What is Considered Doctrine in the LDS Church

[JLFuller]

First let me say what is NOT doctrine. That is something often confusing to many who don’t know. Maybe the most confusing thing is that the Jourrnal of Discourse is often cited. So is The history of the Church. Joseph Smith didn’t write that by the way. It is a compilation of writngs and sermons of many church leaders written down by those present. Sometimes it was accurate and sometimes not. People should not consider these publications as always doctrinally correct. Some think opinions of long dead prophets and church leaders are doctrine - they are not. Opinions are just opinions and are not binding. Some think the things such as blood atonement, black men were not worthy in the pre-mortal existance and a few other such things are doctrine. They are not. Doctrine, according to Gorden B Hinckley (late president) is the consitution of the Church. It is tailored to the times and conditions of the people. That means the only people who can declare doctrine are the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency when acting as a quorum. If one General Authority makes a comment but there is nothing sustaining his comments found in official church publications or training manuals then it is just opinion. Doctrine is what is found in offical church publications, conference reports, and pronouncements coming from Church Headquarters in Salt Lake such as the Doctrine On the Family: An Announcement to the World. We beleive that God continues to talk to his children and that the canon is not closed but open. As such He will continue to give us directions and guidance and reveal His words to us through His living prophets.

 

[JLFuller]

First let me say what is NOT doctrine. One of the most often quoted sources erroeupsly quotesd as a source is The Journal Of Discourse. Some also quote The History of the Church as authoritative. Both are excellent historical sources but they are not always good doctrinal soures. Both are a compilation of writngs and sermons of many church leaders written down by those present. Sometimes they were accurate and sometimes not.

People should not consider these publications as always doctrinally correct. Some think opinions of long dead prophets and church leaders are doctrine - they are not. Opinions are just opinions and are not binding. Some think the things such as blood atonement, black men were not worthy in the pre-mortal existance and a few other such things are doctrine. They are not. Doctrine, according to Gorden B Hinckley (late president) is the consitution of the Church. Doctrine is tailored to the times and conditions of the people. That means the only people who can declare doctrine are the Quorum of the Twelve when acting as a quorum and the First Presidency.

If one General Authority makes a comment but there is nothing sustaining his comments found in official church publications or training manuals then it is just opinion. Doctrine is what is found in offical church publications, conference reports, and pronouncements coming from Church Headquarters in Salt Lake such as the Doctrine On the Family: An Announcement to the World. We beleive that God continues to talk to his children and that the canon is not closed but open. As such He will continue to give us directions and guidance and reveal His words to us through His living prophets.

 

[JLFuller]

One thing I should have noted was that doctrine changes because of the widening membership around the world. Members are faced with having to adapt to the realities they are faced with in different cultures and political regimes. Doctrine has to take these new realities into account. What works in one part of the world may not work elsewhere.

 

[sweetnay]

So in other words, LDS teachings are not eternal but trendy–“adapting” to the latest cultural sway. Sounds more like a corporation trying to survive than an “unchanging god”. I wouldn’t be surprised if they offer some sort of priesthood to women/gays in the near future as part of their ever-evolving “doctrine” But that’s ok, apparently a living “prophet” trumps a dead one.

 

[JLFuller]

So in other words, LDS teachings are not eternal but trendy–“adapting” to the latest cultural sway. Sounds more like a corporation trying to survive than an “unchanging god”. I wouldn’t be surprised if they offer some sort of priesthood to women/gays in the near future as part of their ever-evolving “doctrine” But that’s ok, apparently a living “prophet” trumps a dead one.

If you can drop the sarcasm for a second and think about this: Is it possible that God has in fact opened the canon again and if so would you want to know about it? If so *how *would you get the word if it wasn’t through continued revelation to His prophets? Given prophets are His only authorized voice and what they say in God’s name *is *scripture where would you find it? I doubt the New York Times editorial board is the first place you would think to look. No, I suggest one would try to find a prophet. Given there are people who claim to be prophets everywhere, how would you know which one is real and which ones were phoney?

So the questions then become: #1. Is it it possible that the canon is again open? #2 Who is God’s real prophet? #3 Where do I find him? If this is of interst to you, may I suggest you first get on your knees and ask God. Next start looking around and as you come across someone who claims to be a prophet listen for that still small voice inside that tells you this is one of God’s true prophets. Read what he says and listen to him and take your findings to God in prayer and humble supplication having faith that He will answer you. The truth of the thing is found in God’s reply to your sincere prayers. Of course I believe I know who he is but everyone has to make that determination themselves.

 

[RebeccaJ]

First let me say what is NOT doctrine. That is something often confusing to many who don’t know. Maybe the most confusing thing is that the Jourrnal of Discourse is often cited. So is The history of the Church. Joseph Smith didn’t write that by the way. It is a compilation of writngs and sermons of many church leaders written down by those present.

The JofD contains the sermons of someone you consider to be a prophet. The history of the church was written by Smith. A portion of it is in your Pearl of Great Price.

Sometimes it was accurate and sometimes not. People should not consider these publications as always doctrinally correct. Some think opinions of long dead prophets and church leaders are doctrine - they are not. Opinions are just opinions and are not binding.

Well that’s the rub isn’t it. You follow someone today who you believe is a prophet. How are you certain that what he is telling you is nothing more than his opinion?

Don’t you think that the mormons who lived under Young and Smith believed they were being taught something more than opinion. What would these people think of your view today?

Some think the things such as blood atonement, black men were not worthy in the pre-mortal existance and a few other such things are doctrine. They are not.

They are considered doctrinally correct though, no?

Doctrine, according to Gorden B Hinckley (late president) is the consitution of the Church. It is tailored to the times and conditions of the people.

This is a marked difference to Catholicism. We believe that Christian doctrine was defined by Jesus as taught by His Apostles. We do not believe that any can come along later and create new doctrine.

That means the only people who can declare doctrine are the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency when acting as a quorum. If one General Authority makes a comment but there is nothing sustaining his comments found in official church publications or training manuals then it is just opinion.

This does not align with what you say next…

Doctrine is what is found in offical church publications, conference reports, and pronouncements coming from Church Headquarters in Salt Lake such as the Doctrine On the Family: An Announcement to the World.

JoD was a publication authorized by your church. It contains the conference, and other sermons, of BY. In one sentence you say this is not LDS doctrine. In another, you say it is.

We beleive that God continues to talk to his children and that the canon is not closed but open. As such He will continue to give us directions and guidance and reveal His words to us through His living prophets.

We believe that Jesus Christ is the Perfect Word of God. There is nothing to be added or taken from this Perfection.

Jesus gave us the gift of the Holy Spirit. We believe He guides us, His Church, and brings us to Salvation and everlasting life. He also gives us graces that bring us to a greater understanding of Jesus Christ. Who is the Word of God.

 

[JLFuller]

Rebecca
The point of the post is correct inaccurate assumptions about what is and is not LDS doctrine and to differentiate between what is just opinion and what comes form God. I thought I did that. If I didn’t then maybe I ought to try again. My source is found here. It is a paper presented by Robert Millet former Dean of Religious Education at BYU. He has footnoted his sources very well. It is important to some people who may read this and sincerely want to know. It is not brief but 21 pages long and goes into great detail.

Let me put this in a nutshell. It is brief because most people want only a brief sketch. Offical LDS Doctrine comes only from the current LDS leadership. Doctrine that comes from the earliest days of the church does not always represent the Church’s doctrine today. Doctrine from today may not always represent the doctrine of the Church a hundred years from now but there are fundamental doctrines that do not change. In order to know what they are one has to look to the current Church leadership. We believe God continues to talk and guide to His children.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca
The point of the post is correct inaccurate assumptions about what is and is not LDS doctrine and to differentiate between what is just opinion and what comes form God. I thought I did that. If I didn’t then maybe I ought to try again. My source is found here. It is a paper presented by Robert Millet former Dean of Religious Education at BYU. He has footnoted his sources very well. It is important to some people who may read this and sincerely want to know. It is not brief but 21 pages long and goes into great detail.

Let me put this in a nutshell. It is brief because most people want only a brief sketch. Offical LDS Doctrine comes only from the current LDS leadership. Doctrine that comes from the earliest days of the church does not always represent the Church’s doctrine today. Doctrine from today may not always represent the doctrine of the Church a hundred years from now but there are fundamental doctrines that do not change. In order to know what they are one has to look to the current Church leadership. We believe God continues to talk and guide to His children.

What you say, no matter the source, does not align to what really happens. Or, has happened. There is no precedence for how LDS define doctrine today. It is more along the lines, that not even your definition of doctrine is doctrinal, and so can be viewed as the opinion of your leaders today. Tomorrow, eh, stay tuned.

If these things help you keep the ever changing teachings of mormonism straight, I can understand why you would use them.

 

[BartBurk]

Rebecca
The point of the post is correct inaccurate assumptions about what is and is not LDS doctrine and to differentiate between what is just opinion and what comes form God. I thought I did that. If I didn’t then maybe I ought to try again. My source is found here. It is a paper presented by Robert Millet former Dean of Religious Education at BYU. He has footnoted his sources very well. It is important to some people who may read this and sincerely want to know. It is not brief but 21 pages long and goes into great detail.

Let me put this in a nutshell. It is brief because most people want only a brief sketch. Offical LDS Doctrine comes only from the current LDS leadership. Doctrine that comes from the earliest days of the church does not always represent the Church’s doctrine today. Doctrine from today may not always represent the doctrine of the Church a hundred years from now but there are fundamental doctrines that do not change. In order to know what they are one has to look to the current Church leadership. We believe God continues to talk and guide to His children.

I can see how practices can change. I cannot see how doctrine or theology can change. I think the best example is the King Follet sermon in which Joseph Smith claimed the Father was once a man like us. Joseph Smith also claimed that God the Father had a Father as did all other Gods previous to that. Aside from being completely illogical, it is very difficult to find a Mormon who will admit that is doctrine even though I was taught it from 1972 on when I converted to the Mormon Church. In the last 15-20 years that doctrine is out of fashion in some circles, but it was clearly taught before then. It seems to me that Mormon doctrine is based on what will best help them win new converts. If a doctrine stops people from converting, the Mormons jettison it. Hard to nail jello to a wall I guess. Why don’t the Mormons just write out was is official doctrine? Maybe they would claim it to only be the Articles of Faith. That would be fine, but please let everyone know so that we can discuss these things authoritatively with you. It’s hard to have a discussion with people who don’t know what the Mormon Church teaches because the LDS Church won’t tell them.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

First let me say what is NOT doctrine. That is something often confusing to many who don’t know. Maybe the most confusing thing is that the Jourrnal of Discourse is often cited. So is The history of the Church. Joseph Smith didn’t write that by the way. It is a compilation of writngs and sermons of many church leaders written down by those present. Sometimes it was accurate and sometimes not. People should not consider these publications as always doctrinally correct. Some think opinions of long dead prophets and church leaders are doctrine - they are not. Opinions are just opinions and are not binding. Some think the things such as blood atonement, black men were not worthy in the pre-mortal existance and a few other such things are doctrine. They are not. Doctrine, according to Gorden B Hinckley (late president) is the consitution of the Church. It is tailored to the times and conditions of the people. That means the only people who can declare doctrine are the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency when acting as a quorum. If one General Authority makes a comment but there is nothing sustaining his comments found in official church publications or training manuals then it is just opinion. Doctrine is what is found in offical church publications, conference reports, and pronouncements coming from Church Headquarters in Salt Lake such as the Doctrine On the Family: An Announcement to the World. We beleive that God continues to talk to his children and that the canon is not closed but open. As such He will continue to give us directions and guidance and reveal His words to us through His living prophets.

What is God prophetising to them in this day and age?

 

[JLFuller]

I can see how practices can change. I cannot see how doctrine or theology can change. I think the best example is the King Follet sermon in which Joseph Smith claimed the Father was once a man like us. Joseph Smith also claimed that God the Father had a Father as did all other Gods previous to that. Aside from being completely illogical, it is very difficult to find a Mormon who will admit that is doctrine even though I was taught it from 1972 on when I converted to the Mormon Church. In the last 15-20 years that doctrine is out of fashion in some circles, but it was clearly taught before then. It seems to me that Mormon doctrine is based on what will best help them win new converts. If a doctrine stops people from converting, the Mormons jettison it. Hard to nail jello to a wall I guess. Why don’t the Mormons just write out was is official doctrine? Maybe they would claim it to only be the Articles of Faith. That would be fine, but please let everyone know so that we can discuss these things authoritatively with you. It’s hard to have a discussion with people who don’t know what the Mormon Church teaches because the LDS Church won’t tell them.

Bart
I don’t know that the Church has dropped this as doctrine. Joseph is the source and contnues to be. Many people get confused because they do not see every bit of teaching or doctrine discussed all the time. But these same people do not always accept that we teach doctrine bit by bit and line upon line. We base deeper doctrine upon a solid foundation. We don’t dump someone in under an avalanche of teachings they can’t understand with out understanding the basics first. It is no different than learning anyting else. We learn the basics first and move on. In fact learning never stops.

What doctrine do you wish to discuss Bart that yuou have never had adequately answered? I will do my best.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Bart
I don’t know that the Church has dropped this as doctrine. Joseph is the source and contnues to be. Many people get confused because they do not see every bit of teaching or doctrine discussed all the time. But these same people do not always accept that we teach doctrine bit by bit and line upon line. We base deeper doctrine upon a solid foundation. We don’t dump someone in under an avalanche of teachings they can’t understand with out understanding the basics first. It is no different than learning anyting else. We learn the basics first and move on. In fact learning never stops.

What doctrine do you wishg to discuss Bart that yuou have neverhad adequately answered? I will do my best.

I suggest you search for the posts authored by two LDS posters who frequent this forum. zerinus and mfbukowski. Neither believe that the teachings of Smith in regards to your god having another god, is LDS doctrine.

Probably, they would be able to convince you of this as well.

 

[JLFuller]

What is God prophetising to them in this day and age?

Prophets sometimes tell of events they see coming in the future but more often they explain or correct thnking and the resulting behavior. For example, Joseph Smith saw the US Civl war coming twenty years in advance. But he also brought us the Word of Wisdom which forbids strong drink, smoking and eating too much meat. Today, the most damaging thing to families is pornography and forgetting Christ.

 

[JLFuller]

I suggest you search for the posts authored by two LDS posters who frequent this forum. zerinus and mfbukowski. Neither believe that the teachings of Smith in regards to your god having another god, is LDS doctrine.

Probably, they would be able to convince you of this as well.

I am sure they are nice people but they are not members of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. As such they don’t have the authority to declare what is or is not doctrine. They just provide opinions. They may be referring to a discussion going on among appolists over the nature of God the Father versus the nature of human beings who achieve exaltation otherwise known as salvation or partakers of Christ’s full inheritance as it is known among traditional Christians. As far as whether God the Father had a Father I know of no such final and full doctrine one way or the other excpet for what Joseph said. It is an intersting subject however. What makes it even more intersting is what the early Church fathers had to say about human deification. That is a discussion all its own.

 

[BartBurk]

Bart
I don’t know that the Church has dropped this as doctrine. Joseph is the source and contnues to be. Many people get confused because they do not see every bit of teaching or doctrine discussed all the time. But these same people do not always accept that we teach doctrine bit by bit and line upon line. We base deeper doctrine upon a solid foundation. We don’t dump someone in under an avalanche of teachings they can’t understand with out understanding the basics first. It is no different than learning anyting else. We learn the basics first and move on. In fact learning never stops.

What doctrine do you wish to discuss Bart that yuou have never had adequately answered? I will do my best.

I know Mormon Doctrine, but apparently several LDS who frequent this board don’t. They always specifically deny the doctrines I’ve mentioned. And of course President Hinckley waffled on these doctrines in several interviews he had. I consider myself to be an expert on what Mormons teach having spent 34 years in the Church teaching Elders Quorums, etc. Elders Quorums discuss this stuff all the time, but when it comes on a board like this several Mormons are quick to deny these doctrines are currently taught by the LDS Church. I think it comes under the doctrine called “lying for the Lord.”

 

[PaulDupre]

I am sure they are nice people but they are not members of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. As such they don’t have the authority to declare what is or is not doctrine. They just provide opinions.

But you, it seems, do claim the authority to declare what is doctrine. That is why you started this thread. Why is your authority greater or more proper than that of mfbukowski, who apparently is the last word in all things LDS.

 

[JLFuller]

I know Mormon Doctrine, but apparently several LDS who frequent this board don’t. They always specifically deny the doctrines I’ve mentioned. And of course President Hinckley waffled on these doctrines in several interviews he had. I consider myself to be an expert on what Mormons teach having spent 34 years in the Church teaching Elders Quorums, etc. Elders Quorums discuss this stuff all the time, but when it comes on a board like this several Mormons are quick to deny these doctrines are currently taught by the LDS Church. I think it comes under the doctrine called “lying for the Lord.”

What do you want to know Bart? I am an old timer too but I try to keep up.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Bart
I don’t know that the Church has dropped this as doctrine. Joseph is the source and contnues to be. Many people get confused because they do not see every bit of teaching or doctrine discussed all the time. But these same people do not always accept that we teach doctrine bit by bit and line upon line. We base deeper doctrine upon a solid foundation. We don’t dump someone in under an avalanche of teachings they can’t understand with out understanding the basics first. It is no different than learning anyting else. We learn the basics first and move on. In fact learning never stops.

What doctrine do you wish to discuss Bart that yuou have never had adequately answered? I will do my best.

Abortion? What does your doctrine say about abortion?

 

[JLFuller]

Abortion? What does your doctrine say about abortion?

Abortion is allowed under the following conditions: Life of the mother, rape, incest and upon determination that the child will not be born alive or unable to sustain life more than a very short period such as we see in terribly deformed fetuses.

 

[JLFuller]

But you, it seems, do claim the authority to declare what is doctrine. That is why you started this thread. Why is your authority greater or more proper than that of mfbukowski, who apparently is the last word in all things LDS.

I think I didn’t get my message across then. I don’t declare doctrine. I reported on what it isn’t and where intersted people can find what is. You will not find me making such sweeping statements about doctrine based only on my opinion. I will always provide a source. Sometimes I need reminding though. bukowski is a university student working on his PHd last I heard. He is a good source to engage in discussion but he will not declare something to be doctrine based only on his word either. Ask him. But you are right to call us on it. We do get sloppy. Do ask us to provide our soursces. Keep us honest.