Proclamation V Declaration V Revelation V Doctrine V Scripture V Canon

[JDave]

 

things have changed in the LDS church that were once widely accepted as "official" or "doctrine," which are now disavowed as ever having been official or doctrine.

I don't remember any wording implying that something never was doctrine.  What statement are you thinking about? 

[Daniel2]

I don't remember any wording implying that something never was doctrine.  What statement are you thinking about? 

 

I wasn't referring to wording in this thread, but other "doctrinal" shifts that have historically and socially occured.

 

It seems to me that the lines separating "doctrine" vs. "revelation" vs. "cannon" vs. "offical" only became significant once the internet increased scrutiny on previous issues.... of course, that could just be that I only found such distinctions on the internet, so it may have pre-dated the internet, too...

[BCSpace]

As far as they relate to the LDS church, what is the official definition of the following:

 

o  Revelation

 

o  Scripture

 

o  Doctrine

 

o  Cannon

 

o  Proclamation:

 

 

The grand unifying principle is that they are all the official doctrine of the Church as they are all published by the Church. Neither is intrinsically more or less authoritative than the other though a difference may lie in the importance of the specific doctrine; Atonement vs. Global Flood or Family vs. the location of the garden of Eden for example.

 

Scripture on the surface is more authoritative but that is only because they contain that which requires the prophets and apostles to interpret into doctrine. Neither you or I are qualified to point to scripture and officially declare what the doctrine is.  It must first be so interpreted and officially published and then we can say the Church says the doctrine is thus and so and there is NO authoritative difference between the doctrine teased from the scriptures, modern revelation, or any teachings found in officially published manuals or other works.

 

 

The truth is we don't have a universally accepted method for resolving this debate.

 

 

I have just done so or rather the Church has by various statements and how it treats what it teaches. The ONLY reason why there is debate is because of unbelief in the doctrines taught and personal agendas.

Edited August 26, 2014 by BCSpace

[wenglund]

Trying to define what constitutes doctrine or an official position is a very frustrating exercise. The church has a definition of church doctrine on the newsroom website, but I don't know if that is the official definition since the definition contained therein would exclude the article from being defined as doctrine or an official position.

I'm not trying to be combative, but honestly, why is doctrine so difficult to define in our church? It's one of my biggest struggles.

 

If complex human concepts like beauty and romance and success are difficult to define, then one might expect that far more complex Godly concepts would be much more difficult to define--except in very general, loose, and vague terms, and rightly so since hard-and-fast definitions tend to create cognitive boxes that don't fit so well ethereal spiritual precepts.

 

The good news is that the struggle with the lack of definition of gospel precepts is expected when maturing from fundamentalist (black/white) thinking to nuanced thought, but will subside through adopting a less rigid and dogmatic and more flexible and open mindset, if not also through marrying the left brain with the right. 

 

Those intent on exacting/legalistic definitions within the gospel tend to be those resistant to maturing beyond fundamentalist thinking. At least that has been my experience.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 26, 2014 by wenglund

[SmileyMcGee]

When the prophets speak and that gets published is pretty much the way it happens. Then after that, it gets regular attention. Its not a mystery.

You can't think of any instances that violate the process that you describe?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You can't think of any instances that violate the process that you describe?

In this day and age? Nope. before TV and modern technology? You bet it happened all the time. And when they need to issue a correction they do that.

[JDave]

As I said before -- it is a process, and it shouldn't be that bizarre of a concept for a church that believes in continuing revelation and an open canon.

 

The church even prints manuals that systematically lay out our doctrine.  While I don't agree with BCSpace on the idea that everything (and I mean everything) published constitutes doctrine, I do generally agree.  If you want to know about our doctrine, pick up the most recent manuals or peruse the recent General Conference talks.

 

Because it is a process, doctrine can change.  Doctrine can change.  Doctrine does not have to be unalterable eternal truth; it is simply what the church currently teaches.

[SmileyMcGee]

In this day and age? Nope. before TV and modern technology? You bet it happened all the time. And when they need to issue a correction they do that.

So the revelatory process was hindered by a lack of technology? That's an interesting concept.

[Daniel2]

Doctrine can change.  Doctrine does not have to be unalterable eternal truth; it is simply what the church currently teaches.

 

So, in your view, LDS "doctrine" is defined as "what the church currently teaches"?

[SmileyMcGee]

As I said before -- it is a process, and it shouldn't be that bizarre of a concept for a church that believes in continuing revelation and an open canon.

The church even prints manuals that systematically lay out our doctrine. While I don't agree with BCSpace on the idea that everything (and I mean everything) published constitutes doctrine, I do generally agree. If you want to know about our doctrine, pick up the most recent manuals or peruse the recent General Conference talks.

Because it is a process, doctrine can change. Doctrine can change. Doctrine does not have to be unalterable eternal truth; it is simply what the church currently teaches.

When I see this argument made I see some issues with it:

1. The idea of continuing revelation seems to be a process of building line upon line not altering and correcting. If a doctrine needs to be corrected then it seems to call the initial revelation into question. We then get the "speaking as a man concept" which resolves nothing and only restates the problem.

2. If doctrine is not eternal truth an is changeable, then how does our doctrine differ from that of other religions.

3. I don't know that the church has ever taught that doctrine can change or that it is not eternal truth. The seems to go the direction of discrediting some old teaching as something taught while the leader was speaking as a man.

[JDave]

So, in your view, LDS "doctrine" is defined as "what the church currently teaches"?

That, along with some context.  As stated on the Church's statement about doctrine, "The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context"

 

Consider the question, "Is Gospel Principles (the manual) reflective of LDS doctrine?"  Could anyone argue that it isn't?

[JDave]

When I see this argument made I see some issues with it:

1. The idea of continuing revelation seems to be a process of building line upon line not altering and correcting. If a doctrine needs to be corrected then it seems to call the initial revelation into question. We then get the "speaking as a man concept" which resolves nothing and only restates the problem.

2. If doctrine is not eternal truth an is changeable, then how does our doctrine differ from that of other religions.

3. I don't know that the church has ever taught that doctrine can change or that it is not eternal truth. The seems to go the direction of discrediting some old teaching as something taught while the leader was speaking as a man.

1. I don't know that "line upon line" can work without some alterations along the way.  Corrections would call into question the initial framework or understanding that the revelation was received into, not the revelation itself.  It isn't the "speaking as a man" concept, but the "mortals receiving revelation" concept.

 

2.  Ontologically speaking, perhaps not at all?  We believe in a God that loves all His children, and the light of Christ can inspire all men.  Then couple it with the idea that the "Gospel" was given to Adam and all subsequent religions are variations on the original.  We accept all truth within other religions, even that truth that hasn't yet been codified within our own doctrine.

    The difference is in our claimed authority.  We have priesthood ordinances and covenants.  We also claim that due to the Restoration our doctrine is more pure and amplified.  As President Hinckley declared, "Our position is simply this, we say, you bring all the good that you have, wherever you have acquired it, and see if we may add to it."  We believe we have something to add.

 

3.  Has it ever taught that church teachings are immutable?  It is fairly obvious that things have changed.  Some people just like to argue that anything that has changed never was doctrine in the first place.  That just starts a big battle about current fringe doctrines like Global Flood or evolution from people who just can't stand thinking that they disagree with a church doctrine.  So anything they disagree with ... simply isn't official, or isn't doctrine, etc.