DiscussMormonism.com

Daheshist wrote:I'm tried to discover what is "official" Church doctrine since 1979. Does anybody know? I've been told about 20 different things. When I wrote to the Office of the First Presidency asking "What is official Church doctrine? How is it defined?" I was told "Ask your bishop". One bishop said "this" another said "that" and another said "not this, not that". Like trying to nail jello to the wall.

Does anybody know what official Church doctrine is?

Why are you yelling?

I'm tried to discover what is "official" Church doctrine since 1979. Does anybody know?

Yes. You could have studied Teaching, No Greater Call and a few other manuals or you could have served a mission or attended a teacher preparation class etc. etc. All the statements gleaned from those sources and put together shows that what the Church publishes is official doctrine. I and everyone else (active and believing) in the Church maintained that for years before this affirming and summary statement came out:

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.
Approaching Mormon Doctrine

Many of your fellow critics, as well as apologists, with axes to grind or pet theories to protect, despite their grumbling, are finally accepting this principle that the Church itself accepted 30-40+ years ago. The foundational doctrine behind this has been around since 1835 (D&C 107) in which we see that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority and hence all of them must agree before something becomes doctrine.

Any critic who does not accept this always finds himself talking around LDS members instead of to them.

Liz: Idea; you should pin this post (not this thread) at the top because this question keeps coming up. Feel free to allow other comments to be made.

Daheshist wrote: Like trying to nail jello to the wall.

Does anybody know what official Church doctrine is?

It has to be green Jello, Daheshist.

bcspace wrote:

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.
Approaching Mormon Doctrine

In the age of living prophets, doctrine is defined by a newsroom bulletin?

bcspace wrote:

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.
Approaching Mormon Doctrine

So bcspace, every time you claim something as doctrine I would expect you to reference to the relevant part of one of these.

Pin that!

The best definition I've found is doctrine is whatever bcspace or subgenius says it is.

In the age of living prophets, doctrine is defined by a newsroom bulletin?

An official source according to the Church. You could go back and study Teaching, No Greater Call which I mentioned and the others, but it's much simpler to take the Church at it's word with the succinct statement it supplied as it is a summary of all principles taught. If you don't want to remain an outcast, I suggest you heed it in your criticisms of the Church.

So bcspace, every time you claim something as doctrine I would expect you to reference to the relevant part of one of these.

Pin that!

I think many here will attest that I have honestly and forthrightly adhered to the Church's statement on doctrine, even before it came out, because that's what the policy on doctrine was for at least the last 40+ years. Whenever something is doctrine according to that standard, I freely admit it and if I don't agree with the doctrine (such as a global flood), I freely admit that I am disagreeing with official LDS doctrine rather than claiming "it's not doctrine".

The best definition I've found is doctrine is whatever bcspace or subgenius says it is.

And I will only give you what the Church has said is doctrine so by admission here, the LDS Church itself provides the best definition.