No Death Before The Fall

[Jeff K.]

There is the patina of desperation in your charge cinepro. You seem to think having an opinion is a problem, an opinion or rationalization as to how things occurred. Conference talks are not about the mehcanics of creation, they are however about the moral stand we take in our daily lives, and methods we can use to be closer to Christ, and finally they are a witness to the divinity of Christ. Much like the scriptures.

Cinepro it seems to me that you want, desperately to have the church somehow delve into the hows and establish their version of how as doctrine.

Now I note, quite often how you and others of your same opinion regarding the church bring up the graph from Pew Research. The question being that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on the earth. It is not, in fact a question as to whether or not evolution is acceptable, but a question as to whether or not evolution is the "real" or "best" explanation for the existence of Adam. I do would reject such a view, even as I endorse evolution as a means of studying life on earth. So does that make me some (as has been implied by you and others towards members ) some sort of backward individual with literalist views of the Old and New Testament? Or is the question just a really really bad question in a very very nuanced field? I am afraid I would have to reject the Pew question because it does not ask the proper question, though you are more than welcome to continue to apply its simplistic and stark statement as something of a cudgel by which you may enjoy hitting the church. I think the question intellectually weak, and of a depth and hardness akin to marshmallows.

Remember Cinepro... rationalization of doctrine, does not make the rationalization doctrine.

[Lost in Ohio]

Reality = Scientific evidence

I think that's a pretty flawed definition. About 100 years ago the scientific 'evidence' told us that matter was composed of atoms which were indestructable, but of course Einstein and the latest evidence tells that simply isn't so and that matter and energy are bound together. By your definition reality must always be changing to suit the latest 'evidence'.

I think there is a great deal we will not know in this life so that we have to walk by faith. I don't know how long the earth took to create, nor how long Adam lived before the Fall, nor from whence the fossil record comes. Perhaps I'm simplistic, but those issues are not central to my salvation - but faith is. So, I will try and walk in faith, believing in the Savior and the gospel, and putting them to the test to see if in fact the promised blessings come true, and so far I think they have. While I think studying the creation of the earth and its inhabitants is useful and interesting, I also know the answers to these questions will sort themselves out in harmony with the gospel when the time is right. There need be no artificial barriers between science and faith.

[cinepro]

You seem to think having an opinion is a problem, an opinion or rationalization as to how things occurred. Conference talks are not about the mehcanics of creation, they are however about the moral stand we take in our daily lives, and methods we can use to be closer to Christ, and finally they are a witness to the divinity of Christ. Much like the scriptures.

Cinepro it seems to me that you want, desperately to have the church somehow delve into the hows and establish their version of how as doctrine.

Just so I'm clear, what would the Apostles and Prophets have to do or say (theoretically, of course) in order for you to accept that the official doctrine of the Church is that macro-evolution didn't happen in the pre-fall creation process?

What would they have to say, who would have to say it, and where would it need to be said?

Edited July 27, 2011 by cinepro

[cinepro]

I think there is a great deal we will not know in this life so that we have to walk by faith. I don't know how long the earth took to create, nor how long Adam lived before the Fall, nor from whence the fossil record comes. Perhaps I'm simplistic, but those issues are not central to my salvation - but faith is. So, I will try and walk in faith, believing in the Savior and the gospel, and putting them to the test to see if in fact the promised blessings come true, and so far I think they have. While I think studying the creation of the earth and its inhabitants is useful and interesting, I also know the answers to these questions will sort themselves out in harmony with the gospel when the time is right. There need be no artificial barriers between science and faith.

Lost in Ohio, do you think it's likely (or possible?) that God used macroevolution (including cycles of birth and physical death) to evolve different species in the creation process before Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden?

Edited July 27, 2011 by cinepro

[cinepro]

I am afraid I would have to reject the Pew question because it does not ask the proper question, though you are more than welcome to continue to apply its simplistic and stark statement as something of a cudgel by which you may enjoy hitting the church. I think the question intellectually weak, and of a depth and hardness akin to marshmallows.

I agree it is a terribly-worded question. But I can't figure out why 22% "agreed". Who misunderstood the question? 22%, or 78%?

[Loran Blood]

The question being that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on the earth.

Indeed, this question, as phrased, is fraught with philosophical and metaphysical implications. Ultimate origins are far beyond the purview of Darwinian evolution, and the ultimate origins of Adam as a being (less his physical body as found in empirical fact) is also not open to explanation in Darwinian terms, as are the ultimate origins of anything.

Unless, of course, one believes that they are, in which case, we are again in the realm of scientism, not science per se.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Jeff K.]

I agree it is a terribly-worded question. But I can't figure out why 22% "agreed". Who misunderstood the question? 22%, or 78%?

The question doesn't allow for either or in understanding the question, if could be anywhere from 0 to 100%.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 July 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

You seem to think having an opinion is a problem, an opinion or rationalization as to how things occurred. Conference talks are not about the mehcanics of creation, they are however about the moral stand we take in our daily lives, and methods we can use to be closer to Christ, and finally they are a witness to the divinity of Christ. Much like the scriptures.

Cinepro it seems to me that you want, desperately to have the church somehow delve into the hows and establish their version of how as doctrine.

Just so I'm clear, what would the Apostles and Prophets have to do or say (theoretically, of course) in order for you to accept that the official doctrine of the Church is that macro-evolution didn't happen in the pre-fall creation process?

What would they have to say, who would have to say it, and where would it need to be said?

It isn't a core doctrine. What can they say? I suppose it must be in the Doctrine and Covenants, a statement that says any and all evolution is rejected and that science is wrong and that next to the atonement this is the most important doctrine of the church.

Otherwise, it seems that a number of opinions relying on different perspectives of evidence, nothing more.

[cinepro]

It isn't a core doctrine.

The Lord expects us to believe and understand the true doctrine of the Creation—the creation of this earth, of man, and of all forms of life. Indeed, as we shall see, an understanding of the doctrine of creation is essential to salvation. Unless and until we gain a true view of the creation of all things we cannot hope to gain that fulness of eternal reward which otherwise would be ours.

Christ and the Creation

Edited July 27, 2011 by cinepro

[Craig Paxton]

I think that's a pretty flawed definition. About 100 years ago the scientific 'evidence' told us that matter was composed of atoms which were indestructable, but of course Einstein and the latest evidence tells that simply isn't so and that matter and energy are bound together. By your definition reality must always be changing to suit the latest 'evidence'.

I think there is a great deal we will not know in this life so that we have to walk by faith. I don't know how long the earth took to create, nor how long Adam lived before the Fall, nor from whence the fossil record comes. Perhaps I'm simplistic, but those issues are not central to my salvation - but faith is. So, I will try and walk in faith, believing in the Savior and the gospel, and putting them to the test to see if in fact the promised blessings come true, and so far I think they have. While I think studying the creation of the earth and its inhabitants is useful and interesting, I also know the answers to these questions will sort themselves out in harmony with the gospel when the time is right. There need be no artificial barriers between science and faith.

Actually I completely agree that my definition was flawed...that is whay I expanded and amended it a few posts later...read on

cheers

[Craig Paxton]

Indeed, this question, as phrased, is fraught with philosophical and metaphysical implications. Ultimate origins are far beyond the purview of Darwinian evolution, and the ultimate origins of Adam as a being (less his physical body as found in empirical fact) is also not open to explanation in Darwinian terms, as are the ultimate origins of anything.

Unless, of course, one believes that they are, in which case, we are again in the realm of scientism, not science per se.

With all due respect Loran, I can not make you believe in evolution if you choose not to believe it. I respect your right to believe what ever makes you happy...but I choose not to to debate you on the existance of evolution...for me it is like debating whether the sun will rise in the east in the morning. If you choose not to look east I can not make you do so.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 July 2011 - 03:47 PM, said:

It isn't a core doctrine.

Quote

The Lord expects us to believe and understand the true doctrine of the Creation—the creation of this earth, of man, and of all forms of life. Indeed, as we shall see, an understanding of the doctrine of creation is essential to salvation. Unless and until we gain a true view of the creation of all things we cannot hope to gain that fulness of eternal reward which otherwise would be ours.

Christ and the Creation

Some problems with your example....

1- It isn't in the Doctrine and Covenants

2- The Doctrine of creation is one in which we understand why creation came about, not necessarily "how".

3- It reamains open to different methods, some of which we are still not fully informed of.

In other words, your example falls significantly short, but thank you for expressing McConkie's opinion, but I have always been aware of such.

[Craig Paxton]

I see rationalization of doctrine shift, I see how people earnestly classify things, just like in science, and often think they have the absolute understanding of why something is. Just like in science. It may be that our rationalization of doctrine, like our understanding of science is based on man's understanding and not Gods. Again, you presume rationalized positions of doctrine are doctrine.

Now was there death in Eden even though we can see death as recorded in the world? Doesn't it depend on whether or not Eden represented the entire world? The possibility exists either way. The rationalization does not change the doctrine, only our perception of the doctrine.

Funny how these long threads often come down to what exactly Mormon doctrine actually is...I've yet to have anyone offer a definition of what IS Mormon doctrine...easier to pin jello to a clothes line me thinks...

[Jeff K.]

Funny how these long threads often come down to what exactly Mormon doctrine actually is...I've yet to have anyone offer a definition of what IS Mormon doctrine...easier to pin jello to a clothes line me thinks...

No really....

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf

What is “Official” LDS Doctrine?

A vast number of anti-Mormon criticisms rely on the following straw man argument: LDS leader “L” said statement “X”. Since it has been shown that “X” is in error this proves that Mormonism is false. Is something “official” LDS doctrine because a General Authority or Prophet said it? What is and is not “official” LDS doctrine?

1. Prophets are Infallible

Infallible means “incapable of erring.”1 While Catholic’s believe that the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine, and while some Protestants believe that the Bible is “infallible,” Latter-day Saints do not believe that Prophets—neither past nor present—are infallible. President Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency, for example, once wrote: “We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President has claimed infallibility.”2

The Bible doesn’t suggest that prophets are infallible. Writing about the Old Testament prophet Elijah, James said that he was “a man subject to like passions as we are” (James 5:17). Jeremiah got so mad at God that he claimed the Lord had “deceived” him and he swore he would never speak in the name of the Lord again (see Jeremiah 20:7, 9.) Even Peter and Paul had disagreements (see Galatians 2:11-14).

Joseph Smith understood that he was fallible when he wrote: “A prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.”3 On another occasion he said: “I am subject to like passions as other men, like the prophets of olden times.”4 He also declared: “I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.”5 Lorenzo Snow, who had a testimony that Joseph was a prophet, nevertheless wrote that he saw Joseph’s “imperfections” and “thanked God that He would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority He placed upon him... for I knew that I myself had weaknesses, and I thought there was a chance for me...”6 “We are all liable to err,” wrote Brigham Young “and many may think that a man in my standing ought to be perfect; no such thing.”7

2. Prophets and Contemporary Beliefs

Not only were Biblical prophets sometimes wrong, but often they believed in the prevailing—and at times incorrect—views of their day. Likewise, early Mormons understood things differently than we do today. Just as Biblical figures had a strange view about the shape of the earth (Isaiah 11:12) and the motion of the planets (Joshua 10:12–13) so likewise some early LDS leaders had some incorrect views. Joseph Smith and other early Latter-day Saints, for example, most likely believed that North America was the land northward and that South America was the land southward in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon itself does not sustain this view (which supports the claim that Joseph was not the “author” of the Book of Mormon).8 Along with other frontiersman of the day, Joseph and the early Saints saw no distinction between Indians anywhere in the hemisphere. Therefore to the early Saints, a “Lamanite” was any Indian.9 We know now that this view is incorrect.

Prophets are not raised in cultural vacuums. Moses wasn’t, Abraham wasn’t and neither were Joseph, Brigham, or Gordon B. Hinckley. Non-LDS scholars have recognized that Biblical prophets were wrong about certain cultural beliefs. The Rev. J.R. Dummelow has noted that Biblical prophets each had their “own peculiarities,” their “own education or want of education,” and that they were “each influenced differently… by different experiences…” “Their inspiration,” he explains, “did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties… it did not make them into machines—it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries….” Concerning the author of Genesis, he remarks: “His scientific knowledge may be bounded by the horizon of the age in which he lived, but the religious truths he teaches are irrefutable and eternal.”10

Brigham Young apparently understood this concept of cultural perspective when he revealed his belief that of all the many revelations God has given to the Church, there wasn’t “a single revelation” given “that is perfect in its fulness.” “The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principal,” he explained, “…but it is impossible for the …weak… inhabitants of the earth to receive revelation… in all its perfection. He [God] has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities.”11 Brigham even pointed out that in Joseph’s lifetime he “did not receive everything connected with the doctrine of redemption…”12 What Joseph did receive, he received “piecemeal,” noted Joseph Fielding Smith. “It was not revealed all at once.”13

An evolving, growing, living Church, virtually guarantees that not all truth will be known on all things at all times. And when revelations are received, when new information is given, it’s only logical that such new information would be interpreted according to the understanding of the day.

3. “Official” LDS Doctrine

Not every utterance by every general authority constitutes “official” doctrine. “There are many subjects,” we read in the First Presidency-authorized Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “about which the scriptures are not clear and about which the Church has made no official pronouncements. In such matters, one can find differences of opinion among Church members and leaders. Until the truth of these matters is made known by revelation, there is room for different levels of understanding and interpretation of unsettled issues.”14

Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church.”15 This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine. As Harold B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.”16 To claim that anything taught in general conference is “official” doctrine, notes J. F. McConkie, “makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”17

How do we know then, what is “doctrine”, and what is not? First it must generally conform to what has already been revealed. “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said,” wrote J. Fielding Smith, “if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.” The standard works, he explains, are the “measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.” 18

Harold B. Lee expressed similar thoughts when he taught that any doctrine, advanced by anyone—regardless of position—that was not supported by the standard works, then “you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.” He recognized that the Prophet could bring forth new doctrine, but “when he does, [he] will declare it as revelation from God,” after which it will be sustained by the body of Church.19

The Prophet can add to the scriptures, but such new additions are presented by the First Presidency to the body of the Church and are accepted by common consent (by sustaining vote) as binding doctrine of the Church (See D&C 26:2; 107:27-31).20 Until such doctrines or opinions are sustained by vote in conference, however, they are “neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church.”21

How can we know if teachings, which have not been voted upon, are true? J. Reuben Clark explains that when “we, ourselves, are ‘moved by the Holy Ghost,’” then we know that the speakers are teaching true doctrine. “In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak.”22

It is likely that the Lord has allowed (and will continue to allow) his servants to make mistakes—it’s all part of progression and the growing process. We are not forced to accept teachings with which we disagree. We’re supposed to receive confirmation from the spirit if what is taught is the doctrine of God, and of course we’re the one who put ourselves in jeopardy if we fail to accept things which will bless us.

For more details on this topic see http://www.mormonfortress.com/wordg1.html

Written by Michael R. Ash for the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), Copyright © 2003. www.fairlds.org

1 Webster’s Super New School and Office Dictionary (Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett Publications, 1974).

2 Editor’s Table, Improvement Era (September 1912): 1045.

3 HC, 5:265.

4 HC, 5:516.

5 HC, 5:181.

6 Lorenzo Snow, private journal, quoted in Neal A. Maxwell, “Out of Obscurity,” Ensign (November 1984), 10.

7 JD 10:212.

8 See John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992).

9 Ibid., 9.

10 J.R. Dummelow, ed. One Volume Bible Commentary (New York: Macmillan, 1936), cxxxv.

11 JD 2:314.

12 Brigham Young, Millennial Star No. 8 (October 1, 1845), 6:119–123.

13 Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1955), 2:168.

14 M. Gerald Bradford and Larry E. Dahl, “Doctrine,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:395.

15 Brent L. Top, Larry E. Dahl, and Walter D. Bowen, Follow the Living Prophets (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1993), 118.

16 Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company., 1974), 162.

17 Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1998), 213–214.

18 Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1955), 3:203.

19 John A. Tvedtnes, “The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy.” (Unpublished, 1999, copy in my possession.)

20 See also Bradford and Dahl, 395.

21 Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian? (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1992), 15.

22 J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “When are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” speech given at BYU, July 7, 1954, published in the Church News, July 31, 1954; reprinted in Dialogue, 12:2, p. 68–69.

[Craig Paxton]

No really....

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf

[1]What is “Official” LDS Doctrine?

A vast number of anti-Mormon criticisms rely on the following straw man argument: LDS leader “L” said statement “X”. Since it has been shown that “X” is in error this proves that Mormonism is false. Is something “official” LDS doctrine because a General Authority or Prophet said it? What is and is not “official” LDS doctrine?

[2]1. Prophets are Infallible

Infallible means “incapable of erring.”1 While Catholic’s believe that the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine, and while some Protestants believe that the Bible is “infallible,” Latter-day Saints do not believe that Prophets—neither past nor present—are infallible. President Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency, for example, once wrote: “We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President has claimed infallibility.”2

[3]The Bible doesn’t suggest that prophets are infallible. Writing about the Old Testament prophet Elijah, James said that he was “a man subject to like passions as we are” (James 5:17). Jeremiah got so mad at God that he claimed the Lord had “deceived” him and he swore he would never speak in the name of the Lord again (see Jeremiah 20:7, 9.) Even Peter and Paul had disagreements (see Galatians 2:11-14).

[4]Joseph Smith understood that he was fallible when he wrote: “A prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.”3 On another occasion he said: “I am subject to like passions as other men, like the prophets of olden times.”4 He also declared: “I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.”5 Lorenzo Snow, who had a testimony that Joseph was a prophet, nevertheless wrote that he saw Joseph’s “imperfections” and “thanked God that He would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority He placed upon him... for I knew that I myself had weaknesses, and I thought there was a chance for me...”6 “We are all liable to err,” wrote Brigham Young “and many may think that a man in my standing ought to be perfect; no such thing.”7

[5]2. Prophets and Contemporary Beliefs

Not only were Biblical prophets sometimes wrong, but often they believed in the prevailing—and at times incorrect—views of their day. Likewise, early Mormons understood things differently than we do today. Just as Biblical figures had a strange view about the shape of the earth (Isaiah 11:12) and the motion of the planets (Joshua 10:12–13) so likewise some early LDS leaders had some incorrect views. Joseph Smith and other early Latter-day Saints, for example, most likely believed that North America was the land northward and that South America was the land southward in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon itself does not sustain this view (which supports the claim that Joseph was not the “author” of the Book of Mormon).8 Along with other frontiersman of the day, Joseph and the early Saints saw no distinction between Indians anywhere in the hemisphere. Therefore to the early Saints, a “Lamanite” was any Indian.9 We know now that this view is incorrect.

[6]Prophets are not raised in cultural vacuums. Moses wasn’t, Abraham wasn’t and neither were Joseph, Brigham, or Gordon B. Hinckley. Non-LDS scholars have recognized that Biblical prophets were wrong about certain cultural beliefs. The Rev. J.R. Dummelow has noted that Biblical prophets each had their “own peculiarities,” their “own education or want of education,” and that they were “each influenced differently… by different experiences…” “Their inspiration,” he explains, “did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties… it did not make them into machines—it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries….” Concerning the author of Genesis, he remarks: “His scientific knowledge may be bounded by the horizon of the age in which he lived, but the religious truths he teaches are irrefutable and eternal.”10

[7]Brigham Young apparently understood this concept of cultural perspective when he revealed his belief that of all the many revelations God has given to the Church, there wasn’t “a single revelation” given “that is perfect in its fulness.” “The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principal,” he explained, “…but it is impossible for the …weak… inhabitants of the earth to receive revelation… in all its perfection. He [God] has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities.”11 Brigham even pointed out that in Joseph’s lifetime he “did not receive everything connected with the doctrine of redemption…”12 What Joseph did receive, he received “piecemeal,” noted Joseph Fielding Smith. “It was not revealed all at once.”13

[8]An evolving, growing, living Church, virtually guarantees that not all truth will be known on all things at all times. And when revelations are received, when new information is given, it’s only logical that such new information would be interpreted according to the understanding of the day.

3. “Official” LDS Doctrine

[9]Not every utterance by every general authority constitutes “official” doctrine. “There are many subjects,” we read in the First Presidency-authorized Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “about which the scriptures are not clear and about which the Church has made no official pronouncements. In such matters, one can find differences of opinion among Church members and leaders. Until the truth of these matters is made known by revelation, there is room for different levels of understanding and interpretation of unsettled issues.”14

Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church.”15 This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine. As Harold B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.”16 To claim that anything taught in general conference is “official” doctrine, notes J. F. McConkie, “makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”17

[10]How do we know then, what is “doctrine”, and what is not? First it must generally conform to what has already been revealed. “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said,” wrote J. Fielding Smith, “if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.” The standard works, he explains, are the “measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.” 18

[11]Harold B. Lee expressed similar thoughts when he taught that any doctrine, advanced by anyone—regardless of position—that was not supported by the standard works, then “you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.” He recognized that the Prophet could bring forth new doctrine, but “when he does, [he] will declare it as revelation from God,” after which it will be sustained by the body of Church.19

[12]The Prophet can add to the scriptures, but such new additions are presented by the First Presidency to the body of the Church and are accepted by common consent (by sustaining vote) as binding doctrine of the Church (See D&C 26:2; 107:27-31).20 Until such doctrines or opinions are sustained by vote in conference, however, they are “neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church.”21

[13]How can we know if teachings, which have not been voted upon, are true? J. Reuben Clark explains that when “we, ourselves, are ‘moved by the Holy Ghost,’” then we know that the speakers are teaching true doctrine. “In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak.”22

[14]It is likely that the Lord has allowed (and will continue to allow) his servants to make mistakes—it’s all part of progression and the growing process. We are not forced to accept teachings with which we disagree. We’re supposed to receive confirmation from the spirit if what is taught is the doctrine of God, and of course we’re the one who put ourselves in jeopardy if we fail to accept things which will bless us.

For more details on this topic see http://www.mormonfortress.com/wordg1.html

Written by Michael R. Ash for the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), Copyright © 2003. www.fairlds.org

1 Webster’s Super New School and Office Dictionary (Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett Publications, 1974).

2 Editor’s Table, Improvement Era (September 1912): 1045.

3 HC, 5:265.

4 HC, 5:516.

5 HC, 5:181.

6 Lorenzo Snow, private journal, quoted in Neal A. Maxwell, “Out of Obscurity,” Ensign (November 1984), 10.

7 JD 10:212.

8 See John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992).

9 Ibid., 9.

10 J.R. Dummelow, ed. One Volume Bible Commentary (New York: Macmillan, 1936), cxxxv.

11 JD 2:314.

12 Brigham Young, Millennial Star No. 8 (October 1, 1845), 6:119–123.

13 Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1955), 2:168.

14 M. Gerald Bradford and Larry E. Dahl, “Doctrine,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:395.

15 Brent L. Top, Larry E. Dahl, and Walter D. Bowen, Follow the Living Prophets (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1993), 118.

16 Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company., 1974), 162.

17 Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1998), 213–214.

18 Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1955), 3:203.

19 John A. Tvedtnes, “The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy.” (Unpublished, 1999, copy in my possession.)

20 See also Bradford and Dahl, 395.

21 Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian? (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1992), 15.

22 J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “When are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” speech given at BYU, July 7, 1954, published in the Church News, July 31, 1954; reprinted in Dialogue, 12:2, p. 68–69.

Yet we find a myriad of cases within Mormonism’s history where some claimed doctrine met each and every standard listed here...yet it is no longer doctrine…so again I ask what is Mormon doctrine? I’ve got my clothes pins ready

PS: I find it interesting that it takes you 14 whole paragraphs to simply try and define what "Mormon Doctrine" supposedly is...

Edited July 27, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Jeff K.]

Yet we find a myriad of cases within Mormonism’s history where some claimed doctrine met each and every standard listed here...yet it is no longer doctrine…so again I ask what is Mormon doctrine? I’ve got my clothes pins ready

Some claim it, and with a very strong opinion state it, but that still doesn't make it doctrine.

[Craig Paxton]

Some claim it, and with a very strong opinion state it, but that still doesn't make it doctrine.

Jeff, I simply ask you to give me a definitive definition of Mormon Doctrine...seems like a simple request...

[cinepro]

1 Webster’s Super New School and Office Dictionary (Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett Publications, 1974).

2 Editor’s Table, Improvement Era (September 1912): 1045.

3 HC, 5:265.

4 HC, 5:516.

5 HC, 5:181.

6 Lorenzo Snow, private journal, quoted in Neal A. Maxwell, “Out of Obscurity,” Ensign (November 1984), 10.

7 JD 10:212.

8 See John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992).

9 Ibid., 9.

10 J.R. Dummelow, ed. One Volume Bible Commentary (New York: Macmillan, 1936), cxxxv.

11 JD 2:314.

12 Brigham Young, Millennial Star No. 8 (October 1, 1845), 6:119–123.

13 Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1955), 2:168.

14 M. Gerald Bradford and Larry E. Dahl, “Doctrine,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:395.

15 Brent L. Top, Larry E. Dahl, and Walter D. Bowen, Follow the Living Prophets (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1993), 118.

16 Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company., 1974), 162.

17 Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1998), 213–214.

18 Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1955), 3:203.

19 John A. Tvedtnes, “The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy.” (Unpublished, 1999, copy in my possession.)

20 See also Bradford and Dahl, 395.

21 Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian? (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1992), 15.

22 J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “When are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” speech given at BYU, July 7, 1954, published in the Church News, July 31, 1954; reprinted in Dialogue, 12:2, p. 68–69.

Wow. You know you're talking to an apologist when a lengthy treatise on "Official Mormon Doctrine" contains 22 footnotes with only one referencing a currently-published Church publication.

That's quite a feat.

[cinepro]

17 Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1998), 213–214.

To bring this back on topic, you referenced Joseph McConkie's book "Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions", but you didn't include the context of his statement from the book. Here it is, which ironically teaches the following:

It is not uncommon in gospel discussions for someone to challenge what is being said with the question, "Is that official Church doctrine?" This question often means the one asking it does not like what is being said and is seeking a reason not to be bound by it. The question is generally successful in putting the one being challenged on the defensive because of the difficulties associated with defining "official Church doctrine." In telling the story of the Creation, for instance, teachers are commonly challenged with the question, "Does the Church have an official position on the theory of evolution?" The answer is no, it does not. On the other hand, and this is certainly very important in such a discussion, the Church does have an official position on the doctrine of the origin of man. The way questions are framed is very important. On the one hand, the Church is not in the business of evaluating scientific theories; on the other, it is in the business of teaching that all humankind are the offspring of divine parents and thus not the product of an evolutionary process. The knowledge that we obtain in the temple, knowledge required for us to enter into the presence of the Lord, and the ordinances performed there do not permit the notion that our blood line traces to animals.

If the body of "official doctrine" is to be limited to formal declarations by the First Presidency, the Church has precious little doctrine. From the time of its organization in the spring of 1830 to the present, there have been very few instances in which the First Presidency has issued "official" doctrinal declarations. These have included the statement on the origin of man, a doctrinal exposition on the Father and the Son, and most recently the proclamation on the family. Each of these declarations is marvelous in its own right, but if our definition of "official doctrines" is defined so narrowly that it is limited to these declarations and the few others we have received, we could not even declare faith, repentance, and baptism as doctrines of the Church. Indeed, most of what we understand to be the doctrine of the Church finds no mention in such documents. Certainly the standard works, the temple ceremony, and much instruction that has come to us by those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators is also "official doctrine."

The difficulties in defining doctrine too narrowly are matched by those that are too broad and sweeping. For instance, it is not uncommon to hear someone say that anything taught in general conference is "official doctrine." Such a standard makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained. Let us examine some points that will help clarify what things are or are not doctrine.

Edited July 27, 2011 by cinepro

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"Truth is Mormonism. God is the author of it." - Joseph Smith

"And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come." (Alma 93:24)

"All of us believe things that aren't true, things that will be proven false in time to come. Scientists like Galileo, Newton, Heisenberg, Planck, Hawking, and Penrose all had differing beliefs about the very nature of our existence, the most fundamental doctrines of reality. But they all respected each other and didn't damn each other for wrong ideas. Yet throughout history, men have damned and persecuted and banished and imprisoned and burned others on a vast scale, not for any crimes they committed, but purely for having the wrong ideas." - Hugh Nibley

"When we bear testimony that we "know" the gospel is true, are we saying, "I am so certain of the correctness of my current understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ that I no longer expect to learn anything more"? I hope not! Maybe we're saying, "I am certain that the church is the only way to obtain true information about the meaning and purpose of life and our relationship with God." But too often that comes with some corollaries: "Thus I will not consider information from any other source," is a common one; so is, "Thus I will reject any information that seems to contradict my current understanding of the gospel." The second corollary puts us on dangerous ground. As soon as we get confused and think that our current understanding of the gospel is the gospel, living prophets and new revelations are useless to us: We aren't willing to listen. That's why the Manifesto in 1890 and the revelation of 1978 on the priesthood both led to a number of people leaving the church. They "knew" the gospel was "true," you see - but what they really meant was that they believed their understanding of the gospel was complete.

Here's the single truth we learn from epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge): We don't "know" anything, if by "knowing" we mean "having certainty of perfectly accurate information." We might believe in many true things, but we also believe in many false ones. For instance, we get married in the belief that our partners will keep their wedding vows. Even if all of us have equal certainty - after all, we're betting our future lives on those promises! - some of us turn out to have been incorrect. And our degree of certainty might have little to do with our degree of accuracy.

There's nothing wrong with saying we "know" the gospel is true - as long as we recognize that we're talking about our feelings. "Knowledge" is not superior to belief, and when the feeling of certainty makes it impossible for us to learn new truth that revises our old understanding, it can hurt us! The reason the gospel stresses the vital importance of faith is simple: Faith is stronger and better than knowledge." Orson Scott Card

It's a tendency of human nature to want to have every possible question settled and safe and secure and ironed-out right now. To create unalterable dogma instead of revisable doctrines which point the way (but are not equivalent) to Truth. To Pharisaically fence the law in niggling rules and regulations which stifle Lady Wisdom and refuse to allow her to lead us to the light of Christ. Too often we become fearful of examining new evidence which might contradict our previous understanding. Yet the principles of eternal progression and continual revelation in which God's guidance is translated into an approximate human understanding virtually imposes on us the idea that we should never allow ourselves to descend into such a stagnant, complacent rut.

They also suggest that we don't have to be ashamed of previous ignorance, since everyone has so much of it. The purpose of the Church is to form a social structure in order to bind the self-existent intelligences of the universe into a unified body where both the whole and the individual are exalted. The Church, composed of fallible humans at every level, can be flat-out wrong about the mechanics of the cosmos; it is certainly a misunderstanding of evolution to suggest, as some good members have here, that "macro-evolution" is somehow different in kind than "micro-evolution", and it is not arrogant "scientism" to point this out. However, if we're faithful to each other, we won't be led astray no matter how many mistakes we make. If we're diligent and seeking greater and greater truth, and wondering and doubting and studying things out in our minds, then we'll eventually revise our misunderstandings to accord with further light.

It shouldn't bother us if both scientists and Prophets are ignorant compared to God. The scriptures are full of fallible men, and neither scientists nor Prophets, if they're worth much, claim to be inerrant. They're coming at the problem from different angles, and so they see different aspects of the whole, ask different kinds of questions and so receive different answers. It means that we'll never have a neat, tidy, completely foolproof story of our world. There will often be contradictions until we comprehend things a little better, and at that point, new contradictions which we haven't even guessed at yet will crop up. Our paradigms are always simplified templates which we impose on the world as long as they are useful and which we should revise when they're found to be obsolete. That's what Temples are for: a school where we study the universe and find our place within it, where we see a simplified, bite-sized-for-easy-comprehension version of the Plan of Salvation, a dramatized, edited version of the true history, an eternal round which had no beginning and will have no end.

[cdowis]

Funny how these long threads often come down to what exactly Mormon doctrine actually is...I've yet to have anyone offer a definition of what IS Mormon doctrine...easier to pin jello to a clothes line me thinks...

I gave you a specific examples of official doctrine, but you chose to ignore my post and continue trying to make the same false assertion. There are rock bed doctrines in the Church which do not change, while our understanding of those doctrines may mature for us individually and as a church.

Gravity is a rock bed concept in science, and thru this "doctrine" our understanding of the universe has increased over the centuries. As we read and study the Old Testament, our understanding of the Atonement has increased, our understanding of the relationship between mercy and justice has matured.

I think you are full of baloney, but why don't you show us that you really know what you are talking about.... or not, as you choose. Take the Articles of Faith and show us specifically how these doctrines are "shifting sands" of change.

Edited July 28, 2011 by cdowis

[Jeff K.]

Jeff, I simply ask you to give me a definitive definition of Mormon Doctrine...seems like a simple request...

Which I have answered. Now you may not like the answer, but it is the answer and I thought it fairly comprehensive.

[Rivers]

It's a tendency of human nature to want to have every possible question settled and safe and secure and ironed-out right now. To create unalterable dogma instead of revisable doctrines which point the way (but are not equivalent) to Truth. To Pharisaically fence the law in niggling rules and regulations which stifle Lady Wisdom and refuse to allow her to lead us to the light of Christ. Too often we become fearful of examining new evidence which might contradict our previous understanding. Yet the principles of eternal progression and continual revelation in which God's guidance is translated into an approximate human understanding virtually imposes on us the idea that we should never allow ourselves to descend into such a stagnant, complacent rut.

They also suggest that we don't have to be ashamed of previous ignorance, since everyone has so much of it. The purpose of the Church is to form a social structure in order to bind the self-existent intelligences of the universe into a unified body where both the whole and the individual are exalted. The Church, composed of fallible humans at every level, can be flat-out wrong about the mechanics of the cosmos; it is certainly a misunderstanding of evolution to suggest, as some good members have here, that "macro-evolution" is somehow different in kind than "micro-evolution", and it is not arrogant "scientism" to point this out. However, if we're faithful to each other, we won't be led astray no matter how many mistakes we make. If we're diligent and seeking greater and greater truth, and wondering and doubting and studying things out in our minds, then we'll eventually revise our misunderstandings to accord with further light.

It shouldn't bother us if both scientists and Prophets are ignorant compared to God. The scriptures are full of fallible men, and neither scientists nor Prophets, if they're worth much, claim to be inerrant. They're coming at the problem from different angles, and so they see different aspects of the whole, ask different kinds of questions and so receive different answers. It means that we'll never have a neat, tidy, completely foolproof story of our world. There will often be contradictions until we comprehend things a little better, and at that point, new contradictions which we haven't even guessed at yet will crop up. Our paradigms are always simplified templates which we impose on the world as long as they are useful and which we should revise when they're found to be obsolete. That's what Temples are for: a school where we study the universe and find our place within it, where we see a simplified, bite-sized-for-easy-comprehension version of the Plan of Salvation, a dramatized, edited version of the true history, an eternal round which had no beginning and will have no end.

amen

[Loran Blood]

With all due respect Loran, I can not make you believe in evolution if you choose not to believe it.

If you're not going to even read my posts, I see little value in continuing the discussion.

I respect your right to believe what ever makes you happy...but I choose not to to debate you on the existance of evolution...for me it is like debating whether the sun will rise in the east in the morning. If you choose not to look east I can not make you do so.

What you are apparently choosing to do is to respond to my posts without reading them. This, of course, is an exercise in futility.

[Craig Paxton]

If you're not going to even read my posts, I see little value in continuing the discussion.

What you are apparently choosing to do is to respond to my posts without reading them. This, of course, is an exercise in futility.

Yeah guilty as charged....I do have a full time job and I did glance at your lenghty post...I'll try to give it its due respect and get back with you