LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference

[volgadon]

This was a private assessment, not a denouncement.

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

Take a look at the book I linked to. President McKay was extremely unhappy about the book. More than the numerous doctrinal errors, it was the authoritarian tone (and title) which concerned him, as well as the fact that elder McConkie didn't seek approval before publishing it. This "private assessment" wasn't made public denouncement only in order to save face for elder McConkie, to avoid losing credibility which would affect the work he was called to do as GA.

[bytebear]

This was a private assessment, not a denouncement.

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

Talk about picking at nits.

[jerome1232]

Perhaps "denounced" was to strong a word, regardless the Prophet was unhappy with it, didn't approve of it, and it does not speak for the church.

Mormon Doctrine isn't really the focus of this thread anyways, seeing as the president of the church is the only person on earth authorized to speak for the church, I was under the assumption the first presidency got the final say on whether or not something spoke for the church as a whole.

I agree with your point about the temple being a source of official doctrine. I suppose church learning materials would fit under that category as well, such as the FHE Manual.

I'm curious if anyone has read the book linked at the beginning of this thread? Is it good?

[Snow]

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

Considered correct by whom?

If you mean The Church, please give us an official Church reference.

[Snow]

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.

What does that mean?

Anything that is published by Deseret Book is published by the Church. Are you implying the the Church publishes books but doesn't authorize them?

[Snow]

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.

I'm sure that you will be happy to provide an "official" pronouncement that "what is done in the temple must be considered 'official doctrine of the Church'".

[Snow]

This was a private assessment, not a denouncement.

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

Let's see. The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ (not as a private person, but in it's capacity of The First Presidency) made a public announcement and you claim it was a "private announcement."

That's a joke. right?

You claim it was NOT a denouncement yet a definition found on vocabulary.com of "denounce" is:

... speak out against

... criticize

... find fault with

So you would have us believe that when First Presidency publicly said that it "is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation" they weren't criticizing it.

Another joke of yours, I'm sure.

[Suzie]

From lds.org Newsroom:

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.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

[Suzie]

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.

So because it may be published by the Church, does it mean it should be considered doctrinal? Are they mutually inclusive? (Journal of Discourses anyone?)

[Martain]

What does that mean?

Anything that is published by Deseret Book is published by the Church. Are you implying the the Church publishes books but doesn't authorize them?

Publications published by the Church indicate the following:

"Published by The CHurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

An example would be the publication information in the front of the Book of Mormon. Or found in the Institute manuals or in the Ensign.

If it's published directly by the Church then it will say so.

That there are works published by the Church through Deseret Book I do not dispute for it is true. Yet to say that Deseret Book will publish Church material only? Where do you get that from?

Deseret Book publishes not only material from the Church but also material's written by members as well. As for sale and promotion, they promote many items that are written by neither of the two categories as well.

So while I can accept anything published directly by the church as doctrinal, I do not believe I can accept everything published by Deseret Book.

My guidelines for Deseret Book are the following:

Was it authored by an Apostle while they were an Apostle.

If so, I accept it as doctrine for an apostle is a prophet and are not the words of the prophet scripture?

Edited November 20, 2011 by Martain

[Martain]

[

]

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

Considered correct by whom?

If you mean The Church, please give us an official Church reference.

-------

Jesus The Christ

By James E. Talmage

One of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Preface:

"The author of this volume entered upon his welcome service under request and appointment from the presiding authorities of the Church; and the completed work has been read to and is approved by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. It presents, however, the writers personal belief and the profoundest conviction as to the truth of what he has written. The book is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

-------

Another way to confirm...

These two books are listed on the offical Church website as official church products. See here.

[Martain]

I'm sure that you will be happy to provide an "official" pronouncement that "what is done in the temple must be considered 'official doctrine of the Church'".

While I can't provide you the Library of Congress number associated with it... The ordinances given in the temple, the words spoken, are all copyrighted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Just_A_Guy]

While I can't provide you the Library of Congress number associated with it... The ordinances given in the temple, the words spoken, are all copyrighted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I don't think that's correct; or the Church could (and probably would) sue every website that had the text up.

[Echo2002]

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

Thanks for this link. I started reading this book last night at work, but now that I'm home not all of the pages are showing up. It says it's just a preview, is there anywhere to see the whole book on Google?

[Echo2002]

I don't know that I would say everything the Prophet says is scripture. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said some pretty off-the-wall things. I think you have to know when the Prophet is speaking from his own mind and when he's speaking from the Lord.

[Snow]

Publications published by the Church indicate the following:

"Published by The CHurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

An example would be the publication information in the front of the Book of Mormon. Or found in the Institute manuals or in the Ensign.

If it's published directly by the Church then it will say so.

That there are works published by the Church through Deseret Book I do not dispute for it is true. Yet to say that Deseret Book will publish Church material only? Where do you get that from?

Deseret Book publishes not only material from the Church but also material's written by members as well. As for sale and promotion, they promote many items that are written by neither of the two categories as well.

So while I can accept anything published directly by the church as doctrinal, I do not believe I can accept everything published by Deseret Book.

You're missing the point. The poster said that things published by the COJCLDS are 1. published by the Church and 2. authorized by the Church.

1. is redundant and 2. doesn't mean anything. Of course everything published by a publisher is authorized by the publisher... else they wouldn't publish it.

My guidelines for Deseret Book are the following:

Was it authored by an Apostle while they were an Apostle.

If so, I accept it as doctrine for an apostle is a prophet and are not the words of the prophet scripture?

Of course being an apostle doesn't 1. Authorize you to speak definitively for the Church in all circumstances, a 2. Such books published by Deseret books, or any publisher, whether written by an apostle or anyone else are COMMENTARY on official doctrine, not doctrine themselves, The Church has a process of common consent to define it's scripture and when people use the word doctrine is such a sense, they are referring to those things that are eternal, accurate, true and unchanging.

[Snow]

[

-------

Jesus The Christ

By James E. Talmage

One of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Preface:

"The author of this volume entered upon his welcome service under request and appointment from the presiding authorities of the Church; and the completed work has been read to and is approved by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. It presents, however, the writers personal belief and the profoundest conviction as to the truth of what he has written. The book is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

-------

Another way to confirm...

These two books are listed on the offical Church website as official church products. See here.

I didn't ask if the book was found on a website or whether or it has a preface. I asked for the official reference that the Church deems it "doctrinally correct."

[volgadon]

Thanks for this link. I started reading this book last night at work, but now that I'm home not all of the pages are showing up. It says it's just a preview, is there anywhere to see the whole book on Google?

Not as far as I know. A friend had lent me a copy last year and I read it then. Very insightful book.

[Snow]

While I can't provide you the Library of Congress number associated with it... The ordinances given in the temple, the words spoken, are all copyrighted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I didn't ask if it was copyrighted. I asked for an official pronouncement that the Church deems it "official doctrine."

[annewandering]

It seems funny to call a sacred ordinance an official doctrine. Somehow it just seems like missing the boat somewhere.

[Echo2002]

Not as far as I know. A friend had lent me a copy last year and I read it then. Very insightful book.

President McKay sounded like a compassionate man, one who liked to give people the benefit of the doubt. Even though he was very unhappy with McConkie for writing "Mormon Doctrine", he did not want to ruin his reputation.

I wonder how I was able to see pages of the book last night that are not available to me at home? Weird. I enjoyed reading what I was able to read last night, maybe I will have to put it on my Christmas list.

[Justice]

What does that mean?

Anything that is published by Deseret Book is published by the Church. Are you implying the the Church publishes books but doesn't authorize them?

No, I'm saying some books have been "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" which is different than "Published by Deseret Book Company."

For instance, look in the front of "Pure Religion."

The Church officially endorses this book.

Here is the text copied and pasted from the web site I found it in (I have the book, too):

Pure religion: The story of church welfare since 1930

by Glen L Rudd

Published 1995 by Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

See the "Published by?" That book is endorsed by the Church, making it different than other books that are not.

Miracle of Forgiveness is published by Bookcraft, making it not officially endorsed by the Church.

Jesus the Christ was published by Deseret Book Company.

So, again, if it is "published by" the Church, not a company owned by the Church, the Church "officially" endorses it.

[Vort]

Let's see. The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ (not as a private person, but in it's capacity of The First Presidency) made a public announcement and you claim it was a "private announcement."

That's a joke. right?

No. It's a lie. You are lying again.

Or can you demonstrate that the First Presidency made any such public announcement?

Yeah, I thought not.

Another joke of yours, I'm sure.

A person with the breaches of honesty that you suffer ought not to point fingers.

[Snow]

No. It's a lie. You are lying again.

Or can you demonstrate that the First Presidency made any such public announcement?

Yeah, I thought not.

A person with the breaches of honesty that you suffer ought not to point fingers.

Have you tried prunes? They might help you with your constipation.

I guess the point you are making is that the quote in question was either fabricated or wasn't made public. Could be. assumes that is was correct and public but who knows.

As to your temper and cry of lying... grow up.

[Justice]

I found the announcement on the Church web site for when it was released.

Pure Religion: The Story of Church Welfare since 1930, a book written under the direction of the First Presidency, is now available for Church members.

Go here to read the entire announcement:

News of the Church - Ensign Dec. 1995 - ensign