Thinking Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Every time the subject of official doctrine comes up, somebody will inevitably post this link from the official website of the LDS Church. On the other hand, I have been informed many times by posters on this board that I may find something on the official LDS website which is not official. If that’s true, then how do I know that what is contained in the linked article really is official? Maybe it’s one of those non-official things on the official website.
zerinus Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Every time the subject of official doctrine comes up, somebody will inevitably post this link from the official website of the LDS Church. On the other hand, I have been informed many times by posters on this board that I may find something on the official LDS website which is not official. If that’s true, then how do I know that what is contained in the linked article really is official? Maybe it’s one of those non-official things on the official website.D&C 32:4 And they shall give heed to that which is written [i.e. in scripture], and pretend to no other revelation; and they shall pray always that I may unfold the same to their understanding.D&C 33:16 And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things.D&C 42:12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.
rameumptom Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 The newsroom states what should be considered core doctrine versus regular doctrines. We are bound by core doctrine - things we should all pretty much agree with: God lives, Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was called as God's prophet, faith, repentance, ordinances, Gift of the Holy Ghost, etc.That said, there are other doctrines or teachings given that may or may not be binding upon the saints. For example, there are differing views on how the atonement affects us given by different GAs (and LDS scholars). There are differing views one can find on evolution, etc. Occasionally, we even get a one-off, a teaching by someone that is very different than what everyone else teaches.Core doctrine basically will never change. These other doctrines or teachings are liable to change as we receive new revelation and understanding. This is why we have continuing revelation, living prophets and apostles, and even personal revelation.So, I can say that I believe in evolution, while another member can say he/she does not and we are both still good and respectable members of the Church. I can disagree with Elder McConkie on certain concepts, and still be a member in good standing, as long as we agree on the core doctrines. 2
Thinking Posted July 5, 2011 Author Posted July 5, 2011 D&C 32:4 And they shall give heed to that which is written [i.e. in scripture], and pretend to no other revelation; and they shall pray always that I may unfold the same to their understanding. D&C 32 is a mission call, not general instructions about doctrine.1 And now concerning my servant Parley P. Pratt, behold, I say unto him that as I live I will that he shall declare my gospel and learnof me, and be meek and lowly of heart.2 And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites.3 Ziba Peterson also shall go with them; and I myself will go with them and be in their midst; and I am their advocate with the Father, and nothing shall prevail against them.4 And they shall give heed to that which is written, and pretend to no other revelation; and they shall pray always that I may unfold the same to their understanding.5 And they shall give heed unto these words and trifle not, and I will bless them. Amen.D&C 33:16 And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things.D&C 42:12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.These verses do not limit doctrine to only the scriptures.Neither does this one.D&C 88:118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.
TAO Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Thinking, it's the difference between doctrine and official doctrine. One can only be felt in your heart, whereas the other is generally and universally accepted works of writing =). Edited July 5, 2011 by TAO
zerinus Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 D&C 32 is a mission call, not general instructions about doctrine.1 And now concerning my servant Parley P. Pratt, behold, I say unto him that as I live I will that he shall declare my gospel and learnof me, and be meek and lowly of heart.2 And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites.3 Ziba Peterson also shall go with them; and I myself will go with them and be in their midst; and I am their advocate with the Father, and nothing shall prevail against them.4 And they shall give heed to that which is written, and pretend to no other revelation; and they shall pray always that I may unfold the same to their understanding.5 And they shall give heed unto these words and trifle not, and I will bless them. Amen.These verses do not limit doctrine to only the scriptures.Neither does this one.D&C 88:118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.You are entitled to your opinion, but I think that they do.
Rivers Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth."Joseph Smith 1
BCSpace Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Every time the subject of official doctrine comes up, somebody will inevitably post this link from the official website of the LDS Church.I would be very concerned if someone said, using that link as a reference, that official doctrine may only be found in the standard works because that is not what it says and it is not how the Church teaches about it's own doctrine. Official doctrine is official publication. The manuals and magazines the Church publishes are, for example, official doctrine, as is the web site; just as much or even more so than the scriptures.On the other hand, I have been informed many times by posters on this board that I may find something on the official LDS website which is not official.You might and such cases are easily indentifiable. It could be context such as "I think" or "My feeling is" or some such thing. In that case, the doctrine is that so and so thinks or feels this way about a subject.It might also be clearly marked as nondoctrinal. Such is the case with the Bible Dictionary which is published by the Church but contains an introductory disclaimer. So the doctrine here is that references to the Bible Dictionary are not doctrinal.Such things can certainly contain official doctrine, but you'll have to see it officially published elsewhere without such caveats.
Thinking Posted July 7, 2011 Author Posted July 7, 2011 It might also be clearly marked as nondoctrinal. Such is the case with the Bible Dictionary which is published by the Church but contains an introductory disclaimer.Ah yes! The disclaimer:It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth.
Storm Rider Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) Every time the subject of official doctrine comes up, somebody will inevitably post this link from the official website of the LDS Church. On the other hand, I have been informed many times by posters on this board that I may find something on the official LDS website which is not official. If that’s true, then how do I know that what is contained in the linked article really is official? Maybe it’s one of those non-official things on the official website.Thinking, one of the difficult things about the LDS Church is that there is not a "Magisterium" that defines the doctrine of the faith for the members. In being so, it seems as if the Church allows for a broad range of beliefs to exist among the members. In many ways Jesus did a similar thing when he combined the law into two great commandments and said they were the fulfilled all law. How open is that for his disciples? How would you clarify all doctrine by those to commandments? Can other teachings exist beside them?It appears as if Jesus was not a real stickly of spelling out every belief or doctrine for his disciples. His focus was on teaching people to follow the Spirit, to learn by revelation who he is, what he wants for us to do, and how to best be his servant. It does appear that he was independently servants that follow him by Spiritual guidance. This is also found in how the prophets generally lead the Church. They do not stand in front of the membership and guide them in how to lead their life. They provide general counsel, but seldom do anything should a member ignore their counsel. Edited July 7, 2011 by Storm Rider
Nofear Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 The tent of Mormonism is supported by a few poles of core doctrines. But, under the canvas supported by those few core doctrines resides a fairly large multitude of interpretations of doctrines. I find it amusing when critics of Mormonism are vexed by the cohabitation of mutually incompatible interpretations while I personally find the tolerance and diversity a relaxing atmosphere. 1
seriously honestly Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 D&C 32:4 And they shall give heed to that which is written [i.e. in scripture], and pretend to no other revelation; and they shall pray always that I may unfold the same to their understanding.D&C 33:16 And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things.D&C 42:12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.Taking into consideration that the "The living prophet is more vital to [LDS] than the standard works", doesn't that trump the premise that offical doctine can only be found in the standard works? 1
BCSpace Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 I find it amusing when critics of Mormonism are vexed by the cohabitation of mutually incompatible interpretations while I personally find the tolerance and diversity a relaxing atmosphere.LDS doctrine is always black and white; "there's the right and the wrong to every question". And I've never come across a case of mutually incompatible doctrines. Areas where there is no doctrine, so we are free to speculate, are where the most tolerance exists.Taking into consideration that the "The living prophet is more vital to [LDS] than the standard works", doesn't that trump the premise that offical doctine can only be found in the standard works?Yes. And it shows that official doctrine is more important that scripture. Doctrine merely resides in the Standard Works. The 15 apostles and prophets counsel together to establish it and publish it.
zerinus Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) Taking into consideration that the "The living prophet is more vital to [LDS] than the standard works", doesn't that trump the premise that offical doctine can only be found in the standard works?The "living prophet" does not (or at least should not) teach doctrines that contradict, or cannot be supported by canonized scripture. He has the prerogative to reveal new doctrine to the Church by revelation if and when God wants him to; but that is not something that happens very often; and when it does, a procedure is followed that makes it clear to the Church that a new revelation has been received, or new doctrine has been revealed on the subject. Edited July 7, 2011 by zerinus
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Every time the subject of official doctrine comes up, somebody will inevitably post this link from the official website of the LDS Church. On the other hand, I have been informed many times by posters on this board that I may find something on the official LDS website which is not official. If that’s true, then how do I know that what is contained in the linked article really is official? Maybe it’s one of those non-official things on the official website.I am wondering what this statement or verse would look like, since we have four volumes of scripture.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Taking into consideration that the "The living prophet is more vital to [LDS] than the standard works", doesn't that trump the premise that offical doctine can only be found in the standard works?Anytime someone speaks the words of the Holy Spirit it is the word of God…would you not agree?
Nofear Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 LDS doctrine is always black and white; "there's the right and the wrong to every question". And I've never come across a case of mutually incompatible doctrines. Areas where there is no doctrine, so we are free to speculate, are where the most tolerance exists.In substance I see no disagreement between what I wrote and what you wrote. Nevertheless, I quibble with your usage of the word doctrine. That Jesus Christ effected the Atonement is clear, black and white doctrine. How, precisely the Atonement, works is far from settled and not at all black and white. Are we then banned from saying the "doctrine of the Atonement" because it does not distinguish between the established concept that the Atonement is indeed real and efficacious vs the lack any established understanding of how the Atonement functions? Many other examples could be brought to bear. To avoid such conceptual and linguistic pitfalls I deliberately chose the word "interpretations" or even "interpretations of doctrine".
BCSpace Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 In substance I see no disagreement between what I wrote and what you wrote. Nevertheless, I quibble with your usage of the word doctrine. That Jesus Christ effected the Atonement is clear, black and white doctrine. How, precisely the Atonement, works is far from settled and not at all black and white.Anything that is "not settled" essentially does not exist. What does exist is always black and white. Of course, there is nothing in all of reality that is not black and white.Are we then banned from saying the "doctrine of the Atonement" because it does not distinguish between the established concept that the Atonement is indeed real and efficacious vs the lack any established understanding of how the Atonement functions?By "doctrine of the Atonement" in the LDS context, one is usually understood to be referring to that which is established and published doctrine.Many other examples could be brought to bear. To avoid such conceptual and linguistic pitfalls I deliberately chose the word "interpretations" or even "interpretations of doctrine".If you assume, as the Church does, that what it publishes is oficial doctrine, and you acknowledge that the doctrine includes continuing revelation and inspiration (doctrine can change with new understanding), you avoid all pitfalls.
altersteve Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Since when could "official doctrine" only be found in the standard works, anyway?
zerinus Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Since when could "official doctrine" only be found in the standard works, anyway?Since God spoke by a prophet.
BCSpace Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Since when could "official doctrine" only be found in the standard works, anyway?Never at any time. Since neither you nor I is qualified to interpret scripture, our own personal pronouncements of what the scriptures mean come from the official published writings of the prophets and others whose words they approve. Example:Without the doctrine being published in a manual or other official work, I could not with any authority say that LDS doctrine regarding John 3:5 refers to water baptism and the gift of the holy ghost. It could just as easily refer to physical birth and the born again experience as preached by other christian churches. However, the prophets have spoken and the LDS Church publishes their words and we know and can state with authority that John 3:5 refers to water baptism, etc. because it's in a manual or other officially published work.
HeatherAnn Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Where or when did God tell you personally that God's spirit & message may only be found in official doctrine or the standard works?
altersteve Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 Where or when did God tell you personally that God's spirit & message may only be found in official doctrine or the standard works?I don't think God ever said that. Not to me at least. The idea of a Heavenly Mother is "official doctrine," as far as I know, but it's not found in the scriptures anywhere.
zerinus Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) I don't think God ever said that. Not to me at least. The idea of a Heavenly Mother is "official doctrine," as far as I know, but it's not found in the scriptures anywhere.Heavenly Mother is implied in the statement on the family, which is issued by the First Presidency and the Twelve. It is also implied in scripture:Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.This suggests that the "image of God" is both male and female; and the most reasonable way of interpreting that is that the male God has a female counterpart. The alternative would be to suggest that God is both male and female at the same time, which wouldn't make sense. Edited July 8, 2011 by zerinus
BCSpace Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 Where or when did God tell you personally that God's spirit & message may only be found in official doctrine or the standard works?Ephesians 4:11-14 puts the burden of doctrine square on the Church organization. In other words, the doctrine can only be found in the Church Christ set up; the LDS Church. That Church has stated (consistent with Ephesians 4:11-14) that doctrine is established by the apostles and prophets and is found in it's official publications.
Recommended Posts