This is a pretty interesting topic. This is something I’ve been trying to understand for a long time, and I’m LDS. I served a mission, and I still don’t get exactly how this works, but I have thought about it enough to maybe shed some light on it.
- I have met many LDS who express what to me are out-of-the-ordinary doctrines. Now, maybe they’re right. Maybe they know more than me about something. So I don’t argue. If it’s something controversial being taught to investigators, for example, and I see the need, I clarify the official Church teaching, especially clarifying what’s in the scriptures and what’s globally accepted by the modern Church leaders and members.
Now, sometimes someone says something controversial that I simply do not agree with and happen to know to be wrong, according to the two sources I stated above. If I see that a response is necessary and I have the “authority” to do so (meaning maybe a social authority – I’m not going to shout out during someone’s talk that they’re wrong) then I address the false doctrine. So it definitely comes down to necessity.
- There are basic underlying doctrines clearly presented in the scriptures and over the years by general authorities that are not often misrepresented, such as that God loves us. Simple and non-arguable. You see, I don’t really think that one person’s idea of doctrine is always the same as another’s. This falls into the same category you mention, so there’s a bit of iteration, which makes more complex LDS doctrine possibly more difficult to grasp.
I have heard it said, “Whatever the prophet says is truth.” I think that that’s mostly ignorance, that they haven’t considered that prophets can make mistakes and have opinions, and certainly haven’t read much of Brigham Young and other early Church leaders. Then, some say that anything in the scriptures plus what’s said in General Conference is doctrine. That may or may not be true… Then some say “just the scriptures, everything else is conjecture.” I don’t quite agree with that, but some think it. Then some say that anything published by the Church with a “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” stamp on the back is scripture and doctrine.
You see, there is no official doctrine to indicate what falls under the category of what official doctrine is. That’s why there’s confusion about this and many other topics, in my opinion.
There are definitely things we believe as a whole Church that are not found in the scriptures or probably even in General Conference talks. You can always be safe with a clear, unarguable interpretation of the Standard Works, that is the most basic doctrine you can find.
So, as you talk to LDS you need to remember that in order to understand that as they talk doctrine to you you should probably have a very good handling on Mormon doctrine in order to assess that person’s statement.
Now, there is one source besides the scriptures that is 100% fool-proof, and that is the Holy Ghost. Nephi talks about him alot in the last chapters of 2 Nephi. The “problem” with this method is that it’s personal to each individual and they can’t make anyone else recognize or acknowledge it. So in the truest sense, high spiritual understanding, or in other words, LDS doctrine, can’t come entirely from the written word or the mysteries of Godliness would suddenly no longer be mysteries for us to delve deeper into, and God wants us to do that.
(Many Catholics may think similarly about the preceeding paragraph in relation to the RCC.)
I actually think that all truth is contained in the scriptures, or at least all the necessary truth that if we act on will lead us into all truth, and that connection can only come by the Holy Ghost. I don’t think we should be entitled to everything in writing. As mentioned, we are given line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, until the perfect day, and I think the history of the Bible shows that pretty clearly. We don’t get it all at once, but one step at a time, and we can even misinterpret everything if we really want to, so having everything might not even help in the long run.
So, use your good judgment. What I have written here is not official LDS doctrine, although my reasoning is logical and Nephi supports me in some of it, plus your own experience supports part of it also. Now, just because certain leaders didn’t provide a waiver like this one here doesn’t make their statements absolute doctrine. This is a long-winded reply, but hopefully it can help you understand this nuance a little better.
Note: This can actually be a very sensitive topic to some, as I have learned, as it is defifitely controversial and definitely not defined clearly.
