Doctrine

[Snow]

We sometimes debate what is doctrine (in the Church) and what is not. Some take the view that anything said by a General Authority in General Conference constitutes scripture and thus is doctrine. Others take a stricter approach.

How about this: What if the First Presidency commissioned someone to write and give a series of lectures on Church beliefs? What if, after giving the lectures, the Church further reviewed and edited the lectures and published them in serial form in a Church magazine? What if, after that, the First Presidency then appointed that writer to write a book from the lectures and Church magazine articles and assigned the writer an editorial and review Committee on Criticism that consisted of multiple members of the Quorum of the 12, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventies, and Superintendent of Church Schools and the associate editor of the Deseret News? What if after writing the book it was published by the Corporation of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints and was designated as a "text book in the Church schools, Sunday schools, Improvement associations, quorums of the Priesthood, and other Church organizations in which the study of Theology is pursued, and also for individual use among the members of the Church. The work has been approved by the First Presidency, and I heartily commend it to members of the Church." (as described in the Improvement Era)?

Would then, the material is such a work be considered doctrine?

[Did I mention that the writer would later be a member of the 12 and his helper on the book later became 1st counselor in the First Presidency?]

[AFDaw]

I say yes. In dealing with people who always came to me and said "You believe this..." I told them the only thing they were allowed to "use against" me was anything that was published by the First Presidency.

[Stephen]

Most LDS members that I have talked to take the stand that only the Standard Works(B.o.M., D&C, P.o.G.P., Bible) is official LDS doctrine.......in my opinion largely because there are some LDS leaders that have said some very embarrassing things.

During my 27 years in the LDS Church I was always told that the talks given in General Conference were official LDS doctrines and that we needed to read them and study them as we apply the things taught to our lives.

Many LDS members that I know currently reject that view. Yet it is my guess that when they are around other LDS members that they highly approve of General Conference talks and do consider them LDS doctrines.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

I would add, to any other criteria for establishing whether a teaching is official doctrine, that it has been regarded as doctrine for over fifty years. If a teaching is widely believed and taught by authorities for that long, to say that it's not "official doctrine" renders the whole idea of "official doctrine" meaningless.

[Stephen]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 30 2004, 11:13 AM

I would add, to any other criteria for establishing whether a teaching is official doctrine, that it has been regarded as doctrine for over fifty years. If a teaching is widely believed and taught by authorities for that long, to say that it's not "official doctrine" renders the whole idea of "official doctrine" meaningless.

The LDS belief that there is a Heavenly Mother would certainly qualify as official doctrine under that criteria.

[broadway]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 30 2004, 11:09 AM

Most LDS members that I have talked to take the stand that only the Standard Works(B.o.M., D&C, P.o.G.P., Bible) is official LDS doctrine.......in my opinion largely because there are some LDS leaders that have said some very embarrassing things.

Yes, that would be your opinion.

broadway

[Stephen]

Originally posted by broadway+Mar 30 2004, 05:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (broadway @ Mar 30 2004, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Stephen@Mar 30 2004, 11:09 AM

Most LDS members that I have talked to take the stand that only the Standard Works(B.o.M., D&C, P.o.G.P., Bible) is official LDS doctrine.......in my opinion largely because there are some LDS leaders that have said some very embarrassing things.

Yes, that would be your opinion.

broadway

That is what I said. Is there any more broken records in this room?

[Guest Ammon]

Official doctrine is doctrine approved by both the First Presidency and the entire Quorum of the Twelve, such as the Living Christ. This also includes the standard works, lesson manuals, videos by the Church, General Conference talks, missionary materials, articles by the First Presidency in the Ensign, etc. This policy is set forth at www.lds.org . . . although I don't remember where. Rogue quotes and publications by Church leaders are NOT official doctrine (e.g., Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine, etc.).

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Ammon@Mar 30 2004, 06:16 PM

Official doctrine is doctrine approved by both the First Presidency and the entire Quorum of the Twelve, such as the Living Christ. This also includes the standard works, lesson manuals, videos by the Church, General Conference talks, missionary materials, articles by the First Presidency in the Ensign, etc. This policy is set forth at www.lds.org . . . although I don't remember where. Rogue quotes and publications by Church leaders are NOT official doctrine (e.g., Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine, etc.).

Obviously General Conference talks that talk about Heavenly Mother are official LDS doctrine.

Thanks for the information.

[broadway]

Originally posted by Ammon@Mar 30 2004, 07:16 PM

Official doctrine is doctrine approved by both the First Presidency and the entire Quorum of the Twelve, such as the Living Christ.  This also includes the standard works, lesson manuals, videos by the Church, General Conference talks, missionary materials, articles by the First Presidency in the Ensign, etc.  This policy is set forth at www.lds.org . . . although I don't remember where.  Rogue quotes and publications by Church leaders are NOT official doctrine (e.g., Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine, etc.).

Very useful. Thanks. Where did this definition come from?

broadway

[Guest Ammon]

www.lds.org

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ammon@Mar 30 2004, 06:16 PM

Official doctrine is doctrine approved by both the First Presidency and the entire Quorum of the Twelve, such as the Living Christ. This also includes the standard works, lesson manuals, videos by the Church, General Conference talks, missionary materials, articles by the First Presidency in the Ensign, etc. This policy is set forth at www.lds.org . . . although I don't remember where. Rogue quotes and publications by Church leaders are NOT official doctrine (e.g., Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine, etc.).

I am sure that is not correct.

Please provide the exact quote with the exact link and what you just said is mistaken.

[Snow]

By the way, the book in question was Articles of Faith by James Talmage, and no, it was not doctrine. Doctrine is contained in the Standard Works and material specifically approved as such by the Brethren. All else is merely interpretation of doctrine.

The proof is that even though the book and materials was approved by apostles and the First Presidency, it contained the "doctrine" of progression between the kingdoms. Not that that "theory" has been removed from subsequent editions. Doctrine does not change. Talmage and the 12 and the 1st Presidency who approve the book for instructional use in the Church were mistaken.

BTW, you can get an exact reproduction of the first edition Articles of Faith by Talmage along with excellent scholarly comment on its amazing production from Signature Books.

Beyond official doctrine which has been cannonized, other teaching, such as the King Folette address have become normative in the Church so although they may not be official doctrine, we treat them as such.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 31 2004, 12:33 AM

Doctrine is contained in the Standard Works and material specifically approved as such by the Brethren. All  else is merely interpretation of doctrine.

That is what I just said above, which you said was not correct.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ammon+Mar 31 2004, 01:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ammon @ Mar 31 2004, 01:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 31 2004, 12:33 AM

Doctrine is contained in the Standard Works and material specifically approved as such by the Brethren. All  else is merely interpretation of doctrine.

That is what I just said above, which you said was not correct.

No, that's not what you said. You said that, and then added "...such as the Living Christ. This also includes the standard works, lesson manuals, videos by the Church, General Conference talks, missionary materials, articles by the First Presidency in the Ensign, etc.", as if those were examples of things that were doctrinal.

They are not. I can prove it. Doctrine does not change, those things change all the time.

They may be if specifically and officially designated but hardly any of it is. In fact, beyond the Standard Works, I am unaware on anything that is stamped officially as doctrine. Maybe The Living Christ or the Proclamation on the Family or maybe the First Presidency doctrinal exposition on the Godhood many decades ago but I do not KNOW that it is so.

Personally I doubt that you can find an official statement of what constitutes doctrine. You say it can be found at LDS.org and I say that you are mistaken.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ammon+Mar 31 2004, 01:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ammon @ Mar 31 2004, 01:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 31 2004, 12:33 AM

Doctrine is contained in the Standard Works and material specifically approved as such by the Brethren. All  else is merely interpretation of doctrine.

That is what I just said above, which you said was not correct.

No, that's not what you said. You said that, and then added "...such as the Living Christ. This also includes the standard works, lesson manuals, videos by the Church, General Conference talks, missionary materials, articles by the First Presidency in the Ensign, etc.", as if those were examples of things that were doctrinal.

They are not. I can prove it. Doctrine does not change, those things change all the time.

They may be if specifically and officially designated but hardly any of it is. In fact, beyond the Standard Works, I am unaware on anything that is stamped officially as doctrine. Maybe The Living Christ or the Proclamation on the Family or maybe the First Presidency doctrinal exposition on the Godhood many decades ago but I do not KNOW that it is so.

Personally I doubt that you can find an official statement of what constitutes doctrine. You say it can be found at LDS.org and I say that you are mistaken.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 31 2004, 03:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 31 2004, 03:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ammon@Mar 31 2004, 01:37 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 31 2004, 12:33 AM

Doctrine is contained in the Standard Works and material specifically approved as such by the Brethren. All  else is merely interpretation of doctrine.

That is what I just said above, which you said was not correct.

No, that's not what you said. You said that, and then added "...such as the Living Christ. This also includes the standard works, lesson manuals, videos by the Church, General Conference talks, missionary materials, articles by the First Presidency in the Ensign, etc.", as if those were examples of things that were doctrinal.

They are not. I can prove it. Doctrine does not change, those things change all the time.

They may be if specifically and officially designated but hardly any of it is. In fact, beyond the Standard Works, I am unaware on anything that is stamped officially as doctrine. Maybe The Living Christ or the Proclamation on the Family or maybe the First Presidency doctrinal exposition on the Godhood many decades ago but I do not KNOW that it is so.

Personally I doubt that you can find an official statement of what constitutes doctrine. You say it can be found at LDS.org and I say that you are mistaken.

Each of those things are approved by the Bretheren, which was your stated criteria. Thus, they are doctrine. The format may change, but the substance does not.

[Guest Ammon]

Here are authorative words from official church publications, which are approved by the Bretheren before publishing, regarding this matter.

"For example, we have procedures to ensure approved content for materials published in the name of the Church or used for instruction in its classes. These procedures can be somewhat slow and cumbersome, but they have an important benefit. They provide a spiritual quality control that allows members to rely on the truth of what is said. Members who listen to the voice of the Church need not be on guard against being misled." (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "Alternative Voices," The Ensign (May 1989), p. 27.)

"Doctrines are official if they are found in the standard works of the Church, if they are sustained by the Church in general conference (D&C 26:2), or if they are taught by the First Presidency as a presidency. Policies and procedures are official whenever those who hold the keys and have been sustained by the Church to make them declare them so." (Stephen E. Robinson, "Are Mormons Christian?," The New Era (May 1998), p. 41.)

"Much care is exercised to make certain that the official publications of the Church carry messages that are sound in doctrine and fully in harmony with currently approved policies and procedures. A constant effort is maintained to upgrade and correct the content of these materials so that they can merit the confidence and approval of Church leaders and the general membership. All official Church publications that have received the clearance described above will carry the designation 'Copyright © Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.'" (Dean L. Larsen, "I Have a Question," The Ensign (August 1977), p. 38 [emphasis added].)

I am still trying to find the quote to which I refered earlier, but the above quotes say, essentially, the same thing.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ammon@Mar 31 2004, 02:44 PM

Each of those things are approved by the Bretheren, which was your stated criteria. Thus, they are doctrine. The format may change, but the substance does not.

No, you are completely wrong. They are not doctrine, they are interpretation of doctrine.

The book I mentioned, Articles of Faith, was published by the Church, serialized in Church magazines and approved as official instructional material. That book maintained progression between the kingdoms. That book was wrong. The Church's position is that there is no such progression.

Are you under the impression that doctrine changes from time to time.

Last year in a General Conference talk, later published in the Ensign, Russell Nelson taught that the love of Christ was conditional. For years, general authorities in General Conf and the Ensign have been teaching that the love of Christ is UNconventional. Who's right? Which view is doctrinal? Does doctrine contradict doctrine?

When a GA gives a conf talk, often before the Church publishes it in the Ensign, they re-edit it to materially changes it. Which is doctrinal, the talk itself, or the rewritten and altered talk?

And NO, Ammon, your quotes do not say what you intially claimed. The first one does not even address the topic of official doctrine. The second one was written by a professor and his views are not binding on the Church, besides which he said that doctrines are official if they are sustained in General Conference. You didn't say anything about that, and how many conference talks and Ensign articles are sustained in Conference. The third quote talks about the care exercised to ensure that taught doctrines are sound, not the process by which they become official doctrine.

The things you mentioned are interpretations of doctrine. Very, very few things outside the Standard Works actually ARE doctrines themselves.

[Guest Ammon]

The quote says that special care is taken to ensure that publications of the Church are sound in doctrine. Thus, publications of the Church are official doctrine, as is outlined further by the seond quote, which is from a Church publication, which is approved by the Bretheren... your standard. Why are you so evasive on this?

[Rodney]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 31 2004, 05:01 PM

...For years, general authorities in General Conf and the Ensign have been teaching that the love of Christ is UNconventional. Who's right? Which view is doctrinal? Does doctrine contradict doctrine?

Oh, I think it's always been totally conventional.

Maybe you oughta slow down there Mr Omniscient Momo. I know this site has become a playground for you, with antishock and bat out of commission. Seems you're letting the boredom affect your concentration. Are you finding your latest challenge of correcting the believers a bit over daunting? Pathetic. There's gotta be something better that your Momo God has for you to do. Go lead a bunch of pimple faced boy scouts on a 100 mile hike or something....

Ehhh, I ramble with great sillyness. I blame myself, but mostly I blame the JD&Cokes..................,. j;jm

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ammon@Mar 31 2004, 04:21 PM

The quote says that special care is taken to ensure that publications of the Church are sound in doctrine. Thus, publications of the Church are official doctrine, as is outlined further by the seond quote, which is from a Church publication, which is approved by the Bretheren... your standard. Why are you so evasive on this?

Evasive? What on earth are you talking about. I am not evading anything. I am pointedly telling you that you are dead wrong.

Taking care to make sure something is sound is not at all the same thing as doctrine. What it is - is taking care to make sure it is sound. You are evading something though. How is it that something that met the criteria that you describe is flat wrong? Don't evade - answer the question. What about the "doctrine" of progression between the kingdoms? What about the love of Christ, unconditional or conditional - which is doctrinal?

Conference talks (published in the Ensign), while beneficial for spiritual edification of the Saints - generally focus on revealed official truth but they do not EXPOUND official doctrine. The prophet Harold B. Lee said "It is not thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired or tha tthey are moved by the HOly Ghost in everything they write." The prophet Joseph Fielding Smith said that the measuring yardsticks by which all truth is measured and balance and regardless of who said it and where, if it is not in harmony with the scriptures, we can set it aside (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)

What do you know, Ammon, that the prophet does not?

[Guest Ammon]

You have me at a disadvantage as to the allegedly changing doctrines you mentioned for I know not the source from whence these alleged doctrines came nor what was said nor in what context it was said. So, please provide me with the same that I might answer your questions.

Regarding your narrow-minded view of what is doctrine, as you'd have it... everything that the Bretheren say then is not doctrine, unless it is just a quote from the Standard Works. Thus, it's all just good advice. That is, of course, absurd. The Bretheren review EVERY talk in GC BEFORE it is given. They approve EVERY talk. The Bretheren also review EVERY Ensign BEFORE it goes out, and they approve the same, along with EVERY lesson manual. You honestly think they'd let something go out that wasn't official doctrine with the Church's name stamped on it? That is craziness! It makes absolutely no sense. Read the third quote that I put in above; that makes sense. You do not.

And your evasive in that you evade the obvious truth that is in front of your face... such as those quotes from official church sources.

[porterrockwell]

The whole point of doctrine is to enhance perspective by TRUTH. As long as the preception and interpertation of the LDS Doctrine falls sufficiently within the lines of it's precepts, they an expansion of basics the basics by which we place our faith. Furthermore, I do not believe that it is as important to label it doctrine or not, but merely the effectiveness of it's message, and how it ties to "Official Doctrine".

By the way, why would naysayers even feel the need to give input in this thread. It is clear that this must have a purely LDS "line of sight"

[Snow]

Originally posted by Rodney@Mar 31 2004, 04:27 PM

Oh, I think it's always been totally conventional.

Maybe you oughta slow down there Mr Omniscient

My apologies.

...conventional and unconventional I meant to have said.