Defining Doctrine

[Grunt]

Ask 30 Mormons to participate in a thread about doctrine to help investigators.....

[zil]

35 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Ask 30 Mormons to participate in a thread about doctrine to help investigators.....

Yeah, I'm thinking a PM would have been better, though I think it's more like 29 v 1 in this case.

[JohnsonJones]

LDS Canon

Quote

Canon 

See also Bible; Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants; Pearl of Great Price; Scriptures

A recognized, authoritative collection of sacred books. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the canonical books are called the standard works and include the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Fair Mormon on how New doctrine is established

Quote

Brigham Young taught:

In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice; the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true. Let the Elders get together, being faithful and true; and when they agree upon any point, you may know that it is true

Quote

Later, B.H. Roberts wrote:

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.^[3]

 

Quote

Joseph Fielding Smith clarifies how members need to compare what church leaders teach to the standard works:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works

The Doctrine of the Church that is therefore considered official is that found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These would include manifestos in the D&C.

Our Doctrine itself, does not change.  However, new things may be revealed.  Our Doctrine is what the Lord has stated.

All other items are merely our interpretations of that Doctrine.  Not everything a prophet or General Authority may say is doctrine, only that which is approved by unanimous vote of the First Presidency and the Twelve and then accepted as such by the membership of the LDS church (though it does not have to be unanimous among the Saints).

HOWEVER, though that is the accepted doctrines within the Canon of the LDS church...the REAL doctrine is what God has stated, not what man has stated.  Our Basic measuring stick is that found in the Scriptures in what the Lord has stated.

Edited December 12, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

I don't think this is a fair clarification of his post.

"Fair" is a matter of opinion.  It was, however, and "accurate" clarification.  He just doesn't realize it.

[wenglund]

As I see it, the round peg of spirituality doesn't fit very well in the square whole of our physical, westernized minds. As such, working towards a high level of precision in language (such as with exactly defining terms like "doctrine" and "belief") may be an exercise in futility--though flexible defining can prove useful.

The good news is that the gospel of Christ is designed more for living and becoming than for intellectualizing. As long as we seek Christ, the presumable Jello-ie nature of our "doctrine" or "principles" or "teachings" will be rendered inconsequential.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Yes, we teach both doctrine and beliefs. We teach what we believe the doctrine to mean (e.g. were were all "intelligences"), and the doctrine is "that we are all intelligences" and many people teach their interpretation (belief) on what that doctrine means.

The statement, "I believe were were intelligences," is simply stating that a person "believes" in the doctrine of intelligences. They are welcome to share their "belief" on this doctrine, and what that means (which may be true or false).

The teaching/ belief that we were all intelligences is a doctrine of the church. Said another way- it is a teaching of the church that we were intelligences. Said yet still another way- it is a belief of the church that we were intelligences. That which we teach is our doctrine. It is a collection of our beliefs. Its all the same thing. Doctrine, teachings, and beliefs are all synonymous.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

Ask 30 Mormons to participate in a thread about doctrine to help investigators.....

No doubt in any faith there are those with more orthodox beliefs and some with more heterodox beliefs and then there are those who simply have their own ideas and wonder why they even associate themselves with a particular faith that doesn't seem to agree with them at all.

In several faiths, such as Mormons and Catholics, the doctrines are considered "top-down."  That is, they originate from headquarters and trickle down however they will.  It is what happens during the trickle-down process that makes up the culture and set of beliefs of the average member of that church.

In our faith, we believe that it all starts with revelation between God and the Apostles -- most particularly the senior apostle (the Prophet).  They then relay that information as revealed word to the population.  The instructions we then have is that we as a body must also have corroborating revelation on an individual basis.  And the idea is that we 

1) Form a consensus on what is acceptable before God and if the apostles have gone off their rocker.  Through nearly 200 years now there have been individuals who are trading places on a per issue basis in which they agree/disagree or have/have not received corroborating revelation.  But the overall majority has usually been to agree with what the prophet has said.

2) The leaders of the Church also offer their best interpretation, opinions, and application of principles that have been revealed.  The population also takes that and gives it similar consideration.  Over time, such thoughts make their way in or out of our collective consciousness.  This creates our culture.

What do we believe?  We believe what the majority of us say we believe based on what comes down from Salt Lake.  You just have to have a large enough sample size to find the "average".

[Rob Osborn]

57 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

"Fair" is a matter of opinion.  It was, however, and "accurate" clarification.  He just doesn't realize it.

You dont understand my intellect at all. 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

LDS Canon

Fair Mormon on how New doctrine is established

The Doctrine of the Church that is therefore considered official is that found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These would include manifestos in the D&C.

Our Doctrine itself, does not change.  However, new things may be revealed.  Our Doctrine is what the Lord has stated.

All other items are merely our interpretations of that Doctrine.  Not everything a prophet or General Authority may say is doctrine, only that which is approved by unanimous vote of the First Presidency and the Twelve and then accepted as such by the membership of the LDS church (though it does not have to be unanimous among the Saints).

HOWEVER, though that is the accepted doctrines within the Canon of the LDS church...the REAL doctrine is what God has stated, not what man has stated.  Our Basic measuring stick is that found in the Scriptures in what the Lord has stated.

I would argue that our doctrine in fact does change. It has changed and will continue to be changed and modified.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You dont understand my intellect at all. 

That's true. Perhaps we should genuflect in your presence and none of us have the right to respond when @Rob Osborn speaks. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by MormonGator

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's true. Perhaps we should genuflect in your presence and none of us have the right to respond when @Rob Osborn speaks. 

I love you too gator breath.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I love you too gator breath.

I kneel to your grandeur 

(even though we share a first name, that is not me) 

Edited December 12, 2017 by MormonGator

[Traveler]

 

It seems to me the problem is between doctrine and opinion or interpretation of doctrine.  The problem is that doctrine is vague then when we try to come to specifics with opinions and interpretations we become complex and in so doing stray from doctrine – I like to call it dogma or the dogma of doctrine.    May I make an example.  Sabbath day doctrine is to “remember to keep the Sabbath holy”.  All the Do’s and Don’ts are basically opinions and interpretations or in other words dogma.    Some opinions may be closer to doctrine than others but I would suggest that it is human nature to become more concerned with opinions and interpretations (dogma) than doctrine.

It has been my experience that most can agree on doctrine – regardless of religion or even being religious or nonreligious – but few agree on specific dogma opinions and interpretations.   As an example, I have discovered that most (including agnostics and atheists) believe in G-d as divine enlightened intelligence.  Where the breakdown seems to take place is in specific dogma definitions (opinions) of what a divine enlightened intelligence is what it is doing and accomplishing and how to identify such enlightened intelligence.

Let me make another example – It is LDS doctrine that “As man is G-d once was and as G-d is man may become”. Many Christians have a coronary with the above statement of doctrine until I ask the following two questions:  1.  Did Jesus come to earth (was born) as a man?  2. Can disciples of Christ become joint heirs with him?  When I ask about objections I get responses like – If we become like G-d we won’t need him anymore and will stop worshiping him.  I am left in complete bewilderment where such notions came from?  I wonder if there are vast differences of opinions (dogma) concerning what it is to worship G-d?  In essence if someone becomes very smart and intelligent they will not want to worship G-d?    I am of a very different notion – the smarter, more intelligent and good we become (the more we become like G-d – assuming G-d is smart, intelligent and good) the more we find it is smart, intelligent and good to worship him.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

It seems to me the problem is between doctrine and opinion or interpretation of doctrine.  The problem is that doctrine is vague then when we try to come to specifics with opinions and interpretations we become complex and in so doing stray from doctrine – I like to call it dogma or the dogma of doctrine.    May I make an example.  Sabbath day doctrine is to “remember to keep the Sabbath holy”.  All the Do’s and Don’ts are basically opinions and interpretations or in other words dogma.    Some opinions may be closer to doctrine than others but I would suggest that it is human nature to become more concerned with opinions and interpretations (dogma) than doctrine.

It has been my experience that most can agree on doctrine – regardless of religion or even being religious or nonreligious – but few agree on specific dogma opinions and interpretations.   As an example, I have discovered that most (including agnostics and atheists) believe in G-d as divine enlightened intelligence.  Where the breakdown seems to take place is in specific dogma definitions (opinions) of what a divine enlightened intelligence is what it is doing and accomplishing and how to identify such enlightened intelligence.

Let me make another example – It is LDS doctrine that “As man is G-d once was and as G-d is man may become”. Many Christians have a coronary with the above statement of doctrine until I ask the following two questions:  1.  Did Jesus come to earth (was born) as a man?  2. Can disciples of Christ become joint heirs with him?  When I ask about objections I get responses like – If we become like G-d we won’t need him anymore and will stop worshiping him.  I am left in complete bewilderment where such notions came from?  I wonder if there are vast differences of opinions (dogma) concerning what it is to worship G-d?  In essence if someone becomes very smart and intelligent they will not want to worship G-d?    I am of a very different notion – the smarter, more intelligent and good we become (the more we become like G-d – assuming G-d is smart, intelligent and good) the more we find it is smart, intelligent and good to worship him.

 

The Traveler

I would agree here with the exception that even the areas we may call the "dogma" are indeed still defined as doctrine. As per your example, what are the specific areas included in the doctrine of keeping the sabbath day holy? That which the church specifically teaches officially is the doctrine of a certain set of beliefs.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You dont understand my intellect at all. 

I'm not going to argue with that.