Bcspace probably right about what is LDS Doctrine

[_the narrator]

FYI, this is Robert L. Millet's commentary on Hinckley's words:

During his interview with Larry King President Gordon B. Hinckley responded to a question about the current practice of plural marriage as follows: “It is not the doctrine of the Church.” Note that he did not say, “It is no longer the practice of the Church.” He said it is not the doctrine of the Church. Doctrine means teaching, and plural marriage is simply not taught today. And doctrine is the foundation for practice. By the way, President Hinckley’s brief statement could be interpreted as a prophetic justification of the point I am making.

Despite my disagreements with Millet, I think it is fair to say that he is pretty representative of what the corporate Church teaches today.

[_bcspace]

bcspace, here are Hinckley's words: "I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law."

It's the same quote we've dealt with before. The practice of it now is not doctrinal. Doesn't say anything about the overall doctrine.

Despite my disagreements with Millet, I think it is fair to say that he is pretty representative of what the corporate Church teaches today.

Yes, Millet aside, what I have said represents the Church. GBH did not say that plural marriage is not a doctrine of the Church.

[_the narrator]

Yes, Millet aside, what I have said represents the Church. GBH did not say that plural marriage is not a doctrine of the Church.

What exactly does it mean to be a "doctrine" of the Church? You say that it is "What the Church teaches in it's official publications." But concerning polygamy, what is the "it"? What is the doctrine of polygamy that the Church teaches in it's official publications?

[_bcspace]

Yes, Millet aside, what I have said represents the Church. GBH did not say that plural marriage is not a doctrine of the Church.

What exactly does it mean to be a "doctrine" of the Church? You say that it is "What the Church teaches in it's official publications." But concerning polygamy, what is the "it"? What is the doctrine of polygamy that the Church teaches in it's official publications?

One might start here:

Polygamy (Plural Marriage)

[_the narrator]

One might start here:

Polygamy (Plural Marriage)

Seems like fair response. I am interested, then, in your response to the last couple paragraphs of my recent Element article:

The problem, however, is that, within Mormonism, doctrine is more than just a list of official teachings. As Millet puts it in his original essay: “There is power in doctrine, power in the word, power to heal the wounded soul, power to transform human behavior.” Millet is not alone in defining doctrine as such, and by both Millet’s and Oman’s models for defining doctrine, it seems to be a clear and unambiguous doctrine that doctrine is more than mere teachings. The Church-produced teaching manuals constantly encourage teachers and students to testify of the truthfulness and power of church doctrine. A quick search on the Church’s website brings up hundreds of example from general conference talks from just the last decade or so that define and use the word “doctrine” in a manner that denotes truth and power, not merely “teachings”—in one talk alone, Elder Henry B. Eyring uses the word 45 times with this meaning. In fact, given its occurrence and use in contemporary Church-produced manuals, general conferences, Church statements, and scripture, there is perhaps no doctrine of the church more pronounced than the doctrine that church doctrine is true.
. . . .
Without recognizing the heavy emphasis in church doctrine about church doctrine’s truthfulness, the challenge of defining church doctrine becomes as interesting and simplistic as a student trying to find out what she needs to study for Professor X’s mid-term exam. The challenge arises not when one wishes to know what the LDS Church teaches in its manuals and what how members are to relate to those teachings, but when Mormons try to ascertain what the doctrines of truth and power are—that the Church has a primary (though perhaps not exclusive) claim on truth is, after all, one of the foundational doctrines of the restoration. If it is the case, as Millet and Oman agree, that the doctrines of the Church can and do change, and if the doctrines of the restored Church are true, then how should Mormons understand the truthfulness of these changing doctrines? How do we make sense of a new true doctrine of the restoration contradicting a discontinued true doctrine of the restoration? Is truth relative? Does truth change with time? Is the Mormon corpus of true church doctrine smaller than we might initially think—and if so, what are those doctrines and how do we determine which are true and which are not?

Or, is the church doctrine of church doctrine’s truthfulness not true?

[_Droopy]

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.

In a sense this is true, but even the scriptures themselves are doctrinal only to the degree they are translated correctly, and then, one would be compelled to add, interpreted correctly by each individual reader. The restored Church and Kingdom are the repository of the canon - those scriptures that have been revealed thus far - and the modern Brethren are those anointed at this particular time to interpret, define, and establish doctrine for the Church.

Pointing to the scriptures alone as the final arbiter of doctrine, one should remember, was and is the problem ("Lo, here is the truth! Lo, the truth is there!") regarding the loss of priesthood authority and the fragmenting of primitive Christianity into countless sects, cults, and competing factions.

The scriptures are not the rock of the Church or of salvation, but contemporary, continuing revelation.

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?"

Of course they do. Any number of "doctrines," insights, ideas, or concepts could be true without being established as official doctrine or binding upon the members of the Church as a body.

[_Droopy]

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.

This is an excellent point that could not ever be overemphasized. If we were to lose the scriptures, but prophets were still present among us, we would still have the living oracles, and hence, we would still have priesthood authority and authoritative gospel teachings (official doctrine). If, however, we lose the prophets, the consequence us general apostasy, or a "Great Apostasy" as occurred after the passing of the Apostles.

The consequence, in other words, of the loss of Priesthood authority and living prophets, was "Christianity." Contemporary prophets, so long as they continue, can also restore any lost scripture. The scriptures, on the other hand, cannot restore lost authority or the correct interpretations of their own texts.

[_Jason Bourne]

Droopy and BC, if the scriptures are not the final arbitrare of LDS doctrine then were Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. lee and BH Roberts incorrect when they said that that if someone taught something that disagreed with the standard works it could be set aside? I can't dig these up at the moment but would be happy to later. But I imagine you are familiar with the statements.

[_the narrator]

Droopy and BC, if the scriptures are not the final arbitrare of LDS doctrine then were Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. lee and BH Roberts incorrect when they said that that if someone taught something that disagreed with the standard works it could be set aside? I can't dig these up at the moment but would be happy to later. But I imagine you are familiar with the statements.

I know the J Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie taught this, and am not surprised that Lee said it as well, but I am surprised that Roberts would have said it.

Smith and McConkie assumed that the clear meaning of scripture could be determined at face value, ignorant of the fact that nearly all "false doctrines" (beliefs that they disagreed with) were also backed up by those who felt they were based on a clear reading of scripture.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, and as Charles Harrell does brilliantly in his new book, another problem is that Church leaders have offered numerous varying and contradicting interpretations of the same scriptures over the last 185 years.

[_Droopy]

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.

This is hardly logically obvious. All that is required here is that the LDS canon be considered itself a part of the class "official Church doctrine" and hence, subsumed within the larger doctrinal sphere comprising the entire doctrinal range of the Church' teachings.

More precisely, perhaps, that which is a part of the class of concepts known as "official Church doctrine" would be, not the scriptures per se, but anything and everything within the scriptures that is doctrine, or doctrinally sound. Anything, by definition, within the four standard works that is doctrinal, remains just as doctrinal when classed as "official Church doctrine" as when simply classed as New Testament doctrine, or Book of Mormon doctrine, or Book of Abraham doctrine, or whatever.

The crux of the matter then, is truth, not its provenance. So long as that provenance is divine in nature and has come through the channels of legitimate priesthood authority, whether it is found in the scriptures, in General Conference addresses, First Presidency messages in the Ensign, BYU devotionals, official proclamations, Church educational materials, or anywhere else, if the First Presidency and the Twelve, as a body, have taught it, support it, and it is published by the Church and used in teaching and training, it can be considered doctrine.

The final confirmation is, of course, the witness of the Holy Ghost, which allows us a pure, direct knowledge of the truth, or untruth, of any principle.

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.

But there is a single feature or aspect to this that applies equally to all such drinks, which you have already mentioned - alcohol. This is one of the primary purposes of modern, continuing revelation through living prophets: the continuing clarification and definition of already existing doctrines and counsel.

Alcohol is the defining characteristic the WoW seeks to address, not any particular alcoholic beverage. As culture and social context changes, Church doctrines are refined, expanded and clarified as needed. Without contemporary prophets, this process becomes one of the mere theoretical extraction of doctrine through scriptural exegesis

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.

I'm not following this. Why cannot doctrine be both inherently within the scriptures and inherently within the revealed words of living prophets, as well as inherently within each individual as he/she receives a witness of the truth of principle x, y, and z, but at different times and to different degrees as the gospel develops (line upon line...)?

I see no reason why doctrine cannot reside inherently within the scriptures, while at the same time still needing clarification and elucidation by living, authorized interpreters for the body of the Church. If the words, ideas, and teachings of the scriptures were of an overwhelmingly obvious, unambiguous, and conceptually precise kind, one might hypothetically argue that there would be no need for any further clarification by divinely authorized "revelators" authorized to make such clarifications and refinements. That, however, has clearly never been the case.

The doctrine, in other words, "resides" both in the scriptures and in the living oracles because both the scriptures and the words of the living oracles have their origin in the same source. The true, or correct understanding of the doctrine resident in the scriptures, is not resident in any particular individual, or group of individuals, and hence, the need for living prophets and contemporary "official doctrine" within the restored Kingdom.

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.

Correct, as Joseph found out with the Bible in his own time.

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.

But weak logic, and demonstrative of a misunderstanding of the broader spectrum of LDS doctrine itself. The four standard works are all official LDS publications, and hence, doctrinally established. The problem of interpretation resides in the individual, not in the Church (essentially, the First Presidency and Quorum of The Twelve unitedly) and hence, official interpretations and clarifications of scriptural teachings are there for the membership of the Church in a public way, as a safe doctrinal harbor for those with a greater need to be taught directly as well as for those who already understand but need, as all of us do, the witness and reassurance (as well as various clarifications and/or expansions) of Special Witnesses of Christ in our very own age.

However, each individual is quite capable, through the endowment of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and through living righteously, of acquiring the correct interpretation of any teaching for himself through personal study, reflection, and prayer. This does not, however, happen in a vacuum. We need to be taught, and we need the teachings of the Brethren for both the generation of new ideas that will lead us to our own correct understandings of the scriptures, as well as for clear, concise, and unambiguous testimony as to what is right, what the Lord wants us to be doing, and in what manner he wants us to be doing it at a particular time.

There is public revealed teaching, for the church as a body, and private revelation and learning, for each individual within the Church. Correct doctrinal understanding is inherent in the ultimate source of truth with respect of both forms of reception of knowledge, public and private, and that is the Holy Spirit, and hence, correct "official doctrine" is, properly, inherent within the Church per se.

It is the calling and authority of the Brethren to teach revealed doctrine and principle to the people publicly and in public venues for the Church. We receive revelation for ourselves and others in our immediate environment. Much of this revelation will, of course, overlap. Individuals may receive much revelation regarding the Church, but are not authorized to teach publicly what has not been yet taught publicly by the Lord's authorized servents.