What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[BCSpace]

All doctrine even though some may not be very important. Church would not have published them otherwise. Now I understand you may think it silly to think that piano lessons and artwork (have you seen and read the back of that artwork?) are doctrine, but consider the alternative; people blurring the lines of what is and is not doctrine. this is indeed what all critics and some apologist want to further their opinions or favorite chestnuts, but it isn't how the Church sees it.

I think that claiming the recipe for making cookies or playdough or a picture of kids playing in the snow or the song "Popcorn popping on the apricot tree" is doctrine is expanding the term "doctrine" into uselessness.

I totally understand. But I've been in the loop on too many doctrinal questions that have gone up to regional rep or HQ and come back down to us. The instant you imply there are unindentified or unqualified chunks of "non-doctrine" in the publications is the instant you blur the line between doctrine and non doctrine. You already have for example, in this thread, someone claiming that HM is not official doctrine even though it's officially published.

The Church expects most people to take it's word and not strain at gnats. But knowing that people will strain, all publications and everything in them are doctrine, no matter how small and the Church expects most people to be mature enough to understand their relative importance especially in cases of artwork or data entry. Even those can be categorized under some doctrine about teaching children or keeping records etc.

The upshot being that identification of official doctrine is easy. All one has to do is ask published or not?

Edited January 30, 2012 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

Not quite. A question like this about the cirriculum was asked in one of our council meetings in preparation for a conference. Your notion actually restricts official doctrine to the changing yearly cirriculum materials used by the Church. We were disabused of this notion. The way to read it is that the doctrine is consistently published in whatever publication, not that a publication has to be consistently printed. Just because a doctrine is no longer being "emphasized" doesn't mean it's no longer doctrine. For example, plural marriage and the priesthood ban remain doctrines of the Church. That is why you haven't seen them repudiated or apologized for etc. The Church believes those prophets and apostles were acting under the inspiration/ revelation of God.

What council is "our council", preparing for what "conference"? Your stake?

The problem is that "the way to read it" is ambiguous and has not be clarified, to my knowledge, by anyone in authority for the church. Am I wrong?

[mfbukowski]

Totally agree.

What do you mean then by "being published by the Church"?

Yet another layer of ambiguity! Is the Deseret News "published by the church"? Who has defined that it is not?

[mfbukowski]

I think that claiming the recipe for making cookies or playdough or a picture of kids playing in the snow or the song "Popcorn popping on the apricot tree" is doctrine is expanding the term "doctrine" into uselessness.

You are starting to sound a bit apostate to me. Didn't you know that there was "one true way" to make cookies?? (chocolate chip of course!)

[mfbukowski]

The upshot being that identification of official doctrine is easy. All one has to do is ask published or not?

But here's the problem I think you are missing: why should we believe YOU? I mean I like you and all, and you are often totally right, but come on dude- the only evidence you have that you are right is your interpretation of an ambiguous press release- the author of which is unknown.

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

Anything after D&C 134 is post JS.

Polygamy is still allowed in Mormonism, just not in this life. So that is a clarification of existing revelation.

The giving of the Priesthood to all worthy male members was the fulfillment of existing revelation.

[Brian 2.0]

The church was a lot more exciting back in the day when you could talk about their being "a living prophet of God on the earth" and then go hear them talk and give you revelations that they said they recevied from God. You'd hear them say, "Thus saith the Lord..." or "The Lord has revealed to me that..."

Today is just seems that our modern prophets are not much different that any leaders of other protestant or even catholic religions. They give inspiring sermons on topics from the scriptures. Having "living oracles" on earth is a lot less exciting than it used to be.

[Calm]

Look at the scriptures. Many of the prophets pretty much just repeated the same thing that their predecessors said.

[Cobalt-70]

Why canonize official doctrine? Official doctrine in many senses is more important and of greater authority than canon. Canon requires interpretation by the prophets for us to be sure of what it says. Official doctrine is the sure understanding itself.

You seem to be advocating an authoritarian view of canon, in which the canon has One Authoritative Interpretation, and the role of the Mormon is to interpret the canon the way their leaders tell them to interpret the canon. And then interpret the interpretations of the canon the way their leaders tell them to interpret the interpretations of the interpretations. Ultimately, the One Meaning of canon is mediated through church authorities rather than through the Holy Spirit. To the extent that the Holy Spirit seems to disagree with the church authority, the Holy Spirit wasn't truly speaking and one who thinks the Spirit guided them is mistaken. Church authorities therefore can be trusted more than the "Holy Spirit."

An alternative model is that the canon speaks with many voices. A member is free to interpret the scripture as the Spirit directs in any given context. The same passage may mean one thing in the context of a mission, something else in the context of a nasty divorce, and yet something else in the context of academic history. Under this model, there is no One True Meaning For All People And All Times to be found within the canon, but the canon can serve as a springboard for a more personal and contextual relationship between the reader and God. This model lacks the certainty of the prior model, and what a scripture might mean for one member may not apply to another member, but for some Mormons it might be more practically useful.

[Cobalt-70]

Doc&Cov 138 did not give us new doctrine.

The matter was attested in earlier scripture (1 Peter 3~4). There was a clarification and an expansion of the concept, but it was not new.

Lehi

Do you know of any prominent Mormon who was teaching that Jesus didn't personally go to the spirit prison after his crucifixion? As somebody mentioned in an earlier post, James Talmage, who was supposed to be the church's resident expert on this subject, thought Jesus went there personally.

[zerinus]

Doc&Cov 138 did not give us new doctrine.

The matter was attested in earlier scripture (1 Peter 3~4). There was a clarification and an expansion of the concept, but it was not new.

Lehi

D&C 138 does reveal new doctrine. The fact that Jesus did not go in person among the wicked spirits, but commissioned the righteous spirits to do so is new doctrine. It is something that we did not know until that revelation was given. That makes it new doctrine.

Edited January 31, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I personally prefer to move away from the artificial dichotomy of "official doctrine" versus "unofficial doctrine". (If, in fact, there is no such thing as "unofficial doctrine," that makes "official doctrine" redundant too.) I prefer to think of it in terms of "correct doctrine" vs. "incorrect doctrine". I adhere to the following principles:

1. Scripture taken as a whole infallibly teaches correct doctrine. This comes with the added qualification mentioned in 2 Peter 1:20-21, that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
   
2. Any teaching coming form the Church or its leaders, be it written or spoken, officially published or not, may contain errors in doctrine. Now this does not mean that such errors will always exist, or that they will be numerous. It simply acknowledges that possibility, and that it has occurred on occasion in the past.
   
3. The only protection that a Church member has against such a scenario is familiarity with the standard works, accompanied by the gift of the Holy Ghost. A Church member equipped as above will always be prepared, and need never be deceived or misled by such an error regardless of its source and origin. The scriptures testify to that truth beyond reasonable doubt:
   

1 Nephi 15:

23 And they said unto me: What meaneth the rod of iron which our father saw, that led to the tree?

24 And I said unto them that it was the word of God; and whoso would hearken unto the word of God, and would hold fast unto it, they would never perish; neither could the temptations and the fiery darts of the adversary overpower them unto blindness, to lead them away to destruction.

2 Nephi 31:

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

2 Nephi 32:

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

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.

Edited January 31, 2012 by zerinus

[Zeta-Flux]

zerinus,

The scriptures say nothing about "infallibility". The scriptures mention that they may contain the mistakes of men. I don't believe I've ever heard, read, or even been told from a second-hand source that our prophets and apostles have ever even used the word "infallible" with respect to the scriptures. Infallibility is a philosophical term that you may not want to invoke as it brings in a host of problems.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

The scriptures say nothing about "infallibility". The scriptures mention that they may contain the mistakes of men. I don't believe I've ever heard, read, or even been told from a second-hand source that our prophets and apostles have ever even used the word "infallible" with respect to the scriptures. Infallibility is a philosophical term that you may not want to invoke as it brings in a host of problems.

I read infallibility into the scriptures quoted in post #87.

[inquiringmind]

zerinus,

The scriptures say nothing about "infallibility". The scriptures mention that they may contain the mistakes of men. I don't believe I've ever heard, read, or even been told from a second-hand source that our prophets and apostles have ever even used the word "infallible" with respect to the scriptures. Infallibility is a philosophical term that you may not want to invoke as it brings in a host of problems.

I've never understood Mormon 9:33.

It seems to say that the BOM contains the mistakes of men, but only because those men couldn't write in Hebrew.

If they could have written in Hebrew, their writings would have contained no imperfections (would have been infallible.)

Is that how you read it?

What does it mean?

Edited January 31, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Cobalt-70]

I personally prefer to move away from the artificial dichotomy of "official doctrine" versus "unofficial doctrine". (If in fact there is no such thing as "unofficial doctrine," that makes "official doctrine" redundant too.) I prefer to think of it in terms of "correct doctrine" and "incorrect doctrine"....

When you make it a dichotomy between "correct" and "incorrect" doctrine, you are essentially basing the distinction on who has the most power. Nobody who teaches doctrine considers that doctrine to be "incorrect." Whose doctrine is considered "correct" is therefore the person in the church with the greatest power. Thus, Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine was considered "correct" in the 1900s, because he was the President of the Church. When Joseph F. Smith was President, and thus had the most power (Young's pronouncements having lost much of their doctrinal authority when he died and was no longer around to wield his authority), the Adam-God doctrine became considered "incorrect." That's why I don't think a correct/incorrect dichotomy is at all helpful. "Correctness" is merely an assertion of power. The official/unofficial dichotomy is much more tractable, and less overbearing.

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

The only perfect/infallible person that has ever lived on this earth was Jesus the Christ. The Prophets of the OT weren't, the Apostles of the NT weren't, neither were Church member in Book of Mormon times, and we sure aren't. Nothing man touches or has a hand in making is perfect. That includes Scripture.

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ".

Edited January 31, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[zerinus]

When you make it a dichotomy between "correct" and "incorrect" doctrine, you are essentially basing the distinction on who has the most power. Nobody who teaches doctrine considers that doctrine to be "incorrect." Whose doctrine is considered "correct" is therefore the person in the church with the greatest power. Thus, Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine was considered "correct" in the 1900s, because he was the President of the Church. When Joseph F. Smith was President, and thus had the most power (Young's pronouncements having lost much of their doctrinal authority when he died and was no longer around to wield his authority), the Adam-God doctrine became considered "incorrect." That's why I don't think a correct/incorrect dichotomy is at all helpful. "Correctness" is merely an assertion of power. The official/unofficial dichotomy is much more tractable, and less overbearing.

Never heard of so much nonsense put together in one paragraph in all my life.

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

The only perfect/infallible person that has ever lived on this earth was Jesus the Christ. The Prophets of the OT weren't, the Apostles of the NT weren't, neither were Church member in Book of Mormon times, and we sure aren't. Nothing man touches or has a hand in making is perfect. That includes Scripture.

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ".

D&C 68:

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

All scripture is both an infallible guide to doctrine and to eternal life.

[zerinus]

I've never understood Mormon 9:33.

It seems to say that the BOM contains the mistakes of men, but only because those men couldn't write in Hebrew.

If they could have written in Hebrew, their writings would have contained no imperfections (would have been infallible.)

Is that how you read it?

What does it mean?

The Nephites chose to write all of their sacred history on metal plates in order to guarantee their preservation to future generations (see Jacob 4:1-2). However, because of the difficulty of making those engravings, they had developed some kind of a "shorthand" method of writing for the purpose of engraving it on those plates, which enabled them to condense a lot of material into a short space. This shorthand method of writing was called “reformed Egyptian”. We have no idea of what it was or what it looked like; all we know is that it existed, and served this kind of purpose. However, it appears that there was also a downside to its use, and the downside of it was that it compromised clarity of expression. They could not compose material in Reformed Egyptian as clearly and unambiguously as they could in Hebrew (or whatever dialect of Hebrew that they had developed). That is what Moroni was referring to in that verse you quoted.

Edited January 31, 2012 by zerinus

[Nofear]

There are plenty of things which are true which are not doctrine. There are plenty of things officially published by the Church which are true or neither true or not-true, and even a few things which are not true. For me, what constitutes doctrine is a fuzzy circle that resides in correct interpretation of the scriptures and the official statements by the First

Presidency. Almost all commentary by general authorities are helping us shape what "constitutes correct interpretation of scripture" and elucidation of the official statements by the First Presidency. As time goes on, this fuzziness has generally decreased.

[Mark Beesley]

Thanks, Zeta.. I am beginning to see that it is, indeed, very complicated!

Life is too complicated as it is. Let's simplify it.

There is one official doctrine in the Church: Jesus Christ is the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered for our sins, was crucified, and rose again on the third day. He is the Christ.

Beyond that, everything the Church publishes, including the Scriptures, is simply intended to guide us to that one great truth, and that one great truth is the only thing the Church is bound by. All else is subject to change. Does something in a lesson manual lead us to Christ? Great, follow it. If you find it doesn't lead you to Christ, then change directions.

So, maybe an interesting question might be, what are the official guideposts?

[Libs]

Life is too complicated as it is. Let's simplify it.

There is one official doctrine in the Church: Jesus Christ is the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered for our sins, was crucified, and rose again on the third day. He is the Christ.

Beyond that, everything the Church publishes, including the Scriptures, is simply intended to guide us to that one great truth, and that one great truth is the only thing the Church is bound by. All else is subject to change. Does something in a lesson manual lead us to Christ? Great, follow it. If you find it doesn't lead you to Christ, then change directions.

I LIKE that!

So, maybe an interesting question might be, what are the official guideposts?

How is that different from asking what is "official doctrine"?

[Libs]

NoFear...that's an interesting chart. I like that, as well.

[cinepro]

D&C 132 does reveal new doctrine. The fact that Jesus did not go in person among the wicked spirits, but commissioned the righteous spirits to do so is new doctrine. It is something that we did not know until that revelation was given. That makes it new doctrine.

Uh, D&C 138?

Edited January 31, 2012 by cinepro