Where In The Standard Works Does It Say That Official Doctrine May Only Be Found In The Standard Works

[sethpayne]

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:

Could you expand on this? How are you unqualified to interpret scripture?

[etana]

I could write a bit in my notebook on the Atonement and one could therefore say that Church Doctrine (capital D) was found in my notebook. We can find Mormon doctrine in Catholic writings. That doesn't mean that everything in my notebook is automatically doctrine.

[Arkholt]

Could you expand on this? How are you unqualified to interpret scripture?

I would also like an explanation. What use is personal revelation? What use is the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Does this mean that Hugh Nibley's 1957 Melchizedek Priesthood manual is official doctrine?

Does this mean that our official hymnals are official doctrine (even though Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic Cardinal, and other non-Mormons wrote many of them)? After all, the hymnal first put together by Emma Smith by the order of the Lord her God, was "a selection of sacred hymns" for the Church. "For," the Lord said, "my soul delighteth in the song of the heart; yea, the song of the righteous is a prayer unto me, and it shall be answered with a blessing upon their heads" (D&C 25:11-12). Does the Hymnal therefore constitute official LDS liturgy? Can it be searched for true doctrine?

What of LDS esoteric ritual? Is some of it figurative? If so, what status of doctrine is figurative? And can we apply that question to Scripture in general? How would that affect the notion that Scripture is black & white?

Edited July 9, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[BCSpace]

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:

Could you expand on this? How are you unqualified to interpret scripture?

I refer you back to my John 3:5 example above. I will also try to clarify:

Since we are not one of the 15 apostles and prophets (a fair assumption?), we cannot determine for the LDS Church what it's doctrine is. Certainly we may determine for ourselves what we think is doctrine, but if we believe the truth claims of the Church, then we will not speak for the Church anything different, or more or less, than what the Church itself says regarding a subject.

For example, we cannot say that either evolution or creationism is or is not the doctrine of the LDS Church regarding how man was physically created. However, we may then state our personal acceptance of one or the other without attributing it to the Church.

[BCSpace]

Does this mean that Hugh Nibley's 1957 Melchizedek Priesthood manual is official doctrine?

If it was published by the CHurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is. Since continuing revelation/inspiration is part of our systematic theology, if there is something published of later date that is different, then a particular doctrine has likely changed.

Does this mean that our official hymnals are official doctrine (even though Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic Cardinal, and other non-Mormons wrote many of them)? After all, the hymnal first put together by Emma Smith by the order of the Lord her God, was "a selection of sacred hymns" for the Church. "For," the Lord said, "my soul delighteth in the song of the heart; yea, the song of the righteous is a prayer unto me, and it shall be answered with a blessing upon their heads" (D&C 25:11-12). Does the Hymnal therefore constitute official LDS liturgy? Can it be searched for true doctrine?

Yes. The LDS Hymnbook, being published by the Church is official doctrine.

What of LDS esoteric ritual?

Doctrine. It is officially published, though only esoterically available of course.

Is some of it figurative?

Sure. For example:

“And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]"

Spencer W. Kimball, The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood, March 1976 Ensign

If so, what status of doctrine is figurative?

Doctrine is doctrine. We might of course also speculate that something is figurative or metaphorical, but unless the Church identifies such in an official publication, that such is literal or figurative remains speculation and not doctrine.

And can we apply that question to Scripture in general? How would that affect the notion that Scripture is black & white?

Everything is black and white, in or out of the Church, no exceptions. What we may think of as a grey area is simple that which we don't have enough information or it is black and white that there is a best answer until more information comes along.

Remember the doctrinicity of the hymns?... "There's the right and the wrong to every question" ...

What you may now have noticed is that the words of those who are not the prophets and the apostles could be enshrined as official doctrine. Of course it is the 15 prophets and apostles who do the enshrining.

Edited July 9, 2011 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

I would also like an explanation. What use is personal revelation? What use is the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

Determining the truth of established doctrine. Discovering the mysteries of the kingdom that, unless the LDS Church has published, is not the official doctrine of the Church but may at least be true for ourselves.

Etc.

[Nofear]

LDS doctrine is always black and white

By "doctrine of the Atonement" in the LDS context, one is usually understood to be referring to that which is established and published doctrine.

So, given that "doctrine of the Atonement" is merely a prototype example, am I to understand that anytime we say something is LDS doctrine it is usually in reference to a concept that is always black and white or it is always in reference to something that is usually black and white?

Now, if you had said, the core LDS doctrines are always black and white I might have been inclined to agree. But there is no official delineation of core doctrines* and the full set of which concepts might make the list is far from black and white.

As much as BCSpace's apocalyptic** definition of doctrine may appeal... it is not consistent with the current standard published by the Church in Approaching Mormon Doctrine. For example, he errors in his statement, "The LDS Hymnbook, being published by the Church is official doctrine."

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 “standard works” 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.

The hymnbook may contain doctrine, but it does not constitute an authoritative doctrinal source despite being published by the Church. Note also, that the statement here does not say that scriptures are official doctrine. It only asserts that they contain statements/concepts which have been established by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as doctrine.

* The Church has merely declared some doctrines as more important than others.

** In apocalyptic literature, everything is black and white, there is no gray.

[zerinus]

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.

I think you are confusing some things here. It is true that the Church is the official interpreter of Church doctrine. That means that if there is a controversy or disagreement within the Church regarding the interpretation of doctrine, the Church acting in an official capacity has the final say on the matter (see D&C 102:23). But that does not mean that anything that is written in official Church publications is necessarily doctrinally accurate; nor does it mean that a Church member by the power of the Holy Ghost could not detect such a mistake if there was one. On the contrary, Latter-day Saints are expected to have that Spirit with them at all times, and have the ability to discern correct doctrine from a false one wherever it may be found. “Blind obedience” is not a doctrine of the LDS Church.

I refer you back to my John 3:5 example above. I will also try to clarify:

Since we are not one of the 15 apostles and prophets (a fair assumption?), we cannot determine for the LDS Church what it's doctrine is. Certainly we may determine for ourselves what we think is doctrine, but if we believe the truth claims of the Church, then we will not speak for the Church anything different, or more or less, than what the Church itself says regarding a subject.

For example, we cannot say that either evolution or creationism is or is not the doctrine of the LDS Church regarding how man was physically created. However, we may then state our personal acceptance of one or the other without attributing it to the Church.

Again, I think that you are confusing some things. As a regular member of the Church, you or I could not speak officially on behalf of the Church. What I write in my Blog does not trump what is written in the Church’s official website. But that does not mean that you or I cannot speak authoritatively on Church doctrine, if we have the spiritual ability to do so. Indeed we are required to be able to do so, as the sons of Mosiah were able to do so (Alma 17:1–3). A doctrine taught authoritatively by the power of the Holy Ghost, is as good as being “official”.

Where does the standard works come into this? It is the standard or measuring yardstick by which the doctrinal correctness or accuracy of what is taught in the Church can be assessed. What is revealed to the Church is in the standard works. Therefore everyone’s doctrine must conform to that, or else it is suspect; and if it manifestly contradicts it then it is false. And it is the property of the whole Church. Everyone has equal access to it. It is not the preserve of an “elite”. It is made freely available to everyone, so everyone can use it to discern truth form error—wherever it may come from. It can also be used to teach correct doctrine with authority from God, as the sons of Mosiah had learned how to do.

[HeatherAnn]

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.

God never told me that either.

Ephesians 4:11-14 puts the burden of doctrine square on the Church organization. In other words' date=' 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. [/quote']

Except, that's using the source in question for evidence.

The bible & standard works/cannon - have many beautiful parables & spiritual lessons, yet they just give a fraction of a fraction of what God wants us to know - & some is twisted in translation.

"God is love" - Every loving thought, feeling or action is a message & doctrine of God.

And love is all around... in us, & every living creature striving to do what we think is best.

Edited July 9, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[etana]

Since we are not one of the 15 apostles and prophets (a fair assumption?), we cannot determine for the LDS Church what it's doctrine is. Certainly we may determine for ourselves what we think is doctrine, but if we believe the truth claims of the Church, then we will not speak for the Church anything different, or more or less, than what the Church itself says regarding a subject.

We are the Church, we all speak for her. We are the Body of Christ. Different members with different responsibilities to be sure, but all equal.

1st Corintians 12

1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 3Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

4Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14For the body is not one member, but many. 15If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 19And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20But now are they many members, yet but one body. 21And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 22Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: 23And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. 24For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: 25That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. 26And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

Also:

Romans 12:5 so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ--their Lord and ours:

1 Corinthians 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!

1 Corinthians 10:17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Ephesians 1:23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.Ephesians 4:12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

Ephesians 5:30 for we are members of his body.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

Colossians 2:19 He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

The CES publishes learning aids that discuss doctrine that is found in the sources (the four standard works). They are written by members payed to do so. They thereby contain doctrine but do not establish it. The Church establishes new doctrine by common consent, not by publishing talks in the Ensign.

Edited July 9, 2011 by etana

[BCSpace]

By "doctrine of the Atonement" in the LDS context, one is usually understood to be referring to that which is established and published doctrine.

So, given that "doctrine of the Atonement" is merely a prototype example, am I to understand that anytime we say something is LDS doctrine it is usually in reference to a concept that is always black and white or it is always in reference to something that is usually black and white?

Sure. Black and white that such is doctrine at least; as long as the Church published it.

Now, if you had said, the core LDS doctrines are always black and white I might have been inclined to agree. But there is no official delineation of core doctrines*

That is correct.

and the full set of which concepts might make the list is far from black and white.

I don't see why it would or could. There is nothing that isn't black and white. Either it's doctrine or it's not. Either it's the best answer available or it's not.

As much as BCSpace's apocalyptic** definition of doctrine may appeal... it is not consistent with the current standard published by the Church in Approaching Mormon Doctrine.

"My" definition is the Church's definition and is based on Approaching Mormon Doctrine which simply summarizes previous statements such as those found in Teaching No Greater Call.

For example, he errors in his statement, "The LDS Hymnbook, being published by the Church is official doctrine."

The hymnbook may contain doctrine, but it does not constitute an authoritative doctrinal source despite being published by the Church. Note also, that the statement here does not say that scriptures are official doctrine. It only asserts that they contain statements/concepts which have been established by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as doctrine.

The statement doesn't say or imply that. The question to ask yourself here is why would the Church publish something that isn't doctrine? Church would not refer you to it's published works if you could not safely rely on them for doctrine.

Every time the regional rep or some visiting GA comes to our Stake, I ask about the Church's view of doctrine. Every time, I've been right. I suppose that stems from the fact that the Church has taught it the way I teach it at least since the mid 80's when I was a missionary and was taught the same. You can rest assured that the the Hymnbook is official doctrine. I've asked that question specifically.

[BCSpace]

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.

I think you are confusing some things here. It is true that the Church is the official interpreter of Church doctrine.

Actually it isn't. It (the 15 apostles and prophets) interpret scripture (including modern revleation/inspiration) and those interpretations become doctrine.

That means that if there is a controversy or disagreement within the Church regarding the interpretation of doctrine, the Church acting in an official capacity has the final say on the matter (see D&C 102:23).

Sure. Look to the official publications and most of your questions will be answered.

But that does not mean that anything that is written in official Church publications is necessarily doctrinally accurate;

Such are often qualified or identified. In those case, the doctrine is merely that such is not doctrine.

nor does it mean that a Church member by the power of the Holy Ghost could not detect such a mistake if there was one.

But any individual cannot say for the Church if something is wrong. The 15 would have to agree. And how often does this happen? How many errors in doctrine do you think there are? Maybe you think there are a lot but they remain doctrine until the Church says otherwise.

On the contrary, Latter-day Saints are expected to have that Spirit with them at all times, and have the ability to discern correct doctrine from a false one wherever it may be found.

Not with reference to established doctrine. If you feel, ostensibly by the Holy Spirit, that something is wrong and you teach it as wrong without the approval of the Church, one typically ends up on the road to apostasy and excommunication. It is better to admit that such is the doctrine of the Church and that you disagree with it. That's what I do.

“Blind obedience” is not a doctrine of the LDS Church.

No one has proposed such a thing. But I certainly haven't proposed eliminating consequences.

But that does not mean that you or I cannot speak authoritatively on Church doctrine, if we have the spiritual ability to do so. Indeed we are required to be able to do so, as the sons of Mosiah were able to do so (Alma 17:1–3). A doctrine taught authoritatively by the power of the Holy Ghost, is as good as being “official”.

Once you stray from the published doctrine in the sense of denying it is doctrine, then you are not speaking authoritatively for the Church and I doubt you'll be having the spirit in that case.

Where does the standard works come into this? It is the standard or measuring yardstick by which the doctrinal correctness or accuracy of what is taught in the Church can be assessed. What is revealed to the Church is in the standard works. Therefore everyone’s doctrine must conform to that, or else it is suspect; and if it manifestly contradicts it then it is false.

Patently false and contrary to Approaching Mormon Doctrine where doctrine merely resides in the scriptures whereas the 15 apostles and prophets actually establish it. Back to the John 3:5 example. What if I taught that the water was physical birth and the spirit was the evangelical born again experience? How does that not conform to the scripture? Your only answer against me would originate from some publication of the Church. Therefore, while the scriptures can be a good yardstick, they are not the ultimate yardstick. The prophets are the ultimate yardstick and the indication of prophetic approval is official publication.

And it is the property of the whole Church. Everyone has equal access to it. It is not the preserve of an “elite”. It is made freely available to everyone, so everyone can use it to discern truth form error—wherever it may come from.

By your logic, everyone who reads the scriptures cannot fail to be convinced of the LDS position. But as I have just shown, the question of which doctrine can only be answered by the ultimate yardstick of publication. It is then that you may use the Spirit to decide the truth of it and believe like the LDS or not.

[BCSpace]

The CES publishes learning aids that discuss doctrine that is found in the sources (the four standard works). They are written by members payed to do so. They thereby contain doctrine but do not establish it.

If the manual is published by the Church (and they are), then those are the doctrines that have been established.

The Church establishes new doctrine by common consent,

There is no concept of this in the Church. See Approaching Mormon Doctrine to find out who establishes doctrine. Notice how there is no common consent involved.

not by publishing talks in the Ensign.

The Ensign is an official publication.

[zerinus]

Actually it isn't. It (the 15 apostles and prophets) interpret scripture (including modern revleation/inspiration) and those interpretations become doctrine.

That is not correct. The doctrine is already revealed in scripture. They can be trusted to interpret that doctrine correctly from scripture; and as a rule they do. But that does not mean that they are incapable of making a mistake; nor does it mean that a Church member could not detect such a mistake if one was made.

Sure. Look to the official publications and most of your questions will be answered.

I go primarily to the standard works to have my (doctrinal) questions answered. I trust Church publications to teach that doctrine correctly, which as a rule they do. But in case an error did exist, my acquaintance with the standard works (and the Spirit) would help me to detect it, which otherwise I would not be able to do. I think that gives me an advantage that someone who thinks as you do does not have.

Such are often qualified or identified. In those case, the doctrine is merely that such is not doctrine.

That is a very strange kind of thing to say. So you are admitting that such errors might exist (or have existed); but that I should be (or have been) powerless to detect it until somebody else is able to detect it? Why should that be? God has placed the burden of determining truth for myself on me, not on someone else.

But any individual cannot say for the Church if something is wrong. The 15 would have to agree.

I didn’t claim to say anything “for the church”. What I am saying is that I am not dependent on the manual, in the first instance, to determine Church doctrine, but on the standard works.

And how often does this happen? How many errors in doctrine do you think there are? Maybe you think there are a lot but they remain doctrine until the Church says otherwise.

I neither think there are many, nor do I think there are few. I am talking about general principles.

Not with reference to established doctrine.

Not sure what you mean by “established doctrine”. Doctrine is doctrine, and it is either be correctly stated or it isn’t.

If you feel, ostensibly by the Holy Spirit, that something is wrong and you teach it as wrong without the approval of the Church, one typically ends up on the road to apostasy and excommunication. It is better to admit that such is the doctrine of the Church and that you disagree with it. That's what I do.

Then you have completely misunderstood what I am talking about. All I am saying is that I use the standard works as my primary source for determining Church doctrine. Since official Church publications are also dependent on the same source, there need not be clash between the two, and as a general rule there isn’t.

Once you stray from the published doctrine in the sense of denying it is doctrine, then you are not speaking authoritatively for the Church and I doubt you'll be having the spirit in that case.

I am not “straying” from anything. I am recognizing a higher standard for determining true doctrine than you are, which is the standard works.

Patently false and contrary to Approaching Mormon Doctrine where doctrine merely resides in the scriptures whereas the 15 apostles and prophets actually establish it.

Patently true! They do no such thing. They are as much dependent on the standard works (and the Holy Spirit) to establish true doctrine as we are. It is not their job to comment on and establish for Latter-day Saints every minutia of doctrine. It is the job of every Church member to be able to do that for himself.

Back to the John 3:5 example. What if I taught that the water was physical birth and the spirit was the evangelical born again experience? How does that not conform to the scripture? Your only answer against me would originate from some publication of the Church. Therefore, while the scriptures can be a good yardstick, they are not the ultimate yardstick. The prophets are the ultimate yardstick and the indication of prophetic approval is official publication.

You are now arguing from the general to the particular, which is not a safe form of logical deduction. The general principles I have been discussing do not translate into the particular instances you are attempting to deduce form them. I don’t think you are understanding what I am talking about.

By your logic, everyone who reads the scriptures cannot fail to be convinced of the LDS position.

That is not “my logic” at all.

But as I have just shown, the question of which doctrine can only be answered by the ultimate yardstick of publication. It is then that you may use the Spirit to decide the truth of it and believe like the LDS or not.

You have not shown any such thing. The “ultimate yardstick” is the standard works. Other Church publications are correct insofar as they conform to that yardstick—which as a rule they do. Therefore no problem arises. But I think I have an advantage over someone who thinks as you do by relying on the “ultimate” yardstick rather than on the secondary one.

[Storm Rider]

I think a sign of my pride or stiffneckedness is that I don't trust the manuals of the Church to teach correct doctrine. Heck, I still don't use them to outline my lesson entirely. I agree with Zerinus that I limit my doctrinal foundation on the scriptures and the Spirit.

The truth is that some leaders have gotten very far out on a limb and at times believed in false doctrine. I know that may be a heretical position for some to hear, but in stating it I am able to keep my sanity. I believe they are men called of God, but they are still just men just as Peter, Judas, Jonah, etc., were just men. I don't perceive them as perfect or even as necessarily "men of God" i.e. exceptionally righteous. I hope they are, but I know they put their pants on the same way I do every morning. I know that I am fallible and a sinner; I suspect they are the same. Putting them on pedestals is not good for them and it is not good for the members.

Until God directs me otherwise, I will follow the counsel Jesus gave to Peter and rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is difficult path and one that demands abject humility, but it is the only path that protects me from the teachings of man.

[BCSpace]

Actually it isn't. It (the 15 apostles and prophets) interpret scripture (including modern revleation/inspiration) and those interpretations become doctrine.

That is not correct.

It is correct. It's what the Church has explicitly stated:

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.

The doctrine is already revealed in scripture.

Not by you or I.

They can be trusted to interpret that doctrine correctly from scripture; and as a rule they do. But that does not mean that they are incapable of making a mistake; nor does it mean that a Church member could not detect such a mistake if one was made.

If that happened, the regular Church member would be in an apostate condition until the 15 agreed. In other words, neither you nor I is qualified to receive revelation for the Church and that means everything the Chruch has stated whcih you disagree with still works.

Sure. Look to the official publications and most of your questions will be answered.

I go primarily to the standard works to have my (doctrinal) questions answered.

I'll bet you don't. For the most part, you see in the scriptures what you've already seen in an official publication. The rest is just speculation or a gospel hobby or apostasy on your part (and my part as well). This is why members of other Churches don't see water baptism in John 3:5.

I think that gives me an advantage that someone who thinks as you do does not have.

Actually, I have the advantage in that I freely admit where I diverge from official doctrine which means I can cut to the truth instantly rather than wrangling over whether or not something is doctrine.

Such are often qualified or identified. In those case, the doctrine is merely that such is not doctrine.

That is a very strange kind of thing to say.

Not really. The Church publishes doctrine unless otherwise specified.

So you are admitting that such errors might exist (or have existed); but that I should be (or have been) powerless to detect it until somebody else is able to detect it?

I've said no such thing. However, you don't have the authority to correct it and the only way to identify if you are correct is if the Church publishes the change. You also don't have authority to receive doctrine for the Church, therefore you are in an apostate condition when you claim to do so.

Why should that be? God has placed the burden of determining truth for myself on me, not on someone else.

Only for yourself.

But any individual cannot say for the Church if something is wrong. The 15 would have to agree.

I didn’t claim to say anything “for the church”.

That's exactly what you are doing. I highlighted it in blue above.

What I am saying is that I am not dependent on the manual, in the first instance, to determine Church doctrine, but on the standard works.

Published doctrine is more important and more accurate than the scriptures (cf the John 3:5 example). Your proposed foundation is not on the rock. And here is yet another example of why you are in conflict with the Church on this issue. I just made a reference to Matthew 16:18. However, you and I both know exactly what I'm talking about only because of officially published doctrine which remains the only way to identify official LDS doctrine.

[BCSpace]

I think a sign of my pride or stiffneckedness is that I don't trust the manuals of the Church to teach correct doctrine. Heck, I still don't use them to outline my lesson entirely. I agree with Zerinus that I limit my doctrinal foundation on the scriptures and the Spirit.

Then you have actually denied the scriptures as I noted in my previous post.

The truth is that some leaders have gotten very far out on a limb and at times believed in false doctrine.

Sure. But was it published officially by the Church?

I know that may be a heretical position for some to hear, but in stating it I am able to keep my sanity. I believe they are men called of God, but they are still just men just as Peter, Judas, Jonah, etc., were just men. I don't perceive them as perfect or even as necessarily "men of God" i.e. exceptionally righteous.

Of course.

Until God directs me otherwise, I will follow the counsel Jesus gave to Peter and rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This is incomplete as the Church does not teach that you determine the doctrine, but the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve acting in concert. This notion has been around since 1835 (D&C 107). It's awfully hard to go astray that way.

It is difficult path and one that demands abject humility, but it is the only path that protects me from the teachings of man.

I think it Terrestially limits you. If there is an error in doctrine, it will ultimately be changed or updated. But not by you in your current calling. You decide what you will believe, but the fact remains that you do not decide what the Church considers doctrine and one would not be telling the truth to prospective members if you taught your own interpretation of doctrine rather than the Church's.

[Storm Rider]

Then you have actually denied the scriptures as I noted in my previous post.

Sure. But was it published officially by the Church?

Of course.

This is incomplete as the Church does not teach that you determine the doctrine, but the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve acting in concert. This notion has been around since 1835 (D&C 107). It's awfully hard to go astray that way.

I think it Terrestially limits you. If there is an error in doctrine, it will ultimately be changed or updated. But not by you in your current calling. You decide what you will believe, but the fact remains that you do not decide what the Church considers doctrine and one would not be telling the truth to prospective members if you taught your own interpretation of doctrine rather than the Church's.

I have never felt like I interpreted doctrine for the LDS Church or anyone else for that matter. I do firmly believe that we are capable, individually, of distinguishing truth and the only doctrine of any church worth talking about is that which is true.

Yes, false doctrine has been published by the Church in official sources. I am thinking of the Adam God theory at the moment. I am also not too keen on the Church policy for so long on Blacks and the priesthood. As someone who loves the Church, I realize that men are just men and sometimes leaders forget they are just men also.

Truth never limits anyone. False doctrine or policy began or started by leaders is something they will pay for; members suffer for it during mortality.

I freely admit that I may put myself in a weak position at times; if I do not have the Spirit with me I may easily delude myself; however, I will never again follow a leader blindly. I will always consider what they say and then seek a testimoy of it through prayer, study, and contemplation.

[zerinus]

It is correct. It's what the Church has explicitly stated:

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.

That presumably relates to a needed resolution of a point of doctrinal controversy in the Church, or to address a new situation that may arise requiring an official policy declaration by the Church, or perhaps to meet a theological challenge to the Church from outside requiring an official response etc. For example, there was a thread recently about a Church statement on the subject of immigration. Earlier than that there had been a number of public statements made by the Church on the subject to Proposition 8 for example. Those are the kind of things that I believe it is referring to. Otherwise it is not the job of the Church leadership to sit and decide on every minutia of doctrinal points that might potentially arise in the Church. Such potential doctrinal points of interest that may arise are infinite; and Church members are expected to become sufficiently familiar with the standard works in the first instance (and other Church publications if need be) to be able to address them for themselves. The LDS Church does not have a "catechism" for example, as the Catholic Church does. Our "catechism" is the standard works. We have a "Church Handbook of Instructions;" but even that is not cast in stone. Local priesthood leaders have the discretion act by inspiration in situations not foreseen by the handbook.

The rest of your post suggests that you are either not understanding what I am talking about, or not wanting to understand it, therefore I don't see a useful purpose to be served by continuing that dialogue.

Edited July 11, 2011 by zerinus

[Nofear]

You can rest assured that the the Hymnbook is official doctrine. I've asked that question specifically.

I think the statement "This doctrine resides in..." clearly distinguishing between an item being a firmly established doctrine and source being the doctrine itself. The LDS Hymnbook contains concepts which are aligned with the established doctrines of the Church. The book itself, is not doctrine, no more than the Book of Mormon or Bible are in of themselves doctrine. These sources only contain doctrine.

There are plenty of things which are true which are nevertheless not established doctrine. Some of these truths are published, some are not. Some are much more important than others. The Church has gotten significantly more careful about what it publishes (focusing more on the important truths). Nevertheless, I call it an overzealous mistake to assert that everything in official Church publications constitute the body of current, official doctrine. The body of established doctrine is much smaller than the body of commentary, interpretations, opinions, truths, and understandings which are manifest in official Church publications.

[Watcher]

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.

[Watcher]

Another great scriptural evidence is found in 124:119

[BCSpace]

You can rest assured that the the Hymnbook is official doctrine. I've asked that question specifically.

I think the statement "This doctrine resides in..." clearly distinguishing between an item being a firmly established doctrine and source being the doctrine itself.

Sure. The statement refers to doctrine residing in the scriptures but it is the FP/Qo12 who establish it and have it published.

The LDS Hymnbook contains concepts which are aligned with the established doctrines of the Church.

This reasoning applies to works like BRM's Mormon Doctrine. It contains doctrine, but not being published by the Church, the only way to identify something out of it as LDS doctrine is to see it published elsewhere by the Church. The Hymnbook, being published by the Church, is official doctrine.

The book itself, is not doctrine, no more than the Book of Mormon or Bible are in of themselves doctrine.

The Hymnbook isn't scripture. It's published official doctrine which often refers to scripture as you likely have noticed.

[Nofear]

The Hymnbook isn't scripture. It's published official doctrine which often refers to scripture as you likely have noticed.

Recall again the statement from Approaching Mormon Doctrine:

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 “standard works” 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.

We both quite agree that the First President and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles establish doctrine. This established doctrine is proclaimed in Church publications. Note, however, that nowhere is it asserted that all content from Church publications is doctrine -- only that the established doctrine of the Church can be found in Church publications. The statement above further asserts that the established doctrine is found in our canon and official proclamations and declarations.

The hymnbook is not doctrine. Such a statement far oversteps its bounds. Some of our doctrines can find expression in the hymnbook. The hymnbook also contains sentiments which are true, but not necessarily official doctrine (inasmuch as such truths don't reside in the scriptures or official declarations or proclamations).

I don't know how much more clear I can be about this. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I will vocally oppose it as an erroneous zealotry every time I see it. The approach can and has led those of weaker faith than your own to apostatize. Your position is both dangerous and distasteful.