What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[mbh26]

For me LDS doctrine is just what the particular leader in charge is saying or enforcing at that particular time. But some would argue that even those actions are not official church doctrine. While I agree that they weren't always the right things said or the right policies enforced, I can't see how you can get away from the fact that doctrine is subject to human fallibility. The Church is an organization to help promote the gospel. But it's impossible for it to be the pure unadulterated gospel. It's a human organization. Even if it is run by God, it's been proven time and time again that God allows for human mistakes in His one true Church.

While one may indeed look to God for answers instead of the Church leaders, Church doctrine for me is limited to what you're allowed to teach in Church or what the Church is willing to talk about when they speak. The only exception to that limitation might be where a case is brought before a priesthood leader and he is forced to make a decision one way or the other. I'd call that doctrine as well, even if the Church doesn't want their decision to be known to the public, for me it's still Church doctrine.

[BCSpace]

For me LDS doctrine is just what the particular leader in charge is saying or enforcing at that particular time.

If you know they can be fallible as you indicate below, how would you know? The answer remains publication as15 apostles and prophets have agreed on it and that is what the Church itself has said. One can't really get around what the Church says about itself. The Church is THE ultimate source for itself as common sense dictates.

But some would argue that even those actions are not official church doctrine. While I agree that they weren't always the right things said or the right policies enforced, I can't see how you can get away from the fact that doctrine is subject to human fallibility. The Church is an organization to help promote the gospel. But it's impossible for it to be the pure unadulterated gospel. It's a human organization. Even if it is run by God, it's been proven time and time again that God allows for human mistakes in His one true Church.

Sure. That's why continuing revelation/inspiration is part of the doctrine. LDS doctrine does change. The challenge for LDS critics though is which doctrines? The two most recognized controversial ones, plural marriage and the Priesthood ban, have not changed at all as the answers remain the same pre and post 1890 and 1978.

I'm not referring to what individuals choose to believe. I'm referring to what the LDS Church itself communicates as it's official doctrine. One may believe the Church is wrong on an issue. The Church might indeed be wrong on an issue but you won't know until the published doctrine changes. Just because one believes the Church is wrong doesn't mean it's not official Church doctrine. For apologetics, that is always the best arguement; that such and such is official doctrine (when it is so published) yet one disagrees with it. For example:

I freely admit official LDS doctrine is that the Flood was global. I disagree with that as I believe the Flood was local. I free admit my belief contradicts the official LDS doctrine that the Flood is considered the baptism of the Earth.

As for the fallibility of published doctrine, there is much that has been published now for so many years that it is highly unlikely the Church has made a mistake so I think the possiblity of change is quite remote for most doctrines. The official doctrines that God the Father was once a mortal man or that Lucifer/Satan is our literal spirit brother come to mind as those have also been controversial among some apologists.

Edited March 4, 2012 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

Never met one yet who doesn't know in our 12 stake region. What does "Teaching, No Greater Call" say about keeping the doctrine pure? This is the manual that the SS Presidencies, both ward and stake, use "to improve gospel learning and teaching".

Oh. That set - those you have met within 12 stakes is hardly "every" bishop or stake president. And you really have asked every single one of these individuals- every bishop and every stake president- this exact question? Did you ask them if EVERYTHING the church publishes is doctrine, every word?

I personally know one bishop who totally disagrees with you. Yes, that is an even more limited set, but generalizations saying ANYTHING about "every" anything is pretty hazardous.

I really don't have a bone to pick with you- I don't care if you believe that- it's your business. I guess what bugs me is your certainty that your intepretation of the press release is infallibly true for all members. It's not. In fact I really think you are the only one here who believes that.

[Brade]

I really don't have a bone to pick with you- I don't care if you believe that- it's your business. I guess what bugs me is your certainty that your intepretation of the press release is infallibly true for all members. It's not. In fact I really think you are the only one here who believes that.

+1. In addition to this, bcspace has attempted to support the position he attributes to the Church with evidence which simply does not entail the position he advocates.

As far as I know bcspace has yet to address the criticisms I've raised about his view of what the Church's view of official doctrine is.

(1) The newsroom release says that doctrine is found in certain resources. Saying that X is in Y is not the same as saying everything in Y is X. Bcspace hasn't addressed this to my knowledge.

(2) His references about keeping doctrine pure say, in the same spirit as the newsroom release, that to find pure doctrine one should look in certain places. And, again, saying that pure something is in someplace is not the same as saying that everything in someplace is pure something. My organic chemistry professors told me that correct organic chemistry is found in my organic chemistry textbook. That didn't mean that every textual and pictorial element in the textbook was an illustration of organic chemistry.

There's a logic fail going on here.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Brade

[thesometimesaint]

The doctrine of the Church is what the Church says it is. Individual statments by members including those of our leaders were never intended to be doctrine for the Church.

Edited March 4, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[JDave]

What does "Teaching, No Greater Call" say about keeping the doctrine pure? This is the manual that the SS Presidencies, both ward and stake, use "to improve gospel learning and teaching".

It includes a rather interesting quote from President Hinckley (emphasis mine).

President Gordon B. Hinckley said: “The truest source of divine wisdom is the word of the Lord in these sacred volumes,

the standard works

of the Church.

Here is found the doctrine

to which we must hold fast if this work is to roll forth to its divinely charted destiny” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1982, 67–68; or

Ensign,

May 1982, 45).

It also sets up a rough order of preference of where to go to find our teaching material

1. The Scriptures and words of the latter day prophets
   
   • Scriptures
     
   • Other modern day revelations
     
   • Words of the apostles and prophets
     
   • The promptings of the Spirit
     

[*]Church produced lesson materials

[*]Other commentaries or reference material, though there is little need for this

The list does not include anything along the lines of: "Any statement in an official LDS publication". In fact the last item doesn't even have a specification for preference for officially published commentaries or reference material.

Edited March 4, 2012 by JDave

[frankenstein]

is the 1949 Official Statement from the First Presidency a personal statement? Yes

Is the 1969 Official statement from the First Presidency a personal statement? Yes

Has the Church leadership renounced those statements? Why should the Church renounce the personal statements of something it doesn't believe?

CFR.

What makes the First Presidency statement personal statements? And does this mean ALL First Presidency statements are personal statement which do not represent Church doctrine; further which the membership of the Church can ignore as statements of men and not of Prophets?

Also, the Church only renounced "SOME" explanations and not ALL explanations, unless now "some" means "all".

frnakenstein:

http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) AND the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel TOGETHER to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

Emphasis mine.

Ok so any letter or statement from the First Presidency which does not contain the signatures of the 12 Apostles or any FP statement of Letter which does not specifically identify that the 12 Apostles concurred is a personal statement? Am I understanding you correctly?

Is the letter from the First Presidency Letter: Strengthening Families a personal statement because there is no indication that the 12 Apostle signed off on the letter. As your emphasis is that non-personal statements which represent Church doctrine MUST have both the FP and 12 Apostles approval.

Edited March 4, 2012 by frankenstein

[thesometimesaint]

I never said that the Proclamation on the Family was devoid of doctrine. It obviously has doctrinal statements in it. However the Proclamation is not a source of doctrine, and it has yet to be accepted as doctrine by the Church. Maybe in this years April General Conference.

Edited March 4, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[frankenstein]

I never said that the Proclamation on the Family was devoid of doctrine. It obviously has doctrinal statements in it. However the Proclaim is not a source of doctrine, and it has yet to be accepted as doctrine by the Church. Maybe in this years April General Conference.

I am not asking about the Proclamation.

You assert that statements from the FP which do not bear some indication of concurrence with the 12 Apostles is then to be considered a personal statement of the First Presidency and essentially not binding on the Church nor the membership.

If a Letter from the First Presidency does not bear some indication of concurrence from the 12 Apostle, is that FP letter just a personal statement?

[thesometimesaint]

Frankenstein:

Unless and until any statement is agreed to by both the FP AND The QoT AND is accepted by the Church it is NOT doctrine of the Church. Thus I am fine with BY believing that men lived on the sun or JFS believing that man would never be on the moon, or BRM believing that dinosaurs and man were contemporaries as personal beliefs/statements.

While I believe D&C is an expandable document. Its actual expansion has been rather circumspect.

[frankenstein]

Frankenstein:

Unless and until any statement is agreed to by both the FP AND The QoT AND is accepted by the Church it is NOT doctrine of the Church. Thus I am fine with BY believing that men lived on the sun or JFS believing that man would never be on the moon, or BRM believing that dinosaurs and man were contemporaries as personal beliefs/statements.

While I believe D&C is an expandable document. Its actual expansion has been rather circumspect.

Stop changing the subject and moving goal post. We are not discussing what is Doctrine.

The issue is What is an Official binding statement from the First Presidency and what is meerly the personal opinion of the First Presidency.

So you are saying that ALL First Presidency Letters on Church letterhead which do not have the indication of concurrence from the 12 Apostles are personal statements of the First Presidency. This would also include ALL FP letters which are read over the pulpits to the congregations (at least all those which do not bear the indication of concurrence from teh 12 Apostles)

So even though the First Presidency issued letters in 1949 and 1969 concerning Blacks and Priesthood, those Official First Presidency letters are only personal statements because there is no indication of concurrence from the 12 Apostles.

[thesometimesaint]

Frankenstein:

There is no difference between the doctrine of the Church and so called "Offical Doctrine." If you want the doctrines of the Church you must of necessity rely on what the Church says it is. To go outside of that is to deny the Church the ability to define itself.

What is binding on the Church is what is in the Scriptures. IE The Pythagorean Therum is for all intents and purposes fact. However it is not a doctrine of the Church.

All statements not in the Scriptures are by definition are not doctrine. I'm fine with most statements read over the pulpits of the Church. However the vast majority of which are statements of policy and not statements of doctrine.

We have Scripture that says all men are equal in the sight of God. I take the Sciptures at their word, I also take statements by the Church at its word on what constitutes its doctrine. Todate none of the letters from 1949 and 1969 have made into my Scriptures. Please show me in the D&C where they are.

[mfbukowski]

There's a logic fail going on here.

Well as I have said, I really like BC and I don't particularly want to start a fight with him, but on the logic of it, the Distribution center catalog is published by the church so that would make the prices charged for materials church "doctrine" as well as the cleaning instructions on garments etc.

Now that is obviously an absurd example chosen because it IS absurd, but it also raises the question of where you draw the line. All the music all the lyrics everything in the distribution catalog is clearly not "doctrinal"

And historically, were all the materials ever published by the church historically therefore "doctrinal" for today? I really think we don't want to say that. Does that include material advocating polygamy?

The problem is the old slippery slope- where do you draw the line in the continuum?

Logically the problem is much worse- what rule do you use to decide which church publications are "doctrinal" and which are not?

That puts you right back at the beginning- seeking a definition for what is doctrinal and what isn't.

I think that the substance of the press release is that the General Authorities publish interpretations of the scriptures, and those interpretations are published in church magazines, but the "true doctrine" RESIDES in the standard works.

It literally says they "establish" doctrine which "resides" in the scriptures.

I have no clue what "establish" means if it is simultaneously "residing" somewhere else, so I read that as meaning they "interpret" doctrine which resides in the scriptures. As far as I am concerned that's the only interpretation of that statement that makes sense.

How do you establish doctrine that resides somewhere other than where it is established?

But of course even the standard works are subject to interpretation- as is any sentence in any natural language. And interpretations change.

Them's jest the facts

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Edited March 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[BCSpace]

Well, there certainly isn't any such thing as an orthopraxis as a substitute for doctrine in the Church. The Church itself is very clear, for example, about "Teaching the Doctrine" and "Keeping the Doctrine Pure" and Bishops are tasked with the responsibility for the Pure Doctrine being taught in the Ward and the same with the Stake President for his Stake.

So let's approach this from a different angle. Here is an officially published manual:

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng

Identify the which is not doctrine within it and tell why we know it is not doctrine. The only why that can be done is by taking the Church at it's word, in other words, whenever the Church specifies such is not doctrine or the context is opinion. You cannot lift sections out and claim they are not official LDS doctrine simply because you personally don't accept them.

[JDave]

So let's approach this from a different angle. Here is an officially published manual:

http://www.lds.org/m...ciples?lang=eng

Identify the which is not doctrine within it and tell why we know it is not doctrine.

This isn't as hard as you make it. Of course Gospel Principles is published to declare doctrine. Does anyone here believe otherwise? There might be some who will argue that the manual is not "officially binding" but that is different from "officially taught doctrine". Claiming that Gospel Principles is a doctrinal book isn't all that bizarre. That is a good example of a book that you could be pretty safe in claiming that EVERY bishop and stake president accepts that book as declaring official doctrine.

Why you feel it is necessary to go so far as to claim that EVERY published sentence is doctrinal is puzzling. I don't think I can complete your challenge (I agree with you ), but I can offer an opposing challenge. Find one sentence expressing church doctrine in the following Ensign article. The sentence preceding "The making of lovely lingerie can be a delightful new experience." is probably your best candidate. The follow up question would be, are there any statements in this article that aren't official doctrine and how do you know they aren't doctrinal?

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/08/lingerie-feminine-and-modest?lang=eng

[Brade]

This isn't as hard as you make it. Of course Gospel Principles is published to declare doctrine. Does anyone here believe otherwise? There might be some who will argue that the manual is not "officially binding" but that is different from "officially taught doctrine". Claiming that Gospel Principles is a doctrinal book isn't all that bizarre. That is a good example of a book that you could be pretty safe in claiming that EVERY bishop and stake president accepts that book as declaring official doctrine.

Why you feel it is necessary to go so far as to claim that EVERY published sentence is doctrinal is puzzling. I don't think I can complete your challenge (I agree with you ), but I can offer an opposing challenge. Find one sentence expressing church doctrine in the following Ensign article. The sentence preceding "The making of lovely lingerie can be a delightful new experience." is probably your best candidate. The follow up question would be, are there any statements in this article that aren't official doctrine and how do you know they aren't doctrinal?

http://www.lds.org/e...modest?lang=eng

I don't think you've fully grasped the absurdity of bcspace's view. It's much more than that every published sentence is doctrinal. In another thread on this same topic at the other board I went round and round with bcspace on this. His view appears to be that literally every element in official publications expresses church doctrine unless it says of itself it doesn't or some other element says of it that it doesn't. So, even pictures and linguistic structures which are not sentences, let alone declarative ones, express doctrine on his view.

If an Ensign came out in which was found a page upon which was no explanation and just the following

1. Sarah was sad.

2. hands

3. Do turtles eat popcorn?

4. Close the door!

5. LOL

6.

this page would contain expressions of doctrine because (1) it's in an official publication, (2) there isn't anything that says of the elements on that page that they do not express doctrine, and (3) the elements themselves do not say that they do not express doctrine.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Brade

[mfbukowski]

Identify the which is not doctrine within it and tell why we know it is not doctrine.

That's not the problem. (Actually I don't think there is a "problem" with having "no doctrine")

I didn't even look at the manual you cited- but I know it does not contain ALL that is considered "doctrinal". And what IS "doctrinal" today may not be doctrinal tomorrow, as I said earlier.

Yes, we are supposed to teach pure doctrine, but that is not really a problem. We all know, without defining it precisely what is and is not "true doctrine" and have no trouble dealing with these concepts in a church setting. If it's in the manual, teach it- and nothing else. That's all there is to it.

But in these weird discussions we get into where one prophet said this and the other prophet said that, we are bound to get into alleged doctrinal problems- at least someone will bring it up for absolutely sure.

In the church in a lesson it isn't a problem. The problem is that the press release raised more questions than it answered, in my opinion by being imprecise.

But it could NOT be precise in the first place because LDS doctrine REALLY is based on personal revelations that we do not talk about. Yes there are some old standby basics of course but they are just that. We are talking the temple recommend interview here.

[mfbukowski]

Here is an example of church doctrine:

http://store.lds.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category3_715839595_10557_21152_-1_Y_image_0

[JDave]

I don't think you've fully grasped the absurdity of bcspace's view. It's much more than that every published sentence is doctrinal. In another thread on this same topic at the other board I went round and round with bcspace on this. His view appears to be that literally every element in official publications expresses church doctrine unless it says of itself it doesn't or some other element says of it that it doesn't. So, even pictures and linguistic structures which are not sentences, let alone declarative ones, express doctrine on his view.

I had forgotten about the animals pictures in the Friend.

But that really makes me wonder (in a very flippant manner, I admit), if the contact information printed on lds.org is doctrinal then is it a sin to misdial the phone number?

I think it is important to point out what mfb said earlier in the thread. It isn't really a problem if bcspace wants to live his life in a manner where he treats all officially printed material as doctrine. I don't see that negatively impacting someone's life to the point where I should try to save them from it. But the way in which his interpretation of doctrine is put forth as the final and definitive view on the matter is problematic.

[BCSpace]

Identify the which is not doctrine within it and tell why we know it is not doctrine.

That's not the problem.

It's exactly the problem.

(Actually I don't think there is a "problem" with having "no doctrine")

Which is a convenient construct designed to get one out of tight situations but it doesn't represent the Church which stresses teaching the doctrine and keeping the doctrine pure. In other words, doctrine exists in the Church.

It's better to develop successful apologetics than to deny the doctrine. Imho, failure to do so has led to the erroneous notion of "no doctrine" in the first place.

I didn't even look at the manual you cited- but I know it does not contain ALL that is considered "doctrinal".

Of course it doesn't contain all. That's why one must take into account all that's published on the subject in order to understand it. It remains doctrine nonetheless.

And what IS "doctrinal" today may not be doctrinal tomorrow, as I said earlier.

Latest date, sure. Continuing revelation/inspiration is part of our systematic theology. But there are few examples of this as doctrine rarely changes, Plural marriage and the priesthood ban being prime examples.

Edited March 16, 2012 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

Latest date, sure. Continuing revelation/inspiration is part of our systematic theology. But there are few examples of this as doctrine rarely changes, Plural marriage and the priesthood ban being prime examples.

And neither of those were changed by an article in the Ensign

[JDave]

And neither of those were changed by an article in the Ensign

But don't forget that the Friend officially announced that the use of the cross is once again acceptable and encouraged.

[Cobalt-70]

Latest date, sure. Continuing revelation/inspiration is part of our systematic theology. But there are few examples of this as doctrine rarely changes, Plural marriage and the priesthood ban being prime examples.

Depends on how far back you go. The changes go in spurts. Huge changes from 1829 to 1835--basically a different church from year to year. Then a bit of stability, followed by huge changes again from 1840-44, then after the Mormons settled in Utah, a big revolution in the mid 1850s, then after some more stability, a giant upheaval from 1890-1920, then after that, everything turned pretty incremental and administrative, with the exception of the revelation of 1978.

[BCSpace]

Latest date, sure. Continuing revelation/inspiration is part of our systematic theology. But there are few examples of this as doctrine rarely changes, Plural marriage and the priesthood ban being prime examples.

Depends on how far back you go. The changes go in spurts. Huge changes from 1829 to 1835--basically a different church from year to year. Then a bit of stability, followed by huge changes again from 1840-44, then after the Mormons settled in Utah, a big revolution in the mid 1850s, then after some more stability, a giant upheaval from 1890-1920, then after that, everything turned pretty incremental and administrative, with the exception of the revelation of 1978.

Sure. Early in the Church's history, there were doctrines (often traditional Christianity) or absences of doctrine which were changed by new revelation. Part of the problem is that some can't seem to handle this and thus perfectly good and servicable works, such as Lectures of Faith, have to be removed because some can't recognize this type of change in just a couple of areas in the work.

There was no upheavel in 1890-1920 that I can tell. Plural marriage, for example, is merely in a non authorized stage because as we know from the scriptures and doctrine, God authorizes plural marriage from time to time. 1978 was no upheaval because the doctrine remained the same. Like plural marriage, we are in the "long promised" (OD 2) stage. Unlike plural marriage, this stage is not subject to further change to another stage imho.

[Cobalt-70]

There was no upheavel in 1890-1920 that I can tell. Plural marriage, for example, is merely in a non authorized stage because as we know from the scriptures and doctrine, God authorizes plural marriage from time to time. 1978 was no upheaval because the doctrine remained the same. Like plural marriage, we are in the "long promised" (OD 2) stage. Unlike plural marriage, this stage is not subject to further change to another stage imho.

It is difficult to overestimate the revolution that took place within the LDS religion in the 1890-1920 period. The most significant change was of course that polygamy was discontinued and replaced by the First Vision as the fundamental distinguishing feature of Mormonism. Also, Mormon theology was turned on its head, as the Adam-God doctrine was replaced by the Elohim-God doctrine and Jesus was identified as Jehovah. The Adoption doctrine was rescinded, thus effectively rearranging the whole hierarchy of the Celestial Kingdom and changing the meaning of non-marital sealings. The Aaronic priesthood became an order effectively relegated to teenage boys. The list goes on.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Cobalt-70