the brethren. But I basically agree with you that in 99% of the cases, that is the way it should be- regarding publications as "doctrinal".

[Thinking]

Anything published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is official doctrine.

I've been told otherwise by members of MADB.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've been told otherwise by members of MADB.

THere is not much that I disagree with with Dan but that is one of them. Doctrine is more than just the scriptures. Now if something is canonized that is different than doctrine as that is scripture. I would be interested in Dan's responce if he wants to chime in I would like to see are learn more about were he is comming from.

[mfbukowski]

I've been told otherwise by members of MADB.

This is the same nuance I was discussing with BC. There IS a difference between "doctrine" and "Canonized Doctrine" which (again that word) resides in the standard works.

Obviously there is only a problem when and if there is a perceived conflict, and in that case I am going by the standard works and the spirit, not necessarily the manual.

But that's just me. Everybody makes mistakes, and I will trust the standard works ahead of the manual every time- even relying on my own understanding when necessary. We are not here to be robots, but to think for ourselves.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is the same nuance I was discussing with BC. There IS a difference between "doctrine" and "Canonized Doctrine" which (again that word) resides in the standard works.

Obviously there is only a problem when and if there is a perceived conflict, and in that case I am going by the standard works and the spirit, not necessarily the manual.

But that's just me. Everybody makes mistakes, and I will trust the standard works ahead of the manual every time- even relying on my own understanding when necessary. We are not here to be robots, but to think for ourselves.

To this I agree.

[cinepro]

But I still think that every manual is certainly not "infallibly" interpreted by some correlation committee, and if I think I see a conflict, I am going with the standard works.

Hmmm...Church members are taught this about the Correlation Committee (as far as I know, there isn't "some" Correlation Committee):

Explain that the purpose of Church correlation is to preserve

[BCSpace]

Well the bugaboo is that it changes, as we saw in the Gospel Principles book changes to an extent.

Doctrine IS changable. But I think you would be hard pressed to find many examples. The GP manual wording changed somewhat, but other manuals exist and I'm not aware of any changes in doctrine made by the GP.

This is the same nuance I was discussing with BC. There IS a difference between "doctrine" and "Canonized Doctrine" which (again that word) resides in the standard works.

There is no difference whatsoever seeing as how neither you nor I can determine what doctrine is for the Church by reading the scriptures.

Anything published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is official doctrine.

I've been told otherwise by members of MADB

They're wrong. I'd stick with what the Church says about it's own doctrine whether you disagree with the doctrine or not.

[mfbukowski]

Based on that, I'm not so sure we're supposed to give our private interpretation of scripture preference over correlated materials in matters of doctrine.

It didn't say that.

It said that the committee's purpose was to make sure doctrine was pure.

It didn't say that it was infallible or that one should not have private interpretation of doctrine. Of course Paul DOES say that, and I am aware of it.

I found this church by following the spirit and I am not about to abandon the spirit because I have found the church. The Spirit always wins. And I think that is what the church wants us to do anyway.

[mfbukowski]

There is no difference whatsoever seeing as how neither you nor I can determine what doctrine is for the Church by reading the scriptures.....

They're wrong. I'd stick with what the Church says about it's own doctrine whether you disagree with the doctrine or not.

I think I have found the difference between what you are saying and what I am saying.

You are talking about church doctrine. I am talking about what I believe about church doctrine. Big difference. You are right on your point, but I think I am right about what we should all believe about doctrine. I think that regardless of the doctrine, we should follow what we believe about the doctrine.

Edit: But that's just me. Spirit first, next standard works, next "doctrine". That is the way I see it.

Edit 2: Anything else I think falls into the category of "blind obedience". Not for me, thank you!

[BCSpace]

I think I have found the difference between what you are saying and what I am saying.

You are talking about church doctrine. I am talking about what I believe about church doctrine. Big difference. You are right on your point, but I think I am right about what we should all believe about doctrine. I think that regardless of the doctrine, we should follow what we believe about the doctrine.

Edit: But that's just me. Spirit first, next standard works, next "doctrine". That is the way I see it.

Edit 2: Anything else I think falls into the category of "blind obedience". Not for me, thank you!

What I am referring to is what the Church considers to be doctrine, not what we may individually accept as doctrine. I think this is the context under which the questions "What is LDS doctrine?" or "What is official Church doctrine?" is most often asked. And if we are trying to represent the Church, we should answer as the Church would and admit what is LDS doctrine whether we accept it personally or not.

[mfbukowski]

What I am referring to is what the Church considers to be doctrine, not what we may individually accept as doctrine. I think this is the context under which the questions "What is LDS doctrine?" or "What is official Church doctrine?" is most often asked. And if we are trying to represent the Church, we should answer as the Church would and admit what is LDS doctrine whether we accept it personally or not.

Agreed.

Also, I am willing to say that I accept your interpretation of the press release, I think you clarified the meaning of it. I think that IS how the church is defining "doctrine" at this time.

So imo, that is the answer to the OP. The church's definition of doctrine is the standard works as taught and interpreted in the church publications. That's my conclusion.

I just wish they could have said it that way.

[BCSpace]

I think that IS how the church is defining "doctrine" at this time.

It's been defined this way for many years before the 2007 release to the media. Before that, since 1835 at least (D&C 107), the FP and Qo12 have been equal in authority and therefore both must be involved in the determination of doctrine and that of course you see reflected in the 2007 statement.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I've written much on that topic here: http://www.scribd.com/Element-3-12-4-Ericson/d/28422607

So did anyone actually read this?

[BCSpace]

I've written much on that topic here: http://www.scribd.co...cson/d/28422607

So did anyone actually read this?

I did.