What is doctrine?

[Traveler]

Often I see individuals argue that a particular teaching either is or is not doctrine.  So I thought I would ask what does it officially take for a particular teaching to become official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Does it just have to appear in a talk at general conference?  Does it have to be somewhere in LDS scriptures?  Is it any revelation given by G-d to any of his servants that hold the keys associated with the doctrine?

And here is a most important question – is a sustaining vote required for something to become official doctrine of the church?

 

The Traveler

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

This is a good question. I don't know the official answer, but for me personally it's the Spirit. If my Bishop says something and the Spirit confirms it then I consider that as truth. If on the other hand, one General Authority says something and I feel uncomfortable with it then I "put it on the shelf" for further testing and consideration. Generally speaking I do not share my concern with others.

If it's something that is widely accepted as doctrine and I'm personally struggling with it then I would try a lot harder to reconcile myself with it than if it were one person.

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

is a sustaining vote required for something to become official doctrine of the church?

I believe so. Whether the Saints accept it does not make any difference, however. If there were 98% who rejected it, they cannot change the truth. But the Lord has told us His Church runs under common consent, meaning we have the opportunity to accept or personally reject — we don't have the right to define doctrine.

Lehi

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Often I see individuals argue that a particular teaching either is or is not doctrine.  So I thought I would ask what does it officially take for a particular teaching to become official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Does it just have to appear in a talk at general conference?  Does it have to be somewhere in LDS scriptures?  Is it any revelation given by G-d to any of his servants that hold the keys associated with the doctrine?

And here is a most important question – is a sustaining vote required for something to become official doctrine of the church?

 

The Traveler

Here's a good description http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

2 Nephi 32 is a good scriptural definition of it, and Christ describes it Himself in 3 nephi 11.

D&C 68:1-5 backs up 2 Nephi 32.

A sustaining vote is required for ordinations, officers and canon, and these are all sources of doctrine according to the sources I listed.

[Guest]

On 6/25/2016 at 3:37 PM, Traveler said:

Often I see individuals argue that a particular teaching either is or is not doctrine.  So I thought I would ask what does it officially take for a particular teaching to become official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Does it just have to appear in a talk at general conference?  Does it have to be somewhere in LDS scriptures?  Is it any revelation given by G-d to any of his servants that hold the keys associated with the doctrine?

And here is a most important question – is a sustaining vote required for something to become official doctrine of the church?

 

The Traveler

I was beginning to wonder the same thing.  We do have this talk by Elder Christofferson.  But I believe the last few threads that spawned this thread is splitting hairs on yet another level that this talk doesn't really cover.

[The Folk Prophet]

I, personally, think that squabbling over what is and isn't "doctrine" isn't worth the time it takes to type the matter or bytes required to store it. Because what, honestly, is the point of doing so? It amounts to nothing more than semantics and the word itself, in the debate, ends up losing any sense of real meaning.

After all, what does anyone mean when they say something is or is not doctrinal, after all?

They mean that we should or should not believe/follow it.

So when certain people come in and try to define certain things as non-doctrinal, but worth doing and following, they are essentially destroying the whole point of calling things doctrinal or not anyhow. Either the agenda is to convince others that things commonly believed as true and to be followed are not really true and should not be followed, which usually steps fairly readily into the grounds of apostasy (innocent or innocuous or not), or they are just arguing a meaningless point that they either haven't thought through or are incapable of actually understanding.

When I say something is doctrine I mean that we should believe it. When I say something isn't I mean that we do not need to or should not (usually I would clarify which I mean...as in "this is non-doctrinal and a bunch of baloney" or "this is non-doctrinal but I rather like the idea"). And that's fine with me. But when I say "this is doctrine", I simply mean that it is something that we (collectively as LDS) should (and generally) believe. When someone comes in and starts quibbling over doctrine vs. policy, cannon or not, etc., it's utterly pointless to me.

[vmethot]

I wrote a blog post seven years ago contrasting doctrine with gospel (What is the Gospel?). More specifically, I was using the definitions given by Christ in 3 Nephi 11 and 3 Nephi 27. This is my summary of 3 Ne 11:

The doctrine is the witnessed facts - Christ is the Son of God as witnessed by all members of the Godhead, God. God the Father is the literal Father of Christ and the Father of all mankind as witnessed by God. As our Father He loves us and gives us commandments with promise: repent, believe in Christ and be baptized and we shall be saved, or in other words, inherit the kingdom of God. That is the doctrine of Jesus Christ upon which the gospel is founded. (Comments I make on my blog are my opinion not necessarily doctrine)

To answer the initial question, there are several things that must be taken into account. Was it published by the church? Are there at least two witnesses? The more witnesses the more official the doctrine is. If it was written by a member of the church, even a prophet or apostle, this does not make it official doctrine. If it is believed by more than one member of the church, even prophets and apostles, this does not make it official church doctrine. If it was canonized, it is doctrine. If it was written and ratified by the first presidency and quorum of the twelve unanimously, it is doctrine. Joseph Smith said that there are no flaws in the revelations. There are flaws in the manuals, but they are published by the church, so they can be accepted as doctrine. If it is a big deal it will be found and corrected eventually. If I see something that I believe is wrong in a manual or church publication, or even over the pulpit at general conference, I don't think it is significant enough to prevent someone from being saved if they believe what is said. If it were, it would be corrected. I trust the leaders of the church to receive revelation to correct significant doctrinal flaws.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, vmethot said:

I wrote a blog post seven years ago contrasting doctrine with gospel (What is the Gospel?). More specifically, I was using the definitions given by Christ in 3 Nephi 11 and 3 Nephi 27. This is my summary of 3 Ne 11:

The doctrine is the witnessed facts - Christ is the Son of God as witnessed by all members of the Godhead, God. God the Father is the literal Father of Christ and the Father of all mankind as witnessed by God. As our Father He loves us and gives us commandments with promise: repent, believe in Christ and be baptized and we shall be saved, or in other words, inherit the kingdom of God. That is the doctrine of Jesus Christ upon which the gospel is founded. (Comments I make on my blog are my opinion not necessarily doctrine)

To answer the initial question, there are several things that must be taken into account. Was it published by the church? Are there at least two witnesses? The more witnesses the more official the doctrine is. If it was written by a member of the church, even a prophet or apostle, this does not make it official doctrine. If it is believed by more than one member of the church, even prophets and apostles, this does not make it official church doctrine. If it was canonized, it is doctrine. If it was written and ratified by the first presidency and quorum of the twelve unanimously, it is doctrine. Joseph Smith said that there are no flaws in the revelations. There are flaws in the manuals, but they are published by the church, so they can be accepted as doctrine. If it is a big deal it will be found and corrected eventually. If I see something that I believe is wrong in a manual or church publication, or even over the pulpit at general conference, I don't think it is significant enough to prevent someone from being saved if they believe what is said. If it were, it would be corrected. I trust the leaders of the church to receive revelation to correct significant doctrinal flaws.

As much as I think your explanation/thinking is sound, I still think the idea that trying to define doctrine too narrowly defeats the point of how most use the word when debating/discussing theological ideas. If someone says it's doctrine, generally speaking, they simply mean it's what is true according to the church at large and should be believed. Proving that it's never been canonized or the like isn't really useful, imo.

Of course there are relative descriptor words that can be used to narrow meaning -- "the doctrine of Christ", for example, is not necessarily the same thing as "doctrine" in general (though some argue that it is or should be -- and, once again, this renders the whole usage of the word in context somewhat meaningless).

Literally, "doctrine" means the teachings and beliefs of a church or organization. Narrowly defining it to mean something more than this isn't useful. I mean, adjectives exist for a reason. If one means "canonized doctrine" then say that. If one just says "doctrine" it doesn't have to mean canonized. It just means what is taught and believed. That's what the word means.

[vmethot]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

trying to define doctrine too narrowly defeats the point of how most use the word when debating/discussing theological ideas. If someone says it's doctrine, generally speaking, they simply mean it's what is true according to the church at large and should be believed. Proving that it's never been canonized or the like isn't really useful

I agree, but the initial post wasn't referring to general use of the word doctrine. He said 'official doctrine of the church' in his question. He asked, 'Does it just have to appear in a talk at general conference?' In the general sense the answer is yes. In fact, if it was never stated in general conference or published by the church it can still be considered doctrine in the general sense, but as soon as you put the qualifier 'official doctrine of the church' it is narrowed down beyond 'how most use the word' doctrine.

[The Folk Prophet]

30 minutes ago, vmethot said:

I agree, but the initial post wasn't referring to general use of the word doctrine. He said 'official doctrine of the church' in his question. He asked, 'Does it just have to appear in a talk at general conference?' In the general sense the answer is yes. In fact, if it was never stated in general conference or published by the church it can still be considered doctrine in the general sense, but as soon as you put the qualifier 'official doctrine of the church' it is narrowed down beyond 'how most use the word' doctrine.

Right. I'm not sure I agree that something that has never appeared in general conference or been published by the church qualifies as any kind of doctrine of the church whatsoever...but.......

The word at play then is "official" I suppose. If we define that as "canonized" then it becomes very clear. But that leaves out the word of wisdom as commandment. So if you broaden it to mean anything published...well...I have a problem with that because there have been some things published that are problematic in a variety of ways (and I'm not talking about conflicting with social sentiment and political correctness...but contradictory to known doctrines). Yes, those are sometimes cleared up later, but they never even fall into the category of becoming "doctrine", I believe, just for that reason alone (publication). Rather, as has been described by the brethren recently, doctrine is taught openly, publicly, and repeatedly by the leaders of the church. To me that makes it "official".

The problem is that oft times when people are getting into the "what is doctrine" debate it's usually to defend some concept they've come up with or believe and very agenda driven. When you (universal you, not "you") back off that kind of baloney, what is and isn't the doctrine of the church is very plain.

When someone comes out with some off the wall theory and I say it isn't doctrine, the best solution and "win" to the debate would be to simply post a bunch of GA quotes and scriptures showing it to, indeed, be what is taught by the church. Of course when the theories are off the wall this cannot be done. Hence, I will says something akin to, "That ain't doctrine bro!"

Edited June 27, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

9 hours ago, vmethot said:

if it was never stated in general conference or published by the church it can still be considered doctrine in the general sense, but as soon as you put the qualifier 'official doctrine of the church' it is narrowed down beyond 'how most use the word' doctrine.

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Right. I'm not sure I agree that something that has never appeared in general conference or been published by the church qualifies as any kind of doctrine of the church whatsoever...but.......

What about the King Follet Sermon?

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What about the King Follet Sermon?

 

 

Not following. A great many portions of the King Follet Sermon have been published by the church. A great many things therein can, imo, clearly be considered "doctrine" as they are commonly, universally taught. A few things therein are not published, not taught, and clearly not doctrine.

[Traveler]

Perhaps I may take this discussion a litter deeper.  When we say or think of “doctrine” as principles taught by officials or those in authority – we are in essence opening another can of worms – sort of speak.  Allow me to elaborate with one little statement that we have all seen or experienced.  “What you do thunders so loudly in my ears I cannot hear a word you are speaking.  Thus the example of what we do become more of a “teaching” than the words we may speak or write.  Did Jesus teach by example?  How important is example compared to a spoken or written word?  Perhaps it is this idea of example being a more important tool for teaching than what is spoken or written that emphasizes the importance of living authority in apostles and prophets.

I believe that for the most part examples are somewhat ambiguous; whereas most desire to think of doctrine as precise and detailed – certainly not a lot of wiggle room in what has been recorded in scripture (as a note I will insert that the last statement was meant to have an element of sarcasm – element meaning not completely).  I think also that most think of doctrine as static and not dynamic.  It is like doctrine is a fixed unchangeable understanding of something.  To illustrate I will take a simple principle taught by example by every single general authority.  That is – that the proper dress or attire of men acting in the office of their priesthood calling - is the attire of a white shirt and tie.  This principle is overwhelmingly and consistently taught by example by all the current general authorities – as well as men that serve as full time missionaries.  Others – claiming that doctrine must be static will point to history and point out that until the restoration (the 11 hour) not a single priesthood authority ever wore a white shirt and tie.

But then as important as a white shirt and tie are to the attire of a priesthood holder of our generation – It is my personal belief that there is something below the surface or beyond a “shallow” discussion of white shirt and tie that ought be understood with honor and respect for the priesthood and those that exercise, in any degree, that sacred and holy calling and divine service.

But in this post, the principle of a white shirt and tie is not the principle or doctrinal point or idea I wish or intended to highlight.   Rather I am using this as an example of a more important principle that is intellectually vague.  Some – rather than think in terms of the “vague” principle may wish instead to disagree with the example.  Which they have every right to do – and perhaps my example is not really that good – maybe there are other ideas or principles that are important – even more important to be considered.  My example was not intended to be a static end all – but rather a means to open up opportunity for a spirit of understanding and learning.  Learning being a process of acquiring understanding – not always of recognizable difference – sometimes just a difference of depth or quality. 

So - What is Doctrine?

 

The Traveler

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

12 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I, personally, think that squabbling over what is and isn't "doctrine" isn't worth the time it takes to type the matter or bytes required to store it. Because what, honestly, is the point of doing so? It amounts to nothing more than semantics and the word itself, in the debate, ends up losing any sense of real meaning.

I'm genuinely cofused that you said this because to me you are the one who started all this. Remember it was with the thread about why a body is important. It was a quote by Melvin J. Ballard as I recall and you called it pseudo doctrine.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm genuinely cofused that you said this because to me you are the one who started all this. Remember it was with the thread about why a body is important. It was a quote by Melvin J. Ballard as I recall and you called it pseudo doctrine.

I'm not sure what's confusing. Have you read the rest of my posts? I do not think that quote is doctrine...by which I mean, as I have explained, that I don't think it something that must be believed.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps I may take this discussion a litter deeper.  When we say or think of “doctrine” as principles taught by officials or those in authority – we are in essence opening another can of worms – sort of speak.  Allow me to elaborate with one little statement that we have all seen or experienced.  “What you do thunders so loudly in my ears I cannot hear a word you are speaking.  Thus the example of what we do become more of a “teaching” than the words we may speak or write.  Did Jesus teach by example?  How important is example compared to a spoken or written word?  Perhaps it is this idea of example being a more important tool for teaching than what is spoken or written that emphasizes the importance of living authority in apostles and prophets.

I believe that for the most part examples are somewhat ambiguous; whereas most desire to think of doctrine as precise and detailed – certainly not a lot of wiggle room in what has been recorded in scripture (as a note I will insert that the last statement was meant to have an element of sarcasm – element meaning not completely).  I think also that most think of doctrine as static and not dynamic.  It is like doctrine is a fixed unchangeable understanding of something.  To illustrate I will take a simple principle taught by example by every single general authority.  That is – that the proper dress or attire of men acting in the office of their priesthood calling - is the attire of a white shirt and tie.  This principle is overwhelmingly and consistently taught by example by all the current general authorities – as well as men that serve as full time missionaries.  Others – claiming that doctrine must be static will point to history and point out that until the restoration (the 11 hour) not a single priesthood authority ever wore a white shirt and tie.

But then as important as a white shirt and tie are to the attire of a priesthood holder of our generation – It is my personal belief that there is something below the surface or beyond a “shallow” discussion of white shirt and tie that ought be understood with honor and respect for the priesthood and those that exercise, in any degree, that sacred and holy calling and divine service.

But in this post, the principle of a white shirt and tie is not the principle or doctrinal point or idea I wish or intended to highlight.   Rather I am using this as an example of a more important principle that is intellectually vague.  Some – rather than think in terms of the “vague” principle may wish instead to disagree with the example.  Which they have every right to do – and perhaps my example is not really that good – maybe there are other ideas or principles that are important – even more important to be considered.  My example was not intended to be a static end all – but rather a means to open up opportunity for a spirit of understanding and learning.  Learning being a process of acquiring understanding – not always of recognizable difference – sometimes just a difference of depth or quality. 

So - What is Doctrine?

 

The Traveler

As a side note that is off topic: Everyone I know who has gone inactive and/or left the church and become apostate was wearing blue/striped/pink/etc. shirts to church before doing so. That is not to say that everyone I know who has worn colored shirts to church has gone inactive or apostate...but....

...and...back on topic...

[LeSellers]

12 hours ago, vmethot said:

'Does it just have to appear in a talk at general conference?' In the general sense the answer is yes.

But that's not true, either.

Take evolution. Joseph Field Smith and his son-in-law, Bruce R. M^cConkie, taught the evolution was a false notion, but the Brethren have thrice given us statements that the Church has no official position on evolution except that man, that is, Adam, was not the product of evolution.

On the other hand, B.H. Roberts, as a Seventy (one of the Presidents) spoke on the matter (in favor of evolution) but stopped when Joseph F. Smith told his son and Elder Roberts to stop their bickering over the matter. Elder Roberts stopped, Elder Smith did not. but when he became the prophet, he spoke no more on the matter at all.

President M^cKay was the last to say that we are not anti-evolution, but many of  us believe that we are, officially.

Not all we hear in Conference is "doctrine". It is usually correct, but we cannot rely solely on the venue to state that it is doctrine.

Lehi

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

the Brethren have thrice given us statements that the Church has no official position on evolution except that man, that is, Adam, was not the product of evolution

Reference, please. (By "the Brethren", I assume you mean a First Presidency statement or something of equal gravity.)

[Traveler]

10 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

But that's not true, either.

Take evolution. Joseph Field Smith and his son-in-law, Bruce R. M^cConkie, taught the evolution was a false notion, but the Brethren have thrice given us statements that the Church has no official position on evolution except that man, that is, Adam, was not the product of evolution.

On the other hand, B.H. Roberts, as a Seventy (one of the Presidents) spoke on the matter (in favor of evolution) but stopped when Joseph F. Smith told his son and Elder Roberts to stop their bickering over the matter. Elder Roberts stopped, Elder Smith did not. but when he became the prophet, he spoke no more on the matter at all.

President M^cKay was the last to say that we are not anti-evolution, but many of  us believe that we are, officially.

Not all we hear in Conference is "doctrine". It is usually correct, but we cannot rely solely on the venue to state that it is doctrine.

Lehi

Is it possible that there is a difference between what is said and what we hear?  Or even a difference in what is written and what we read?  Perhaps I should ask thins with a different tone or concept - is it possible to understand the doctrine of the Kingdom from what others say and testify or is there any element that requires the Holy Ghost?  And how - what the Holy Ghost brings to understanding - is to be recorded or expressed in the spoken or written word.  Did not the Nephits testify that Jesus spoke doctrine to them that could not be spoken recorded?

I would add one other thought - when I was serving in a position of knowing and contributing to a change in a ward boundry - I discovered it was not near as fun as not knowing and being able to speculate with all those so engaged.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

51 minutes ago, Vort said:

Reference, please. (By "the Brethren", I assume you mean a First Presidency statement or something of equal gravity.)

 

Interesting response - I consider you to be included in what I understand as brethren - if fact I would even go so far as to say trusted brethren  This despite that we do not always agree - in fact that is one of the reasons I trust you.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Interesting response - I consider you to be included in what I understand as brethren - if fact I would even go so far as to say trusted brethren  This despite that we do not always agree - in fact that is one of the reasons I trust you.

Interesting....

Are there un-trusted brethren?

[Traveler]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Interesting....

Are there un-trusted brethren?

yes

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

yes

Interesting further.

Which ones?

And how did you determine that they were not trustworthy?

I mean, I assume that by "brethren" we mean the general leadership of the church and not just...you know...any of our brethren on earth.

[tesuji]

The King Follett discourse was re-published in the Ensign

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/05/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

[tesuji]

Dang, you guys start up a genuinely significant thread on a day when I can't focus on it. I hope to reply later.

I do believe the question of what is doctrine is all-important. Doctrine means something that we must know and follow as LDS members. So knowing what it is - that's very important.

Edited June 27, 2016 by tesuji