What is considered a source of "official" LDS Doctrine?

[Irishcolleen]

I know that non-LDS are often confused about this. I know I am! I assume any thing in the Bible, Book of Mormon, PoGP & D&C are considered doctrine. Are General Conference talks, articles in the Ensign and LDS teaching manuals considered accurate representation of doctrine? Also, what about books written by prophets?

How do the LDS deal with situations when members or church leaders teach things that contradict LDS doctrine? For example, in my church (Baptist), a pastor can be fired for preaching that contradicts the Bible or goes against our articles of faith.

I appreciate your responses. I think a lot of animosity between traditional Christians and the LDS comes from not understanding the difference between official teaching and opinions of certain people.

edit: I can't type. I meant "source" i don't even think sorche is a word. :)

Edited September 25, 2012 by Irishcolleen

[szorgalmasan]

The Standard Works, and Official Church Publications are considered doctrinal.

Here is a link to a manual called "Gospel Principles." Everything contained therein is considered doctrine, and by reading it, all of your questions should be answered. It is a manual that is used every week in LDS congregations around the world.

Gospel Principles 

[Guest]

Here you go:

Scriptures | LDS.org

[Anddenex]

I know that non-LDS are often confused about this. I know I am! I assume any thing in the Bible, Book of Mormon, PoGP & D&C are considered doctrine. Are General Conference talks, articles in the Ensign and LDS teaching manuals considered accurate representation of doctrine? Also, what about books written by prophets?

How do the LDS deal with situations when members or church leaders teach things that contradict LDS doctrine? For example, in my church (Baptist), a pastor can be fired for preaching that contradicts the Bible or goes against our articles of faith.

I appreciate your responses. I think a lot of animosity between traditional Christians and the LDS comes from not understanding the difference between official teaching and opinions of certain people.

edit: I can't type. I meant "source" i don't even think sorche is a word. :)

I have always loved Joseph Smith's words when he said, paraphrased "A prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such."

In other words, when a prophet is not acting in the office of his calling he has a mind of his own. His own interpretations. His own opinions. His own thoughts. He is free to express his personal thoughts as any other member of the Church.

A great book, but not doctrine, although aspects of doctrine is taught, is Elder David Bednar's book, "Increase in Learning".

The leaders now publicly address when their books are not doctrinal and their personal opinion on the subject matter. This is one example.

LDS Cannon, is the best source for our doctrine. These are our Standard Works (Holy Bible, KJV; BoM, PoGP, D&C). Note, not the interpretation by a non-LDS member of our cannon.

[prisonchaplain]

Anything posted by an LDS.net moderator could be considered official doctrine. :-)

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRq9knYvRMUvG8Vd6XHe7dLheYq2Za9mZnGkffkFk75wg88C-gH

Edited September 25, 2012 by prisonchaplain
add disclaimer

[estradling75]

Read this

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

[Guest]

Here you go:

Scriptures | LDS.org

I'm an idiot. Forgive me. I didn't understand the question.

[Irishcolleen]

Anddenex- when is a prophet not acting in his calling as a prophet. I assume, that is his words before he becomes a prophet? Is it only when he is at an official function like a General Conference or in a publication printed by the LDS church (In don't know if Deseret Books counts as official LDS publications)?

[Guest]

Anddenex- when is a prophet not acting in his calling as a prophet. I assume, that is his words before he becomes a prophet? Is it only when he is at an official function like a General Conference or in a publication printed by the LDS church (In don't know if Deseret Books counts as official LDS publications)?

Hi Colleen. Something that is different with LDS pastors/apostles/prophets is that these people are just like you and I - they have jobs, families, personal activities, etc.

For example - President Monson - our current prophet - was a soldier in the Navy until his discharge right before the Korean War. He then worked as a professor for the University of Utah and then an advertising executive for Deseret News and moved up in his career in publishing up to general manager. He was involved with several businesses - both for profit and non-profit, both LDS and non-LDS all the way through 1996. He was called as an Apostle of the Church in 1963. He is retired now, so all of his time is dedicated as the President of the LDS Church.

Anything he wrote/said/declared as a Naval soldier, UofU professor, publisher, etc. is not Church related. That's easy enough to identify.

Now that he is fully dedicated as a Prophet, what things does he say is doctrinal? Say, he makes a speech at the Graduation Ceremony of University of Utah (just pulling a wildly fictional example) - is his speech doctrinal? It's easy to identify - if it aligns with existing doctrine, then, of course it's doctrinal. But, what if it doesn't? Well, as a speaker at a graduation ceremony, he is not speaking in the capacity of a prophet. So no, it wouldn't be doctrinal.

Make sense?

[szorgalmasan]

I think that it is usually a safe bet that anything said during a General Conference address would be considered doctrinal, and in the past General Authorities have gone out of their way to say that they are speaking as a man if they don't want what they say to be construed as doctrine.

Do you have a particular teaching that you are wondering about?

[Anddenex]

Anddenex- when is a prophet not acting in his calling as a prophet. I assume, that is his words before he becomes a prophet? Is it only when he is at an official function like a General Conference or in a publication printed by the LDS church (In don't know if Deseret Books counts as official LDS publications)?

Great question. I will refer you back to my previous statement:

In other words, when a prophet is not acting in the office of his calling he has a mind of his own. His own interpretations. His own opinions. His own thoughts. He is free to express his personal thoughts as any other member of the Church.

A great book, but not doctrine, although aspects of doctrine is taught, is Elder David Bednar's book, "Increase in Learning".

The leaders now publicly address when their books are not doctrinal and their personal opinion on the subject matter. This is one example.

Anatess provides a good answer also.

Even a publication printed by the LDS church may have the prophets and apostles opinions intertwined with doctrine.

General Conference is definitely a good source. However, only within the Prophets words. Even Apostles and Seventies will at times share their opinions.

The core doctrine within the standard works, unless an official declaration is given, like "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" is given.

[NeuroTypical]

Is it only when he is at an official function like a General Conference or in a publication printed by the LDS church (In don't know if Deseret Books counts as official LDS publications)?

Actually, not everything said in General Conference should be considered doctrine or scripture. Consider these statements in recent GC's by our prophet:

We hope that you will use the May edition of the Church magazines as a text for your family home evenings, to review that which has been spoken in this conference. What has been said by each of the speakers represents his or her prayerful attempt to impart knowledge that will inspire and cause all who have heard it to stand a little taller and be a little better.

Gordon B. Hinckley, “Closing Remarks,” April 2007

--

All of the proceedings of this conference will appear in a subsequent issue of the Ensign and Liahona. We encourage you again to read the talks in your family home evenings and discuss them together as families. They are the products of much prayer and meditation and are well worthy of careful consideration.

Gordon B. Hinckley, “Closing Remarks,” October 2007

--

I’ve been attending conference for a long time. But I think I’ve never felt quite as richly blessed as during this session. We’ve had rapid-fire messages from a lot of speakers, but every one touched on a very important subject. We’ve had a smorgasbord today of faith, of love, and of counsel. Let’s incorporate these things in our lives.

Thomas S. Monson, “Abundantly Blessed,” April 2008

One would think if our prophets wanted us to think of every word said in General Conference as God-breathed truth, they would have used stronger terms than "prayerful attempt to impart knowledge" and such.

And absolutely not - books published by individuals in the church are not doctrine, no matter who is publishing them. Individual authors bear the “sole and full responsibility” of the contents of a book. For example, "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie is not an official source of Mormon Doctrine (although he gets pretty much most of it right). Various things showed up in early editions that have been taken out of later editions. Various church leaders have taken issue with Bro. McConkie about the authoritative tone the book took, when it had not been read by the reading committee, and that the Prophet did not know anything about the book until it was published.

Just one example. But whatever you've heard about us from a critical source citing that book, you're probably ok throwing it out the window.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Blackmarch]

I know that non-LDS are often confused about this. I know I am! I assume any thing in the Bible, Book of Mormon, PoGP & D&C are considered doctrine. Are General Conference talks, articles in the Ensign and LDS teaching manuals considered accurate representation of doctrine? Also, what about books written by prophets?

How do the LDS deal with situations when members or church leaders teach things that contradict LDS doctrine? For example, in my church (Baptist), a pastor can be fired for preaching that contradicts the Bible or goes against our articles of faith.

I appreciate your responses. I think a lot of animosity between traditional Christians and the LDS comes from not understanding the difference between official teaching and opinions of certain people.

edit: I can't type. I meant "source" i don't even think sorche is a word. :)

The Holy spirit.

For the people that like to have lines neatly drawn for them and like to be uber technical (like me sometimes), Then it's the canon of scripture; Old testament, new testament, book of mormon, doctrine and covenants, pearl of great price. And depending who you talk to, the conference addresses.

What many people don't realise off the bat is that God does not lead his prophets like puppets on a string, and that its very rare for him to lay out the whole plan to them and then command them to share it with everyone. Generally god lets them act as they best think how to, and they use the best of their knowledge and experience.... about the only exceptions are when they say something along the lines of "God has told/shown/given this revelation/commandmant/instruction...." ie even the best of the prophets are still men, whether it was 4000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 200 years ago, or even 2 years ago.

They are considered accurate as to the times and understanding of when they are written to the spirit that filled the men writing them.. we are open to possibility that we may recieve more revelation that clarifies something for us, or even has us change direction if needed.

Also in my experience most conflicts that are presented generally stem from failings of man and not from the recieved revelations.

Generally if a new doctrine is to be recieved by the church, the corresponding leaders need to recieve inspiration and revelation that it is so...

(so if it is something the whole church needs, all the apostles need to confirm by the holy spirit that it is indeed what they need to direct the church to do.. for the issues that affect only certain parts of the church, then those leaders must do likewise for the parts they watch over, with consent from the leaders above them)

Edited September 25, 2012 by Blackmarch

[Sunnysprite]

I know that non-LDS are often confused about this. I know I am! I assume any thing in the Bible, Book of Mormon, PoGP & D&C are considered doctrine. Are General Conference talks, articles in the Ensign and LDS teaching manuals considered accurate representation of doctrine? Also, what about books written by prophets?

How do the LDS deal with situations when members or church leaders teach things that contradict LDS doctrine? For example, in my church (Baptist), a pastor can be fired for preaching that contradicts the Bible or goes against our articles of faith.

I appreciate your responses. I think a lot of animosity between traditional Christians and the LDS comes from not understanding the difference between official teaching and opinions of certain people.

edit: I can't type. I meant "source" i don't even think sorche is a word. :)

I think that one of the strengths of the LDS church is the ability to examine policies and change where needed. The church in 2012 is decidedly different than it was in 1912. It is clear to me that the church in 2112 will be different yet again.

[mikbone]

I copied this from a previous post I did back in April.

Doctrine, from Latin doctrina, means "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system.

I have recently studied the concept of LDS doctrine and was happy to hear Brother Christofferson's talk during conference.

LDS Church News - Elder D. Todd Christofferson: 'The doctrine of Christ'

Recorded Video

Newscasters are salivating at the possibility of an LDS member challenging our current President in the next US general presidential election. See the following two articles. This issue is probably going to come up again and again during the presidential election process...

The Genesis of a church's stand on race - The Washington Post

Church Statement Regarding 'Washington Post' Article on Race and the Church - LDS Newsroom

The following documents have been making the rounds in other LDS discussion boards.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

Mormon Doctrine: What’s Official, And What Isn’t?

FAIR - What is “Official” LDS Doctrine?

Doctrine

Tier 1 – The Bible (as far as translated correctly – AoF 8), The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, & The Pearl of Great Price. These scriptures were approved by the First Presidency, sustained by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and accepted by vote of the entire membership of the church

None of the below items have been voted upon by the Church as a whole, and thus the items are not binding upon us a a people and a church. This of course does not infer that the below items are not true. But they do not technically make the hard definition of what is LDS Doctrine.

Tier 2 – The Temple endowment narrative, Hymnal (D&C 25:11-12), Official Proclamations and Doctrinal Expositions signed and distributed by The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church.

Tier 3 – Official Publications (Manuals, Handbook - LDS Church), Official talks and statements by General Authorities (General Conference Talks, Ensign First Presidency Message, etc.)

Tier 4 – Official Policy (Priesthood denied to black men of African descent prior to 1978 Official Declaration - 2)

Tier 5 – Books by General Authorities (Mormon Doctrine, Teachings of The Prophet Joseph Smith, etc.)

Tier 6 – Books by LDS Scholars (Hugh Nibley, Cleon Skousen, BYU professors of religion, etc...)

That being said, when the Holy Ghost personally manifests a truth to a person, that truth supercedes the tier system (for that person). Although the lower tier items should be in harmony with the higher tier items... Exceptions do come into play though, for example, 1 Ne 4:10-18.

Isaiah 55: 8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

[Backroads]

I'm an idiot. Forgive me. I didn't understand the question.

And this is why I love you so darn much.

[Sunnysprite]

Lengthy doctrines are pretty much meaningless to me. I obey D&C 89, and that is about it. It seems to me that chastising a woman in church for too much make up is ridiculous. I don't wear any, and don't plan to. It's pointless to have a relationship with a man. What I do pretty much takes up my life, but I like to go to church to thank Heavenly Father for keeping me alive. Jesus Christ pretty much said it all; love Heavenly Father, love one another.

[Backroads]

I generally stick to the scriptures for my doctrine. It seems all of what is considered official doctrine can be tied back to the scriptures.

I've seen people bring up some of the more intriguing ideas as doctrine, and these ideas may have links back to the scriptures, but at the point they are discussed they consist more of thoughts and opinions than what the scriptures actually said on the matter.

[Sunnysprite]

I generally stick to the scriptures for my doctrine. It seems all of what is considered official doctrine can be tied back to the scriptures.

I've seen people bring up some of the more intriguing ideas as doctrine, and these ideas may have links back to the scriptures, but at the point they are discussed they consist more of thoughts and opinions than what the scriptures actually said on the matter.

The high need for order folks sometimes get out of control to those of us that don't think very deeply. Religion is pretty simple to me; do good, be good. That Heavenly Father exists is just so obvious to me. I used to have an issue with Jesus Christ's crucifiction, having been all over the world, but Heavenly Father brought things into my life to convince me. No one in my past lived any religion, and their all gone.

[pam]

Hi Colleen. Something that is different with LDS pastors/apostles/prophets is that these people are just like you and I - they have jobs, families, personal activities, etc.

For example - President Monson - our current prophet - was a soldier in the Navy until his discharge right before the Korean War. He then worked as a professor for the University of Utah and then an advertising executive for Deseret News and moved up in his career in publishing up to general manager. He was involved with several businesses - both for profit and non-profit, both LDS and non-LDS all the way through 1996. He was called as an Apostle of the Church in 1963. He is retired now, so all of his time is dedicated as the President of the LDS Church.

Anything he wrote/said/declared as a Naval soldier, UofU professor, publisher, etc. is not Church related. That's easy enough to identify.

Now that he is fully dedicated as a Prophet, what things does he say is doctrinal? Say, he makes a speech at the Graduation Ceremony of University of Utah (just pulling a wildly fictional example) - is his speech doctrinal? It's easy to identify - if it aligns with existing doctrine, then, of course it's doctrinal. But, what if it doesn't? Well, as a speaker at a graduation ceremony, he is not speaking in the capacity of a prophet. So no, it wouldn't be doctrinal.

Make sense?

Not to be picky but coming from a Naval history and family almost all my life...Navy personnel are not called soldiers. :)

[MsMagnolia]

I was taught that Doctrines are eternal truths. They do not change with the times. One example of this is Heavenly Father loves us. That truth will never change. Principles are what we do with the knowledge we have of the doctrine. It is kind of an "if then" kind of situation. If we believe that the doctrine of the atonement is real then we will act accordingly. Practices and policies of the church may change but not doctrine.

Just my thoughts,

Mags

[Sunnysprite]

I might sound fatalistic but I am not. I just see everything that I know about the LDS as true and without question.

If it is not, then it won't matter. But, of course it is, so there is no need to worry.

[Traveler]

I know that non-LDS are often confused about this. I know I am! I assume any thing in the Bible, Book of Mormon, PoGP & D&C are considered doctrine. Are General Conference talks, articles in the Ensign and LDS teaching manuals considered accurate representation of doctrine? Also, what about books written by prophets?

How do the LDS deal with situations when members or church leaders teach things that contradict LDS doctrine? For example, in my church (Baptist), a pastor can be fired for preaching that contradicts the Bible or goes against our articles of faith.

I appreciate your responses. I think a lot of animosity between traditional Christians and the LDS comes from not understanding the difference between official teaching and opinions of certain people.

edit: I can't type. I meant "source" i don't even think sorche is a word. :)

The source of LDS doctrine is Jesus Christ. And just like 2000 years ago there are many that find fault with his doctrine.

The Traveler

[Backroads]

Attempting to link this to your thread about discussions, I would largely stick to scripture-derived doctrines, to be on the safe side. Feel free to bring up anything else you believe to be doctrine, but keep in mind your Mormon debate partner may not feel the same way, so don't be too stubborn about that material.

[JosephP]

I think that it is usually a safe bet that anything said during a General Conference address would be considered doctrinal, and in the past General Authorities have gone out of their way to say that they are speaking as a man if they don't want what they say to be construed as doctrine.

Do you have a particular teaching that you are wondering about?

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. I consider everything that is said at conferences to be both inspired and an excellent example of our beliefs, but that's not the same as our official doctrine. The difference, speaking only for myself, is that these inspired talks are correct in context to time and place they are made. That doesn't mean they can stand the test of infinite truth, as the scripture can.

Reading the words of people during the Mormon War may have been inspired for those people, what they needed to know and feel then, but its certainly not scripture. I love our conferences, I try to absorb every speaker's message, and will reread them, often several times, but none of that raises them to the level of scripture or official doctrine.