How to know if it's official LDS doctrine

[prisonchaplain]

I've been watching a great dialogue between Robert Millet (BYU) and Greg Johnson (Baptist reverend and childhood LDS member). One of their topics was how to determine what is LDS doctrine. Johnson said that to evangelicals trying to pin down what's official and what isn't is like trying to nail green jello to a wall. Two gems from the discussion:

Johnson: I want to discuss with my LDS friends what they actually believe, not what someone said in 1830. If my friend doesn't believe a teaching that I bring up, should I not happily move on? After all--we both agree!

Millet: A doctrine can be considered official if any of the following are true:

1. It is clearly in the Sacred Works.

2. It is currently taught and emphasized.

3. It is mentioned in conferences, or other public meetings by national leaders.

4. It is contained in official church teaching manuals.

[Vanhin]

Well this is how the Church defines it, and I concur. :) The text in bold represents the sources for our official 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.

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. (Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom)

Brother Millet, could have just referred to that.

And a note, not even conference addresses necessarily constitute official doctrine, and neither do manuals. There have been errors in church publications in the past. The doctrine that is orthodox, and is consistently taught in Church publications, are from the above sources in boldface.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

I wanted to comment some more on this matter. Everything we teach as official doctrine can and should be found in the Standard Works. However, if there are changes to longstanding doctrines or practices, they are usually introduced in Official Declarations, such as the discontinuance of plural marriage and allowing all worthy men to hold the priesthood (OD 1 and OD 2 respectively). Clarification of obscure doctrines, or the reaffirmation of existing doctrines will come by way of Proclamation. "The Family: A Proclamation to the World", "The Origin of Man", and "The Father and The Son" are examples of proclamations. I should note, that each of those are really interesting reads. I especially like "The Father and The Son".

Here's an example:

For years, we have inferred from the scriptures (see D&C 132) that there is a heavenly mother. Though it is not spelled out plainly, it has been consistently taught in the Church. The Family: A Proclamation to the World, reaffirms that belief as official doctrine:

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. (LDS.org - Family Chapter Detail - The Family:A Proclamation to the World)

Whenever President Hinckley said that girls should only have one earring, that's not "binding" doctrine on the Church. You would be wise to follow that strong counsel, but it does not affect your standing in the Church if you have more than one earring, and the counsel is not the "doctrine" of the Church.

That is typical of the kind of statements people like to dig up from past leaders. Things they spoke, that did not go through the process that made them binding on members of the Church. Though I will admit, the subject matters have often been of a more serious nature than earrings.

Regards,

Vanhin

[prisonchaplain]

A recent example was a reference to God having once been a man, and men being able to become God or gods. President Hinckley responded to the question by saying that he was not all that familiar with the depths of this doctrine, and he did not know anyone who was. Some evangelicals pounced on this as being disingenuous. In contrast Johnson said that we evangelicals sometimes highlight doctrines we found particularly sensational, whereas for LDS, even it a teaching might be official, it may also be peripheral, and unimportant to daily religious living. Thus he concluded, if LDS doctrine is developing in a manner that de-emphasizes this teaching, why shouldn't we evangelicals who disagree with it simply be happy?

[Vanhin]

A recent example was a reference to God having once been a man, and men being able to become God or gods. President Hinckley responded to the question by saying that he was not all that familiar with the depths of this doctrine, and he did not know anyone who was.

I know you are not intentionally misrepresenting him, but first of all, that's not what he said. What he said was the following:

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it." (David van Biema, "Kingdom Come," TIME Magazine (4 August 1997): 56)

He is specifically referring to the first part of the quote "as man is God once was". He's saying he is aware of the doctrine and understands the philosophical background behind it, but it is not taught as official doctrine of the Church. He is specifically referring to the notion that most people attach to that quote, that there is an infinite regress of Gods. We do not know the answer to that.

He is most certainly not talking about exaltation. That is a topic we know very much about, the second part of the quote "as God is now, man may become". This is well established doctrine in our scriptures.

Some evangelicals pounced on this as being disingenuous. In contrast Johnson said that we evangelicals sometimes highlight doctrines we found particularly sensational, whereas for LDS, even it a teaching might be official, it may also be peripheral, and unimportant to daily religious living. Thus he concluded, if LDS doctrine is developing in a manner that de-emphasizes this teaching, why shouldn't we evangelicals who disagree with it simply be happy?

Of course they pounced on this one. They lie in wait, for any advantage they can to try to discredit our religion and our leaders. I don't expect anything less. :) But to latter-day saints, what he said did not trouble us, because we know what he means. President Hinckley's point is exactly what I made in my posts above, it's not official doctrine. You cannot find the infinite regress of gods in our scriptures. (see Nature of God/Infinite regress of Gods - FAIRMormon)

Regards,

Vanhin

[hordak]

I think the confusion is equal on both sides of the fence . For every "anti" Mormon who brings up some old non official doctrine to prove their point, there is an "overzealous" Mormon who brings up some non official doctrine to prove theirs.

I think if we as members don't want people judging us based on Brigham Youngs view on interracial marriage,(for example) then we need to stop judging each other based on President Hinkleys view on earrings.

Because going off this press release from Vahn. Both are equally binding. If you put the emphasis on

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.

[Traveler]

It is my personal belief that LDS doctrine is much like the Constitution of the USA. The basis of doctrine is stated clearly in scriptures and other publications – however LDS do not have a scholar or clergy class that looks at things and establishes “official” doctrines by the thousands of pages. This can be frustrating to someone that wants to debate issues in depth.

Let me give and example. LDS believe in paying tithing which is defined as 10% of our income or increase. That is the simple doctrine. There can be many questions about what constitutes income or increase that can complicate things drastically. The concept is that individuals and families are to work out such salvation issue details more through their own efforts than by some standard that can vary over time and culture.

Therefore some things that are considered doctrine can be left to local authority (including families and individual) to determine such things for their circumstance. All this in accordance with individual covenant – this can be seen with doctrines like the word of wisdom and the use of certain products like cola drinks. This is because of the doctrine that “men should be anxiously engaged” and should not be “commanded in all things”.

This can also create confusion about doctrines like the creation and questions about evolution. We understand that G-d created all things but we are also “free” to consider how and the methods of creation according to various studies of our own. Even doctrines like grace and works we believe are not defined in the detail that many would want but according to where we are with our covenants we may have more or less light than others. Or as Isaiah explains – we learn doctrine line upon line upon line, precept upon precept upon precept.

So then the general doctrines that apply to all mankind are broad and general. The details and specifics that are applied as families and individuals are their own responsibility to which they (us all) will make an accounting to the L-rd upon the Day of Judgment.

The Traveler

Edited November 20, 2009 by Traveler

[Vanhin]

I think the confusion is equal on both sides of the fence . For every "anti" Mormon who brings up some old non official doctrine to prove their point, there is an "overzealous" Mormon who brings up some non official doctrine to prove theirs.

I think if we as members don't want people judging us based on Brigham Youngs view on interracial marriage,(for example) then we need to stop judging each other based on President Hinkleys view on earrings.

Because going off this press release from Vahn. Both are equally binding. If you put the emphasis on

Your point is well taken. However, by a wide margin, most of the things our past leaders have said are in harmony with the scriptures. So, it is appropriate for us to quote statements made by Church leaders that do represent the official doctrine, and ignore the ones that don't.

In all cases, however, we follow the living prophet. Nothing demonstrates this better than what Elder Bruce R. McConkie said concerning the revelation allowing all worthy men to hold the priesthood:

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.... It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year. (Bruce R. McConkie, 1978 (All Are Alike Unto God, A SYMPOSIUM ON THE BOOK OF MORMON, The Second Annual Church Educational System Religious Educator's Symposium, August 17-19, 1978)

I guess, more to the point, we want our critics to allow us to define our doctrine and faith, in our discussions, and not them. I think if we are allowed, we can explain most of this to their satisfaction, whether they agree with our doctrines or not. We certainly have enough peculiar doctrines within the realm of "official doctrine", that we don't need to go look for the fringe statements, unless our intent is not understanding.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

It is my personal belief that LDS doctrine is much like the Constitution of the USA. The basis of doctrine is stated clearly in scriptures and other publications – however LDS do not have a scholar or clergy class that looks at things and establishes “official” doctrines by the thousands of pages. This can be frustrating to someone that wants to debate issues in depth.

Let me give and example. LDS believe in paying tithing which is defined as 10% of our income or increase. That is the simple doctrine. There can be many questions about what constitutes income or increase that can complicate things drastically. The concept is that individuals and families are to work out such salvation issue details more through their own efforts than by some standard that can vary over time and culture.

Therefore some things that are considered doctrine can be left to local authority (including families and individual) to determine such things for their circumstance. All this in accordance with individual covenant – this can be seen with doctrines like the word of wisdom and the use of certain products like cola drinks. This is because of the doctrine that “men should be anxiously engaged” and should not be “commanded in all things”.

This can also create confusion about doctrines like the creation and questions about evolution. We understand that G-d created all things but we are also “free” to consider how and the methods of creation according to various studies of our own. Even doctrines like grace and works we believe are not defined in the detail that many would want but according to where we are with our covenants we may have more or less light than others. Or as Isaiah explains – we learn doctrine line upon line upon line, precept upon precept upon precept.

So then the general doctrines that apply to all mankind are broad and general. The details and specifics that are applied as families and individuals are their own responsibility to which they (us all) will make an accounting to the L-rd upon the Day of Judgment.

The Traveler

Very good points there Traveler. That is one of the things I love about the Church. There is abundant freedom of thought on many aspects of even official doctrine. The many ways that members practice the word of wisdom, for instance, and maintain their status in the Church is another example. Here's what our scriptures teach.

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; (D&C 58:26-27)

Regards,

Vanhin

[prisonchaplain]

I know you are not intentionally misrepresenting him, but first of all, that's not what he said. What he said was the following:

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it." (David van Biema, "Kingdom Come," TIME Magazine (4 August 1997): 56)

He is specifically referring to the first part of the quote "as man is God once was". He's saying he is aware of the doctrine and understands the philosophical background behind it, but it is not taught as official doctrine of the Church. He is specifically referring to the notion that most people attach to that quote, that there is an infinite regress of Gods. We do not know the answer to that.

He is most certainly not talking about exaltation. That is a topic we know very much about, the second part of the quote "as God is now, man may become". This is well established doctrine in our scriptures.

Thank you for clarifying this. You are right--I was quoting from memory, and would not want to misrepresent.

[Moksha]

Here is an example of the misinterpretation of very unofficial doctrine. Many of you have heard about that white horse stuff, but did you know that its original manifestation was as the Reformed Egyptian White Horus. This legend was even further complicated by the fact that Horus was the son of Osiris, who was in turn seen as the patron king of the blessed dead.

Well, you know how these things tend to change over time, much like something whispered being passed around a circle of game players. This association with Osiris changed to being a legend of Horus leading a charge of the blessed dead.

So the current White Horse Doctrine should really be about the White Horus awakening one of the blessed living dead to help carry around the Constitution hanging from a thread. Perhaps attached to the gauze wrappings by a safety pin.

And now you know the rest of the story.

[prisonchaplain]

So, Moksha, should I send this to President Monson, Robert Millet, FAIRLDS, or Heather (our site administrator) for an official response???

[Moksha]

I favor Readers Digest.

Although a review by Dr. Midgley from the FARMS Journal would be good too.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Moksha