NOT Official

[_bcspace]

Incorrect. It is most certainly a problem when the church has to disregard and disavow the writings and teachings of former prophets seers and revelators because the things that they taught are no longer socially acceptable and/or no longer fit the teachings of the modern church.

D&C 107, the foundational principle that helps define today's doctrine, predates most areas of concern.

I recognize your stance on doctrine, and I respect it, I really do...but I think that it is disingenuous of you to blow it off as though it isn't a legitimate concern for people in the church.

Most people in the Church indeed are not concerned with it. It's merely a matter of course and most of them are quite familiar with the most strident criticisms of the Church.

[_Tator]

That man is definitely an official apologist for the church after all he is defending both sides of the issue.

[_Drifting]

What is and is not official LDS doctrine has been long established and is summarized recently here:

http://newsroom.LDS.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Everything published by the Church is official doctrine. What's not published by the Church may contain doctrine but one can only be certain if the same is found in a work published by the Church. So yes, the manuals are official doctrine.

In keeping with the concept of continuing revelation/inspiration, if there is a conflict, latest date Trump's.

In addition, common sense prevails. If there is a qualification (rare but they do exist such as the preface to the Bible Dictionary) such as "this is not doctrine" or "in my opinion" etc., then the doctrine is that such is not doctrine.

bcspace, I'm going to disagree with your interpretation - but only slightly.

From the article:

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.

I think this is saying that the Doctrine itself is contained within:
The four standard works - Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price.
Official Declarations - published at the end of the D&C
Official Proclamations - e.g. Proclamation on The Family
The Articles Of Faith

Everything else published by the Church (Ensign, books, teaching manuals etc) is not doctrine but may be commentary and teaching on doctrine.

I hope this doesn't come across as splitting hairs but I feel it is an important distinction.

[_harmony]

From the article:

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.

I think this is saying that the Doctrine itself is contained within:
The four standard works - Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price.
Official Declarations - published at the end of the D&C
Official Proclamations - e.g. Proclamation on The Family
The Articles Of Faith

Everything else published by the Church (Ensign, books, teaching manuals etc) is not doctrine but may be commentary and teaching on doctrine.

I hope this doesn't come across as splitting hairs but I feel it is an important distinction.

+100

[_Runtu]

bcspace, I'm going to disagree with your interpretation - but only slightly.

From the article:

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.

I think this is saying that the Doctrine itself is contained within:
The four standard works - Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price.
Official Declarations - published at the end of the D&C
Official Proclamations - e.g. Proclamation on The Family
The Articles Of Faith

Everything else published by the Church (Ensign, books, teaching manuals etc) is not doctrine but may be commentary and teaching on doctrine.

I hope this doesn't come across as splitting hairs but I feel it is an important distinction.

That is how it was explained to us when I worked for the church.

Doctrine resides in the standard works (which include the official declarations and the Articles of Faith) and official proclamations.

Church publications are consistent with doctrine but are not authoritative in the same way that the scriptures are.

It is an important distinction, so much so that it was repeatedly emphasized to us as employees. And that position is entirely consistent with the "approaching doctrine" press release.

[_Buffalo]

What is and is not official LDS doctrine has been long established and is summarized recently here:

http://newsroom.LDS.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Everything published by the Church is official doctrine. What's not published by the Church may contain doctrine but one can only be certain if the same is found in a work published by the Church. So yes, the manuals are official doctrine.

In keeping with the concept of continuing revelation/inspiration, if there is a conflict, latest date Trump's.

In addition, common sense prevails. If there is a qualification (rare but they do exist such as the preface to the Bible Dictionary) such as "this is not doctrine" or "in my opinion" etc., then the doctrine is that such is not doctrine.

You're the only mopoligist I've heard argue this position. Why do you think all your fellow mopologists are in apostasy regarding this issue?

[_3sheets2thewind]

What is and is not official LDS doctrine has been long established and is summarized recently here:

http://newsroom.LDS.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Everything published by the Church is official doctrine. ...

So everything ever published - past, present and future tense - remains Doctrine? If something was once published by the LDS Church, but is not longer published by the LDS but is published by some other publisher, is that publication still Doctrine?

[_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. 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.

I think this is saying that the Doctrine itself is contained within:
The four standard works - Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price.
Official Declarations - published at the end of the D&C
Official Proclamations - e.g. Proclamation on The Family
The Articles Of Faith

Everything else published by the Church (Ensign, books, teaching manuals etc) is not doctrine but may be commentary and teaching on doctrine.

I hope this doesn't come across as splitting hairs but I feel it is an important distinction.

It's not how the Church sees it.

Notice that the doctrine is established by the FP and Qo12, and then published. However, it merely resides in the Standard Works etc. BEFORE it is established. Neither you or I is qualified or authorized to open the scriptures, point to a verse, and state authoritatively that such and such is the official LDS doctrine on that verse.

I call it the John 3:5 problem. What does the water refer to in that verse? To an EV and most other Protestants, it means physical birth. To an LDS person, it means water baptism. How does the LDS person know that? From some official publication or another. Without the published doctrine, an LDS person might guess baptism or might go along with the EV as to the interpretation.

What good are the scriptures if they are not interpreted correctly by those authorized by God (2 Peter 1:20, Ephesians 4:11-14, etc.)? Hence, we have the Restoration..... And therefore, the published doctrine is more important than scripture because it contains the official position of the Church.

[_Themis]

It's not how the Church sees it.

Notice that the doctrine is established by the FP and Qo12, and then published. However, it merely resides in the Standard Works etc. BEFORE it is established. Neither you or I is qualified or authorized to open the scriptures, point to a verse, and state authoritatively that such and such is the official LDS doctrine on that verse.

I call it the John 3:5 problem. What does the water refer to in that verse? To an EV and most other Protestants, it means physical birth. To an LDS person, it means water baptism. How does the LDS person know that? From some official publication or another. Without the published doctrine, an LDS person might guess baptism or might go along with the EV as to the interpretation.

What good are the scriptures if they are not interpreted correctly by those authorized by God (2 Peter 1:20, Ephesians 4:11-14, etc.)? Hence, we have the Restoration..... And therefore, the published doctrine is more important than scripture because it contains the official position of the Church.

Drifting of course is more accurate. Still waiting for bcspace to show where they state everything published is doctrine. No where do they even hint at it. All they(we actually don't know who they are though) say is doctrine will consistently be proclaimed in church publications. Nothing on everything being published is to be considered doctrine. I also notice that they use official in regards to church publications and not doctrine. If something is doctrine then it is official by definition. It is redundant to add official to doctrine.

[_bcspace]

Drifting of course is more accurate.

Nope. He had it bassackwards.