What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[zerinus]

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

I am not agreeing with you at all! But I think that I have made my point as clear for you to understand as possible. I can't think of anything more that I could say to make it any clearer. I think you are being a bit obstinate. I don't think there is anybody here who agrees with what you are saying.

Edited April 5, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

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.

The Church has placed its stamp of approval on the standard works as teaching correct doctrine. That has never changed, and will never change. There is no such thing as correct doctrine becoming incorrect doctrine. Correct doctrine will always remain correct doctrine. Practices, policies, and procedures may change, but doctrine doesn't.

[Nofear]

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

The hymnbook, the lesson manuals, all pamphlets, all artwork, the official Church websites, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the primary songs, etc... if the Church publishes it then it's guaranteed official, honest to goondess, doctrine. For all your doctrinal needs you simply need go to: store.lds.org!

[JDave]

The hymnbook, the lesson manuals, all pamphlets, all artwork, the official Church websites, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the primary songs, etc... if the Church publishes it then it's guaranteed official, honest to goondess, doctrine. For all your doctrinal needs you simply need go to: store.lds.org!

But don't assume that everything you buy is doctrinal. That is heretical. Only everything on that web page is doctrinal.

[JDave]

BC,

You keep coming back to an argument about how it is ridiculous to say that there is no doctrine in Church publications. How could people teach out of manuals if they didn't proclaim doctrine, etc.

NO ONE disagrees with you. EVERYONE agrees that the Church uses its manuals to proclaim doctrine. There are many who say we should always go back to the scriptures, or that binding doctrine is only found in the scriptures. But I don't think anyone disagrees with the concept that a teacher using 'Gospel Principles' in a classroom is presenting what the Church views as doctrine.

Please respond to the areas of actual disagreement and leave this point alone. It makes it sound like we disagree with you on this point, when we actually don't.

[JDave]

BC, you need something other than just your assertion for the following. Either provide evidence for the following or stop asserting that the official position of the Church is the following. CFR the below:

"The doctrine here is that the Church has an online store."

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

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 [articles about lingerie and contact information web pages] because they are the ones who approve such publications and their content.

Also CFR the following:

"The recent triviality brought up here was lingerie. In looking at the article, the overarching doctrine was modesty" Link

Edited April 5, 2012 by JDave

[JDave]

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.

What do you mean by context?

[Brade]

What do you mean by context?

He can't mean ordinary common sense, because he's demonstrated time and time again that even the most mundane non-doctrinal, non-statements (as in not the linguistic structures that even attempt to assert something), are doctrine by his view. And now bcspace has offered the beautiful gem that statements of the form 'X is in Y' actually mean 'Everything in Y is in Y' in addition to meaning 'Everything in Y is X'. Isn't it marvelous?

Edited April 5, 2012 by Brade

[BCSpace]

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

The hymnbook, the lesson manuals, all pamphlets, all artwork, the official Church websites, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the primary songs, etc... if the Church publishes it then it's guaranteed official, honest to goondess, doctrine.

That is correct.

He can't mean ordinary common sense, because he's demonstrated time and time again that even the most mundane non-doctrinal, non-statements (as in not the linguistic structures that even attempt to assert something), are doctrine by his view. And now bcspace has offered the beautiful gem that statements of the form 'X is in Y' actually mean 'Everything in Y is in Y' in addition to meaning 'Everything in Y is X'. Isn't it marvelous?

Your only problem is that you've changed the target. It's not everything in a picture of Monson is Monson, it's that everything in the picture is in the picture which simply means one merely takes the Church at it's word.

Church is the following. CFR the below:

I gave you direct and concise answers on all of these. You have yet to address them. Feel free to PM me when you have.

[BCSpace]

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

I am not agreeing with you at all!

I know. But your word usage did.

But I think that I have made my point as clear for you to understand as possible. I can't think of anything more that I could say to make it any clearer. I think you are being a bit obstinate.

Why could the same not be said of you? For my part, I have merely communicated what the Church has said and how it acts.

I don't think there is anybody here who agrees with what you are saying.

There is no one here who has come up with an alternative to the Church's view that doesn't conflict with the Church's view. There are only a few people on some largely unknown boards who seem to disagree and yet often apply the same principles and tacitly agree in practice. I've pointed out several examples of this. But on the ground and in the real world, this is exactly what the Church has been teaching for decades. I've verified it with GAs who visit our region and the Area authorities. My callings from time to time and over the years have had me deal with doctrinal questions and disputes in this same fashion. I am quite certain the views of you and a few others are quite anomalous.

The Church has placed its stamp of approval on the standard works as teaching correct doctrine.

And the official publications as well cf the 2007 statement et. al.

There is no such thing as correct doctrine becoming incorrect doctrine. Correct doctrine will always remain correct doctrine. Practices, policies, and procedures may change, but doctrine doesn't.

I generally agree. It is true that the doctrines on plural marriage and the ban, the ones the critics tend to go for, haven't changed. If fact, I can't think of any doctrines that have changed recently. The scriptures of course do show that doctrine can and does change. To deny that is to deny the need for prophets and apostles. For example, the change between the Law of Moses and the Law of the Gospel is a huge doctrinal change. The correlating changes in the Priesthood and the Law of Sacrifice as well. One could argue either outright change or change by superseding or change by more light and knowledge being given, it's still change.

Edited April 5, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

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!

In the physiology of color perception, either rods are maximally sensitive to wavelengths near 500 nm or they are not. Black and white.

[Libs]

BC, I asked about Church magazines, specifically, because I have an LDS friend who had her article published in the Ensign, awhile back. If your definition is correct, wouldn't that make all of the members contributing to magazines and other publications, responsible for writing doctrine? That just doesn't seem right. I don't think my friend thought she was writing doctrine, just because the Ensign published it.

[BCSpace]

BC, I asked about Church magazines, specifically, because I have an LDS friend who had her article published in the Ensign, awhile back.

Yes. The question has been asked several times and I believe I answered in the affirmative each time.

If your definition is correct, wouldn't that make all of the members contributing to magazines and other publications, responsible for writing doctrine?

Indeed. I have stated this before, that even you or I might have penned doctrine. However, it is the Church itself that approves such writing and so it is not you that is establishing doctrine.

That just doesn't seem right. I don't think my friend thought she was writing doctrine, just because the Ensign published it.

Why not? The Church approves it. Why would the Church knowingly put it's stamp of approval by publication under it's auspices that which is not doctrine without identifying it as such? And btw, the Ensign and other magazines do put a disclaimer on from time to time. For example, in the "I Have a Question" section you might see something like this from time to time:

"Questions of general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy."

As I have stated, the Church merely expects you to take it at it's word. It has shown that if something is not doctrine, it will tell you. The Church has published as official doctrinal statements from works as diverse as "Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts" in answer to what is meant by temporal existence in D&C 77. That doesn't mean everything in that work is doctrine, it means everything in that work published by the Church somewhere is doctrine.

The Church knows that it's membership will come out of a class on Sunday or Seminary or Institute or College religion and repeat that which was taught out of the manuals and magazines (4th Sunday lesson anyone?) as doctrine. It is fine with that because that is the stated purpose of such works, to be the voice of the Church, to teach the doctrine, and to keep the doctrine pure. There is no need for apostles and prophets or even the Church if this were not so.

Edited April 5, 2012 by BCSpace

[J Green]

I disagree with BC.

I don't believe the Church teaches that everything it publishes constitutes doctrine but that everything it publishes after correlation began is consistent with doctrine. BC is merely confusing the doctrine of correlation with doctrine itself, although he is wonderfully prolific in doing so. The distinction I mention is what I was taught when I received training in the Church Office Building. I had been asked to provide quality control on translated correspondence to Stake Presidents in several languages. I was supposed to confirm both the language of the translation as well as the doctrinal soundness after the translation. Accordingly, the training touched on both language and doctrine. After receiving the training, I mobilized to Afghanistan, so I didn't end up working in this capacity (and life has been too busy since), but it was clear to us in the training that official publication didn't mean doctrine, it meant consistent with doctrine. You'll note that the Newsroom statement doesn't make the claim that publication constitutes doctrine, and if you asked Robert Millet, who I believe drafted the statement for the Church, I would guess he would tell you what I am saying. My close association with several stake presidents who work for the church and a few GAs also contradicts BC's experience.

So what is the difference between the two? From a certain perspective, being consistent with doctrine is fairly close to the proposition of being doctrine. It certainly justifies the usefulness of official publications for teaching, which is why manuals encourage us to use them and why I use them when I teach my High Priests Group lessons. Because of the obvious overlap from this perspective, I rarely contradict BC. But when you look at other considerations the differences are important. This brings us into the realm of things that were emphasized in Christofferson's talk: core doctrines and revelation and consensus among the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve (which is very similar to the Newsroom statement). Much of the material found in the official publications are not the product of these requirements spelled out in the statement and in Christofferson's talk; however, through correlation the Church attempts to ensure that whatever it publishes (along with the actual revelation itself) is consistent with the doctrine that does come in a manner that is consistent with those requirements. But we shouldn't confuse the relative doctrinal status of, say, the revelation on priesthood with a poem in The Friend. The latter is (after review) hopefully consistent with doctrine but isn't doctrine itself (unless it's a poetic verse from Isaiah). Even after offiicial publication we can gain a new understanding of how that material relates to actual revealed doctrine and make the appropriate changes (or chapter headings, etc.) without changing actual doctrine. The revelation hasn't changed but rather our understanding and interpretation of it may have. This is where the difference becomes larger rather than smaller. However, BC's interpretation elevates everything immediately to scriptural and revelatory status on the scale of our canon, and this simply isn't the case. Tools are tools; manuals are manuals; guidance is guidance; and not all of it is the product of consistent revelation to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. But hopefully it is all consistent with the revealed will of the Lord according to our current understanding. One of the important priorities of Correlation was to ensure doctrinal soundness of published material (an interpretive process that can change over time), not to create doctrine itself through the committee process.

My perspective.

[Brade]

I'm have an important announcement to make! The word 'important' is in the first sentence of this post. Or, to put it another way, everything in the first sentence of this post is in the first sentence of this post. Informative, no?

Edit: I just want to add a bit of official church doctrine to this post:

Edited April 6, 2012 by Brade

[Libs]

J Green, thank you for that post. That was very helpful and informative.

[zerinus]

I disagree with BC.

I don't believe the Church teaches that everything it publishes constitutes doctrine but that everything it publishes after correlation began is consistent with doctrine. BC is merely confusing the doctrine of correlation with doctrine itself, although he is wonderfully prolific in doing so. The distinction I mention is what I was taught when I received training in the Church Office Building. I had been asked to provide quality control on translated correspondence to Stake Presidents in several languages. I was supposed to confirm both the language of the translation as well as the doctrinal soundness after the translation. Accordingly, the training touched on both language and doctrine. After receiving the training, I mobilized to Afghanistan, so I didn't end up working in this capacity (and life has been too busy since), but it was clear to us in the training that official publication didn't mean doctrine, it meant consistent with doctrine. You'll note that the Newsroom statement doesn't make the claim that publication constitutes doctrine, and if you asked Robert Millet, who I believe drafted the statement for the Church, I would guess he would tell you what I am saying. My close association with several stake presidents who work for the church and a few GAs also contradicts BC's experience.

So what is the difference between the two? From a certain perspective, being consistent with doctrine is fairly close to the proposition of being doctrine. It certainly justifies the usefulness of official publications for teaching, which is why manuals encourage us to use them and why I use them when I teach my High Priests Group lessons. Because of the obvious overlap from this perspective, I rarely contradict BC. But when you look at other considerations the differences are important. This brings us into the realm of things that were emphasized in Christofferson's talk: core doctrines and revelation and consensus among the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve (which is very similar to the Newsroom statement). Much of the material found in the official publications are not the product of these requirements spelled out in the statement and in Christofferson's talk; however, through correlation the Church attempts to ensure that whatever it publishes (along with the actual revelation itself) is consistent with the doctrine that does come in a manner that is consistent with those requirements. But we shouldn't confuse the relative doctrinal status of, say, the revelation on priesthood with a poem in The Friend. The latter is (after review) hopefully consistent with doctrine but isn't doctrine itself (unless it's a poetic verse from Isaiah). Even after offiicial publication we can gain a new understanding of how that material relates to actual revealed doctrine and make the appropriate changes (or chapter headings, etc.) without changing actual doctrine. The revelation hasn't changed but rather our understanding and interpretation of it may have. This is where the difference becomes larger rather than smaller. However, BC's interpretation elevates everything immediately to scriptural and revelatory status on the scale of our canon, and this simply isn't the case. Tools are tools; manuals are manuals; guidance is guidance; and not all of it is the product of consistent revelation to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. But hopefully it is all consistent with the revealed will of the Lord according to our current understanding. One of the important priorities of Correlation was to ensure doctrinal soundness of published material (an interpretive process that can change over time), not to create doctrine itself through the committee process.

My perspective.

Thank you, that makes a lot of sense.

[JDave]

CFR the below:

"The doctrine here is that the Church has an online store."

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

BC,

I was waiting to see if you had a reply to J Green. Considering what he wrote, would it be more accurate to state the following?

"The fact that the Church has an online store is consistent with doctrine."

&

"The Church does not knowingly publish items inconsistent with doctrine." ???

I think that the other items that I requested a CFR on are just wrong. The apostles do not approve every single item that is published, and that article made one oblique reference to modesty, spending the entire text describing the process of creating lingerie. I don't see any attempt from you to answer those CFRs.

Edited April 7, 2012 by JDave

[BCSpace]

I disagree with BC.

I don't believe the Church teaches that everything it publishes constitutes doctrine but that everything it publishes after correlation began is consistent with doctrine. BC is merely confusing the doctrine of correlation with doctrine itself, although he is wonderfully prolific in doing so.

This is incorrect. Nowhere in your post did you identify what doctrine is and where to find it. You speak of understanding it, but that is impossible without knowing what it is first. As we can see from Christofferson's talk, he gave examples of how the doctrine was established and then sent by publication and emphasized that the same process is used today. "Core doctrine" is meaningless in this discussion. Certainly there are core doctrines just as there are unimportant doctrines and everything in between. The bottom line remains that none of you has shown where the Church identifies doctrine other than by official publication and none of you has been able to show that the Church knowingingly publishes that which is not doctrine without identifying it as such.

You'll note that the Newsroom statement doesn't make the claim that publication constitutes doctrine,

Doesn't have to. But it does re-emphasize that it is an official publication, the only way to identify official doctrine.

and if you asked Robert Millet, who I believe drafted the statement for the Church, I would guess he would tell you what I am saying.

Not too long ago, we dissected a podcast with Millet as guest. His stated views there matched the Church's precisely as I have given them.

My close association with several stake presidents who work for the church and a few GAs also contradicts BC's experience.

I get close association with the same on a regular basis. There are no GA's who have said anything different than what I've said in over three decades. The Stakes are trained to teach the doctrine and keep it pure and they only way to do so is by using the official publications.

However, BC's interpretation elevates everything immediately to scriptural and revelatory status on the scale of our canon, and this simply isn't the case.

No, what the Church does is elevate modern prophecy above canon.

Edit: I just want to add a bit of official church doctrine to this post:

Indeed. Record Keeping or part of whatever is being done. Say Geneology for example.

Edited April 7, 2012 by BCSpace

[JDave]

none of you has been able to show that the Church knowingingly publishes that which is not doctrine without identifying it as such.

Really? I thought that article on how to make lingerie and the contact page of the Church online store were slam dunks... They are both "that which is not doctrine" and neither is identified as such.

That reminds me... You have several outstanding CFRs still pending. I see no attempt to answer any of them, except dancing around the first by saying something along the lines of "the most doctrine one could get out of it..." as if you are trying to minimize the impact of elevating the contact page above canon. Not sure how you can minimize that...

[J Green]

Hi, BC.

We've been over this ground before without much success. My own experience in the Church Office Building being trained on this very issue just happens to be different than what you preach. Runtu, who wrote manuals for the Church, appears to have been trained the same way. My colleagues in the field of translation who assist the Church in Thai, Farsi and a number of other languages and sit on BoM translation committees were trained the same way by the Church itself. Apparently the Church hasn't consulted you on what is and isn't doctrine before it trains a number of its employees in several departments. They haven't received the BC memo.

Now, I'm not nearly as dogmatic on this issue as you appear to be. I have watched you for years using a mild form of tyranny of repetition on this One Note Samba of yours on several boards, and how many times have I said anything? Two or three. It's not as big an issue to me as it appears to be to you, for whatever reason. But I do disagree with you, and I will likely continue to voice that disagreement from time to time to remind others that as nice as guy as BC is, he doesn't speak for the Church, no matter how many times he repeats a private interpretation.

Regards

[BCSpace]

Well, let's revist the gist of what you said with the most important part, the part where you provide evidence, highlighted:

I had been asked to provide quality control on translated correspondence to Stake Presidents in several languages. I was supposed to confirm both the language of the translation as well as the doctrinal soundness after the translation. Accordingly, the training touched on both language and doctrine. After receiving the training, I mobilized to Afghanistan, so I didn't end up working in this capacity (and life has been too busy since), but it was clear to us in the training that official publication didn't mean doctrine, it meant consistent with doctrine

Your evidence is just anecdote. Now I freely admit, I have anedote as well; 30+ years of serving in mission leadership as well as ward, stake, and area leadership where we are actually trained on doctrine and ensuring the doctrine is taught as well as fielding questions and being in the loop when questions rise beyond us to the "COB". However, I'll put my anecdote up against yours or Runtu's any time, being in the firing line if you will, and actually having to apply the principles of doctrine as the Church teaches them as it relates to the members.

But we have far more than anecdote:

We have statements by the Church telling us that doctrine is established by the prophets and then published in official works. We have regular teacher training which tells us that to teach the doctrine and keep it pure one must use the official publcations and such publications are even listed. We are told that the publications are the "voice of the Church". We now have published confirmation in GC that 1) established doctrine does not necessarily come from the scriptures and 2) the methodlogy of the Church as I have stated is given in two examples. We have in the previous (not the recent) world-wide training meeting one of the apostles holdong up a manual and stating 'this is doctrine". We have the fact that the doctrine of the Church cannot be described in scriptural terms alone.

We also have the actions of the Church itself. The Church has made no statement limiting doctrine within the publications but it has in various areas given disclaimers which tells us that if something is not doctrine, there will be a disclaimer or some sort of context. the Church continues to update it's doctrine with new publications. The recent GC also told us that new doctrine continues to be created (with AoF 1:9 being cited), and yet no new canon is comming forth.

etc. etc.

Now, I'm not nearly as dogmatic on this issue as you appear to be. I have watched you for years using a mild form of tyranny of repetition on this One Note Samba of yours on several boards, and how many times have I said anything? Two or three.

That's quite all right Brother Green. Notice that I've been repeating the Church's stance on doctrine for decades before the 2007 statement which made it easier.

It's not as big an issue to me as it appears to be to you, for whatever reason.

it is a big deal for a variety of reasons.

1. It prevents sugar coating the doctrine which often trips up the most faithful of members not to mention potential and new converts.

2. It is the best apologetic. It removes from play those things which the Church does not (and never has) consider doctrine. It also helps apologists defend actual doctrines which otherwise they have difficulty explaining and sometimes as a reaction erroneously reject as an official doctrine even though the Church clearly teaches it and the average member believes it because of that teaching. I could give you several examples of this on this board, mostly from long ago, but some recent.

3. Eliminates gospel hobbies.

4. One actually represents the Church as they should.

But I do disagree with you, and I will likely continue to voice that disagreement from time to time to remind others that as nice as guy as BC is,

Feel free. That's partly why I post.

he doesn't speak for the Church, no matter how many times he repeats a private interpretation.

We should all be speaking for the Church, but notice by Brother Green's logic he also does not speak for the Church. However, I'd rather one judge by what the Church says and does and that is all I have done. When I present official LDS doctrine, it is only in terms of what the Church says (publication being the only vehicle), not what I personaly believe. I too have working connections at the COB. It should mean something to you that when the Church brought it's new web site online, it was me who made a quick call and instantly got the 2007 statement brought over from the old site when it went missing for a couple of days. Notification of such an absence caused no small amount of consternation over there as many had begun to reference it.

I continue to not be surprised that no one seems to exist off these boards who doesn't accept the Church's own statements on doctrine as I have presented them to you because that is how they.ve been taught and raised. But of course that is just anecdote..... I am not surprised that Millet explained it in similar fashion in the podcast though of course as per Brother Green's logic, he does not represent the Church either. This board and several others are just small anomolies in the world of the Church.

Edited April 8, 2012 by BCSpace

[Robert F. Smith]

President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but ... when "Thus saith the Lord," comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.

Apostle Charles W. Penrose,

Millennial Star

, 54:191.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[JDave]

BC,

I had some small hope when J Green posted that you would see some nuanced view that you would be comfortable with. To say that teaching materieals are consistent with doctrine, and given that they are published as teaching materials, it follows that there is no real distinction between "being/proclaiming doctrine" and "being consistent with doctrine". And I haven't seen anyone question that point. Officially published teaching materials are meant to be used to keep the doctrine pure and teach doctrines that are consistent with the current understanding, the current light and knowledge, that has been provided to the Church.

To say that all published material, as it goes through Correlation, is checked to assure it is consistent with current doctrine means that the Church doesn't knowingly publish items contrary to doctrine. I believe this sufficiently addresses the concerns you have and still shows the importance of what it means to be officially published by the church. To go above and beyond this and say that all published material isn't simply consistent with doctrine, but actually is doctrine elevates every article, story, poem, picture (animated or not), web page, table of contents, form, etc. to that of an official representation of doctrine. And since you say that the scriptures can't be understood without some other publication explaining the doctrine, and that since most recent publication is the most important and salient, that means that all those items are elevated even above that of canon concerning where we should go for the definitive official Church view.

I really liked J Green's description, and if it is the case that all published material (that goes through Correlation) is consistent with doctrine then I don't see a real danger with living your life with your prolifically proclaimed paradigm. I do, however, see a danger with you presenting your interpretation as the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You have nothing but anecdote and repeated assertion on your side. When you make statements like "When I present official LDS doctrine, it is only in terms of what the Church says (publication being the only vehicle), not what I personaly believe.", you are indeed presenting a personal opinion. How do I know this? Because you repeatedly ignore all attempts for you to produce any documentation backing up your personal interpretation. You stand by your view, that is quite obvious. But you have nothing to sustain it beyond your own tenacity.

CFR. Please provide documentation. The following quote of yours will suffice for you to respond to.

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

[J Green]

BC,

Apologize for the delay. I was gone for Easter and just read your reply a little earlier. I have a lot of other things to get done today, but I'd like to answer a few of your common claims:

Your evidence is just anecdote.

Agreed. You frequently base much of your own argument on anecdote, and I wanted everyone else to know that there are others out there with a different experience than yours.

We have statements by the Church telling us that doctrine is established by the prophets and then published in official works.

I completely agree with the Newsroom statement, almost echoed verbatim by Elder Christofferson in his talk. It tells us how doctrine is received, where it resides, and that doctrine is consistently published in official publications. What it preciesly doesn't say is that everything else that is published in official publications is doctrine. You're making the mistake of the reverse syllogism. (E.g., "The majority of Arabs are Muslims, ergo the majority of Muslims must be Arabs"; but they're not.) The line you keep using (and attributing to the Church) is absent from the very source documents you keep citing. It's just not there. Period. And what's more, many of the things contained in official publications can't be doctrine because they don't meet the critera of how doctrine is received as per the statement and Christofferson's talk. You have arrived at a logical conclusion that is not stated explicitly in the Statement and that is precisely contradicted by the staement itself.

We have regular teacher training which tells us that to teach the doctrine and keep it pure one must use the official publcations and such publications are even listed.

Agreed again. Since this is the very purpose of correlation, it is no wonder the Church follows the principles of it. But there is nothing in this that says that this makes doctrine out of everything so published. A good example is from Teaching, No Greater Call:

• Keep the doctrine pure by teaching gospel truths as the Lord has revealed them. You can do this by teaching from the scriptures and the words of the latter-day prophets.

So far we have what we find in the newsroom statement: scriptures and revelation to latter-day prophets. Then, in the next paragraph, we get the following:

• 
  Also make sure that you use Church-produced materials when you teach. This will help you keep the doctrine pure. Avoid speculation and private interpretations.
  

This gives us nothing about church-produced materials being ipso facto doctrine. You keep the doctrine pure using the revelatory material that constitutes doctrine (scriptures and latter-day revelation to prophets). Additionally (separate paragraph), use official-church publications so you can help keep the doctrine pure. This is simlple correlation 101--the vetting of all church-produced material to ensure that it is consistent with doctrine. It is consistent (note the word) with Elder Richard G. Scott's advice here:

• 
  How should you serve? Follow the example of the auxiliary organizations at Church headquarters. They serve under the direction of their assigned General Authority priesthood officers. They meet together frequently to avoid duplication of effort, to simplify the guidance given, and to ensure that their materials are consistent with doctrine and Church policies. Excellent examples of how these cooperative efforts reduce the burdens on the membership of the Church are the recently published Faith in God program for boys and girls, prepared by the Primary, and the Duty to God and Young Women Personal Progress programs currently in use throughout the world.
  

• 
  Extraordinary effort was focused on these materials to make sure that they were simple, clear, and applicable around the world. They were worked on cooperatively with other headquarters auxiliaries. The other organizations have developed their materials in a similar way. When finalized, their efforts are reviewed and approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
  

Note that these great publications (that I use assiduously with my own kids) are described as "consistent with doctrine." They are not doctrine themselves, even though carefully vetted through Church correlation and published by the Church. I maintain that you consistently confuse the doctrine of correlation with doctrine itself. Similarly, in Teaching, No Greater Call, the guidance is to keep doctrine pure by teaching gospel truths the Lord has revealed (doctrine). In that paragraph about revelation, the guidance is to use the scriptures and revealed words of Latter-day Prophets. In the following paragraph, it gives further guidance to also use official church publications in your teaching because it will help you keep the doctrine pure. In the words of Richard G. Scott, this is because those publications, like the Duty to God program have been vetted to ensure that they are consistent with doctrine. And this is exactly consistent with what was given to me in my "anecdotal" training by the Church itself.

We are told that the publications are the "voice of the Church".

Also true. But as with the arguments above and below, this can still be the case where publications are consistent with doctrine, and it doesn't make the claim that all publications are doctrine.

We now have published confirmation in GC that 1) established doctrine does not necessarily come from the scriptures and 2) the methodlogy of the Church as I have stated is given in two examples.

This is somewhat opaque; I would need further clarification in order to answer it.

We have in the previous (not the recent) world-wide training meeting one of the apostles holdong up a manual and stating 'this is doctrine".

Except that he did not. Elder Dallin H. Oaks' talk, Overview of the New Handbooks (Worldwide Leadership Training, 2010) actually said that the handbooks are doctrinally based (which undercuts your argument) and that the handbooks are not on the same status as scripture. Others reporting the talk noted the difference, saying that Elder Oaks said that the handbooks are doctrinal, not doctrine. Elder Oaks says that the handbooks "represent the most current interpretations and procedural directions of the Church's highest authorities." Well and good enough. This is correlation at work. But he prefaces this statement by saying that "handbooks do not have the same standing as the scriptures." Note first, that the handbooks are interpretations and second, that they do not have the same standing as scriptures. And this despite going through a vetting and approval process that is much tighter than almost anything else in correlation. When holding up Book 2, he says, "Everyone who is receiving this broadcast should carefully read these three new chapters. They are doctrinally based on the scriptures. They are extremely important." Again, a reference to it being doctrinally based on something else but absolutely no reference to it being doctrine itself. He then cites several passages from the handbook and says something like "this is based on a doctrinal foundation of" scripture x, y, or z. Everything has a doctrinal foundation elsewhere (where the doctrine resides, according to the Newsroom Statement). It would be doctrinal, or in the words of Richard G. Scott, consistent with doctrine.

Richard G. Scott tells us that this material is "consistent with doctrine." Elder Oaks says that it is doctrinally-based and not on the same level as the scriptures. The Newsroom Statement and Elder Christofferson's talk tell us how doctrine is received but mysteriously leave out any declaration that everything the Church publishes is now doctrine. Based on what I've provided and what I've experienced, I think it clear that everything published by the Church is doctrinal or consistent with doctrine but not that it is doctrine. Interesting how the words like doctrinally-based and consistent with doctrine used by Elder Scott and Elder Oaks were the very kinds of words used in the training I received. Weird how that works!

Regards

Edited April 9, 2012 by J Green