What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[Libs]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I don't see it as conflicting with #4, because he goes on to say...."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).”

He's not saying "doctrine is everything published by the LDS Church". He is saying that it resides in official Church publications, insofar as it comes from the canon. So, I read that as saying, doctrine does exist in official Church publications, but not all Church publications are doctrine.

I really think all four of those statements are saying the same thing. Official doctrine is in the canon of scriptures.

Thanks for the information in the other post. I'll look at it, soon.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

Libs,

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

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.

Okay, thanks.

I was thinking, as far as studying the words of the prophets, some of that does exist in the canon (D & C and official proclamations). So, are the study manuals on the individual prophets considered "official doctrine", in your opinion? Who wrote those? Did they have "authority" to write official doctrine for the church? I thought only the Prophet could do that? (I guess that could be asked in regards to any of the published manuals you are considering official doctrine)..

Edited March 19, 2012 by Libs

[zerinus]

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.

You are asking the wrong question here. The question is not whether it is "official doctrine" or not; but whether the possibility exists (however remote) that it might contain an error; and if so, should we be in a position to detect it? The answer both those questions is Yes.

[zerinus]

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.

That is plainly incorrect. It is perfectly possible to point to the scriptures and tell someone else what the doctrine of the Church is; and equally important, to tell someone what the doctrine of the Church is not. Anybody who has read and studied the scriptures, and understood it by the Holy Spirit, can to do that. As for John 3:5, you had asked that question before in another thread, which I had answered, and which you completely ignored; therefore I don't see any useful purpose will be served in answering it again.

[zerinus]

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

The Church would not do so intentionally, but such errors may occur due to the weakness and fallibility of human nature.

Edited March 19, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

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.

Okay, how about this?

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973)

This was actually published in the Conference Reports of the time, by an official, Church imprinted publication.

The interesting thing here is that doctrine is, in one sense, more important than scripture.

I don't see that. Doctrine is found in scripture. It is the source of doctrine. How can doctrine be more important than its source?

Again the John 3:5 example.

see above.

Obviously one cannot go wrong quoting the scriptures, but one cannot necessarily go very far either.

One can go as far as determining Church doctrine from it. How much further do you want it to go?

Edited March 19, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

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.

Okay, I will answer it for you again. Not sure if it will do any good or not, but I will try anyway.

Before I do that, however, we need to be more clear what your question is. Are asking (1) whether John 3:5 is a doctrine of the Church or not; or (2) whether John 3:5 is correctly interpreted by the Church or not; or (3), whether baptism by immersion (in water) is a doctrine of the Church or not? If your question is (1), the answer is yes; what is taught in the standard works is a doctrine of the Church. If your question is (3), the answer to that question is also yes; baptism by immersion (in water) is unquestionably derived form LDS scripture, and therefore it is unquestionably a doctrine of the Church. It can be found in the Book of Mormon, in the Doctrine and Covenants, as well as in the Bible. And that of course is the real question: What is the doctrine of the Church concerning baptism? The answer is, baptism by immersion in water, by one having authority. And we derive that doctrine without ambiguity from the standard works, especially from modern revelation. The fact that Evangelicals (or anybody else) may not believe in it is irrelevant. That is where LDS doctrine resides, whether anybody else likes it or not.

Now if your question is actually (2), that is not really a question about doctrine, but about scripture interpretation. You are having a debate with an Evangelical, and he gives an interpretation of John 3:5 which disagrees with the Church's, or what Church commentators have taught. That is something that is open do debate. It could be that the Evangelical is actually right, and his interpretation is more correct than ours. How do we settle the issue? We settle the issue by examining the context of the scripture, and by proper scripture exegesis (including taking into account modern LDS scripture where necessary), and coming to a conclusion. 99.9% of the time it will be possible to resolve the issue that way. The Evangelical may still not agree with you; but you can at least satisfy yourself (and other reasonable minded people) that your interpretation is correct. On very rare occasions where it may not be possible to come to a definitive conclusion by examining the scriptures alone, and it becomes necessary to do so, the Lord has provided a mechanism whereby the Prophet may inquire of the Lord and obtain an answer by revelation (D&C 102:23).

But that is not a doctrinal issue; it is an interpretation issue. The actual doctrine of baptism of the Church is taught in unambiguous terms in the standard works, so that "the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein" (Isaiah 35:8 ).

Edited March 21, 2012 by zerinus

[KevinG]

As an interesting aside God's requirement for knowing all truth is not based entirely on study. It is also based on obedience to the truth we already have.

D&C 93

I think it is entirely possible for us to have doctrine spelled out before us but due to disobedience or immaturity we will not recognize it or comprehend it.

There is no shortage of anti-Mormons or critics who will take our lack of understanding to pick away at doctrines on the edge of our understanding and form snares and stumbling blocks.

Edited March 19, 2012 by KevinG

[BCSpace]

I don't see it as conflicting with #4, because he goes on to say...."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).”

That's right. But the FP and Qo12 didn't write them, the ancient prophets did (and earlier modern ones). Hence they establish the doctrine out of the Standard Works. Plus this is consistently with other publications that I have referred to in which the Church tells us that keeping the doctrine pure means we use these other publications.

In addition, no one has come up with an alternative explaination to the John 3:5 problem which is extant in many areas as well as answering why the Church would publish something that is not doctrine and not identifying it as such. In other words, there is no alternative to the Church's own statements.

I really think all four of those statements are saying the same thing. Official doctrine is in the canon of scriptures.

Sure. And also the official publications as the Church has stated in the references I provided. Doctrine in scripture only belongs to the Sola Scriptura creed of the other christians. We accept continuing revelation and inspiration and those are published almost continuously.

[BCSpace]

Before I do that, however, we need to be more clear what your question is. Are asking (1) whether John 3:5 is a doctrine of the Church or not; or (2) whether John 3:5 is correctly interpreted by the Church or not; or (3), whether baptism by immersion (in water) is a doctrine of the Church or not? If your question is (1), the answer is yes; what is taught in the standard works is a doctrine of the Church.

None of the above. We already know, and I think we can all agree that official LDS doctrine is that the water in John 3:5 refers to water baptism. The question is how do we know that this is official LDS doctrine? John 3:5 itself doesn't say so. No other scripture says that John 3:5 refers to water baptism. So the notion that doctrine is scripture only fails us. And that's part of the reason why the Church considers it's official publications as doctrine and refers us to them to teach the doctrine and keep it pure.

[BCSpace]

Okay, how about this?

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973)

This was actually published in the Conference Reports of the time, by an official, Church imprinted publication.

At best, it's been superceed by the more recent Church publications I have quoted from. It also does not appear to have been published by the Church for the Church. A record is kept yes, but presented to the Church as an official publication or part of the cirriculum? No.

Edited March 19, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Let's take another look at what the Church views as an official publication. Scriptures only or more than that?

There have always been alternate voices whose purpose or effect is to deceive. Their existence is part of the Plan. The prophet Lehi taught that there “must needs be … an opposition in all things.” (2 Ne. 2:11; italics added.) And there have always been other alternate voices whose purpose or effect is unselfish and wholesome.

In most instances, alternate voices are heard in the same kinds of communications the Church uses to perform its mission. The Church has magazines and other official publications, a newspaper supplement, letters from Church leaders, general conferences, and regular meetings and conferences in local units. Similarly, alternate voices are heard in magazines, journals, and newspapers and at lectures, symposia, and conferences.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not attempt to isolate its members from alternate voices. Its approach, as counseled by the Prophet Joseph Smith, is to teach correct principles and then leave its members to govern themselves by personal choices.

Of course, the Church does have a responsibility to point out what is the voice of the Church and what is not. This is especially necessary when some alternate voice, deliberately or inadvertently, communicates a message in a way that implies Church sponsorship or acquiescence.

For the same reason, the Church does approve or disapprove those publications that are to be published or used in the official activities of the Church, general or local. For example, we have procedures to ensure approved content for materials published in the name of the Church or used for instruction in its classes. These procedures can be somewhat slow and cumbersome, but they have an important benefit. They provide a spiritual quality control that allows members to rely on the truth of what is said. Members who listen to the voice of the Church need not be on guard against being misled. They have no such assurance for what they hear from alternate voices.

Local Church leaders also have a responsibility to review the content of what is taught in classes or presented in worship services, as well as the spiritual qualifications of those they use as teachers or speakers. Leaders must do all they can to avoid expressed or implied Church endorsement for teachings that are not orthodox or for teachers who will use their Church position or prominence to promote something other than gospel truth.

http://www.lds.org/g...publications%22

Notice how official publications other than the scriptures are equated to the voice of the Church.

Edited March 19, 2012 by BCSpace

[zerinus]

None of the above. We already know, and I think we can all agree that official LDS doctrine is that the water in John 3:5 refers to water baptism. The question is how do we know that this is official LDS doctrine? John 3:5 itself doesn't say so. No other scripture says that John 3:5 refers to water baptism. So the notion that doctrine is scripture only fails us. And that's part of the reason why the Church considers it's official publications as doctrine and refers us to them to teach the doctrine and keep it pure.

That is not “the official doctrine”. The doctrine is that baptism by immersion, by one having authority, is necessary for salvation. That is the doctrine of the Church—and it is derived mostly from LDS scripture. John 3:5 is used by the Church (initially by Joseph Smith, if my memory serves me right) as a biblical evidence for the LDS doctrine of baptism. The reason why the Church interprets that scripture in that way is because it is the most obvious interpretation of that verse in its context. Here is the context:

John 2:

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 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.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

It is obvious that this “second birth” does not refer to natural birth. That is obvious from the context. That means that your Evangelical friend who interpreted it that way was crazy, and there is nothing more that needs to be said about that. But the actual doctrine is not that, neither is it dependent on the correct interpretation of that verse. Let’s suppose your Evangelical friend had been right, and we had misinterpreted that scripture; that would still not alter the Church’s doctrine of baptism, because it is derived from other scriptures where it is taught without any ambiguity.

You are confusing doctrine with scripture interpretation. The basic doctrines of the Church are taught in the standard works clearly enough that they can be known and understood without ambiguity. Where there is an ambiguity, then the Church may have to provide an interpretation. But that is a different issue from the question of where the doctrine of the Church can most reliably be obtained from.

Edited March 20, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

At best, it's been superceed by the more recent Church publications I have quoted from. It also does not appear to have been published by the Church for the Church. A record is kept yes, but presented to the Church as an official publication or part of the cirriculum? No.

That doctrine is unsuperceedable! In those days the Church used to publish the General Conference reports as a separate book (as well as in the Ensign). I don't know if they still do that or not.

[JDave]

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

Quote

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

The rest of the chapter is pretty good too.

The next chapter isn't all that bad either. The following is how that chapter opens:

Latter-day prophets have instructed us to use the scriptures to teach the doctrines of the gospel. President Ezra Taft Benson said: “Always remember, there is no satisfactory substitute for the scriptures and the words of the living prophets. These should be your original sources. Read and ponder more what the Lord has said, and less about what others have written concerning what the Lord has said” (The Gospel Teacher and His Message [address to religious educators, 17 Sept. 1976], 6).

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).

Edited March 20, 2012 by JDave

[JDave]

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

That is exactly the problem. The church publishes a lot of material without intending it to be doctrine, but they make no such explicit declaration that it is not doctrine. I think they assume some level of intelligence of those reading the material to ascertain what is a doctrinal statement and what is not (like a picture of a lion in the Friend or the contact information on lds.org). Unfortunately that leaves some room for ambiguity, but I think that small amount of ambiguity is better than defending what portion of the contact information is doctrinal or where exactly it is identified as not being doctrinal. If it isn't ambiguous, you can point it out to me.

http://store.lds.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StoreLocationsView?catalogId=10557&langId=-1&storeId=715839595

[mfbukowski]

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.

There has been no definition given to Bishops on the matter in at least the last 6 years, but certainly not since the publication of the press release which you insist on misinterpreting.

[BCSpace]

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

That is exactly the problem. The church publishes a lot of material without intending it to be doctrine, but they make no such explicit declaration that it is not doctrine.

That in combination with all the other statements is merely more evidence that everything published is doctrine. The fact of the matter is that the Church does identify some things as not doctrine from time to time which means they have a handle on it. Just take the Church at it's word is the operative principle here. If something published is not doctrine, they will tell you.

There has been no definition given to Bishops on the matter in at least the last 6 years,

Nothing has changed in the last 40 years or so; there is little need. The Church merely expects you to take it's at it's word. The doctrine is officially published.

but certainly not since the publication of the press release which you insist on misinterpreting.

If I am, then the Church is too. I've asked the question several times of various GA's and Area authorities. My explainations have been upheld on the basis of this standard (I have had and currently have responsibility for doctrine in my jurisdiction according to the CHI). I'm merely reporting to you what the Church thinks about it's own doctrine and what it thinks is exactly what it has stated. There is nothing safer in the context of keeping the doctrine pure than to adhere to the official publications. It is impossible to go wrong that way and another nice benefit is that one's apologetic becomes more powerful than any other.

Edited March 20, 2012 by BCSpace

[JDave]

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

What about your own question? Why would the Church publish the following web page without identifying it as not being doctrine? http://store.lds.org...oreId=715839595

Edited March 20, 2012 by JDave

[BCSpace]

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

What about your own question? Why would the Church publish the following web page without identifying it as not being doctrine? http://store.lds.org...oreId=715839595

Who says it's not doctrine? By definition it is. The doctrine here is that the Church has an online store. Not a very important doctrine. More important would be who publishes the work one might order from the store.

[Cobalt-70]

Okay, how about this?

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973)

This was actually published in the Conference Reports of the time, by an official, Church imprinted publication.

The only problem is, by Lee's own standard, his statement above is his "private opinion." Therefore, we can know for a certainty that it is not official LDS doctrine. For the record, though, I strongly agree with his statement.

[BCSpace]

The only problem is, by Lee's own standard, his statement above is his "private opinion." Therefore, we can know for a certainty that it is not official LDS doctrine. For the record, though, I strongly agree with his statement.

While I disagree with you, I appreciate your honesty.

[mfbukowski]

If I am, then the Church is too. I've asked the question several times of various GA's and Area authorities. My explainations have been upheld on the basis of this standard (I have had and currently have responsibility for doctrine in my jurisdiction according to the CHI). I'm merely reporting to you what the Church thinks about it's own doctrine and what it thinks is exactly what it has stated. There is nothing safer in the context of keeping the doctrine pure than to adhere to the official publications. It is impossible to go wrong that way and another nice benefit is that one's apologetic becomes more powerful than any other.

I really don't think that evolution is against church doctrine. Sorry. I don't want this to become an evolution thread but I just want to make the point. That would make you an apostate on evolution then

By that logic then, an apostate is in charge of correct doctrine in your jurisdiction. I'm not comfortable with that.

Edited March 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

I really don't think that evolution is against church doctrine. Sorry. I don't want this to become an evolution thread but I just want to make the point. That would make you an apostate on evolution then.

BCSpace agrees with you - which, I suppose, makes you both apostates.

[zerinus]

The only problem is, by Lee's own standard, his statement above is his "private opinion." Therefore, we can know for a certainty that it is not official LDS doctrine. For the record, though, I strongly agree with his statement.

Wrong. That doctrine is fully affirmed by scripture:

D&C 32:

4 And they shall give heed to that which is written, and pretend to no other revelation; and they shall pray always that I may unfold the same to their understanding.

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.

D&C 52:

9 And let them journey from thence preaching the word by the way, saying none other things than that which the prophets and apostles have written, and that which is taught them by the Comforter through the prayer of faith.

D&C 80:

4 Therefore, declare the things which ye have heard, and verily believe, and know to be true.

"That which is written" in D&C 32:4 refers to scripture. It is a standard expression that occurs 18 times in all the four books of the LDS scripture, and it always means scripture. "Know to be true" in D&C 80:4 also refers to scripture. It means scriptural truth, or gospel truth as found in scripture.

Edited March 21, 2012 by zerinus