What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_Drifting]

bcspace, I have a number of questions about this doctrinal statement.

The early apostles and prophets mention numerous sins that were reprehensible to them. Many of them were sexual sins—adultery, being without natural affection, lustfulness, infidelity, incontinence, filthy communications, impurity, inordinate affection, fornication. They included all sexual relations outside marriage—petting, sex perversion, masturbation, and preoccupation with sex in one’s thoughts and talking. Included are every hidden and secret sin and all unholy and impure thoughts and practices. One of the worst of these is incest. The dictionary defines incest as “sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry.” The spirituality of one’s life may be severely, and sometimes irreparably, damaged by such an ugly sin. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have determined that the penalty for incest shall be excommunication. Also, one excommunicated for incest shall not be baptized again into the Church without the written permission of the First Presidency.

*Spence W Kimball, from LDS.org*

Questions
1. Can you explain how 'incontinence' is a sexual sin?
2. Can you explain what family relationship Cain and Abel had with the women they married and had children with?
3. Can you explain the family relationship between God and the mother of Jesus?

[_Jason Bourne]

Still nobody has addressed this:

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. It has not been a clean cut process from the beginning other than the process for canonization I mention next.


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.

[_subgenius]

Still nobody has addressed this:

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?...

This is not a complex concept...i find it difficult to believe that Brade and myself are the only ones able to discern such a simple issue.

First to imply that what is being discussed here stems from a press release is rather irresponsible and reveals that many have looked no further than the surface for their own "informed opinion" n the matter.

I suggest you read the information for yourself:
Here is an introduction:
The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see * and *), 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.
...
http://newsroom.LDS.org/article/approac ... n-doctrine

emphasis in bold is mine, because i wanted to accent how the majority of dissenters, critics, and cynics tend to treat this topic.

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... &hideNav=1

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... &hideNav=1

the rest of your post, despite your avatar, is well off target and makes little sense.

[_bcspace]

This is what I feel like every time Mr. BCSpace talks about "official doctrine":

I'm not the one constantly bringing it up. I merely respond to the question when raised.

[Guest]

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?...

This is not a complex concept...i find it difficult to believe that Brade and myself are the only ones able to discern such a simple issue.

First to imply that what is being discussed here stems from a press release is rather irresponsible and reveals that many have looked no further than the surface for their own "informed opinion" n the matter.

I'm surprised that any LDS person would disagree with what the Church says about it's own doctrine. Everyone I talk to at Church in multiple wards and stakes understands it same the way I do. The GA's I occasionally have to meet with understand it this way. The principles have been around for a long long time. And yes, the press release is an official statement from the Church communicating it's stance. Despite unwarranted dismay and disbelief, most of you are adhering to it anyway.

brade is almost there. He just doesn't understand that his desired nuance opens up an ambiguity that just isn't extant in LDS thought and that is why even the little ticky tack things are doctrine. There is nothing stated by the Church regarding the types of sentences used and so one cannot get that nuanced without blurring the line between doctrine and non doctrine. Everything published is doctrine. You really can't drill down any further than what describes what's published is not doctrine. Gnats again.

[_Buffalo]

I'm surprised that any LDS person would disagree with what the Church says about it's own doctrine. Everyone I talk to at Chruch in multiple wards and stakes understands it same the way I do. The GA's I occasionally have to meet with understand it this way. The principles have been around for a long long time. And yes, the press release is an official statement from the Church communicating it's stance. Despite unwarranted dismay and disbelief, most of you are adhering to it anyway.

brade is almost there. He just doesn't understand that his desired nuance opens up an ambiguity that just isn't extant in LDS thought and that is why even the little ticky tack things are doctrine. There is nothing stated by the Church regarding the types of sentences used and so one cannot get that nuanced without blurring the line between doctrine and nondoctrine.

Most apologists reject your position, for good reason. The church has so much to lose if anything published in an official publication counts as doctrine.

[_bcspace]

Most apologists reject your position, for good reason.

I doubt it. And none of those who do have come up with an alternative.

The church has so much to lose if anything published in an official publication counts as doctrine.

It has nothing to lose as doctrine can change with new understanding and revelation.

[_Yoda]

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.

If we go by this standard, then what is considered official LDS doctrine would be the following:

1. The standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price)

2. President Kimball's 1978 statement regarding the reversal of the Priesthood ban for blacks.

3. The Proclamation of the Family

I was going to include the Manifesto, but since it was a change in policy, only, and plural marriage is still considered an eternal law, I chose to leave it out.

All other tenets and statements found in manuals, magazines, etc. are not binding and subject to change.

Is this basically the rule you went by when you practiced apologetics, Jason?

Subgenius and BC, would you think this list to be an accurate summary of what official doctrine is?

To me, as a member, this actually makes a lot of sense.

[_bcspace]

Subgenius and BC, would you think this list to be an accurate summary of what official doctrine is?

No, the Church by it's own statement rejects Jason's hypothesis in at least two ways. First "Not every statement...." Second, it distinguishes between scripture and doctrine, doctrine is contained (resides) in the scriptures with only the FP and Qo12 being authorized to tease it out (establish it).

If we abandon what the Church has stated and go with Jason, we come again to what I call the John 3:5 problem. How do we know what the "water" means in that verse? EV's say it's physical birth. LDS say it's water baptism. The only way LDS know for sure it's water baptism is because of what the Church has published (the doctrine). One CANNOT, by reading the scriptures alone, determine what official LDS doctrine is.

That is why doctrine is more important than scripture, by the way.

[_brade]

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.

If we go by this standard, then what is considered official LDS doctrine would be the following:

1. The standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price)

2. President Kimball's 1978 statement regarding the reversal of the Priesthood ban for blacks.

3. The Proclamation of the Family

I was going to include the Manifesto, but since it was a change in policy, only, and plural marriage is still considered an eternal law, I chose to leave it out.

All other tenets and statements found in manuals, magazines, etc. are not binding and subject to change.

Is this basically the rule you went by when you practiced apologetics, Jason?

Subgenius and BC, would you think this list to be an accurate summary of what official doctrine is?

To me, as a member, this actually makes a lot of sense.

No, liz, I'm sorry you're so uninformed as to the official doctrine of the church to which you belong. Let me share with you another official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Before I do, don't forget that according to official doctrine on LDS.org in the section entitled "Teach the Doctrine" [img]doctrine%20is%20the%20word%20of%20God[/img]. So, without further ado, let me share with you an element of official doctrine and the word of Almighty God: