What The Church Teaches Versus What Is Official Doctrine

[Rob Osborn]

This has been brought up before and many are aware of the apparent mystery of what constitutes "official church doctrine". It got me to thinking of the two statements- "What the church teaches" versus "what is official doctrine". It then dawned on me that the two statements mean the same exact thing, just using different words. For example- if we want to learn what the official doctrines of the church is all we have to do is learn what the church teaches. So where do we learn what the church teaches? This is where scriptures and official publications such as manuals come into play.

There are some apologists on the web who emphatically state that certain doctrines are not "official" doctrines because they are not signed off by the first presidency and made into an official declaration. But this got me to thinking about how ridiculous this process would be if we had to have a published book showing the thousands of times the prophets would have to sign off on every little thing just to make it "official". For example- as far as I can tell there is no signed off declaration for the plan of salvation that includes the three worlds of glory. Does this then mean that it isnt an "official doctrine" of the church? This shows the ridiculousness of such things.

This really shouldnt be an issue at all. If a church publishes a manual or flyer, etc proclaiming such and such doctrine then that is what the church is teaching. And what the church teaches defines it as being "official doctrine" plain and simple! Break it down into the two words- Official because it is published and approved by the church to represent the church teachings, and doctrine because it is the substance of what the church as a general body believes and teaches regardless of if it ultimately is true or not. Thus, when I open my "Gospel Principles" manual I can be assured that the doctrines found in the manual represent officially what the church really teaches. Its not just someones random ideas or a think tanks dreamings, no, it is the actual doctrine the church teaches. And because it represents what the church believes and is published by the church it thus makes it official that what is being taught is the church doctrine. Putting the obvious together then, it represents what constitutes official church doctrines.

[halconero]

Publication doesn't mean "from the mouth of God."

I hate to go "ad hitlerum" on the thread, but the Church praised Adolf for his policies, his adherence to a word of wisdom-like lifestyle, and his anti-Jewish genealogical research. That didn't make "Adolf Hitler is a pretty good guy" into official doctrine.

Now, I agree that in many cases, collected teachings, articles and publications can represent gospel truths and important doctrines, but the church logo don't make it so.

Edited June 16, 2014 by halconero

[Rob Osborn]

Publication doesn't mean "from the mouth of God."

I hate to go "ad hitlerum" on the thread, but the Church praised Adolf for his policies, his adherence to a word of wisdom-like lifestyle, and his anti-Jewish genealogical research. That didn't make "Adolf Hitler is a pretty good guy" into official doctrine.

Now, I agree that in many cases, collected teachings, articles and publications can represent gospel truths and important doctrines, but the church logo don't make it so.

Official church doctrine may indeed be out of harmony with actual truth. Official church doctrine is nothing more nor nothing less than what the church teaches.

[Storm Rider]

This has been brought up before and many are aware of the apparent mystery of what constitutes "official church doctrine". It got me to thinking of the two statements- "What the church teaches" versus "what is official doctrine". It then dawned on me that the two statements mean the same exact thing, just using different words. For example- if we want to learn what the official doctrines of the church is all we have to do is learn what the church teaches. So where do we learn what the church teaches? This is where scriptures and official publications such as manuals come into play.

There are some apologists on the web who emphatically state that certain doctrines are not "official" doctrines because they are not signed off by the first presidency and made into an official declaration. But this got me to thinking about how ridiculous this process would be if we had to have a published book showing the thousands of times the prophets would have to sign off on every little thing just to make it "official". For example- as far as I can tell there is no signed off declaration for the plan of salvation that includes the three worlds of glory. Does this then mean that it isnt an "official doctrine" of the church? This shows the ridiculousness of such things.

This really shouldnt be an issue at all. If a church publishes a manual or flyer, etc proclaiming such and such doctrine then that is what the church is teaching. And what the church teaches defines it as being "official doctrine" plain and simple! Break it down into the two words- Official because it is published and approved by the church to represent the church teachings, and doctrine because it is the substance of what the church as a general body believes and teaches regardless of if it ultimately is true or not. Thus, when I open my "Gospel Principles" manual I can be assured that the doctrines found in the manual represent officially what the church really teaches. Its not just someones random ideas or a think tanks dreamings, no, it is the actual doctrine the church teaches. And because it represents what the church believes and is published by the church it thus makes it official that what is being taught is the church doctrine. Putting the obvious together then, it represents what constitutes official church doctrines.

 

So the people who write the manuals and are not signed off by the leadership are the actual interpreters of the teachings of the Church and they are the real experts on what is and is not doctrine?  Hmm, I think you used the statement, "This shows the ridiculousness of such things."  Those who write the manuals are those who write the manuals; they are not the ones who define doctrine.  

 

A manual may state something, but what is actual taught in the class?  Is the teacher then that is the real go-to person for real doctrine of the Church?  Or maybe it is neither, it is what is said in General Conference by each speaker because every word they say comes from God?

 

I am a purist; I do not believe in the infallibility of those who speak in conference, those who write manuals, or those who teach.  I find it infinitely ridiculous that there are those who want to claim the exact opposite because because it demands illogical assumptions.

 

Doctrine is found in scriptures, even those three kingdoms you mentioned, and the prophets and apostles can interpret.  When a revelation is received and it is doctrine it is added to the scriptures. If it is not there, it is not doctrine.  

Nice try, but I am not buying that bit of circular logic.

[Rob Osborn]

So the people who write the manuals and are not signed off by the leadership are the actual interpreters of the teachings of the Church and they are the real experts on what is and is not doctrine?  Hmm, I think you used the statement, "This shows the ridiculousness of such things."  Those who write the manuals are those who write the manuals; they are not the ones who define doctrine.  

 

A manual may state something, but what is actual taught in the class?  Is the teacher then that is the real go-to person for real doctrine of the Church?  Or maybe it is neither, it is what is said in General Conference by each speaker because every word they say comes from God?

 

I am a purist; I do not believe in the infallibility of those who speak in conference, those who write manuals, or those who teach.  I find it infinitely ridiculous that there are those who want to claim the exact opposite because because it demands illogical assumptions.

 

Doctrine is found in scriptures, even those three kingdoms you mentioned, and the prophets and apostles can interpret.  When a revelation is received and it is doctrine it is added to the scriptures. If it is not there, it is not doctrine.  

Nice try, but I am not buying that bit of circular logic.

So, you believe that our church manuals used to teach the masses on Sunday do not contain the official teachings of the church?

[MormonFreeThinker]

There are some apologists on the web who emphatically state that certain doctrines are not "official" doctrines because they are not signed off by the first presidency and made into an official declaration. But this got me to thinking about how ridiculous this process would be if we had to have a published book showing the thousands of times the prophets would have to sign off on every little thing just to make it "official". For example- as far as I can tell there is no signed off declaration for the plan of salvation that includes the three worlds of glory. Does this then mean that it isnt an "official doctrine" of the church? This shows the ridiculousness of such things.

 

 

I already quoted leaders of the church to prove what is official doctrine. The Plan of Salvation is doctrine because it is found in the scriptures, and it is clearly taught in the scriptures. The scriptures are the Standard Works. 

 

"Only the Standard Works and statements written under assignment of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles are considered official declarations by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint" - Elder Packer 

 

"But there are many places where the scriptures are not too clear, and where different interpretations may be given to them; there are many doctrines, tenets as the Lord called them, that have not been officially defined and declare" - Elder J. Rueben Clark

 

"materials within these four categories are prepared under the direction of some officially recognized Church agency, and they are reviewed and cleared by the Church Correlation Review committees before they are published and issued to the Church...While the content of the approved Church publications identified above does not claim the same endorsement that the standard works receive, nonetheless they are prepared with great care and are carefully screened before they are published. Writers of curriculum materials must be cleared by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Their product is reviewed closely by the heads of the organizations that are responsible for their implementation. Correlation Review committees check carefully for doctrinal accuracy and for harmony with established Church policies and procedures." - Elder Dean L. Larsen, I Have a Question - Ensign Aug. 1977 - ensign

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/08/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

 

"The official doctrine of the Latter-day Saints is clearly defined and readily accessible to all. Doctrines are official if they are found in the standard works of the Church, if they are sustained by the Church in general conference (D&C 26:2), or if they are taught by the First Presidency as a presidency" - New Era May 1998 - new-era 

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1998/05/are-mormons-christians?lang=eng

Edited June 16, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Calm]

 Church praised Adolf for ….his anti-Jewish genealogical research. 

I assume they were focusing on the genealogical research and likely weren't aware of the great significance of the anti-jewish and racial supremacy motivation that drove it.

[halconero]

I assume they were focusing on the genealogical research and likely weren't aware of the great significance of the anti-jewish and racial supremacy motivation that drove it.

 

Oh for sure. To be honest, the economic rebound Germany made under Adolf (which was completely unsustainable...but that's a different topic) made him look like a strong, capable leader to many. My point is simply that even though a publication says something, that doesn't make it doctrinal.

[CV75]

This really shouldnt be an issue at all.

Some other things come into play as well: the layers of doctrine; the completeness of what gets taught at any given time, place and circumstance; how it is understood, taught or discussed (“by the Spirit of truth or some other way”--this is the key, I think); and in what constitute the “Church” and the "church" for various purposes.

 

Official church doctrine may indeed be out of harmony with actual truth. Official church doctrine is nothing more nor nothing less than what the church teaches.

Hence one refrains from contending against the doctrine when he presumes to be in greater harmony with the "actual" truth than "official church doctrine."

[Rob Osborn]

I already quoted leaders of the church to prove what is official doctrine. The Plan of Salvation is doctrine because it is found in the scriptures, and it is clearly taught in the scriptures. The scriptures are the Standard Works. 

 

"Only the Standard Works and statements written under assignment of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles are considered official declarations by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint" - Elder Packer 

 

"But there are many places where the scriptures are not too clear, and where different interpretations may be given to them; there are many doctrines, tenets as the Lord called them, that have not been officially defined and declare" - Elder J. Rueben Clark

 

"materials within these four categories are prepared under the direction of some officially recognized Church agency, and they are reviewed and cleared by the Church Correlation Review committees before they are published and issued to the Church...While the content of the approved Church publications identified above does not claim the same endorsement that the standard works receive, nonetheless they are prepared with great care and are carefully screened before they are published. Writers of curriculum materials must be cleared by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Their product is reviewed closely by the heads of the organizations that are responsible for their implementation. Correlation Review committees check carefully for doctrinal accuracy and for harmony with established Church policies and procedures." - Elder Dean L. Larsen, I Have a Question - Ensign Aug. 1977 - ensign

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/08/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

 

"The official doctrine of the Latter-day Saints is clearly defined and readily accessible to all. Doctrines are official if they are found in the standard works of the Church, if they are sustained by the Church in general conference (D&C 26:2), or if they are taught by the First Presidency as a presidency" - New Era May 1998 - new-era 

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1998/05/are-mormons-christians?lang=eng

So, Adam being the first man of all men on this earth, the global flood, the division of the earth are all found in the standard works and in official publications and thus "official doctrine".

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So, Adam being the first man of all men on this earth, the global flood, the division of the earth are all found in the standard works and in official publications and thus "official doctrine".

 

Well played, Rob, well played.

[MormonFreeThinker]

So, Adam being the first man of all men on this earth, the global flood, the division of the earth are all found in the standard works and in official publications and thus "official doctrine".

 

Yes, Adam was the first man, that is official doctrine

 

"What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.'"

- President Hinckley. 

 

but "Adam the first man" can be interpreted in many ways. I already explained many times. 

 

Elder Talmage believed that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons lived before Adam, do you think was he committing apostasy for that? I don't think so. 

 

 

"Global Flood" in Noah' world, and "Global Flood" does not appear in the scriptures. 

Edited June 16, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

You mean what is really official as opposed to all those spiritually uplifting ideas tossed out there in Gospel Doctrine class?

[Storm Rider]

So, Adam being the first man of all men on this earth, the global flood, the division of the earth are all found in the standard works and in official publications and thus "official doctrine".

 

You choke on gnats much?

[ERayR]

You choke on gnats much?

 

Have you ever been surrounded by a great big black swarm of gnats?

[Storm Rider]

Have you ever been surrounded by a great big black swarm of gnats?

 

Only when I am swallowing camels whole. 

[Rob Osborn]

Yes, Adam was the first man, that is official doctrine

 

"What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.'"

- President Hinckley. 

 

but "Adam the first man" can be interpreted in many ways. I already explained many times. 

 

Elder Talmage believed that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons lived before Adam, do you think was he committing apostasy for that? I don't think so. 

 

 

"Global Flood" in Noah' world, and "Global Flood" does not appear in the scriptures.

Only you think that. The church teaches otherwise. Your quote by Hinkley is not official doctrine. Talmage also had his opinions which also are not considered doctrine of the church.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Only you think that. The church teaches otherwise. Your quote by Hinkley is not official doctrine. Talmage also had his opinions which also are not considered doctrine of the church.

 

I agree, not doctrine.

 

Death or no Death before the Fall is not official doctrine.

[JLHPROF]

Official church doctrine may indeed be out of harmony with actual truth. Official church doctrine is nothing more nor nothing less than what the church teaches.

 

Of course it may be out of harmony with truth.  Otherwise we wouldn't need continuing revelation to correct the things we are teaching that are wrong.  That's why Church doctrine has changed so much over the years.

[thesometimesaint]

We have two official statements as to what is doctrine for the Church.

 

1. It is what is found in the Standard Works of the Church, and official pronouncements.

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

 

2. Is a logical conclusion from the Articles of Faith # 8,9

SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng

[Rob Osborn]

I agree, not doctrine.

 

Death or no Death before the Fall is not official doctrine.

No death before the fall is in scripture 2 Nephi 2:22. This scripture is cited in numerous manuals to teach there was no death before the fall. Thus, it is official church doctrine.

[Rob Osborn]

We have two official statements as to what is doctrine for the Church.

 

1. It is what is found in the Standard Works of the Church, and official pronouncements.

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

 

2. Is a logical conclusion from the Articles of Faith # 8,9

SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng

And under #1 it states that this official doctrine is found in official publications of the church.

[thesometimesaint]

The existence of these animals is indisputable, for their remains have beenfound in rocks all over the earth. What eternal purpose they played in the creation and early history of the earth is unknown. The scriptures do not address the question, and it is not the realm of science to explore the issue of why they were here. We can only conclude, as Elder Talmage did, that “the whole series of chalk deposits and many of our deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals. These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation.” (“The Earth and Man.”)

—Morris S. Petersen, professor of geology, Brigham Young University, "I Have a Question," Ensign (September 1987)

[cinepro]

So the people who write the manuals and are not signed off by the leadership are the actual interpreters of the teachings of the Church and they are the real experts on what is and is not doctrine?  Hmm, I think you used the statement, "This shows the ridiculousness of such things."  Those who write the manuals are those who write the manuals; they are not the ones who define doctrine.  

 

A manual may state something, but what is actual taught in the class?  Is the teacher then that is the real go-to person for real doctrine of the Church?  Or maybe it is neither, it is what is said in General Conference by each speaker because every word they say comes from God?

 

I am a purist; I do not believe in the infallibility of those who speak in conference, those who write manuals, or those who teach.  I find it infinitely ridiculous that there are those who want to claim the exact opposite because because it demands illogical assumptions.

 

Doctrine is found in scriptures, even those three kingdoms you mentioned, and the prophets and apostles can interpret.  When a revelation is received and it is doctrine it is added to the scriptures. If it is not there, it is not doctrine.  

Nice try, but I am not buying that bit of circular logic.

 

Storm Rider, obviously everyone is free to come up with their own definition of what is or isn't "doctrine", but methinks your definition doesn't exactly jive with what the Church itself teaches.  For example, this is from MormonFreeThinkers list of quotes:

 

 

 

Writers of curriculum materials must be cleared by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Their product is reviewed closely by the heads of the organizations that are responsible for their implementation. Correlation Review committees check carefully for doctrinal accuracy and for harmony with established Church policies and procedures." - Elder Dean L. Larsen, I Have a Question - Ensign Aug. 1977

 

Now, compare that statement with what you have written above.  Can you really say that your definition is supported by the Church itself?

 

Also, consider this description of the Correlation process taught in the Doctrine and Covenants Gospel Doctrine class:

 

 

Explain that the purpose of Church correlation is to preserve “the right way of God” (Jacob 7:7). Ultimately it is intended to help accomplish the mission of the Church, which is to invite all people to “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him” (Moroni 10:32; see also D&C 20:59).

 

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve oversee correlation in the Church. Correlation includes:

• Maintaining purity of doctrine.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-42-continuing-revelation-to-latter-day-prophets?lang=eng

With that in mind, I think we need to be more careful about casually dismissing the status of statements made in currently published correlated materials.  It's easy to convince ourselves such publications and manuals aren't "official", and that their teachings and articles are written by fallible Church members that can be safely ignored, but I'm not so sure that's how the Church wants us to approach these things.

 

Also, on the subject of "the Standard Works", there seems to be some disagreement about which is more authoritative: the Prophet, or the Standards Works.  President Benson taught (and it was recently reiterated twice in General Conference):

 

 

The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

 

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

 

“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

 

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)

 

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

Edited June 16, 2014 by cinepro

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

Storm Rider, obviously everyone is free to come up with their own definition of what is or isn't "doctrine", but methinks your definition doesn't exactly jive with what the Church itself teaches.  For example, this is from MormonFreeThinkers list of quotes:

 

Where does it say that all publications receive "a close auditing from each individual member of the First Presidency and the Twelve"  like the General Handbook of Instructions?

 

and don't forget 

"the content of the approved Church publications identified above does not claim the same endorsement that the standard works receive"

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/08/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

 

If "Death before the Fall" is against The Church, why did Correlation Review committees approve Morris S. Petersen answer?

 

"the existence of these animals is indisputable, for their remains have been found in rocks all over the earth. What eternal purpose they played in the creation and early history of the earth is unknown. The scriptures do not address the question, and it is not the realm of science to explore the issue of why they were here. We can only conclude, as Elder Talmage did, that “the whole series of chalk deposits and many of our deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals. These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation.” (“The Earth and Man.”)"

I Have a Question - Ensign Sept. 1987 - ensign

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/09/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

 

Yes, the article is not an official statement, but it does not go against church doctrine.

"Death before the Fall" and "No Death before the Fall" are not official doctrine, but they are not against church doctrine.  So you can believe in Death before the Fall or No Death Before the Fall. 

 

Don't ignore the other Ensign statements I quoted, and 

I don't think the Correlation Review committees are perfect .

 

Edited June 16, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker