Close Topic Options

What Is "Official" LDS Doctrine? - Page 6

Not a problem. Just use the rule that what is published by the Church, and of latest date if there is a conflict, is doctrine.

For example: It is true that the JoD is not doctrine. However, if it's quoted in something actually published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints, then that particular quote is doctrine. So if you hear it in Conference and then it gets published in the Ensign and/or the Church web site (the Church does sometimes edit talks to make them more doctrinally accurate), it is doctrine.

So yes, the JoD or BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" etc contain lots of good doctrine. But you can't say which parts are doctrine unless you see those parts or something similar printed in an official publication of the Church.

Edited: bcspace on 2nd Jan, 2013 - 6:22pm

Doctrine LDS quotOfficialquot What

Bcspace, I mean no disrespect but the whole process you are explaining (which I think goes in harmony with what the Church teaches) is quite ridiculous to me AND I repeat, convenient. So we quote the nice things from the JOD that fit our present doctrine but we never dare to talk about the other quotes such as racist descriptions of black people by past leaders or little men living in the moon. Now don't take me wrong I DO understand things within context and particularly I have no issues with 19th century way of thinking, my issue is the convenient use of the quotes.

What Is "Official" LDS Doctrine? Studies Doctrine Mormon

What is "Official" Mormon doctrine you ask? I'd first ask what the topic was before I could answer that.

Page 6 Doctrine LDS quotOfficialquot What

What do you mean "Convenient"? Why would you want to assert that which the Church doesn't consider to be doctrine, doctrine? There is nothing preventing you from discussing any part of the JoD, but it would be erroneous to ascribe all of it to the LDS Church as doctrine.

I understand there are those whose modus operandi in their opposition to the LDS Church is making it seem that some of these things are doctrines of the Church, and the specific issues you brought would seem to identify you as such a one, but don't you think it would be better to discuss what the Church actually believes and teaches for doctrine than using presentism and yellow journalism to get your point across?

The Church's statements on doctrine in "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" is rooted in 1835's D&C 107 wherein we see that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have an equal authority. Hence it is not possible for a prophet's words to be the doctrine of the Church unless approved in some manner or by some process by all 15 apostles and prophets. Hence the statement "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine."

If you want to know what the Church's doctrine is, it is easily identified by official publication. The JoD doesn't meet that qualification (nor does it meet BY's own personal qualification).

Doctrine LDS quotOfficialquot What

Bcspace:

Your post is full of assumptions. I am a member of the Church and a temple recommend holder and for you to even hint I am in opposition to the Church is both offensive and narrow-minded. I am the first to admit that I am far from being a "Molly Mormon" and I don't think you get the point about the Journal of Discourses. The point I am trying to make is that I don't think the Church should quote from a book that mixes doctrine with opinion of men.

What Is "Official" LDS Doctrine?

That is why the Church has apostles and prophets, to determine doctrine. The method we as members use for identification of doctrine is official publication. Therefore is it not difficult to determine.

You shouldn't worry about the fact that unofficial works by the prophets also contain personal opinion. We should not buy into the notion that any prophet's mind and voice is controlled directly by God 24/7 and that they have no personal opinions, even strong ones, that might be incorrect and might have been delivered over the pulpit. Even now there are a few cases where a Conference talk has been modified when put into print officially. Such does not undermine the calling of these men.

It's up to the individual to determine if they think the unofficial words of the prophets are ones they should live by or not, but it is never up to the individual to assert whether or not those are doctrines of the Church or the official teachings of the prophets without the backing of official publication.

Edited: bcspace on 12th Jan, 2013 - 7:55pm

What "Official" LDS Doctrine - Page 6

Name: Michael
Country:

Comments: Pandora:

Because regardless of whether or not it is "Official" Doctrine, it is nevertheless a true principle, when understood correctly. Unfortunately most members of the Church misunderstand what President Woodruff actually meant. The Brigham Young statement, from which President Woodruff originally got the doctrine, was actually more clear.

Message Edited...
Persephone: Note, the Guest facility is not meant for constant Posting, if you wish to contribute to many of the Topics please consider creating an account to do so at your leisure.

What "Official" LDS Doctrine Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 6

A true principle according to who? I mean no disrespect, but if it's not official doctrine why do we perpetuate the teaching like it IS doctrinal?