Understanding Mormon Doctrine

[Finrock]

Greetings everyone!

I’m motivated to write this thread in response to repeated and numerous misunderstandings that I witness on this forum and elsewhere in life from people who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding what is and what is not doctrine of the Church. My purpose here is to provide the proper criteria by which a person can judge if something is Mormon doctrine taught by the Church. I also wish to clarify some common misconceptions about the difference between eternal principles and the implimentations of these priciples as it pertains to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Like in Catholicism, the Church of Jesus Christ has in place a method by which doctrine is defined and made binding on the members of the Church. Also, in Catholicism, it is widely understood that not everything that has ever been said by every Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop, etc. is necessarily doctrine or dogma of the Catholic church. In the same way in the Church of Jesus Christ, it should be understood that “[n]ot every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church…Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted” (newsroom.lds.org). So, how does one know then when something is binding doctrine for the whole Church?

Fortunately, the LDS church believes that all things pertaining to the Church must be done “in wisdom and order” (Mosiah 4:27, 1 Cor. 14:40). In the Church, the canonized book of scripture that provides the fundamental instructions on how the Church is to be organized and governed, is the Doctrine and Covenants. In it, is defined the governing bodies of the Church. First, is the quorum of the First Presidency. This constitutes the President of the Church and his two counselors. Second, is quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which consist of twelve apostles who are the second highest governing body of the Church. The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is the only person authorized to receive revelation that is binding for the whole Church. However, the patter given in D&C is that doctrine is defined and made binding by unanimous decision of the governing quorums (D&C 107:27) and by common consent of the body of the Church (D&C 26:2). This means that “[o]rdinarily, the [President of the Church] acts in concert with his counselors in the First Presidency and the quorum of the Twelve apostles -those who hold, with the [President], the “keys of the kingdom” -with the principle of quorum unanimity and common consent of the members of the Church giving power and validity to their decisions. Acting collectively and under the inspiration of God, these leaders are authorized to determine the position of the Church at any given time on matters of doctrine, policy, and practice” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Emphasis added).

In a recent article, the First Presidency of the Church further clarified:

“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. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith” (newsroom.lds.org, Emphasis added).

So, now we have our answer to the question: How does one know when something is official and binding doctrine for the whole Church?

The answer: When this doctrine has been unanimously defined and established by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, it has been brought before the body of the Church, and it has been consistently proclaimed in the four standard works of the Church, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

What becomes clear from all of this is that there is a set method by which doctrine is defined and made binding. Also, it is unambiguously clear, that the official and binding doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is found in an exclusive and limited set of official publications, which have been defined above. What this means to Mormons and non-Mormons alike, that any idea, thought, or teaching that does not adhere to the pattern given by the Church, does not constitute doctrine. It should also become clear for the non-Mormon person why so often ideas that are espoused as Mormon doctrine, are so often rejected by Mormons, because they simply are not doctrines. And if these ideas, even if they have been uttered by a Church leader at some point in time, are not doctrine because they haven’t been defined as such through the established method, then it is logically fallacious and ethically problematic for a critic of the Church to espouse these ideas as being a part of the official doctrine of the Church. If any critic wishes to address the doctrines of the Church, then let them address the true, official, and binding doctrines that are found in the established sources: The Standard Works, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Why would any intellectually honest individual want to do otherwise?

Due to space constraints, I will finish my topic in the next post…

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Below is the remainder of my thoughts…

Let me now address another related concern voiced by critics of the Church of Jesus Christ. This is the idea that in Mormonism, doctrines change from President to President. Particularly this criticism infers that truth, in Mormonism, is relative. This charge is unequivocally false. In the Church, it is understood that eternal principles or truths, do not, or can they, change. Truth is truth. However, how principles are implementated can and do change. Because of the varying situations of life, the varying understandings of people at any given point in time, God also varies the amount of truth that He reveals or requires His people to implement. This is most clearly seen in the lives of the ancient Israelites, who lived under the Mosaic law mostly because they were not prepared to receive the higher law. So, “God dispenses eternal truths ‘line upon line, precept upon precept’ (2 Ne. 28:30). At times, he has revealed the fulness of the gospel, and those who have accepted and lived it were received into his presence. When people have ignored or rejected his gospel, God has on occasion withheld his Spirit, and people have had to live in a state of spiritual darkness. God reveals as much light as humankind is willing to abide. Hence, varying amounts of true doctrine have existed on the earth at different periods of time, and people on earth during the same era have enjoyed differing amounts of truth. In this sense, there can be said to be a history of doctrine-that is, an account of how, over time, humankind has either grown or declined in the knowledge of the things of God, man, and the world” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism). So, although “[t]he eternal truths constituting the gospel do not change,” it is true that, “…mankind’s knowledge and understanding of these truths change, as do the policies and practices appropriate to concurrent levels of understanding and obedience” (E of M).

What does this mean, precisely? It means that those things that “change” in Mormonism, through revelation given to the President of the church, isn’t eternal truth (which would be an oxymoron), but rather our understanding of truth and how principles ought to be implemented. And, even furthermore, new truth can also be revealed, adding to, although not contradicting, currently revealed truth. Let me emphasize here that how principles are implemented and practiced, can contradict or supercede earlier implementations and practices, but the eternal principles behind those practices, do not change.

So, this finishes my post in regards to this subject matter. Hopefully this has been helpful to some in understanding a bit more how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints establishes and defines it’s doctrine, and also our understanding of the need for continuous revelation as can only be received by a living prophet of God.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Eucharisted]

A Pope speaks infallibility when he speaks on faith and morals to the whole Church in virtue of his office. For example, when the Pope spoke to the Church about abortion as the Vicar of Christ, he spoke infallibility.

 

[Christian55]

Greetings everyone!

Fortunately, the LDS church believes that all things pertaining to the Church must be done “in wisdom and order” (Mosiah 4:27, 1 Cor. 14:40). In the Church, the canonized book of scripture that provides the fundamental instructions on how the Church is to be organized and governed, is the Doctrine and Covenants. In it, is defined the governing bodies of the Church. . . . .

 

[Casen]

LOL…. This thread is off to a bad start!

Finrock goes through a careful explanation of the canonization process for LDS doctrine and then Christian55 provides examples of non-canonized and unofficial doctrine!

I read his post and thought, “OK, and your point is???”

Seriously, Christian55, did you even read posts 1 and 2?

 

[Finrock]

Good evening Christian55. I hope you are doing well!

You seem to be real passionate about what you are doing. I can appreciate that. It seems, however, that your folly is that you are relying on anti-mormon sources to help you to define and understand LDS scripture and doctrine. This reliance seems to have caused you to understand and believe things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that is incorrect. I am happy to provide you with a better understanding.

So, how can you claim this is not doctrine, if it is stated in the Doctrine and Covenants?

In regards to Adam-God theory offered by our late leader Brigham Young.

“We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine” (President Kimball, 1976, Emphasis added).

The title “Ancient of Days” as used in Daniel in the Old Testament, and in the Doctrine & Covenants, cannot or should not, be confused as teaching the Adam-God theory. This isn’t what the LDS church understands these verses to mean and it isn’t how those scriptures are interpreted by us. We believe “Ancient of Days” is a title, given to Adam, he being the first man and the father of all mortals. Unlike much of Christianity, we honor Adam in his position as the father of the human race. Because we understand that title to be speaking of Adam in no way indicates that we believe Adam is God.

Unfortunately, Bill McKeever has simply made up his own interpretation of our scripture so that it fits his misconceived and misunderstood notions of the Church.

May I suggest that in the future, rather than rely on a source that is anti-“some religion”, be reasonable and charitable by asking the adherents of said religion on what they understand and believe.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

Not everything a Bishop teaches is doctrine, but Catholics have a general expectation that what they are being taught is doctrinally correct.

Does it matter to any Mormon if what their leaders teach is doctrinally correct? And how would you know, as Mormon doctrine can, and does, change? Such as the Adam-God teaching of Brigham Young that has already been brought up. Is this a doctrinally correct teaching (according to your church)?

Also, what of the rites in your temples and what they teach? These are not in your scriptures.

 

[RebeccaJ]

LOL…. This thread is off to a bad start!

Finrock goes through a careful explanation of the canonization process for LDS doctrine and then Christian55 provides examples of non-canonized and unofficial doctrine!

I read his post and thought, “OK, and your point is???”

Seriously, Christian55, did you even read posts 1 and 2?

While Finrock’s explanation was long and concise, it contains a definition of Mormon doctrine that only came about relatively recently. Prior to this definition, your church taught that what your prophets taught, was God-give truth. It is only in the face of changing doctrine, and back-peddling away from blatant non-Christian and/or disproven teachings, that your church has come out and given a definition. Which, definition is not canonized in your scriptures, so it is possible for the definition of what constitutes mormon doctrine to change.

Meanwhile, the teachings your church is hoping to jetison were taught by your leaders, believed by the Mormons who were under these leaders, and in turn have been taught, and continue, to be taught in your classrooms. What you have attempted to do here, in responding to Christian55, is to deny what previous Mormons have been taught, and believed, as Mormon doctrine.

You can see the issue with this, I would think. If previous Mormons were believing false teachings, what false teachings are Mormons believing today?

 

[Catholic20064]

How do we have any idea how your scriptures are interpreted? There is nothing about Heavenly Mother in any standard work, but it is clear that is a doctrine to the Mormon Church. It is equally clear that Mormons believe God was once a man, but you can’t find that in Mormon scripture. Mormons use the standard works as a way to shield themselves against criticism about doctrines which embarrass them or take them out of the mainstream of Christian thought. When the Mormons create a catechism which clearly outlines their doctrine, I will believe they are serious about letting the world know what they really believe. Mormons want to be able to deny what they believe by keeping it hidden from those on the outside. We ex-Mormons have been on the inside and understand the game they are playing.

 

[Mark77]

The one true Church was founded by Jesus Christ, not a guy named Smith?

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Christian55]

While Finrock’s explanation was long and concise, it contains a definition of Mormon doctrine that only came about relatively recently. Prior to this definition, your church taught that what your prophets taught, was God-give truth. It is only in the face of changing doctrine, and back-peddling away from blatant non-Christian and/or disproven teachings, that your church has come out and given a definition. Which, definition is not canonized in your scriptures, so it is possible for the definition of what constitutes mormon doctrine to change.

Meanwhile, the teachings your church is hoping to jetison were taught by your leaders, believed by the Mormons who were under these leaders, and in turn have been taught, and continue, to be taught in your classrooms. What you have attempted to do here, in responding to Christian55, is to deny what previous Mormons have been taught, and believed, as Mormon doctrine.

You can see the issue with this, I would think. If previous Mormons were believing false teachings, what false teachings are Mormons believing today?

Thank you RebeccaJ. Very well said.

 

[Christian55]

. . . . . in regards to adam-god theory offered by our late leader brigham young.
"we hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the general authorities of past generations. such, for instance, is the adam-god theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine

" (president kimball, 1976, emphasis added). . . . .

. . . . . the title “ancient of days” as used in daniel in the old testament, and in the doctrine & covenants, cannot or should not, be confused as teaching the adam-god theory. This isn’t what the lds church understands these verses to mean and it isn’t how those scriptures are interpreted by us. We believe “ancient of days” is a title, given to adam, he being the first man and the father of all mortals. Unlike much of christianity, we honor adam in his position as the father of the human race. Because we understand that title to be speaking of adam in no way indicates that we believe adam is god.

**
You’ve got to be kidding me, right? So, you are actually claiming that Brigham Young’s belief that Adam is god, is in no way connected to Joseph Smith calling Adam “The Ancient of Days?” In the Bible, to Whom does the “Ancient of Days” refer? Does the “Ancient of Days” refer to Adam?**

. . . . . may i suggest that in the future, rather than rely on a source that is anti-“some religion”, be reasonable and charitable by asking the adherents of said religion on what they understand and believe. . . . .

This is not about “anti-some religion,” as you call it. This is not about winning or losing a debate. This is about truth-God’s truth-the truth that leads to salvation. People’s souls are at stake here.

I’ve been reading your Posts on different Threads. I’m starting to see a pattern.

You participated on the Thread entitled, “What do you think is the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians?”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=334789&highlight=Finrock&page=12

After Anna Scott entered Post #616, to you, about a very disturbing experience with the Mormon Church, you vanished from that Thread and started a new one entitled, “A Response to Anna Scott,” forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=347204.

From what I can tell, Anna eventually found out about the new Thread and wrote about how disturbing it was for you to start this new Thread, without telling her. See Anna Scott’s Post #431, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=347204.

Then on the Thread, “What is the book of Mormon all about”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=345685, when I posted links to the Adam/God doctrine, and the failed prophecies of Joseph Smith, and the fact that the LDS have been performing posthumous baptisms in the Mormon Temple using names of Jews who died in Nazi Concentration Camps; you left that Thread without responding to any of these issues. You stopped posting.

So, I found you here. You’ve started a new Thread-not at all surprising. It is difficult to run from truth, my friend. It eventually catches up with you.

I pray that God’s Truth finds you soon, and that you will listen to that “small still voice.”

 

[Christian55]

How do we have any idea how your scriptures are interpreted? There is nothing about Heavenly Mother in any standard work, but it is clear that is a doctrine to the Mormon Church. It is equally clear that Mormons believe God was once a man, but you can’t find that in Mormon scripture. Mormons use the standard works as a way to shield themselves against criticism about doctrines which embarrass them or take them out of the mainstream of Christian thought. When the Mormons create a catechism which clearly outlines their doctrine, I will believe they are serious about letting the world know what they really believe. Mormons want to be able to deny what they believe by keeping it hidden from those on the outside. We ex-Mormons have been on the inside and understand the game they are playing.

Thank you for your Post!

 

[Christian55]

The one true Church was founded by Jesus Christ, not a guy named Smith?

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

Agreed!

 

[ricko]

This means that "[o]rdinarily, the [President of the Church] acts in concert with his counselors in the First Presidency and the quorum of the Twelve apostles -those who hold, with the [President], the “keys of the kingdom”

The LDS holds the keys of the kingdom only in their dreams. Holy Scripture says that the Church founded by Christ has those keys, the Catholic Church and scripture never said that He would take them away.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening RebeccaJ! I hope you are well today.

While Finrock’s explanation was long and concise, it contains a definition of Mormon doctrine that only came about relatively recently. Prior to this definition, your church taught that what your prophets taught, was God-give truth. It is only in the face of changing doctrine, and back-peddling away from blatant non-Christian and/or disproven teachings, that your church has come out and given a definition. Which, definition is not canonized in your scriptures, so it is possible for the definition of what constitutes mormon doctrine to change.

Not quite, the pattern for how doctrine was to be defined and made binding was established very early in the history of the Church. This isn’t a new definition. It is the definition that has been in place since pretty much the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I provided the relevant scriptures in Doctrine and Covenants.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was established in 1830. Although, this did not mean that all things regarding the governing of the Church, were yet revealed. However, there were some incidences in the Church very early on that were the catalyst for establishing the governing bodies of the Church and particularly how doctrine becomes binding and official for the whole Church. In the very beginning, there were no established rules or order, really, in regards to revelation. New members of the Church often exhibited what I will call “chaotic” revelationary tendencies. Some of these episodes disturbed Joseph, because they seemed to lack proper order and direction. One case in particular, was when Hiram Page claimed that through the use of a stone he was receiving revelation for the Church. It is recorded that as a response to this, Joseph prayed and received revelation establishing the idea that things pertaining to doctrine and revelation must be done in order and by common consent of the Church. Later, often as a response to some event, Joseph and the early church leaders, received revelation establishing the governing bodies of the Church, and confirming that the Presidency of the Church along with the Quorum of the Twelve, would establish doctrine by unanimous decision. But, all of this was done very early in Church history. The notion that this is some new development is simply incorrect.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Good evening Catholic20064. I hope you are doing well today!

How do we have any idea how your scriptures are interpreted? There is nothing about Heavenly Mother in any standard work, but it is clear that is a doctrine to the Mormon Church. It is equally clear that Mormons believe God was once a man, but you can’t find that in Mormon scripture. Mormons use the standard works as a way to shield themselves against criticism about doctrines which embarrass them or take them out of the mainstream of Christian thought. When the Mormons create a catechism which clearly outlines their doctrine, I will believe they are serious about letting the world know what they really believe. Mormons want to be able to deny what they believe by keeping it hidden from those on the outside. We ex-Mormons have been on the inside and understand the game they are playing.

I appreciate your sentiments, although they are off-base. In truth, Mormon doctrine is found in the Standard Works, official proclamations and declarations, and the Articles of Faith. This is and has been the established place to find official, true, and binding doctrine of the Church.

The idea of Heavenly Mother has been confirmed and essentially canonized by at least two official statements. In 1909 the First Presidency, wrote an official statement called, “The Origin of Man” which taught that we have a Heavenly Father and Mother. And, then later, in 1995 the Church released an official proclamation, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”, which also confirms the teaching of heavenly parents. These official declarations and proclamations are sources of established doctrine. So, no, you can’t find Heavenly Mother in the Standard Works, but you can find it taught in official proclamations and declarations, which are also good sources of Mormon doctrine.

As far as Heavenly Father once being a man…well…first, not all Mormons believe that to be doctrine (because there is nothing that requires them too!). Second, it isn’t found in the official sources of doctrine, because it isn’t official and binding doctrine. That was my whole point in making this thread was to clarify that very idea. It would seem to me that a critic of the Church could make a much better argument dealing with the true, official, and binding doctrines of the Church instead of tearing down strawmen. Give it a shot. Use as your source of criticism only the accepted sources of Mormon doctrine, namely the Standard Works, official proclamations and declarations, and the Articles of Faith.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Good evening Christian55. I hope you are doing well.

You’ve got to be kidding me, right? So, you are actually claiming that Brigham Young’s belief that Adam is god, is in no way connected to Joseph Smith calling Adam “The Ancient of Days?” In the Bible, to Whom does the “Ancient of Days” refer? Does the “Ancient of Days” refer to Adam?

Indeed, I am not kidding you . Joseph never taught that Adam is God. The Church of Jesus Christ understands the Ancient of Days to be a title given to Adam. It doesn’t refer to Adam being our God. The Church understands that the “Ancient of Days” refered to in the Bible, is Adam. Perhaps when you read the scripture in D&C 116 that you referenced earlier, you missed the part explaining this. But, here is the scripture:

“Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet” (D&C 116:1).

The rest of your post is conjecture and an ad hominem which, if I may be forthright, is irrelevant and pointless to respond to.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Hello again, RebeccaJ.

I missed this earlier post of yours…

Not everything a Bishop teaches is doctrine, but Catholics have a general expectation that what they are being taught is doctrinally correct.

Does it matter to any Mormon if what their leaders teach is doctrinally correct? And how would you know, as Mormon doctrine can, and does, change? Such as the Adam-God teaching of Brigham Young that has already been brought up. Is this a doctrinally correct teaching (according to your church)?

Also, what of the rites in your temples and what they teach? These are not in your scriptures.

Most of your questions have answers in posts 1 and 2. Further clarification about Adam-God theory was provided in, I believe, post 5. Adam-God never was or is doctrine of the Church. The source of Mormon doctrine isn’t limited to just the scriptures. I brought this out in posts 1 and 2. You can find Church doctrine in the Standard Works, official proclamations and declarations, and the Articles of Faith. All doctrines taught in the temple, though, are found in the scriptures. Policies and procedures do not necessarily constitute doctrine. Nonetheless, procedures on how to perform temple ordinances are found in officially published material.

Thanks for your questions!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

Good evening RebeccaJ! I hope you are well today.

But, all of this was done very early in Church history. The notion that this is some new development is simply incorrect.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Hello Finrock:

Are revelations being received by the prophets today? If so, why are they not included in the Doctrine and Covenants?

As indicated in the chapter titled “What Is Scripture?” there are two major types of scripture in the Church today: (1) the canonized scripture, which is written and contained in the standard works of the Church (Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) and (2) the spoken or written noncanonized scripture that comes initially as the General Authorities speak or write when “moved upon by the power of the Holy Ghost.” Of course, this latter type of scripture, which is initially revealed through the mind of the General Authority, is often subsequently written down and published throughout the Church, either in conference reports, Church magazines, or other publications of the Church.

Both types of scripture are equally binding upon the membership of the Church; therefore, it is not necessary that every new revelation or inspired teaching of the Prophet or of the other General Authorities be published as part of the canonized scripture such as the Doctrine and Covenants. (“Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants”, Daniel H. Ludlow, Deseret Book Co, 1978, p.24-25)

Gospel doctrine is synonymous with the truths of salvation. It comprises the tenets, teachings, and true theories found in the scriptures; it includes the principles, precepts, and revealed philosophies of pure religion; prophetic dogmas, maxims, and views are embraced within its folds; the Articles of Faith are part and portion of it, as is every inspired utterance of the Lord’s agents (“Mormon Doctrine”, Bruce R McConkie, Deseret Book Co, 1966, p.204)

There is scripture other than the standard works. Some people get the idea that the only scripture we have in the Church today is that which is contained in the four standard Church works. Now, the Lord in a revelation has spoken of something else [which He] defined [as] scripture. I read from the sixty-eighth section of the Doctrine and Covenants. This was a revelation given through the Prophet Joseph Smith. [The Lord] said this: “And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—and this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” (D&C 68:2-4.) (70-11) (“The Teachings of Harold B. Lee”, Deseret Book Co, 1996, p.148, bold original to the publication)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts four books as scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These books are called the standard works of the Church. The inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted as scripture. (“Gospel Principles”, lds.org, retrieved July 3, 2009)

Do you define a difference between scripture and doctrine?