What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[BCSpace]

So, I think the main difference between BC's argument and yours (and many others here) is that BC claims everything published by the Church is doctrine vs doctrine being IN publications of the Church, but not "everything" is doctrine. I think that is the crux of it?

Everything published by the Church is official doctrine unless identified otherwise by the Church.

The fact that it is correlated or the fact that some lay person may have written it does not matter one iota because the prophet has the keys and has delegated the responsibility (in addition to "whether by my word or by the word of my servants it is the same"). It is impossible to draw any other line because the Church has not designated any and we as individuals are not qualified to draw lines as far as defining doctrine for the Church though of course we may draw lines as to what we personally might accept.

Logically, this boils down to taking the Church at it's word which is what everyone ultimately ends up doing anyway. By the same logic, it is absolutely impossible for any current doctrines except those of a very minor sort to be in error as most if not all of what you read has been around for a long enough time for errors to have been detected. So the doctrines on God having once been a mortal man, or Satan being our literal spirit brother, or the doctrines on the ban or plural marriage, or the Priesthood not being conferred upon women, or homosexuality, or BoM historicity, to name a few that have been controversial here, are good to go unless and until there is new revelation.

[zerinus]

So, I think the main difference between BC's argument and yours (and many others here) is that BC claims everything published by the Church is doctrine vs doctrine being IN publications of the Church, but not "everything" is doctrine. I think that is the crux of it?

I don't think that is his argument. His argument appears to be that, whereas the doctrine resides in scripture, it has to be interpreted in some other "official" Church publication for it to become Church doctrine. That is another way of saying that we need the Church interpret scripture for us; we are incapable of doing it for ourselves---which is an absurd idea. What he overlooks is that for many decades after the the Church was organised there was no other "official" Church "publication" apart from the canonised scriptures of the Church. There were no manuals, no handbooks, no curriculum, no Church Handbook of Instructions, no nothing. The scriptures served all of those purposes and more. There are several references in the D&C to that effect.

D&C 11:

21 Seek not to declare my word, but first seek to obtain my word, and then shall your tongue be loosed; then, if you desire, you shall have my Spirit and my word, yea, the power of God unto the convincing of men.

D&C 18:

29 And they are they who are ordained of me to baptize in my name, according to that which is written [in scripture];

30 And you have that which is written before you; wherefore, you must perform it according to the words which are written.

D&C 24:

14 And these things ye shall not do, except it be required of you by them who desire it, that the scriptures might be fulfilled; for ye shall do according to that which is written [in scripture].

D&C 32:

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

D&C 42:

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

59 Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law, to be my law to govern my church;

Those were all the "manuals" and "handbooks" the Church had in the early days; and it remained that way for many years. I don't know when the first Church manual or handbook was ever written. Perhaps somebody could do a research. But for many years the scriptures were all the "official" handbooks and manuals that the Church had. And what is even more interesting, the scriptures still serve that very same purpose. The manuals and handbooks are nothing more than aides to help use and apply the scriptures more effectively in our various callings, be it teaching the gospel or administering the Church. Putting the manuals ahead of the scriptures is like putting the cart before the horse. It is doing the opposite of what the manual is intended to achieve.

Edited April 13, 2012 by zerinus

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

Nonsense. There are clearly Mormons who can be described by themselves, and others, as conservative or liberal. That you do not like the distinction is irrelevant to its validity, significance and coherence.

"Nonsense." Just so, Kevin. My likes of dislikes are irrelevant. Spend a little time with A. J. Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic, and it will become apparent to you that the very loose use of nonsense terms such as "conservative" or "liberal" is unconscionable by any logical and coherent thinking person. The terms cannot be defined, although you are quite right to suppose that many Mormons and anti-Mormons pigeon-hole themselves and others according to such labels -- which accomplishes nothing, since rigorous analytic philosophy requires that terms be defined and that they must make a substantive difference.

None of these citations say Mormons are expected to investigate the teachings of LDS leaders, unless you're using some other sense of the word. By investigate, do you mean to simply pray about it and then trust the "spirit" based on the resulting feelings? When I say investigate, I mean to critically assess their claims. Mormons do not do this nor are they expected to.

Brother Graham,

" . . . as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118 ∥109:14).

One of the reasons why Mormons exhibit higher activity levels among the better educated is because their religion is both rational-coherent & strongly spiritual, thus emphasizing a holistic appreciation of both the world and the human soul. Lack of balance through flawed upbringing or training can skew that meaning, and all of us have seen the sad results. Yet all is not lost, and God is gracious. We need patience and forbearance.

No it doesn't. These citations are simply instructing the member to pray about something. Good grief, is this really the kind of "investigation" you're referring to?

Asked and answered.

The fact is members are not expected to "investigate" things the Church would rather keep hidden. It is for this reason most Mormons have never heard of the Kirtland Egyptian papers. Those who have probably heard about it after reading a FARMS review of Charles Larson. That's about the extent of true "investigation" a LDS member is expected to engage in; reading an apologetic response to the anti-Mormons (which usually amounts to a rebuttal to one or two minor points) as opposed to reading these arguments for themselves. The Church and the apologetists have been bending over backwards trying to keep these things out of the reach of the general membership, so I do not know who you think you are kidding by insisting the critics are welcomed and appreciated with open arms.

I have met Chuck Larson and attended some of his meetings back in the old days (Gene England even showed up in one by invitation). Chuck meant well, but missed the boat by failing to pay his dues through scholarly preparation. Like cheap grace, knowledge obtained on the cheap can be very destructive.

I am not suggesting that you are being "welcomed and appreciated with open arms" by everyone hanging out on this Board. The levels of hate and contempt exhibited by you and your opponents reminds me of selfish children fighting over possession of a toy, or the throwing of sand at each other in the sandbox. Sometimes, however, you and your opponents actually address substantive issues and are motivated by unfortunately base instincts to examine the actual documents. Often that is the only way a real discussion gets going. I'm glad you're here. Not everyone will agree with me, naturally.

So, whether we see this as something akin to Socratic dialogue (they sentenced Socrates to death for it), or something which John Stuart Mill saw as a sharp exchange of views improving the understanding of both sides, we still come back to Lehi's Law of Opposites -- and the very consequential value of the wise serpent in the Garden. We cannot have one without the other. Surely you understand the concept! Shakespeare used to present dramas at the Globe Theatre in London depicting such very fundamental notions -- of what the late Frances Yates called the "theatre of the world."

Edited April 13, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Cobalt-70]

I think everybody wants to make this issue more complicated than it has to be. The church's official doctrine is whatever the church says or implies is its official doctrine. All that matters is how the church characterizes the doctrine. Some parts of church publications are official doctrine, but some are not, depending on how it is characterized. For example, most if not all of Gospel Principles is probably official doctrine, because the book is presented as the fundamental doctrines of the church. Most of the manuals are probably official doctrine, because they are presented as such. All official declarations and press releases touching on doctrine are official doctrine of the church until they are superseded. Anything that is superseded is no longer official doctrine. Some parts of even the scriptures are not official doctrine, because they have been superseded either by other scripture or by statements by the church characterized as official. (Examples include D&C 89:2, Mosiah 18:26, and D&C 84:86, 92)

On the other hand, anything that is not presented as doctrine, though official, is not official doctrine. Thus, the web styling on lds.org, and recipes from old editions of the the Improvement Era are not official doctrine, because they are not even doctrine.

Doctrinal statements made in General Conference may be official, but only if the speaker claims to be speaking in an official capacity for the church, which is very rare. Most of the time, Conference sermons are presented as the thoughts of the speaker, and it is understood that these sermons are not approved or edited by the church beforehand.

The church's official doctrine changes in at least the following ways:

1. when a new doctrine gets invented and somebody (not necessarily the President of the Church, but at least with his acquiescence) makes an authoritative statement at least implying that it is church doctrine, of disciplining someone for failing to believe it, or chastising someone for teaching something different; or

2. when and old official doctrine loses favor and gets repudiated or removed from church publications (such as Adam-God, blood atonement, Black people are descendants of Cain, the principle ancestors of Native Americans were the Lamanites, etc.).

Edited April 13, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[mfbukowski]

Everything published by the Church is official doctrine unless identified otherwise by the Church.

The fact that it is correlated or the fact that some lay person may have written it does not matter one iota because the prophet has the keys and has delegated the responsibility (in addition to "whether by my word or by the word of my servants it is the same"). It is impossible to draw any other line because the Church has not designated any and we as individuals are not qualified to draw lines as far as defining doctrine for the Church though of course we may draw lines as to what we personally might accept.

Logically, this boils down to taking the Church at it's word which is what everyone ultimately ends up doing anyway. By the same logic, it is absolutely impossible for any current doctrines except those of a very minor sort to be in error as most if not all of what you read has been around for a long enough time for errors to have been detected. So the doctrines on God having once been a mortal man, or Satan being our literal spirit brother, or the doctrines on the ban or plural marriage, or the Priesthood not being conferred upon women, or homosexuality, or BoM historicity, to name a few that have been controversial here, are good to go unless and until there is new revelation.

In other words, "orthopraxis".

There are so many loopholes here as to make it hopelessly vague. Mormon doctrine is what most Mormons believe, at least to those who happen to believe those "doctrines".

At least we all agree on the Standard Works.

Of course the interpretation of the Standard Works is another matter.

Edited April 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

"Nonsense." Just so, Kevin. My likes of dislikes are irrelevant. Spend a little time with A. J. Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic, and it will become apparent to you that the very loose use of nonsense terms such as "conservative" or "liberal" is unconscionable by any logical and coherent thinking person. The terms cannot be defined, although you are quite right to suppose that many Mormons and anti-Mormons pigeon-hole themselves and others according to such labels -- which accomplishes nothing, since rigorous analytic philosophy requires that terms be defined and that they must make a substantive difference.

Dang. I wish I could give you 47 rep points for that paragraph alone!

[JDave]

BC,

Either you can back up your statement or you need to qualify it as your personal opinion. Respond to the CFR or retract. That is the rules of the forum.

Everything published by the Church is official doctrine unless identified otherwise by the Church.

[J Green]

The fact that it is correlated or the fact that some lay person may have written it does not matter one iota because the prophet has the keys and has delegated the responsibility

These are the keys of official printing and publication restored by Johannes Gutenberg in Kirtland as recorded in D&C 110

But seriously, I'll just point out once again that this theory is not laid out anywhere by the Church and violates the tenents outlined in the Newsroom statement and Christofferson's talk about how doctrine is received and where it resides. Further, it doesn't mesh with the type of language used by Elder Scott and Elder Oaks (and others, like Elder Cook during the 2011 Worldwide Leadership training, etc.), as they refer to correlated material officially vetted and published by the Church. Are they in error as well?

[Cobalt-70]

There are so many loopholes here as to make it hopelessly vague. Mormon doctrine is what most Mormons believe, at least to those who happen to believe those "doctrines".

I agree with you that "Mormon doctrine" is simply what most Mormons believe. However, that is different, and sometimes vastly different, from "official LDS doctrine."

[KevinG]

It occurs to me that we are debating about what kind of record keeping constitutes doctrine- when pure doctrine is not something we can look up in a library but something that comes directly from God based upon our obedience to His laws.

D&C 121:45 Let thy ^abowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let ^bvirtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy ^cconfidence wax strong in the ^dpresenceof God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the ^edews from heaven.

[theplains]

For example, most if not all of Gospel Principles is probably official doctrine, because the book is presented as the fundamental doctrines of the church. Most of the manuals are probably official doctrine, because they are presented as such.

Is there anything taught in Gospel Principles, or the other manuals, that Latter-day Saints would view as being false?

If yes, could you highlight some of the major ones?

Thanks,

Jim

[mfbukowski]

I agree with you that "Mormon doctrine" is simply what most Mormons believe. However, that is different, and sometimes vastly different, from "official LDS doctrine."

But that doesn't really say much- it just moves the discussion to "what is 'official LDS doctrine'", doesn't it?

[mfbukowski]

Is there anything taught in Gospel Principles, or the other manuals, that Latter-day Saints would view as being false?

If yes, could you highlight some of the major ones?

Thanks,

Jim

To know what is "false", generally, one needs to know what is "true" and that is what we are discussing.

[mfbukowski]

It occurs to me that we are debating about what kind of record keeping constitutes doctrine- when pure doctrine is not something we can look up in a library but something that comes directly from God based upon our obedience to His laws.

D&C 121:45 Let thy ^abowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let ^bvirtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy ^cconfidence wax strong in the ^dpresenceof God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the ^edews from heaven.

Very perceptive, AND accurate imho.

Ok, not so h.

But you are right on the money, as usual.

Dang it all.

[Cobalt-70]

Is there anything taught in Gospel Principles, or the other manuals, that Latter-day Saints would view as being false?

If yes, could you highlight some of the major ones?

I've taught from that manual multiple times, and I don't think I can remember anything in it that the vast majority of Mormons would not agree with. I think most Mormons would agree with most everything that is the other church manuals. Though I personally don't agree with everything in all the manuals, I'm probably not representative.

[Calm]

Is there anything taught in Gospel Principles, or the other manuals, that Latter-day Saints would view as being false?

If yes, could you highlight some of the major ones?

Thanks,

Jim

There is a difference between something being "false" and something being "nondoctrinal" or even something that may be unestablished as truth or falsehood as referred to by mfb. I highly doubt that anything that LDS would view as "false" would be found in the current manuals. If it were viewed as "false", it would have been removed. But there might be some things that are assumed to be true in the manuals that have not yet been demonstrated as true to the satisfaction of many LDS.

OTOH, I can find quite a few things that I, at least, don't view as doctrinal in some of the manuals (that are neither "true" or "false"), such as the guessing game that is included in one of the lessons of the Nursery manual: http://www.lds.org/m...-sorry?lang=eng

Edited April 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

OTOH, I can find quite a few things that I, at least, don't view as doctrinal in some of the manuals (that are neither "true" or "false"), such as the guessing game that is included in one of the lessons of the Nursery manual: http://www.lds.org/m...-sorry?lang=eng

Clearly you are an apostate in open rebellion against the Church's authority, and you will burn forever.

Just in case someone actually took that seriously (you never know) it was a joke.

[Cobalt-70]

But that doesn't really say much- it just moves the discussion to "what is 'official LDS doctrine'", doesn't it?

I provided my definition on "official LDS doctrine" in a previous post. Official LDS doctrine is simply whatever doctrine the church represents or implies to be its doctrine.

So there can be several ways in which "Mormon doctrine" can differ from "official LDS doctrine." For example, sometimes, the church officially states it doesn't know something that almost all of its members know, or that the church used to know, based on what it previously presented in its official publications, but for PR or whatever other reasons is now backing away from that doctrine. I take such official reversals or statements of "we don't know" seriously. I think we need to take the church's statements about its official doctrine at face value. Thus, if Gordon Hinckley says to Time magazine, as spokesman to the church, that we don't know whether God was once a man, then this is no longer "official" LDS doctrine. (But it will remain a popular doctrine among Mormons unless and until they start to believe that God was never a man.) If the LDS Church now says it doesn't know why it banned black people from holding the priesthood, then the idea that it had something to do with "lineage" going back to Caanan or Cain, is no longer official LDS doctrine, even if most Mormons still probably believe that.

[Brade]

This is bcspaces signature on the other forum:

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

-Official LDS Church stance on doctrine.

I think I've discovered his problem. He suffers from a terrible case of "in"-blindness. There's only one more potential cure. If it doesn't work, then I'm afraid we'll have lost him:

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

-Official LDS Church stance on doctrine.

[JDave]

I don't know as that will help much. How could it be anything but "in"? It can't be proclaimed outside of the publications. I understand the distinction you are pointing out, but I don't see it being black and white enough to cause a paradigm shift. If an article detailing which materials and stitching is best for creating lingerie doesn't help, nor a web page with nothing but store contact information, and not even a quite reasoned explanation from J Green who heard it directly for the Church's own training on the subject, I am guessing he is not going to change his mind. Nothing short of a press release saying that not every published item is proclaiming doctrine, just those that actually are designed for that purpose (like manuals), will convince him. Even then he will likely claim that it would be a change from how the Church had previously interpreted doctrine. Whether or not he would agree with the "change" appears to be a point of flexibility.

The best that can be managed at this point is to press for a CFR. If no substantiating documentation is presented then he will simply have to refrain from claiming that his view is reflective of the official LDS church position. That is the way the forum works.

[zerinus]

I don't know as that will help much. How could it be anything but "in"? It can't be proclaimed outside of the publications. I understand the distinction you are pointing out, but I don't see it being black and white enough to cause a paradigm shift. If an article detailing which materials and stitching is best for creating lingerie doesn't help, nor a web page with nothing but store contact information, and not even a quite reasoned explanation from J Green who heard it directly for the Church's own training on the subject, I am guessing he is not going to change his mind. Nothing short of a press release saying that not every published item is proclaiming doctrine, just those that actually are designed for that purpose (like manuals), will convince him. Even then he will likely claim that it would be a change from how the Church had previously interpreted doctrine. Whether or not he would agree with the "change" appears to be a point of flexibility.

The best that can be managed at this point is to press for a CFR. If no substantiating documentation is presented then he will simply have to refrain from claiming that his view is reflective of the official LDS church position. That is the way the forum works.

As I said before, his argument is not that everything found in the manuals is doctrine (including copyright notice and cover illustration), but that doctrine can only be found official Church publications. Those are two different statements. More specifically, his argument is that scripture cannot be interpreted for doctrine outside of those "official" Church publication. In other words, we are dependent entirely on those other "Church publications" for our understanding of Church doctrine without having recourse to the scriptures to determine that for ourselves. It is a strange ideology that nobody else in the Church has ever advocated except him, and goes against what the Church has always taught.

Edited April 14, 2012 by zerinus

[Brade]

As I said before, his argument is not that everything found in the manuals is doctrine (including copyright notice and cover illustration), but that doctrine can only be found official Church publications.

I'm afraid, then, that you haven't been paying very careful attention.

[Log]

I sure haven't been.

This thread is going nowhere, and hasn't for days now.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[zerinus]

I'm afraid, then, that you haven't been paying very careful attention.

I have engaged him protracted discussions, and I haven't read that into what he has been saying.

[JDave]

I have engaged him protracted discussions, and I haven't read that into what he has been saying.

There is no need to read anything into what he is saying. He is quite clear and repetitive on the matter. There is not a single officially published item anyone has ever brought up that he has said is not doctrine. And these are the statements he claims as the official LDS position yet never substantiates:

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

"Everything published by the Church is official doctrine unless identified otherwise by the Church."