What The Church Teaches Versus What Is Official Doctrine

[cinepro]

 

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

 

 

Okay, so if we're both willing to accept that the Correlation Review committee makes mistakes, which do you think is more likely? 

 

That they were mistaken when they allowed the Bible Dictionary,  Institute Manual, another Institute Manual,  Seminary Manual, and a General Conference talk by Apostle Russell M. Nelson to be published?

 

Or when they allowed an article to be published in the "I Have a Question" section of the September 1977 Ensign written by a Stake President geologist with the disclaimer "Questions of general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy"?

 

I wonder which one was the mistake? 

[Rob Osborn]

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 .

 

The answer given in the ensign by Morris Peterson is a one off statement made by one individual who is in no position of authority to proclaim doctrine. According to the newsroom of  the Church these types of statements are not classified as doctrine because they do not fit the criteria given. The statement is not backed by anything in scripture nor is it consistently proclaimed in official church publications or by apostles or prophets. It thus does not meet the criteria for it to be doctrine.

 

On the other hand I can find a half dozen different times in official church publications such as manuals where no death before the fall is taught. I can also find scriptures that back up these statements made and I can also find testimonies from actual prophets on the matter. Because the church does indeed teach no doctrine before the fall it thus is what the church teaches. These all constitute the correct definition of it being official church doctrine.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

_{I found this of interest from how the correlation works-}

 

_{"The correlation process helps ensure that these materials are scripture-based, doctrinally accurate, and appropriate for the intended audience. All Church publications are planned, prepared, reviewed, and implemented under the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve"}

 

 

_{That statement  means that the officially published materials such as is found in teaching manuals are "doctrinally accurate" under the direction of the First Presidency and thus constitute official church doctrine.}

[CV75]

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.

 

I can find a half dozen different times in official church publications such as manuals where no death before the fall is taught.

I agree that "no death before the Fall" is taught; is doctrine. I'll add that it is also true!

 

If this truth pertains to Adam’s covenants and stewardship, then it is possible that other forms life existed (lived and died) for millions of years outside of his covenants and stewardship.

 

So death still came into the world of his covenant/stewardship when he fell, but it also could have been occurring outside of it, allowing for various scientifically observed events to have taken place long before the 7000-year scriptural timeline. This does not contradict the scriptures or the teaching that there was no death before the Fall.

 

Since the atonement is infinite and eternal, it covers all forms of life existing outside of Adam’s stewardship as well as those that fell along with him.

[MormonFreeThinker]

The answer given in the ensign by Morris Peterson is a one off statement made by one individual who is in no position of authority to proclaim doctrine. According to the newsroom of  the Church these types of statements are not classified as doctrine because they do not fit the criteria given. The statement is not backed by anything in scripture nor is it consistently proclaimed in official church publications or by apostles or prophets. It thus does not meet the criteria for it to be doctrine.

 

On the other hand I can find a half dozen different times in official church publications such as manuals where no death before the fall is taught. I can also find scriptures that back up these statements made and I can also find testimonies from actual prophets on the matter. Because the church does indeed teach no doctrine before the fall it thus is what the church teaches. These all constitute the correct definition of it being official church doctrine.

 

No physical death before the Fall is not doctrine. 

Where in the scripture does it say that there was no physical death before the Fall? 

 

 

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.

 

"ll things which were created must have remained in the same state"

Except for the plants? What did they eat? 

 

It says "same state" it is not saying that all things were immortal. 

Edited June 16, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[rameumptom]

The Doctrine of the Church contains those core concepts that are never changing and are clearly taught in the scriptures and by the GAs.  The best description of this that I have found is at the LDS Newsroom:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined. 

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context, and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

• 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.
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

• Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being.  In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges.  According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
• Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
• Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.
• Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology. 

Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.

 

 

Clearly there are things said that do not connote doctrine.  There are also doctrines taught that are not core doctrines, and are potentially open for change in the future.  You will note that the above statement does not state that all things taught by GAs is doctrine, and we do need to focus on those things that have officially been given the imprimatur stamp of approval by the First Presidency.

 

Rob, you can parse words all you like, but it does not fit into what the Church actually establishes as doctrine. Yes, we use manuals that take many things for granted, such as the Flood.  That is because the manuals and the scriptures are NOT science nor history books.  They are scripture, written by men in their weakness.

 

The current manuals are old and are being replaced.  The headings in the 1981 scriptures have been reworked and many things changed or added.  Everyone agrees that the Institute manuals also need a major overhaul, especially considering the things we are learning from the Joseph Smith Papers Project.  For example, we now know that D&C 20:1 was added by the scribe as an introduction, and not part of the original revelation - so Talmage's teaching that it means Jesus was born on April 6, 1BC is not revelation and probably is wrong.

 

The core doctrine in this case is that Jesus was born, lived, died on the cross, and resurrected as our Messiah and the Firstborn of God.  It doesn't matter what day he was born, but he was born.

 

President Hinckley stated this:

 

I do not fret over the mysteries. I do not worry whether the heavenly gates swing or slide. I am only concerned that they open. I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time.

I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.

(“God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear” Ensign, Oct 1984)

[Rob Osborn]

The Doctrine of the Church contains those core concepts that are never changing and are clearly taught in the scriptures and by the GAs.  The best description of this that I have found is at the LDS Newsroom:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

 

Clearly there are things said that do not connote doctrine.  There are also doctrines taught that are not core doctrines, and are potentially open for change in the future.  You will note that the above statement does not state that all things taught by GAs is doctrine, and we do need to focus on those things that have officially been given the imprimatur stamp of approval by the First Presidency.

 

Rob, you can parse words all you like, but it does not fit into what the Church actually establishes as doctrine. Yes, we use manuals that take many things for granted, such as the Flood.  That is because the manuals and the scriptures are NOT science nor history books.  They are scripture, written by men in their weakness.

 

The current manuals are old and are being replaced.  The headings in the 1981 scriptures have been reworked and many things changed or added.  Everyone agrees that the Institute manuals also need a major overhaul, especially considering the things we are learning from the Joseph Smith Papers Project.  For example, we now know that D&C 20:1 was added by the scribe as an introduction, and not part of the original revelation - so Talmage's teaching that it means Jesus was born on April 6, 1BC is not revelation and probably is wrong.

 

The core doctrine in this case is that Jesus was born, lived, died on the cross, and resurrected as our Messiah and the Firstborn of God.  It doesn't matter what day he was born, but he was born.

 

President Hinckley stated this:

And perhaps the most overlooked statement given is that this doctrine is established and consistently proclaimed in official publucations. That is defined as church teaching manuals published by the church amongst other official publications.

[MormonFreeThinker]

"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" - Ensign 

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

 

"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

 

and read carefully 

 

"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"

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

 

Established Doctrine is proclaimed in church publications,

but not everything in church publications is doctrine. 

 

For example, all Lamanites are indians, but not all indians are Lamanites. 

Edited June 16, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

You cannot escape the fact that official publications such as manuals do contain official doctrine.

[thatjimguy]

So I guess my question is, if anything other than the scriptures is officuial, why teach anything else in Sunday School when we darn well know that it will be acted upon as if it were?

 

At the same time, I cannot think of anything off hand that isn't doctrinal that would be taught on Sunday School. Any breif examples?

[cinepro]

 

It says "same state" it is not saying that all things were immortal. 

 

Please describe the "state" all things were in before the fall, and how it was different than their state after the fall. 

 

In other words, if Adam and Eve had opted to not fall, how would the plants and animals of the world look different today?

[BCSpace]

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.

 

 

Amen.  Couldn't have said it better myself.

[BCSpace]

"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"

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

 

Established Doctrine is proclaimed in church publications,

but not everything in church publications is doctrine.

 

 

Read it again.  Every official publication is doctrine.  The doctrine may reside, but the First Presidency and the council of the 12 establishes it.  The statement also expands on your first Ensign statement which includes only the FP but as we can see really includes both the FP and the 12.  As I've noted before, the Approaching Mormon Doctrine statement brings together a host of things previously taught state by the Church but not found all together until now.

Edited June 17, 2014 by BCSpace

[MormonFreeThinker]

I found another one 

 

Ensign Sept 2013 

 

"The prophet and President of the Church can receive revelation individually that becomes doctrine when it is sustained by the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see Acts 10; Official Declaration 2)"

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/09/how-is-doctrine-established?lang=eng

[thesometimesaint]

So I guess my question is, if anything other than the scriptures is officuial, why teach anything else in Sunday School when we darn well know that it will be acted upon as if it were?

 

At the same time, I cannot think of anything off hand that isn't doctrinal that would be taught on Sunday School. Any breif examples?

 

That Adam and Eve rode around on a coconut eating T-Rex.

[Grand Moff Tarkin]

Smart strategy by church leaders. No one can pin down exactly what it is so that they can distance themselves from nearly anything if need be.

[JLHPROF]

Smart strategy by church leaders. No one can pin down exactly what it is so that they can distance themselves from nearly anything if need be.

 

I think you are applying some sinister motives where they aren't necessary.  The Church doesn't need to distance themselves from teachings very often.  Generally it is the membership that either declares "I like it so it's official" or "I disagree so it's opinion".

I don't think our leaders are so quick to declare officiality of doctrine as our members are.

[thatjimguy]

I think you are applying some sinister motives where they aren't necessary.  The Church doesn't need to distance themselves from teachings very often.  Generally it is the membership that either declares "I like it so it's official" or "I disagree so it's opinion".

I don't think our leaders are so quick to declare officiality of doctrine as our members are.

 

Then what motive would there be to teach things from mauals that are not official? Why allow people to fall into books with spiritual landmines in it?

[MormonFreeThinker]

Then what motive would there be to teach things from mauals that are not official? Why allow people to fall into books with spiritual landmines in it?

 

Manuals are useful because they teach principles that are found in the scriptures. 

We don't believe Manuals are infallible .

[thesometimesaint]

Then what motive would there be to teach things from mauals that are not official? Why allow people to fall into books with spiritual landmines in it?

 

Allow? We go to serious lengths to keep away from spiritual landmines. The weeds and sharp things are there for now to keep us humble(Teachable). Someday soon they will be bundled up and burned.

[The Nehor]

Smart strategy by church leaders. No one can pin down exactly what it is so that they can distance themselves from nearly anything if need be.

Sure they can. They can deny the atonement and declare there is no God tomorrow and all will be well.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Okay, so if we're both willing to accept that the Correlation Review committee makes mistakes, which do you think is more likely? 

 

That they were mistaken when they allowed the Bible Dictionary,  Institute Manual, another Institute Manual,  Seminary Manual, and a General Conference talk by Apostle Russell M. Nelson to be published?

 

Or when they allowed an article to be published in the "I Have a Question" section of the September 1977 Ensign written by a Stake President geologist with the disclaimer "Questions of general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy"?

 

I wonder which one was the mistake? 

 

But how many times did they say that there was no animal death before the Fall?

 

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 

FALL OF ADAM AND EVE

"The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, they became mortal, that is, subject to sin and death. Adam became the “first flesh” upon the earth (Moses 3:7). Latter-day revelation makes clear that the Fall is a blessing and that Adam and Eve should be honored as the first parents of all mankind.The Fall was a necessary step in man’s progress. Because God knew that the Fall would occur, he had planned in the premortal life for a Savior. Jesus Christ came in the meridian of time to atone for the fall of Adam and also for man’s individual sins on condition of man’s repentance"

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/fall-of-adam-and-eve.t1?lang=eng&letter=f

Edited June 18, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker