Doctrine

[Cal]

The simple fact that so many informed LDS have different opinions about what constitutes church doctrine tells me that there is none, and probably never will be. Even GA's differ on WHAT constitutes church doctrine, so why should lowly schmucks like us be able to decide?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ammon@Mar 31 2004, 07:57 PM

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.

Hey, know what?

If you can prove me wrong, you go ahead. You won't be able to because I know what I'm talking about. I've researched it. You haven't. You have faith in a false position. Research it yourself and find out.

Start here:

www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/doctrine.pdf

[Cal]

Originally posted by Ammon@Mar 31 2004, 07:57 PM

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.

Ammon--Ok, every thing GA's say in Conference or Church Magazines is doctrine. I will agree with you when you explain to me how "man will never walk on the moon" by JFS, is doctrine. He said it in numerous talks and publications; I was even present in one Conference when he said it.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 31 2004, 09:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 31 2004, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ammon@Mar 31 2004, 07:57 PM

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.

Ammon--Ok, every thing GA's say in Conference or Church Magazines is doctrine. I will agree with you when you explain to me how "man will never walk on the moon" by JFS, is doctrine. He said it in numerous talks and publications; I was even present in one Conference when he said it.

If President Smith said that in General Conference, perhaps the conspiracy folks are correct, perhaps we have never been to the moon and will never go. I know not. If he said that in General Conference, then I guess whatever is said in General Conference is just opinion and advice. Is that what you want? Is that what all of you want? To undermine the authority of the Brethern and the official stamp of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on its publications? You seek to take away authority from these entities? Fine. Go ahead. We shall part ways here, for I refuse to take such a stance. And regarding the moon thing, did he speak that as a gospel principle, which is what doctrine is, or as a prediction? Big difference. Are President Monson's stories official doctrine or examples of gospel principles? Perhaps I need to be very clear for this audience, gospel principles spoken in General Conference are official doctrine, not abstract discussion about temporal events.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 31 2004, 08:35 PM

The simple fact that so many informed LDS have different opinions about what constitutes church doctrine tells me that there is none, and probably never will be. Even GA's differ on WHAT constitutes church doctrine, so why should lowly schmucks like us be able to decide?

Because basically, what JS stated many moons ago is the ruling theme:

Teach the people correct 'principles' and let them govern themselves.

Out side of policies...the church pretty much does this.

[Guest Starsky]

If President Smith said that in General Conference, perhaps the conspiracy folks are correct, perhaps we have never been to the moon and will never go. I know not. If he said that in General Conference, then I guess whatever is said in General Conference is just opinion and advice. Is that what you want? Is that what all of you want? To undermine the authority of the Brethern and the official stamp of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on its publications? You seek to take away authority from these entities? Fine. Go ahead. We shall part ways here, for I refuse to take such a stance. And regarding the moon thing, did he speak that as a gospel principle, which is what doctrine is, or as a prediction? Big difference. Are President Monson's stories official doctrine or examples of gospel principles? Perhaps I need to be very clear for this audience, gospel principles spoken in General Conference are official doctrine, not abstract discussion about temporal events.

I think anything we put out to anybody can and will be refuted...be we hebrew, or gentile, or smart or dumb....

There is an opposing view to all things and something written somewhere will always be put up as evidence..of that view.

The truth is this:

What lights your way, your spirit, your mind, your heart,

What strengthens your resolve, your will, your righteousness,

What feeds your soul, your love, your goodness

Is from God.

The Brethren and their sermons are given to us to light our way, minds, and hearts

to strengthen our resolve, our will, our righteousness,

to feed our souls, our love, our goodness...so it is from God.

Whether one calls it doctrine, principle, or talks....matters not...because in reality....if they are not received, applied, encorporated, and then emulated.....they are nothing.

So...it is all up to us what they become.

[porterrockwell]

My sentiments exactly Starsky!!! Amen...

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 31 2004, 09:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 31 2004, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Ammon@Mar 31 2004, 07:57 PM

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.

Hey, know what?

If you can prove me wrong, you go ahead. You won't be able to because I know what I'm talking about. I've researched it. You haven't. You have faith in a false position. Research it yourself and find out.

Start here:

www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/doctrine.pdf

I wrote the Church Headquarters about the issue. Here is the response:

[Ammon] the answer to your question is somewhat detailed. While not all inclusive, please consider the following:

Regarding Doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

1. Question - What is Church Doctrine?

Answer: Doctrine is synonymous with the truths of salvation. It comprises the tenets, teachings, and true theories found in the scriptures; it includes the principles, precepts, and revealed philosophies of pure religion; prophetic dogmas, maxims, and views. The Articles of Faith are part of Church doctrine.

2. Question - What are the central doctrines of the Church?

Answer: The central saving doctrine is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of humankind; that he lived, taught, healed, suffered and died for our sins; and that He rose from the dead the third day with a glorious, immortal, resurrected body. (I Corinthians 15:1; D&C 76:40-42).

3. Question - Why should we teach Church doctrines?

Answer: Church doctrines should receive our emphasis because there is power in doctrine, power in the word (Alma 31:5), power to heal the wounded soul (Jacob 2:8), power to transform human behavior (Acts 2:37-42). Elder Packer taught “True doctrine, understood, changes attitude and behavior,...The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior. That is why we stress so forcefully the study of the doctrines of the gospel.” (Conference Report, October 1986, p. 20).

4. Question - How can we keep “doctrine pure”

Answer:

•Teach directly from the scriptures, (the standard works).

•Present the doctrine in the same way the prophets in our own day present it. (D&C 52:9,36;

Mosiah 18:18-19; Mosiah 25:21-22).

•Pay special attention to the scriptural commentary given by living apostles and prophets in general conference addresses.

Examples:

Elder Holland taught concerning baptism covenant Oct. 2000.

Elder Wirthlin taught concerning the principles of fasting April 2001.

Elder Oaks taught concerning conversion Oct. 2000.

Elder Ballard taught concerning “Who is my neighbor” Oct. 2001.

•Teach the gospel with plainness and simplicity, focus on fundamentals, and emphasize what is most important.

•We should acknowledge that there are some things we simply do not know. Joseph F. Smith said “It is no discredit to our intelligence or to our integrity to say frankly in the face of a hundred speculative questions, ‘I do not know.’ (Gospel Doctrine p. 9)

5. Question - How can a person determine if something is a part of Church Doctrine?

Answer:

1. Is it found within the four standard works, official declarations or proclamations?

2. Is it discussed in general conference or other official gatherings by the First Presidency, Council of Twelve or other Church leaders today?

3. Is it found in the current issue of the General Handbook of Instruction?

4. Is it found today in the approved Church curriculum.

Conclusion: If the doctrine meets at least one of these criteria, we can feel secure that it is an approved Church Doctrine.

Thanks for your inquiry,

Donald Jessee

Public Affairs

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ammon -- Two points:

1. Isn't writing directly to Church headquarters (as opposed to submitting inquiries up the chain of local priesthood leadership) discouraged by the Church leadership?

2. Doesn't the list of four sources of Church doctrine in response to question number 5 mean that official Church doctrine has changed drastically since the times of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 6 2004, 03:30 PM

Ammon -- Two points:

1. Isn't writing directly to Church headquarters (as opposed to submitting inquiries up the chain of local priesthood leadership) discouraged by the Church leadership?

2. Doesn't the list of four sources of Church doctrine in response to question number 5 mean that official Church doctrine has changed drastically since the times of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?

1. Yes, perhaps, but because this is an international website, I thought it best to get the answer from the international source.

2. I wondered that myself. I'm not sure what is meant by the response.

[Snow]

Ammon,

What you got from the Public Affairs office is a standard response that may suffice as a general guide but certainly is not adequate for an in-depth or authoritative understanding and here's why.

Elder Jesse defines doctrine as "synonymous with the truths of salvation." The truths of salvation are eternal and do not change.

Correct?

Elder Jesse then chooses his words very carefully when he describes how we can "determine if something is a part of Church doctrine."

"2. Is it discussed in general conference or other official gatherings by the First Presidency, Council of Twelve or other Church leaders today?

3. Is it found in the current issue of the General Handbook of Instruction?

4. Is it found today in the approved Church curriculum.

Note that general conference talks or the CHI are not doctrine, but they are the tools suggested for determining if something is doctrine. Further note that the emphasis was placed on "today" and "current". Why the specificity? Because things said in past manuals or official gatherings may or may not be useful to determine if something is truly doctrinal. Do you remember Paul H. Dunn and the ficticious stories he presented as true in talks and official gatherings of the Brethren? The stories were false, ie not doctrinal.

Recently I heard Darius Grey, called by the prophet to lead the Genesis Group, speak. He told the story of recently running across, in a then current Church approved curriculum manual, a quote from a former General Authority, Joseph F. Smith I believe, that said that blacks existed on earth so that Satan would have representatives present in the last days. A conversation ensued with the CES author of the manual to no avail, so Darius simply picked up the phone and called the man who appointed him and problem solved. The point is, that such a thing is not doctrinal now, and it was not doctrinal then. Anything not meeting definition number 1. is simply a tool and not doctrinal in and of itself.

[Lindy]

Worth bumping up.....Bump.

[Guest curvette]

This is all so stupid. Why would God want to make it so difficult for His children to hear and understand his word as all of this? The gospel is supposed to be the "good news." Not the "receive your fifteenth PHD in theology in order to get into heaven." This is what happens when a church becomes a massive, worldwide institution. I like to stick to the basics.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ammon@Apr 1 2004, 07:13 PM

If President Smith said that in General Conference, perhaps the conspiracy folks are correct, perhaps we have never been to the moon and will never go.

Oh, now that's intelligent. Sheesh!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 29 2004, 10:03 PM

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?]

I think that the responses on this very thread answer the question nicely. We have here, quite a few well versed church members who give as many versions of WHAT church doctrine is. That there should be such controversy as to what IS or is not doctrine makes me think that there is no standard.

In a way, the church is better off without such a standard. That way, the church avoids being backed into a corner. For example, the Catholic church, for a long time, had an anti-evolution position. Or if you want to go back further, a position against the Copernican view of the universe. Consequence: upon further light and knowledge, they looked like fools. And had to OFFICIALLY change their position. When you have no official doctrine, there is NO danger of being backed into a corner upon further light and knowledge.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Starsky@Apr 1 2004, 07:26 PM

If President Smith said that in General Conference, perhaps the conspiracy folks are correct, perhaps we have never been to the moon and will never go. I know not. If he said that in General Conference, then I guess whatever is said in General Conference is just opinion and advice. Is that what you want? Is that what all of you want? To undermine the authority of the Brethern and the official stamp of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on its publications? You seek to take away authority from these entities? Fine. Go ahead. We shall part ways here, for I refuse to take such a stance. And regarding the moon thing, did he speak that as a gospel principle, which is what doctrine is, or as a prediction? Big difference. Are President Monson's stories official doctrine or examples of gospel principles? Perhaps I need to be very clear for this audience, gospel principles spoken in General Conference are official doctrine, not abstract discussion about temporal events.

I think anything we put out to anybody can and will be refuted...be we hebrew, or gentile, or smart or dumb....

There is an opposing view to all things and something written somewhere will always be put up as evidence..of that view.

The truth is this:

What lights your way, your spirit, your mind, your heart,

What strengthens your resolve, your will, your righteousness,

What feeds your soul, your love, your goodness

Is from God.

The Brethren and their sermons are given to us to light our way, minds, and hearts

to strengthen our resolve, our will, our righteousness,

to feed our souls, our love, our goodness...so it is from God.

Whether one calls it doctrine, principle, or talks....matters not...because in reality....if they are not received, applied, encorporated, and then emulated.....they are nothing.

So...it is all up to us what they become.

so let's see. Following your grand philosophy that the "sermons of the Brethern are given to light our way"...then, upon hearing Joseph Fielding Smith say that man will never walk on the moon, Mormon scientists and engineers working on the Apollo mission should have quit their jobs, since they were doomed to fail.

A better view: The "sermons of the Brethern, SOMETIMES ...light our way" and sometimes lead to heap big mistake.

That's ok, I can live with that. But then, I am a Liahona mormon.

[Cal]

If President Smith said that in General Conference, perhaps the conspiracy folks are correct, perhaps we have never been to the moon and will never go.

Oh, now that's intelligent. Sheesh!

Ammon, unless you are a complete mush-brain, which I doubt you are, I would invite you to disabuse yourself of the "conspiracy" theory of our landing on the moon. If you don't believe the pictures, then explain this......

scientists all over the world, in the last 30+ years have been able to point a lazer at the moon, and have the beam bounce back as though it had hit a mirror. These scientists, remarkably, knew exactly where to aim the lazers to accomplish this (which they did, by the way, to measure a more precise distance from the earth to the moon at that moment). How do you suppose they knew, and still know, where to aim the lazer. Multiple choice:

a) Aliens sent them a message that they had just set up a mirron on the moon.

B)) Joseph Fielding Smith said, "Beam me up, Scotty." and then radioed back to the earth with the message, "If you aim your lazers a latitude 39W, Longitude 2900 east in the sea of tranquility, I will aim my bald head toward earth, and you will get a perfect reflection".

c) The rocks on the moon are acually mirrors.

d) The Apollo astronauts put the mirror there, and so NASA knew exactly where it was.

Ok bright boy, which do you choose?

[Guest curvette]

I'm guessing that what Ammon is saying is that remarks in General Conference about non-doctrinal issues don't amount to doctrine. (Am I right Ammon?????)

[Maureen]

Originally posted by curvette@Jun 19 2004, 04:09 PM

I'm guessing that what Ammon is saying is that remarks in General Conference about non-doctrinal issues don't amount to doctrine. (Am I right Ammon?????)

Ammon made his strange moon statement back in April - I haven't seen him on the board in awhile. I doubt you'll get a speedy reply.

M.

[Nicodemus]

Originally posted by Stephen+Mar 30 2004, 07:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Stephen @ Mar 30 2004, 07:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -broadway@Mar 30 2004, 05:34 PM

<!--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. Are there any more broken records in this room?

Hey man, don't be cramping our style up in hizzie. I don't mean to marsh your mallow, but:

That is only your opinion!

Oh wait, nevermind...

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 31 2004, 08:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 31 2004, 08:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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.

Heh, no, you meant to say "conditional" and "unconditional". :)

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?

Btw, I think the declarations of prophets and apostles today are just as good or bad as the declarations of prophets and apostles in the past, which make up most of what we have in our so-called “Standard Works”. After all, where does "scripture" come from?

In other words, if we are saying that some of today’s prophets and apostles can be missing the mark on certain issues, then it is also possible that prophets and apostles in the past missed the mark on certain issues, with certain declarations also not deemed to be worthy of consideration as “doctrine”.

So, in response to the question about “who and what should determine what is doctrine”, I say that the standard is the same as it has ever been… it’s all a matter of Faith.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Jun 20 2004, 10:32 AM

So, in response to the question about “who and what should determine what is doctrine”, I say that the standard is the same as it has ever been… it’s all a matter of Faith.

Uh no,

Having faith in a doctrine doesn't make it true.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow+Jun 20 2004, 11:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jun 20 2004, 11:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Jun 20 2004, 10:32 AM

So, in response to the question about “who and what should determine what is doctrine”, I say that the standard is the same as it has ever been… it’s all a matter of Faith.

Uh no,

Having faith in a doctrine doesn't make it true.

Of course not. The truth is true whether or not you know it.

But you need Faith to know whether or not a doctrine is true.

And btw, just in case I haven't gone over this often enough for you, Faith is an assurance of the truth.

[Snow]

Regarding Doctrine and the LDS tradition..,

Why doesn't the Church have a systematic theological treatment of it's doctrine like so many other religions and churches?

I think it is due to the fundamental nature of the Church. Other religions have put together systematized, rationalized and ordered expositions of their doctrince that have been elicited, argued out, developed and sustained from reading the written word of those who wrote the gospel in a distant time. Mormonism is different. While we believe that our doctrine is fairly centralized, clearly defined and relatively easily identified, our religion is much less about doctrine and much more about the realities of divine power.

The test of our faith is not an adherence to some creed of confession but rather a conviction about actual events; that Christ was resurrected, that Joseph Smith saw God, that the Book of Mormon is true history, and that Peter, James and John restored the apostleship.

Mormonism is history, not philosophy.

[Ray]

I can agree with that, while adding that today is tomorrow’s history.

Funny how some people can more easily accept doctrine after it has been around a while, isn’t it?

And I mean funny as in peculiar, not funny ha ha. :)