What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[inquiringmind]

I'm not saying that something can't be both official and prophetic. In fact, pretty much everything that is prophetic is official. However, not everything that is official is, or has been, prophetic.

If that's true, it would be possible for official doctrine to change.

Has anything that ever was (indisputably) official doctrine been (indisputably) changed?

[mfbukowski]

If that's true, it would be possible for official doctrine to change.

Has anything that ever was (indisputably) official doctrine been (indisputably) changed?

Hmmmmm. I can't think of anything, but it could happen. Many dispute whether or not Adam God was doctrinal, or if the Priesthood ban was- but of course those would be leading contenders.

Just off the top of my head....

[Cobalt-70]

If that's true, it would be possible for official doctrine to change.

Has anything that ever was (indisputably) official doctrine been (indisputably) changed?

Lectures on Faith. How more official can it get than having it be adopted as part of your canon?

[zerinus]

If that's true, it would be possible for official doctrine to change.

Has anything that ever was (indisputably) official doctrine been (indisputably) changed?

"Official doctrine" can change only if it was not true in the first place, and therefore not truly "official".

[Law22]

I have been a member of the Church for 20 years, so I am very familiar with these teachings.

And yet you say: "What that means exactly, I don't know, and the Church doesn't claim to know either."

I'm new here so I guess I need to ask you to explain why you (or Hinckley) would do that?

Thanks

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

Bijhan,

Excellent points. I can only speculate that Pres. Hinckley was suggesting that this particular doctrine is not emphasized or widely taught by the Church (which is true), and that it constitutes a mystery best left to esoteric communication among endowed members. I am open to other interpretations, and in a number of ways, we ought to be more open to the probing questions that Xander-Graham throws in our direction. He is not wholly incorrect on this matter.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Yes, I agree in general. Long after the 1978 change in our Church, the Southern Baptist Convention finally apologized for their official doctrine that negro slavery was justified by the Bible. Formerly "official doctrines" (or folklore, or whatever it really was) have in fact been jettisoned, and I think that is all to the good, just as it was in Jerusalem a couple thousand years ago when St. Peter was made to realize that his commitment to certain fundamental doctrines had to be changed (Acts 10).

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

You may very well be correct about the Time interview, even though it was doctored. However, I don't agree at all that the late Pres. Hinckley's statement removes this doctrine from LDS theology. In fact, as I pointed out above, it is still being quoted and used by the LDS Church just as if Pres. Hinckley had never made those statements. The same applies to certain statements once made by Brother Brigham and others. As I have said, only in prayer can we determine which are and which are not actually part of the true doctrine of the Church.

[Robert F. Smith]

. . . the eternal regression of God's meme that has given Mormon philosophers fits.

Kevin,

Some excellent points, well made, however, could you explain to me the meaning of this final theological outburst?

And CFR, please.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Change in doctrine is one of the most important things about continuing revelation and eternal progression; one of the things that is so very right about our religion is the fact that it evolves and grows and expands with the addition of further light into the world. While it's sometimes painful to give up previous understandings (cf. the continual tendentious justifications for the Priesthood ban), it means that we don't have to remain stuck in static ruts if we search out Wisdom.

At the same time, I think the "God was once a man" doctrine is one of the absolute best, most ennobling truths in our religion, and it'd be a real shame to start to downplay it to seem more acceptable to traditional Creedal Christianity. If we get embarrassed by it, we're letting them define the terms of the debate; I think we should be shouting it (and the complementary doctrine of Mother in Heaven) from the rooftops, as I believe Divine Embodiment really is, as Joseph Smith declared, the Great Secret. It Restores the "primitive" understanding of religion as being a human, family affair so beautifully, and exalts the potential of good individual men and women to the place I -- as an unrepentant old humanist -- think is vital. Instead of depraved wormlike sinners in the hands of an angry God, every single human has the potential to be genuinely Good if they so desire. Humans and their thoughts and families and friends and lovers matter, we're all worth something in a way that is watered down or missing altogether from many traditional religions and traditional philosophies both.

That's why it's so frustrating to me when we get caught up in these quibbling little debates about mere terminology and semantics. If we're trying to bend our theology to be acceptable to others, we let them define the paradigm and get sidetracked on issues like whether or not Mormons are monotheists or not. Why should we even care about that stuff? Let people think we're pagan polytheists -- seeing as the Divine Council made of multiple Gods is explicitly referenced in the D&C, we really are! *laugh* It's just a label, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we accept the Son of Joseph and Mary as the Anointed One, our Teacher of Righteousness. Let's redefine the debate, here; as Joseph Smith said, "the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy."

What I'd really love to see is a canonization of the Sermon in the Grove, the King Follett Discourse, and every variant of the First Vision, as well as the script for whatever version of the Temple Drama is current, all included in the Pearl of Great Price, with redesigned paragraphing and pagination of all the scriptures into something resembling Grant Hardy's Reader's Edition. If we're not bothered with the contradictions in the standard Bible, why let the various ambiguities in these sermons slow us down? They're such important works! (I know, I'm dreaming. Don't wake me, it's very pleasant here.)

"I looked upon the sun the glorious luminary of the earth and also the moon rolling in their magesty through the heavens and also the Stars Shining in their courses and the earth also upon which I stood and the beast of the field and the fowls of heaven and the fish of the waters and also man walking forth upon the face of the earth in magesty and in the Strength of beauty whose power and intiligence in governing the things which are so exceding great and marvilous even in the likeness of him who created {him} [them] and when I considered upon these things my heart exclaimed well hath the wise man Said {the} [it is a] fool [that] Saith in his heart there is no God."

Edited April 19, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Cobalt-70]

You may very well be correct about the Time interview, even though it was doctored. However, I don't agree at all that the late Pres. Hinckley's statement removes this doctrine from LDS theology. In fact, as I pointed out above, it is still being quoted and used by the LDS Church just as if Pres. Hinckley had never made those statements. The same applies to certain statements once made by Brother Brigham and others. As I have said, only in prayer can we determine which are and which are not actually part of the true doctrine of the Church.

I probably wasn't paying attention when you noted these examples, but my guess is that these communications were not really "official" church communications on the subject, as Hinckley's statements were (given that he was speaking as the church's spokesman at the time).

[altersteve]

And yet you say: "What that means exactly, I don't know, and the Church doesn't claim to know either."

I'm new here so I guess I need to ask you to explain why you (or Hinckley) would do that?

Thanks

I can't speak for President Hinckley, but I say I don't know because I don't know. I'm content with the idea of living with my family again in the presence of my Father, and of becoming "like Him" in some way through the grace and mercy of my Lord Jesus Christ. But what it means to be "like Him" is not something the Church currently emphasizes, because there's no revelatory statement on the specifics of it. So I'm just fine with not bothering myself about these specifics. As long as I can live with my family again, then I'm happy.

[mfbukowski]

And yet you say: "What that means exactly, I don't know, and the Church doesn't claim to know either."

I'm new here so I guess I need to ask you to explain why you (or Hinckley) would do that?

Thanks

If you can explain all of what it means to be God, by all means please explain it. How DOES one organize a universe by the power of one's word anyway? I have always wondered about that so maybe you can tell us.

I think that is what he is saying.

[mfbukowski]

Change in doctrine is one of the most important things about continuing revelation and eternal progression; one of the things that is so very right about our religion is the fact that it evolves and grows and expands with the addition of further light into the world. While it's sometimes painful to give up previous understandings (cf. the continual tendentious justifications for the Priesthood ban), it means that we don't have to remain stuck in static ruts if we search out Wisdom.

At the same time, I think the "God was once a man" doctrine is one of the absolute best, most ennobling truths in our religion, and it'd be a real shame to start to downplay it to seem more acceptable to traditional Creedal Christianity. If we get embarrassed by it, we're letting them define the terms of the debate; I think we should be shouting it (and the complementary doctrine of Mother in Heaven) from the rooftops, as I believe Divine Embodiment really is, as Joseph Smith declared, the Great Secret. It Restores the "primitive" understanding of religion as being a human, family affair so beautifully, and exalts the potential of good individual men and women to the place I -- as an unrepentant old humanist -- think is vital. Instead of depraved wormlike sinners in the hands of an angry God, every single human has the potential to be genuinely Good if they so desire. Humans and their thoughts and families and friends and lovers matter, we're all worth something in a way that is watered down or missing altogether from many traditional religions and traditional philosophies both.

That's why it's so frustrating to me when we get caught up in these quibbling little debates about mere terminology and semantics. If we're trying to bend our theology to be acceptable to others, we let them define the paradigm and get sidetracked on issues like whether or not Mormons are monotheists or not. Why should we even care about that stuff? Let people think we're pagan polytheists -- seeing as the Divine Council made of multiple Gods is explicitly referenced in the D&C, we really are! *laugh* It's just a label, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we accept the Son of Joseph and Mary as the Anointed One, our Teacher of Righteousness. Let's redefine the debate, here; as Joseph Smith said, "the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy."

Definitely agree with all this as far as I have quoted. I think that in time this will happen. In my opinion, we need to develop the theology to justify this so that the world understands how intellectually sophisticated such a religious view can be instead of a "throwback" to some pre-scientific anti-intellectual and frankly "scary" world view, as they might see it.

Further I think we need to keep the temple ceremonies "secret and sacred" and that means un-canonized - because I think open discussion of their contents destroys their ability to stimulate personal inspired interpretation. Gotta keep that as it is. They might change- but they must remain sacred to the individual.

Edited April 19, 2012 by mfbukowski