What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

Post by _SteelHead »

I would postulate (BCs response) that as the 14 fundamentals were recently taught in conference (by a 70) and published in the ensign that they take precedence over the protestations of the then serving prophet to the contrary.

So doctrine can be taught contrary to the economy of heaven.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

Post by _Themis »

brade wrote:Either he'll say that the statement "when the leaders speak, the thinking has been done" does not appear in any current official Church publications, and therefore it isn't official Church doctrine; or he'll say, "yep, that's official doctrine".


It seems you have embarrassed him enough that he has left the thread.
42
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

Post by _bcspace »

I would postulate (BCs response) that as the 14 fundamentals were recently taught in conference (by a 70) and published in the ensign that they take precedence over the protestations of the then serving prophet to the contrary.


Maybe.

Either he'll say that the statement "when the leaders speak, the thinking has been done" does not appear in any current official Church publications, and therefore it isn't official Church doctrine; or he'll say, "yep, that's official doctrine".


Or I might say they both are doctrine.

Let's think about this. Why wouldn't letterhead, for example, be considered and official publication? Also there is a fairly recent doctrinal comment on this type of thing, for example, by DHO in teh April 2008 GC:

Members who have a testimony and who act upon it under the direction of their Church leaders are sometimes accused of blind obedience.

Of course, we have leaders, and of course, we are subject to their decisions and directions in the operation of the Church and in the performance of needed priesthood ordinances. But when it comes to learning and knowing the truth of the gospel—our personal testimonies—we each have a direct relationship with God, our Eternal Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost. This is what our critics fail to understand. It puzzles them that we can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves.

Perhaps the puzzle some feel can be explained by the reality that each of us has two different channels to God. We have a channel of governance through our prophet and other leaders. This channel, which has to do with doctrine, ordinances, and commandments, results in obedience. We also have a channel of personal testimony, which is direct to God. This has to do with His existence, our relationship to Him, and the truth of His restored gospel. This channel results in knowledge. These two channels are mutually reinforcing: knowledge encourages obedience (see Deuteronomy 5:27; Moses 5:11), and obedience enhances knowledge (see John 7:17; D&C 93:1).
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

Post by _bcspace »

I'd like to thank bcspace for pointing out the key sentence

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.

I had never examined it in detail before, and now that I do I can say that I believe the statement is inspired. I think the key word here, and perhaps in the entire press release, is consistently.

So yes, it's quite easy to go through past church publications and find inconsistencies with current ones, but if we realize that doctrine is only that which is consistent, we will be able to realize what is doctrine every time.


YW! When one who has been there and knows and really thinks about it, there further temptation to restrict official doctrine to the yearly curriculum; The scriptures and everything published that year or for that year is the official doctrine and nothing else. However, I still have to go with latest date as being the restricting factor.

Your first problem is that the statement does not come from the FP and 12.


Since it's an official site, it does. It does not matter if they all read and approved it or if they delegated responsibility or a few or one, it still meets the requirement. Been up there for quite a while now and when they changed format to the new website (vs. the classic website), I was the one who got it transferred over when it went missing for about a week. I have first hand knowledge that the Church considers all this to be official.

Also bcspace also still looks not to get that this statement does not say everything written in church publications is to be considered doctrine, only that the leaders of the church will use church publications to help proclaim doctrine.


Actually, I have given a case otherwise. If something is not doctrine, it will be pointed out either expressly or contextually. Plus, the qualification is merely "official Church publications". There is no hint of an exception.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

Post by _bcspace »

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.

There are three conditions to doctrine, as I read it

Must be received by inspiration or revelation by the whole First Presidency
Must be brought before the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Must be consistent


If you can show where something met these criteria, but later changed, you might have something there.


It all boils down to publication.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_brade
_Emeritus
Posts: 875
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:35 am

Re: What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

Post by _brade »

bcspace wrote:
I'd like to thank bcspace for pointing out the key sentence

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.

I had never examined it in detail before, and now that I do I can say that I believe the statement is inspired. I think the key word here, and perhaps in the entire press release, is consistently.

So yes, it's quite easy to go through past church publications and find inconsistencies with current ones, but if we realize that doctrine is only that which is consistent, we will be able to realize what is doctrine every time.


YW! When one who has been there and knows and really thinks about it, there further temptation to restrict official doctrine to the yearly curriculum; The scriptures and everything published that year or for that year is the official doctrine and nothing else. However, I still have to go with latest date as being the restricting factor.

Your first problem is that the statement does not come from the FP and 12.


Since it's an official site, it does. It does not matter if they all read and approved it or if they delegated responsibility or a few or one, it still meets the requirement. Been up there for quite a while now and when they changed format to the new website (vs. the classic website), I was the one who got it transferred over when it went missing for about a week. I have first hand knowledge that the Church considers all this to be official.

Also bcspace also still looks not to get that this statement does not say everything written in church publications is to be considered doctrine, only that the leaders of the church will use church publications to help proclaim doctrine.


Actually, I have given a case otherwise. If something is not doctrine, it will be pointed out either expressly or contextually. Plus, the qualification is merely "official Church publications". There is no hint of an exception.


Again bcspace, will you please show us in consolidated form the argument from statements from official church publications to the conclusion that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine unless it says of itself it isn't or something says of it that it isn't?

I'll prepare the format for you:

Premise 1: [insert statement from official Church publication]
Premise 2: [insert statement from official Church publication]
... [additional premises here using statements from official Church publications, if needed]
Conclusion: Everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine unless it says of itself that it isn't or something else in an official Church publication says of it that it isn't.

Also, you have yet to respond to the criticisms I've offered of the two references you've given for the view you attribute to the Church.

The first reference you've given is this:

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.


And again, saying that X is found in Y is not the same as saying Everything in Y is X.

The second reference you've offered is this:

Also make sure that you use Church-produced materials when you teach. This will help you keep the doctrine pure


It doesn't follow from this statement that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine because generally things can contain pure X without everything in the container being pure X. To give you an example, a multipack of pure vitamin C contains pure vitamin C, but not everything in the package is pure vitamin C - there are the bottles, the plastic wrap, sometimes there's promotional material for other products, etc. None of those other things are pure vitamin C.

You have yet to offer any good support for your view of what the Church's view is of official doctrine. Neither of the evidences from official Church publications that you've offered entail separately or together that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine unless it says of itself that it isn't or something else in an official Church publication says of it that it isn't. So, again, I ask you to offer some support for the view you're attributing to the Church, and please use statements from official Church publications.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

Post by _Themis »

bcspace wrote:Since it's an official site, it does. It does not matter if they all read and approved it or if they delegated responsibility or a few or one, it still meets the requirement.


Repeating an unsubstantiated assumption is not backing it up. Till then you lose. Again show where they support everything written in church publications as doctrine. Your problem is you can't, and I suspect you know you are wrong but like many times can't admit to it.

Been up there for quite a while now and when they changed format to the new website (vs. the classic website), I was the one who got it transferred over when it went missing for about a week. I have first hand knowledge that the Church considers all this to be official.


LOL Now trying to change the goal post I see. We are not talking about church publications being official, but about the FP and 12 approving everything written in them as being doctrine. They are official because they are church publications printed by the church.

Actually, I have given a case otherwise. If something is not doctrine, it will be pointed out either expressly or contextually. Plus, the qualification is merely "official Church publications". There is no hint of an exception.


Sorry but that does not work. You make the worst assumptions here. Just because one author may give a qualification, does not mean that everything written by other authors is to be considered doctrine. You love your little statement on doctrine, but you can't show where they state this. It should be obvious from that statement that they are not saying everything written is to be considered doctrine unless stated as opinion. It only states that they will proclaim doctrine in church publications, not that everything in them will be doctrine.
42
_Morley
_Emeritus
Posts: 3542
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

Post by _Morley »

Themis wrote: It only states that they will proclaim doctrine in church publications, not that everything in them will be doctrine.


Brade wrote:You have yet to offer any good support for your view of what the Church's view is of official doctrine. Neither of the evidences from official Church publications that you've offered entail separately or together that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine unless it says of itself that it isn't or something else in an official Church publication says of it that it isn't. So, again, I ask you to offer some support for the view you're attributing to the Church, and please use statements from official Church publications.


Paging BCSpace.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

Post by _bcspace »

Again bcspace,


I've answered this already, in at least two different threads. Am not going back to it until you address it.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

Post by _bcspace »

Been up there for quite a while now and when they changed format to the new website (vs. the classic website), I was the one who got it transferred over when it went missing for about a week. I have first hand knowledge that the Church considers all this to be official.

LOL Now trying to change the goal post I see.


What change would that be? Most intelectually honest people accept that if an organization has a website, then it reflects what that organization thinks. Not to mention the word "official" in the banner......

Just because one author may give a qualification, does not mean that everything written by other authors is to be considered doctrine.


Why would the Church publish it then? It is actually you guys who are trying to move the posts by setting up a pardigm that you can control rather than accept what the Church says about itself.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
Post Reply