What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt70:

Without the First Vision, polygamy doesn't make sense.

[Libs]

Is it safe to say that BC Space's view of "official doctrine" is probably in the minority?

Appreciate everyone's input, here. It's been interesting....also, somewhat, confusing. I had always been told that official doctrine was within the canon, period. It was the critics of Mormonism that were trying to convince me otherwise (and actually pointed to something from BC Space, as proof). So, now, I see it is not as cut and dry as I had, originally, thought.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Libs

[Calm]

Is it safe to say that BC Space's view of "official doctrine" is probably in the minority?

Definitely on the board and I haven't heard of anyone describing that belief irl, but it's likely someone out there has held it....would be very surprised if it was typical though or even common (in spite of BC's claims he has had the same thing from various church authorities).

So, now, I see it is not as cut and dry as I had, originally, thought.

When has anything involving humans ever been "cut and dry"? Edited March 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Cobalt-70]

Without the First Vision, polygamy doesn't make sense.

Why not? What does Smith's vision have to do with polygamy? Regardless, I think you misunderstood my post. I didn't say that Mormons didn't believe the first vision happened prior to the early 1900s, just that it was not the central defining feature of Mormonism. After polygamy ended, the vision rose in stature to fill its place, and soon became regarded as not only the most important of Smith's visions, but the most important event in human history other than Jesus' resurrection.

[Libs]

Definitely on the board and I haven't heard of anyone describing that belief irl, but it's likely someone out there has held it....would be very surprised if it was typical though or even common (in spite of BC's claims he has had the same thing from various church authorities).

When has anything involving humans ever been "cut and dry"?

lol....yep, that's the truth!

Thanks, Calmoriah.

[BCSpace]

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.

Which not be a change in doctrine, just emphasis.

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.

I would say that even looking at the Nuttall report, there never was a such thing as an Adam-God theory. Adam Sr Adam Jr seems to be the best fit and if it ever was doctrine (which I don't think it was), at most it was discontinued and no other doctrines were affected.

The Aaronic priesthood became an order effectively relegated to teenage boys. The list goes on.

Again, change in emphasis.

Edited March 18, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Is it safe to say that BC Space's view of "official doctrine" is probably in the minority?

It is safe to say that it's the Church's view as I have communicated exactly as the Church does,

Appreciate everyone's input, here. It's been interesting....also, somewhat, confusing. I had always been told that official doctrine was within the canon, period.

The Church itself contradicts that. According to the recent summary, the doctrine is established and officially published which of course does include the sciptures and everything else the Chruch publishes besides. The docrtrine merely resides in the scriptures (and the words of the prophets) and neither you nor I can point to the scriptures and tell someone else what official LDS doctrine is without having first seen it in another publication. I refer again to the aforementioned John 3:5 example.

It was the critics of Mormonism that were trying to convince me otherwise (and actually pointed to something from BC Space, as proof). So, now, I see it is not as cut and dry as I had, originally, thought.

According to the Church, it is certainly cut and dried. That is why they instruct potential teachers from chapters called "Keeping the Doctrine Pure" and "Teach the Doctrine".

Most people here actually use the Church's definition more than they think. For example, the recent hullabaloo over the Priesthood ban. There is now a rush among some board members who once pooh pooh'd the notion that the Newsroom was official doctrine to accept it now as official doctrine.

There are also those who use the correct apologetic on works not published by the Church by stating they are not doctrine.

And there are of course others who do not accept currently published LDS doctrine on God was once a man, or plural marriage, or the ban, or that Jesus and Satan are literally brothers etc. Obvously, they will not accept the Church's stance on it's own doctrine because it means the Church does not support what they believe.

I would be very surprised if those on this board who disagree with me have ever discussed the issue with their Bishops or Stake Presidents who are tasked to keep the doctrine pure in their wards and stakes. And notice also that no one has put forth an alternative explaination that uses the all the statements of the Church on the matter except those who erroneously advocate that the Church has no doctrine at all.

And since you mentioned the critics (likely the ones from the Shady board) I think it would be good to acknowledge their attempts to conform with LDS doctrine in their criticisms. The advantage gained is, when they actually apply it, that a whole lot of non doctrinal statements are cut out and the critics can't complain about it because no one in the Church, except a few who are haven't been paying attention for the last 40+ years, accepts works not published by the Church as doctrine. In other words, they would be criticisizing a strawman in obvious fashion if they also don't accept the Church's statements on doctrine.

The upshot is that, unless the same or similar is quoted in a Church-published work, you may freely ignore any statement from the JoD, or Mormon Doctrine, or Man, His Origin and Destiny, or Doctrines of Salvation, etc.

Edited March 19, 2012 by BCSpace

[Libs]

BC, even though I have read through this thread, it could be that I'm not fully understanding your explanation. It just seemed impossible that "everything the church publishes" could possibly be doctrine. Perhaps, you are more saying that everything that is published, that is compatible or inline with scripture, is doctrine? I may not be understanding the "formula" you are using. And, it seems like Church leaders have been somewhat contradictory in explaining this.

The "critics" are at Walter Martin forum. I don't think I am familiar with the forum you mentioned.

The upshot is that, unless the same or similar is quoted in a Church-published work, you may freely ignore any statement from the JoD, or Mormon Doctrine, or Man, His Origin and Destiny, or Doctrines of Salvation, etc.

That was kind of what I was trying to nail down, because critics are fond of using JofD and other historical writings. I guess, pointing to the canon seemed a simple and sure way to nail down LDS doctrine. But, besides that, it really is what I have been told by many LDS (but, not officially....just your everyday, average LDS)..it seems to be a common belief, so I had assumed it came from somewhere "official"...and there are some quotes from past leaders that indicate that only the canon is official doctrine.

[BCSpace]

BC, even though I have read through this thread, it could be that I'm not fully understanding your explanation. It just seemed impossible that "everything the church publishes" could possibly be doctrine.

The Church is saying exactly that. Why would the Church intentionally publish something that is not doctrine without identifying it as such?

Perhaps, you are more saying that everything that is published, that is compatible or inline with scripture, is doctrine?

No, the Church says in it's own summary statement that the doctrine merely resides in the scriptures and that such doctrine is established and officially published.

I may not be understanding the "formula" you are using. And, it seems like Church leaders have been somewhat contradictory in explaining this.

Which ones?

We already know that those apologists who advocate for the Church having no doctrine are incorrect because the Church itself has made this recent statement (et. al.) on doctrine and it teaches in it's own manuals about keeping the doctrine pure by using, not only the scriptures, but Church publications.

The "critics" are at Walter Martin forum. I don't think I am familiar with the forum you mentioned.

Interesting. I am not posting on any Walter Martin forum but I guess I am twice famous. I was one of Walter's main antagonists on his Bible Answer Man radio program for a few years before he died.

The upshot is that, unless the same or similar is quoted in a Church-published work, you may freely ignore any statement from the JoD, or Mormon Doctrine, or Man, His Origin and Destiny, or Doctrines of Salvation, etc.

That was kind of what I was trying to nail down, because critics are fond of using JofD and other historical writings. I guess, pointing to the canon seemed a simple and sure way to nail down LDS doctrine.

It is, but it overshoots the mark. Such a position is analogous to the argument other anti Mormons make about there being no need for prophets saying "It's all in the scriptures and that's all we need."

But, besides that, it really is what I have been told by many LDS (but, not officially....just your everyday, average LDS)..it seems to be a common belief, so I had assumed it came from somewhere "official"...and there are some quotes from past leaders that indicate that only the canon is official doctrine.

How does one know if the water in John 3:5 is water baptism or the evangelical interpretation, physical birth? What is the Church's position on war vis a vis D&C 98? Neither of these questions can be answered by looking at the scriptures.

I would be very surprised to hear of an active non virtual LDS person reject say, the Gospel Principles manual or lds.org, as doctrinal works. The curriculum of the Church is designed to teach the doctrine. Of what use is the curriculum if we cannot be sure of the doctrinicity? Every teacher in the Church knows the standard for doctrine and if not, they are quickly corrected when discovered.

The Church is very clear when it says:

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.

Edited March 19, 2012 by BCSpace

[Libs]

BC, no you are not posting there. And, I misremembered where your name came up. Actually, someone emailed the information to me (someone who was not posting in the conversation on WM, but wanted to give me a head's up that my assertion that official doctrine was "canon only", may not be correct).

I was backing up my understanding with this link, which includes statements from B.H. Roberts, George Q. Cannon and Harold B. Lee. I thought it was pretty solid, because it confirmed what I had already been told. Plus, there were other LDS, in the conversation, saying the same thing (official doctrine is found only in the canon).

http://www.staylds.c...onDoctrine.html

Elder B.H. Roberts explained what Official Doctrine is:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.” ²

An example of this process was in 1880 when President George Q. Cannon presented the Pearl of Great Price and 32 additional sections of the Doctrine and Covenants;

I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.³

Mormons commonly assume official publications, policies, procedures, pronouncements, and pontifications are Official Doctrine. While they are necessary and important for the running of the Church, they don’t meet the standard Elder Roberts described above as something “…the Church is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted.”

More recently (2007) the Church issued a press release defining Official Doctrine as established by

“The First Presidency … and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles… 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).” ⁴

This is a singular standard that the Church has held since its founding for officially binding doctrine. Everything else is, by definition, less official, less authoritative. President Harold B. Lee explains,

“It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.” ⁵

Edited March 19, 2012 by Libs

[Mehrdad]

My mission President once said "the Church is perfect, the individual members of the Church aren't perfect, which is why we need the Church to guide us towards our goal of eternal life"

[BCSpace]

I was backing up my understanding with this link, which includes statements from B.H. Roberts, George Q. Cannon and Harold B. Lee. I thought it was pretty solid, because it confirmed what I had already been told. Plus, there were other LDS, in the conversation, saying the same thing (official doctrine is found only in the canon).

Donald L. Ashton is not the Church. Neither am I of course, which is why I restrict statements of doctrine to what the Church has said. Others have quoted Robert Millet (also not the Church, but in a recent podcast featuring him, he essentially said the same thing the Church is saying.

Elder B.H. Roberts explained what Official Doctrine is:

The Deseret News is not (and never was) an official publication of the Church. The Church did the physical publication for a while (before Roberts iirc) but did not have full editorial control.

An example of this process was in 1880 when President George Q. Cannon presented the Pearl of Great Price and 32 additional sections of the Doctrine and Covenants

Fine. However, there is no tradition in the Church of voting on doctrine. It is obvious that if the prophets felt it was necessary they could have a vote if they wanted.

“The First Presidency … and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles… 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).”

This is a singular standard that the Church has held since its founding for officially binding doctrine.

Yep. This is a good summation that the Church published in 2007.

Everything else is, by definition, less official, less authoritative. President Harold B. Lee explains,

“It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.” ⁵

BYU is not an official source of doctrine. He seems to have given a similar and official sermon published in the Ensign which would be doctrine except that the above part is missing. The interesting thing here is that doctrine is, in one sense, more important than scripture. Again the John 3:5 example. Obviously one cannot go wrong quoting the scriptures, but one cannot necessarily go very far either.

Notice also how Ashton says "Official Teachings & Publications Are Not Official Doctrine" which directly conflicts with #4.

Edited March 19, 2012 by BCSpace

[Log]

[D]octrine 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.

This description is pretty clear. Even if something is said in an official Church publication - say, for example, the Ensign - it is not necessarily doctrine. Edited March 19, 2012 by Log

[LDSToronto]

10 pages in - what's the answer?

[Ares]

10 pages in - what's the answer?

Not trolling.

[BCSpace]

Libs,

Consider this which is directly from the manual the Church uses to train teachers:

Teach by the Spirit from the Scriptures and the Words of Latter-day Prophets

President Ezra Taft Benson taught: “What should be the source for teaching the great plan of the Eternal God? The scriptures, of course—particularly the Book of Mormon. This should also include the other modern-day revelations. These should be coupled with the words of the Apostles and prophetsand the promptings of the Spirit” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1987, 107; or Ensign, May 1987, 85).

Use Church-Produced Lesson Materials

To help us teach from the scriptures and the words of latter-day prophets, the Church has produced lesson manuals and other materials. There is little need for commentaries or other reference material. We should study the scriptures, teachings of latter-day prophets, and lesson materials thoroughly to be sure we correctly understand the doctrine before we teach it.

"Lesson 11: Keeping the Doctrine Pure," Part B: Basic Principles of Gospel Teaching—Teach the Doctrine,

http://www.lds.org/m...e-pure?lang=eng

First Paragraph: What words of the Apostles and Prophets should we use outside the scriptures? The ones from the JoD or from the Ensign and lesson manuals?

Second paragraph: Notice that in order to understand the doctrine, the lesson materials (manuals, web sites, videos, pictures, etc.) must be studied thoroughly.

The rest of the chapter is pretty good too.

Edited March 19, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

[D]octrine 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.

This description is pretty clear. Even if something is said in an official Church publication - say, for example, the Ensign - it is not necessarily doctrine.

The problem with that is you have not included the whole context which is:

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.

And of course there is even broader context than that which I link to in my siggy. As you can see, the doctrine merely resides in the scriptures. It requires the FP and Q012 to establish such doctrine and then publish it. In other words, one cannot necessarily use the scriptures alone to show what official LDS doctrine is.

Again I ask, how can one tell what the water in John 3:5 is according to official LDS doctrine without having seen it in a manual or other official Church publication? We know it is water baptism according to such publications, but without them, we could just as easily assume it is the Evangelical interpretation of physical birth. Such a question applies to numerous verses in all the Standard Works.

[KevinG]

Pure Doctrine is not to be had in this lifetime except through the Holy Ghost. Even then in our mortal state we are not sufficient to fully understand and express all of it.

Having said that LDS Doctrines are pretty darn consistent and defined when it comes to the central messages of the Gospel. As we get out into the limbs and growing edges there is more room for lack of clarity, speculation and discussion.

What is official doctrine. Perhaps defining how the word doctrine is used is the first step.

[Log]

In other words, one cannot necessarily use the scriptures alone to show what official LDS doctrine is.

It is possibly true that not every person can show from the scriptures alone what official LDS doctrine is. But, then, nobody anywhere ever said anything different - at least, not that I'm aware of.

One must also include with the scriptures the body of Official Declarations and Proclamations, as well as the Articles of Faith. In these, combined, reside all official LDS doctrine. So says your sig link.

Therefore, even if statement X is made in the Ensign, which is an official Church publication, X is not necessarily doctrine.

And here, I might bring up Paul Dunn, but really, should I have to?

Edited March 19, 2012 by Log

[BCSpace]

One must also include with the scriptures the body of Official Declarations and Proclamations, as well as the Articles of Faith. In these, combined, reside all official LDS doctrine. So says your sig link.

Indeed, as well as official publications which would include Church published manuals, songbooks, art, magazines (Ensign, Friend, New Era), videos, etc. cf "Teaching, No Greater Call."

And here, I might bring up Paul Dunn, but really, should I have to?

The Church does not knowingly allow that which is not doctrine to be officially published without marking it as such either directly or by context. It does make correction from time to time (such as the recent BKP talk). Also, of latest date is an excellent qualification as it allows for continuing revelation/inspiration and yes, correction.

Edited March 19, 2012 by BCSpace

[Log]

Indeed, as well as official publications which would include Church published manuals, songbooks, art, magazines (Ensign, Friend, New Era, videos, etc). cf "Teaching, No Greater Call."

Your sig link provides no justification for that claim.

The Church does not knowingly allow that which is not doctrine to be officially published.

It is possibly true that the Church does not knowingly allow that which is not doctrine to be officially published - but then, nobody anywhere ever said anything different (save he be anti-Mormon or a follower of such).

[KevinG]

If it helps most official church publications are pretty clear when they are commontary, teaching aids or prophetic quotes and scriptures.

That doesn't make every utterance and paragraph doctrine on the same level as scriptures, but there is a lot of effort put into making those materials consistent with the scriptural teachings.

[BCSpace]

That doesn't make every utterance and paragraph doctrine on the same level as scriptures, but there is a lot of effort put into making those materials consistent with the scriptural teachings.

There is indeed the element of concentrating on the scriptures and words of the prophets (put at the same level and found in the manuals and magazines etc.). But consider also the common example: Which is at the higher level in terms of communicating the correct doctrine.....

1.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:5

Or

2.

From a Greek word meaning to “dip” or “immerse.” Baptism by immersion in water by one having authority is the introductory ordinance of the gospel and is necessary to become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is preceded by faith in Jesus Christ and by repentance. It must be followed by receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost in order to be complete (2 Ne. 31:13–14). Baptism by water and the Spirit is necessary before a person can enter the celestial kingdom.

Basic unattributed statement from the LDS Guide To The Scriptures "Baptism"

....?

The Church indeed considers it's officially published unattributed statements to be official doctrine. Other much larger examples of unattributed doctrinal statements found here:

http://www.mormonnew...and-background/

and here:

http://www.lds.org/s...topics?lang=eng

These are huge lists of unattributed statements that the Church puts front and center on it's websites for the general public and the media to browse. Impossible to believe they would put here any statements they don't consider doctrine and yet one can easily find statements which are controversial and sometimes not accepted by some members. Yet all are the official doctrine of the LDS Church.

Edited March 19, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Indeed, as well as official publications which would include Church published manuals, songbooks, art, magazines (Ensign, Friend, New Era, videos, etc). cf "Teaching, No Greater Call."

Your sig link provides no justification for that claim.

Sure it does. Besides the aforementioned "Teaching, No Greater Call" which absolutely lists those items (did I forget audio cassettes?), Approaching Mormon Doctrine shows that this is the case as well. The FP and Qo12 establish doctrine as I think you will agree it says. Do they pull doctrine out of thin air? Well, I suppose they could add sections to the D&C by revelation (not thin air), but they haven't done that in a while. However, as I think you also agree, the doctrine resides in the Four Standard Works, etc. So that is where they get the doctrine from to establish. Then of course, as the statement says, they publish it in official publications. Which publications? The scriptures have already been referred to as the source of established doctrine. That leaves the manuals, web sites, magazines songbooks, videos, audio cassettes, etc. for the established doctrine to be published.

Come to think of it, this also harks back to the basic definition of prophecy which is essentially teaching the doctrines of the gospel. That is exactly what is going on in these publications. They are the official prophecies of the Brethren in that sense,

Edited March 19, 2012 by BCSpace

[Log]

Indeed, as well as official publications which would include Church published manuals, songbooks, art, magazines (Ensign, Friend, New Era, videos, etc). cf "Teaching, No Greater Call."

Your sig link provides no justification for that claim.

Sure it does. Besides the aforementioned "Teaching, No Greater Call" which absolutely lists those items (did I forget audio cassettes?), Approaching Mormon Doctrine shows that this is the case as well.

I'm sorry, are you reading this from the content linked to in your signature? Because references to none of these sources is to be found within the linked statement.

The FP and Qo12 establish doctrine as I think you will agree it says. Do they pull doctrine out of thin air? Well, I suppose they could add sections to the D&C by revelation (not thin air), but they haven't done that in a while. However, as I think you also agree, the doctrine resides in the Four Standard Works, etc. So that is where they get the doctrine from to establish.

Yes. Exactly and only there.

Then of course, as the statement says, they publish it in official publications. Which publications? The scriptures have already been referred to as the source of established doctrine. That leaves the manuals, web sites, magazines songbooks, videos, audio cassettes, etc. for the established doctrine to be published.

Come to think of it, this also harks back to the basic definition of prophecy which is essentially teaching the doctrines of the gospel. That is exactly what is going on in these publications. They are the official prophecies of the Brethren in that sense,

Unfortunately, the content linked to in your signature does NOT say that the official publications of the Church are necessarily sources of doctrine. Moreover, the historical fact that falsehoods can be and have been published, intentionally or not, in the official publications of the Church, is sufficient to show the factual falsity of your position. While doctrine may be found in the publications of the church - other than the scriptures, official declarations and proclamations, as well as the Articles of Faith - those publications are not the source of that doctrine and may, in fact, be in error.

The Ensign (or any other Church publication), in other words, is only doctrinally authoritative insofar as it accurately reflects the official doctrines found in the standard works, along with the Articles of Faith and the official declarations and proclamations. So also, I might add, is the Journal of Discourses.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Log