What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_Drifting]

They were in the business in guiding the church through prayer and revelation.

This seems to also be the case today...

[Guest]

I've looked at the link provided by bcspace, and I would have to say it is a good summary of what I would call solid Mormon doctrine. I have not found anything there that would regarding the idea that God the Father has a Father which I think is the main idea most Christians find troubling. If this is the summary of Mormon doctrine it seems to be, it looks as if that particular idea is not considered to be essential doctrine.

As I mentioned before, it is not a complete summary. Such can only be found by reading everything published by the Church. The Catholic catechism includes a little bit of teaching around it's various points. The LDS Church includes far more teaching. Another good place to look are the manuals at institute.LDS.org. Another good basic summary is the:

Gospel Principles manual

I call your attention to Chapter 47:

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 268).

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as He did.

While the notion that God has a Father is not expressly stated here, there is no way I can see out of the notion that God the Father has a father being doctrine if God was once a mortal man like us. So yes, God the Father's father is official doctrine but I wouldn't punish or censure someone for expressing trouble with believing it. I would do so if someone still taught for doctrine that God was not once a mortal man like us after having been shown this chapter.

Of course it is troubling to trinitarians who believe God is uncreated and has existed forever. The closest one can come in LDS theology to that is stating that God has always existed, but has not always been God. He has always been God relative to us though and that is probably closer to the Biblical context.

And of course there are also multiple Gods, Jesus Christ being a God subordinate to the Father. When an LDS person speaks of God, he is generally not speaking of Christ, but the Father.

Trinitarians will always have the significant problem of who or what came before God because "uncreated" makes no rational sense. We LDS have that problem too, but it's pushed back in generations of Gods as far back as one wants to imagine AND God's "intelligence" (and ours), which has always existed, is separated out from His Godhood (which has not always existed) so it is technically possible for an LDS person to imagine the Gods as beings (ultimately homo sapiens) who evolved and/or bootstrapped themselves up to Godhood at some point. Of course none of that last is doctrine.......

[_bcspace]

You know, all this back and forth seems to stem from the decidedly undoctrinal position that doctrine cannot change.

One we stipulate, as I will here and now for the record, that LDS doctrine is subject to change, the entire argument is moot.

What do you say, BCSpace?

Do you believe that LDS doctrine can change?

I have stipulated on multiple occasions that doctrine can and does change. Continuing revelation IS part of our systematic theology. And yes, I see the same undoctrinal assumption in the "back and forth" which is why I keep mentioning it.

The problem our critics (and many LDS too) have is understanding what has actually changed. They often point to plural marriage and the Priesthood ban as examples. But in reality, neither of those have changed one whit. There is no doctrinal notion in the LDS Church that either was wrong or not inspired of God or something to be apologized for or nullified and indeed the current official doctrine shows that such could possibly happen again in both cases. For both plural marriage and the ban, the scripture accounts show God doing that from time to time.

The best examples of change come in the early LDS Church when new and significant doctrines where being revealed and restored. Beforehand, the doctrine on a subject might be similar to traditional Christianity until the new revelation came about. The same could be said of Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.

[_Themis]

I have stipulated on multiple occasions that doctrine can and does change.

So? Non-believers also see doctrine changing.

Continuing revelation IS part of our systematic theology.

So? This is not new to anyone.

The problem our critics (and many LDS too) have is understanding what has actually changed.

So? People disagree whether believing or not about what has changed or what was doctrine. I think your problem is you are to busy thinking you are right to be open to being wrong, and much of the time not willing to put forward evidence. An example is the latest discussion asking you to support that everything published in church publications is to be considered doctrine by the church.

They often point to plural marriage and the Priesthood ban as examples. But in reality, neither of those have changed one whit.

Not really. Doctrine really is the teaching and practices of a religion. In both cases the practice did change. Polygamy was also taught consistently during it's time that it would continue to be practiced. While the priesthood ban was never taught to be permanent for all time, it doesn't change the fact that it was based on race, and therefore racist. Now I have seen more then enough posts from you to know you either are trolling or stupid enough not to understand what racist means, not to mention a few others. :)

The best examples of change come in the early LDS Church when new and significant doctrines where being revealed and restored. Beforehand, the doctrine on a subject might be similar to traditional Christianity until the new revelation came about. The same could be said of Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.

The only difference between believers and non-believers here is one group thinks it was just coming from Joseph and others around him. I think the evidence supports this.

[_brade]

You know, all this back and forth seems to stem from the decidedly undoctrinal position that doctrine cannot change.

One we stipulate, as I will here and now for the record, that LDS doctrine is subject to change, the entire argument is moot.

What do you say, BCSpace?

Do you believe that LDS doctrine can change?

I have stipulated on multiple occasions that doctrine can and does change. Continuing revelation IS part of our systematic theology. And yes, I see the same undoctrinal assumption in the "back and forth" which is why I keep mentioning it.

The problem our critics (and many LDS too) have is understanding what has actually changed. They often point to plural marriage and the Priesthood ban as examples. But in reality, neither of those have changed one whit. There is no doctrinal notion in the LDS Church that either was wrong or not inspired of God or something to be apologized for or nullified and indeed the current official doctrine shows that such could possibly happen again in both cases. For both plural marriage and the ban, the scripture accounts show God doing that from time to time.

The best examples of change come in the early LDS Church when new and significant doctrines where being revealed and restored. Beforehand, the doctrine on a subject might be similar to traditional Christianity until the new revelation came about. The same could be said of Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.

I'm fine with the notion of LDS doctrine changing, and I don't think that ought to necessarily count as a mark against the Church. And, I think the Church's official doctrine is in it's official publications. But, I have yet to see you support your claim that the Church's view is that everything in Church publications is doctrine. You continue to demonstrate you don't understand my criticism.

You've yet to address my counterpoints to the only bits of evidence you've offered:

(1) Saying that X is in Y is not to say that everything in Y is X.
(2) Saying that teaching from Y ensures that pure X will be taught is not the same as saying that everything in Y is pure X.

[_Themis]

I'm fine with the notion of LDS doctrine changing, and I don't think that ought to necessarily count as a mark against the Church. And, I think the Church's official doctrine is in it's official publications. But, I have yet to see you support your claim that the Church's view is that everything in Church publications is doctrine. You continue to demonstrate you don't understand my criticism.

You've yet to address my counterpoints to the only bits of evidence you've offered:

(1) Saying that X is in Y is not to say that everything in Y is X.
(2) Saying that teaching from Y ensures that pure X will be taught is not the same as saying that everything in Y is pure X.

I agree. I think he may realize he was wrong on this, but cannot admit he was wrong.

[_bcspace]

So?

So?

So?

So I was answering Consig's question.

I think your problem is you are to busy thinking you are right to be open to being wrong, and much of the time not willing to put forward evidence.

No, it's more like I've taught the Church's position on doctrine for so many years now that I have heard all objections to it on one form or another and none of them has any weight.

An example is the latest discussion asking you to support that everything published in church publications is to be considered doctrine by the church.

Already addressed. It apparently wasn't pleasing to you. It will never come in the form brade stipulates, and being intellectually dishonest, you and brade deny it's existence.

[_Themis]

No, it's more like I've taught the Church's position on doctrine for so many years now that I have heard all objections to it on one form or another and none of them has any weight.

Further evidence of what I said. TY

Already addressed. It apparently wasn't pleasing to you. It will never come in the form brade stipulates, and being intellectually dishonest, you and brade deny it's existence.

Everyone knows you have not dealt with it. This is why you keep avoiding this issue. Again I said all you have to do is post what you think addresses it in your next post. If you are really not trolling I see no reason for you not to.

[_Yoda]

OK...it has been a week, and I am officially de-stickying this thread.

BC...You won your Goddess Suite party.

Cheese cake it is! :-)

[_Themis]

OK...it has been a week, and I am officially de-stickying this thread.

BC...You won your Goddess Suite party.

Cheese cake it is! :-)

This is what you said. Perhaps you could show how he won?

BC is right that this question is asked repeatedly. I will pin this thread for a week. I challenge all of us to try and find an official Church statement clarifying this. The winner gets a party in the Goddess Suite with his/her choice of food and activity. :-)

I just see someone who can't back up his assertion that everything published in church publications is to be considered doctrine by the church.