What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[Cobalt-70]

Wrong. That doctrine is fully affirmed by scripture:

D&C 32:

4 And they shall give heed to that which is written, and pretend to no other revelation; and they shall pray always that I may unfold the same to their understanding.

D&C 42:

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

D&C 52:

9 And let them journey from thence preaching the word by the way, saying none other things than that which the prophets and apostles have written, and that which is taught them by the Comforter through the prayer of faith.

D&C 80:

4 Therefore, declare the things which ye have heard, and verily believe, and know to be true.

"That which is written" in D&C 32:4 refers to scripture. It is a standard expression that occurs 18 times in all the four books of the LDS scripture, and it always means scripture. "Know to be true" in D&C 80:4 also refers to scripture. It means scriptural truth, or gospel truth as found in scripture.

But none of the above quotes substantiate the doctrine that unless a doctrine has been pronounced to be a revelation of God by the President of the Church, seconded by the Twelve, and put to a vote by the church, then it is merely the personal opinion of the speaker. In fact, some of the quoted scriptures appear to say the opposite--that any inspired thing that the prophets or apostles have written is the word of God, regardless of whether it has been put to a vote by the church, and regardless of whether the President of the Church has declared that it is a revelation of God. Plus, Lee's statement has itself not been put to a vote by the church, and he did not state that his statement was a revelation of God. So by Lee's own standards, his statement is his personal opinion.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[mfbukowski]

BCSpace agrees with you - which, I suppose, makes you both apostates.

I am not sure but I know he disagrees with some "doctrines" the way he thinks they are defined. I am not sure if this is one of them or not- but my point is the same either way. He is comfortable with "non-doctrinal" beliefs, and I am not. In fact if I was sure something was "doctrine" which I did not believe currently, I would change my beliefs.

And that would not necessarily be a big step incidentally. There are many ways to see and define this complex world in which we live. But for me, consistency is key.

[JDave]

Who says it's not doctrine? By definition it is. The doctrine here is that the Church has an online store. Not a very important doctrine. More important would be who publishes the work one might order from the store.

Who says it is doctrine? CFR that it is doctrine that the Church has an online store. It is true that the Church has an online store, but where is it established that the online store should be accepted by the members as a matter of doctrine? A generic statement about doctrine in published sources will not suffice. Where does the Church specify that it is a matter of doctrine that the Church has an online store?

I'm not even sure I understand what the implication of the supposed doctrine is. In what way is it doctrinal that the Church has an online store? What doctrine is conveyed by publishing that the store location in Sweden is at Templevägen 4A, S-13742 Västerhaninge?? Is the doctrine that I should only buy materials from locations that are published on the lds.org website?

And the matter only gets more difficult when some officially published articles give specific direction as to what people should do. No longer is it a question of what doctrine could even be gleaned from an address. It is a question of how much official church doctrine am I unaware of and what is the impact of my ignorance due to not having read every officially published word. Why is it official LDS church doctrine that you should "Lengthen your machine stitch to 8 to 12 stitches per inch" when making lingerie? Having no further publication on the matter since that 1971 doctrinal statement on the matter, that is the current doctrine. Those who are unaware of that doctrine are susceptible to being contrary to the official church position if they naively set their machine stitch to 7 stitches per inch.

[zerinus]

But none of the above quotes substantiate the doctrine that unless a doctrine has been pronounced to be a revelation of God by the President of the Church, seconded by the Twelve, and put to a vote by the church, then it is merely the personal opinion of the speaker. In fact, some of the quoted scriptures appear to say the opposite--that any inspired thing that the prophets or apostles have written is the word of God, regardless of whether it has been put to a vote by the church, and regardless of whether the President of the Church has declared that it is a revelation of God. Plus, Lee's statement has itself not been put to a vote by the church, and he did not state that his statement was a revelation of God. So by Lee's own standards, his statement is his personal opinion.

What you are saying basically doesn't make sense.

[BCSpace]

BCSpace agrees with you - which, I suppose, makes you both apostates.

Ha! I freely admit to about 1% to 3% apostasy for myself since I don't accept some official doctrines like the Global Flood. I do accept it as official LDS doctrine because it is (and it's not really in the scriptures either when you think about it because the Hebrew could be translated in a local sense, it certainly is in the other publications). But I distinguish between that and acknowledging what is doctrine.

Now the John 3:5 example ought to be enough, but let us further illustrate why the LDS Church is not scripture only when it comes to official doctrine. Answer one or both of the following questions:

1. What is the Church's doctrine on Abortion?

2. Investigator: "Is it true that your Church's doctrine is that those who do not have opportunity to marry in this life will have it in the next?"

The point being that one who accepts scripture only will ultimately have to say there is no doctrine or at least will have to catastrophically reduce the Church's own answers on either question. These are both critical doctines (if you accept LDS doctrine) since one deals with what is sin that one would have to avoid or repent of and the other with salvation in which degree.

Neither like "like unto it" or "gospel preached to the dead" is going to help one here.

[JDave]

Now the John 3:5 example ought to be enough, but let us further illustrate why the LDS Church is not scripture only when it comes to official doctrine.

Contrasting your interpretation of what is Church doctrine with "scripture only" for doctrine is a false dichotomy. It does highlight two very extreme positions, but I believe that most members and LDS General Authorities fall somewhere between.

Are there official LDS doctrinal statements that are found outside the scriptures? Of course. Your examples of doctrines on abortion and marriage are quite good examples.

Are there statements officially published by the Church that are not doctrine? Of course. My examples of LDS store contact information and instructions on how to sew lingerie are, hopefully, pretty good examples. If they are not good examples, please fulfill the CFR on the store contact info.

[Log]

The point being that one who accepts scripture only will ultimately have to say there is no doctrine or at least will have to catastrophically reduce the Church's own answers on either question. These are both critical doctines (if you accept LDS doctrine) since one deals with what is sin that one would have to avoid or repent of and the other with salvation in which degree.

Neither like "like unto it" or "gospel preached to the dead" is going to help one here.

The Church has put forward no official doctrinal teaching on marriage in the hereafter for those who don't marry in this life.

"Like unto it" actually does cover abortion.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Log

[JDave]

BCSpace, you have a CFR pending.

Who says it is doctrine? CFR that it is doctrine that the Church has an online store. It is true that the Church has an online store, but where is it established that the online store should be accepted by the members as a matter of doctrine? A generic statement about doctrine in published sources will not suffice. Where does the Church specify that it is a matter of doctrine that the Church has an online store?

I'm not even sure I understand what the implication of the supposed doctrine is. In what way is it doctrinal that the Church has an online store? What doctrine is conveyed by publishing that the store location in Sweden is at Templevägen 4A, S-13742 Västerhaninge?? Is the doctrine that I should only buy materials from locations that are published on the lds.org website?

[BCSpace]

Now the John 3:5 example ought to be enough, but let us further illustrate why the LDS Church is not scripture only when it comes to official doctrine.

Contrasting your interpretation of what is Church doctrine with "scripture only" for doctrine is a false dichotomy. It does highlight two very extreme positions, but I believe that most members and LDS General Authorities fall somewhere between.

They're pretty unified on it when I ask them. From time to time I have had opportunity to ask and I have usually taken that opportunity. Have been doing it since well before the 2007 Newsroom statement and have known that this has been the Church's position for the last three decades at least.

BCSpace, you have a CFR pending.

I've already answered it. One cannot claim doctrinicity by virtue of being sold in the Church's online store. Official publication is the standard given for established doctrine, not sales.

The Church has put forward no official doctrinal teaching on marriage in the hereafter for those who don't marry in this life.

An interesting comment seeing as how we seal couples who have passed on. Notice that official LDS doctrine says that their marriages in this life are invalid in the next and so the doctrines is they are not married in the afterlife and so of course we have official doctrine on marriage in the hereafter AND for those who don't marry in this life. It's the same doctrine for both. For example:

For teachers: All members, whether married or single, need to understand the doctrine of eternal marriage. However, you should be sensitive to the feelings of adults who are not married. As needed, help class members or family members know that all Heavenly Father’s children who are faithful to their covenants in this life will have the opportunity to receive all the blessings of the gospel in the eternities, including the opportunity to have an eternal family.

http://www.lds.org/m...portunity+marry

I don't believe the Church would instruct the teacher to teach this very sensitive thing to singles, especially "gospel essential" singles, if it weren't official doctrine. On top of that, this very chapter teaches that marriage in an LDS temple is essential for exaltation. No scripture gives that detail. Not even "by my word". And so here is yet another example of the prophets and apostles establishing doctrine that neither you or I could do nor do we have the authority to do so. The question has to be asked, why does the Church put this kind of thing in it's manuals if it's not doctrine? To give false hope?

Edited March 26, 2012 by BCSpace

[JDave]

They're pretty unified on it when I ask them. From time to time I have had opportunity to ask and I have usually taken that opportunity. Have been doing it since well before the 2007 Newsroom statement and have known that this has been the Church's position for the last three decades at least.

If your question is "Do officially published sources contain official Church doctrine?", then I would not be surprised to hear a response in the affirmative. On the other hand I have never, other than from you, heard an affirmative response to "Is every item, text or otherwise, that is published in official LDS sources to be considered as doctrine unless there is an accompanying disclaimer that the item is not doctrine?"

I've already answered it. One cannot claim doctrinicity by virtue of being sold in the Church's online store. Official publication is the standard given for established doctrine, not sales.

That is not the question at all. Not even close. I am not interested in whether any item I purchase contains doctrine. I want a statement from the Church that the online store is a matter of doctrine. I was pretty clear in my request.

Who says it is doctrine? CFR that it is doctrine that the Church has an online store. It is true that the Church has an online store, but where is it established that the online store should be accepted by the members as a matter of doctrine? A generic statement about doctrine in published sources will not suffice. Where does the Church specify that it is a matter of doctrine that the Church has an online store?

Edited March 26, 2012 by JDave

[BCSpace]

If your question is "Do officially published sources contain official Church doctrine?", then I would not be surprised to hear a response in the affirmative.

My questions have been like "Are the publications of the Church official doctrine?" or "Is this specific publication official doctrine?". Those answers have all been in the affirmative. I have also asked about the 2007 statement itself, "What is meant by official publications?" the answer there has been is all the publications the Church. I have also asked "If I teach out of the manuals and magazines and all the publications of the Church mentioned in Teaching, No Greater Call, am I teaching the doctrine?" That answer is also yes.

I have never, other than from you, heard an affirmative response to "Is every item, text or otherwise, that is published in official LDS sources to be considered as doctrine unless there is an accompanying disclaimer that the item is not doctrine?"

Now you have except for a disclaimer. But that is merely taking the Church at it's word. Disclaimers exist and that shows by implication that which has no disclaimer is doctrine. But I can tell you that I never noticed the Bible Dictionary disclaimer until it was pointed out by one of the GA's visiting our Area.

That is not the question at all. Not even close. I am not interested in whether any item I purchase contains doctrine. I want a statement from the Church that the online store is a matter of doctrine. I was pretty clear in my request.

I never claimed there was such a statement. But I do claim that the most one can get from it's existence is that that online store is a publcation of the Church and that would be the doctrine if one applies the Church's standard for it; nothing else is implied doctrinally as I noted. Is it important? Not really.

Edited March 26, 2012 by BCSpace

[JDave]

My questions have been like "Are the publications of the Church official doctrine?" or "Is this specific publication official doctrine?". Those answers have all been in the affirmative. I have also asked about the 2007 statement itself, "What is meant by official publications?" the answer there has been is all the publications the Church. I have also asked "If I teach out of the manuals and magazines and all the publications of the Church mentioned in Teaching, No Greater Call, am I teaching the doctrine?" That answer is also yes.

None of those questions reach the level of what you are preaching.

Now you have except for a disclaimer. But that is merely taking the Church at it's word.

Now I have... what? Try asking about the entire viewpoint you are actually preaching, including a few examples such as how to make lingerie and the church's online store website. Then if they answer in the affirmative you can claim that you have someone else who agrees with you.

Disclaimers exist and that shows by implication that which has no disclaimer is doctrine. But I can tell you that I never noticed the Bible Dictionary disclaimer until it was pointed out by one of the GA's visiting our Area.

Disclaimers exist so that items that might reasonably be interpreted as official doctrine (e.g. the Bible Dictionary) are clarified in their scope. Things which most reasonable people would never interpret as doctrinal statements require no such disclaimer. That is why there is no disclaimer on the artwork accompanying a children's story in the Friend, or the Church online store, or the article describing how to make lingerie.

I never claimed there was such a statement.

But you did claim there is such a doctrine. The lack of a statement means you should retract the claim that there is such a doctrine.

But I do claim that the most one can get from it's existence is that that online store is a publcation of the Church and that would be the doctrine if one applies the Church's standard for it; nothing else is implied doctrinally as I noted.

That is an interesting thing to claim, since it goes well beyond anything presented on the website. I already mentioned one alternative of someone arriving at the website and believing it to be 'doctrine', namely that it is doctrinal that we should purchase all our church supplies from official Church stores.

To claim that the online store is doctrine opens up the door to a lot more conjecture regarding doctrine than it would to say that it is not doctrine.

Is it important?

Whether the Church has an online store or not is not important. At all. Yet somehow you have raised it to the level of an "official church doctrine".

[BCSpace]

My questions have been like "Are the publications of the Church official doctrine?" or "Is this specific publication official doctrine?". Those answers have all been in the affirmative. I have also asked about the 2007 statement itself, "What is meant by official publications?" the answer there has been is all the publications the Church. I have also asked "If I teach out of the manuals and magazines and all the publications of the Church mentioned in Teaching, No Greater Call, am I teaching the doctrine?" That answer is also yes.

None of those questions reach the level of what you are preaching.

They are exactly the same level.

Now you have except for a disclaimer. But that is merely taking the Church at it's word.

Now I have... what? Try asking about the entire viewpoint you are actually preaching, including a few examples such as how to make lingerie and the church's online store website. Then if they answer in the affirmative you can claim that you have someone else who agrees with you.

Already dealt with. Everything published relates to and is therefore part of some doctrine or other; no matter how small and unimportant. What are you worried about? That the doctrine is that making lingerie "can be a delightful experience" (as it says)? Are you worried that the doctrine is modesty? That would be pretty consistent with other doctrinal statements. Nowhere is there a doctrine that one should make one's own lingerie or that such and such should be the pattern. So no, that article being doctrine is not absurd at all.

Disclaimers exist and that shows by implication that which has no disclaimer is doctrine. But I can tell you that I never noticed the Bible Dictionary disclaimer until it was pointed out by one of the GA's visiting our Area.

Disclaimers exist so that items that might reasonably be interpreted as official doctrine (e.g. the Bible Dictionary) are clarified in their scope.

No, they exist so that that items that might otherwise be reasonably intepreted as doctrine, because they are published by the Church in this case, are not so interpreted.

I never claimed there was such a statement.

But you did claim there is such a doctrine. The lack of a statement means you should retract the claim that there is such a doctrine.

Not at all. I am merely applying the Church's standard for doctrine and so I stand by my statement that an online store exist is the most doctrine one can get from the fact that some items are sold there.

But I do claim that the most one can get from it's existence is that that online store is a publcation of the Church and that would be the doctrine if one applies the Church's standard for it; nothing else is implied doctrinally as I noted.

That is an interesting thing to claim, since it goes well beyond anything presented on the website. I already mentioned one alternative of someone arriving at the website and believing it to be 'doctrine', namely that it is doctrinal that we should purchase all our church supplies from official Church stores.

That last would indeed go beyond the scope of the site.

To claim that the online store is doctrine opens up the door to a lot more conjecture regarding doctrine than it would to say that it is not doctrine.

Not at all. There is nothing one can glean from that fact other than it exists. Works sold therein may or may not be published by the Church so all one has to do is apply the Standard

Is it important?

Whether the Church has an online store or not is not important. At all. Yet somehow you have raised it to the level of an "official church doctrine

The Church itself addresses not important in the 2007 statement in the next parapragh. It seems more to me that you are looking for a crack that doesn't exist by going to as low a level as possible. This is why the Church's standard for doctrine works so well. There is no question as to what is and is not doctrine as the Church merely uses common sense to identify it, essentially saying "It is what we, the Church, say it is."

And on top of all this, one has not addressed the variety of problems mentioned that come up when one erroneously believes the doctrine is to be found in scripture alone.

[JDave]

Everything published relates to and is therefore part of some doctrine or other; no matter how small and unimportant. What are you worried about? That the doctrine is that making lingerie "can be a delightful experience" (as it says)? Are you worried that the doctrine is modesty? That would be pretty consistent with other doctrinal statements. Nowhere is there a doctrine that one should make one's own lingerie or that such and such should be the pattern. So no, that article being doctrine is not absurd at all.

The article speaks nothing about the first bolded item but quite a bit about the second.

Not at all. I am merely applying the Church's standard for doctrine and so I stand by my statement that an online store exist is the most doctrine one can get from the fact that some items are sold there.

Your statement was: "The doctrine here is that the Church has an online store." You keep dancing around the issue and keep neglecting to actually provide anything supporting your claim. If you stand by the statement then back it up.

That last would indeed go beyond the scope of the site.

Who are you to decide how to interpret the official doctrine on that web page?

There is no question as to what is and is not doctrine as the Church merely uses common sense to identify it, essentially saying "It is what we, the Church, say it is."

Common sense dictates that there is no doctrine on the contact page of the online store.

And on top of all this, one has not addressed the variety of problems mentioned that come up when one erroneously believes the doctrine is to be found in scripture alone.

Because I don't believe in scripture only for Church doctrine. I accept doctrinal works to be declaring doctrine, I accept patently non-doctrinal works to be non-doctrinal.

[JDave]

*bump* for BC

[wenglund]

The silver lining in this never-ending debate is it is clear that there is no definitive answer--there is still ample room for divergent opinions, which enables us, as a church, to avoid the pitfalls of creedalism warned against by Joseph Smith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 29, 2012 by wenglund

[BCSpace]

The silver lining in this never-ending debate is it is clear that there is no definitive answer--

The Church has given a definitive answer and has in place a system for teaching the well defined doctrine and keeping it pure.

there is still ample room for divergent opinions, which enables us, as a church, to avoid the pitfalls of creedalism warned against by Joseph Smith

There is. But it's found in what the Church does not have published doctrine on or what details about the doctrine it does not give. Evolution vs. Creationism for example.

Edited March 29, 2012 by BCSpace

[JDave]

The Church has given a definitive answer and has in place a system for teaching the well defined doctrine and keeping it pure.

That system is primarily through officially published manuals. It's that common sense approach you mentioned.

What you're doing, in effect, is elevating the writings of random church members who write articles or are paid to maintain web pages above that of apostles and prophets. If someone writes an article on how to make lingerie and it gets published in the Ensign, that is official doctrine and should be given greater weight than a book written by an apostle that is not published by the church. If some tech writer modifies the contact information on the Church's online store contact web page, that is officially published and should be given greater weight than a book written by a prophet that is not published by the church.

[wenglund]

The Church has given a definitive answer and has in place a system for teaching the well defined doctrine and keeping it pure.

There is. But it's found in what the Church does not have published doctrine on or what details about the doctrine it does not give. Evolution vs. Creationism for example.

I understand that you keep arguing this (for all the good it does), and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But, I am not sure you understood my point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BCSpace]

I understand that you keep arguing this (for all the good it does),

It does much good. Many of those here who disagree with the Church's position seem to be comming around to what most members understand. The acceptance of recent Church statements posted on it's web site (one of it's publications) as doctrine is particularly heartening.

and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But, I am not sure you understood my point.

Correct me if I'm wrong then, but you seem to be in agreement with those who erroneously think the Church has no doctrine at all or that the doctrine is nebulous enough that there can be few or no absolutes. If that's the case, I think you misunderstand what JS means by creedalism which is the counterfiet to having actual prophets and apostles.

[Sethbag]

I think Church teaching can be doctrines.

If you go by normal English language interpretations of words, that is a tautology.

If you have some other linguistic agenda, then I suppose it's game on.

[wenglund]

Correct me if I'm wrong then, but you seem to be in agreement with those who erroneously think the Church has no doctrine at all or that the doctrine is nebulous enough that there can be few or no absolutes. If that's the case, I think you misunderstand what JS means by creedalism which is the counterfiet to having actual prophets and apostles.

I believe we have doctrines. I just don't believe that we fallible humans have sufficient grasp of the eternities to warrant setting our limited perception of those doctrines in stone and risking creating counterfeits of our own. You are free to believe otherwise, and that, to me, is the beauty of it.

I realize that while progressing through the very important, fundamental stage of our spiritual development, we became used to having hard and fast, absolute boundaries set to our beliefs, and that was good and necessary. However, as we mature beyond black/white thinking, and become aware of shades and values and nuances, it helps to adopt a somewhat flexible and open way of thinking. In other words, while we are given the iron rod to hold onto for a time, it is intended to lead us to the Tree of Life. At some point we need to let go of the iron rod so as to partake of the fruit of that tree.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

I find the Bible Dictionary disagrees at times with modern statements from leaders. I think we have to leave room for men, even men who are apostles or prophets to make very "stupid" statements at times.

EX: Bruce R McConkie says evolution one of the 7 deadly heresies - meanwhile first presidentcy says not Doctrine regarding Evolution has ever been given...... Joseph Fielding Smith stating the age of the Earth - again not doctrine

many statements saying we are saved by grace only after we exert our very best effort.... any of you exert your very best effort... me neither.

[BCSpace]

I find the Bible Dictionary disagrees at times with modern statements from leaders.

Your printed version contains a disclaimer stating that it's not to be used for doctrine.

EX: Bruce R McConkie says evolution one of the 7 deadly heresies - meanwhile first presidentcy says not Doctrine regarding Evolution has ever been given...... Joseph Fielding Smith stating the age of the Earth - again not doctrine

The Seven Deadly Heresies was a BYU talk and not published by the Church and therefore is not doctrine. You've given some great examples here how official publication is applied to determine doctrine vs. "isolated statements". One merely takes the Church at it's word. If it publishes, it's official doctrine unless there is some disclaimer or context.

In BRM's defense however, notice how in The Seven Deadly Heresies he essentially says "I can't reconcile evolution with the Fall, but if you can, more power to you." I've been able to so reconcile and others have as well.

I believe we have doctrines. I just don't believe that we fallible humans have sufficient grasp of the eternities to warrant setting our limited perception of those doctrines in stone and risking creating counterfeits of our own. You are free to believe otherwise, and that, to me, is the beauty of it.

I can agree with that. But it doesn't change the reality on the ground. I've never claimed all doctrine is set in stone as one of our systematic doctrines is continuing revelation/inspiration. What is set in stone is how to determine what the Church's official doctrine is. In other words, the doctrines are etched in stone until changed or updated or modified by revelation/inspiration and the signal for that is publication.

An excellent example of this will be this weekend's Conference. It will not be doctrine until published after going through BKP's talk(s) with a fine-toothed comb and making needed corrections.

FYI, I had no problem with the uncorrected version of BKP's corrected talk last time.

Edited March 31, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Thank you Elder Christofferson for disabusing us this morning of the notion that doctrine comes only from the scriptures. Notice how doctrine continues to be established (AoF 1:9 quoted to that effect) whereas canon has not changed in quite a while. Notice how the establishment of doctrine may include pondering the scriptures, but also the words of the prophets and even scholarship. The key of course being seeking revelation of the Spirit and not unanimity.