What is Considered Official LDS Doctrine?

[_Radex]

If that is the criteria, then none whatsoever outside of faith, repentance, baptism, and gift of the holy ghost.


An even those might be debatable.

Eternal families, priesthood, nature of the Godhead, etc.

[Guest]

Radex,
where do eternal families show up in the Book of Mormon, which contains the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Also, BY and others taught to obtain an eternal family a man need have more than 1 wife. Where is this still taught?

How did Joseph Smith practice polygamy before the restoration of the sealing power in 1836? Under what authority or auspices?

Where is the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood documented, and why was there no emphasis on it for many years (after 1830)?

Why has the nature of the Godhead in Mormon Doctrine changed fundamentally from 1830?

None of these doctrines is currently consistent with what was practiced at the time of the restoration of the "Church" in 1830. Nor are they remain consistent between 1830 and 1844, nor from 1844 til now.

[_Radex]

Radex,
where do eternal families show up in the Book of Mormon, which contains the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Wait a tick, this is off topic. Eternal families is doctrine because it follows the rules of being doctrine. If you'd like to start a quibble about whether the Book of Mormon says this or that, you're welcome to. I won't participate in such a fruitless endeavor.

Also, BY and others taught to obtain an eternal family a man need have more than 1 wife. Where is this still taught?

It isn't. If you'd like to discuss polygamy, there are plenty of threads devoted to it.

Where is the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood documented, and why was there no emphasis on it for many years (after 1830)?

If you'd like to talk about the details of priesthood, you should begin a new thread about it.

Why has the nature of the Godhead in Mormon Doctrine changed fundamentally from 1830?

If you'd like to discuss the details of the nature of the Godhead, you should begin a new thread about it.

[_SteelHead]

The topic is the doctrine being that which is repeatedly and consistently taught. All of these are examples of doctrines that are not consistently taught eg they have all changed. Hence they do not meet the criteria of being consistent.

How is this off topic? Providing examples of changing meaning inconsistent doctrines is off topic?

Ok, show that these "doctrines" have remained consistent. Otherwise by your own criteria we can declare them non doctrinal.

[_Radex]

The topic is the doctrine being that which is repeatedly and consistently taught. All of these are examples of doctrines that are not consistently taught eg they have all changed. Hence they do not meet the criteria of being consistent.

How is this off topic? Providing examples of changing meaning inconsistent doctrines is off topic?

Ok, show that these "doctrines" have remained consistent. Otherwise by your own criteria we can declare them non doctrinal.

Here's the statement

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.

[_SteelHead]

All of my examples are not taught today in the way they were in 1830.

Are they consistent? Across what time frames?

There is a difference between "consistently taught" and "persistently taught".

An easy example: The concept of plural marriage, and eternal marriage were not taught in 1830.

Section 101 of the 1835 of the Book of Commandments:

Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.

Section 101 was adopted by a vote at a church conference and was not removed until 1876.

By your criteria the concepts of plural marriage and eternal marriage are not doctrinal.

[_brade]

Radex, just to be clear, the view which you claim is the view of the Church about what is doctrine is not the same as the view that bcspace claims is the view of the Church. bcspace maintains that the Church's position is that literally everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine - everything. The only caveat he's given is that it isn't doctrine if it says of itself that it isn't. Otherwise, it is. Everything.

[_Themis]

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.

Your first problem is that the statement does not come from the FP and 12. You don't know who prepared or authorized it so it really does not have any force on the church and what it's position is. Your second problem is that it is a vague statement. People will disagree with what consistent is, and apologists will use it to dismiss what ever they want. Some past doctrines were taught consistently before be changed or abandoned. 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.

[_consiglieri]

I don't know if this has already been brought up but thought I would throw it into the mix to get bcspace's opinion:

1. The Juvenile Instructor, an official Church publication, stated that when the leaders speak, the thinking has been done.

2. President Heber J. Grant responded to a question about this in a personal letter that this is not true. His letter was never published in an official Church publication.

Which is doctrine?


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Guest]

I don't know if this has already been brought up but thought I would throw it into the mix to get bcspace's opinion:

1. The Juvenile Instructor, an official Church publication, stated that when the leaders speak, the thinking has been done.

2. President Heber J. Grant responded to a question about this in a personal letter that this is not true. His letter was never published in an official Church publication.

Which is doctrine?


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

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".