What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[Libs]

This has probably been discussed here, before, but I don't recall reading anything here about it.

This discussion is going on in a couple of places, so I wanted to get opinions (or some real information) from the LDS here.

I have looked at this site:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochure...n_Doctrine.pdf

this:

http://www.staylds.com/docs/WhatIsOfficialMormonDoctrine.html

and this:

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

They all seem to indicate that the "official doctrine" of the Church, will only be found in the Standard Works. Is that accurate to say?

[Rinaldo]

I think Church teaching can be doctrines.

[frankenstein]

Depends on who you ask.

Bcspace claims that anything published by the LDS church is Official Doctrine, this would include teaching manuals.

Altersteve claims that only that only the scriptures, and official declarations and official proclamations are doctrine. Altetsteve also claims that teaching manuals are only guides - so even the LDS Church teaches that God was once a man like us, altersteve position is that this teaching found in officially published correlated current revision teaching manuals is not doctrine.

As for the fair pamphlet, it offers nothing to rely on, the pamphlet is at odds with itself. The pamphlet uses unofficial statements in a vain attempt to establish what is and is not doctrine, also since when did Joseph f. Mcconkie become the arbiter of truth for what is or isn't doctrine?

Edited January 29, 2012 by frankenstein

[Storm Rider]

I am sorry, but I have seen conflicting statements by leadership. Some have said it is only scripture while others have included church produced material. For me personally, I only rely on scripture and official declarations fo the Church as doctrine. Nothing comes close to defining the gospel of Jesus Christ better than the scriptures. If it is not found in scripture, then it is not doctrine for anyone.

Gravitating to this position is motivated by a recognition that man is feeble and imperfect. It is far too easy for culture to become perceived as doctrine. Utah has a whole range of created "doctrine" resulting from its insular nature and the mistaken idea that if a leader says it, it has become gospel. It hasn't and it won't, unless it is spoken by the prophet and accepted as revelation it remains a nice opinion, but is not binding upon the membership.

[altersteve]

"Official" doctrine consists of the core principles and doctrines of the Church that have to do directly with our own salvation (i.e., the Articles of Faith). Plain and simple.

[CV75]

They all seem to indicate that the "official doctrine" of the Church, will only be found in the Standard Works. Is that accurate to say?

I don’t think there is an official Church definition of the word, and perhaps there shouldn’t be (“I am the way, the truth and the life”—John 14:6) as in its perfection it is personal and internalized as part of our ones with God (D&C 121:45).

According to the Topical Guide, the term “Doctrine” it is virtually synonymous with “Gospel”, “Teach” and “Truth,” indicating it is that which is ratified by the Holy Ghost.

From my experience, doctrine is what is found in the Book of Mormon (D&C 10:60-62), the temple (D&C 97:10-14), and whatever else is revealed through proper priesthood keys (D&C 102:23).

This is why it is very safe, and honest, to say about a particular point upon which “there is not a sufficiency written” (D&C 102:23), "I don't think we teach it."

[frankenstein]

"Official" doctrine consists of the core principles and doctrines of the Church that have to do directly with our own salvation (i.e., the Articles of Faith). Plain and simple.

"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."

First Doctrine must be established by the 15; then,

"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."

What is established by the 15 resides in the scriptures etc.

[BCSpace]

I have looked at this site:

The first two sites are not official Church sites.

They all seem to indicate that the "official doctrine" of the Church, will only be found in the Standard Works. Is that accurate to say?

No. Official doctrine is found in what the Church publishes. As is noted before, the FP and Qo12 establish the doctrine and it is published. The doctrine resides in the Standard Works etc. but neither you nor I can tell what the doctrine is from them without referring to a Church publication.

My favorite example is John 3:5. How do we LDS know that the water in that verse is water baptism and not physical birth as the Protestants teach? It's because the Church has published the doctrine somewhere.

Someone speaks in Conference. So what? Not official doctrine until the Church publishes it. Consider the fact that the Church has on occaision corrected some talks before publication.

So yes, all the LDS Church-published manuals, magazines, pamphlets, handbooks, web sites, helps, etc. are doctrine unless otherwise noted (your Bible Dictionary for example, or something qualified as an opinion, which is merely taking the Church at it's word).

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. 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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

[orion88]

So yes, all the LDS Church-published manuals, magazines, pamphlets, handbooks, web sites, helps, etc. are doctrine unless otherwise noted (your Bible Dictionary for example, or something qualified as an opinion, which is merely taking the Church at it's word).

I would agree with this (by manuals, I would also include the 2004 version of

"Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual" and "Doctrines

of Salvation", volumes 1-3, by Joseph Fielding Smith, back in the early 1950's.

The latter is unfortunately not available at the church publications web site but

you can obtain it from other book stores and possibly eBay.

But in a general sense, I think that "official doctrine" usually refers to what is in

the standard words, whereas "unofficial" refers to everything written by all future

and past LDS prophets, sermons spoken at General Conference, or books and

magazines having the copyright of the church which are meant to teach the lay

people. In many cases the teachings overlap.

I find that some members do not believe the "unofficial doctrines" because they

are led by the Spirit to conclude these teachings are false or purely speculation

- so they keep their mouths shut so as not wanting to appear to be in opposition

to their church leaders. I have seen this in some evangelical circles too.

[thesometimesaint]

Doctrine is what the Church says it is.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. 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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Edited January 29, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[blackstrap]

The problem with the scriptures is that there was a time when they didn't exist.The saints at the time of Christ had no New testament. The saints at the time of Alma had no Book of Mormon.They had other scriptures in which were found doctrine.New doctrine has been added from time to time depending on the prophets. The basic gospel doctine has not changed since Adam.

[Libs]

BCSpace, yes, I read that paragraph, but it says:

"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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."

..which indicates to me that not everything "published" in a manual or other published material (like GC) would, necessarily, be considered LDS Doctrine. Only if it reflects what is already in the Standard Works and AOF.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

I am sorry, but I have seen conflicting statements by leadership. Some have said it is only scripture while others have included church produced material. For me personally, I only rely on scripture and official declarations fo the Church as doctrine. Nothing comes close to defining the gospel of Jesus Christ better than the scriptures. If it is not found in scripture, then it is not doctrine for anyone.

Gravitating to this position is motivated by a recognition that man is feeble and imperfect. It is far too easy for culture to become perceived as doctrine. Utah has a whole range of created "doctrine" resulting from its insular nature and the mistaken idea that if a leader says it, it has become gospel. It hasn't and it won't, unless it is spoken by the prophet and accepted as revelation it remains a nice opinion, but is not binding upon the membership.

Yes, that was my understanding, as well.

[Mark Beesley]

This has probably been discussed here, before, but I don't recall reading anything here about it.

This discussion is going on in a couple of places, so I wanted to get opinions (or some real information) from the LDS here.

I have looked at this site:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochure...n_Doctrine.pdf

this:

http://www.staylds.c...onDoctrine.html

and this:

http://newsroom.lds....mormon-doctrine

They all seem to indicate that the "official doctrine" of the Church, will only be found in the Standard Works. Is that accurate to say?

The answer probably depends on what you mean by the word doctrine.

If you mean something the Church teaches, then doctrine could include more than just the standard works.

If you mean an eternal truth, then doctrine is much more limited because the Church does teach things that are not eternal truths.

[Libs]

Mark, I'm talking about "official doctrine" for which "the church is willing to be bound" (as B.H. Roberts put it).

[Libs]

Back to BCSPace, regarding my first two sources. They may not be "official church" sources, but they do include quotes from many LDS leaders, on the subject, most of whom state outright that only the Standard Works would be considered "official doctrine".

[Freedom]

The church website is crystal clear in my opinion. It is the scriptures and the official proclamations. The manuals provide what can be called the official interpretation of the doctrine, but not the doctrine itself. If we make a comparison to science, the scriptures and the official proclamations are the laws of science, the raw data. The manuals take those laws and interpret them applying theories. The interpretations of the scriptures change as we get more doctrine or, in some circumstances, more scientific knowledge, just as the theories of science change as more data is uncovered. I distinguish between the official position of the church on a matter and official doctrine. Some see the two as indistinguishable.

[cinepro]

BCSpace, yes, I read that paragraph, but it says:

"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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."

..which indicates to me that not everything "published" in a manual or other published material (like GC) would, necessarily, be considered LDS Doctrine. Only if it reflects what is already in the Standard Works and AOF.

You also need to explain the comment about teachings that are "consistently proclaimed in official Church publications":

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 newsroom statement would be much, much clearer if they hadn't included that line. Which makes me wonder if they wanted it to be clear, since there is little benefit to having an airtight definition of "official doctrine" and many benefits for having a nebulous one.

[Calm]

Mark, I'm talking about "official doctrine" for which "the church is willing to be bound" (as B.H. Roberts put it).

Since manuals and other church publications are often edited and changed, I think a cautious approach is to rely on the scriptures and official proclamations for binding doctrine. The rest can demonstrate current understanding and interpretation of and as Freedom states, current position on the binding doctrines, but is open to change as we are given more and learn line upon line and grow in understanding of what that binding doctrine means not only in the sense of eternal truths, but how it relates to us in the here and now.

I believe it is structured this way to encourage us to turn to God rather than the Church for fuller answers to our questions...the Church and its leaders provides the beginnings of the process of growth, but one must eventually turn to God for more spiritually 'advanced' knowledge and guidance ("advanced" meaning among other things "individualized"). By creating an ultimate dependency on God rather than being able to be fully satisfied with those he has chosen as guides to point us on our way and to demonstrate the outer limits of the path (what we should not go beyond to avoid straying), this ensures avoiding the potential problem of placing the prophets as our foundation and destination rather than God himself.

Simplified, the Church teaches the ideals and the generalities, God handles the details for us himself. Thus the official doctrines of the Church tend to be limited in number, though very broad in scope while the Gospel is ultimately all encompassing down to the most minute detail.

[zerinus]

This has probably been discussed here, before, but I don't recall reading anything here about it.

This discussion is going on in a couple of places, so I wanted to get opinions (or some real information) from the LDS here.

I have looked at this site:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochure...n_Doctrine.pdf

this:

http://www.staylds.c...onDoctrine.html

and this:

http://newsroom.lds....mormon-doctrine

They all seem to indicate that the "official doctrine" of the Church, will only be found in the Standard Works. Is that accurate to say?

When it is said that the standard works are the “official” source of Church doctrine, it does not mean that other Church sources and publications are not reliable, or cannot be trusted to teach correct doctrine. What it means that the standard works are the ultimate source; a standard by which the correctness of all other teachings and publications can be measured. In other words, if your know your scriptures well enough (which every LDS should strive towards), you need never be misled by an error that might occur in another publication or teaching—be it in a Conference talk, or a teaching manual, or anything else that might have been written or said, whether officially published by the Church or not. All others can err; but if you know the word of the Lord, and are able to understand it by the Holy Ghost, you need never be deceived or be misled by somebody else’s error, whoever they might be. Have Church leaders erred in doctrine in the past? They have. Have their errors been published in “official” Church publications? They have. Have Church members always been misled by them? If they have been, that was their own faults. They needn’t have been, if they had fulfilled the requirements mentioned above.

Another point that needs to be made is that, the idea that “nothing is infallible” is not correct. The Church must be able to infallibly declare correct doctrine; otherwise it could not be trusted to teach correct doctrine at all. There has to be an infallible source of doctrine that everyone can trust; and the Church is that source of authority. Whether the Church leadership have always acted according to that expectation is a different matter; but that is the rightful expectation.

Edited January 29, 2012 by zerinus

[Libs]

Thanks, Calmoriah. That was a very interesting and profound post.

I especially liked this part:

but one must eventually turn to God for more spiritually 'advanced' knowledge and guidance ("advanced" meaning among other things "individualized"). By creating an ultimate dependency on God rather than being able to be fully satisfied with those he has chosen as guides to point us on our way and to demonstrate the outer limits of the path (what we should not go beyond to avoid straying), this ensures avoiding the potential problem of placing the prophets as our foundation and destination rather than God himself.

That is so true. We do, ultimately, have to rely on the one on one relationship with God. That is the purpose of all of the other.

Great post. Thank you.

[Libs]

When it is said that the standard works are is the “official” source of Church doctrine, it does not mean that other Church sources and publications are not reliable, or cannot be trusted to teach correct doctrine. What it means that the standard works are the ultimate source; a standard by which the correctness of all other teachings and publications can be measured. In other words, if your know your scriptures well enough (which every LDS should strive towards), you need never be misled by an error that might occur in another publication or teaching—be it in a Conference talk, or a teaching manual, or anything else that might have been written or said, whether officially published by the Church or not. All others can err; but if you know the word of the Lord, and are able to understand it by the Holy Ghost, you need never be deceived or be misled by somebody else’s error, whoever they might be. Have Church leaders erred in doctrine in the past? They have. Have their errors been published in “official” Church publications? They have. Have Church members always been misled by them? If they have been, that was their own faults. They needn’t have been, if they had fulfilled the requirements mentioned above.

Another point that needs to be made is that, the idea that “nothing is infallible” is not correct. The Church must be able to infallibly declare correct doctrine; otherwise it could not be trusted to teach correct doctrine at all. There has to be an infallible source of doctrine that everyone can trust; and the Church is that source of authority. Whether the Church leadership have always acted according to that expectation is a different matter; but that is the rightful expectation.

Thanks, Zerinus.

I think, perhaps, that's why there is emphasis, put on the scriptures, as "official doctrine". I totally understand that there will be doctrine found in other places (manuals, talks, GC, etc), but those things are doctrine only to the degree that they comply with the Standard Works.

[Libs]

In the second link in the OP there is this statement, that came from a news article that it seems is, unfortunately, no longer available.

Is this statement true or false?

The Family, Proclamation to the World is not official doctrine because it has not been approved by the membership. But this very formal statement on the family unequivocally states, “Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan”. In the very heated California Proposition 8 campaign in 2008 a sizable majority of members followed the Church’s prompting to campaign against gay marriage. The Church authorities censured no members who opposed their stand against gay marriage.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Libs

[zerinus]

My favorite example is John 3:5. How do we LDS know that the water in that verse is water baptism and not physical birth as the Protestants teach? It's because the Church has published the doctrine somewhere.

That is a very bad example. The context of John 3:5 settles that question:

John 3:

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

How can that by any stretch of the imagination be understood to mean physical birth? It talks about two births. If the first one is taken to be physical birth, how can the second one also be physical birth? Since when have people had more than one physical births?

Edited January 29, 2012 by zerinus

[cinepro]

When it is said that the standard works are the “official” source of Church doctrine, it does not mean that other Church sources and publications are not reliable, or cannot be trusted to teach correct doctrine. What it means that the standard works are the ultimate source; a standard by which the correctness of all other teachings and publications can be measured. In other words, if your know your scriptures well enough (which every LDS should strive towards), you need never be misled by an error that might occur in another publication or teaching—be it in a Conference talk, or a teaching manual, or anything else that might have been written or said, whether officially published by the Church or not. All others can err; but if you know the word of the Lord, and are able to understand it by the Holy Ghost, you need never be deceived or be misled by somebody else’s error, whoever they might be. Have Church leaders erred in doctrine in the past? They have. Have their errors been published in “official” Church publications? They have. Have Church members always been misled by them? If they have been, that was their own faults. They needn’t have been, if they had fulfilled the requirements mentioned above.

Keeping this in mind, of course...

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore the most important prophet so far as you and I are concerned is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each month in our Church Magazines. Our instructions about what we should do for each six months are found in the General Conference addresses which are printed in the Church magazine.

Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

President Wilford Woodruff stated:

“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13.)

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him:

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)

So if a Prophet stood and said something that appeared to supercede the Standard Works, I'm not so sure even the scripturally knowledgeable saints would reject him en masse.

Edited January 30, 2012 by cinepro