"Lds Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference" Is It The New "Mormon Doctrine"?

[Sky]

Certainly other people besides the General Authorities can teach. That’s not what I’m saying.

As I said, there is often discussion in this forum about understanding what is official doctrine. Do you think this book will help with this problem or does the stated disclaimer only add to this problem?

Maybe the First Presidency could just sign their names after the prolog of the book after giving it the once over. I would feel good about that.

This should help.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

[Scott Lloyd]

As I said, there is often discussion in this forum about understanding what is official doctrine. Do you think this book will help with this problem or does the stated disclaimer only add to this problem?

To the extent that the book's content conforms to doctrine "consistently proclaimed in official Church publications" (see Sky's link above) I would think it will help. The presence of the disclaimer does not necessarily imply the work is unreliable.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It fulfills a need by academics to publish without the need to perform genuine research.

This remark presumes incorrectly that research is the only role an academic fills. As is typical in any institution of higher learning, much of an academic's work is the teaching of extant information.

Moreover, I don't get the sense that this book is intended to be a scholarly publication so much as a reference work or survey (a general view of the subject matter) directed to a general readership. That doesn't mean the book has no value.

[mfbukowski]

A dolt or a dweeb, perhaps, but never a dupe. But then, I haven't checked the Mormon Discussions Board lately.

A wise move, which thereby proves you are none of the above!

[Cobalt-70]

Or possibly allowing us to define it. I think it would be wise for the church to stick to the basics on doctrinal matters and let the theology grow as it will. There is room for many kinds of beliefs in the church, as long as we agree on what Ostler would call "orthopraxis". That is perhaps all the control and definition that is necessary.

Eventually, it will get to that point, as it always does, eventually, with new religions. No religious organization can exercise absolute control over the orthodoxy of its members. It has never been the case that LDS members have marched lock-step with the Priesthood Correlation Program. It is easy to enforce uniformity within church manuals, but it is impossible to enforce uniformity among Mormons themselves, even within the upper echelons of the church hierarchy.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[cinepro]

The real question is how long it will be until someone sees this book "cited in the wild" (i.e. during a Church talk or lesson).

Post here if you do!

[mfbukowski]

Eventually, it will get to that point, as it always does, eventually, with new religions. No religious organization can exercise absolute control over the orthodoxy of its members. It has never been the case that LDS members have marched lock-step with the Priesthood Correlation Program. It is easy to enforce uniformity within church manuals, but it is impossible to enforce uniformity among Mormons themselves, even within the upper echelons of the church hierarchy.

The key here is continuing revelation. Not only does our "doctrine" change over time, but it is actually supposed to, and the claim that we can all receive our own testimonies pushes doctrine toward what the mainstream member believes.

General Authorities are not magically immune to societal mores, and neither obviously is the membership.

[orion88]

Apparently, the book uses "The Way To Perfection" by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith as an authoritative resource worth quoting and referencing. This alone is significantly unacceptable. Anyone familiar with the book should understand.

I suspect the early LDS Church accepted "The Way to Perfection" as doctrine in those

days. Probably it would regard the current Mormon Church as apostate for not believing

in some of those teachings.

In regards to "LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference," if it doesn't have the church's

copyright on it, it is not to be accepted as authoritative.

Edited December 2, 2011 by orion88

[KevinG]

The key here is continuing revelation. Not only does our "doctrine" change over time, but it is actually supposed to, and the claim that we can all receive our own testimonies pushes doctrine toward what the mainstream member believes.

General Authorities are not magically immune to societal mores, and neither obviously is the membership.

Yours are "mores", mine are "norms".

[volgadon]

I suspect the early LDS Church accepted "The Way to Perfection" as doctrine in those

days. Probably it would regard the current Mormon Church as apostate for not believing

in some of those teachings.

By "early" did you mean 1940?

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Haven't posted for a while, but thought I would jump in on this one... A particular author in the group who participated in the book also taught a class about doctrine as part of CES prep. I took this class from him, and as an academic and one who has been involved in church history and studying the evolution of LDS tradition, I was screaming quietly in my mind almost daily. The class started off well enough, with him giving an excellent review of what constitutes authoritative, doctrinal, canon, etc. Threw a lot of students for a loop.. Then he threw out everything he said and taught whatever he believed worked well via quoting a lot of Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McConkie. He overtly implied people could believe a certain way in the church (on specific topics I won't get in to) and be good members, but they were wrong because of (insert convoluted argument using non-authoritative quotes taken way out of context).

It was one of those classes where I got a great grade because I knew what he wanted to hear... but taking tests was a lesson in how to say one answer is right even when everything within you (and the evidence) says otherwise. I spoke up in class for the first few times and we had lively discussions, but his logic was completely circular. A few people recognized it, but several newly returned missionaries (who I heard swapping ridiculous mission folk-lore as gospel truth) quickly started becoming angry and essentially worshiped every word he said. I could go on and on about the frustrations and blatant willful ignorance... but I don't want to say who it is. He is, as a person, a fantastic guy. He is also a man of great faith, and I would be happy to sustain him if he were called as my spiritual leader. But him teaching that class year after year is a major source of misinformation to a group of people heading out to teach CES and other things. Any book involving him on doctrinal topics is automatically heavily suspect to me, but I do gain comfort in believing some of the other names on there (who I also know) would likely have been able to temper him to some degree.

Okay, ranting done. Breath. Just hadn't hear his name for a while, and in this context it blew my mind!

[cinepro]

Any book involving him on doctrinal topics is automatically heavily suspect to me, but I do gain comfort in believing some of the other names on there (who I also know) would likely have been able to temper him to some degree.

That's why committees work so well for defining doctrine. Maybe one day, the Church will gather together a larger group and put together something really official. That would be real progress.

[Freedom]

That's why committees work so well for defining doctrine. Maybe one day, the Church will gather together a larger group and put together something really official. That would be real progress.

I trust you are joking because such a book would be regressive. It would be like the collective scientific community producing a book that defines all scientific terms and theories and to hell with anybody who comes up with new non-establishments ideas. The source of all doctrinal matters is the scriptures, everything else is theory built upon conjecture. If someone wants to produce a genuine gospel dictionary, they should compile references from the scriptures. Oh wait, the topical guide already does that.

[cinepro]

The source of all doctrinal matters is the scriptures, everything else is theory built upon conjecture. If someone wants to produce a genuine gospel dictionary, they should compile references from the scriptures. Oh wait, the topical guide already does that.

Wait, are you LDS?

The Lord has made it clear that we are to receive the words of the living prophet as if from the Lord’s own mouth (see D&C 21:5 ).

President Ezra Taft Benson said that the “living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works” (“Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” in Speeches of the Year, 1980 [Provo: Brigham Young University, 1981], p. 26). That is because he is alive in our day and speaks for the Lord on the problems we face.

“The most important prophet, so far as we are concerned, is the one who is living in our day and age. This is the prophet who has today’s instructions from God to us today. God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the ark. Every generation has need of the ancient scripture plus the current scripture from the living prophet. Therefore, the most crucial reading and pondering which you should do is of the latest inspired words from the Lord’s mouthpiece. That is why it is essential that you have access to and carefully read his words in current Church publications.” (Ezra Taft Benson, in Conference Report, Seoul Korea Area Conference 1975, p. 52.)

“Sometimes we get the notion that if it is written in a book, it makes it more true than if it is spoken in the last General Conference. Just because it is written in a book does not make it more of an authority to guide us. President Taylor goes on with this same idea and explains why the scriptures of the past are not sufficient for us today:

“‘The Bible is good; and Paul told Timothy to study it, that he might be a workman that need not be ashamed, and that he might be able to conduct himself aright before the living church [there is that word living again], the pillar and ground of truth. The church-mark, with Paul, was the foundation, the pillar, the ground of truth, the living church, not the dead letter. The Book of Mormon is good and the Doctrine and Covenants, as landmarks. But a mariner who launches into the ocean requires a more certain criterion. He must be acquainted with heavenly bodies, and take his observations from them, in order to steer his barque aright. Those books are good for example, precedent, and investigation, and for developing certain laws and principles. But they do not, they cannot, touch every case required to be adjudicated and set in order.

“‘We require a living tree—a living fountain—living intelligence, proceeding from the living priesthood in heaven, through the living priesthood on earth. . . . And from the time that Adam first received a communication from God, to the time that John, on the Isle of Patmos, received his communication, or Joseph Smith had the heavens opened to him, it always required new revelations, adapted to the peculiar circumstances in which the churches or individuals were placed. Adam’s revelations did not instruct Noah to build his ark; nor did Noah’s revelation tell Lot to forsake Sodom: nor did either of these speak of the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt. These all have revelations for themselves, and so had Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and Joseph. And so must we, or we shall make a shipwreck.’ ( The Gospel Kingdom, p. 34.)

That and much more here...

The Most Vital Scripture Is Current Scripture