What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[zerinus]

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.

Then your doctrine is contradictory, because the very same "sources" you are relying on teach what I am teaching. Here are some quotes:

“I have a vision of the whole Church getting nearer to God by abiding by the precepts of the Book of Mormon,” said President Ezra Taft Benson at the October 1988 general conference.

“Indeed, I have a vision of flooding the earth with the Book of Mormon.”

President Benson’s love for the Book of Mormon is shared by his Counselors in the First Presidency and by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Following are their expressions about that “most correct book.”

President Ezra Taft Benson: “The Book of Mormon brings men to Christ through two basic means. First, it tells in a plain manner of Christ and His gospel. It testifies of His divinity and of the necessity for a Redeemer and the need of our putting trust in Him. It bears witness of the Fall and the Atonement and the first principles of the gospel, including our need of a broken heart and a contrite spirit and a spiritual rebirth. It proclaims we must endure to the end in righteousness and live the moral life of a Saint.

“Second, the Book of Mormon exposes the enemies of Christ. It confounds false doctrines and lays down contention. (See 2 Ne. 3:12.) It fortifies the humble followers of Christ against the evil designs, strategies, and doctrines of the devil in our day. The type of apostates in the Book of Mormon are similar to the type we have today. God, with his infinite foreknowledge, so molded the Book of Mormon that we might see the error and know how to combat false educational, political, religious, and philosophical concepts of our time.” (Ensign, Jan. 1988, p. 3.)

President Gordon B. Hinckley: “Brethren and sisters, if there are miracles among us, certainly one of them is this book. Unbelievers may doubt the First Vision and say there were no witnesses to prove it. Critics may scorn every divine manifestation incident to the coming forth of this work as being of such an intangible nature as to be unprovable to the pragmatic mind, as if the things of God could be understood other than by the Spirit of God. They may discount our theology. But they cannot in honesty dismiss the Book of Mormon. It is here. They can feel it. They can read it. They can weigh its substance and its content. They can witness its influence.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1959, p. 118.)

President Thomas S. Monson: “Many years ago I stood by the bedside of a young man, the father of two children, as he hovered between life and the great beyond. He took my hand in his, looked into my eyes and pleadingly asked, ‘Bishop, I know I am about to die. Tell me what happens to my spirit when I die.’

“I prayed for heavenly guidance before attempting to respond. My attention was directed to the Book of Mormon, which rested on the table beside his bed. I held the book in my hand, and, as I stand before you here today, that book opened to the fortieth chapter of Alma. I began to read aloud:

“‘Now my son, here is somewhat more I would say unto thee; for I perceive that thy mind is worried concerning the resurrection of the dead. …

“‘Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body … are taken home to that God who gave them life.

“‘And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.’ (Alma 40:1, 11–12.)

“My young friend closed his eyes, expressed a sincere thank-you, and silently slipped away to that paradise about which we had spoken.” (Ensign, Nov. 1981, p. 18.)

President Howard W. Hunter: “We are already aware of the strength and the power of the many testimonies of the prophets who have lived in the world, as recorded in the Bible. Our good news is that the words of the prophets who lived in the New World give us not only additional insight regarding spiritual things, but also a confirming testimony that supports and is in harmony with what we already understand from our reading of the Bible.

“To those who may not be familiar with the Book of Mormon but are sincerely seeking truth, reading it will have a profound effect on your life. It will expand your knowledge of the way God deals with man and will give you a greater desire to live in harmony with his gospel teaching. It will also provide for you a powerful testimony of Jesus.” (Ensign, May 1983, p. 16.)

Elder Boyd K. Packer: “No missionary, no member can fulfill that promise [made in Moroni 10:4–5]—neither Apostle nor President can fulfill that promise. It is a promise of direct revelation to you on the condition described in the book. After you have read the Book of Mormon, you become qualified to inquire of the Lord, in the way that He prescribes in the book, as to whether the book is true. You will be eligible, on the conditions He has established, to receive that personal revelation.

“I bear witness that the Book of Mormon is true—that it is another testament of Jesus Christ. I have read the Book of Mormon with a sincere heart, with intent, as a humble serviceman, and thereafter pled with the Lord. I received that revelation.” (Ensign, May 1986, p. 61.)

Elder Marvin J. Ashton: “A new convert to the Church recently shared this story: ‘I was in and out of enforced confinement most of my teen years. It wasn’t so bad being there because the food was pretty good, and we were treated all right. But it did get boring, so when anyone had any reading material, funny books, magazines, or anything, we would trade our food for a chance to borrow those items. One day I saw a fellow with a nice, thick book. I knew it would take a long time to read, so I offered him my pork chops, my potatoes, and all my main course food items for a week. He accepted my offer and loaned me the book. As I read it, I knew I was reading something very special and very true. The book for which I had sacrificed my food was titled the Book of Mormon. When I had a chance, I found the missionaries, changed my habits, and am now finding a new way of life. I love that book for which I traded my food.’” (Ensign,May 1981, p. 23.)

Elder L. Tom Perry: “The Book of Mormon [is a] great and ancient record that offers us special perspective that comes only from studying what is roughly one thousand years of human history. We see the cycles of nations as they turn to and then away from righteousness. We see the unity that comes from a faith in God and a desire to build His kingdom. And we see the dissension that results when the hearts of the people turn to selfish wants and desires, to the pleasures of the flesh, to riches and worldly possessions.” (Ensign, May 1987, p. 33.)

Elder David B. Haight: “The Book of Mormon did not come forth as a curiosity. It was written with a definite purpose—a purpose to be felt by every reader. From the title page we read that it was written ’to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.’ The message it contains is a witness for Christ and teaches the love of God for all mankind. Its purpose is to bring people to accept Jesus as the Christ. The book tells of the actual visit of Christ to ancient America and records the teachings and instructions he gave in clarity and great power to the people. The Book of Mormon substantiates the Bible in its teachings of the Savior, speaks of Christ more than any other subject, and teaches that our Savior is the Redeemer and Atoner of mankind, constantly emphasizing that he is the central figure in God’s plan of salvation. This divine record makes converts to its message and to his Church, which teaches it.” (“Joseph Smith: The Prophet,” in Brigham Young University 1985–86 Devotional and Fireside Speeches, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young Univ., p. 96.)

Elder James E. Faust: “Some time ago I held in my hand my mother’s copy of her favorite book. It was a timeworn copy of the Book of Mormon. Almost every page was marked; in spite of tender handling, some of the leaves were dog-eared, and the cover was worn thin. No one had to tell her that one can get closer to God by reading the Book of Mormon than by any other book. She was already there. She had read it, studied it, prayed over it, and taught from it. As a young man I held her book in my hands and tried to see, through her eyes, the great truths of the Book of Mormon to which she so readily testified and which she so greatly loved. …

“However, the Book of Mormon did not yield its profound message to me as an unearned legacy. I question whether one can acquire an understanding of this great book except through singleness of mind and strong purpose of heart. We must ask not only if it is true, but also do it in the name of Christ. …

“I can now see more clearly through the eyes of my own understanding what my mother could see in her precious old worn-out copy of the Book of Mormon. I pray that we may live in such a way as to merit and gain a testimony of and abide by the great truths of the Book of Mormon. I testify that the keystone of our religion is solidly in place, bearing the weight of truth as it moves through all the earth.” (Ensign, Nov. 1983, pp. 9, 11.)

Elder Neal A. Maxwell: “Theology and beauty combine, again and again, in the pages provided through Joseph, as when the resurrected Christ appeared in the Western Hemisphere:

“‘And when [Jesus] had said these words, he himself also knelt upon the earth; and behold he prayed unto the Father, and the things which he prayed cannot be written. …

“‘And no tongue can speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak; and no one can conceive of the joy which filled our souls at the time we heard him pray for us unto the Father.’ (3 Ne. 17:15–17.)

“Serious study of the blessed Book of Mormon admits one to a wonder world of complexity and beauty, even in the midst of the book’s simple, but powerful, spiritual refrain. We are given that which we most need—yet we are athirst for more!” (Ensign, Nov. 1983, p. 55.)

Elder Russell M. Nelson: “When I was working at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, two professional colleagues, a husband and wife, asked me about the Mormons. I gave them a preliminary overview and lent them my Book of Mormon. After about a week they returned the book to me and said, ‘Thanks a lot.’

“I said, ‘What do you mean, “Thanks a lot?”’ As one who deeply loves this book, I felt that was an inadequate response. ‘Perhaps you didn’t really read the book,’ I said. ‘Please take it back and read it. When you have read it, I would very much appreciate knowing of your feelings and insight.’

“They retrieved the book, acknowledging that they had only thumbed the pages. About three weeks later they came back with tears in their eyes and said, ‘We know this book is true. How can we learn more?’

“Then I said, ‘Now I know you’ve read the book. Now we can proceed.’ In due course, they were baptized.

“The Book of Mormon has great convincing power as another witness for Jesus Christ. There is no other explanation for its existence than that which the Prophet Joseph Smith gave.”

Elder Dallin H. Oaks: “[The Lord has told us] that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel in greater clarity than any other scripture. (See D&C 20:8–9; D&C 27:5.) In a day when many are challenging the divinity of Jesus Christ or doubting the reality of his atonement and resurrection, the message of that second witness, the Book of Mormon, is needed more urgently than ever.

“President Ezra Taft Benson has reminded us again and again that the Book of Mormon ‘was written for our day’ and that it ‘is the keystone in our witness of Jesus Christ.’ (See Ensign, Nov. 1986, pp. 5–6.) I believe that the reason our Heavenly Father has had his prophet direct us into a more intensive study of the Book of Mormon is that this generation needs its message more than any of its forebears. As President Benson has said, the Book of Mormon ‘provides the most complete explanation of the doctrine of the Atonement,’ and ‘its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power.’ (Ibid.)” (Ensign, Nov. 1988, p. 66.)

Elder M. Russell Ballard: “The Book of Mormon, above all other books that I know of, is the greatest source we have for answers to real-life problems. I remember as a young man serving my mission in England and visiting a nonmember family who were suffering great grief because an infant son had unexpectedly died. The minister of their church taught them that their son was hopelessly confined to everlasting damnation because he had not been baptized.

“When my companion and I arrived on the scene and saw the awful grief that the mother of this little boy was suffering, we read to her from Moroni 8:8: ‘Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin.’ [Moro. 8:8]

“When she heard these words, she wept tears of relief, and peace came to comfort her grief.

“How many times peace has come into the lives of those who are struggling with real problems when they read the Book of Mormon! The examples of spiritual guidance that emanate from the book are without number. My love for the Book of Mormon is ever-increasing. It seems that every time I read from it, new light flows to me from its pages. I love this sacred and choice book.”

Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin: “Fortunately, my introduction to the Book of Mormon came at an early age. My parents loved this divinely written book and used it often in our home to explain the principles of the gospel in such a way that each one of us in the family could understand these principles.

“I used my own Book of Mormon every day while in the mission field. This sacred book, which meant so much to me, was my constant companion. Today, its leather is worn and the edges are shredded. As I look inside to again read the contents, my mind takes me back to the inspired words of the Nephite, Lamanite, and Jaredite prophets. What a thrilling, sacred scripture I found it to be when I first read it in my teenage years! The knowledge I have gleaned concerning its priceless, spiritual teachings means even more to me today. The emphasis our Prophet, Seer, and Revelator has placed on this sacred volume gives it even greater meaning to me.

“I would hope that each member of the Church will not fail to read this sacred scripture, for it will bring them a more thorough knowledge of the gospel.”

Elder Richard G. Scott: “During the dedication of the Mexico City Temple, I had one of those singular experiences that readjusts the course of a life. It occurred during the eighth dedicatory session where many of the men and women leaders of Mexico and Central America were present. When unexpectedly asked to speak, I attempted to convey the strong impressions that poured into my heart. I spoke of those beyond the veil who, in fulfillment of prophecy, had served, suffered, and given greatly to form the foundation which permitted the opening of a new era of the work.

“I expressed a feeling to plead in behalf of former prophets who had prepared and protected the sacred records of the Book of Mormon. I sensed that they were saddened as they see us walk from place to place with an unopened Book of Mormon under our arm or see it kept in homes where it gathers dust and is not read, pondered, nor its contents applied. …

“The Book of Mormon contains messages that were divinely placed there to show how to correct the influence of false tradition and how to receive a fulness of life. It teaches how to resolve the problems and challenges that we face today that were foreseen by the Lord. In that book he has provided the way to correct the serious errors of life, but this guidance is of no value if it remains locked in a closed book.

“I witnessed that it is not sufficient that we should treasure the Book of Mormon, nor that we testify that it is of God. We must know its truths, incorporate them into our lives, and share them with others. I felt an overwhelming love for the people and an urgent desire that all would comprehend the value of the Book of Mormon.” (Ensign, Nov. 1988, pp. 76–77.)

Source: “We Add Our Witness:” Living prophets share their feelings about the Book of Mormon.

These are among the small fraction of all the sermons that have been preached, and testimonies that have been born of the virtue of the Book of Mormon alone. I will dig up some more and post them.

[zerinus]

More of the same:

Latter-day prophets have consistently testified of the power and impact of the Book of Mormon in the lives of Heavenly Father’s children. Through the past half century, Church members have heard admonitions like these:

President David O. McKay (1873–1970): “I testify to you that the Book of Mormon is truly the Word of God, that communication between earth and heaven has been opened up again, and that the true way of the Lord has been revealed to men on earth, showing the means by which all needful knowledge and blessings may be received by every true believer in Christ” (“Marks Pointing to Authenticity of Book of Mormon,” Instructor,Oct. 1952, 318).

President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972): “No member of this Church can stand approved in the presence of God who has not seriously and carefully read the Book of Mormon” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1961, 18).

President Harold B. Lee (1899–1973): “It has always seemed to me that the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith in counsel to the brethren, impressing the value of the Book of Mormon, have greater significance than many of us attach to them. His statement was: ‘I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book’ (History of the Church,4:461). …

“If one wants to get close to God, he can do it by reading the Book of Mormon” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee [2000], 62).

President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985): “[The Book of Mormon] is the word of God. It is a powerful second witness of Christ. And, certainly, all true believers who love the Redeemer will welcome additional evidence of his divinity.

“This inspiring book was never tampered with by unauthorized translators or biased theologians but comes to the world pure and directly from the historians and abridgers. The book is not on trial—its readers are” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 133).

President Ezra Taft Benson (1899–1994): “The Book of Mormon is studied in our Sunday School and seminary classes every fourth year. This four-year pattern, however, must not be followed by Church members in their personal and family study. We need to read daily from the pages of the book that will get a man ‘nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.’ (History of the Church, 4:461.)” (“Flooding the Earth with the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, Nov. 1988, 4).

President Howard W. Hunter (1907–95): “The Book of Mormon is the word of God. We invite you to read this wonderful record. It is the most remarkable volume in existence today. Read it carefully and prayerfully, and as you do, God will give you a testimony of its truthfulness as promised by Moroni (see Moro. 10:4)” (The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1997], 54).

Source: A Consistent Prophetic Call

More to come!

[Cobalt-70]

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.

First of all, let me make a distinction between "doctrine" and "official doctrine." Speculative or even false doctrine is still doctrine. Second, although I agree that the church usually designates what is its official doctrine through its publications, not everything in a church publication is official doctrine. It is only official doctrine if it is explicitly or implicitly presented as such. And whenever doctrine officially changes, or passes from official to speculative status or vice versa, the most recent official doctrine is the most current.

[zerinus]

More of the same:

How to Study the Book of Mormon

D. Todd Christofferson

October 2011 Liahona

“Another Testament of Jesus Christ”

Dallin H. Oaks

March 1994 Ensign

I Have a Question

Robert E. Parsons

February 1991 Ensign

A Book That Transforms Lives

Brent L. Top

September 1997 Ensign

The Gift of Modern Revelation

Ezra Taft Benson

November 1986 Ensign

The Power of the Book of Mormon in My Life

Richard G. Scott

October 1984 Ensign

Flooding the Earth with the Book of Mormon

Ezra Taft Benson

October 2005 Ensign

The Book of Mormon—Keystone of Our Religion

Ezra Taft Benson

November 1986 Ensign

The Book of Mormon: The Heart of Missionary Proselyting

Joseph B. Wirthlin

September 2002 Ensign

The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants

Ezra Taft Benson

May 1987 Ensign

Taking the Scriptures to the World

July 2001 Ensign

The Keystone of Our Religion

Ezra Taft Benson

August 1992 Liahona

President Ezra Taft Benson: A Sure Voice of Faith

July 1994 Ensign

This is as far as I am going to take it. Worn out!

Edited April 4, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

First of all, let me make a distinction between "doctrine" and "official doctrine." Speculative or even false doctrine is still doctrine. Second, although I agree that the church usually designates what is its official doctrine through its publications, not everything in a church publication is official doctrine. It is only official doctrine if it is explicitly or implicitly presented as such. And whenever doctrine officially changes, or passes from official to speculative status or vice versa, the most recent official doctrine is the most current.

That distinction between "official" and "unofficial" doctrine is equally false, arbitrary, and misguided. The real distinction is between correct doctrine and incorrect doctrine; or doctrine accurately expressed, and doctrine no so accurately expressed. The purest and most accurate expression of doctrine is always found in the standard works. What man extracts from that, and writes it in a manual or handbook, is always a watered down version of the same. One can always learn more by going to that original source.

The Church does her best to ensure correct doctrine is taught in the Church; but that effort does not always lead to perfect results; nor does it make the study of the standard works by Latter-day Saints redundant. No handbook, manual, or other literature published by the Church makes the study of the standard works superfluous; nor is there any other literature that can replace the standard works as the primary source of Church doctrine. No other literature makes LDS exempt from reliance on the standard works as the primary source of Church doctrine.

Edited April 4, 2012 by zerinus

[Brade]

Well, reading through this thread I see that BCspace continues to ignore the simple criticism I raised months ago about the position he attributes to the Church. He danced around it with JDave just as he has with me. I'll go ahead and boil down the essence of the problem again.

Not a single source that BCspace has used to support the position he attributes to the Church says explicitly or implicitly that every element in official Church publications is official Church doctrine unless (1) an element says of itself it isn't doctrine and/or (2) another element says of an element that it isn't doctrine.

I've reposted the sources BCspace has offered as support for the position he attributes to the Church several times and won't take the time to do it again here. Suffice it to say that they all say something like that doctrine is found in official Church publications.

BCspace concludes from statements of the form 'X is in Y' that a statement of the form 'everything in Y is X' is true. 'everything in Y is X' does not follow from a claim of the form 'X is in Y'. Just in case anyone is suffering from the same failure* to recognize the invalidity I just mentioned, allow me to demonstrate it.

[President Monson] is in [this picture].

Ok, that seems to check out. So, let's go ahead and apply BClogic.

Therefore, [everything in this picture] is [President Monson].

*This is such a painfully obvious logical error, and it's so utterly ridiculous to think it valid, that out of charity I suspect BCspace is just trolling everyone. I hope.

[BCSpace]

Not a single source that BCspace has used to support the position he attributes to the Church says explicitly or implicitly that every element in official Church publications is official Church doctrine unless (1) an element says of itself it isn't doctrine and/or (2) another element says of an element that it isn't doctrine.

This is completely untrue as there exist disclaimers and context such as that prefacing the Bible dictionary. That's implicit. Explicitly, there are no alternative method given by which doctrine is disseminated other than publication. Think hard about it. Do you honestly believe the Church would allow the historicity of the BoM to be taught in class if it didn't think it was doctrine? Brade refers often to circular logic, but he refuses to acknowledge source logic.

[BCSpace]

Then your doctrine is contradictory, because the very same "sources" you are relying on teach what I am teaching.

You're simply proving my point as you have merely referenced official Church publications. Let me know when you're ready to address the sources I gave. Also let me know when you find in the scriptures that clarifies that John 3:5 refers to water baptism, or where afterlife marriage opportunity is mentioned, or abortion, or any number of official LDS doctrines. etc. etc.

You just can't avoid it. If you raise your hand in class, the manual or the magazine being taught out of will be referenced. If you confer with the Bishop, an official publication will be referenced. If an argument develops and it goes to the Stake Pres., he will refer to an official publication. If you disagree with the Stake Pres. and you write a letter together to the GA's they will either refer you back to the local leaders because they have already referenced an official publication or they will quote from an official publication (I've seen and been involved in these personally).

If you go to 2007 statement, it tells you that after the doctrine is established (and we know from Christofferson's talk that such establishment does not necessarily involve the scriptures), it is published in official publications. We also know from the same source that doctrine continues to be established yet no new canon has been produced since 1978. The Church instructs it's teachers to use the publications to teach the doctrine and keep the doctrine pure. If the publications aren't pure, then the doctrine is not (further reducing Brade's argument to nothing). The missionaries can't teach the doctrine without using an official publication such as Preach My Gospel (example, what is tithing in the modern sense?). If an outsider wants to know what the Church's doctrine is, they get referred to the web site such as the Newsroom or the Topical Guide.

The only conclusion one can honestly come to is that any disagreement with the Church's own statements is an anomaly as the Church itself lives by it's own statements.

Edited April 5, 2012 by BCSpace

[zerinus]

You're simply proving my point as you have merely referenced official Church publications. Let me know when you're ready to address the sources I gave. Also let me know when you find in the scriptures that clarifies that John 3:5 refers to water baptism, or where afterlife marriage opportunity is mentioned, or abortion, or any number of official LDS doctrines. etc. etc.

All previously answered. No further answers reequired.

[BCSpace]

You're simply proving my point as you have merely referenced official Church publications. Let me know when you're ready to address the sources I gave. Also let me know when you find in the scriptures that clarifies that John 3:5 refers to water baptism, or where afterlife marriage opportunity is mentioned, or abortion, or any number of official LDS doctrines. etc. etc.

All previously answered. No further answers reequired.

It's good to know you agree with me then as those not being doctrine is not the answer.

[BCSpace]

Yet another interesting testimony of the doctrinicity of the official publications. This is from back when I first became cognizant of the issue:

Have you read, or do you know of anything in the literature of the Church, in the scriptures themselves, in lesson manuals, in Church magazines or books, in Church publications of any kind, which contains any consent to lie, or to steal, to misrepresent, to defraud, to be immoral or vulgar, to profane, to be brutal, or to abuse any living soul?

BKP, April Conference 1979, “Judge Not According to the Appearance”

Doctrinal permission between scriptures and ANY Church Publication equated.

Quaint perhaps, but cogent:

Because most children love bedtime stories, they provide an excellent opportunity for teaching the gospel by telling or reading stories from the scriptures, Church publications, or personal experiences. Stories about honesty, sharing, and kindness teach important gospel principles.

"Teaching the Gospel in the Home," Family Guidebook, (2006)

Gospel can't be taught from Church Publications if the doctrinicity were in doubt.

Under the heading, Keeping the Doctrine Pure:

“Perhaps the greatest temptation of the teacher struggling to maintain the attention of [a] class is the use of the sensational story. There are a number of these, of very questionable origin, continually being circulated throughout the Church. … These are not teaching tools: stability and testimony are not built on sensational stories. Direction for us from the Prophet is dispensed through proper priesthood channels. Careful attention should be paid to the messages of the General Authorities in stake and general conferences, and Church publications should be read regularly. Meaningful attention will be accorded the teacher who establishes the reputation of being orthodox and sound in doctrine” (Instructor, Sept. 1969, 334–35).

"Lesson 11: Keeping the Doctrine Pure," Part B: Basic Principles of Gospel Teaching—Teach the Doctrine, ()

Another example of how members of the Church learns the doctrinicity of the Church Publications from an early age:

How can members of the Church today learn about the gospel? (Answers may include by attending Primary and other Church meetings, by listening to or reading general conference talks, by holding family home evening and family scripture study, and through personal study of the scriptures and other Church publications.)

Primary 5: Lesson 24: The School of the Prophets and the Word of Wisdom

Besides the reality on the ground in the Church's every day operations, the hits for the publications being official doctrine just keep coming and coming.

[Brade]

This is completely untrue as there exist disclaimers and context such as that prefacing the Bible dictionary. That's implicit. Explicitly, there are no alternative method given by which doctrine is disseminated other than publication.

And again, bcspace, saying that doctrine is disseminated by by a certain vehicle is not to say that everything disseminated by that vehicle is doctrine. The United States' Surgeon General disseminates public health related information. It doesn't follow from that that everything disseminated by the United States' Surgeon General is public health related information.

Think hard about it.

This doesn't require hard thinking. It's really very simple.

Do you honestly believe the Church would allow the historicity of the BoM to be taught in class if it didn't think it was doctrine?

No, I don't believe that the Church would allow the historicity of the BoM to be taught in class if it didn't think it was doctrine. Seriously? Please quote what you think I've said that would imply that. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it now looks like you've logic failed the other way round. That I don't think that everything in official publications is official doctrine doesn't entail that I think that nothing in official publications is official doctrine.

Brade refers often to circular logic, but he refuses to acknowledge source logic.

I haven't said anything about circular logic with respect to this particular issue. I have said, repeatedly, that your claim that a statement of the form 'everything in Y is X' follows from statements of the form 'X is in Y'. That's not circular logic - It's just regular old bad logic.

And please help me out, because I don't know what source logic is. Is that where you use a source and then claim that a proposition which does not follow from it follows from it? If only President Monson would publish a clarification on this.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Brade

[BCSpace]

Brade, as I showed you on the other thread, your example in an error in correlation. It also assumes there is only one doctrinal subject. Furthermore, an accurate model of what the Church is saying about it's own doctrine as it applies to your previous post is "Everything in the picture is in the picture." In other words, the Church merely expects you to take it at it's word which is why it says the publications are official doctrine and treats them accordingly.

So when you're ready to address the questions I've posed and examples I've given, let me know. Assuming you're an LDS critic, you won't have the problem zerinus has in that he's already used the official publications to try and prove his opinions on I.D.

[BCSpace]

And again, bcspace, saying that doctrine is disseminated by by a certain vehicle is not to say that everything disseminated by that vehicle is doctrine.

First of all, it is interesting to note that no one has named a specific doctrine of any importance referenced in the official publications that they think is not doctrine. The Church has stated in various ways that everything in the publications is doctrine (see my many references in many posts above including but not limited voice of the Church and to keep the doctrine pure and maintaining doctrinal standards. Just because you can't find the precise words you are looking for doesn't mean what the Church says isn't true. The Church has also included, by implication, the notion that it identifies that which is not doctrine so from this angle the only logical conclusion one can come to (and the same one the Church has) is that everything the Church publishes is doctrine unless noted.

This doesn't require hard thinking. It's really very simple.

Only because you avoid the issues I've raised. Most math and logic teachers consider the problem that reduces to zero to be of little use at all.

[Brade]

Brade, as I showed you on the other thread, your example in an error in correlation. It also assumes there is only one doctrinal subject.

No, I don't assume there is only one doctrinal subject. Please show how what I've said implies that I think there's only one doctrinal subject.

Furthermore, an accurate model of what the Church is saying about it's own doctrine as it applies to your previous post is "Everything in the picture is in the picture."

Oh, cool. Let's noodle this out. In the post to which you refer I used the example of 'President Monson is in this picture'. This is a statement of the form 'X is in Y'. Clearly it doesn't follow that everything in the picture is President Monson. But let's now follow this new line you've introduced. You now say that the application of the sort of thing the Church says about its own doctrine as applied to my example would yield 'Everything in this picture is in this picture'. Ok. So now let's apply the same sort of thing to Church publications. Follow closely here BCspace, I don't want to lose you.

Statement form:

'X is in Y'

Specific instance (1) of that statement form:

'President Monson is in this picture'

So the 'X' and 'Y' in the above brackets are symbols for noun phrases. Specific instance (1) replaces 'X' with the noun phrase 'President Monson' and replaces 'Y' with the noun phrase 'this picture'.

Application of the sort of thing the Church says about its own doctrine as applied to the specific instance:

'Everything in this picture is in this picture'

So the noun phrases 'President Monson' has been replaced by the noun phrase 'this picture' and the noun phrases 'this picture' has been replaced by 'this picture'. Indeed, everything in that picture is in that picture!

Specific instance (2) of the statement form:

'Official doctrine is in official Church publications'

Specific instance (2) replaces 'X' of the statement form with 'Official doctrine' and 'Y' with 'official Church publications'.

And now, behold, the application of the sort of thing the Church says about its own doctrine as applied to specific instance:

'Everything in official Church publications is in official Church publications'

The noun phrases 'Official doctrine' has been replaced with 'official Church publications' and 'official Church publications' has been replaced with 'official Church publications'. Hooray, BCspace! You've now managed to add to your view the wonderful attribute of it conveying no information whatever.

[Brade]

First of all, it is interesting to note that no one has named a specific doctrine of any importance referenced in the official publications that they think is not doctrine.

Yes, BC, lots of people have. But you simply believe that every absurd element that anyone points to is doctrine. Remember? On the other forum I made lots of little meme images of things that aren't doctrine, but that your view ends up calling doctrine.

The Church has stated in various ways that everything in the publications is doctrine (see my many references in many posts above including but not limited voice of the Church and to keep the doctrine pure and maintaining doctrinal standards.

No Church authority has been shown to have stated this, or published it anywhere. Again, nothing you've offered so far implies this view.

The Church has also included, by implication, the notion that it identifies that which is not doctrine so from this angle the only logical conclusion one can come to (and the same one the Church has) is that everything the Church publishes is doctrine unless noted.

Here's another wild possibility for a conclusion: Doctrine is found in church publications, and some of the statements in those publications express doctrine and some of them do not. Just like when I say 'there are apples in that basket' doesn't necessarily mean that every object in the basket is an apple. You know, like if there are also oranges in there.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Brade

[Tarski]

Libs,

The problem is with the phrase "official LDS doctrine". It could mean any number of things: (1) what most Mormons believe, or believe should be authoritative, (2) what most Church leaders believe, (3) what Church leaders believe is authoritive, (4) the doctrines with which if you publicly disagree you could be excommunicated, (5) what Church authorities teach regularly, (6) what Church leaders have taught at least once, (7) the core doctrines as presented in Church materials, ( 8 ) any doctrines currently taught in Church produced materials, (9) only those teachings found clearly in the standard works, (10) ditto 9 but with first presidency messages that are also signed by the 12 apostles, (11) ditto 10 but also including official proclamations just from the First Presidency, (12) ditto 11 but also including any talk given by the President of the Church in his capacity as President, etc..., etc..., etc...

Furthermore, there are levels of authoritativeness,.............

...

.

..snip

.

.

. Each of the simple answers already given are just specific interpretations of what "official" might mean, and there are multiple meanings available. Mormons (in my experience) are only interested in what is "official" in the sense that it helps them classify what is standard, and what is authoritative, in an effort to uncover what is true. Truth is what really matters to us.

Are you trying to say that it isn't black and white like BCSpace assures us with his little official doctrine rubrik?\

Well, I'll be...

[Brade]

Hey guys, watch this.

Jesus is the son of God.

Jesus' favorite music to listen to is gangster rap.

Doctrine is found in this post. Therefore everything in this post is doctrine!

[Brade]

Well, I'm tired. In a few minutes I will find myself in my bed. Naturally, therefore, everything in my bed is myself.

[BCSpace]

Yes, BC, lots of people have.

Not here in this thread. There are some who are on record of disagreeing with the doctrine that God was once a man, but they are also now on record as agreeing that the Newsroom is doctrine so they don't count.

But you simply believe that every absurd element that anyone points to is doctrine. Remember? On the other forum I made lots of little meme images of things that aren't doctrine, but that your view ends up calling doctrine.

Yes. But you don't seem to recall the answer that made you change the subject. There is NOTHING about any trivial little detail in the publications that an LDS apologist need worry about. "Enter name here [ ]" is official doctrine. It's a trivial doctrine to be sure, but it's part of the overarching doctrine of keeping a record and others depending on the context. The recent triviality brought up here was lingerie. In looking at the article, the overarching doctrine was modesty and there was nothing that said, one must wear this specific pattern or even wear any lingerie at all.

And here is the lesson for apologists. Critics need to have a crack or chink in the armor to sow doubt. One does not have to make any when not warranted. In this case, we merely take the Church at it's word that all it's publications are doctrine, that the way to identify what is not doctrine is when the Church says is not and yes, notice that even artwork is on the list of publications the Church gives to "keep the doctrine pure" and as the "voice of the Church".

Are you trying to say that it isn't black and white like BCSpace assures us with his little official doctrine rubrik?\

Well, I'll be..

There is nothing in the world that isn't black and white. It is impossible to give an example of such.

Edited April 5, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Jesus' favorite music to listen to is gangster rap.

Doctrine is found in this post. Therefore everything in this post is doctrine!

Missing the important detail of being published by the Church.

Well, I'm tired. In a few minutes I will find myself in my bed. Naturally, therefore, everything in my bed is myself.

Wrong again. The better example is everything in your bed is in your bed. That's analogous to what the Church is saying.

[Cobalt-70]

That distinction between "official" and "unofficial" doctrine is equally false, arbitrary, and misguided. The real distinction is between correct doctrine and incorrect doctrine; or doctrine accurately expressed, and doctrine no so accurately expressed. The purest and most accurate expression of doctrine is always found in the standard works. What man extracts from that, and writes it in a manual or handbook, is always a watered down version of the same. One can always learn more by going to that original source.

The Church does her best to ensure correct doctrine is taught in the Church; but that effort does not always lead to perfect results; nor does it make the study of the standard works by Latter-day Saints redundant. No handbook, manual, or other literature published by the Church makes the study of the standard works superfluous; nor is there any other literature that can replace the standard works as the primary source of Church doctrine. No other literature makes LDS exempt from reliance on the standard works as the primary source of Church doctrine.

Doctrine is correct simply because the church places upon it its stamp of approval. When formerly "correct" doctrine changes, it becomes "incorrect" or speculative. It's happened many times in LDS history.

[Eldwynn]

There is nothing in the world that isn't black and white. It is impossible to give an example of such.

Light in the 500 nm wave range!

[Cobalt-70]

First of all, it is interesting to note that no one has named a specific doctrine of any importance referenced in the official publications that they think is not doctrine.

You ask for a paradox. By definition, nobody can name a "specific doctrine" that is "not doctrine."

[Libs]

I completely missed that post by ZetaFlux. Sure glad he was able to clear this all up. Aye.

BC, you've probably answered this before, but you did say Church magazines are also doctrine? Everything in them?