Interpreting LDS scriptures and doctrine

[annewandering]

I disagree completely on the anti intellectual idea. We are not against intelligence. In fact we believe the Glory of God is Intelligence.

What we object to is 'learned men'. Remember it was a 'learned man' who took the first group of papers Joseph Smith had translated and 'lost' them.

My feeling on this is that it is not the scholorliness that is questioned but the lack of humility and looking to themselves for knowledge and not God.

[jayanna]

Tell me: what has he "seen" (or, ancient record translated) recently? I believe that he may hold the power, but not he nor any other church president since Joseph has used the seer stones. Few have "revelated" anything, as well- meaning offering new "light and truth" in Conference to be sustained by common consent. There *have* been revelations- but they have been in the form of dreams, not "thus saith the Lord" commandments. (Yes, I'm aware of Pres. Benson's 14 principles of a prophet)

Seership may be his right, but he has not utilized that gift- whether that is good or bad, is up for each of us to decide. I believe it is because of the wickedness and unbelief of the Saints that the Lord has covered the seers (2 Nephi 27:5).

I can see what you are saying about your idea of a 'seer', but that does not mean that we do not get current revelation directly from God since Joseph Smith. What about the ending of the practice of polygamy, or the direction from the Lord to make the priesthood available to all worthy male members of the church? That was made under direct revelation, not a dream, in the temple after much prayer. [Priesthood Extended to All Worthy Males] - New Era Aug. 1978 - new-era

If I remember correctly, Joseph Smith also taught that a living prophet is more important than a dead one.

the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)

Ironically, the dead prophet which is often more revered than the live one is telling us that our live one is more important than all of the standard works.

And please also consider the following found by Loren C Dunn in the historical records of the April 1876 Conference. A Living Prophet - general-conference and was shared by her during the 1976 conference, the year that the priesthood was made available to every worthy male member....

Among the teachings that caught my eye at that April 1876 conference were these words from Wilford Woodruff, and I quote, “It may be asked—What are the commandments of the Lord? Many of them are contained in these records, the Bible, Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants; and we have the living oracles with us, and have had from the commencement. The Lord will never leave his kingdom without a lawgiver, leader, president … to direct the affairs of his Church on the earth, for the reason that it is the dispensation of the fullness of times, in which God has set up a kingdom which is to be an everlasting kingdom, and to whose dominion there will be no end.” (Journal of Discourses, 18:189).

That caused me to reflect on the absolute importance of a living oracle, and also on the words of Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Council of the Twelve, who said: “The Latter-day Saints do not do things because they happen to be printed in a book. They do not do things because God told the Jews to do them; nor do they do or leave undone anything because of instructions that Christ gave to the Nephites. Whatever is done by this Church is because God speaking from heaven in our day has commanded this Church to do it. No book presides over this Church and no books lie at its foundation. You cannot pile up books enough to take the place of God’s priesthood inspired by the power of the Holy Ghost.” (Conference Reports, Oct. 1916.)

Elder Whitney was not taking away from the power and majesty of the scriptures—he was just putting them into perspective. He also said, “No man ought to contend for what is in the books in the face of God’s mouthpiece who speaks for him and interprets his word. To so contend is to defer to the dead letter in preference to the living oracles, which is always a false position.”

All of these sources make it perfectly clear that living oracles matter more than dead ones.

Of course a college degree does not qualify one to be a priesthood holder...if we take Jesus for an example, where in the NT did he receive his worldly formal education, what of His apostles? They were laborers, workers, a tax collector, a murderer of Christians...The pharisees were the ones with education, having been devout studiers of the Torah, and where did that get them? It is more important to be humble when it comes to being a servant of the Lord, than it is to be worldy wise or rich. You can't fill a cup that's already full. We are supposed to attain the highest level of education, and a degree in religious studies is wonderful, but it is the Lord that qualifies us for the work, not a degree, or pedigree, or money...can anyone think of more e's? Im out.

Edited January 24, 2012 by jayanna

[prisonchaplain]

I took a closer look at the Masters in Religious Education at BYU. It does appear much more practical than purely academic. There were only four professors for both trackes (military chaplains and full-time Church Education System employees). This for a movement nearly three times the size of my church. I'm guessing our graduate school has at least a dozen professors--and we only study the Bible. Also, despite that, our school is only 40 years old, and while it has a solid reputation, it also would be considered more practical than research and high scholarship-orientated.

Departments | Religious Education

Did I say my alma mater had at least a dozen professors? It's roughly 23... AGTS Faculty

Edited January 24, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[Matthew0059]

Sorry for ending up hijacking your thread PC... Last exchange, I promise.

I can see what you are saying about your idea of a 'seer', but that does not mean that we do not get current revelation directly from God since Joseph Smith.

I agree! However, we have to understand the difference between the gifts of the spirit, what they are given for, etc.

What about the ending of the practice of polygamy, or the direction from the Lord to make the priesthood available to all worthy male members of the church?

Both policy changes... Not new doctrine.

jayanna, this is the point I'm trying to make: almost no new doctrine has been revealed since Joseph Smith- and by "doctrine" I mean the "light and truth" from God that gives mankind greater knowledge of His mysteries, the kind of "light and truth" that edifies the soul and brings us even closer to seeing the face of Christ. In many cases, light and truth that were given during or after the time of Joseph Smith was lost over time as the people of the Church grew more academic and worldly.

You're right- living oracles are essential for guiding the work of the Church and the Kingdom. No one's denying that.

[Snow]

We don't have where it was first revealed, but we do have a church of restoration. If it was lost, it woudln't need to be revealed. There were sealings in OT times. Adam and Eve were sealed, Abraham and Sarah were sealed. It was lost, now it is restored. This is not a new church, and you know that.

Many books of scripture are yet to come. Some old that are brought back to us, some new that are yet to be written.

The sealing keys were not new to Joseph Smith, Elijah had them. This is ancient doctrine.

I think you misread my post. I was asking if you had any evidence to support your claim/hypothesis?

[Snow]

Joseph Smith did not counsel us to get out of debt right before the current debt crisis our nation is facing, that was Pres. Hinckley, what about the internet? pornagraphy? rave parties? What we are taught by living prophets help us, and it is doctrine. It is written, we are warned, the same as Noah warning about the flood, the same as Moses delivering the ten commandments, doctrine that we are supposed to harken to and live by. These are not guidelines, these are doctrine.

Obviously you and I are very different persons. I don't need a prophet to tell me debt, porn and raves are a bad idea. I can figure that out on my own... or maybe by watching Dr. Phil.

... and you have a distinct set of definitions. That's not doctrine, as most of us on the LDS internet world these days underand the word. That counsel or advice. We use doctrine to refer to those eternal, unchanging sets of of truth as revealed by God

[Snow]

Joseph Smith was not a greater prophet than Thomas S. Monson. Pres. Monson holds and uses all of the keys that Joseph Smith had, has spoken with HF, and recieves revelation from the cornerstone of our church, Jesus Christ, a living Jesus Christ, and he uses them for us in our day, and teaches us current doctrine, and Pres. Monson's words carry more authority for us today than Joseph Smith's words do.

Let's just say that is an extremely, fringe, opinion.

btw... how many of THM's words are canonized?

[Snow]

Snow,

I see what you are saying, but you will also note that originally I did clarify as scholars in the classic theological sense, for example Doctor of Divinity or similar. Talmage was a geologist, and Widstoe a biologist. Both were highly intelligent, well educated, and added a lot to church theology, but educated in a classical seminary type environment like PC would typically think of, not so.

-RM

I see ywhat you mean.

Thanks

[Snow]

hmmm I might not agree there is not a strong market for religious academic writing. Deseret books does sell quite a bit of that kind of thing.

You think? I am struck by how little Deseret Books has in an academic / scholar vein.

I frequent a lot of Deseret locations and seldom find something significant that I don't already have.

I have much better luck at Benchmark Books or BYU bookstore or online and direct from the Publishers.

I agree that theology does seem to be a not so popular term to us. It kinda grates on my skin for some reason. Smacks a bit of non LDS religions for some reason. I really have no idea why unless it carries with it the implication that the regular church member is not as educated as some because they do not have a religious degree after their name. We really do have a bit of dislike for that. Maybe somewhat like the Quakers in that area?

I am not sure what your point is but most members are no where near as educated about religion as is someone with a degree in religion.

[jayanna]

1.

a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2.

something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3.

a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Doctrine | Define Doctrine at Dictionary.com

The definition of doctrine from the 'Teaching, No Greater Call' manual:

To help class members understand the power that comes from studying and teaching the doctrines of the gospel, which are found in the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets. Teaching, No Greater Call: A Resource Guide for Gospel Teaching Lesson 4: Teach the Doctrine

Why is it important to teach the doctrine?

Jesus commanded us to “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77). Doctrine is the word of God as found in the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets and apostles. The word of God has power to change our lives.

Teachers must ensure that they keep the doctrine pure by teaching gospel truths as the Lord has revealed them. You can do this by teaching from the scriptures and the words of the latter-day prophets. President Ezra Taft Benson said, “Always remember, there is no satisfactory substitute for the scriptures and the words of the living prophets. These should be your original sources” (The Gospel Teacher and His Message [1976], 6).

Also make sure that you use Church-produced materials when you teach. This will help you keep the doctrine pure. Avoid speculation and private interpretations.

Teach the Doctrine

A prophet is a man who has been called by God to speak for Him. Prophets receive God’s word by revelation and are then commanded to preach to the people (see Amos 3:7; 1 Nephi 22:2; D&C 1:38; Bible Dictionary, “Prophet,” 754). We are blessed to be led by living prophets. Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. Their teachings are the mind and will of the Lord. Behold Your Little Ones: Nursery Manual Lesson 24: I Will Follow the Prophet

Every definition I find of doctrine says that the words of the living prophets are doctrine. The fourth Sunday lessons for adults are from conference talks of the recent conference. If it is taught, then it is doctrine.

I don't know where any other definition of doctrine would be.

Living prophets: Unfortunately it seems to be a popular belief that they don't teach doctrine and that they are not necessary. I find that unusual considering that church members say the difference between our church and others is latter-day revelation...too bad so many believe the revelation stopped with Joseph Smith. Judging by the nursery manual quoted above (which I personally have taught out of) we actually teach it to our little ones, but don't believe it...."Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. Their teachings are the mind and will of the Lord." Hmph, well guess we'd better quit saying that. I have to admit, I'm a bit down about this. I've never been around a group of church members who don't believe the Lord tells the prophet what to say to us before now...and I'm feeling a bit alarmed and saddened, surprised, I had no idea...why even go to church then? Show? Something to talk about? All this time I thought others believed, this certainly does explain some things...stagnation, a feeling of apathy among some members I talk with, for example.

Maybe the reason God is teaching us the same things over and over again is because we still haven't gotten it right.

Personally, I learn new things all the time, especially when I go to the temple and read my manuals. The new RS book is very enlightening. I just learned huge huge things about women and the priesthood just this last week, between the new RS book, the temple, and some church history made available online thru lds.org. I was planning to go to the temple and talk to the temple pres...he always answers my questions and greets me often when I get there so I feel comfortable asking him a couple of things about the temple.

But now I don't know. I'm all weirded out now. Feeling a bit paranoid about walking around in church. I thought I was one of many and evidently I'm not.

I for one do not think I am educated on religion at all. I don't want to be educated on religion, I want to be educated about Jesus Christ....and I can't get that from someone who He doesn't speak to. If He doesn't speak to them, then they are speculating, and speculation I don't need.

Edited January 26, 2012 by jayanna

[Snow]

Great, you've got a dictionary. Yeah, I have one too, as well as the teaching manual.

If you hang out on the internet, you'll figure it out. Then you might not have to quote dictionaries and wouldn't that me dandy.

[rameumptom]

Snow, quit intimidating her. She is trying to make points with evidence, and you only can attack? Why not use your uber-intelligence in a better way than intimidating people. If I were a visitor here seeing your posts, I'd quickly discern that Mormons are jerks and would never want to learn more about Mormonism.

That said, the Church's official site states:

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

• 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

IOW, there are various levels of doctrine/teaching. Some are core doctrines that are binding upon all members. If a prophet speaks on something as a "one-off", then it is to be considered, but is not necessarily binding upon the Church - each individual must seek his own witness.

[rameumptom]

Snow, quit intimidating her. She is trying to make points with evidence, and you only can attack? Why not use your uber-intelligence in a better way than intimidating people. If I were a visitor here seeing your posts, I'd quickly discern that Mormons are jerks and would never want to learn more about Mormonism.

That said, the Church's official site states:

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

• 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

IOW, there are various levels of doctrine/teaching. Some are core doctrines that are binding upon all members. If a prophet speaks on something as a "one-off", then it is to be considered, but is not necessarily binding upon the Church - each individual must seek his own witness.

[rameumptom]

BTW, I agree that the living prophet is as great as Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith laid the foundation. However, many people "follow" Joseph Smith who have rejected many things taught since then. We call them fundamentalists, etc. The fact that they follow Joseph Smith but not Thomas S Monson means they are not receiving temple ordinances or modern doctrine that will exalt them.

Once a brother spoke on the scriptures, stating they were of utmost importance to the membership. Joseph Smith then asked Brigham Young to speak on the same subject. Brigham stated that the scriptures are important, but he'd choose the living prophet over the scriptures, as that is the path for exaltation.

I'd say I generally agree with Jayanna on her thought that Thomas Monson is key to our salvation, at least as much as is Joseph Smith. And when Pres Monson dies, the next prophet will become as important as Joseph Smith is.

[prisonchaplain]

FWIW...Robert Millet asks Evangelicals to evaluate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints according to its current teachings and emphases. He clearly has in mind some of the full-time critics who make prolific use of their copies of the Journal of Discourses. Likewise, Dallin H. Oaks recently met with local Evangelical leader and pastor, Joe Fuiten, and reiterated this desire of Saints to be evaluated by current teachings, rather than past speculations. So, while I am not qualified to weigh in on the Joseph Smith vs. Thomas Monson discussion, clearly there is a desire from leadership to have focus be on today, more than yesteryear.

[Carl62]

But where do we draw the line as to what we accept from past leaders vs. living prophets/apostles? Does this give us liscense to start playing 'pick and choose'? How do we then as a church, based on this, know exactly what is doctrine and what is just council or opinion? Or what is even accepted at all? Please don't ust the 'ole standby of 'pray about it' because if people start getting individual answers for themselves which could all vary, then do we allow ourselves to follow our own little road of confusion without anybody giving us any concrete answers? Then if somebody finally does make a statement over something, is it from a dead prophet or a living one? Is it considered as doctrine or just council? Or even mearly opinion? You see how the cycle of confusion continues........

[RMGuy]

But where do we draw the line as to what we accept from past leaders vs. living prophets/apostles? Does this give us liscense to start playing 'pick and choose'? How do we then as a church, based on this, know exactly what is doctrine and what is just council or opinion? Or what is even accepted at all? Please don't ust the 'ole standby of 'pray about it' because if people start getting individual answers for themselves which could all vary, then do we allow ourselves to follow our own little road of confusion without anybody giving us any concrete answers? Then if somebody finally does make a statement over something, is it from a dead prophet or a living one? Is it considered as doctrine or just council? Or even mearly opinion? You see how the cycle of confusion continues........

You're learning.

-RM

[jayanna]

Great, you've got a dictionary. Yeah, I have one too, as well as the teaching manual.

If you hang out on the internet, you'll figure it out. Then you might not have to quote dictionaries and wouldn't that me dandy.

I'm sorry if I offended you, Snow, I didn't mean to. I'm honestly not trying to be insulting, I just want to know where this definition of the word doctrine is coming from. Mine comes from these sources. If there is another place to find the definition you are referring to, please tell me where to find it. If it is from a popular consensus, that is fine, I just wouldn't know popular consensus on it, being from an area that has very few LDS per capita. I'm afraid it may simply be colloquial in nature.

I'm only trying to understand you better, I need some common ground, a common meaning. BTW I don't spend a lot of time on the internet, but I am a librarian. In my experience one never outgrows dictionaries. Job security

I know I still have a lot to learn, and Snow I know that you are very intelligent, and that you are exceptionally well read. I thought it would be a step forward if I shared where I was coming from, where I got my definition. I have spent most of my time as an adult convert learning by application. It is easier for me to learn through application. I can see the differences in life without the gospel vs. life with it because I saw my family dynamic without it, and then with it, and then judge by the outcome. I do read scriptures, talks, manuals, temple learning, some books by Talmage, not a whole lot of anything else so far. There is no Deseret bookstore here. I don't particularly feel prompted to get more books, maybe when I have a little more time as I've just learned to do genealogy.

The words of the living prophets are very dear to me. I risked my life to follow them, and I have a testimony of them. When the missionaries first came to teach me I knew, I just knew that there were apostles on the earth. I knew that God wasn't dead, and I knew that He loves his children on earth, so He just had to send us apostles now more than ever. When I told the Elders that I thought there where apostles, and I just didn't know where to find them they showed me the pictures of the Presidency and the Quorum of the twelve. I was overwhelmed with relief and gratitude to them for being brave enough to share it with me. That moment has changed my life. At my first conference, Stake conference, I got to hear from an apostle, Elder Nelson. I was sitting in the back row with my two little baby girls, newly diagnosed with my heart problem, and struggling in every way I can think of, and there was a living apostle. He spoke about me! He didn't say my name, but he spoke about the missionaries in our ward visiting an investigator who had been looking for apostles, and quoted me even. I knew I was loved by my HF right then. I knew that He knew my name and had sent the Elders to my door. After the closing prayer, the missionaries came running up the stairs to me and told me that the leaders wanted to meet me. The crowd was huge, and I couldn't move very quickly carrying my girls since I was still passing out at odd moments. I got all the way down to the stage, and walked with them around the back. I met the Mission Pres, but didn't get to meet Elder Nelson because of the press of the crowd. I was afriad my daughter would get squeezed or stepped on. She was 3 and my youngest was one. I was standing with the Mission Pres, waiting patiently for them to get done shaking hands. There were a lot of people so it was taking quite a while.

The sister that gave me a ride there insisted that we leave immediately. She said the whole thing was ridiculous, that no one wanted to meet me. She said that if I wanted a ride home I would have to leave. We lived about 45 minutes away, so I left without meeting him, but I'm not sad about it at all. The leaders asked the missionaries to go get me because they wanted to meet me, and that is good enough. I felt kinda like I left them hanging, but I told the SP later why I couldn't stay.

I could have taken the opportunity to meet another apostle fairly recently. I was not sitting far away from him at a conference, but I decided there were a whole lot of other people that needed it more than me. I have my husband, he holds the priesthood, and can receive revelation in giving me blessings and teaching us in the home, and that is plenty.

I do love conference and always hear something I need to learn. I often read the talks afterward and always learn things I didn't recall hearing at all.

[Suzie]

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

Isn't this what Snow has been saying all along? I really don't understand the issue. In my opinion, he is correct.

You're correct. Current prophets seldom, if ever, offer new doctrine. What they offer is an inspired reiteration and interpretation of already revealed doctrine, made relevant for the audience to whom they are speaking / writing.

We use doctrine to refer to those eternal, unchanging sets of of truth as revealed by God

[HiJolly]

In a recent temple recommend interview with a friend of mine (who is a counselor in the Stake presidency), I told him that I'm surprised sometimes at the misunderstandings the Saints have concerning things in the Church.

I mentioned, as an example, the mistaken viewpoint many have that a General Conference talk is doctrine in the Church. I also mentioned how the Saints often take anything in the Ensign as doctrine as well.

He said "Of course those are doctrine." <sigh> I explained the Church's official stand on doctrine, but he's not buying it. <double sigh>

HiJolly

[Dravin]

In a recent temple recommend interview with a friend of mine (who is a counselor in the Stake presidency), I told him that I'm surprised sometimes at the misunderstandings the Saints have concerning things in the Church.

I mentioned, as an example, the mistaken viewpoint many have that a General Conference talk is doctrine in the Church. I also mentioned how the Saints often take anything in the Ensign as doctrine as well.

He said "Of course those are doctrine." <sigh> I explained the Church's official stand on doctrine, but he's not buying it. <double sigh>

HiJolly

Am I mistaken that conference editions of the Ensign contain a copy of every talk given in Conference (I've never actually checked, I've just assumed). If so then his position is nonsensical:

General conference talks are not doctrine.

General conference talks are in the Ensign

The contents of the Ensign are doctrine.

One of those suppositions has to give way to the other. Even if not all Conference talks make it into the Ensign his supposition would force him to accept those Conference talks that do make it into the Ensign as doctrine.

[Vort]

In a recent temple recommend interview with a friend of mine (who is a counselor in the Stake presidency), I told him that I'm surprised sometimes at the misunderstandings the Saints have concerning things in the Church.

I mentioned, as an example, the mistaken viewpoint many have that a General Conference talk is doctrine in the Church. I also mentioned how the Saints often take anything in the Ensign as doctrine as well.

He said "Of course those are doctrine." <sigh> I explained the Church's official stand on doctrine, but he's not buying it. <double sigh>

One reason is because the word "doctrine" has multiple definitions. The most straightforward definition is "teaching". Obviously, General Conference talks are indeed teachings, and important ones. So in that sense, they very much are "doctrine".

If you still don't believe this, consider the term "false doctrine". Does "false doctrine" exist? If so, what is it? Well, it's teachings (or "doctrines") that are false.

I am reminded of those (usually from the U of U) who decry any description of BYU as "the Lord's university". Though I have never been a Utah Ute, I, too, used to roll my eyes at this description. Then someone pointed out to me that BYU is owned by the LDS Church, which belongs to...the Lord. In reality, "the Lord's university" is a perfect and proper description of God's place at BYU and among its faculty and student body. The description does not imply that BYU is faultless or that its students, faculty, administrators, or even football coaches do not err on occasion.

Do the things taught at General Conference tend to lead people away from God, or toward him? If the latter, those things are "true doctrine", where "true" means much the same thing as when we speak of a rifle that "shoots true".

Some think that, to be "true", the doctrine must completely describe all possible situations. If you can find an exception, the thinking goes, then whatever was said ain't "true". This is naive, at best; our language is not capable of reaching those foundational depths of truth. We do our best to describe underlying spiritual bedrock, but our linguistic tokens are insufficient to do the job. That's why we have the Holy Ghost.

The older I get, the less sympathy I have for arguments about "true doctrine" and how General Conference talks aren't it. "True doctrine" is any teaching testified by the Holy Ghost. And since one person might feel the Holy Ghost's influence while another does not, it follows that one person can receive a doctrine as "true" while the other fails to receive that truth. In such a case, note that it isn't the doctrine itself that is insufficient; rather, the failure lies in the listener.

[jayanna]

I appreciate all of the input on this thread, it has really helped me to ponder what my definitions are for things.

I think doctrine to me means current teachings...

Scripture are recordings of the word of the Lord through prophets, and apostles.

Gospel principles are basics of the gospel that are not changed (the nature of God, nature of the Holy Ghost, Baptism, etc). I think this is what those eternal truths are that are being referred to.

The role of past and present prophets are in the following analogy for me. Because my hubby loves football I have been learning about it, so we can enjoy it together. I am very interested in the organization of it, as well as the preparation that goes into an upcoming game. All of the team learn plays, and what part of those plays apply to what they are supposed to do. There is a play book that they study, and a teacher who is the coach of their role (defensive coach, offensive coach, etc.).

During the actual game, the plays that were taught are the only plays used. There is a quaterback, a coach, and a man high up in a box looking down called an offensive coordinator. The offensive coordinator is looking down on the field and can see things in the big picture. He can call down plays that need to be run. The quarterback generally listens to this, but sometimes he, because of the timing of what has been sent down to him, and the changes in the line he has to change what the play is going to be. If a play is decided on by the guy in the box, and then there is something suddenly indicated in the defense, the quarterback can call and audible. This is personal revelation.

The play book are the gospel principles that all of the called plays are based on. Gospel principles are found throughout the scriptures. They are taught repeatedly. Some of them seem obtuse, or vague, which prompted Joseph Smith to ask about them, like and sealings, confirmations, etc. They have been around since the beginning of time, we just need a prophet to tell us what the Lord says about us applying that particular gospel principle. Time and seasons determine what plays are called, causing doctrine.

The Living Prophet is the communication system between the offensive coordinator and the quaterback. What is communicated is current doctrine, meaning the play currently being worked on. This will always be based on the plays, or gospel principles, taught during the week.

So yes, current prophets teach on established gospel principles already found in the scriptures. These teachings are based on communication from our defensive coordinator, Jesus Christ. He determines what we need to do right now, for example should we attempt the law of consecration right now, or plural marriage, how many temples are needed, do we need to be reminded of a particular gospel principle, and which ones????

Why do we have both written scriptures from old prophets and new words from the Lord from current prophets? All things are established by two or three witnesses. The prophets are also witnesses. We are taught gospel principles by each one. Sometimes, because of language barriers, or misunderstanding between communication styles, or loss of records, we can loose pieces of the explanation of a gospel principle from that prophet. If we read other scriptures, as well as gospel principles taught by current prophets, our understanding is enlightened.

Take the recent definition of seer for example, if we stick with one scripture on the topic we get one definiton, but that is only one witness, we need 2 or 3 to establish an understanding of it. If we include records of other seers (say in the Pearl of Great Price) we see more about seers and what they do. We have done the searching part of gospel learning. Then we need to ponder, and follow up with prayer to include a personal witness of it.

[Gargantuan]

The LDS church is an organization that operates under the hand of God. God bestows upon it baptized membership, the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Each member of the church will have the privilege of the inspiration from the Holy Ghost to help him make some of the decisions he must make here in mortality.

A decision such as how many soda drinks one should have during the day becomes a personal matter and if one chose he could discuss it with the church leader, but ultimately it becomes the responsibility of the individual to make that a matter of choice influenced by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Members of the church will value their agency to choose between right and wrong. We also value the benefit of counseling with those priesthood leaders who may have more insight into some of the question we may have about church doctrine. After counseling and pondering our questions then personal inspiration can play a stronger role in making correct decisions.

Each member of the church is encouraged to read and study the scriptures. There is great understanding given through the scriptures. After a person’s mind has been prepared by studying the scriptures, he can bring his mind closer to the mind and will of God. Thus, he will be able to receive, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost which gift it is his to have, more understanding of his particular question or concern.

I hope this helps answer your question. Gar

Edited February 4, 2012 by Gargantuan
adding text