LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference

[Echo2002]

Does anyone have this book? Does this book only include official doctrinal beliefs, or is it similar to "Mormon Doctrine"?

[Guest]

Not to go off topic here, but why is Mormon Doctrine not considered binding even though it was written by an Apostle and it was an official church publication (at least to my knowledge) and even then it was still written by an Apostle.

[jerome1232]

It was not authorized by the first presidency, in fact it was denounced by the first presidency.

Only the first presidency can authorize such a publication as being authoritative.

To my knowledge only the first presidency can speak for the church as a whole, they can at times delegate that authority out as needed. In this case authority was not delegated out.

Only the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are official doctrine of the Church.

[Guest]

It was not authorized by the first presidency, in fact it was denounced by the first presidency.

Only the first presidency can authorize such a publication as being authoritative.

To my knowledge only the first presidency can speak for the church as a whole, they can at times delegate that authority out as needed. In this case authority was not delegated out.

Thanks for the info!

[Justice]

Yes, there are a few books that are published by the Church.

Regardless of the title, official or otherwise, if it's not published by the Church, it's not endorsed by the Church.

[pam]

Yes, there are a few books that are published by the Church.

Regardless of the title, official or otherwise, if it's not published by the Church, it's not endorsed by the Church.

Just to add to this..Deseret Book which is owned by the church also publishes LDS fiction books. Some of these are fiction based on historical data. It is by no means doctrinal or considered to be used as historical fact. So we need to be careful in saying anything published by Deseret Book would be endorsed by the church to be used as doctrinal or factual.

[Martain]

The book Morman Doctrine wasn't pubished by Elder McConkie while he was an Apostle but rather while he was a General Authority.

More information can be found under a wiki document regarding the book found here.

There are other books that have been printed with the full approval and authorization of the first presidency other than the four standard works listed above.

While I have not heard of the book you mention, should you obtain a copy, read the preface. If it is authorized and approved by the first presidency then it will have a statement from them indicating so. Otherwise you might see something like this:

The Miracle of Forgiveness

By Spencer C. Kimball

While President of the Church

"I accept full responsibility for the contents of this book. Specifically, the Church and its leaders are totally absolved from the responsibility for any error which it may be found to contain".

Is it doctrinal? It was spoken by the Prophet while in his office.

I say yes.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Martain

[pam]

The book Morman Doctrine wasn't pubished by Elder McConkie while he was an Apostle but rather while he was a General Authority.

Uhhhh isn't an Apostle a General Authority?

While one can be a General Authority it doesn't mean they are an apostle or a member of the First Presidency. But The First Presidency, apostles, the quorums of the 70's, the Presiding Bishopric, Presiding Patriarch and assistants to the quorum of the 12 are all general authorities.

[maiku]

The Miracle of Forgiveness

By Heber C. Kimball

While President of the Church

I'm sure this was just an accident but I'll clarify anyway.

Spencer W Kimball authored the Miracle of Forgiveness

Heber C Kimball was never president of the Church

Too many Kimballs

[Martain]

Haha.... oops. Thanks!

[pam]

The Miracle of Forgiveness

By Heber C. Kimball

While President of the Church

Also this book was written by Spencer W. Kimball not Heber C. Kimball.

[pam]

I'm just too slow tonight. People are beating me to posts. :)

[bytebear]

I would say that Jesus the Christ and The Articles of Faith, both by James E. Talmage are above other publications, because they were commissioned by the prophet and are considered doctrinally correct.

[maiku]

I'm going to be perfectly honest here. I love D&C 68:4 "And whatsoever they (the elders of the Church) shall speak when moved upon by the aHoly Ghost shall be scripture..."

I feel that the Spirit, in addition to inspiring prophets and apostles to write, also testifies to us if what we are reading is doctrinally sound.

When I read Jesus the Christ for example, I feel the Spirit and can honestly tell myself that it is doctrine. I can't say the same when I read some of the writings of other books, like parts of Mormon Doctrine for example.

[Justice]

What I mean, more specifically, is that if you open the cover of an actual book, and read the text describing it's publication, if it says "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," then it's published and authorized by the Church. If it does not, then it is not.

[Echo2002]

Thanks for the replies. I downloaded a sample of the book on Kindle. They describe the sources they used to compile the book and the very last sentence says it is not authorized by the Church or Brigham Young University. The authors are Rober Millett, Camille Fronk Olson, Andrew Skinner, and Brent L Top.

[Just_A_Guy]

Uhhhh isn't an Apostle a General Authority?

While one can be a General Authority it doesn't mean they are an apostle or a member of the First Presidency. But The First Presidency, apostles, the quorums of the 70's, the Presiding Bishopric, Presiding Patriarch and assistants to the quorum of the 12 are all general authorities.

McConkie was a 70, not an Apostle, when the first edition came out. See the initial Improvement Era advertisement here (back then, you could buy ad space in Church magazines and Elder McConkie seems to have done so). And the publisher was Bookcraft, which was theoretically independently run until Deseret Book bought it out in 1999.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[pam]

McConkie was a 70, not an Apostle, when the first edition came out. See the initial Improvement Era advertisement here (back then, you could buy ad space in Church magazines and Elder McConkie seems to have done so). And the publisher was Bookcraft, which was theoretically independently run until Deseret Book bought it out in 1999.

I was only correcting the misnomer that an Apostle is not a general authority. When someone says that someone was not an Apostle but just a general authority, it could lead people to believe that an apostle is not a general authority.

If the statement had been that McConkie was not an apostle at the time but a member of the 70, I wouldn't have had a problem with the statement.

That was my point. Not what was his authority at the time.

Edited November 19, 2011 by pam

[Vort]

It was not authorized by the first presidency, in fact it was denounced by the first presidency.

This is false.

Only the first presidency can authorize such a publication as being authoritative.

This is questionable. Such a thing has never been done. So far as I know, scripture becomes "authoritative" in the administrative sense when it is presented to and accepted by the body of the Church, something that has not been done since 1978. Of course, scripture becomes "authoritative" in the spiritual sense when the Holy Ghost testifies of it, which has nothing to do with First Presidency approval.

Only the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are official doctrine of the Church.

Incorrect. These are the "standard works" of the Church and the only standing scripture we accept, but they do not completely define "official doctrine". For example, certainly what is done in the temple must be considered "official doctrine of the Church", yet many of the specifics of temple ordinances are found nowhere in scripture.

[volgadon]

Here is a very good description of what occured with "Mormon Doctrine."

David O. McKay and the rise of ... - Gregory A. Prince, William Robert Wright - Google Books

[volgadon]

I would say that Jesus the Christ and The Articles of Faith, both by James E. Talmage are above other publications, because they were commissioned by the prophet and are considered doctrinally correct.

Jesus the Christ has fantastic spiritual insight and masterful prose, but the Victorian scholarship is, not to put too fine a point on it, outdated.

[Vort]

While I have not heard of the book you mention, should you obtain a copy, read the preface. If it is authorized and approved by the first presidency then it will have a statement from them indicating so. Otherwise you might see something like this:

The Miracle of Forgiveness

By Heber C. Kimball

While President of the Church

Or:

Approaching Zion

by Preston Nibley

while a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles

Or how about:

Doctrinal New Testament Commentary

by Joseph F. McConkie

while in the First Presidency

Reminds me of:

Or better yet:

[jerome1232]

This is false.

"We [the First Presidency of the Church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’ recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."[2]

I stand by my statement.

I'll respond to the rest later, I have to run to work.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think Vort's point may have been that the denouncement was not made public.

[Vort]

"We [the First Presidency of the Church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’ recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."[2]

This was a private assessment, not a denouncement.

I stand by my statement.

Stand by it as you wish. It is still false.