What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_bcspace]

Still waiting.

The Jews are still waiting for the Messiah........

[_BartBurk]

Sure. As long as you're not misunderstanding any context under which it may have been published such as for historical reference.

I like having a catechism in the Catholic Church so I know what the church claims to believe. I know that Mormonism is a fairly young religion, but it would be nice if it could come up with a book in which it declares without ambiguity what it does and doesn't believe. It is pretty obvious you can't just look at church publications and come up with required doctrine versus speculation. Your last statement demonstrates this.

A good example from Catholicism is the question of unbaptized infants. Augustine taught that unbaptized infants go to hell. Aquinas and others then postulated the theory of limbo which said unbaptized infants didn't go to hell, but they didn't go to heaven either. John Paul II seemed to favor the idea that unbaptized infants go to heaven. The result? The Catholic Church said we can trust in the mercy of God for unborn infants, but we really don't know so baptize your children. At the same time they left it up to individuals to decide what they believed without the church imposing a belief on what is not definitively taught in scripture or tradition.

So it seems to me it would behoove the LDS to come up with a similar catechism which puts into stone what the church believes while at the same time explaining what beliefs are left up to personal interpretation. That really shouldn't be hard for the current leaders of the church to do. Get an official source to gather it all together and declare what is and what isn't official doctrine and put it in a publication with real authority. Maybe believing in the First Vision would be in stone, but the King Follett teachings wouldn't be. Or maybe they would decide King Follett is required belief. They might get more respect if they actually were clear about it all rather than maintaining plausible deniability as their main doctrinal stance.

[_Themis]

Still waiting.

The Jews are still waiting for the Messiah........

Yes, and we are still waiting for you to show where the church states everything in it's published materials is to be considered doctrine. If a BYU professor has an article written up in the ensign and brings up a new idea, I doubt the church is going to feel that it has to be considered doctrine. In fact your statement says the FP and 12 will proclaim doctrine through the church publications, not BYU professors. It's not that they will not try to check for things that conflict with current doctrine, but obviously not everything printed is to be considered doctrine. It's so obvious I have to shake my head that you are even making this claim.

[_bcspace]

I like having a catechism in the Catholic Church so I know what the church claims to believe. I know that Mormonism is a fairly young religion, but it would be nice if it could come up with a book in which it declares without ambiguity what it does and doesn't believe.

The LDS Church's doctrine is quite systematic.

It is pretty obvious you can't just look at church publications and come up with required doctrine versus speculation. Your last statement demonstrates this.

Not at all. Doctrine remains clear when the Church applies a qualifier saying this is not doctrine or for historical reference or someone's opinion.

A good example from Catholicism is the question of unbaptized infants. Augustine taught that unbaptized infants go to hell. Aquinas and others then postulated the theory of limbo which said unbaptized infants didn't go to hell, but they didn't go to heaven either. John Paul II seemed to favor the idea that unbaptized infants go to heaven. The result? The Catholic Church said we can trust in the mercy of God for unborn infants, but we really don't know so baptize your children. At the same time they left it up to individuals to decide what they believed without the church imposing a belief on what is not definitively taught in scripture or tradition.

That would be the same as the LDS Church qualifying something as opinion. Once again, the doctrine remains clear. In this case, there is no doctrine.

So it seems to me it would behoove the LDS to come up with a similar catechism which puts into stone what the church believes while at the same time explaining what beliefs are left up to personal interpretation.

It's already there.

That really shouldn't be hard for the current leaders of the church to do. Get an official source to gather it all together and declare what is and what isn't official doctrine and put it in a publication with real authority.

Done.

Maybe believing in the First Vision would be in stone, but the King Follett teachings wouldn't be. Or maybe they would decide King Follett is required belief.

Done.

They might get more respect if they actually were clear about it all rather than maintaining plausible deniability as their main doctrinal stance.

The doctrine as far as has been revealed has been set. It is found in the official publications which are available for all to read. Perhaps your difficulty is with continuing revelation? What do you think has changed? Or perhaps it's with the notion of line upon line in which one has to go through a lesson or other build up to get it?

[_bcspace]

The Jews are still waiting for the Messiah........

Yes, and we are still waiting for you to show where the church states everything in it's published materials is to be considered doctrine.

The point being that the Jews missed him. So likewise......

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Oh you do, do you? Why would anyone need special first hand knowledge on this? Why won't the FP and Qo12 really make it official and publish it as a proclamation on Church doctrine under their signatures? Why a mere press release? Why not present it to the Church.

[_BartBurk]

The doctrine as far as has been revealed has been set. It is found in the official publications which are available for all to read. Perhaps your difficulty is with continuing revelation? What do you think has changed? Or perhaps it's with the notion of line upon line in which one has to go through a lesson or other build up to get it?

I doubt you could randomly select several LDS members, put them into a room together and get them to agree on the definition of an official publication. King Follett is a good example because many members go out on the internet and claim it isn't official doctrine since it is not in the canonized scriptures (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price). It should be relatively easy for the First Presidency to decide what is and isn't official doctrine and compile it all into one book. It becomes a problem when new revelation completely contradicts past revelation. At that point some clarification becomes necessary.

[_Themis]

The point being that the Jews missed him. So likewise......

Just as you missed again trying to address what I said. :)

Here is the statement again to help you 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

Notice the underlined bit. I don't see where they said that these statements will never be found in church publications. You have consistently avioded this issue.

[_ludwigm]

I like having a catechism in the Catholic Church so I know what the church claims to believe.

Anybody can read it here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
No need of debate, doubt, scruple, spirit, burning bosom.
If You can read, then You have it.

The LDS Church's doctrine is quite systematic.

Link?
Please...

[_bcspace]

The LDS Church's doctrine is quite systematic.

Link?
Please...

There are a variety of systems. Here is one:

http://LDS.org/study/topics?lang=eng