Interpreting LDS scriptures and doctrine

[prisonchaplain]

If an Evangelical wants to understand a passage of scripture, or a particular church teaching, s/he goes to the pastors for direction. We pastors have libraries of scholarly writings. Additionally, we may choose to connect with our favorite professors from seminary or Bible college. In my fellowship, there are also some "Position Papers," that offer a biblical understanding of certain issues. We have many areas where different interpretations can be possible, without a doctrinal crisis, or cries of heresy.

I imagine Catholics have the added resource of church tradition, a longer hierarchy of scholars and authorities, and there is stronger church guidance as to what is orthodoxy.

I am still a bit vague on how LDS get definition. There are the scriptures, of course. There is LDS.org. There are official publications. However, what role to scholars (professors) play? Is the bishop considered a good source for doctrinal or scriptural questions? Is it considered wise and acceptable to simply pray for the right understanding, and go be a sensing of the Spirit to determine, for example, if it's okay to drink 4 cans of Coke a day?

Basically, how does a faithful LDS member go about getting a particular question of doctrine answered?

(Besides coming to LDS.net)

[Daybreak79]

Is it considered wise and acceptable to simply pray for the right understanding, and go be a sensing of the Spirit to determine, for example, if it's okay to drink 4 cans of Coke a day?

I'm afraid that to answer this question, we will need to know if it is Classic Coke, Diet Coke, or Caffeine Free Diet Coke.

[Guest]

If an Evangelical wants to understand a passage of scripture, or a particular church teaching, s/he goes to the pastors for direction. We pastors have libraries of scholarly writings. Additionally, we may choose to connect with our favorite professors from seminary or Bible college. In my fellowship, there are also some "Position Papers," that offer a biblical understanding of certain issues. We have many areas where different interpretations can be possible, without a doctrinal crisis, or cries of heresy.

I imagine Catholics have the added resource of church tradition, a longer hierarchy of scholars and authorities, and there is stronger church guidance as to what is orthodoxy.

I am still a bit vague on how LDS get definition. There are the scriptures, of course. There is LDS.org. There are official publications. However, what role to scholars (professors) play? Is the bishop considered a good source for doctrinal or scriptural questions? Is it considered wise and acceptable to simply pray for the right understanding, and go be a sensing of the Spirit to determine, for example, if it's okay to drink 4 cans of Coke a day?

Basically, how does a faithful LDS member go about getting a particular question of doctrine answered?

(Besides coming to LDS.net)

Usually, a doctrine is mirrored in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon - so you bounce the two against each other to get the correct interpretation. Then there's the Pearl of Great Price and the D&C for more resources. Then you can go through the words of the modern prophets to see what they have to say about it - their talks are compiled in the Ensign and other Church Magazines like the New Era or Friend.

In the ward, you have Sunday School every Sunday, each year covering a section of doctrine (like NT, OT, Gospel Principles, etc.), so if you still have questions, you can bounce it against the class. If that's not enough, there's Relief Society or Elder's Quorom that meet every Sunday that discusses the application of these doctrines, so you can bounce it against the class there too. If that's still not enough, you can go to Institute and bounce against that. There's your Home Teachers and Visiting Teachers to ask for help on finding additional resources. If that is not enough then you can approach the bishop for assistance.

But, in all that, none of it is much use to you if you don't first and foremost seek the truth through prayer and surrender yourself to the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

Edited January 16, 2012 by anatess

[RMGuy]

I'll give it a go, but I'm sure that others will have opinions as well.

As for what role scholars/professors play the answer is very little. At least in the classic sense of Doctors of Theology.

Scriptures of course is a good source, but as with many denominations sometimes you can read a scripture and get one interpretation based on the wording used and then find that the heirarchy attaches a completely different meaning than what one would get at first reading. For example, read Doctrine and Covenants section 89. It says that it is not a commandment, but for members of the church, there is no doubt it is treated as such. It is a requirement for worthiness/temple attendence etc. It says that wine is ok if made yourself, but it is not. Based on a reading you would think that beer is also ok, but it is not. You would think that hot chocolate is not ok, but it is, and you would expect most members if they were treating it as a commandment to be mostly vegetarian, but they aren't. If you read the Book of Mormon, you might think that the church believed in the trinity, but they don't. So scripture are good, but the interpretation can be tricky.

Members are encouraged to pray and recieve understanding or revelation for themselves as well. In fact, one might say that this is one of hte distingushing features of the church. That members are encouraged to seek after wisdom and knowledge for themselves. To seek a direct communion with deity. In practice, this is sustained generally so long as the answer that the individual recieves is in accordance with orthodoxy.

My observations generally, that interpretation and what constitutes orthodoxy flows from the President of the Church/Prophet on down. In the 20's and 30's when the 1st presidency tightened restrictions based on the WoW the church's attitude towards that particular scripture changed from what it was in Joseph's or Brigham's time. So, probably the answer to your question is that this information flows down from the prophet through general authorities, regional reps, the Church Handbook of Instructions, and local leaders, until it is part of the culture.

Does that help?

-RM

[applepansy]

PC, There are several ways.

First, we go to scripture. Then we look for what present and past prophets have said. Then we look for what other GAs have said. Then there is a plethera of books by LDS Scholars. One of my favorite is Robert Millet (religion professor from BYU).

There is also the resource of the Church Education System. The CES is directed more to the youth/young adults of the church but often a CES Instructor isn't too far away. (Well not in Utah anyway.) LDS Institute site is helpful sometimes.

But after all that. We do not just rely on our own or human understanding. We look for personal, spiritual confirmation through prayer and/or fasting, etc. Most LDS people come to learn to feel the spirit quite keenly.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm afraid that to answer this question, we will need to know if it is Classic Coke, Diet Coke, or Caffeine Free Diet Coke.

For the sake of argument, let's say it's Jolt Cola: All the sugar and twice the caffeine.

[prisonchaplain]

In the ward, you have Sunday School every Sunday, each year covering a section of doctrine (like NT, OT, Gospel Principles, etc.), so if you still have questions, you can bounce it against the class. If that's not enough, there's Relief Society or Elder's Quorom that meet every Sunday that discusses the application of these doctrines, so you can bounce it against the class there too.

Are these classes led by individuals seen to have advanced knowledge, or are those called to lead more like facilitators, with the classes having lots of discussion? I've been in both kinds, in my church. Some teachers literally lecture, while my own classes are more like an on-going scripture conversation. Also, are some questions better to ask in a private study, such as when the visiting teacher comes, or is it better to ask in the larger class, since the teachers are seen as usually more knowledgeable?

[RMGuy]

Are these classes led by individuals seen to have advanced knowledge, or are those called to lead more like facilitators, with the classes having lots of discussion?

LOL, you have an open invitation to join me in Gospel Docrtine any Sunday you would like....then you can make up your own mind.....lol!

-RM

[prisonchaplain]

RMGuy...thank you especially...I'm thinking that investigators and recent converts might find this perplexing...but I've gleaned just what you laid out--that simply reading the scriptures would not be sufficient.

Applepansy, knowledgeable evangelicals probably find Prof. Millet to be one of the easiest to understand, since he's sorta learned our language. I recently came upon a sequal to How Wide the Divide, co-authored by him and Rev. Johnson. I'm looking forward to reading it soon--Bridging the Divide.

Also, I think I have shared before that I find the idea of praying for direction from the Holy Spirit is most healthy. I know some Evangelicals criticize this approach as "relying on emotion," but as part of a balanced approach of direct reading of scripture, looking to mature believers for insights, understanding what church leadership is saying currently, then asking God for directions seems not only acceptable, but essential.

[Dravin]

Are these classes led by individuals seen to have advanced knowledge, or are those called to lead more like facilitators, with the classes having lots of discussion?

The latter, some individuals take the role of the former (which I personally find annoying but that's neither here nor there I suppose), but to my understanding the goal is to be a facilitator.

Also, are some questions better to ask in a private study, such as when the visiting teacher comes, or is it better to ask in the larger class, since the teachers are seen as usually more knowledgeable?

Well the larger class has an advantage not because the teacher is necessarily particularly knowledgeable, but because there are more people to have the idea bounced around between. In my experience it's not uncommon though for individuals to get a reputation as knowledgeable and for people to ask them directly in a private scenario.

[prisonchaplain]

LOL, you have an open invitation to join me in Gospel Docrtine any Sunday you would like....then you can make up your own mind.....lol!

-RM

I'd have to skip my own class...you should podcast...this is the 3rd millenium, after all!

[Vort]

Basically, how does a faithful LDS member go about getting a particular question of doctrine answered?

(Besides coming to LDS.net)

Latter-day Saint youth are invited to attend seminary class, in which they are introduced to the scriptures and their standard interpretations. While this is not as rigorous a course as, for example, someone who studied for a DD might take, it gives a good foundation for understanding. Saints are then encouraged to make regular scripture study a part of their lives.

Ideally, we learn what the scriptures mean through revelation and by application. I can confirm that this is an effective way, perhaps the best, of understanding them. In addition, many Saints will openly ask, "What does this mean?", in Sunday School (gospel doctrine) class and in their adult meetings with the Relief Society or Priesthood quorum.

Members are also invited to ask their leaders. It should be noted that the leaders generally have no formal instruction on such matters any more than anyone else, so their answers often tend toward the generic and commonly accepted interpretations -- which is often exactly what the person wants to know. In addition, many Church leaders and scholars (e.g. Hugh Nibley) have written books and treatises, sometimes extensive, on various doctrinal issues. Those of an academic bent often enjoy reading such works and gleaning what spiritual truths they can from them.

[Blackmarch]

If an Evangelical wants to understand a passage of scripture, or a particular church teaching, s/he goes to the pastors for direction. We pastors have libraries of scholarly writings. Additionally, we may choose to connect with our favorite professors from seminary or Bible college. In my fellowship, there are also some "Position Papers," that offer a biblical understanding of certain issues. We have many areas where different interpretations can be possible, without a doctrinal crisis, or cries of heresy.

I imagine Catholics have the added resource of church tradition, a longer hierarchy of scholars and authorities, and there is stronger church guidance as to what is orthodoxy.

I am still a bit vague on how LDS get definition. There are the scriptures, of course. There is LDS.org. There are official publications. However, what role to scholars (professors) play? Is the bishop considered a good source for doctrinal or scriptural questions? Is it considered wise and acceptable to simply pray for the right understanding, and go be a sensing of the Spirit to determine, for example, if it's okay to drink 4 cans of Coke a day?

Basically, how does a faithful LDS member go about getting a particular question of doctrine answered?

(Besides coming to LDS.net)

Well your first two sources should be the scriptures and prayer. (and as lds we get a ton of resource just from all the scriptures, and scripture aids that get printed in the standard editions).

After that theres the quorums in the ward, if the question cant be resolved at that level, it goes to the bishop, then stake president, and so on and so forth. If there is some major issue facing the church the prophet will usually get revelation on it and preach, teach, and exhort it in conference.

Scholars help us keep seeking new new answers and new questions from what we already have and help us keep on our toes.

In my experience God rarely gives the whole shebang in details, he just gives one or few at a time and then lets us dangle to work to fill in around it... And sonetimes we dont fill in the whole completely accurately.... Seems to be that way prophets too (altho they probably get a lot more info than we usually do...and id take their guesses over a lot of peoples facts).

Edited January 16, 2012 by Blackmarch

[bytebear]

There is no scholarly class of leadership in the LDS Church. There is no theological school, and no one (from the Prophet down) is called based on any degree of knowledge. But they are called on their worthiness and dedication to living the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Other than Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society, there is seminary which is essentially Sunday School for High School age kids done every weekday, and Institute, which are college level courses in theological studies. But, they are tangential to traditional college courses, and there is no theological school, and one does not study to become a bishop or an apostle.

I believe Seminary is there to prepare youth for missions and to get them into the habit of daily personal scriptural study. Parents are encouraged to study the gospel with their families as well. Family Home Evening is a program designed where one day a week (Usually Monday) the family can have together time, whether it be scriptural or just social.

So essentially, everyone teaches everyone else, but ultimately the emphasis and study guides come from the general authorities and ultimately the prophet and apostles. Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principals, and let them govern themselves" which is really the way the church is run. The guidelines and emphasis is there, but it's up to the individual and congregation to learn from each other.

As for practice, there are worthiness interviews for temple recommends as well as for callings. One must be living according to the gospel to have certain callings. Some callings require temple worthiness, others do not. A very few callings can even be held by non-members, Scout Master for example. A bishop must also be married to a temple worthy wife, and I believe the same/reverse is true for the Relief Society president (but I could be wrong). So, I suppose the church authorities could change the requirements of temple worthiness (as in the case of the Word of Wisdom) and the church would change their behavior, but doctrinally the purpose and doctrine of such things are still discussed and determined at an individual level through confirmation by the Holy Ghost.

Edited January 17, 2012 by bytebear

[prisonchaplain]

Don't the BYU campuses have department's of theology, or church history and scripture studies? I'm thinking of something called FARMS.

Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship - Home

Edited January 17, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[Vort]

Don't the BYU campuses have department's of theology, or church history and scripture studies? I'm thinking of something called FARMS.

Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship - Home

No, the Church and its schools (e.g. BYU) do not have a department of theology. BYU does have a college of religious education, which oversees the various classes in Church history, scripture, and prophetic teachings.

[Traveler]

PC. I am glad you brought this up because this demonstrates a great difference between the LDS and most other religious organizations. The basis of LDS understanding is revelation. Every revelation that is given through scripture we believe that G-d wants us to understand in the same manner that Peter understood doctrine.

That is - not by flesh and blood but through our Father which is in heaven. We believe that revelation come to us from the Father. But with all things and according the ancient patterns - revelation comes through channels.

But there is another dimension that involves covenant. We are all entitled to study (in other words to ask, seek and knock) Then as we study (scriptures and all other good places for learning) we believe that G-d will manifest the truth to each individual the understanding of doctrine.

As to the Word of Wisdom - we then are responsible for what G-d tells us - we have personal covenant to often goes beyond the general doctrine and are responsible for our personal revelation. As an example my personal covenant excludes not just the regular coffee, tobacco alcohol. My personal covenant includes caffeinated soft drinks. But this is according to a covenant that was given to me personally as I was given orders to serve in combat during the Vietnam war.

It is not strange for individuals to have different doctrinal covenants and understanding. For example Sampson did not cut his hair and Samuel was given to the L-rd at a young age. Though these were individual covenants that were not generally given to all Israel. Thus LDS are encouraged to receive revelation on a personal level and establish personal covenants. But somehow I think I have only presented a small part of a greater understanding.

The Traveler

[skippy740]

Well, I'm going to get a little more basic in my post.

The Book of Mormon is much simpler to understand what the Lord wants for us and what kind of people we ought to be. Reading the Bible with The Book of Mormon helps to clarify what other faiths might only guess at.

The two volumes of scripture helps to really point the way.

[rameumptom]

Scholars play an indirect role. Some General Authorities will have their General Conference talks, books they write, etc., pass by a few LDS scholars to ensure they are not misquoting scripture, etc.

I think one of the big things that separates Mormonism from other "cults" is that we do not have a systematized theology. This is very different than our Catholic or Protestant cousins, who have systematized in detail their beliefs on many aspects.

We do not have creeds that are enforced upon the membership. We do have the Articles of Faith, considered scripture, but have so little detail that they can be interpreted in various ways by the membership and still be considered as accepted.

Except where doctrine is clearly defined, we expect members to work out their own salvation. They are to receive personal inspiration regarding concepts that do not fall into well defined doctrine. As President Kimball once said, "I do not care if the Pearly Gates swing open or slide open, as long as they open." We believe that God should not have to command us in all things, but that we should seek to do good of ourselves. If we ever hope to be like God, we must learn to think like him, and not just follow a long list of catechisms or creeds to specify out every jot and tittle of teaching from the hierarchical church.

So, scholars do have a place, in that their research allows members to expand their understanding of possible ways to understand and interpret scripture and doctrine.

For example, many LDS believe that D&C 1:30 teaches that only the LDS Church is true and living. However, that is not what I've written on my blog and here concerning it. I believe it suggests that there can be many "true and living" churches, except this is the one the Lord is most pleased with. Very different interpretation.

Also, while decades ago, some General Authorities and members believed that the great and abominable Church found in Revelation and in 1 Nephi 12-15 is the Catholic Church, I have taught that the description of the G&A Church does not describe the Catholic church, and therefore a different interpretation must be given.

Again, we do not have a systematized theology for the Church. It leaves much to personal interpretation and consideration, hopefully with guidance from the Holy Ghost.

[prisonchaplain]

No, the Church and its schools (e.g. BYU) do not have a department of theology. BYU does have a college of religious education, which oversees the various classes in Church history, scripture, and prophetic teachings.

Help me separate out "religious education" vs. "theology." In my studies, we examined church history, scripture, prophetic teachings...

[prisonchaplain]

Again, we do not have a systematized theology for the Church. It leaves much to personal interpretation and consideration, hopefully with guidance from the Holy Ghost.

My own take-away from this is that your hierarchy is more Catholic-like, and your approach to doctrine is more Evangelical. That is, you have a strong system of authority, however, despite an abundance of scripture and resources, members have great latitude with their personal understanding of doctrine. Catholics have a strong authority structure and a strong system of authoritative teaching. Evangelicals tend to have neither a strong system of authority or a strong system of "what to believe." There are many many exceptions, but am I getting this right?

[Vort]

Oh, there is a very strong sense of "what to believe", even on matters that are not in fact doctrinally "known". But there is no such thing as an LDS theology school or cadre that determines doctrinal matters. The First Presidency, which is the leading quorum of the Church, has authority to declare doctrine, and occasionally does so; for example, see The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Each member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles is a prophet, seer, and revelator to the Church in his own right, and thus is entitled to proclaim doctrine, though I don't really see that happen much. Apostles tend rather to preach and expound the truths already taught in the gospel, as they understand them. Rarely (at least today) do apostles venture to declare "new" doctrine that has not already been established.

Compare this with the intricate and highly complex establishment method for doctrine in Catholicism, the rabbinical system of Judaism, the Islamic ulama, and so forth. In each case, there is a body of men or other system that tries to establish what people must believe. We see some versions of this in the LDS Church, but these are not "official" to any real degree; the closest to such an "official" system would be the publications of the Church Educational System, and it's pretty well understood that CES publications do not in fact establish doctrine and do in fact contain errors.

Ultimately, doctrine is established by the Spirit to each individual. When an individual received revelatory insight not already generally known, he or she is expected to keep that revelation private. When one who is authorized (that is, an apostle) receives such a revelation and shares it with the public, then we have been given new light. And as far as I know, the First Presidency itself, and the highest and governing quorum of the Church of Jesus Christ, is the only body on earth authorized to establish doctrine.

[Traveler]

My own take-away from this is that your hierarchy is more Catholic-like, and your approach to doctrine is more Evangelical. That is, you have a strong system of authority, however, despite an abundance of scripture and resources, members have great latitude with their personal understanding of doctrine. Catholics have a strong authority structure and a strong system of authoritative teaching. Evangelicals tend to have neither a strong system of authority or a strong system of "what to believe." There are many many exceptions, but am I getting this right?

Perhaps - there is almost a yes and a no. The concept is that authority and doctrine have the same source and structure. But in the real sense the LDS concept is upside down. Even though there is a president and prophet that leads and guides the kingdom and a hierarchy of positions and authority - this organization is temporary until all come to a “unity” of the faith. Which is the enduring or eternal structure and authority in the family.

As you know marriage for LDS is not this life only but we believe is eternal. Thus salvation is not just an individual thing but is directly coupled within the structure of the family. So the real authority and understanding is not complete without the family. The organization and structure that many see as authority are like the scaffolding used to construct a building - it is a temporary help that we may achieve the purpose for which we were created.

The real authority does not rest with an individual but is held jointly by the father and mother. The purpose of the Church as currently instituted is to help and support the married couple. This is why every revelation ever given is open to every couple bound by the covenant and ordinance of marriage established by G-d and brought about through the commandment to multiply and replenish. The eventual goal is that the law, doctrine and authority reside with the couple that become like G-d. This completes the purpose of creation that man was created in the image of G-d - male and female - and why marriage is so sacred and an eternal order as established by G-d.

So LDS believe that marriage is part of being a disciple. And as disciples we are learning to master the eternal gospel that we are following the very path of G-d himself.

And so we are back to the very thing that divides us - that man is intended to be like G-d, free and knowledgeable of the truth as a fountain of living water giving life to creation by the authority and doctrine of the family, which is the very purpose of our creation.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

PC, in a recent General Conference, Elder Oaks explained that the LDS Church has two types of priesthood: the formal priesthood and the priesthood of believers.

It is a balance of these two over-arching concepts that dictates how doctrine works in the Church. At times there have been efforts in the past by some General Authorities to try and establish a systematized theology. Elder Bruce R. McConkie's writings, and those of his father-in-law Joseph Fielding Smith, are an example of this. But for the last 30 years, the Church has moved away from such systematized theology (again) and more to the practice provided in Joseph Smith's day: a mixture of official revelation and leaving the rest for the saints to find out for themselves.

Because of this stance, there is no way we could ever develop a systematized theology. Why? Because we have few core doctrines required in our belief system, and each member is expected to receive his/her own testimony regarding specifics. IOW, a member or group of members may systematize or attempt to systematize the theology, but it is only binding upon those who have spiritually accepted it.

This does cause some struggles among members. Those who were raised and bred on Elder McConkie's teachings often find it difficult to realize that much of what he wrote is not doctrine, nor is it binding on the membership.

For example, he promoted a reading of D&C 20:1 that taught that Jesus was born on April 6, 1 AD. This originally was believed and explained a century ago by Elder B.H. Roberts (another who tried to systematize our theology). However, the current research being done on the Joseph Smith Papers Project shows that the verse was not originally part of the revelation received, but was placed as a heading by the scribe. IOW, the concept that Jesus was born on April 6, 1 AD may or may not be correct. Still, Elder McConkie's teaching is found in the Church Education System's Institute manual for the Doctrine and Covenants (written 30+ years ago), and there are current students who read that and instantly believe it, because they lack the additional information to make an appropriate decision regarding it. I was actually subbing for such a class about 6 years ago, and when I mentioned we shouldn't take it literally necessarily, I was excoriated by a couple students who insisted we believe the manual 100%. Glad to see the new research finds that the interpretation is probably incorrect.

[prisonchaplain]

And so we are back to the very thing that divides us - that man is intended to be like G-d, free and knowledgeable of the truth as a fountain of living water giving life to creation by the authority and doctrine of the family, which is the very purpose of our creation.

The Traveler

This is actually quite helpful. To view church authority and teaching as tools that prepare us for unimaginable spiritual leadership is both exhilarating and incredibly humbling. While the doctrine of exaltation may divide us, this idea of our spiritual walk preparing us for great and eternal spiritual leadership is something we can agree to. Yet, I have not thought in this way. Thank you!