What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_brade]

Being part of a declarative sentence has nothing to do with it. If something published is not doctrine, it will say so. There is also context: If a publication quotes an apostle or prophet saying "In my opinion, such and such is true", then the doctrine is that such such is the opinion of said apostle or prophet, not that such and such is doctrine.

Gosh, I hope that being a declarative sentence has something to do with whether published material expresses doctrine. I mean, let's imagine you open the next edition of the Ensign and on the first page an article authored by Monson appears with the heading "A list of 5 things that are doctrine". Here's the list:

1. Snarkle!
2. Who is that?
3. Open the door.
4. Aaaaaarg!
5. lol

Now, I assume that something which is doctrine is also something which ought to be believed by members. So, here's my question. What is it to believe any of the listed items?

If something published is not doctrine, it will say so.

So, is it true that unless something published by the Church says of itself it is not doctrine, then it is?

Here's a statement from the most recent edition of the Ensign:

Shortly before turning 30, Roberta Tuilimu realized she wasn’t happy.

Is that doctrine?

[_Infymus]

Here's a statement from the most recent edition of the Ensign:

Shortly before turning 30, Roberta Tuilimu realized she wasn’t happy.

Is that doctrine?

LOL, was the next line, "Because she was not paying her tithing." ?

[_bcspace]

So when BKP stated in a conference talk that the Proclamation on the Family was doctrine it was in fact not. It was demoted in the printed version to be a guide. So it's not exactly what the FP/Q12 say that may be doctrine, it is what is printed.

Just to make things clear.

How would it not be doctrine?

[_bcspace]

Shortly before turning 30, Roberta Tuilimu realized she wasn’t happy.

Is that doctrine?

Absolutely. Of course it would be more valuable to know why she was not happy such as the fact that she was not married to her children's father who was not a member and she had not been to Church in a long time. She had turned her back on her eternal goals. etc.

[_subgenius]

Shortly before turning 30, Roberta Tuilimu realized she wasn’t happy.

Is that doctrine?

i think the assumption, for this discussion, is as follows:
1. you are not a moron
2. you know what the word doctrine* means


*1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

apparently, we can not work with these assumptions for your posts.

But let's explore your question without absurdity....
yes, it is doctrine...it easily speaks to the doctrine of free agency. No one told her she was unhappy, she realized it on her own. Furthermore, we see that it occurred "shortly before" she turned 30, so we see an affirmation of the doctrine of the benevolence of Heavenly Father, where He has given her life, at least, if not more, 29 years of life, with experiences of sadness and being blissfully unaware.
Obviously, she has come to this realization by virtue of personal growth and development. Her self-awareness has been but another step completed along the path for the plan of salvation; so we see that another bit of doctrine is illuminated by your example.
Nice find, my friend, nice find indeed.
Now go sip on your glass of milk

[_subgenius]

LOL, was the next line, "Because she was not paying her tithing." ?

its 2012, simple cynicism is rather passe' at this point, ain't it?

[_SteelHead]

Removed due to massive reading comprehension fail on my part.

[_brade]

Shortly before turning 30, Roberta Tuilimu realized she wasn’t happy.

Is that doctrine?

Absolutely. Of course it would be more valuable to know why she was not happy such as the fact that she was not married to her children's father who was not a member and she had not been to Church in a long time. She had turned her back on her eternal goals. etc.

Fair enough. I'm just trying to get clear on what you understand of the nature of doctrine, and so far it seems your view is at least this:

If a declarative sentence is in a Church publication and it does not say of itself, or another sentence does not say of it, that it doesn't express Church doctrine, then it expresses Church doctrine.

I say "at least" because here you've assented to a declarative sentence expressing doctrine (e.g. "Shortly before turning 30, Roberta Tuilimu realized she wasn’t happy"). So, at least declarative sentences that appear in Church publications express doctrine unless they state otherwise. But, you have yet to address my point about other types of sentences or utterances which are not declarative.

So, again, let me raise the question. Suppose the Church published in the Ensign an entire page with only the following on it - "Who is wearing flannel?". Now, here would be a case where something is in a Church publication, it's a sentence, but it doesn't say of itself that it isn't doctrine and there are no other sentences which say of that one that it isn't doctrine.

Now, do you care to expand the conditions of what it takes for something to be doctrine or do you believe that in such a case "Who is wearing flannel?" would express Church doctrine?

[Guest]

While we all await response, here are a couple more sentences found in Church published material which neither say of themselves that they aren't doctrine and for which no other sentence says of them that they aren't doctrine. I assume, consistent with bcspace's and subgenius' assessment of my earlier question, these too express Church doctrine:

Cemetery records, such as tombstone and sexton records, may give birth and death dates, age at death, name of spouse, names of children, and maiden names.

An interests and talents evaluation indicated that Sister Peterson was a natural caregiver.

[_bcspace]

If a declarative sentence is in a Church publication and it does not say of itself, or another sentence does not say of it, that it doesn't express Church doctrine, then it expresses Church doctrine.

It's all doctrine unless otherwise noted expressly or by context.

So, again, let me raise the question. Suppose the Church published in the Ensign an entire page with only the following on it - "Who is wearing flannel?". Now, here would be a case where something is in a Church publication, it's a sentence, but it doesn't say of itself that it isn't doctrine and there are no other sentences which say of that one that it isn't doctrine.

Yet it's doctrine because it's part of an idea being communicated. Again, not very useful until someone knows the rest of what's being said. I think you're straining really hard at gnats here. Using this methodology, you're not going to be able to, for example, come up with anything that might put a wrench in what is or isn't considered doctrine.

I assume, consistent with bcspace's and subgenius' assessment of my earlier question, this too expresses Church doctrine:

Yep. Again, not very useful.