Announcement re "Doctrine"

[_skippy the dead]

There's a discussion going on over on MAD about this announcement about what is defined as "doctrine". Some relevant parts of the announcement:

* Not 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. 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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

* Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Since I've been banned over there, I wanted to chime in over here, and see what folks had to say.

juliann's [smug] comment on the announcement was:

There was a lot of buzz about the PBS special. What I haven't seen anyone take into account is the reaction of the church and what is coming out from them. Statements like this will push the antis back into their default fundamentalist position..."false prophet!". That is where they always end up anyway.

It was good but I wasn't as impressed with the PBS special as I thought I would be...I am very impressed with the church response.

For starters, it seems to me that this statement is meant to defuse much of what's being brought up in coverage of Romney's candidacy, in addition to some of what was discussed in the PBS documentary. For instance, I've seen mention in the media of the Mormon belief of the location of the Garden of Eden, various statements of Brigham Young, etc. And yes, they do sound wacky when they're brought up.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if this announcement is saying that "doctrine" is basically that which is found in the four standard works plus declarations and proclamations and the Articles of Faith, and that the leadership (the top 15) establish "doctrine" that is consistent with those official works. If so, then this seems like very conservative position to take, and it seems to limit the role of the president as a "prophet, seer and revelator". [side note: is this announcement binding on the First Presidency, since it was issued via the "Newsroom"?] It also seems to devalue much of what has issued from the leadership for the past 175+ years.

And if this announcement is meant to limit "doctrine" to the definition provided, then the transformation of the WoW from a guideline to a commandment that determines temple worthiness is suspect. How can that be doctrine if there's no proclamation or declaration to make it so? It's obviously not consistent with the D&C.

What effect do you suppose this has on pretty much anything that's issued from the leadership that's not in the standard works?

[_Dr. Shades]

Wow, what an announcement!

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if this announcement is saying that "doctrine" is basically that which is found in the four standard works plus declarations and proclamations and the Articles of Faith, and that the leadership (the top 15) establish "doctrine" that is consistent with those official works.

That's exactly right. It's one of the core tenets of Internet Mormonism. Further evidence that FARMS and FAIR are far more influential on LDS thought, doctrine, and practice than the prophets, seers, and revelators.

Of course, Brigham Young and Bruce R. McKonkie are rolling in their graves, but that's O.K., they're dead prophets anyway.

If so, then this seems like very conservative position to take, and it seems to limit the role of the president as a "prophet, seer and revelator.". . It also seems to devalue much of what has issued from the leadership for the past 175+ years.

Right again. It's a godsend for the Internet Mormons, since they'll now have even more plausible deniability.

And if this announcement is meant to limit "doctrine" to the definition provided, then the transformation of the WoW from a guideline to a commandment that determines temple worthiness is suspect. How can that be doctrine if there's no proclamation or declaration to make it so? It's obviously not consistent with the D&C.

Which is just the type of thing with which we critics will still have our hands busy pointing out.

What effect do you suppose this has on pretty much anything that's issued from the leadership that's not in the standard works?

It'll have absolutely no effect whatsoever. That statement was issued merely to get the media and the critics off their backs, nothing more. The rank and file, however, will be expected to "follow the prophet" just like nothing had changed. In fact, the Chapel Mormons probably won't get the message at all, since it won't be read aloud over any pulpits or anything.

Statements like this will push the antis back into their default fundamentalist position..."false prophet!". That is where they always end up anyway.

Is it just me, or does Juliann always end all of her posts with something like, "The antis won't have any ammunition left after this!" or something similar?

[_skippy the dead]

Statements like this will push the antis back into their default fundamentalist position..."false prophet!". That is where they always end up anyway.

Is it just me, or does Juliann always end all of her posts with something like, "The antis won't have any ammunition left after this!" or something similar?

I suppose it's like a testimony - if you repeat it enough times, it must be true.

[_The Nehor]

This is new?

[_beastie]

This doesn't change the fact that God is apparently not very good at clearly communicating the ideas he'd like his prophets and apostles to teach members of his "one true church".

Who care whether or not it's officially "doctrine"? They're still teaching false ideas over the pulpit, while functioning in their leadership callings, and sharing these ideas in the name of Jesus Christ.

So God only tries to be clear when something is "doctrine"? He doesn't care about regular old "teachings"?

Maybe it's just been too long, but I don't recall a single active real life Mormon who made a big distinction between "doctrines" and regular old "teachings". They felt bound to follow ALL OF IT.

[_truth dancer]

This document is basically what I have been saying for years...

There is no official doctrine.

That which is written in scripture can and has changed.

Scripture can be interpreted by prophets but they are just sharing their opinion, so anyone can come up with anything they like, so long as they are a believer.

What was considered official doctrine in the past can at any time be changed, altered, added upon, or eliminated.

No one can question church doctrine because no one really knows what it is. Not saying there aren't some guesses but there is little consistency and it can all change at a moments notice!

Holding to this pattern is the only way for the church to go forth, in my opinion.

~dancer~

[_beastie]

That's true, TD - but what's odd about this evolution is that it seems to undercut the idea of the Grand Apostasy and the need for a restoration of all things - including plain and precious truths - from the get-go.

Do you remember the long discussion I had with Ben on Z about postmodernism? I think this is what he was saying. It's not the content of the revelations that matter, but the vehicle of revelation, at least that's what I understood from his comments. He posts here now and then, maybe he will put in his two cents. (well, let's give him a quarter ;)

I admit that doesn't make sense to me, because the point of revelation is the content. Isn't God telling you something that is "true"?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Beastie...

That's true, TD - but what's odd about this evolution is that it seems to undercut the idea of the Grand Apostasy and the need for a restoration of all things - including plain and precious truths - from the get-go.

Absolutely!

This new idea of no doctrine is in complete opposition to the whole idea of a restoration of all things.

If there is anything like... "the doctrines of man mingled with scripture," this is it!

If there is no doctrine then what in the world is restored? (Of course the answer is the Priesthood and authority... but if there is no doctrine then what is the purpose? It all makes no sense to me)!

Do you remember the long discussion I had with Ben on Z about postmodernism? I think this is what he was saying. It's not the content of the revelations that matter, but the vehicle of revelation, at least that's what I understood from his comments. He posts here now and then, maybe he will put in his two cents. (well, let's give him a quarter ;)

Yes, I remember the conversation and agree with your understanding.

It completely makes no sense to me. So what if the authority is restored if there is nothing restored by the authority? So what if the authority is restored if no one can figure out what is truth? So what if the authority is restored if everything keeps changing, and no one can tell from one minute to the next what God is trying to teach via prophets with authority? So what if the authority is restored but the prophets who believe they are speaking with this authority, may or may not be speaking truth, and can't tell when they are or are not being inspired with the authority.

It all made me dizzy!

How can anyone (media or otherwise), discuss the doctrine of the LDS church if there is no doctrine?

I mean seriously, there seems to be nothing at all that can't be changed, altered, dismissed, or eliminated.

Seems odd in a church claiming to have Christ at its helm.

~dancer~

[_Polygamy Porter]

My personal interpretation of the WoW as contained in the "standard work, is that hot drinks are verbotten.

I like my coffee either cold(over ice), blended with ice, or warm.

I like my soup and hot chocolate warm.

The only hot liquid I enjoy is a shower or bath and I avoid drinking that.


Additionally, beer is a mild drink, and since it was not specified in the WoW by name, I have received a personal interpretation that makes it OK.

The temple ceremony is not contained in any standard works, and my person interpretation tells me it was base on the Masons and I refuse to believe it is from God.

Would I fit in a ward with such public beliefs? Drinking coffee at early morning PEC meetings and drinking a few beers at ward parties?

Additionally when the ward temple leader harasses me about my lack of temple attendance, would it be well received if I tell him that I have received a personal witness that the temple is not doctrinal and only being based on Masonic rites, I feel it is not necessary?

Lastly, would my wife be well received if she wore sleeveless tops and mid thigh dresses to church because she did not find anything about wearing the masonic Jesus jammies 24/7/365 in the standard works and received her own personal interpretation that the garments are not doctrinal?

THE ANSWER IS NO.

The statement by TSCC about "receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine", is a lie. It is a lie because members are not allowed to be individuals, you must conform to the status quo or you will be ostracized. From white shirts and shaved faces to white garments.

They speak out of both sides of their mouths:
"receive your own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine"
"So long as it falls within the established status quo"

[_Inconceivable]

What personally vexes me is that there are what appear to be righteous principles mixed within the clay and iron.


Bottom line, it makes the Mormon god a liar and certainly a God of confusion - One that makes little distinction between rocks, bread, fish or serpents.