What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_Mercury]

There is no such thing as official doctrine, only what makes the chameleon seem appealing to its surroundings. If there is an official doctrine, it will be shooed away at some point in the future once it becomes unfashionable.

[_moksha]

Bc, while on the topic of official doctrine is there something called the Law of Obedience or is there something similar? If so, does it specify a chain of command?

[_bcspace]

Bc, while on the topic of official doctrine is there something called the Law of Obedience

Yes. You can easily find it by searching on LDS.org.

or is there something similar? If so, does it specify a chain of command?

Not heard of it but that doesn't mean it's not there somewhere.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Dictionary.com tells us that a Red Herring is "something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue."

Perhaps the greatest of all Red Herrings in all the voluminous writings between critics, observers, and Mopologists of the LDS church is that of "Official Doctrine". It is shocking how many of us seem to get wrapped up in this painful, wall nailing jello discussion. If all roads lead to Rome, and all threads lead to Hitler, surely all discussions of Mormonism lead to an embarrassed fish.

Blacks and the priesthood? Official doctrine.
Location of Cumorah? Official doctrine.
Evolution? Official doctrine.
Number of licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? Official doctrine.

The amount of ink wasted on this non-issue is astonishing.

This Red Herring was created by some brilliant person to distract any detractors from asking the real, pertinent question: Has God been talking to the leaders of the church?

You see, if Joseph Smith did not really see the Lord in the Sacred Grove then the church is flatly false. If god never told Brigham Young a thing, it is all a lie. If Thomas S Monson has heard God as much as I have personally heard him myself, the Mopologists have lost.

The Prophets certainly have claimed God has spoken to them. God gives them revelations through visions, dreams, and the weekly appearance of Christ for potato salad in the Holy of Holies. Additionally, the Prophets claims has told them a lot. Like what?

The Hill Cumorah is in NY.
There really were first parents Adam and Eve.
A literal Sin Flood.
Blacks were less valiant in the Green Room.
Evolution is bunk.
Adam is god.
We are gods.
We are not gods.
Pork is the other white meat.
On and on and on and on.......

The trouble is, well, some of these thing that the Prophets claimed God told them are silly, proven false, or downright wrongheaded. Mopologists do not want to argue in favor of a young earth, they know that would make them look like unwound cuckoo clocks. So the Red Herring is introduced.

"That's not official doctrine. The church doesn't teach that. That's folk doctrine"

Oddly, the critic falls for this b***s*** every time. Remember the ONLY question at hand is whether has God been talking to the leaders of the church?

Remember, if God no talky, church no truey.

If ANY prophet proclaims through revelation that the Flood was real, and global; and this point is dis-proven, then that means God is not likely talking to that man. The question as to whether the church printed the claim in its educational material, or if it gets through correlation, or if conference talks are doctrine is totally irrelevant. Totally. Utterly.

One more time, the question is not about doctrine, official or not it's all about:

Has God been talking to the leaders of the church?

Stop engaging in this wildly successful Red Herring. It is the Mopologists greatest victory over truth so far.

[_subgenius]

Here, subgenius, let me tell you what I think the Newsroom statements mean:

If you want to find Church doctrine, then look in official Church publications. That's where you'll find it.

Let me also add that I think that's a perfectly sensible view. Now, here's what I think it doesn't mean:

Everything published in official Church publications is doctrine.

So, let's restart for a second and will you please tell me if you disagree with my understanding of the Newsroom statement? I think if you'll slow down for a second you'll see that you and I agree on (1) what the Newsroom statement means, and (2) what is the meaning of 'doctrine'.

i agree

1. Official Church publications contain doctrine in as far as it is being "consistently proclaimed" within those publications. This doctrine is established by the GA.
2. Church publications are not the source of the doctrine, or rather the doctrine does not reside in them - Church publications simply report, or convey, the doctrine by means of consistent proclamation.
3. Actual doctrine is only found in the 4 standard works of scripture, AoF and official declarations / proclamations..
4. i do agree that everything in an Official Church publication is not necessarily doctrine.

[_SteelHead]

If god is talking to the prophets he is incompetent.

BY: Adam God is doctrine.
BRM: Adam God is an abomination and was never doctrine.

BRM: The blacks will not receive the priesthood till after all white souls do.... so sometime in the millennium.
BRM: Forget everything we have said on this subject in the past. We were wrong.

Nephi: I will break 4 out of the 10 commandments, in an effort to get a record so our people do not at some future point fall into disbelief. Slice --off with Laban's head-- Gets plates. 1000 years later all of the people have fallen into disbelief.

INCOMPETENT

Amazing that an omniscient, omnipotent being is so flat out incompetent.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

If god is talking to the prophets he is incompetent.

BY: Adam God is doctrine.
BRM: Adam God is an abomination and was never doctrine.

BRM: The blacks will not receive the priesthood till after all white souls do.... so sometime in the millennium.
BRM: Forget everything we have said on this subject in the past. We were wrong.

Nephi: I will break 4 out of the 10 commandments, in an effort to get a record so our people do not at some future point fall into disbelief. Slice --off with Laban's head-- Gets plates. 1000 years later all of the people have fallen into disbelief.

INCOMPETENT

Amazing that an omniscient, omnipotent being is so flat out incompetent.

Sometimes, the Prophets do the work for the critics and claim god isn't talking to them.

[_SteelHead]

The whole translation process of the Book of Mormon is a study in the INCOMPETENCE of OMNIPOTENT god.

If god was truly on top of his game he would have just had Moroni/Nephi/The spanish dude with the sliced throat deliver Joseph the record already translated into English and bound in plates of pure unobtanium.

But seeing as we have what we have......

Incompetent god chooses a young man of very questionable character to represent him. One who later during the translation process thinks it is OK to steal treasure off of some one else's property. Using his magic rock to help. Incompetent god then chides him for his folly, and doesn't chew his ass out for attempting to commit major fraud. This pattern is also seen later where god is ok with the fraud of the Kirtland bank and Oliver gets thrown under the bus.

Incompetent god then has his mouthpiece translate the record into really bad Elizabethan English to the point where he gets many of the thee's, thous, and what nots wrong.

Incompetent god wasn't able to convince his prophet "hey just use the magic rock that you are using to translate, and that has worked so well for you in the past, to find the missing 116 pages of manuscript."

Incompetent god also can't conjugate verbs in English allowing for a bunch of things like "We was going" and what not, that later have to be corrected.

Incompetent god also can't seem to get the wording right and so "White and delightsome" is now "Pure and delightsome" and though I know it is part of the preamble "principal ancestors" has become "among the ancestors" and the whole "was god" vs "was the son of god" instances in multiple occasions.

Incompetent god allows for such garbled sentences as the following to come out of divine translation:

Mosiah 16:6 And now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they had already come, there could have been no redemption.

Wait................ what?!

The whole translation process of the Book of Mormon is a study in incompetence.

And don't get me started on the number of eternal principals that have been modified:
The temple ceremonies declared perfect and inviolate and later changed.
The revelation on tithing declared eternal and yet the modern practice of it in no way resembles what is in the D&C.

yada yada yada

Again the whole bit of using prophets for mouthpieces is a study in incompetence. God really just ought to get his own channel with one of the satellite broadcasters and represent himself to the world, that way there won't be any of the human imperfections creeping into the process. The mouthpiece bit is rife with error and hugely inconsistent.

[_brade]

Here, subgenius, let me tell you what I think the Newsroom statements mean:

If you want to find Church doctrine, then look in official Church publications. That's where you'll find it.

Let me also add that I think that's a perfectly sensible view. Now, here's what I think it doesn't mean:

Everything published in official Church publications is doctrine.

So, let's restart for a second and will you please tell me if you disagree with my understanding of the Newsroom statement? I think if you'll slow down for a second you'll see that you and I agree on (1) what the Newsroom statement means, and (2) what is the meaning of 'doctrine'.

i agree

1. Official Church publications contain doctrine in as far as it is being "consistently proclaimed" within those publications. This doctrine is established by the GA.
2. Church publications are not the source of the doctrine, or rather the doctrine does not reside in them - Church publications simply report, or convey, the doctrine by means of consistent proclamation.
3. Actual doctrine is only found in the 4 standard works of scripture, AoF and official declarations / proclamations..
4. i do agree that everything in an Official Church publication is not necessarily doctrine.

Ok, see, I think we're in complete agreement with respect to the meaning of the Newsroom declaration. My main point thus far has been to argue against the view that literally everything in an official Church publication is doctrine unless it says of itself it isn't. That seems to be bcspace's view and I think I mistakenly though it also your view.

[_Nightlion]

I think sweet pork nachos with really great salsa will do:

D&C 68: 4
4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

What in LDS Conference today would pass for this as it is all pre-written and therefore not moved upon a speaker by the power of the Holy Ghost?