What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[Brade]

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

It isn't exactly something you need to fish out of what he's said. As JDave has pointed out, he's explicit about it. Go read my discussion with him from a few months ago on the other forum. He's extremely clear. He bellieves that the church's position is that every element (including pictures, questions, and every other form of non-statement) published by the church in its official publications is official church doctrine unless (1) any such element says of itself that it isn't official doctrine or (2) another element says of an element that that element is not official church doctrine.

So, for example, if the next edition of the Ensign had a page upon which was printed only the following

Is there?

that would, on bcspaces view, be official church doctrine because (1) it's published in an official church publication and (2) it doesn't say of itself it isn't official church doctrine and nothing else says of it that it isn't official church doctrine.

On the other hand, if upon the next page we found the following

Nothing on the previous page is official church doctrine.

Then "Is there?" wouldn't be official church doctrine because something else published in an official church publication says of it that it isn't official church doctrine, and nothing says of the bit that says that "Is there?" isn't official church doctrine that that bit isn't church doctrine, therefore it is. Get it? Isn't it wonderful, isn't it marvelous?!

Edited April 14, 2012 by Brade

[KevinG]

Some of our doctrine is in the stars:

Alma 30:44 The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the ^bearth, and ^call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its ^dmotion, yea, and also all the^eplanets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

[mfbukowski]

This is bcspaces signature on the other forum:

I think I've discovered his problem. He suffers from a terrible case of "in"-blindness. ....

By Jove, I think you've got it.

To make that abundantly clear in case it is not, the set of church doctrinal statements are a SUBSET of church publications.

All doctrines are published by the church, but all publications by the church are not necessarily doctrinal.

If that doesn't make it clear, I am not sure what will.

Edited April 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

There is a lot of folklore, bias, and even bigotry which has passed as "Mormon doctrine," and some very important people have perpetuated some of that -- only to have to publicly eat crow later.

Since the LDS Church is populated by fallible humans, such contretemps as we have here are unavoidable, and this will continue to be so. Through it all, we hopefully do the best we can, with integrity, and with a positive & humble attitude. We're all in this together, as a people, trying to make our way through the days of our probation. Let us fill those days with what joy and kindness we can find, until we are once again together in glory with our Father and our Elder Brother.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

... and our Mother, and the rest of the Divine Council.

(And I agree wholeheartedly with your post!)

[Robert F. Smith]

By Jove, I think you've got it.

To make that abundantly clear in case it is not, the set of church doctrinal statements are a SUBSET of church publications.

All doctrines are published by the church, but all publications by the church are not necessarily doctrinal.

If that doesn't make it clear, I am not sure what will.

A good example of this (as I have pointed out before on this Board) is the 1957 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual, which is still in print by Deseret Book (a publishing arm of the Church), and still containing the Preface by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith: Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley VI (1988). Does this make it official Church doctrine? Of course not. All LDS Church manuals are vetted the same way all Roman Catholic publications are vetted -- and given some sort of explicit or implicit imprimatur and nihil obstat. In neither case does that make them official Church doctrine. That is a matter for formal and explicit statements of doctrine under the signature of the supreme authority. And, even then, we are all called upon to pray about and receive our own personal witness.

[TheSkepticChristian]

and official statements and proclamations

[Robert F. Smith]

. . . 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.)

Several on this thread have referred to this alleged Pres. Hinckley statement to Time mag, whether he actually said such a thing or not. It does seem odd that he would actually say that. Was he misunderstood?

In preparing the lesson for my HP group this Sunday in chapter 7 of the current Church manual on Teachings of Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2011), page 71, I note that Pres. Lorenzo Snow's statement that "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become." is cited from his "The Grand Destiny of Man," Deseret Evening News, July 20, 1901, 22, which was in turn quoted by Elder George Albert Smith in 1908.

[Robert F. Smith]

... and our Mother, and the rest of the Divine Council.

Yes. At the great Banquet of Salvation of the Assembly of the Gods on the World Mountain.

E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, Harvard Semitic Monograph 24 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980); M. Tsevat, "God and the Gods in Assembly; An Interpretation of Psalm 82," Hebrew Union College Annual, 40-41 (1969-1970), 123-137; B. Margulis, "Weltbaum and Weltberg in Ugaritic Literature," Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlissche Wissenschaft, 86 (1974), 1-23; R. J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and in the Old Testament (1972).

[zerinus]

Several on this thread have referred to this alleged Pres. Hinckley statement to Time mag, whether he actually said such a thing or not. It does seem odd that he would actually say that. Was he misunderstood?

He said the same thing to San Francisco Chronicle in April 1997:

Question: "Don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?"

Hinckley: "I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else."

- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1

Was he misunderstood there as well? His comments to Time Magazine was made in August 1997, five months later:

Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997

This is the complete report of the interview, with the bits that had been edited out by Time Magazine in the published article restored. Notice how the Time reporter frames the question differently from the SC reporter. He frames it as though he is already familiar with the previous interview with SC, and is asking for clarification or confirmation; and confirmation is what he gets.

In preparing the lesson for my HP group this Sunday in chapter 7 of the current Church manual on Teachings of Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2011), page 71, I note that Pres. Lorenzo Snow's statement that "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become." is cited from his "The Grand Destiny of Man," Deseret Evening News, July 20, 1901, 22, which was in turn quoted by Elder George Albert Smith in 1908.

What conclusion did you draw from that?

Edited April 15, 2012 by zerinus

[Rivers]

He said the same thing to San Francisco Chronicle in April 1997:

Question: "Don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?"

Hinckley: "I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else."

- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1

Was he misunderstood there as well? His comments to Time Magazine was made in August 1997, five months later:

Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997

This is the complete report of the interview, with the bits that had been edited out by Time Magazine in the published article restored. Notice how the Time reporter frames the question differently from the SC reporter. He frames it as though he is already familiar with the previous interview with SC, and is asking for clarification or confirmation; and confirmation is what he gets.

What conclusion did you draw from that?

I would conclude that this doctrine has been deepmphasized but not necessarally denounced. Its a more obscure doctrine that just isn't discussed much.

[Law22]

I would conclude that this doctrine has been deepmphasized but not necessarally denounced. Its a more obscure doctrine that just isn't discussed much.

This position, and Hinkley's responses to the question, never made any sense to me. If such is not believed by members of the LDS church how do we in turn treat questions regarding Mormons becoming gods of their own planets with the power of creation? If that is so, isn't it necessary that God was also once a man? Too, how to respond to questions regarding the belief that God is but one in a succession of gods, not the first, and not the last?

[altersteve]

This position, and Hinkley's responses to the question, never made any sense to me. If such is not believed by members of the LDS church how do we in turn treat questions regarding Mormons becoming gods of their own planets with the power of creation? If that is so, isn't it necessary that God was also once a man? Too, how to respond to questions regarding the belief that God is but one in a succession of gods, not the first, and not the last?

I'd answer those questions the same way. Those concepts aren't as emphasized as they used to be, and I personally don't believe in either of them.

[mfbukowski]

I think that in effect Pres H was saying something along the lines of "That isn't necessary for our salvation, and we don't know much about it".

That's two points, and he was right on both. We DON'T in fact know much about if and when and how "God was a man". We conclude it is probably true because of the couplet and because it makes sense in Mormon doctrine, but the bottom line is, it is speculative.

The phrase "That's not necessary for our salvation" would probably not have meant much to the reporter and would have further confused the issue.

Notice he was not talking about the other half of the couplet- that we can become like God. That is established and firm as doctrine.

Edited April 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Law22]

I'd answer those questions the same way. Those concepts aren't as emphasized as they used to be, and I personally don't believe in either of them.

I don't think I've ever met a member of the church that did not believe in exaltation. Also, as (apparently) noted by Mfbukowski, I thought exaltation was doctrine?

[Calm]

I believe steve is talking about being gods of our own planets and God once being a mortal man, not exaltation in general.

Edited April 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[Cobalt-70]

There is a lot of folklore, bias, and even bigotry which has passed as "Mormon doctrine," and some very important people have perpetuated some of that -- only to have to publicly eat crow later.

Since the LDS Church is populated by fallible humans, such contretemps as we have here are unavoidable, and this will continue to be so. Through it all, we hopefully do the best we can, with integrity, and with a positive & humble attitude. We're all in this together, as a people, trying to make our way through the days of our probation. Let us fill those days with what joy and kindness we can find, until we are once again together in glory with our Father and our Elder Brother.

The implication of that, however, is that what is the church's official doctrine today, could very well change in the future. Today's settled, official doctrine could someday be renounced because it is bigoted and biased.

[Cobalt-70]

Several on this thread have referred to this alleged Pres. Hinckley statement to Time mag, whether he actually said such a thing or not. It does seem odd that he would actually say that. Was he misunderstood?

In preparing the lesson for my HP group this Sunday in chapter 7 of the current Church manual on Teachings of Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2011), page 71, I note that Pres. Lorenzo Snow's statement that "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become." is cited from his "The Grand Destiny of Man," Deseret Evening News, July 20, 1901, 22, which was in turn quoted by Elder George Albert Smith in 1908.

Long before that, Joseph Smith said that God was once a man in the King Follett sermon, which was published in official church magazines, and also approved by Brigham Young. So it's pretty clear that this was once official doctrine. But apparently, it is official doctrine no more. That's not to say that it is false doctrine, just that it is no longer official doctrine, given that Hinckley has finally, after a long period of official silence on the issue, erased the certainty with which this doctrine was preached in official 19th and 20th century church publications.

I don't think there is any argument that Hinckley was misquoted. The church PR office was given a chance to claim he was misquoted, and they didn't take that opportunity. Moreover, Hinckley's statements were recorded and transcribed, and Time is not known for pulling rookie journalistic mistakes like misquoting a source.

[Cobalt-70]

I'd answer those questions the same way. Those concepts aren't as emphasized as they used to be, and I personally don't believe in either of them.

You are the first Mormon I've heard of (other than new members who are Trinitarians for the first few years) who did not believe that God was once a man. I think this doctrine is burned into the Mormon psyche. But I take Hinckley seriously when he denies it is official doctrine. Mormons who want to are now free to build a Mormonism in which "Elohim" was never a man.

[Xander]

Just a few years prior to these interviews, Hinckley taught in Conference:

"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62) and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1) Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom." (Conference Report, Oct. 1994)

So apparently, Hinckley knew at least "something" about this whenever he was speaking to members. When speaking to a non-LDS audience with a non-LDS journalist, he doesn't know much at all.

Keep in mind that when Snow mentioned this to Joseph Smith, he was informed by the prophet that this was a true revelation from God. He didn't qualify it by excluding the part which says "God once was." And of course, there was never any question about "official" doctrine back in Joseph Smith's day. If he taught it as coming from God, then it was doctrine. Period. This was and is official doctrine in every sense of the term and it is based not only on King Follett but also Joseph Smith's sermon on the plurality of Gods, in which he misinterpreted Rev 1:6 )based on a flawed, ambiguous translation) to mean God the Father also has a Father, which essentially gave birth to the eternal regression of God's meme that has given Mormon philosophers fits.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Xander

[mfbukowski]

Just a few years prior to these interviews, Hinckley taught in Conference:

"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62) and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1) Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom." (Conference Report, Oct. 1994)

So apparently, Hinckley knew at least "something" about this whenever he was speaking to members. When speaking to a non-LDS audience with a non-LDS journalist, he doesn't know much at all.

Keep in mind that when Snow mentioned this to Joseph Smith, he was informed by the prophet that this was a true revelation from God. He didn't qualify it by excluding the part which says "God once was." And of course, there was never any question about "official" doctrine back in Joseph Smith's day. If he taught it as coming from God, then it was doctrine. Period. This was and is official doctrine in every sense of the term and it is based not only on King Follett but also Joseph Smith's sermon on the plurality of Gods, in which he misinterpreted Rev 1:6 )based on a flawed, ambiguous translation) to mean God the Father also has a Father, which essentially gave birth to the eternal regression of God's meme that has given Mormon philosophers fits.

Notice he is talking about exaltation here, NOT about God being once a man, which is what he was talking about in the Time interview.

This is perfectly consistent with the Time interview.

Notice he was not talking about the other half of the couplet- that we can become like God. That is established and firm as doctrine.

The issue here is what Hinckley said, not what Joseph taught

Edited April 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

I don't think I've ever met a member of the church that did not believe in exaltation. Also, as (apparently) noted by Mfbukowski, I thought exaltation was doctrine?

Of course I believe in exaltation. I just don't believe it has anything to do with "creating planets."

[altersteve]

You are the first Mormon I've heard of (other than new members who are Trinitarians for the first few years) who did not believe that God was once a man. I think this doctrine is burned into the Mormon psyche. But I take Hinckley seriously when he denies it is official doctrine. Mormons who want to are now free to build a Mormonism in which "Elohim" was never a man.

What I said (or what I meant, at least) is that I don't believe in an "infinite regression of gods" or that we will one day create and become gods of our own worlds. I do believe God was once a man (more specifically, that He, like Christ, passed through mortality), but how, when, and where that took place is unclear to me, and really doesn't matter to me very much at all.

Edited April 16, 2012 by altersteve

[Xander]

Notice he is talking about exaltation here, NOT about God being once a man, which is what he was talking about in the Time interview.

You're making a distinction without a difference since both doctrines derive from the same "couplet coined" which Hinckley said we know little about. "That's more of a couplet than anything else" he told the San Francisco Chronicle, and this suggests he believed it could hardly be used to establish doctrine. But that is precisely how he used the "couplet" a few years earlier at Conference. If he doesn't know anything about it in 1997, then why is he using it to establish a teaching in 1994?

This is perfectly consistent with the Time interview.

Not really. Joseph Smith taught that "It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God." He also went on to say that "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" and "that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did." Any honest Mormon vaguely familiar with these key LDS teachings would have answered this clear question with a proud "yes" and explained that it is one of the unique truths restored via the one True Church. But Hinckley missed the missionary opportunity and instead tried to downplay a key Mormon doctrine because he knew how it would come across in the media. Mormons do not like sharing their unique beliefs unless they can accompany them with a litany of apologetic arguments, and it was clear Hinckley didn't have the time to do so in this instance (even if he had any to offer). So the best move was to spin and move on to the next question, which is clearly what he did.

Now if you pay attention to the questions, he was asked in neither Time nor the San Fransisco Chronicle, nothing about Lorenzo Snow's "couplet." He was asked very specifically whether or not Mormons believe God was once a man based on Mormon teaching. In the Chronicle, Hinckley responds by derailing immediately with Lorenzo Snow's revelation, downgrading it to a mere "couplet" so he can then claim we "don't know much" about it as if were just folklore without the stamp of approval from any of the Prophets. So because of Hinckley's maneuver, suddenly the original question gets lost and we're talking about a degree of understanding of Lorenzo Snow, which was clearly irrelevant. But pertaining to the question is the fact that the Church has taught incessantly for more than a century that God was once a man as we are today, and so Hinckley was being nothing less than intentionally evasive and provided misleading information. He wasn't asked if Mormons "know a lot about it" or if they "emphasize it" (and by the way, how does it make sense to say you don't know it is emphasized after you've already said you don't know it is taught?). He was asked if it was taught, and to that question Hinckley said he didn't know and then began to rant in different directions. How embarrassing.

The issue here is what Hinckley said, not what Joseph taught

No, the issue is what's official doctrine as the title of this thread suggests. If it is revelation from God, (which it was) then it is doctrine, period. What you're telling us is that Hinckley doesn't know this is LDS doctrine and he doesn't know what the Church teaches. That's hardly comforting news from the CEO of the Church.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Xander

[Xander]

What I said (or what I meant, at least) is that I don't believe in an "infinite regression of gods" or that we will one day create and become gods of our own worlds. I do believe God was once a man (more specifically, that He, like Christ, passed through mortality), but how, when, and where that took place is unclear to me, and really doesn't matter to me very much at all.

So you accept it despite the problems. You drop the ball as soon as the real questions get interesting. That strikes me as intellectual laziness, and it is one of the problems I had when I went through the first stages of my apostasy. I just could do it anymore. I couldn't keep throwing this stuff on the back-burner nor could I just take comfort in this notion that "we're never going to know everything anyway, so there is no reason to try to make logical sense" of your own Church's beliefs.

Tell me, do you believe, as Joseph Smith did, that God the Father has a Father? If not, then why do you disagree with the Prophet? If you agree, then who was the first God if there isn't an eternal regression of Gods? The more you actually begin to question the logic of Mormon doctrine, you begin to enter a wormhole of endless questions, none of which get answered and all of which are designed to keep oneself from making a logical induction of the evidence. When critics point out how some of this stuff just doesn't make any sense, you close the discussion and say it isn't important to your salvation.

Sigh. And you wonder why so many think Mormonism is a form of anti-intellectualism?

Mormon doctrine!

Complex it is, but sophisticated it is not and this is just one example of many.

And it is times like this that make me roll my eyes because LDS leaders and apologists have aggressively attacked traditional Christian teachings for being too complex and incoherent; doctrines such as the Trinity. I tell ya, the Trinity doctrine is weird, but it is by far more sophisticated and logical than anything the LDS apologists have come up with to reconcile past LDS teachings with logical thinking. I don't understand how Mormons think not having a systematic theology to make sense of their beliefs, is somehow a plus for their faith. It is like they just say, we don't understand it, but who cares... the Church is true.

Wade will say this is another case of someone failing his "test of faith" which is nothing more than a product of his confirmation bias. Well, it could more easily be said that Mormons who refuse to take their own beliefs to their logical end, are failing the test of rationality. But then, this would make sense given the Church's criticism of man's capacity for reason.

Take it easy on serial broad brush slams against LDS if you want to stay in the thread.