Gospel Doctrine

[Guest Malcolm]

I love your question. you must be and arts major since I only dream about writing like you.

If you've seen General Conference, you've seen how the GA's and the Presidency "teach" us by unfolding the principles to us in the form of a talk. Anecdotes, historical accounts, quotes from previous prophets are all utilized to explain a certain principle. The doctrine is Christ's and they act as His mouthpiece for us. Specific revelation is offered/issued as an official declaration or manifest and you will see that only from time to time.

And you are right about learning from other sources. But that is not "doctrine" but knowledge/information/insight on a subject that indeed has value but should not be construed as revelation or Gospel principle.

[Moksha]

I was under the impression that unless the teaching is specifically stated to be a revelation from God, then it is simply the words of the human man; and that therefore it is not necessarily an infallible statement of fact or truth, but rather the learned and perhaps inspired guidance of the man in question.

This view seems accurate.

Sometimes we as members over react to what has been said, like for instance someone expressing a preference for white shirts or one pair of earrings. Think of what a predicament some members would be in if an off-hand remark, such as "two feet are good but four feet are better" was made some Sunday by one in authority. They would have blisters on their hands by the time they got home.

[Aelswyth]

I love your question. you must be and arts major since I only dream about writing like you.

If you've seen General Conference, you've seen how the GA's and the Presidency "teach" us by unfolding the principles to us in the form of a talk. Anecdotes, historical accounts, quotes from previous prophets are all utilized to explain a certain principle. The doctrine is Christ's and they act as His mouthpiece for us. Specific revelation is offered/issued as an official declaration or manifest and you will see that only from time to time.

And you are right about learning from other sources. But that is not "doctrine" but knowledge/information/insight on a subject that indeed has value but should not be construed as revelation or Gospel principle.

Hmmm... I guess if I was any kind of major, it would probably be arts (does that include stuff like comparative religion, or is that considered something else?). But alas, to date I have not had the opportunity to attend any institute of higher learning. I am a stay-at-home mother who left school at 16 due to the unutterably horrible tedium of it all. :) Although my husband says I've definitely completed several degrees' worth of studies under my own steam, hehe. Too bad it doesn't count for anything in the "real world".

Thank you for your explanation.

And Moksha, thank you also for your comment; I have heard a similar perspective on a statement I believe was from President Hinckley about piercings and earrings, which everyone suddenly started taking as some kind of official position of the Church. :) I suppose, though, when one loves, respects and reveres the Prophet, it's natural to imbue even his most casual words with significance and give them a certain weight in one's life.

[Elgama]

Hmmm... I guess if I was any kind of major, it would probably be arts (does that include stuff like comparative religion, or is that considered something else?). But alas, to date I have not had the opportunity to attend any institute of higher learning. I am a stay-at-home mother who left school at 16 due to the unutterably horrible tedium of it all. :) Although my husband says I've definitely completed several degrees' worth of studies under my own steam, hehe. Too bad it doesn't count for anything in the "real world".

Thank you for your explanation.

And Moksha, thank you also for your comment; I have heard a similar perspective on a statement I believe was from President Hinckley about piercings and earrings, which everyone suddenly started taking as some kind of official position of the Church. :) I suppose, though, when one loves, respects and reveres the Prophet, it's natural to imbue even his most casual words with significance and give them a certain weight in one's life.

I've still not entirely forgiven finding my long haired bearded RM - only to have him cut his hair and shave his beard after the speech lol he grew them again for awhile but was never entirely comfortable again so kept them until our daughter was old enough to deal with it. Has anyone else had the problem of their child being scared of pictures of Jesus a couple of my friends have had this because he has a beard and longish hair - Ellie was easy with it but then he looked like Daddy lol I am just wondering because my son has never had that advantage

-Charley

[rameumptom]

Let me clarify something for Aelswyth. There's nothing wrong with discussing meat in a Gospel Doctrine class. But we need to establish the difference between meat and "looking beyond the mark."

For example, discussing the signs of the times, in conjunction with the book of Revelation we discussed in December, is a good thing to do. For the saints to know both the dangers and the blessings that will occur during the last days is a very good things. However, speculating on whether the Beast or whore of all the Earth is a specific church, etc., is not. It has little meaning to us, because we could be wrong and lead ourselves away from the truths God wants us to know.

The teachings of FAIR and FARMS are not looking beyond the mark. These are supportive of main teachings of the Church, and help enhance our understanding of the gospel. The Church sees this inasmuch as it has brought FARMS into BYU and renamed it after Elder Maxwell.

[rameumptom]

Thanks; I certainly do focus on the actual teachings of the Church as opposed to anything else, although I also believe useful information can be garnered from sources such as FARMS and FAIR.

One question has occurred to me in response to your post: Is everything taught by the Presidency and Apostles authoritative and binding on the Church? I was under the impression that unless the teaching is specifically stated to be a revelation from God, then it is simply the words of the human man; and that therefore it is not necessarily an infallible statement of fact or truth, but rather the learned and perhaps inspired guidance of the man in question. Is this a mistaken view? Are all teachings and words spoken by the leaders to be considered official and binding on members as doctrine? Or only those declared to come directly from God?

The Church has at its LDS.org newsroom an official definition of doctrine, under the title, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" we read:

SALT LAKE CITY 4 May 2007 Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

* Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

* Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

* Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

* Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

* Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.

* Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.

Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.

So, while teachings as women not having more than one set of pierced earrings is not doctrine, it is a policy that the Church hopes the members will prayerfully consider.

As it is, there are policies in place that are expected in certain positions of the Church that may not be required of the lay members. For example, you will not see any of the General Authorities (or stake presidencies, for that matter) wearing a beard. Mens set apart to work in the temples must be beard-free. A man will not be considered for bishop if he's been divorced in the last 5 years. And full-time Institute teachers cannot be divorced, ever.

The prophet and God understand that we are all on different planes of experience and development in the Church. This is why the prophet has never added Coca Cola to the Word of Wisdom issue. We each have reasons for some of the things we do. Sometimes those are reasonable reasons, and some are our own personal convenience or pleasure. As individuals, we are given quite a bit of leeway in our personal lives. But when we begin to be involved in Church hierarchy, the minimal standard goes up, because we are now representing the Church.

[Aelswyth]

Thank you, rameumptom, that was a very helpful explanation. I appreciate it.

[grannysue]

I've been to church in Utah, California, and Chicago. Very different experiences for me as far as the comfort level with discussion and questioning. In my opinion, the Church culture is slightly different in different places and this is one of the ways it plays out. I was born in California so the culture here suits me. I would drive them nuts in Utah, I imagine. Boston would probably be a little too "out there" for me, but my sister enjoyed living there while her husband went to Harvard. She said the Gospel Doctrine class was stimulating, if a trifle off the beaten path at times.

It makes sense to me that these cultural differences exist within the LDS culture at large. Having said that, I do think people get off on tangents too much during Gospel Doctrine discussions, with some of the subjects not even being applicable. A skilled teacher can usually bring things back to the point, but some teachers get overwhelmed, particularly when the tangent is introduced by someone with a strong personality.

BTW, we have a female GD teacher and she does a terrific job.

[MissouriBoiler]

I have attended gospel doctrine classes in more states than I can count as well as in multiple cultures and languages. They all have a diffeent feel to them. The older I get the less I think the class feel is based on the structure and more upon the individuals attending it.

Gospel Doctrine teachers can be called from any experience and background which really can affect the class though. I've had teachers that would make you read some scriptures ask a question, if no one answered they would just continue on. They didn't even want a bit of explanation or rhetoric. I have also been in the class with a CES Director,PHD, former byu religon prof. He was amazing. Why? Not because he had so much knowledge, but because he knew how to teach. He knew how to inspire people to read ahead and to participate which made the class the highlight of your sabbath days. He was able to teach to the so called All-knowing High Priest, to the return missionary, to the new 18 year old young women. And everyone came out realizing that they had just been in the best class ever.

I am currently in a Branch Presidency and substitute in when our Gospel doctrine teacher can't make it.(He travels a great deal for work.) He rarely tells me when he will be there and when he is not so I am left to organize my thoughts in sometimes as little as 5 minutes. I'm just glad I've had so many other experiences to teach over the years to help me through those rough days and that the manuals are so good.

I am grateful to the Lord for his spirit and guidance in those days.

All I can say is make the most of it. Read the lessons prior to class as a member of the class. As a teacher: Follow the lesson, don't let the conversations stray to far away from the outline in the manual, allow others to share, prepare your lessons, and pray to heavenly father for guidance when preparing your lesson in class. REad as much from the scriptures, ensigns and church leaders as possible to give you that extra information that so so dearly look for when attending that class.

[christmas_snow]

I have had a great time reading all the comments about different GD classes. I have had the opportunity to lead, direct, facilitate and teach this class in my ward for a year now. I have learned so much and am truly grateful for this calling. (I am more of a back row gal and this has pushed me directly on stage.)

First and foremost. The instructor must teach truths. They needn't be complicated or fussy. Just think for a moment about the simple concept of agency and you can discuss things for days. Simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Second, the instructor must know their class. My class ranges in age from 18 to 85. You think some of those 40+ people haven't heard these lessons before? Of course they have. How do you make it fresh? How do you make it interesting? I look at the class as a giant family night. You have the ones that sulk and don't want to be there. The eager ones that actually study and are prepared. The ones who believe they could be a better teacher. The ones that are struggling with their faith. My job is to bring us together and feast on The Word. I depend on my class to interact with me and each other and so far they have not let me down. I am not a formal teacher and we do have a lot of fun in there. Imagine that fun at Church AND in GD Class. Lastly, I refuse to argue..I just agree to disagree and move on.

[rameumptom]

The key to good Gospel teaching first lies in the foundation:

Our Foundation is Doctrine, the next level is Principles, and finally we have Rules/Procedures/Guidelines.

Too many of us get stuck on the Rules/Procedures level, and so the lessons can become the same and stale. How many ways can you explain that Tithing is one dime out of ten, or the Word of Wisdom is no coffee/tea/tobacco/alcohol?

When we get underneath the directives to the actual principles and doctrines that guide them, we get true power and understanding. Joseph Smith and Pres Packer have taught that if we teach the principles/doctrines, the members will govern themselves.

For example, I recently taught my son this concept of doctrines. Speaking on the rule of no tattoos or piercings, I asked him what would be a principle involved in Pres Hinckley making this rule? He thought and said, because our bodies are temples - a correct principle. The doctrine is that temples and we must have the Spirit with us to become as God is. I asked my son if he could imagine using magic markers on the Nauvoo Temple, even to make some cool designs. He said it would not be right and would distract from the Spirit. Suddenly, the rule has some true sense, because it is taught from the doctrines and principles of the gospel.

[sixpacktr]

Excellent insight Rameumpton. Once we learn, or want to learn, the doctrines, things become so clear, and then we are subject to the 'change in heart' that is talked of so often in scriptures.