LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

[Pahoran]

This is a very brief overview of a large and complex subject. Its relevance to Catholic Answers may not be readily apparent, but it is relevant because of a number of recent threads.

1. The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consists of the entirety of the teachings that have been severally accepted by the Church as a body.
2. These teachings are found in their authoritative form only in the following sources:

• The Holy Bible;
• The Book of Mormon;
• The Doctrine and Covenants;
• The Pearl of Great Price. These four volumes are collectively referred to as “the Scriptures” or “the Standard Works of the Church;” and
• Joint statements of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve.

1. These teachings may be expounded upon, explained, announced or interpreted in other media, such as:

• Official Church periodicals;
• Official Church curriculum materials such as lesson manuals to be used in adult, youth or child classes;
• The two official Church websites, www.lds.org and www.mormon.org;
• Talks by Church presidents, apostles and other General Authorities in General Conference;
• The published records of such talks;
• Talks by local leaders and members in local Church meetings such as Stake Conferences and Sacrament meetings;
• Books written by Church leaders and members;
• Discussions by Church members in various formal and informal settings.

Such sources may be taken as representing the views of those who make them, and as evidence of what the Church’s position may be upon the subjects discussed. None of these sources are held by the Church to be infallible, and as such are not binding upon the Latter-day Saints in matters of faith and morals.

1. Latter-day Saints believe that prophets are those to whom the Lord may choose to reveal His will on specific subjects from time to time. Latter-day Saints have never believed, and the Church has never taught, that God somehow takes over a prophet’s mind so that he is henceforth incapable of error. Such a view is unreasonable, unscriptural and untrue. Put simply: there is no doctrine of “prophetic infallibility” in the Church.
2. The nearest thing to such a doctrine is the oft-quoted statement that the Lord would never allow the Prophet to lead the Church astray. However, this is in nowise a claim that the Prophet’s statements would never lead anyone to hold a doctrinally incorrect opinion, because it is not our belief that we will be judged for the doctrinal purity of our opinions. Rather, it asserts that the Lord would never allow the Prophet to turn the Saints away from their duty. Orthopraxy, rather than orthodoxy, is the “gold standard” for the Latter-day Saints; and orthopraxy is mostly viewed in terms of covenant keeping.
3. From time to time, various Church leaders have taught that Latter-day Saints ought to follow the Prophet’s counsel faithfully in all things. These statement do not affirm or imply that the Prophet is actually infallible, but rather must be understood in terms of point (5) above. Inasmuch as the Lord will not permit the Prophet to lead the Church astray, the Saints will at all times be safe in following the Prophet’s counsel.

What this means for Catholic Answers is this: there is, in some quarters, a popular and rather mean-spirited game that is played wherein a handful of sentences are excerpted from statements made by leaders of the Church, ripped from the context that gives them meaning, and then flung in our faces exclusively for their shock value.

The value of such an approach is limited exclusively to the entertainment it provides to those who are hostile to the Church. It does not help anyone to better understand LDS life and teaching in any way. Believing Latter-day Saints are rightly offended by this tactic, the sole purpose of which is to inflame rather than to inform. Furthermore, to the extent that any less-informed person believes such statements to have any doctrinal force, the game is misleading. Informed, believing Latter-day Saints have a positive duty to not permit such a campaign of misrepresentation to go unchallenged, but vigorously oppose it.

Even if it is protected by moderation policy.

And besides that, it seriously lowers the tone of what is otherwise a rather good forum.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[RebeccaJ]

I see you are still trying to control what people say and how they say it. Must be frustrating for you.

 

[Todd520]

I see you are still trying to control what people say and how they say it. Must be frustrating for you.

Raise it to the level of an actual discussion would be nice,
vs the usual inuendo, slander and mudslinging (debate tactics not allowed to non-Catholics on the forum)

 

[Pahoran]

I see you are still trying to control what people say and how they say it. Must be frustrating for you.

So, no substantive rebuttal, then?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[RebeccaJ]

So, no substantive rebuttal, then?

Regards,
Pahoran

I think the folks over at MADB have raised the same issues I see. Especially the fact that LDS doctrine is not defined authoritatively anywhere, so any definition you’re trying to make (or think your current leaders are making) is opinion.

I’m fairly sure that what you have written here is viewed as opinion by some LDS today. Thirty years from now it will be viewed by all people such as yourself as nothing but opinion.

So you want an entire Catholic forum to adhere to your opinion.

It’s the usual pointless discussion of “what is Mormon doctrine”…I’m sure you’ve heard the term “nailing Jello to the wall”.

 

[stormy99]

All this says to me…is we haven’t a clue what we believe or what we will believe tomorrow or ten years from now. It allows so much wiggle room…it’s a joke. This is not the LDS faith I learned…not at all…

But times have changed…ad campaigns featuring I am a Mormon…see I’m not different…are on tv…

But when push comes to shove…the doctrines do change…whether they are interpreted differently or just plain forgotten or ignored…

You can’t have it both ways…you can’t defend what is not defensable because it isn’t written down and it can be changed at willl.

Get it straight and post it.

stormy

 

[Pahoran]

I think the folks over at MADB have raised the same issues I see. Especially the fact that LDS doctrine is not defined authoritatively anywhere, so any definition you’re trying to make (or think your current leaders are making) is opinion.

I’m fairly sure that what you have written here is viewed as opinion by some LDS today. Thirty years from now it will be viewed by all people such as yourself as nothing but opinion.

Perhaps so, but I have yet to see any meaningful alternative put forward. For anyone seriously wishing to understand what Latter-day Saints believe and do, my formulation is reasonable, and it works. Every alternative that I have seen put forward in this forum recently has the distinct disadvantage of being provably false.

So you want an entire Catholic forum to adhere to your opinion.

Not at all. I expect But I think it is both fair and reasonable for the tiny minority of Catholics here who want to talk about Mormonism to make a good faith effort to engage actual LDS positions and not merely beat up defenseless straw men.

It’s the usual pointless discussion of “what is Mormon doctrine”…I’m sure you’ve heard the term “nailing Jello to the wall”.

Yes.

I’ve heard other unpleasant insults, too.

I’d like to point out that the uncharitable analogy to which you refer is never used by people making a responsible effort to engage LDS sources or understand LDS life and teaching. It is used exclusively and only by those who, seeking to attack LDS Christianity, want to make it as broad a target as possible, and are frustrated by our lack of co-operation with that not-so-admirable goal.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

All this says to me…is we haven’t a clue what we believe or what we will believe tomorrow or ten years from now.

Well it might be what it says to you, but it’s not what it says in the OP.

It allows so much wiggle room…it’s a joke. This is not the LDS faith I learned…not at all…

Not at all? As in, the LDS faith you learned did not rely upon The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price?

All I can say to that is, “Oh.”

But times have changed…ad campaigns featuring I am a Mormon…see I’m not different…are on tv…

Okay, so you don’t like the ads. I haven’t seen them myself; but what does that have to do with the topic?

But when push comes to shove…the doctrines do change…whether they are interpreted differently or just plain forgotten or ignored…

Please refer to the OP.

You can’t have it both ways…you can’t defend what is not defensable because it isn’t written down and it can be changed at willl.

But if it’s not written down, how can it have any official standing? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always been almost obsessive about record keeping.

Get it straight and post it.

stormy

I did, and I have. See the OP.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[RebeccaJ]

Perhaps so, but I have yet to see any meaningful alternative put forward. For anyone seriously wishing to understand what Latter-day Saints believe and do, my formulation is reasonable, and it works. Every alternative that I have seen put forward in this forum recently has the distinct disadvantage of being provably false.

I don’t see that LDS members of Brigham Young’s time held this view. That is something that has to be addressed, not ignored and formulated as, “this is the formula for today”.

In other words, why trust your formulation, as reasonable as it may be, when it is easy to see that it will only work for the moment?

Not at all. I expect But I think it is both fair and reasonable for the tiny minority of Catholics here who want to talk about Mormonism to make a good faith effort to engage actual LDS positions and not merely beat up defenseless straw men.

Calling historical fact a straw man is a problem.

I’ve heard other unpleasant insults, too.

You can view it as an insult, or you can see that for non-LDS, it is what is seen.

I’d like to point out that the uncharitable analogy to which you refer is never used by people making a responsible effort to engage LDS sources or understand LDS life and teaching. It is used exclusively and only by those who, seeking to attack LDS Christianity, want to make it as broad a target as possible, and are frustrated by our lack of co-operation with that not-so-admirable goal.

Oh, you’ve gone into “persecution land”. Maybe we’ll discuss “abominable churches”. That one is always fun…and canonized.

 

[Pahoran]

I don’t see that LDS members of Brigham Young’s time held this view. That is something that has to be addressed, not ignored and formulated as, “this is the formula for today”.

I don’t see any sources from Brigham’s time that discuss this question at all. But I can point to early sources that say essentially what I have said.

Can you point to any sources that contradict what I have said?

In other words, why trust your formulation, as reasonable as it may be, when it is easy to see that it will only work for the moment?

It is not easy to see that at all. While it is popular to imagine LDS doctrine as being in some kind of continuing flux, it is actually remarkably stable, all things considered.

Calling historical a fact a straw man is a problem.

It might be, if I had.

You can view it as an insult, or you can see that for non-LDS, it is what is seen.

It is “seen” that way by only two groups of non-Latter-day Saints: (1) those who wish to misrepresent the facts, and (2) those whose perspective is skewed by the false claims of the first group.

Those who make a responsible effort to engage LDS sources see things differently.

I don’t know if you realise just how heavily your perspective relies upon a literature produced primarily by “Evangelical” (i.e. conservative Protestant) groups whose purpose in life appears to be to oppose everything that is “not-us.”

These guys aren’t exactly huge fans of the Catholics, either. Karl Keating has rather a lot to say about the quality of their scholarship when dealing with Catholic things. They pull the same kinds of stunts when dealing with Mormon things, but in that case you accept their claims without comment.

Oh, you’ve gone into “persecution land”.

I don’t know where that is.

Maybe we’ll discuss “abominable churches”. That one is always fun…and canonized.

Maybe you will, and maybe I’ll comment. It is off-topic for this thread.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Does the LDS church itself have an authoritative standard/statement on what is LDS doctrine?

 

[Pahoran]

Does the LDS church itself have an authoritative standard/statement on what is LDS doctrine?

I haven’t been able to find one.

It does have authoritative doctrines, though.

And there are numerous statements to the effect that the Scriptures are the standard against which all teachings are measured.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t see any sources from Brigham’s time that discuss this question at all.

Really?

But I can point to early sources that say essentially what I have said.

So you can tell me they’re out of context? Or, that the JoD is personal opinion? Your own teachings are that your prophet’s words are the same as scripture. That is what I see being taught during Young’s time.

However, what modern LDS disagree with, is now opinion.

I’ve asked, seriously and sincerely, on LDS forums, how you know that what your prophet is saying today isn’t just opinion. There is no answer to this question that is reasonable or trustworthy.

Can you point to any sources that contradict what I have said?

BCSpace gives some on the thread of this same title at MADB. I get the impression that he/she is LDS.

It is not easy to see that at all. While it is popular to imagine LDS doctrine as being in some kind of continuing flux, it is actually remarkably stable, all things considered.

You might think that. But I was raised LDS, and what I was taught as God given divine teachings, is now called opinion by people like yourself.

It is “seen” that way by only two groups of non-Latter-day Saints: (1) those who wish to misrepresent the facts, and (2) those whose perspective is skewed by the false claims of the first group.

Those who make a responsible effort to engage LDS sources see things differently.

I see. It is the fault of others for not putting in enough effort. How Mormon of you.

I don’t know if you realise just how heavily your perspective relies upon a literature produced primarily by “Evangelical” (i.e. conservative Protestant) groups whose purpose in life appears to be to oppose everything that is “not-us.”

These guys aren’t exactly huge fans of the Catholics, either. Karl Keating has rather a lot to say about the quality of their scholarship when dealing with Catholic things. They pull the same kinds of stunts when dealing with Mormon things, but in that case you accept their claims without comment.

I don’t think you realize how heavily my perspective relies on my own experience, raised in the LDS church and then leaving and paying no attention to it for 20 years or so. When I talk about what I was taught then, y’all tell me it isn’t doctrine. So, what to think of this? Was I taught false doctrine? Or, was I taught opinion? Either way, why should I believe anything your church has to say after that experience?

You (the collective you) can’t address it sufficiently. It is only a casting about for blame from those nasty Evangelicals, or “anti-Mormons”, when it is yourselves that have brought yourselves to this point.

I don’t know where that is.

It’s the place all LDS go when they don’t want to actually address what is being said.

 

[SirThomasMore]

This is a very brief overview of a large and complex subject. Its relevance to Catholic Answers may not be readily apparent, but it is relevant because of a number of recent threads.

 

[twopekinguys]

This is a very brief overview of a large and complex subject. Its relevance to Catholic Answers may not be readily apparent, but it is relevant because of a number of recent threads.

1. The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consists of the entirety of the teachings that have been severally accepted by the Church as a body.
2. These teachings are found in their authoritative form only in the following sources:

• The Holy Bible;
• The Book of Mormon;
• The Doctrine and Covenants;
• The Pearl of Great Price. These four volumes are collectively referred to as “the Scriptures” or “the Standard Works of the Church;” and
• Joint statements of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve.

1. These teachings may be expounded upon, explained, announced or interpreted in other media, such as:

• Official Church periodicals;
• Official Church curriculum materials such as lesson manuals to be used in adult, youth or child classes;
• The two official Church websites, www.lds.org and www.mormon.org;
• Talks by Church presidents, apostles and other General Authorities in General Conference;
• The published records of such talks;
• Talks by local leaders and members in local Church meetings such as Stake Conferences and Sacrament meetings;
• Books written by Church leaders and members;
• Discussions by Church members in various formal and informal settings.

Such sources may be taken as representing the views of those who make them, and as evidence of what the Church’s position may be upon the subjects discussed. None of these sources are held by the Church to be infallible, and as such are not binding upon the Latter-day Saints in matters of faith and morals.

1. Latter-day Saints believe that prophets are those to whom the Lord may choose to reveal His will on specific subjects from time to time. Latter-day Saints have never believed, and the Church has never taught, that God somehow takes over a prophet’s mind so that he is henceforth incapable of error. Such a view is unreasonable, unscriptural and untrue. Put simply: there is no doctrine of “prophetic infallibility” in the Church.
2. The nearest thing to such a doctrine is the oft-quoted statement that the Lord would never allow the Prophet to lead the Church astray. However, this is in nowise a claim that the Prophet’s statements would never lead anyone to hold a doctrinally incorrect opinion, because it is not our belief that we will be judged for the doctrinal purity of our opinions. Rather, it asserts that the Lord would never allow the Prophet to turn the Saints away from their duty. Orthopraxy, rather than orthodoxy, is the “gold standard” for the Latter-day Saints; and orthopraxy is mostly viewed in terms of covenant keeping.
3. From time to time, various Church leaders have taught that Latter-day Saints ought to follow the Prophet’s counsel faithfully in all things. These statement do not affirm or imply that the Prophet is actually infallible, but rather must be understood in terms of point (5) above. Inasmuch as the Lord will not permit the Prophet to lead the Church astray, the Saints will at all times be safe in following the Prophet’s counsel.

What this means for Catholic Answers is this: there is, in some quarters, a popular and rather mean-spirited game that is played wherein a handful of sentences are excerpted from statements made by leaders of the Church, ripped from the context that gives them meaning, and then flung in our faces exclusively for their shock value.

The value of such an approach is limited exclusively to the entertainment it provides to those who are hostile to the Church. It does not help anyone to better understand LDS life and teaching in any way. Believing Latter-day Saints are rightly offended by this tactic, the sole purpose of which is to inflame rather than to inform. Furthermore, to the extent that any less-informed person believes such statements to have any doctrinal force, the game is misleading. Informed, believing Latter-day Saints have a positive duty to not permit such a campaign of misrepresentation to go unchallenged, but vigorously oppose it.

Even if it is protected by moderation policy.

And besides that, it seriously lowers the tone of what is otherwise a rather good forum.

Regards,
Pahoran

I saw this same thread posted over at madb. Minus your diatribe about CAF and its moderation.

You can’t even get your own lds brethren to agree with you on some of your points.

 

[Pahoran]

Really?

Really.

So you can tell me they’re out of context? Or, that the JoD is personal opinion? Your own teachings are that your prophet’s words are the same as scripture. That is what I see being taught during Young’s time.

Brigham’s view was actually rather more nuanced than the standard anti-Mormon prooftexts would lead one to suspect.

That’s why people making a serious, good-faith effort to understand LDS perspectives don’t just accept the standard anti-Mormon prooftexts.

However, what modern LDS disagree with, is now opinion.

I have yet to see any real evidence that it was ever otherwise.

I’ve asked, seriously and sincerely, on LDS forums, how you know that what your prophet is saying today isn’t just opinion. There is no answer to this question that is reasonable or trustworthy.

Yes, as a matter of fact, there is.

See the OP.

BCSpace gives some on the thread of this same title at MADB. I get the impression that he/she is LDS.

I will look into that in due course.

I see you are aware of MA&DB. Are you aware that Catholic-bashing over there gets short shrift from the moderators?

That’s because we as LDS Christians try to obey the Golden Rule. We also try to avoid bearing false witness against our neighbours.

And we don’t see anyone as being so completely “other” as to disqualify them from being considered our neighbours.

You might think that. But I was raised LDS, and what I was taught as God given divine teachings, is now called opinion by people like yourself.

For example?

I see. It is the fault of others for not putting in enough effort. How Mormon of you.

Actually I am making a good-faith effort to balance the misinformation with something that faithfully reflects LDS life and teaching; and you scolded me for that.

Should I say, How anti-Mormon of you?

I don’t think you realize how heavily my perspective relies on my own experience, raised in the LDS church and then leaving and paying no attention to it for 20 years or so. When I talk about what I was taught then, y’all tell me it isn’t doctrine. So, what to think of this? Was I taught false doctrine? Or, was I taught opinion? Either way, why should I believe anything your church has to say after that experience?

So what you are saying is that if what you remember after 20 years away doesn’t match the actual doctrines of the Church, then the Church is being untrustworthy?

How does that work, exactly?

You (the collective you) can’t address it sufficiently. It is only a casting about for blame from those nasty Evangelicals, or “anti-Mormons”, when it is yourselves that have brought yourselves to this point.

Not entirely unaided. After all, it isn’t us who are engaged in quote mining from non-canonised sources for mere sensationalism.

And I again point out: we don’t do that to you, either.

Such behaviour is un-Christian, you see.

It’s the place all LDS go when they don’t want to actually address what is being said.

I could point out what is in play when you make negative generalisations about entire population groups.

But I shall be charitable, and forbear.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[LongJourney]

I could point out what is in play when you make negative generalisations about entire population groups.

But I shall be charitable, and forbear.

Regards,
Pahoran

From what I have seen of your posting history, you are one of the less admirable of your “population group”. (In more than one way) I have met some really decent and open-minded LDS people on the internet. You are not one of them. IMHO Your aggressive, belligerent, and therefore fearful behavior stinks of something seriously wrong with the LDS faith.

If that facade hides a loving, caring human being, then you are that much the worse for hanging on to it. Throw away that LDS mask, and let us see what is really behind it.

I just watched “Pathfinder” It was an EXCELLENT movie. Some very interesting parallels. You know, swords and horses and all.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Pahoran, just so you’re aware: if you feel that a post goes against the rules of this forum, you can click the “report” button, and write the rule broken, which alerts the moderators to the post. The moderators here have banned multiple Catholic posters in the LDS-related threads, and they really don’t give Catholics the slide (I recently reported a “Catholic” that was being very offensive in a thread (not an LDS-related one), and they were promptly suspended). The problem though is that you have to report the post, otherwise they don’t see it (since this forum is much larger than MADB).

 

[Pahoran]

SirThomasMore,

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but every time you reply to a post, you always leave a random “quote” tag at the front. Try to do something about that, will you?

I see that on the LDS Board, even some Mormons disagree with you…but let’s see what ya say

Which is actually irrelevant to the question at hand.

and even some that the body has no clue about

How do you come to that conclusion?

Actually, it is the Bible just so far as y’all agree with it.

That rather egregiously misrepresents our position. But even if it did not, it would be entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is that the Bible is one of a handful of canonised texts that is recognised as a binding repository of doctrine.

And you forgot teachings from your prophets…BY and others have claimed that what they teach is doctrine. Are you claiming they lied?

Call for references, please. I’m not prepared to comment on your probably not completely impartial interpretation of something until you place the primary source in front of us.

Thank you.

Or maybe it is just that you disagree with them NOW, so you sweep them under the rug? (Adam/God, God once being sinful, racism, blood oaths, etc.)

Or maybe not.

unless you diagree with them, or, as you have done, determined for yourself what they were thinking when they said it.

Irrelevant throwaway remark.

The Lord does not choose them, it is based on seniority.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

And whther you believe or not that a prophet is infallible, when you got a guy who talks to God face to face, he should know what God wants…right?

I refer you back to my statement:

1. Latter-day Saints believe that prophets are those to whom the Lord may choose to reveal His will on specific subjects from time to time. Latter-day Saints have never believed, and the Church has never taught, that God somehow takes over a prophet’s mind so that he is henceforth incapable of error. Such a view is unreasonable, unscriptural and untrue. Put simply: there is no doctrine of “prophetic infallibility” in the Church.

Please note that “unreasonable, unscriptural and untrue” bit.

So then racism and blood oaths and Adam/God etc are still doctrine…cool

Red herring.

No, what it means is, we take what they say and reveal it to everyone and you guys are unable to defend the totally ridiculous things they have said

Actually you engage in quote mining purely for sensationalistic effect. Your handful of anti-Mormon prooftexts in nowise provides a fair representation of the views of Latter-day Saint leaders of any generation, including the leaders you have so selectively quoted.

Ah…the LDS “victim mentality”. Anyone who does not march in goose-step with the LDS Church is hostlile, fll of hate etc.

That’s right. No fair-minded person would see anything unreasonable about that “goose-step” characterisation of yours. No-one should suspect that you are trying to create a nasty impression by association with something evil, should they?

Nothing could be farther from the truth. We have a desire to shine the light of God on the darkness that is the LDS Church.

If that really were the case, then you would refrain from bearing false witness against the Latter-day Saints; and you would welcome a faithful LDS perspective.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

From what I have seen of your posting history, you are one of the less admirable of your “population group”. (In more than one way) I have met some really decent and open-minded LDS people on the internet. You are not one of them.

I’ve never said anything even remotely as personally uncharitable as that to any of my respondents in this forum.

I really don’t want this thread to get closed too soon. Please try to tone down the personal attacks.

Regards,
Pahoran