bcspace wrote:If by the word "doctrine" we mean "official teachings of the Church," then bcspace is perhaps somewhat correct. However, that would mean that we cannot point to the scriptures to define doctrine--rather, doctrine would be the interpretations of scripture officially sanctioned by the Church.
It seems clear to me, however, that the Church uses the word "doctrine" in a manner that means far more than simply "official teachings of the Church." I addressed this problem of the term "doctrine" in a recent issue of Element. You can read a portion of it here: "The Challenges of Mormons Defining Mormon Doctrine for Mormons; or, Is It Mormon Doctrine that Mormon Doctrine Is True?"
This is absolutely incorrect. Doctrine resides in the scriptures (and modern revelation) but only the prophets can interpret it or "tease it out" so to speak. Therefore, doctrine is more important than scripture. See also 2 Peter 1:20
For example, according to John 3:5 a man must be born of the water and the spirit to enter into the kindgom of heaven. The LDS Church interprets water as water baptism. Most of the Protestant and Evangelical churches interpret it as physical birth. One would not know what LDS doctrine is on the subject without seeing a publication on it. Hence, published doctrine is more important than scripture and this is the way the Church has always considered it and it's foundation is the notion of the Restorration and the need for living prophets and apostles. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not really accept the Restoration or the need for living prophets.
So with the LDS Church, every real, virtual, and memorized copy of the scriptures on planet earth could disappear and we would still be good because we have modern prophets.
bcspace, can you please give me a precise definition of the term "doctrine"? What does it mean for the "doctrine" to "reside" in the scriptures?
You want to say that I am "absolutely incorrect" and yet offer nothing to show that I am incorrect. To the contrary, you're example supports my argument. If "doctrine" is defined as being the official teachings of the Church, then one cannot say that the LDS canon is doctrine, or what is written in the LDS canon is doctrine. For example, the revealed canonical Word of Wisdom teaches that beer--mild drinks made with barley--is good. However, the current doctrine (teachings of the Church) teaches that all drinks containing alcohol are to be avoided.
To say that the doctrine "resides" in the scriptures, but can only be known as they are interpreted or changed by current Church leaders, leaves discussion of doctrine being inherently in the scriptures a vacuous and hollow point.
In other words, you cannot point to the LDS canon and say that someone can just turn to them to understand the doctrine (teachings) of the Church. As you have pointed out, by just going to the scriptures a myriad of different, contradicting, and voided teachings can be found. Rather for someone to find out what the Church's doctrines are, they cannot appeal to the LDS canon, but instead have to go to sanctioned interpretations by current Church leaders. Because they cannot go to scripture, but must to go to official (published) interpretations, the only source for doctrine is in the official publications. This is pretty simple logic.
Now of course, as I address in my published article, if you realize that "doctrine" in the Church means much more than official teachings, then there is a whole bigger problem to deal with.
bcspace, I have addressed all of these issues already in Element here. I really recommend that you give it a read and am interested in your thoughts on it.
Also, Charles Harrell's book "This Is My Doctrine": The Development of Mormon Theology will be available June 17th, and pre-orders began on Amazon today. Harrell does an amazing job in showing how LDS teachings (doctrine) have changed over time and highlight the problems that arise with your line of thinking. I have been working on this book as an editor for almost a year now and am very excited to see it out soon.