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

[Nofear]

I don't know how much more clear I can be about this.

Because a fruit basket contains apples, does not mean all fruits in the basket are apples -- tasty and wholesome each may be. Likewise, the official Church publications, such as the hymnbook, lessons manuals, magazines, missionary guides, etc., may contain doctrine, but not all elements in said materials constitute doctrine.

[BCSpace]

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.

Nowhere is it asserted that one must beware of official publications because they might not contain doctrine. I don't think you've thought this through and I'm quite sure you haven't asked the higher authorities because I have. Why would the Church intentionally publish something that isn't doctrine without identifying it as such?

The statement above further asserts that the established doctrine is found in our canon and official proclamations and declarations.

No. It actually says the doctrine resides there and differentiates between residing and establishing.

The hymnbook is not doctrine. Such a statement far oversteps its bounds.

Hate to disaapoint you, but the Church considers all it's publications to be doctrine unless otherwise noted.

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).

This statement is true of works not published by the Church.

I don't know how much more clear I can be about this.

I'm quite certain your Bishop or Stake President will disabuse you of this notion. Have you ever sat in counsel with a visiting GA and with regards to your calling, asked for instruction on what is and is not doctrine? I have several times. Same answer. Before and after the Approaching Mormon Doctrine statement. I'm bringing that same answer to you.

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.

Teaching people that they can select doctrine for the Church is one of the main signs of apostasy and leads people astray. Usually the motive is unbelief in some doctrine or other or a gospel hobby that isn't supported by doctrine. I have opposed such for years, part of some of my various callings to do so) and will continue to do so. My suggestion to you is accept that certain things are indeed official doctrine and disagree with them instead of teaching that "it's not doctrine".

Edited July 11, 2011 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Because a fruit basket contains apples, does not mean all fruits in the basket are apples -- tasty and wholesome each may be. Likewise, the official Church publications, such as the hymnbook, lessons manuals, magazines, missionary guides, etc., may contain doctrine, but not all elements in said materials constitute doctrine.

When you read the CHI or Teaching, No Greater Call and the other various instructions regarding the cirriculum of the Church, this notion does not exist with regard to the official publications such as manuals, pamphlets, hymnbooks, and yes even the magazines. When they they command you to "teach the doctrine", they don't warn you to "be careful, some of this is not doctrine". Regarding the hymnbook (another question I asked) it was asked rhetorically "would something that is not doctrine bring the Spirit as is the stated purpose of the hymns?". The answer of course was no.

This is how it was explained to me when I (even recently) brought up the very notions you just did. According to several GA's over that last few decades (and the 1980's teaching in the MTC), these notions of yours do not apply to the official publications. They do apply to nonofficial publications such as BRM's Mormon Doctinre or JFS's Man, His Origen and Destiny or the JoD. It is NOT assumed that they are 100% error free (the figure assumed is 99.9% and no one knows what might actually be in error), but it IS assumed that neither you nor I nor the visiting GA has the authority to determine for the Church what might be in error or teach differently from the official publications on behalf of the Church.

Since few seem to have the courage to ask, I will keep asking just to be sure, but the Church's stance on this matter has been the same over the last three or four decades at least and all I have done is communicate that stance. Approaching Mormon Doctrine has been a great tool for communicating this stance. I urge you not to see in it what isn't there.

[Nofear]

I'm quite certain your Bishop or Stake President will disabuse you of this notion. Have you ever sat in counsel with a visiting GA and with regards to your calling, asked for instruction on what is and is not doctrine? I have several times. Same answer. Before and after the Approaching Mormon Doctrine statement. I'm bringing that same answer to you.

You are not bringing the same answer as Approaching Mormon Doctrine to me or anybody else. Rather, you claim a dangerous and erroneous interpretation. Whenever I come across you posting your error I will post the Church's statement on the subject and let rational minds judge accordingly.

Teaching people that they can select doctrine for the Church is one of the main signs of apostasy and leads people astray.

Neither said, nor implied, anywhere in any of my statements. Poorly done to say so, poorly done indeed.

Usually the motive is unbelief in some doctrine or other or a gopel hobby that isn't supported by doctrine. I have opposed such for years (part of some of my various callings to do so) and will continue to do so. My suggestion to you is accept that certain things are indeed official doctrine and disagree with them instead of teaching that "it's not doctrine".

Such a statement implies I actually disbelieve some of the teachings of the Church or seek to disbelieve some. This is not the case. Though, hearing that you employ your erroneous attitude within the purview of your calling... well, that's a bit disturbing. But, I suspect you've probably never really substantively erred in application. Ah well, the Church is administered by imperfect people.

[Nofear]

When you read the CHI or Teaching, No Greater Call and the other various instructions regarding the cirriculum of the Church, this notion does not exist with regard to the official publications such as manuals, pamphlets, hymnbooks, and yes even the magazines. When they they command you to "teach the doctrine", they don't warn you to "be careful, some of this is not doctrine". Regarding the hymnbook (another question I asked) it was asked rhetorically "would something that is not doctrine bring the Spirit as is the stated purpose of the hymns?". The answer of course was no.

Indeed, every effort is made by the Church for its materials to be consistent with the established doctrines. Nevertheless, there are plenty of statements, policies, etc. which are not doctrine. Indeed, I was surprised when in the worldwide training on the Church Handbook of Instructions, the statement was made outright that while the handbook contained doctrine, it was not itself doctrine. I had previously elevated the document and had to disabuse myself of the notion owing to the training.

This is how it was explained to me when I (even recently) brought up the very notions you just did. According to several GA's over that last few decades (and the 1980's teaching in the MTC), these notions of yours do not apply to the official publications. They do apply to nonofficial publications such as BRM's Mormon Doctinre or JFS's Man, His Origen and Destiny or the JoD. It is NOT assumed that they are 100% error free (the figure assumed is 99.9% and no one knows what might actually be in error), but it IS assumed that neither you nor I nor the visiting GA has the authority to determine for the Church what might be in error or teach differently from the official publications on behalf of the Church.

Yeppers. [edit to color the statement which I affirmed]

Since few seem to have the courage to ask, I will keep asking just to be sure, but the Church's stance on this matter has been the same over the last three or four decades at least and all I have done is communicate that stance. Approaching Mormon Doctrine has been a great tool for communicating this stance. I urge you not to see in it what isn't there.

This would be an example of irony. Edited July 11, 2011 by Nofear

[BCSpace]

I'm quite certain your Bishop or Stake President will disabuse you of this notion. Have you ever sat in counsel with a visiting GA and with regards to your calling, asked for instruction on what is and is not doctrine? I have several times. Same answer. Before and after the Approaching Mormon Doctrine statement. I'm bringing that same answer to you.

You are not bringing the same answer as Approaching Mormon Doctrine to me or anybody else. Rather, you claim a dangerous and erroneous interpretation. Whenever I come across you posting your error I will post the Church's statement on the subject and let rational minds judge accordingly

I can't wait to see the incredulous look on a GA's face when you ask the question; if you're brave enough that is.

Teaching people that they can select doctrine for the Church is one of the main signs of apostasy and leads people astray.

Neither said, nor implied, anywhere in any of my statements. Poorly done to say so, poorly done indeed.

That's exactly the effect of what you are saying. Since you are in opposition to the Church's view on doctrine you are in effect selecting for the Church what is and is not doctrine. Unless of course you want to state that while the official publications are not doctrinal they don't contain anything nondoctrinal. But that might be too convoluted an argument for you.

neither you nor I nor the visiting GA has the authority to determine for the Church what might be in error or teach differently from the official publications on behalf of the Church.

Yeppers. [edit to color the statement which I affirmed]

Yes and by this logic, I am correct from yet another direction. Since neither you nor I is qualified, you can't say what in the official publications isn't doctrine and therefore you cannot say that the official publications aren't doctrinal because yopu don;t have the authority.

What you can say is what I've been saying; that the Church identifies what it considers to be nondoctrinal in various ways, in effect the doctrine being that such and such is not doctrinal.

I'm quite certain your Bishop or Stake President will disabuse you of this notion. Have you ever sat in counsel with a visiting GA and with regards to your calling, asked for instruction on what is and is not doctrine? I have several times. Same answer. Before and after the Approaching Mormon Doctrine statement. I'm bringing that same answer to you.

You are not bringing the same answer as Approaching Mormon Doctrine to me or anybody else. Rather, you claim a dangerous and erroneous interpretation. Whenever I come across you posting your error I will post the Church's statement on the subject and let rational minds judge accordingly.

Not having ever met an active LDS person outside the internet who doesn't accept the Church statements on doctrine, I am quite happy to let others judge accordingly.

Indeed, every effort is made by the Church for its materials to be consistent with the established doctrines.

Part of why they are official doctrine.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of statements, policies, etc. which are not doctrine. Indeed, I was surprised when in the worldwide training on the Church Handbook of Instructions, the statement was made outright that while the handbook contained doctrine, it was not itself doctrine. I had previously elevated the document and had to disabuse myself of the notion owing to the training.

CFR

I've been through both Nov. and Feb. and I think you had better listen again:

The First Presidency directed that the contents of book 2 should “facilitate the desired balance between uniformity on doctrine and principles and flexibility to allow limited adaptation where required on some subjects” (First Presidency memos of January and May 2008). Following that direction, book 2 is principle-based. It seeks to reduce the complexity of Church programs. It allows some adaptation where needed, such as in newer units or geographically large units of the Church, but it does not sacrifice the uniformity of policies, procedures, and programs that President Monson has taught us is necessary in our worldwide Church. Truly, as he just said, “There is safety in the handbooks.” Elder Cook will say more about the principles that guide leaders in this important matter.

This new handbook restores the original emphasis on one foundation of spiritual doctrine to describe the Church’s overall “purpose.” Book 2, section 2.2, reaffirms the 1981 language: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized by God to assist in His work to bring to pass the salvation and exaltation of His children.” On this basic doctrinal foundation, section 2.2 goes on to say that “in fulfilling its purpose to help individuals and families qualify for exaltation, the Church focuses on divinely appointed responsibilities.”

The only leg you appear to have to stand on is “Circumstances That May Permit Local Adaptation.” Which of course would be policies and procedures not necessarily based on doctrine, but this is yet another example of how the Church identifies what is not doctrinal. Since you have already admitted that neither you or I is qualified to do that official publications remain official doctrine except where noted and I have beensaying that since the beginning.

Edited July 12, 2011 by BCSpace

[Arkholt]

I certainly hope that not every single thing contained in a Church publication, if Institute manuals are included, is doctrine. Why? Because in an earlier thread, something was brought out that is in an Institute manual which is demonstrably false.

Link.

If something in a Church publication is demonstrably false, are we still meant to count it as doctrine simply because it's in a Church publication?

[Nofear]

CFR

I've been through both Nov. and Feb. and I think you had better listen again:

"While handbooks do not have the same standing as the scriptures, they do represent the most current interpretations and procedural directions of the Church’s highest authorities," (Elder Dallin H. Oaks "Overview of the New Handbooks", 2010 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, 2010). I had previously elevated the handbooks to be on par with the scriptures. That said, the first three chapters are an excellent compilation of established doctrines and intended to be. As for the rest of the book, "Most of these uniform principles, policies, and procedures are based on pure doctrine," (Elder Quentin L. Cook "Selected Principles from the New Handbooks", 2010 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, 2010). The policies themselves are not doctrine. That doesn't mean we deviate from them though.

Seeing as there is no getting through to you (and your ability to misrepresent my position) I will simply ask that you avoid your personal interpretation and stick to the statement of Section 17.3.3 of the Church Handbook of Instructions (and I can do the same):

The doctrines of the Church are found in the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets and apostles. The Lord instructed, “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” (D&C 42:12; see also D&C 52:9, 36).

All leaders should ensure that true doctrine is taught in the Church. If a person teaches false or speculative doctrine, leaders should correct it promptly and sensitively. Errors can usually be corrected in private, but major or repeated errors may require public correction.

If local leaders are unsure what doctrines or teachings are correct on a given subject, they may seek guidance from their immediate presiding authority.

[Calm]

If something in a Church publication is demonstrably false, are we still meant to count it as doctrine simply because it's in a Church publication?

I hope not, otherwise Popcorn Popping and Give Said the Little Stream might be problematic.

[BCSpace]

"While handbooks do not have the same standing as the scriptures, they do represent the most current interpretations and procedural directions of the Church’s highest authorities," (Elder Dallin H. Oaks "Overview of the New Handbooks", 2010 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, 2010). I had previously elevated the handbooks to be on par with the scriptures. That said, the first three chapters are an excellent compilation of established doctrines and intended to be. As for the rest of the book, "Most of these uniform principles, policies, and procedures are based on pure doctrine," (Elder Quentin L. Cook "Selected Principles from the New Handbooks", 2010 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, 2010). The policies themselves are not doctrine. That doesn't mean we deviate from them though.

Yes. You simply quoted some of what I quoted. No change.

Seeing as there is no getting through to you (and your ability to misrepresent my position) I will simply ask that you avoid your personal interpretation and stick to the statement of Section 17.3.3 of the Church Handbook of Instructions (and I can do the same):

All you've done here is show where doctrine resides, not where it is established. All the manuals and other publications are there to keep the doctrine pure which means not only are they doctrinal, but they take precendent over the scriptures because you and I are not qualified to establish doctrine from them. You're still stuck on a few phrases and seem unwilling to consider all of what the Church has said.

Edited July 12, 2011 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

I hope not, otherwise Popcorn Popping and Give Said the Little Stream might be problematic.

You don't actually think the song teaches that popcorn grows on trees do you? By definition, the Children's Songbook is doctrine so one doesn't really need a preface to show that it's doctrine:

There are songs in this book on almost every gospel subject. The songs explain our beliefs about life in heaven; about prayer, thankfulness, and reverence; about the mission of the Savior; about the principles of the gospel; about the importance of home, family, and heritage; about the beauty of nature and the seasons; and about the need for fun and activity. The last section is music that can be played before or after a meeting—or in your home—to create a reverent atmosphere.

[KevinG]

I think there is an important distinction between contains doctrine (publications and manuals) and is Doctrine (cannonized standard works). There are those things to be treated like unto standard works (Conference talks by living Prophets and Apostles) but these are subjet to change over time moreso than our scritpures and standard works.

[Calm]

I think there is an important distinction between contains doctrine (publications and manuals)***** and is Doctrine (cannonized standard works).

And interpretation and practical application of doctrine in our lives.(insert at ****) Edited July 12, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

You don't actually think the song teaches that popcorn grows on trees do you? By definition, the Children's Songbook is doctrine so one doesn't really need a preface to show that it's doctrine:

Do you believe that everything in any church publication is pure doctrine?

Take for example the Friend? Is everything within its pages pure doctrine?

[Nofear]

Good luck with your attempt at reasoning with BCSpace, I'll let others take it from here.

Careful- that could be taken as a personal jab. -Ares

Edit for public clarification: Oops, not intended to be a personal maligning. While I maintain his position is a dangerous and egregious misinterpretation of the Church's policy on what constitutes doctrine (and will vocally oppose the opinion, in a non-argumentative way, whenever I see it manifested on the board), I have no reason to doubt his personal integrity or faithfulness to the Gospel.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Nofear

[BCSpace]

I think there is an important distinction between contains doctrine (publications and manuals) and is Doctrine (cannonized standard works).

The Church doesn't make that distinction. Rather, it identifies that which isn't doctrine within published works which are doctrinal. Also, as time goes on, doctrine can and does change with latest publication because of continuing revelation/inspiration.

Do you believe that everything in any church publication is pure doctrine?

Take for example the Friend? Is everything within its pages pure doctrine?

Do you accept and agree with the preface I quoted from the Primary Children's Songbook? If you agree with it, then you have your answer.

Good luck with your attempt at reasoning with BCSpace, I'll let others take it from here.

After more then three decades of teaching it at the ward and stake level and hearing it taught at the regional level, and seeing it published at the Church-wdies level, I feel pretty confident most accept or will accept the Church's position already.

[BCSpace]

Since when could "official doctrine" only be found in the standard works, anyway?

That has never been the case. The Church inteprets the standard works and publishes the doctrine so gleaned in other works. The fact that, for example, millions of Christians read John 3:5 as speaking about physical birth instead of water baptism like the LDS Church teaches proves it. And there are dozens if not hundreds of other similar examples.

This is why the Lord established a Church organization, to disseminate correct doctrine (Ephesians 4:11-14). It is why the scriptures also teach that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. No one on the face of the earth can with any degree surety state what official doctrine is without it's having been first published by the organization the Lord established.

Edited July 12, 2011 by BCSpace

[Calm]

Do you accept and agree with the preface I quoted from the Primary Children's Songbook? If you agree with it, then you have your answer.

I'm not asking about what I believe, I already know that. I am asking about your belief.

I'd like a yes or no to my question 'is everything including and between the covers of the Friend doctrine in your opinion'.?

Edited July 13, 2011 by calmoriah