What Is *official* Doctrine?

[Gaia]

Hi Everyone --

This is a topic that's been raised several times in several threads, so i thought it might be a good idea to address it more directly and specifically in its own thread.

Here's the problem:

In LDS scripture, there is the following staement:

(Doctrine and Covenants 68:3-4.)

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

However, just how we can discriminate between personal musings, beliefs, speculation, and when someone is speaking "as they are moved upon by the HOly Ghost" is a question that's not always easily answered. It's possilbe to mistake, confuse, practice self-deception, etc .

Here's a relevant quote from Van Hale, in BYU STudies, regarding the King FOllet Discourse, which illustrates (part of) the problem:

What constitutes an official teaching of the Church is open to debate; in fact, from one point of view, Joseph's teachings in the King Follett Discourse are not yet official LDS doctrine, never having been accepted as such by a general conference of the Church. The distinction being made in this discussion is that before the King Follett Discourse, the concept of the existence of a plurality of gods was presented as an idea, not to be considered doctrine, or to be taught by the elders, whereas, after the Discourse, it was considered "eternal truth" and part of the "Mormon Creed."

(The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse by Van Hale Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 18 (1977-1978), Number 2 - Winter 1978 .)

HOwever, one of the best and most thorough explanations i've heard comes from Stephen E. Robinson, in "Are Mormons Christians?":

What Is Official Doctrine?

So what constitutes genuine Mormon doctrine? What is the LDS equivalent of "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur"? What do the Latter-day Saints believe? Can something be said to be "Mormon" doctrine if any Latter-day Saint anywhere believes it? If my LDS grandmother believed that frogs cause warts, or that the earth is fiat, does that make those ideas LDS doctrine? If some LDS missionary somewhere believes that the earth is hollow and that the lost ten tribes are hiding inside, is his or her belief therefore LDS doctrine? Of course not.

Virtually every religion has procedures for distinguishing the individual beliefs of its members from the official doctrines of the church, and so do the Latter-day Saints. In fact among the Mormons the procedure is remarkably similar to that of many Protestant denominations. An example of the procedure can be taken from the records of the Fiftieth Semiannual General Conference of the LDS church, 10 October 1880, when President George Q. Cannon addressed the conference:

I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.fn

Subsequent changes of content in the standard works of the Church have been presented similarly to the membership in general conference to receive a sustaining vote. It is that sustaining vote, by the individual members or by their representatives, that makes the changes officially binding upon the membership as the doctrine of the Church.

When Wilford Woodruff, as President of the Church, committed the Latter-day Saints to discontinue the practice of plural marriage, his official declaration was submitted to the Sixtieth Semiannual General Conference of the Church on 6 October 1890, which by unanimous vote accepted it "as authoritative and binding." It was that vote which made the document official (it is now printed as Official Declaration- 1 in the Doctrine and Covenants). Similarly, when President Spencer W. Kimball declared in 1978, by revelation from the Lord, that the priesthood was henceforward to be given to all worthy male members, this pronouncement became Official Declaration-2 by the sustaining vote of a general conference on 30 September 1978.

B. H. Roberts, a General Authority of the LDS church, summarized the issue perhaps as well as anyone has:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.fn

Of course it is true that many Latter-day Saints, from the Presidents of the Church and members of the Quorum of the Twelve down to individual members who may write books or articles, have expressed their own opinions on doctrinal matters. Nevertheless, until such opinions are presented to the Church in general conference and sustained by vote of the conference, they are neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church. The critics of LDS doctrine seldom recognize this vital distinction. Rather, if any Latter-day Saint, especially one of the leading Brethren, ever said a thing, these critics take it to represent "Mormonism," regardless of the context of the particular statement and regardless of whether any other Latter-day Saint ever said it or believed it. Often the Latter-day Saints themselves are guilty of this same error and search through the Journal of Discourses as if it were some sort of Mormon Talmud, looking for "new" doctrines not found in the standard works and not taught in the Church today.

Usually the critics insist that the Latter-day Saints must defend as doctrine everything that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or any other General Authority ever said. But the LDS concept of doctrine simply cannot be stretched this far. The Latter-day Saints allow that sometimes the living prophet speaks in his role as prophet and sometimes he simply states his own opinions. This distinction is no different than that made in some other Christian denominations. For example, even though Roman Catholics believe in "papal infallibility," they insist that the pope is infallible only in certain clearly defined circumstances -when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Cannot the Latter-day Saints be allowed a similar distinction? The LDS view was expressed succinctly by Joseph Smith himself: "I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such."fn

Non-Mormon critics, on the other hand, often insist that the Brethren must speak and write prophetically at all times. This absolutist expectation usually flows out of an extreme inerrantist view of prophecy and of scripture that is held by the critics, but not by the Latter-day Saints. The critics' belief in the Bible as absolutely perfect, without error and inspired in every word, leads them to make the same demands of anyone claiming to be a prophet. They would impose their inerrantist view on the Latter-day Saints and their prophets (see chapter 5 herein). But the Latter-day Saints have no such inerrantist views, neither of the scriptures nor of the prophets. The scriptures are the word of God, but only as far as they are translated correctly;fn and prophets sometimes speak for the Lord, and sometimes they express their own opinions. Certainly, if the Latter-day Saints were radical inerrantists, such a view as the foregoing would be a contradiction and a scandal, but since we are not inerrantists, the view scandalizes only our inerrantist critics. B. H. Roberts expressed it in this way:

It is not sufficient to quote sayings purported to come from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine. Our own people also need instruction and correction in respect of this. It is common to hear some of our older brethren say, "But I heard Brother Joseph myself say so," or "Brother Brigham preached it; I heard him." But that is not the question. The question is has God said it? Was the prophet speaking officially?...

As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren, the same principle holds. They do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is-What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine fn

In their encounters with anti-Mormon critics, quite often the Saints seem to feel constrained to defend too much. For example, the fact that Orson Pratt may have said such and such on this or that occasion does not make it a proposition that needs defending. Elder Pratt was very outspoken in his opinions, which sometimes disagreed with the opinions of other General Authorities. He was frequently instructed to make clear to his hearers or readers that his views were his own and not the doctrine of the Church; and on at least one occasion he was instructed by the President of the Church to recant publicly opinions he had represented as doctrine.fn

Yet time and again the private opinions or even the half-serious speculations of Orson Pratt and others are presented in the literature of the anti-Mormons as mainstream LDS doctrine. The problem is compounded by some enthusiastic Latter-day Saints who themselves will not observe this distinction and insist on teaching the personal opinions and speculations of past leaders as though they were the official doctrines of the Church.

Now, none of this should be taken to mean that in matters of administration within the LDS church the General Authorities are not inspired or that they must submit every policy decision to the members for a sustaining vote. The revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, already accepted as binding by the Church, along with the ordination to their callings give the Brethren the keys and authority to administer the affairs of the Church as the Lord may direct without their needing a sustaining vote for each individual decision.fn Thus the Church in conference sustains only the individuals who hold the keys, but does not need to sustain separately every detail of their administration. Consequently the policies and procedures of the Church are "official" and "inspired" whenever those holding the keys of that ministry unitedly declare them to be so. Similarly the revelations already accepted by the Church give to the General Authorities and to many others the right to "preach, teach, expound, exhort,"-that is, to interpret and apply existing doctrines within the context of their individual stewardships. The Brethren need no further license or sustaining vote to interpret, define, and apply the doctrines of the Church, or to administer the affairs of the Church and dictate its policies and procedures, than to be sustained in conference as prophets, seers, and revelators and as duly ordained members of their respective quorums.

Latter-day Saints believe that the General Authorities receive inspiration and revelation from God constantly in the administration of the affairs of the Church. They also believe that individuals within the Church may receive personal revelation, even on doctrinal matters, for their private benefit. When doctrinal revelation is given to such individuals, however, the Lord commands them to keep it to themselves (see Alma 12:9). Such revelation is not for the Church generally, but for that individual alone. No new doctrine is binding as the official doctrine of the Church unless it has been received by the President of the Church and until it has been sustained by the Church in general conference.

Finally, from an LDS point of view some things may be correct without being official Church doctrine. For example, it is probably true that the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of its hypotenuse, but the Pythagorean theorem has never been sustained in a general conference of the Church. Similarly the doctrinal opinions of individual Latter-day Saints could very well turn out to be correct-and some such opinions are believed by many of the Saints -but that does not make them the official doctrine of the Church. This category of things that may be true and that are believed by some in the Church is confusing to members and nonmembers alike. Hence the Brethren have insisted again and again that the members avoid such speculative matters and teach only from the standard works, for only they contain the official doctrines of the Church.

For all of these reasons the only valid judgments of whether or not LDS doctrine is Christian must be based on the official doctrines of the Church, interpreted as the Latter-day Saints interpret them.

(Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991], 13.)

I would like to add a few thoughts:

There is a big difference between on the one hand, teaching a class or writing a paper or giving a talk in the context of a church meeting, or while fulfilling a church calling; and on the other hand, carrying on a discussion in a public message board.

In any of the former contexts, one is expected to fulfil their responsbilities to present official church doctrine as such; in the latter context, there is not such a presumed responsibility. So it can get a bit cloudy. I think one of the ways to clarify such a situation, would be to make it clear when we intend for our readers/ listeners to understand that we are presenting approved, official church doctrine, and when we are NOT; and when someone else is the writer/ speaker, to ASK whether they intend for their remarks to be taken as official doctrine, or not; and to provide (or ask the source to provide) resources and references to back up whatever statements are made.

I hope all of that is helpful -- And would like to hear anyone else's thoughts, as well.

Blessings --

~Gaia

[MadHatter]

When something is brought to our attention from the mouths of those who are in authority to speak in god's name, we are to ponder it and pray and ask for guidence in knowinf if such things are true, and if they are true then we will know.

President Brigham Young chastized his congregations because they would believe anything he said without finding out the truth fir themselves.

As memebrs of the LDS church we are Exhorted to search and study the scriptures ourselves to find knowledge and truth. Each one of our members is to have the same knowledge of the gospel as the apostles are to have. When gordon B Hinckley speaks, his words are as scripture to me, the words of men and prophets ARE FALLIABLE. We are to be mindful of this and pray to recieve the truth of all things by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is a gift given to us at baptism (baptism by fire).

[Gaia]

When something is brought to our attention from the mouths of those who are in authority to speak in god's name, we are to ponder it and pray and ask for guidence in knowinf if such things are true, and if they are true then we will know.

President Brigham Young chastized his congregations because they would believe anything he said without finding out the truth fir themselves.

GAIA:

VERY true, and thanks so much for adding that, MadHatter --

IN fact, many GA's have noted their concern that LDS might become too complacent and stop questioning their leaders ---

For anyoe who might be interested, here are some of those quotes and references:

1. Joseph Smith:

"President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: 'If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing ...the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.']...said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on <u> no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church -- that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls -- applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --

-- Said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall -- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves..."

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)

2. Brigham Young:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him.

I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way.

Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."

(JD 9:150)

"How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves."

(JD 4:368)

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...

Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord."

(JD 3:45)

"...Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will NEVER be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods.

They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James,Peter, [or Bruce or Gordon] or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory,immortality, and eternal lives; never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom.

Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven , who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer."

(JD 1:312)

3. President Joseph F. Smith:

"We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Does the First Presidency require it? No, never."

(Journal of Discourses (JD) 16:248)

5. Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to President Smith, declared:

"President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill ."

(Millennial Star 54:191)

6. "And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood.

We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God... would despise the idea.

Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)

7. George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus:

"Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president .

If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;"

(Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in "Gospel Truth", 1:319)

These are just a few of the many such statements, but i think they serve to emphasize the principle that the Saints are to study, question, and judge everything by the HOly Spirit.

~Gaia

[MadHatter]

thanks for adding those quotes Gaia, i thought about doing a little reasearch but i am at work so my time is limited.

[pushka]

Well I'm pleased to see the explanation regarding the King Follet Discourse, and the fact that it isn't doctrine because it hasn't been sustained at a General Conference.

I must admit that I have looked at those pieces in the past and assumed that they must have at least been considered doctrine at the time, and did wonder why the church apparently abandoned those pieces of doctrine to different ideas.

[Snow]

Can't we do this without the massive cut and pastes?

It so much more engaging if you simply state your argument, use a few relevant quotes and link to additional supporting material when necessary.

[Gaia]

Can't we do this without the massive cut and pastes?

It so much more engaging if you simply state your argument, use a few relevant quotes and link to additional supporting material when necessary.

GAIA:

LOL - Well, i've been challenged so frequently to provide "official" sources that i guess i'm a bit "gunshy" about just posting my personal thoughts. I will try to do as you ask here -- "state an argument, use a few relevant quotes and link to additional supporting material" --

~Gaia

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

Can't we do this without the massive cut and pastes?

It so much more engaging if you simply state your argument, use a few relevant quotes and link to additional supporting material when necessary.

GAIA:

LOL - Well, i've been challenged so frequently to provide "official" sources that i guess i'm a bit "gunshy" about just posting my personal thoughts. I will try to do as you ask here -- "state an argument, use a few relevant quotes and link to additional supporting material" --

~Gaia

Not that I don't appreciate the trouble you go to find interesting reading material. I do. I also think however that most posters do read lengthy cut and pastes.

I am much more attracted to succinct argumentation of your own creation.

[Moksha]

Gaia, how can one argue with a scriptorian such as yourself? It would be best just to ask questions. I do have one question as an example, and that involves the now defunct Adam-God Theory. When I first read it, I felt someone was making this up and at the end of it would add, "that's the ticket". However, this was in vogue for a lot of years. How does this stuff get winnowed out from better doctrine? Is it by continuing revelation?

[Gaia]

Gaia, how can one argue with a scriptorian such as yourself? It would be best just to ask questions. I do have one question as an example, and that involves the now defunct Adam-God Theory. When I first read it, I felt someone was making this up and at the end of it would add, "that's the ticket". However, this was in vogue for a lot of years. How does this stuff get winnowed out from better doctrine? Is it by continuing revelation?

GAIA:

Well, now you've done it! *g* You've mentioned the one topic guaranteed to make some folks see red

Yes, indeed -- what is now frequently referred to as the "Adam-God Doctrine" or "Adam-God Theory" certainly was taught as doctrine for many years -- and NOT , as some folks erroneously think, by just Brigham Young, nor just once or twice or a few times.

I think it best to give this topic its own thread, don't you?

I'll start one now --

~Gaia

[Snow]

GAIA:

Well, now you've done it! *g* You've mentioned the one topic guaranteed to make some folks see red

Yes, indeed -- what is now frequently referred to as the "Adam-God Doctrine" or "Adam-God Theory" certainly was taught as doctrine for many years -- and NOT , as some folks erroneously think, by just Brigham Young, nor just once or twice or a few times.

I think it best to give this topic its own thread, don't you?

I'll start one now --

~Gaia

You are just really clueless when it comes to matters doctrinal aren't you.

That's a statement, not a question.

You can't ken the difference between opinion/inference/interpretation and doctrine.

What is it with you and heretical beliefs - women, priesthood, adam/god? I'll ask again, what does your Bishop say in your temple rec interview?

[Moksha]

I'll ask again, what does your Bishop say in your temple rec interview?

That seems like a terribly personal question. Did you used to ask people what their Patriarchal Blessing said?

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

I'll ask again, what does your Bishop say in your temple rec interview?

That seems like a terribly personal question. Did you used to ask people what their Patriarchal Blessing said?

In what possible way is it personal?

I'm not asking if anyone is committing arson or watching porn. I am asking how a Church authority responds to not only holding heretical put promoting heretical views.

Some of the questions in such an interview speak to sypathizing with apostates and sustaining the Brethren. Gaia has openly shared her feelings on such.

[Gaia]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

I'll ask again, what does your Bishop say in your temple rec interview?

That seems like a terribly personal question. Did you used to ask people what their Patriarchal Blessing said?

In what possible way is it personal?

I'm not asking if anyone is committing arson or watching porn. I am asking how a Church authority responds to not only holding heretical put promoting heretical views.

Some of the questions in such an interview speak to sypathizing with apostates and sustaining the Brethren. Gaia has openly shared her feelings on such.

GAIA:

Gaia also made it clear when she was quoting (past vs present) doctrine, and when something was merely speculation -- or did you miss that part?

And with all due respect -- insistently inquiring about what goes on in private interviews with a Bishops is -- in case you didn't realize -- completely inappropriate.

If you still have trouble understanding that, i suggest you ask your Bishop about it.

~Gaia

[MadHatter]

Calm down children,

Gaia,

Stop talking in the 3rd person, It's annoying, talk like a normal person. Also, Cool it with the heretical Doctrines, they aren't taught in our church, like the Adam-God theory. every Church member should know what doctrines are truly taught. by posting things like this you could be destroying someone's newly budding testimony of the gospel. you should be expounding upon true gospel doctrine rather than expounding on things you know are not true or doctrinally sound.

Snow,

I see what you were asking, you weren't asking specifics in regards to personal interview answers, it came across as personal though. I'm sure what you were trying to point out are questions the bishop asks to everyone during the interview. Asking about your testimony, asking if you sustain your church leaders, are you morally clean ect...ect...ect...

Stop jumping to conclusions and act like real LDS members.

[Snow]

GAIA:

Gaia also made it clear when she was quoting (past vs present) doctrine, and when something was merely speculation -- or did you miss that part?

And with all due respect -- insistently inquiring about what goes on in private interviews with a Bishops is -- in case you didn't realize -- completely inappropriate.

If you still have trouble understanding that, i suggest you ask your Bishop about it.

~Gaia

Third person?

Next you'll be calling yourself The Gaia. Inquiring about your Bishop's opinion of your hertical views is not only appropriate but is a logical follow-up to your constant promotion of heretical views. You are the one who has opened the door.

Snow,

I see what you were asking, you weren't asking specifics in regards to personal interview answers, it came across as personal though. I'm sure what you were trying to point out are questions the bishop asks to everyone during the interview. Asking about your testimony, asking if you sustain your church leaders, are you morally clean ect...ect...ect...

Stop jumping to conclusions and act like real LDS members.

I could care less whether Gaia smokes dope of kills cats with poison darts. It has become obvious that she is not a active member the Church and her personal worthiness is no concern of mine - beyond that which she, not me, bring to the boards attention - preaching false doctrine.

[pam]

Can't we do this without the massive cut and pastes?

It so much more engaging if you simply state your argument, use a few relevant quotes and link to additional supporting material when necessary.

I'm with you Snow. I have no time to be reading multiple cut and pastes. That is one my peeve with many posts. If people want to post their opinions then do so. The key word being "their." Not multiple opinions from multiple sources cut and pasted so that the poster appears more intelligent. I lose interest very quickly.

[Annabelli]

Where does one find the official doctrine for the LDS Church? Not just the basics but all the doctrine in one place. If D&C has been challenged or corrected or just made to read more plainly, where do I find that information. Where do I go to look up information on an official doctrine? Where do I go to learn how an official doctrine is made. When I learn more about this, then I will feel more confident and be able to build a better testimony.

[Dove]

I really appreciated reading the "cuts and pastes" on what constitutes church doctrine- It is enlightening to read that, not only is revelation given to the prophet, but must be accepted by the body of the church through a vote to become church doctrine. I like the fact that, before we can be held responsible to act in accordance to any doctrine, we must first vote our acceptance of it.

I don't remember who posted all the quotes from the prophets about finding out for ourselves, thru the Spirit, whether something is true or not, before we accept it from a leader of the church, but that was quite liberating to me. Thankyou. I think with the liberation comes also more responsibility for ourselves. (maybe that's obvious). Wow, how exciting. My thanks again to Gaia, for opening this topic.

[Dove]

<div class='quotemain'>

Can't we do this without the massive cut and pastes?

It so much more engaging if you simply state your argument, use a few relevant quotes and link to additional supporting material when necessary.

I'm with you Snow. I have no time to be reading multiple cut and pastes. That is one my peeve with many posts. If people want to post their opinions then do so. The key word being "their." Not multiple opinions from multiple sources cut and pasted so that the poster appears more intelligent. I lose interest very quickly.

Pam, wasn't that dilemma already solved between Snow and Gaia? I don't want to be rude. I'm very grateful for all the quotes Gaia uses-I learn a lot from them. Also, No, I don't believe Gaia is trying to appear more intelligent by quoting many sources of church leadership. I think she doesn't have to prove her intellligence-it's apparent.

Also, imho, wouldn't it be better for you and Snow, as mediators, to go to Gaia directly in a -kind- pm with your criticism/concerns, rather than the open arguing and belittling? I value the directive of this website, to kindly respect the beliefs of others. Just a suggestion~ Dove

[tiancum]

Also, imho, wouldn't it be better for you and Snow, as mediators, to go to Gaia directly in a -kind- pm with your criticism/concerns, rather than the open arguing and belittling? I value the directive of this website, to kindly respect the beliefs of others. Just a suggestion~ Dove

I agree.

Kindness and respect go a long way.

it has been lacking here.

About the cut an pastes. If ya don't want to read em, skip over them.

Also, i gotta laugh gaia, cos you spent a rather lengthy post quoting GA's saying that GA quotes don't constitute official doctrine.

I loved the post, it was really funny though, in an ironic sort of way. ; )

I am using your secret now too Gaia, It rocks! I just doubled in smartness. THank you!!

[Snow]

Where does one find the official doctrine for the LDS Church? Not just the basics but all the doctrine in one place. If D&C has been challenged or corrected or just made to read more plainly, where do I find that information. Where do I go to look up information on an official doctrine? Where do I go to learn how an official doctrine is made. When I learn more about this, then I will feel more confident and be able to build a better testimony.

The Church - deliberately - has no systematic theology and no one place that you can turn to to learn what we believe. The spirit behind the Church is spirit of prophecy and we do not define ourselves or limit ourselves by creeds and comprehensive promulgations.

It the most fundamental sense, the scriptures consititute the core of our beliefs. They are the canon, the standard by which we measure all else. To that you should consider what is officially published by the Church under the auspices of the First Presidency as approved to be accepted doctrine but only insofar as it is consistent with the canon. All else may be good and it may be true but in practical terms it is commentary, opinion and interpretation.

I really appreciated reading the "cuts and pastes" on what constitutes church doctrine-

I am not too impressed when someone cuts and pastes directly from anti-Mormon websites and neglects to site the source of the cut and paste. At least we know where Gaia does her research - at an ardent anti-Mormon website.

Also, imho, wouldn't it be better for you and Snow, as mediators, to go to Gaia directly in a -kind- pm with your criticism/concerns, rather than the open arguing and belittling? I value the directive of this website, to kindly respect the beliefs of others. Just a suggestion~ Dove

I am not a mediator and I am not trying to mediate anything. I see an agenda and I call the posters on it.

I do not respect the beliefs of ALL others. Some seek to belittle the Church, harm it's purposes, demean God's appointed representatives, and lead others astray. I have little patience for those that believe thusly and certainly have no respect, especially if such posters pretend they are doing otherwise.

[Annabelli]

<div class='quotemain'>

Where does one find the official doctrine for the LDS Church? Not just the basics but all the doctrine in one place. If D&C has been challenged or corrected or just made to read more plainly, where do I find that information. Where do I go to look up information on an official doctrine? Where do I go to learn how an official doctrine is made. When I learn more about this, then I will feel more confident and be able to build a better testimony.

The Church - deliberately - has no systematic theology and no one place that you can turn to to learn what we believe. The spirit behind the Church is spirit of prophecy and we do not define ourselves or limit ourselves by creeds and comprehensive promulgations.

It the most fundamental sense, the scriptures consititute the core of our beliefs. They are the canon, the standard by which we measure all else. To that you should consider what is officially published by the Church under the auspices of the First Presidency as approved to be accepted doctrine but only insofar as it is consistent with the canon. All else may be good and it may be true but in practical terms it is commentary, opinion and interpretation.

Thank you for your answer. It was very respectful and generous in knowledge.

[Snow]

Thank you for your answer. It was very respectful and generous in knowledge.

Yes - amazingly enough, I can be both respectful and informative on occasion. I don't post as much substantive information as I used to because I've been on the board long enough to have beat every topic into the ground ten times over.

I am often less than respectful with certain types of posters - true anti-Mormons (not too many of those around), hypocrits, those with hidden agendas, those that preach false doctrine, and people who are simply inane or illogical. When I can't find enough of those to hassle, I sometimes turn on the good-natured posters but then someone generally sets me straight.

[alaskanray]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Can't we do this without the massive cut and pastes?

It so much more engaging if you simply state your argument, use a few relevant quotes and link to additional supporting material when necessary.

I'm with you Snow. I have no time to be reading multiple cut and pastes. That is one my peeve with many posts. If people want to post their opinions then do so. The key word being "their." Not multiple opinions from multiple sources cut and pasted so that the poster appears more intelligent. I lose interest very quickly.

Pam, wasn't that dilemma already solved between Snow and Gaia? I don't want to be rude. I'm very grateful for all the quotes Gaia uses-I learn a lot from them. Also, No, I don't believe Gaia is trying to appear more intelligent by quoting many sources of church leadership. I think she doesn't have to prove her intellligence-it's apparent.

Also, imho, wouldn't it be better for you and Snow, as mediators, to go to Gaia directly in a -kind- pm with your criticism/concerns, rather than the open arguing and belittling? I value the directive of this website, to kindly respect the beliefs of others. Just a suggestion~ Dove

YOU SAID IT, DOVE! I'm with you and for one am sick of the negativity I've read in Snow's posts.

"Thumper! What did your father tell you this morning?" Remember, Snow, this is a public forum and your nastiness has been duly noted. As a novice poster but a lifelong member of the church with probably more years in me than you (I deduce this from the tenor of your posts), I particularly am offended. And yes, I hold a current TR and am personally devoted to the Savior and His Gospel.