Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[canard78]

If the standard is how I want to define it, then there is no question on the matter: There is indeed official doctrine.

I think the question is not really about how I want to define it. In my mind definitions are the purview of dictionaries and that is how I tend to look at such things. Based upon dictionary definitions, there are doctrines in the Church and many of them fall under the concept of "official".

You are right. When the Church owns it and publishes it in their name, and in their official organ, that becomes official -- and it is doctrine.

I agree. You are under no such obligation. But that does not change its nature nor the meaning of words.

At the risk of repeating myself, while I can see you have outlined a very clear explanation for your perspective on doctrine, the church doesn't use your definition:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

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.

[canard78]

If the standard is how I want to define it, then there is no question on the matter: There is indeed official doctrine.

I think the question is not really about how I want to define it. In my mind definitions are the purview of dictionaries and that is how I tend to look at such things. Based upon dictionary definitions, there are doctrines in the Church and many of them fall under the concept of "official".

You are right. When the Church owns it and publishes it in their name, and in their official organ, that becomes official -- and it is doctrine.

I agree. You are under no such obligation. But that does not change its nature nor the meaning of words.

At the risk of repeating myself, while I can see you have outlined a very clear explanation for your perspective on doctrine, the church doesn't use your definition:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

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 by that definition, McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is not doctrine.

[CASteinman]

At the risk of repeating myself, while I can see you have outlined a very clear explanation for your perspective on doctrine, the church doesn't use your definition:

You will note that the Church does not actually attempt to define "official doctrine" in that statement. The closest that they get is to what I have said about things being "officially binding".

And one last point -- while I would insist that the article you are citing is official doctrine -- you would apparently be compelled to say it is not.

It is probably a bit unfair for me to not mention this: My position is not -- in some deep way -- about what is or is not "official doctrine". That is merely the surface.

But what is deeper is this: That attempts to put things into hard and tight boxes are going to fail. But this is exactly what the anti-Mormons want us to do. We should not play that game. Or, if we do, we should make sure that we play the game on consistent axiomatic rules that are not specially designed to make Mormons out to be fools. I say, use the dictionary. It works.

[mathonihah]

As for accepting the doctrine.. well, you don't HAVE to but you also don't HAVE to be a faithful member of the Church. We have our agency in all things. (And don't get excited to imagine that I have said if you don't accept it you are faithless or something, because I did not do that -- its just a comparison).

What I meant was that I don't believe I have a moral obligation to accept a doctrine even if it is not true. That doesn't mean I would be justified in seeking to undermine their authority. But I could be supporting them by bringing to their attention any errors they may have made.

[CASteinman]

And by that definition, McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is not doctrine.

No. It does not so declare.

McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is most definitely Doctrine. To deny this is to deny the very essence of the meaning of the word and to begin to go into an area of denial that is absurd.

These four things are true:

• "Mormon Doctrine" is a book of doctrine -- by definition.
  
• "Mormon Doctrine" is a book that contains official doctrine of the Church.
  
• "Mormon Doctrine" is a book that is used in promulgating and teaching official doctrine of the Church.
  
• "Mormon Doctrine" as a book, is not official doctrine of the Church.
  

[CASteinman]

What I meant was that I don't believe I have a moral obligation to accept a doctrine even if it is not true. That doesn't mean I would be justified in seeking to undermine their authority. But I could be supporting them by bringing to their attention any errors they may have made.

We may not be entirely in disagreement. It may simply come down to what "accept" means.

I will give an example. Blacks and the Priesthood. On my mission it was my privilege to baptize a black man before the ban was lifted. I "accepted" the doctrine that blacks were denied the priesthood. I taught it to him. Did I like it? Not one bit. He was actually a better man than me. Did I want to teach it to him? No. Did I actually believe that there was some intrinsic reason he should not be given the Priesthood? Not for a second. I hated the whole deal.

Did I refuse to give him the Priesthood? Absolutely.

Did I accept the doctrine or not? What do you think? I think I did.. even while not agreeing with it.

Now, I have to admit a change has taken place in me. These days when it is a standard to give Blacks the priesthood, it is starting to be a concept that this was a ban that was instituted in error. The Church is not saying that. Someday they might say that. If they do, I will probably teach that it was in error.

However, I will not agree that it was in error. That will be a doctrine -- that I may "accept" while not agreeing with it.

At this point you might be saying -- how can you have thought it was wrong and yet think it was not in error? Well, I will keep that to myself for a while. This is not the only place where I find myself desiring to keep my thoughts to myself. Indeed, I have had a Revelation that is directly and clearly taught in the scriptures but is NEVER taught in the Church and would be a problem. I never teach it because in Revelation I was told not to and -- the Church never promulgates that truth. When Church authorities say things that are somewhat out of harmony with this thing I have received -- I say AMEN-- because the Lord told me to do so.

I am pointing out how the term "accepting" of doctrine can have nuances to it that might not be so clear and straight forward. So yes, there are doctrines that you are obliged to accept -- even if you don't like them or think that they are true. And that acceptance means -- not teaching against them and not undermining the Church.

For some people this is way too hard. This leaves them with a choice.

I like the words of one of my Bishops, when I brought up something Brigham Young said: "God bless Brother Brigham.. sometimes I worry about him".

[Stone holm]

No. It does not so declare.

McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is most definitely Doctrine. To deny this is to deny the very essence of the meaning of the word and to begin to go into an area of denial that is absurd.

These four things are true:

• "Mormon Doctrine" is a book of doctrine -- by definition.
  
• "Mormon Doctrine" is a book that contains official doctrine of the Church.
  
• "Mormon Doctrine" is a book that is used in promulgating and teaching official doctrine of the Church.
  
• "Mormon Doctrine" as a book, is not official doctrine of the Church.
  

There is a tendency in the Curch, at least amongst most members to equate the word doctrine with the word truth, which is quite a natural assumption since the Church is the true Church, and they believe that the Church is true because its doctrines are true and it has been Divinely authorized. However, some, including myself have come to believe that it is true because it is Divinely authorized and that its doctrines are as true as they can be without resulting in such untenable levels of strain as would endanger the health and safety of the institution and the institution must survive if there is going to be any institution with authority left on the face of the Earth.

[mathonihah]

If the standard is how I want to define it, then there is no question on the matter: There is indeed official doctrine.

It very much is a question of how you want to define it. Your definition of what is “official doctrine” may be logically consistent; but is it useful? I don't see that it is. Let me ask you this question. Are the following statements official doctrine?

“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)

“If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scripture, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.” (Harold B. Lee, 11th President, Improvement Era, January 1969 p.13)

If they are, then the official doctrine is that true doctrine is to be found only in the standard works (or in what conforms to the standard works), and that is a more useful definition of doctrine from my perspective (for the purpose of gospel discussion, with members or critics alike), than your definition of “official doctrine”. If a doctrine is determined by you to be “official,” but is still false, how useful is that for anything, except to call it “official” to satisfy your pedantic position?

Edited March 18, 2013 by mathonihah

[CASteinman]

There is a tendency in the Curch, at least amongst most members to equate the word doctrine with the word truth

Yes, I agree. And I think this leads to problems when discussing "doctrine" with people who are hostile to the Truth -- and also, in some cases, it can confuse people inside the Church when they hear things that do not match up all the time.

However, some, including myself have come to believe that it is true because it is Divinely authorized and that its doctrines are as true as they can be without resulting in such untenable levels of strain as would endanger the health and safety of the institution and the institution must survive if there is going to be any institution with authority left on the face of the Earth.

As far as I can tell, this is correct. I also feel that Joseph Smith was a little bit less concerned with the survival of the institution (for some reason he was pretty sure it would survive) and more concerned with getting things "restored". Apparently that was his great calling -- and he did it as well as he could. It seems that the great commission about "going to all the earth" has been more important in the 20th and 21st Centuries and is the reason for things we do now, instead of the way that they were done in the 19th Century.

To me, this is a matter of divine guidance as to the correct direction of the Church.

For ankle biting apostates it is perfect evidence that we are false.

Interesting how the same evidence can lead to directly opposite conclusions.

[CASteinman]

It very much is question of how you want to define it.

If that were really true (and it is not) then it is "official doctrine" and I will brook no opposition in the matter.

Your definition of what is “official doctrine” may be logically consistent; but is it useful?

Oh yes. It most definitely is. Perhaps not for the purposes you are seeking to put it to, but I would assert that your purposes are misguided.

If they are, then the official doctrine is that true doctrine is to be found only in the standard works

I wish I did not have to mention this but apparently I do: The quotes you use to support this affirmation are not found in the Standard Works. What is really unfortunate in this respect is that you are using the same sort of logic that Bibliolaters use to explain to us why the Book of Mormon is of the Devil. A typical Mormon response to such arguments has been "Where does the Bible claim that the Bible is the whole word of God?"

Well -- I assert the same thing, (despite what Harold B. Lee said): "Where do the Standard Works claim that they are the whole of the Word of God?"

They don't.

And right there is a weakness in your argument because they actually, explicitly say that they are not.

It does not help your argument that you seek to support your view by an appeal to a statement that you would openly admit is not official doctrine, while I can support mine by a statement from a source that you must admit is official doctrine.

Here is the problem with your approach: You are looking for a written or spoken source that is perfect, perfectly consistent and above reproach. This is a misguided effort, doomed to fail.

[mathonihah]

I wish I did not have to mention this but apparently I do: The quotes you use to support this affirmation are not found in the Standard Works. What is really unfortunate in this respect is that you are using the same sort of logic that Bibliolaters use to explain to us why the Book of Mormon is of the Devil. A typical Mormon response to such arguments has been "Where does the Bible claim that the Bible is the whole word of God?"

That is absolute rubbish. You are now contradicting yourself left, right, and center. That statement was made by a standing President of the Church, at a regional conference of the Church, and “officially” published by the Church, and reiterated by others both before him and since. It looks like you hadn't even bothered to read it carefully enough before commenting on it.

Well -- I assert the same thing, (despite what Harold B. Lee said): "Where do the Standard Works claim that they are the whole of the Word of God?"

They don't.

In a sense they do, and in a sense President Lee did not make that claim; so on either ground you lose.

And right there is a weakness in your argument because they actually, explicitly say that they are not.

It does not help your argument that you seek to support your view by an appeal to a statement that you would openly admit is not official doctrine, while I can support mine by a statement from a source that you must admit is official doctrine.

More incoherent stuff from you. I maintain that HBL's doctrine is true (i.e. scriptural), regardless of whether you consider it “official” or not.

Here is the problem with your approach: You are looking for a written or spoken source that is perfect, perfectly consistent and above reproach. This is a misguided effort, doomed to fail.

Your problem seems to be you don't know when to resign when you have lost the game.

[CASteinman]

You are now contradicting yourself left, right, and center.

Would you like to explain to me how I am doing this? Remember now.. I am not arguing that official doctrine is True. Nor am I arguing that it is non-contradictory. Only that it is Official.

So it is possible that I have contradicted myself with official doctrine.. but exactly how have I done so?

That statement was made by a standing President of the Church, at a regional conference of the Church, and “officially” published by the Church

So what? Did I say it wasn't? Did you bother to read what I said?

More incoherent stuff from you. I maintain that HBL's doctrine is true (i.e. scriptural), regardless of whether you consider it “official” or not.

But I do consider it official. YOU are the one who does not consider it official.

You do not seem to be paying attention.

Your problem seems to be you don't know when to resign when you have lost the game.

I see.

It appears to me that somehow my position is upsetting to you. You appear to be really happy with your view of things and so -- I say good for you! God bless you, go in peace.

Edited March 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

Yes, I agree. And I think this leads to problems when discussing "doctrine" with people who are hostile to the Truth -- and also, in some cases, it can confuse people inside the Church when they hear things that do not match up all the time.

As far as I can tell, this is correct. I also feel that Joseph Smith was a little bit less concerned with the survival of the institution (for some reason he was pretty sure it would survive) and more concerned with getting things "restored". Apparently that was his great calling -- and he did it as well as he could. It seems that the great commission about "going to all the earth" has been more important in the 20th and 21st Centuries and is the reason for things we do now, instead of the way that they were done in the 19th Century.

To me, this is a matter of divine guidance as to the correct direction of the Church.

For ankle biting apostates it is perfect evidence that we are false.

Interesting how the same evidence can lead to directly opposite conclusions.

Agreed. That very point was alluded to in Gospel Doctrine class of late.

[mathonihah]

Would you like to explain to me how I am doing this? Remember now.. I am not arguing that official doctrine is True. Nor am I arguing that it is non-contradictory. Only that it is Official.

And how is that definition useful for the purpose of gospel discussion with members or critics alike? A doctrine is “official,” but false! Big deal! What am I supposed to do with that?

So what? Did I say it wasn't? Did you bother to read what I said?

But I do consider it official. YOU are the one who does not consider it official.

You do not seem to be paying attention.

You consider it official but false. I consider it official and true.

[CASteinman]

And how is that definition useful for the purpose of gospel discussion with members or critics alike? A doctrine is “official,” but false! Big deal! What am I supposed to do with that?

It is useful in that it is highly limiting and yet not arbitrary, nor does it contradict the concept of "open canon" or the inspiration of prophets.

You consider it official but false. I consider it official and true.

I thought that the official doctrine was found only in the Standard Works? Are you saying that the official doctrine is found in the Standard Works and anything printed by the Church?

Look, its ok if you like your views. Its not important to me for you to change them. Is it important to you for me to change mine?

[Stone holm]

It very much is a question of how you want to define it. Your definition of what is “official doctrine” may be logically consistent; but is it useful? I don't see that it is. Let me ask you this question. Are the following statements official doctrine?

“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)

“If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scripture, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.” (Harold B. Lee, 11th President, Improvement Era, January 1969 p.13)

If they are, then the official doctrine is that true doctrine is to be found only in the standard works (or in what conforms to the standard works), and that is a more useful definition of doctrine from my perspective (for the purpose of gospel discussion, with members or critics alike), than your definition of “official doctrine”. If a doctrine is determined by you to be “official,” but is still false, how useful is that for anything, except to call it “official” to satisfy your pedantic position?

Interesting. Dangerous doctrine do to the fairly bad batting average we all have, including GAs, at knowing when something constitutes a contradiction as opposed to a differing construction of the language used and that one of the standard works is accepted only to the extent it is translated correctly, but an interesting quote nevertheless.

[Nathair/|\]

Shakes Manannan MacLir's apple branch at this thread.

[CASteinman]

Interesting. Dangerous doctrine do to the fairly bad batting average we all have, including GAs, at knowing when something constitutes a contradiction as opposed to a differing construction of the language used and that one of the standard works is accepted only to the extent it is translated correctly, but an interesting quote nevertheless.

Here is an interesting thing that I did not mention. He quoted "The Improvement Era" which was not actually an official organ of The Church but rather the organ of the "Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association". Some will argue that this is a distinction without a difference. But I would argue that it is an important distinction given the actions of that very prophet quoted -- with regard to the Church Correlation Program.

But I did not want to mention that as it would seem to be (and perhaps not unreasonably) an overly technical objection.

[mathonihah]

It is useful in that it is highly limiting and yet not arbitrary, nor does it contradict the concept of "open canon" or the inspiration of prophets.

And it can also contain false doctrine by your own admission; whereas a concept of official doctrine based on HBL criterion has all the above advantages without the fatal flaw of containing false doctrine.

I thought that the official doctrine was found only in the Standard Works? Are you saying that the official doctrine is found in the Standard Works and anything printed by the Church?

That shows that you have neither read the HBL quotes very carefully, nor what I have written. You are shooting from the hip basically. His argument is that you use the standard works as a measuring yardstick to judge other people's doctrines. In other words, true official doctrine is what conforms to the standard works, not just the standard works by themselves alone.

Look, its ok if you like your views. Its not important to me for you to change them. Is it important to you for me to change mine?

I not only like my own views, but I positively dislike yours, and I am going to tell you about it as long as you are going to presenting them on a public forum for open discussion.

Edited March 18, 2013 by mathonihah

[CASteinman]

And it can also contain false doctrine by your own admission; whereas a concept of official doctrine based on HBL criterion has all the above advantages without the fatal flaw of containing false doctrine.

Wrong. Even the Standard Works can contain either false or misleading doctrine.

That shows that you have neither read the HBL quotes very carefully, nor what I have written. You are shooting from the hip basically. His argument is that you use the standard works as a measuring yardstick to judge other people's doctrines. In other words, true official doctrine is what conforms to the standard works, not just the standard works by themselves alone.

Pretty much irrelevant to the point. He is talking about TRUTH. Not what is "Official Doctrine". Moreover, he is not talking about what is published by the Church.

However, I do note that his statements do not conform with the Standard Works. What are we to make of that?

I not only like my own views, but I positively dislike yours, and I am going to tell you about it as long as you are going to presenting them on a public forum for open discussion.

Ahhh.. I see. That's not a very intellectual, spiritual or charitable basis for discussion.

[thesometimesaint]

See http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

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.

[mathonihah]

Wrong. Even the Standard Works can contain either false or misleading doctrine.

Twice wrong. He is first of all using standard works as a whole as the criteria for correct doctrine, not isolated passages taken out of context and distorted. The standard works are self-correcting in that sense. Secondly, he is applying the standard works as a means of determining incorrect (or speculative) doctrine. In other words, of a doctrine has no scriptural support, then it is speculation; and if it is contradicted by it, then it is false.

Pretty much irrelevant to the point. He is talking about TRUTH. Not what is "Official Doctrine". Moreover, he is not talking about what is published by the Church.

I think it is very relevant, and his criteria does not discriminate between what is published by the Church or not. It is applicable to both.

However, I do note that his statements do not conform with the Standard Works. What are we to make of that?

I think that they do.

Ahhh.. I see. That's not a very intellectual, spiritual or charitable basis for discussion.

I think it is as intellectual, spiritual, or charitable as it need be.

[mathonihah]

See http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

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.

Thank you. That agrees very well with what I have been saying, which is based on what Harold B. Lee had been saying.

[CASteinman]

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine.

I think this is an example of how official doctrine (which you are quoting) can either contain error is or can be misleading.

The above statement is an example. It is technically correct -- but misleading.

For example, if Joseph Smith said "I am hungry" that would not have been doctrine, but it definitely would have been a statement by him. Clearly then, not all statements are "doctrine". But when you say something like "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. " Most people will read that as "Not every DOCTRINAL statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine."

Which is a self contradictory reading. Of course EVERY doctrinal statement made by a past leader is doctrine. By definition.

What this sentence should have made more clear is that "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes OFFICIAL CHURCH doctrine".

An example would be when Joseph Smith said "States Rights is a Stink in the Nose of God" (or words to that effect). Its a doctrinal statement. But it is not an official statement of Doctrine by the Church.

[CASteinman]

Twice wrong. He is first of all using standard works as a whole as the criteria for correct doctrine, not isolated passages taken out of context and distorted.

So you say. But that is not what he said. Apparently your claim on this matter is not true because it does not match what is said in the Standard Works. And I have it on good authority that I may reject it on that basis and that basis alone.

Secondly, he is applying the standard works as a means of determining incorrect (or speculative) doctrine. In other words, of a doctrine has no scriptural support, then it is speculation; and if it is contradicted by it, then it is false.

You sound exactly like an anti-Mormon.

But never mind. This is irrelevant regarding the notion of "Official Doctrine" a topic Harold B. Lee was not even addressing.

I think it is very relevant, and his criteria does not discriminate between what is published by the Church or not. It is applicable to both.

Ok... so you think it is relevant. And yet you fail to show how. Remember, the issue was a a matter of official doctrine. Its not a matter of truth. Nor a matter of what is binding on people to believe. But a matter of what constitutes official doctrine.

And you should note, he does not even discuss that matter.