Was or was not BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" just that?

[_bcspace]

I think it's fair to say that "Mormon Doctrine" cannot be classed in and of itself as Mormon doctrine. However, it's content is obviously all about Mormon doctrine and so "Mormon Doctrine" can be said to contain Mormon doctrine along Bruce's explanation of it.

The problem is, as JB noted, the ostentatious title and an apostle as the author.

The Church, in my opinion, should produce a compendium of Mormon doctrine that is additional to that which is contained within the four standard works. Wait...shouldn't that be what the Doctrine & Covenants is for?

The systematic theology of the Church is clearly presented in it's manuals. You can even study by topic at LDS.org

[_jon]

Manuals contain lots of things that aren't doctrine, the same applies to the website. We're there to be compendium then members could be informed as and when changes occur....oh....I see the problem now....

Manuals and websites don't contain solely doctrine, nor do they distinguish what is doctrine and what isn't.

[_bcspace]

Manuals contain lots of things that aren't doctrine, the same applies to the website.

Only when identified as such or in context.

Manuals and websites don't contain solely doctrine, nor do they distinguish what is doctrine and what isn't.

Yes they do. The Church considers it all to be official doctrine unless otherwise noted.

[_jon]

Bcspace, to use the quote you provided:

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.

And this:
that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent;
Must be doctrine.

[_Equality]

The Church itself for many decades now through various channels such as the Teacher preparation class and it's manual Teaching, No Greater Call. The various parts of which have been recently summarized:

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


I'm simply going by what the Church itself says about it's own doctrine.

But how do you know that what Teaching No Greater Call defines as doctrine is itself doctrinal? Who wrote the quoted portion? Was it the Prophet? Or some unknown COB employee? You've said not every quote from every manual published by the church is doctrine. Why is this statement on what is doctrine authoritative? Because you say so? Because it says so?

[_Jason Bourne]

Let's see, I was about 14 when I first picked up Mormon Doctrine. I was supposed to understand that Bookcraft meant something less than best? How many members knew about this ever really? Come on bot. This is pretty lame.

Yet another ill-read naïve critic.

And anonymous to boot. How courageous.

Wow. Such a profound and compelling rebuttal. Ill read at 14. My oh my. And still lame.

[_brade]

True or false?

If a statement is official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then it's true.

As long as God is also in agreement, it's true.

True or false?

If a statement is official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then God is in agreement with it.

[_bcspace]

Bcspace, to use the quote you provided:

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.

And this:
that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent;
Must be doctrine.

That is correct. Notice the doctrine resides in the Standard Works etc. By the same LDS quote re: doctrine, neither you or I are qualified to interpret the scriptures; to determine doctrine from them. Only the 15 apostles and prophets can do that.

[_jon]

Bcspace, to use the quote you provided:

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.

And this:
that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent;
Must be doctrine.

That is correct. Notice the doctrine resides in the Standard Works etc. By the same LDS quote re: doctrine, neither you or I are qualified to interpret the scriptures; to determine doctrine from them. Only the 15 apostles and prophets can do that.

So when an Apostle (1 of the 15) writes a book explaining the doctrine of the Church then that's official interpretation of doctrine?
What about when one Apostle contradicts another Apostle on matters of doctrine, how do you decide who is right?

[_malaise]

As far as I know, the highest leaders of the church were responsible for getting him to edit certain parts of the book, before he published the second addition. It seems fair to assume that they agreed with the rest of it....