What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_brade]

If a declarative sentence is in a Church publication and it does not say of itself, or another sentence does not say of it, that it doesn't express Church doctrine, then it expresses Church doctrine.

It's all doctrine unless otherwise noted expressly or by context.

So, again, let me raise the question. Suppose the Church published in the Ensign an entire page with only the following on it - "Who is wearing flannel?". Now, here would be a case where something is in a Church publication, it's a sentence, but it doesn't say of itself that it isn't doctrine and there are no other sentences which say of that one that it isn't doctrine.

Yet it's doctrine because it's part of an idea being communicated. Again, not very useful until someone knows the rest of what's being said. I think you're straining really hard at gnats here. Using this methodology, you're not going to be able to, for example, come up with anything that might put a wrench in what is or isn't considered doctrine.

I assume, consistent with bcspace's and subgenius' assessment of my earlier question, this too expresses Church doctrine:

Yep. Again, not very useful.

I'm simply trying to figure out exactly how one goes about picking out doctrine on your view. I'm not trying to come up with anything that might put a wrench in what is or isn't considered doctrine. Rather, I'm trying to find out what is or isn't considered doctrine.

[_bcspace]

I'm simply trying to figure out exactly how one goes about picking out doctrine on your view. I'm not trying to throw wrenches, just trying to get as clear as possible.

It's real easy and requires nothing but common sense.

[Guest]

I'm simply trying to figure out exactly how one goes about picking out doctrine on your view. I'm not trying to throw wrenches, just trying to get as clear as possible.

It's real easy and requires nothing but common sense.

Well, hold on. I think your view is actually the one at odds with common sense. Let me explain. Here's the relevent portion of the News blurb that you cite:

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.

Now suppose I were to say something like this:

Questions reside in Principia Mathematica.

I don't think an ordinary person would hear that utterance and think, "Ah ha, that means that everything in Principia Mathematica is a question!". I think common sense would suggest that among the things in Principia Mathematica are questions. I don't see why it should work differently for the Newsroom statement above. Which is to say that if you want to find doctrine, then you should look in official Church publications; but not every element or group of elements within such publications is a case of doctrine. That seems quite sensible to me. It consistent with standard rules of logic and common sense.

What seems, well, less sensible is to say from the Newsroom statement, as you and subgenius seem to want to say that literally everything (e.g. declaratives, imperatives, interrogatives, etc.) in those publications is doctrine or expresses doctrine. That, on it's face seem quite absurd, and even more so given the very definition of doctrine that subgenius supplied.

I'm not trying to be tricky. I'm trying to be charitable.

[_subgenius]

Cemetery records, such as tombstone and sexton records, may give birth and death dates, age at death, name of spouse, names of children, and maiden names.

obviously genealogy and the consequent Temple ordinances

The Atonement of Jesus Christ assures each of us that we will be resurrected and live forever. But if we are to live forever with our families in Heavenly Father’s presence, we must do all that the Savior commands us to do. This includes being baptized and confirmed and receiving the ordinances of the temple.
http://LDS.org/manual/gospel-principles ... y?lang=eng

An interests and talents evaluation indicated that Sister Peterson was a natural caregiver.

Heavenly Father bestows "gifts" upon everyone

Through Him, each of us can be blessed with certain spiritual powers called gifts of the Spirit. These gifts are given to those who are faithful to Christ. “All these gifts come from God, for the benefit of the children of God” (D&C 46:26).They help us know and teach the truths of the gospel.
http://LDS.org/manual/gospel-principles ... t?lang=eng

[_Jason Bourne]

Hey BC

See below. You ignoring me? I think I win the good prize.

bcspace wrote:

Approaching Mormon Doctrine is an official statement. In fact THE official and definitive statement on this issue if you are looking for clarity, whether the customary clarity or the new and improved kind of clarity.

I would like cheesecake (the 5 packages of cream cheese kind, not the three or the one) served at my party please.

While the news release may be considered a commentary on doctrine and encapsulate how the Church believes we should approach doctrine I think it silly to call a news release THE OFFICIAL AND DEFINITIVE STATEMENT on this issue. Really? A news release is the end all of end all to define LDS Doctrine? Well that works till someone else comes along and released something different.

The problem with what really constitutes LDS doctrine is the commentary of what is and is not has been all over the place. You have passages in D&C 107 which talk about who has what authority. There has been a process for canonizing doctrine for almost from the beginning. But what is doctrinal outside the canon has been all over the place.

The news release is a good one. How about the FP and Q of 12 issue it and present if for sustaining vote before the Church. Then all question on what constitutes doctrine will be settled. Till then it is still less settled.


Added: At least three LDS authorities-Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B Lee and B H Roberts held that only the Canon was the official LDS Doctrine. All else was to be judged by that standard. If it did not square it has to be set aside unless added to the Canon by the accepted procedure. Most LDS apologists hold to this standard. It is a much easier standard to defend. I did when I was a hobby apologist.

[_bcspace]

You ignoring me?

Looks like I answered you directly in the very next post.

[_Jason Bourne]

BC

You were talking to Brade there on a different focal point.

[_subgenius]

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.

Now suppose I were to say something like this:

Questions reside in Principia Mathematica.....Which is to say that if you want to find doctrine, then you should look in official Church publications; but not every element or group of elements within such publications is a case of doctrine. That seems quite sensible to me.

I am not disputing that, and considering that the above quoted "news release" qualifies the occurrence of doctrine as that which is "consistently proclaimed", i am not sure what point you are trying to make here. I mean to say, of course it seems sensible.
Again, i am not sure you understand what "doctrine" means and now i am not sure you understand what "resides in" means, with regards to this context.

It consistent with standard rules of logic and common sense.

seeing as how those 2 ideas are often polar opposites, i can not see how any "rules" can be equated to consistently exist between the two...i can suppose rules for the former but not for the latter. Nevertheless, please, convey the specific rules you are referring to.

What seems, well, less sensible is to say from the Newsroom statement, as you and subgenius seem to want to say that literally everything (e.g. declaratives, imperatives, interrogatives, etc.) in those publications is doctrine or expresses doctrine.

i have never said this nor claimed it, actually i have often stated that it is possible to find notions that are not necessarily doctrine within those publications.

That, on it's face seem quite absurd, and even more so given the very definition of doctrine that subgenius supplied.

I'm not trying to be tricky. I'm trying to be charitable.

just try to be coherent...baby steps

[_mms]

A rather strident critic of the Church, Paul Carden, allegedly used this metaphor to describe "Official" Mormon doctrine:

"Official" Mormon doctrine is like a black hole that you can't see, that some people doubt is there, and that seems to be pulling and stretching everything around it. It's not clear what laws apply in the center. No light can escape. Different explanatory theories abound. And then there's the event horizon to worry about if you peer too closely.

No one actually lives in the black hole, but if you ask a galactic spokesman where the galaxy is located, he will give you the coordinates of its center without any map of the galaxy's other regions. A good tour guide (usually unauthorized) will give you the coordinates of a set of inhabited planets that you can actually visit.

Has it any merit?

[_Wisdom Seeker]

So when BKP stated in a conference talk that the Proclamation on the Family was doctrine it was in fact not. It was demoted in the printed version to be a guide. So it's not exactly what the FP/Q12 say that may be doctrine, it is what is printed.

Just to make things clear.

How would it not be doctrine?

While giving the talk "Cleansing the Inner Vessel" October 2011, Sunday morning session, BKP declared that this Proclamation on the Family is doctrine. However in the written account found in the magazines and on the website there were changes made from what he spoke to what is now written. It now defines the proclamation as a guide. If it were doctrine, then they would have transcribed it the way he spoke it.