What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_Themis]

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.

The problem here is that this statement is not signed by the FP or 12, so it does not have any power to determine how doctrine for the LDS church doctrine is determined. Any future statemtn may have force from that time on, but not for the past. Jason is right in that doctrine in the LDS church is hard to pin down sometimes. I tend to stick with what the church teaches in it's scriptures and publications. Publications are where you get help in how the church is trying to interpret the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, PoGP, and AoF.

[_bcspace]

The problem here is that this statement is not signed by the FP or 12, so it does not have any power to determine how doctrine for the LDS church doctrine is determined.

Signed by the FP and/or Qo12 is not a standard for LDS doctrine. Mere publication shows the FP and Qo12 approve.

I tend to stick with what the church teaches in it's scriptures and publications. Publications are where you get help in how the church is trying to interpret the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, PoGP, and AoF.

Sounds like the Church's standard (and therefore mine), not Jason's. Notice that you cannot possibly determine LDS doctrine with the scriptures alone. You must have a publication to help you understand what the LDS Church says certain verses mean.

[_brade]

I tend to stick with what the church teaches in it's scriptures and publications

Here, Themis, is something that the Church teaches in it's publications:

Can you find the two pictures that are most alike?

This is official Church doctrine. It isn't important doctrine, but it's doctrine.

[_Yoda]

BC---Care to address this? :-)

Where BC and I differ is that he stated that the 2 Cumorahs theory was official doctrine based on the article written by Sorenson in the Ensign. We disagree here because the Church published a proviso in the article itself stating that although the article was researched, it was opinion only, and not official Church ruling. I can't remember the exact statement, but it was along those lines. Yes, I realize that the Church published the article, but the Church also published the proviso. You can't have it both ways, my friend. I will allow for the fact that there is a possibility of 2 Cumorahs. I have never said that there wasn't. But, the Church has not made any official ruling on that fact. Right now, there is opinion published on both sides. It is not something that is really of great importance, so I doubt that the brethren feel it necessary to gain definitive inspiration on the issue, and frankly, I am OK with that.

[_bcspace]

Where BC and I differ is that he stated that the 2 Cumorahs theory was official doctrine based on the article written by Sorenson in the Ensign.

The Church has not adopted Sorsenson's theory as doctrine. What it did do by publishing it with the qualification that the theory itself was not doctrine is make clear that one could accept Sorenson's or most any geographic theory without coming into conflict with doctrine. The article is official doctrine, but one also has to look at the context and there was a disclaimer on it. I did address this in the latest threads on the subject.

[_bcspace]

Can you find the two pictures that are most alike?

This is official Church doctrine. It isn't important doctrine, but it's doctrine.

Yes indeed. To go your route is to add qualifications the Church itself doesn't and blur the line of doctrine.

[_Themis]

Signed by the FP and/or Qo12 is not a standard for LDS doctrine. Mere publication shows the FP and Qo12 approve.

Incorrect. First of all you don't know who prepared the statement or who approved it. It does not meet it's own requirements. Also it is easy to see that this is not how the church operated in the past. You can also look up different publications and then find other statements of members of the FP or 12 that conflict, so you don't really know if some members of these two groups do not approve of the statement. Now if they were to make this statement like in a letter to the church with all of them signing it, then yes from that time forward that would be how doctrine is determined(although even the statement mentioned is vague). It would not have any force for the past though.

Sounds like the Church's standard (and therefore mine), not Jason's.

He just recognizes that it is one big mess, and going with the standard works seems a easier way to defend. The problem here is how people will interpret those books, like so many of your interpretations that do not fit with what the church actually teaches.

Notice that you cannot possibly determine LDS doctrine with the scriptures alone. You must have a publication to help you understand what the LDS Church says certain verses mean.

That is why I include them when determining LDS doctrine. by the way I think official is redundant, since if something is not official doctrine it really is just not doctrine of the church. Official really is a distraction or way to weasel out of incorrect teachings of the church.

[_Themis]

I tend to stick with what the church teaches in it's scriptures and publications

Here, Themis, is something that the Church teaches in it's publications:

Can you find the two pictures that are most alike?

This is official Church doctrine. It isn't important doctrine, but it's doctrine.

Taken to an extreme, yes. I don't view everything in a publication as doctrine of the church, nor do I think most others would. In some things one has to differentiate between policy and doctrine.

[_brade]

I don't view everything in a publication as doctrine of the church, nor do I think most others would. In some things one has to differentiate between policy and doctrine.

Then you don't understand the clearly stated position of the Church. Right, bcspace? Just for Themis' benefit, bcspace, will you lay out that clear position again? Will you post the references again from which we can logically demonstrate that the position of the Church is that literally everything in its publications is official doctrine?

[_bcspace]

Signed by the FP and/or Qo12 is not a standard for LDS doctrine. Mere publication shows the FP and Qo12 approve.

Incorrect.

Quite correct. You'll need to provide CFR now on how those signatures are required to be doctrine.

First of all you don't know who prepared the statement or who approved it.

Doesn't matter. The Church will not allow something it doesn't approve to be published or remain published in error.

It does not meet it's own requirements.

The only requirement mentioned is publication.

Also it is easy to see that this is not how the church operated in the past.

Only partly true. It certainly is the way the Church has been operated for the last 40+ years.

You can also look up different publications and then find other statements of members of the FP or 12 that conflict,

Sure. Doctrine can change. I'm sure you'll accept that modern revelation/inspiration is official doctrine. That is why where ever there is conflict, latest date of publication Trump's.

so you don't really know if some members of these two groups do not approve of the statement.

I think it's possible some privately might disagree with something, but publicly they assent because it gets published.

Now if they were to make this statement like in a letter to the church with all of them signing it, then yes from that time forward that would be how doctrine is determined(although even the statement mentioned is vague). It would not have any force for the past though.

All this would do is provide emphasis. Once again, there is no notion in the Church that official doctrine must either be signed or voted on by the Church.

Then you don't understand the clearly stated position of the Church. Right, bcspace? Just for Themis' benefit, bcspace, will you lay out that clear position again? Will you post the references again from which we can logically demonstrate that the position of the Church is that literally everything in its publications is official doctrine?

See Approaching Mormon Doctrine for the summary. Feel free to address Teaching, No Greater Call or the CHI or anything else you desire. Notice that Themis has nothing for his "signed by the brethren" hypothesis.