What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[Libs]

I want to watch that one. Need to go look it up.

[BCSpace]

Listen only at the moment. Also interesting how, with all the public scrutiny, he proclaims the doctrine that those who don't believe and are not baptised will be damned. I really enjoyed his mentioning of the creeds, hermeneutics, and exegesis in a context of "that's what others do, not us". He also implicitly defended the Priesthood ban the way the Church does on it's web site by placing the teaching the gospel to the Jews only on the "Lord's timetable" while also illustrating how the doctrine is established.

Edited April 1, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Notice how the establishment of doctrine may include pondering the scriptures, but also the words of the prophets and even scholarship

I distinctly remember scholarship on the list but in listening again, I don't hear it. He does say earlier that we value scholarship. Doesn't change the effect though. Doctrine is not scripture alone.

[Libs]

I really enjoyed his mentioning of the creeds, hermeneutics, and exegesis in a context of "that's what others do, not us"

Yeah, I caught that. Just listened.

He pretty much narrowed it down to the Apostles' and Prophets' testimony of Jesus Christ...and Revelation. But, also reminds us that not everything spoken by a prophet is from God.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Libs

[BCSpace]

He pretty much narrowed it down to the Apostles' and Prophets' testimony of Jesus Christ...and Revelation.

He certainly didn't narrow the doctrine down to that (circumcision being one of the examples given). He stated what they discuss when establishing doctrine and that included scriptures, the words of the prophets (not just their testimonies), and past practices. I daresay it would include most anything including scholarship though that was unstated. He stated that unanimity is not the goal.

But, also reminds us that not everything spoken by a prophet is from God.

Which is part of the statement I link to in my siggy. The question then is how does one know that a statement by a prophet is not doctrine? Official publication remains the only answer.

[JDave]

The question then is how does one know that a statement by a prophet is not doctrine? Official publication remains the only answer.

That is not even close to what he said. Wasn't it along the lines of "in time it will be made manifest"? That is not "in time it will be published".

SInce officially published statements can be superceded by later revelation, it is simply impossible that official publication indicates that a prophet was stating true eternal doctrine.

[BCSpace]

That is not even close to what he said. Wasn't it along the lines of "in time it will be made manifest"? That is not "in time it will be published".

Didn't say it was. The talk was on how doctrine is established. Publication is merely the only method given by the Church for identification of such.

SInce officially published statements can be superceded by later revelation,

Yes. Latest date is in keeping with the doctrine of continuing revelation. If you see a conflict, latest date always takes precedence in official doctrine by definition. As I noted before, official doctrine can change. The problem for most antiMormons and ark steadiers (not accusing you of either) has been not being able to show change where such is wanted.

Edited April 2, 2012 by BCSpace

[Libs]

He certainly didn't narrow the doctrine down to that (circumcision being one of the examples given). He stated what they discuss when establishing doctrine and that included scriptures, the words of the prophets (not just their testimonies), and past practices. I daresay it would include most anything including scholarship though that was unstated. He stated that unanimity is not the goal.

I was referring to this statement by Joseph Smith, which Christofferson did seem to emphasize:

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

He also emphasized revelation by the prophets (for the church, as a whole).

I don't recall his mentioning "every official publication by the church". Did he say something about that? I listened to the whole talk, but can't remember all of it..

Which is part of the statement I link to in my siggy. The question then is how does one know that a statement by a prophet is not doctrine? Official publication remains the only answer.

I understand that doctrine is in official publications, but I think that is a little different from declaring that everything the church publishes is official doctrine. (Is that what you are claiming? Just to be clear..)

I just read that link to the newsroom (the one in sig line) a couple of days ago. Not sure how I missed that, but I hadn't seen it, before.

[Libs]

Keeping up with this thread has been kind of hit and miss.

[Libs]

Also, BC, the standard works does include revelation (in Doctrine & Covenants) and I remember being taught that, if something said by the Prophet is actually "new" doctrine (and approved as new doctrine), it would be included in Doctrine & Covenants or as a part of the canon, yes?

[BCSpace]

He also emphasized revelation by the prophets (for the church, as a whole).

Sure. He also said the prophets and apostles continue to establish doctrine present tense.

I don't recall his mentioning "every official publication by the church". Did he say something about that? I listened to the whole talk, but can't remember all of it..

He didn't have to. It's already stated and understood as I;ve shown. There is no one in the Church who is going to stand up in the middle of GD class and state what was taught out of the manual or the Ensign for example is not doctrine.

I understand that doctrine is in official publications, but I think that is a little different from declaring that everything the church publishes is official doctrine.

Anything that is not doctrine will be presented as such.

Also, BC, the standard works does include revelation (in Doctrine & Covenants)

Yes.

and I remember being taught that, if something said by the Prophet is actually "new" doctrine (and approved as new doctrine), it would be included in Doctrine & Covenants or as a part of the canon, yes?

If it's new canon yes. Doctrine not necessarily so. What you see from what Christofferson said as well as the Chruch statements and manuals on the the very subject of teaching and keeping the doctrine pure and the examples I have given, doctrine is not confined to the scriptures. No one has understood the scriptures in terms of LDS doctrine without the official publications. One's understanding of the scriptures in an LDS context can always be traced to an official publication of some sort such as the doctrine of having opportunity to marry in the afterlife.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I think Church teaching can be doctrines.

CAN be. Yes.

Only if based upon what is contained in the Standard Works, IMO. Some Church teachings might be classified as "opinions". So we need to be careful about making a sweeping statement about church teachings as I see it. Before doctrine is defined as "doctrine" it must be prayed over and approved as "church doctrine" by the 1st Presidency and council of the 12 Apostles.

And we cannot discard the role of the individual in seeking the Spirit's confirmation of what constitutes doctrine and therefore truth. As opposed to opinion on matters that have not been fully revealed as of yet.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[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.

The most doctrine one can get?? 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 per the CFR.

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

You are interpreting what the doctrine should and should not be.

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.

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.

[BCSpace]

I think Church teaching can be doctrines.

CAN be. Yes.

Only if based upon what is contained in the Standard Works, IMO.

But as we see from Christofferson's talk, the doctrine is not established from the scriptures though they along with other things might be used when the prophet "study it out in their minds" before asking God. If you do some searching, I'll bet much of what you take for granted as doctrine can't be shown directly from the scriptures. That John 3:5 refers to water baptism, or that singles will be granted opportunity to marry in the afterlife, or that abortion is wrong, etc. for example.

Some Church teachings might be classified as "opinions". So we need to be careful about making a sweeping statement about church teachings as I see it.

The Church does not knowingly publish unidentified segements of non doctrine.

Before doctrine is defined as "doctrine" it must be prayed over and approved as "church doctrine" by the 1st Presidency and council of the 12 Apostles.

They are the ones who give permission to publish. This is how one determines if "an isloated statement" is considered doctrine or not.

And we cannot discard the role of the individual in seeking the Spirit's confirmation of what constitutes doctrine and therefore truth. As opposed to opinion on matters that have not been fully revealed as of yet.

Yes. There can be a difference between what the Church considers doctrine and whether or not one actually believes it.

[Libs]

No one has understood the scriptures in terms of LDS doctrine without the official publications. One's understanding of the scriptures in an LDS context can always be traced to an official publication of some sort such as the doctrine of having opportunity to marry in the afterlife.

This statement is interesting. Even though the idea of what constitutes LDS doctrine is still not completely clear to me, I am recognizing a difference between "doctrine" and "scripture". It's a concept I have put forward many times, but didn't see it in the bigger picture...I've called it "interpretation" rather than doctrine.

Every religion has their own interpretation of the Bible, which could be called their "doctrine". Many Evangelicals deny that they have a "doctrine", claiming they take Biblical scripture at face value (literally), but I don't think that is always possible, due to vagueness or contradictions within scripture. There are so many different ways to "interpret" some of the things in the Bible. They, then, turn to Calvin or Arminius or Wesley or the Pope for meaning/interpretation....doctrine. Interesting.

Sorry, that was a little off-topic. Mostly clarifying for myself.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Libs

[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.

The most doctrine one can get?? 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

per the CFR.

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

You are interpreting what the doctrine should and should not be.

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.

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]

You are interpreting what the doctrine should and should not be.

In other words, there is no "official doctrine" as to what is "official doctrine." It is a matter of interpretation and opinion.

I am guessing this is intentional on God's part, and I view this as a good thing. As intimated earlier in the thread, the value in not being able to nail down definitively what is "official doctrine" is that it helps avoid the pit falls of creedalism. It also is a blessed frustration to the church's critics.

The only downside may be in members engaging in seemingly endless and fruitless discussions on the matter rather than doing something more useful with their time--not realizing that we, individually and collectively as a church, can continue to progress in faith and love in spite of not being able to definitively say what is or isn't "official doctrine." What is needful for us isn't defining what is "official doctrine," but striving to become like Christ through living the gospel as we each understand it.

However, like everyone else, this is just my opinion, and I am okay with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[zerinus]

Sure. He also said the prophets and apostles continue to establish doctrine present tense.

He didn't have to. It's already stated and understood as I;ve shown. There is no one in the Church who is going to stand up in the middle of GD class and state what was taught out of the manual or the Ensign for example is not doctrine.

Anything that is not doctrine will be presented as such.

Yes.

If it's new canon yes. Doctrine not necessarily so. What you see from what Christofferson said as well as the Chruch statements and manuals on the the very subject of teaching and keeping the doctrine pure and the examples I have given, doctrine is not confined to the scriptures. No one has understood the scriptures in terms of LDS doctrine without the official publications. One's understanding of the scriptures in an LDS context can always be traced to an official publication of some sort such as the doctrine of having opportunity to marry in the afterlife.

But as we see from Christofferson's talk, the doctrine is not established from the scriptures though they along with other things might be used when the prophet "study it out in their minds" before asking God. If you do some searching, I'll bet much of what you take for granted as doctrine can't be shown directly from the scriptures. That John 3:5 refers to water baptism, or that singles will be granted opportunity to marry in the afterlife, or that abortion is wrong, etc. for example.

The Church does not knowingly publish unidentified segements of non doctrine.

They are the ones who give permission to publish. This is how one determines if "an isloated statement" is considered doctrine or not.

Yes. There can be a difference between what the Church considers doctrine and whether or not one actually believes it.

The reason why you keep coming up with the wrong answers is because you are answering the wrong questions. The kinds of questions that I need to answer for myself are,

• "What source do I go to in order to find answers to doctrinal issues raised by LDS critics?
  
• "Where do I go to find correct answers to questions raised by an honest investigator?"
  
• "How do I discern and correct a doctrinal mistake made by a faithful Church member in priesthood meeting?"
  
• "How do I avoid making serious doctrinal mistakes myself?"
  
• "How can I detect a possible doctrinal mistake made by Church officer, or in a Church publication, or possibly even in General Conference?"
  
• etc.
  

Do you think it is possible for a Church member to be able to do any of the above? If Yes (and I believe the answer to that question is Yes), then obviously there are many sources you can go to that are helpful. Teachings and writings of General Authorities, Church handbooks, manuals, and magazines are all helpful. The more familiar one is with such materials, the better are his chances of doing all of the above. But there is one source that is more important than all the rest (by testimony of all Church leaders), and that is the standard works. All Church leaders concur on this one thing, that there is nothing like familiarity with the standard works that enables one to understand correct doctrine, or to avoid being deceived by false doctrine, or to help others when they make mistakes in doctrine. There is no argument over that. That is the standard teaching of the Church, from the day it was created until now. No prophet or Apostle has ever deviated from that teaching.

Now one thing I have noticed about you is that you rarely engage others in a serious doctrinal discussion, or try to answer objections raised by LDS critics like Rob Bowman, or try to correct doctrinal mistakes made by Church members. You have only one mantra that you keep repeating over and over, and that is where the doctrine is to be found--rather than trying to use that doctrine to answer somebody's question, or to correct somebody's mistake. If for a change you would actually try to do that, then you would be faced with a problem, of where to go to find the answers. I solved that problem for myself ages ago: I go (primarily) to the standard works. Other sources are also useful, but that is my primary source, according to everything that all the prophets and Apostles have ever taught. I don't think you have solved that problem for yourself. If you did, then you would know that the best answer is the one that the Church gives--which is to go directly to the standard works in the first instance, before looking at something else.

[Rivers]

In other words, there is no "official doctrine" as to what is "official doctrine." It is a matter of interpretation and opinion.

I am guessing this is intentional on God's part, and I view this as a good thing. As intimated earlier in the thread, the value in not being able to nail down definitively what is "official doctrine" is that it helps avoid the pit falls of creedalism. It also is a blessed frustration to the church's critics.

The only downside may be in members engaging in seemingly endless and fruitless discussions on the matter rather than doing something more useful with their time--not realizing that we, individually and collectively as a church, can continue to progress in faith and love in spite of not being able to definitively say what is or isn't "official doctrine." What is needful for us isn't defining what is "official doctrine," but striving to become like Christ through living the gospel as we each understand it.

However, like everyone else, this is just my opinion, and I am okay with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I say...that what you say...is what I say.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Rivers

[BCSpace]

In other words, there is no "official doctrine" as to what is "official doctrine." It is a matter of interpretation and opinion.

I am guessing this is intentional on God's part, and I view this as a good thing

Nope. If such were the case, the Church wouldn't be so concerned with teaching the doctrine and keeping it pure. I'm willing to bet none of you is brave enough to stand up in Gospel Doctrine class, for example, and declare something taught out of an official manual or magazine is not doctrine. And that's because all of you understand the Church's position on doctrine at some level or another despite your desire to disbelieve it.

[BCSpace]

Do you think it is possible for a Church member to be able to do any of the above? If Yes (and I believe the answer to that question is Yes), then obviously there are many sources you can go to that are helpful. Teachings and writings of General Authorities, Church handbooks, manuals, and magazines are all helpful. The more familiar one is with such materials, the better are his chances of doing all of the above.

They're much more than helpful. They are THE established doctrine. We are not hooked up to a wire and the doctrine electrically driven into our brains. Even Elder Christofferson's talk, whose stated subject was the establishment of doctrine, mentioned publication in one of his examples as the way the doctrine was communicated and disseminated. No other method has been stated. The 20007 statement says it's by official publication. The instruction to teachers to teach the doctrine and keep it pure is to use the publications. We have DHO on record as stating such publications are the voice of the Church. Christofferson's talk eliminated the notion that doctrine is only in or only comes from the scriptures plus we have numerous examples of how we cannot describe the Church doctrine from the scriptures alone without eliminating many doctrines.

The bottom line remains that the only way to know what the doctrine of the Church is (as opposed to what you personally accept) official publication. The only way to know if something in an official publication is not doctrine is a disclaimer, or context, or comparison with a publication of latest date.

[wenglund]

Nope. If such were the case, the Church wouldn't be so concerned with teaching the doctrine and keeping it pure.

You are entitled to your opinion. My understanding, however, is that the church is more concerned about keeping its members pure than definitively defining what is doctrine or engaging in endless debates thereon. To each their own.

I'm willing to bet none of you is brave enough to stand up in Gospel Doctrine class, for example, and declare something taught out of an official manual or magazine is not doctrine.

I wouldn't make such a declaration, not because of lack of bravery, but because I am not a dogmatist, and I have somewhat of an aversion to petty, counterproductive squabbles over semantics. What is important to me isn't whether things taught in the manuals or magazines fit someone's rigid definition of "official doctrine" or "doctrine," but rather whether the things taught will bring me closer to Christ, and more importantly, living what is taught.

And that's because all of you understand the Church's position on doctrine at some level or another despite your desire to disbelieve it.

Bad guess--at least in my case. See above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 4, 2012 by wenglund

[BCSpace]

Nope. If such were the case, the Church wouldn't be so concerned with teaching the doctrine and keeping it pure.

You are entitled to your opinion. My understanding, however, is that the church is more concerned about keeping its members pure than definitively defining what is doctrine or engaging in endless debates thereon. To each their own.

Your understanding would be wrong because the Church is interested in both and the one cannot happen without the other. For example, there is absolute doctrine on the law of chastity, questions about which are asked in a TR interview or a new member baptismal interview. Abortion is another example. Doctrine is directed at singles to keep them in the Church, such as the notion that one will have opportunity to marry in the next life if no opportunity presents itself in mortality.

I'm willing to bet none of you is brave enough to stand up in Gospel Doctrine class, for example, and declare something taught out of an official manual or magazine is not doctrine.

I wouldn't make such a declaration, not because of lack of bravery, but because I am not a dogmatist, and I have somewhat of an aversion to petty, counterproductive squabbles over semantics.

Semantics is not the issue and is just avoision on your part. Sexual relations before marriage is either against the law of chastity or not. That God the Father was once a mortal man is either true or not. The historicity of the BoM is either true or not (and critical or not). Etc. etc.

What is important to me isn't whether things taught in the manuals or magazines fit someone's rigid definition of "official doctrine" or "doctrine," but rather whether the things taught will bring me closer to Christ, and more importantly, living what is taught.

The Church is merely speaking as to what it considers official doctrine or not. Some people say that sex with multiple partners brings them closer to Christ (I've actually had people tell me that, yes). Others say that they don't have to attend Church because being at the lake on the Sabbath brings them closer to Christ. Perhaps so, but both bring, at the least, a removal of blessings by the Church, a clear indication that such goes against it's doctrine. In those cases one could losed one's membership, or the ability to get a TR, or advancement in the Priesthood etc.

[BCSpace]

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.

Not at all. The apostles and prophets are the ones who elevate because they are the ones who approve such publications and their content.

Edited April 4, 2012 by BCSpace

[wenglund]

Your understanding would be wrong because the Church is interested in both and the one cannot happen without the other....

Again, you are entitled to your opinion. It isn't something that I am interested in arguing about (since it wouldn't be productive anyway), and so I will leave each to their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-