The Challenge of Defining Loyd Ericson?????s Doctrine: Part 1

[_Droopy]

In the Spring and Fall 2007 issue of Element: a Journal of Mormon Philosophy and Theology, Loyd Ericson proposes that the concept of settled, established, or what could be with utility described as “official” doctrine within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints contains what amounts to a body of serious epistemological difficulties regarding the criteria by which official doctrine is defined and established as such. The fundamental claim, decocted and extracted from its supporting philosophical surroundings, is that there is no clear way to discriminate between official, established core doctrine, and other kinds of doctrinally relevant assertions, such as theological speculation, the personal opinions/biases of a General Authority or authorities, or otherwise statements that are conditioned by the time and social environment within which they are made.

At the outset, acceptance of such assertions would appear to pose a serious threat to the Church’s claims to be the definitive and authorized representative of Jesus Christ upon the earth and to contain the “fullness of the gospel” as this is understood in a Church context. It would seem that, at a bare minimum, if a church that claims to be “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30) has no clear and coherent epistemological basis for its claims to be a repository for a body of revealed truth, or any truth, including the moral absolutes that are the ground of the gospel’s conceptualization of human relations and personal worthiness to commune with God and have access to the powers, promises, gifts, endowments and blessings of the gospel, then it has no clear, coherent understanding or concept of just what those truths are or how far they can be trusted as “truths”.

If there are no clear demarcation lines between “official” doctrine and theory, theological speculation, and personal General Authority opinion, then the question of what is “binding” upon the body of the Church as claims, statements, assertions, and propositions regarding “things as they really are” (the gospel definition of truth) becomes one, not of oneness in Christ and with each other through the Spirit (the ideal circumstance within the Church to which Christ himself speaks repeatedly) but one of a thorny intellectual sifting and weighing of criteria and epistemic boundaries: how do we know what we think we know is settled, permanently grounded doctrine is really so? The “criteria” and its philosophical components become the focus of the question, not the two most critical established criteria that themselves have always functioned as criteria; the unanimous and harmonious teachings and statements of the General Authorities of the Church unitedly (“the Church”, in other words), and, of utmost importance, the revelations of the Holy Spirit (The “Rock” of Matt. 16:18).

The fundamental problem with Ericson’s analysis, in my view, leaving specific philosophical points aside for the moment, is that it treats the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as just another philosophical or theological system who’s claims and assertions labor under the same limitations and within the same philosophical boundaries as does any other human system of knowledge or inquiry. This approach to the question of doctrine not only ignores long and well established criteria within which official doctrine is safely corralled from other kinds of doctrinal discourse, but it implies an ever deeper question regarding the epistemological ground of gospel knowledge; it implies a, what could only be called “humanistic” bias relative to the question of the direction in which flows our epistemological orientation within the Church.

Is the gospel the reference frame for all other claims of or to knowledge we encounter in the mortal world, or is human philosophical analysis the primary frame of reference through which we scrutinize and inspect the gospel as to the legitimacy of its truth claims (and both the claim that the Church is the true Church of Christ, and that the fundamental doctrines of that church can be known with certainty and be distinguished from the opinions and cultural conditioning of various of its General Authorities, are themselves “official doctrine”), or, as Mr. Ericson is wont to do, the legitimacy of a truth claim that claims there is such a thing as settled, established, clearly defined truth claims that can be known as such.

The primary point I’m going to attempt to make in this essay is that Loyd Ericson would send us off on a philosophical wild goose chase seeking “criteriological goals” rather than allow the long established criteriological foundation – the witness of the Holy Ghost and the unanimous and consistent teachings of the Lord’s servants – to function as it was intended: as a reference frame, perceptual landmark, or, if you will, means of sure criteriological orientation, for the Latter Day Saints as a people.

From here on out, I will critique Ericson’s essay’s salient point in turn as they appear in his paper, and attempt to show why Ericson’s primary point here is both moot and misguided.

Interestingly enough, Ericson’s approach here is not to remove to the fundamental principles through which authoritative doctrine is known and distinguished “from beliefs, teachings, or policies” that themselves have already long been established within the Church as matters of doctrine (the doctrines that define the nature and epistemological strength of all other doctrines), but to two “models” of doctrinal analysis (this should be a suitable red flag for many LDS who will immediately notice the importation of a concept suitable to the natural sciences and certain humanities disciplines into the gospel as a means of theoretically conceptualizing its truth claims and their epistemic status. The idea of Latter day Saints needing a theoretical "model" of what constitutes an official, or established gospel truth will strike many as odd, especially given the Church's understanding about how gospel knowledge is both acquired and confirmed). The first he calls the “authoritative model” based upon an essay by Dr. Robert Millet, and another by Professor Nathan Oman, whose approached he describes as “an hermeneutic approach modeled after judicial practices of interpreting law” in which “particular doctrines are appealed to in an attempt to provide boundaries or parameters of doctrinal possibility.”

Now, while Oman’s theory may, indeed by termed a “model” of epistemic reliability relative to gospel doctrine, the term washes out with Millet’s grasp of the issue, because Millett’s basic assertions here, that core gospel doctrine can be known and discriminations made between it and peripheral or subjective statements made by sundry authorities of the Church in the past or present, are not original with him. Indeed, any number of Church leaders and Church published sources have been stating the same for a very long time.

Ericson states that Millett’s views have been “promoted” by the official Church newsroom, as if the Church itself had been adrift on this subject until Dr. Millett clarified it for them. Ignored in all this is that the “official Church newsroom’ is, well, the “official Church newsroom” and is an official part of the Church, can be accessed through the Church’s official website, and makes official statements to both the Church and the world in general on salient issues. There is no reason, however, that this represents Dr. Millett’s “model” of the discernment of official LDS doctrine, as the pattern has been outlined by numerous General Authorities, and by the Church itself, for many generations.
A good place to begin would be the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, authorized and approved by the First Presidency. Here we read:


In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the living prophet is the only one authorized to “receive revelations and commandments” binding on the entire Chruch (D&C 28: 1-7; 43: 1-7; 128: 11).

In any dispensation in which the gospel is on the earth, there is only one prophet at a time who functions as prophet, seer and revelator for to specific people (and in our modern context, this means on a global scale) and in whom all the keys of presidency are active. This prophet does not determine doctrine and practice alone, however, for:

…the prophet acts in concert with his counselors in the FIRST PRESIDENCY and the QUORUM OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES – those who hold, with the Prophet, the “keys of the kingdom” (D&C 81:2; 112:30) – with the common consent of the members of the Church giving power and validity to their decisions (D&C 26:2; 107:31). 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. This is the proper channel through which changes come.


Here the Encyclopedia of Mormonism Outlines and elucidates, using modern scripture itself, the fundamental pattern of Church organization and spiritual order (Priesthood governance) that controls, conditions, and, most importantly, defines official Church doctrine and distinguishes it from other kinds of doctrinal or doctrine-like statements. The question then, when we ask “what is official Church doctrine”, would appear, at least for those who have a thorough working knowledge of the doctrines of the Church and governing laws of the Priesthood, not really to be so much about what constitutes official doctrine, but about where it may be constituted.

A quick glance at the Church newsroom, as well as Millett’s original statements on the matter, shows that what is to be understood as official doctrine is inextricably linked with it source. As the newsroom’s Millett based article makes clear, official doctrine is discernable as that process by which “ 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” (Italics mine).

These are not, however, the full compliment of the sources within which established doctrine may safely be assumed. An article by Elder Dean L. Larson in the Ensign of August, 1977, entitled “Should that which is written in Church publications and lesson manuals be taken as official doctrine?” Larson comments are worth quoting at some length:

While the content of the approved Church publications identified above does not claim the same endorsement that the standard works receive, nonetheless they are prepared with great care and are carefully screened before they are published. Writers of curriculum materials must be cleared by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Their product is reviewed closely by the heads of the organizations that are responsible for their implementation. Correlation Review committees check carefully for doctrinal accuracy and for harmony with established Church policies and procedures.
The General Handbook of Instructions is not only reviewed by Correlation, but also receives a close auditing from each individual member of the First Presidency and the Twelve.
In general then, in close and immediate proximity to the scriptures themselves, are the manuals of doctrinal instruction, published by the Church, and utilized in our Sunday schools, Priesthood and Relief Society meetings, Seminary, Institute etc., as Church authorized sources of accurate and substantive doctrinal teaching.
What of conference reports (or conference talks themselves) or First Presidency messeges (or doctrinal discussion in the Ensign and other Church magazines?
Much care is exercised to make certain that the official publications of the Church carry messages that are sound in doctrine and fully in harmony with currently approved policies and procedures. A constant effort is maintained to upgrade and correct the content of these materials so that they can merit the confidence and approval of Church leaders and the general membership.


As has been mentioned by others who have participated in this debate over an extended period of time, it is that which is published and approved by the Church (the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in unanimity) that determines the doctrinal quality of any statement or teaching and acts, as it were, as an epistemological filter, or prism, through which one can confidently ascertain the where a teaching or principle falls along the spectrum of doctrinal possibility, from true, binding doctrine to the personal opinion or prejudice of a General Authority (or LDS scholar or intellectual doing his/her own interpretative work).

Numerous General Authorities have spoken the fact that the standard works of the Church are the core ground of doctrine in the Church, and hence the frame of reference for everything else. However, the “rock” upon which the Church is built is direct, continuing revelation, both to individuals within the Church and to the Prophet of this dispensation for the Church and the world. While nothing that is said or taught can be considered “official” doctrine that is out of harmony with, or expands upon or extrapolates from the standard works toward new, novel or speculative understandings outside the perimeters of established priesthood authority, it is also true the entire Church has been build on the foundation of revelation, or the gradual development of the restored kingdom through ongoing revealed doctrine. From whence comes revelation? From the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost. He is the revelator and teacher through whom all true and stable (and hence “official”) doctrine comes.

This means, again, that the question Loyd Ericson is framing as an epistemological problem (a problem of how we know what we know and what it means to know, in this case, “official doctrine”) isn’t an epistemological problem in this sense at all. The epistemological challenge, in a gospel context, is not how we can know what official doctrine is and how we could intellectually "model" the epistemic relations between the Church and its members, but whether or not we are perceptually calibrated to the source of true doctrine itself.

On the 10th of October 1880, President George Q. Cannon gave a General Conference address in which he said:

I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.

B.H. Roberts wrote:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.

A pattern begins to emerge. the ultimate source of binding, established doctrine are the standard works of the Church. However, the Church is built upon the Rock of continuing revelation, and the standard works themselves, which at one time did not exist, are products or manifestations of the principle of revelation at work. Line upon line, principle upon principle, truth upon truth, proposition upon proposition, the gospel is built up and restored dispensation after dispensation. The canon itself is open (another official doctrine of the Church), and hence, new doctrine, expansions upon existing doctrine, new, new or expanded interpretations of past concepts, or the introduction of new practices, ordinances or policies are not only possible, but expected.

The problem here is, again within a gospel context, not one of epistemic criteria, but of the coherence and continuity of past doctrine or interpretation of scripture with present. This problem, however – and I think this is key – is only a problem of any severity when one removes the problem from that gospel context and resituates in within a strictly secularistic philosophical context. In that environment, the fundamental structure of the process of the development of gospel knowledge, both on a church wide and individual scale, which is the principle of line upon line, precept upon precept development of knowledge from the foundational rudiments to the “meat” of the gospel, can be turned upon itself and used to create an impression of intellectual instability and fuzziness where none exists. Our modern special witnesses have always, without exception, been clear and unequivocal that the gospel, as we have it, is, although sufficient to save and exalt us, vastly incomplete.

There has never been, or should not be, a misunderstanding on this point. Few, if any of the doctrines of the Church that we have at present are had in their fullness, nor are all the connections between one doctrine and other doctrines, logically and conceptually, in any sense fully comprehended.

[_hatersinmyward]

you seem cool droopy.

people re-hash the past.

people look at things with a post modern psychology. in the religious spectrum of most organized faiths this is condoned, especially when reading religious texts.

those who control the present control the past, those who control the present control the future.

one thing is for sure though. my neighbor who drives the red ford would make a better cop than the girl who drives the purple accord.

[_bcspace]

The fundamental claim, decocted and extracted from its supporting philosophical surroundings, is that there is no clear way to discriminate between official, established core doctrine, and other kinds of doctrinally relevant assertions, such as theological speculation, the personal opinions/biases of a General Authority or authorities, or otherwise statements that are conditioned by the time and social environment within which they are made.

If he truly thinks that, he's wrong and in direct opposition to the Church. The established method for identifying official doctrine (publication) eliminates personal speculation/opinion. The body as a whole might speculate, but such cannot ever be attributed to a single apostle or prophet since the FP and Qo12 are in agreement over publication. If the Church publishes it, they all own it.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Published by the Church?

Ericson states that Millett’s views have been “promoted” by the official Church newsroom, as if the Church itself had been adrift on this subject until Dr. Millett clarified it for them.

Every missionary and teacher of the Gospel would have been able to summarize almost as effectively and in the same fashion for the last three or four decades. Approaching Mormon Doctrine contains nothing new.

Larson comments are worth quoting at some length:

What they do is illustrate the hierarchy of doctrinal sources. A common thing to do back than and not wrong or contradictory to any other statements.

The importance of modern revelation, mentioned later in the post, illustrates doctrine's overall primacy over scripture as doctrine interprets scripture whereas we, not being part of the FP and Qo12, cannot.

[_Kevin Graham]

The established method for identifying official doctrine (publication) eliminates personal speculation/opinion. The body as a whole might speculate, but such cannot ever be attributed to a single apostle or prophet since the FP and Qo12 are in agreement over publication. If the Church publishes it, they all own it.

Obviously the Church disagrees with you since it essentially stated that what it published in this case, was incorrect. It also published conference talks that are frequently chalked up to "opinion" by LDS leaders. It also published the Ensign article that disagreed with any notion of "official doctrine" that should be taken for granted. Again, this silly notion of "official doctrine" is a recent novelty created by the apologists. You'll find no mention of this distinction before the 1970's.

[_Droopy]

you seem cool droopy.

As long as I stay in here, where there is some serious moderation, and avoid the other rooms, I can engage in some interesting and productive discussions.

Outside of this room, I'm done with the MDB board.

[_Kevin Graham]

you seem cool droopy.

As long as I stay in here, where there is some serious moderation, and avoid the other rooms, I can engage in some interesting and productive discussions.

Outside of this room, I'm done with the MDB board.

LOL! I knew you were bluffing. What would your life be without us?

[_Joseph]

What he wrote and mr space objects to is correct.

l-dsinc does not have set doctrine on much of anything. One official publication contradict another. One apostle contradicts another. They go to conferences and congregations and teach and preach and have deniability every step of the way when what is said is not popular or some more senior member or quieter member of that quorum disagrees.

B.H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith are a good example. One was more accurate, smarter and much more knowledgeable but the other held a higher position in the heirarchy as well as outliving the other.

One very interesting fact of the life long teaching of some of the more outspoken leaders since Brigham Young is that when Apostles they make their pronouncements and say many things but when elevated to top dog status they shut up about what they have been saying for decades. Ezra Taft Benson and Joseph Fielding Smith are the two top examples of this.

There is little that is really 'Mormon Doctrine' and that is the cause of many problems. What little is fluctuates and changes through the years so it causes confusion and frustration. Constantly bringing in new members by whatever means solves part of the problem but older members fall away, go inactive and wonder what happened to the church they were taught for so long.

[_Droopy]

Obviously the Church disagrees with you since it essentially stated that what it published in this case, was incorrect.

1. Hardly tenable, as my entire position on the issue is taken from both the scriptures themselves (to come in the next post) and the longstanding teachings of the Brethren.

2. The statement in question can hardly be considered a doctrine of the Church. At best, even had it been let to stand, it was, at the most strained of interpretations, an expressed attitude. To have been considered official doctrine, it would have had to be unanimously accepted by the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as a body, and presented to the Church as such.

One notices that the statement in question did not originate with the Brethren themselves, but in a Ward teaching message in the Improvement Era. Although the Era was an official Church publication, no one has ever argued that everything taught in the Ensign or similar church magazines represents official doctrine. I have always been clear that the First Presidency messages and Conference talks are the focus of authoritative, inspired counsel and doctrinal interpretation, not necessarily the "random sampler" or the personal faith promoting stories that appear therein (although they may be).

President Smith's explanation is lucid, simple, and hardly grist of a theory of epistemic ambiguity relating to official Church teachings.

It also published conference talks that are frequently chalked up to "opinion" by LDS leaders.

CFR. The entire talks, or only isolated aspects of them?

It also published the Ensign article that disagreed with any notion of "official doctrine" that should be taken for granted.

CFR, and was the article written by a General Authority and accepted and supported by the First Presidency and Twelve as a united body?

Again, this silly notion of "official doctrine" is a recent novelty created by the apologists. You'll find no mention of this distinction before the 1970's.

A nice assertion, but now it needs to be supported with evidence.

[_Droopy]

If he truly thinks that, he's wrong and in direct opposition to the Church. The established method for identifying official doctrine (publication) eliminates personal speculation/opinion. The body as a whole might speculate, but such cannot ever be attributed to a single apostle or prophet since the FP and Qo12 are in agreement over publication. If the Church publishes it, they all own it.

Several of the relevant claims are the following, in which Ericson lays out his basic thesis in several sections of the paper.

This paper will analyze recent attempts to grapple with the questions of Church doctrine in the effort to show the challenges involved in establishing precise criteria to distinguish doctrine from beliefs, teachings, or policies.

The authoritative model appeals to the commonly held belief that there are authoritative sources to which someone could turn as a definitive source of doctrine.

Is there, or has there been, for most active, doctrinally educated members, of for the Brethren, a “challenge in establishing precise criteria” for that which stands as “official” doctrine and that which does not?

Millet’s “authoritative model” is said to “appeal to the commonly held belief” among LDS that there are sources we could turn to as definitive of the nature of theological claims. Most LDS would find this assumption, the assumption that there are not “authoritative sources to which someone could turn as a definitive source of doctrine quite odd, given that the teachings regarding those very sources (beginning with the revelations of the Holy Ghost) are themselves, settled doctrinal concepts. Ericson claims that such an understanding is nothing more than a “commonly held belief”, but by his own criteria, in which beliefs, doctrines, practices and ungrounded opinion are extremely difficult to disentangle, he himself cannot tell us whether this is, in reality, a “commonly held belief” or a doctrine central to the Church’s core theological base.

Ericson then begins making elementary errors of doctrinal understanding and philosophical rigor in his further elucidation of what he considers the core problem he has identified. He says, for example, that

For example, Millet briefly mentions the old teaching that plural marriage is essential for salvation.7 On the authoritative model, such a teaching would not be considered doctrine as it is no longer taught by the Church today; whereas, the present teaching that monogamous marriage is essential for salvation (and polygamous marriage is grounds for excommunication) would qualify as a true doctrine. As adherence to the former teaching could prove damning while adherence to the latter could prove saving, the method by which someone could distinguish between the two would be just as equally as important for salvation.

Yet, the vast majority of active LDS would know, relative to this particular issue, as with others, that the very fact that a doctrine is no longer taught in the contemporary Church is no argument that the doctrine is no longer accepted or considered a part of the gospel as a whole. Plural marriage is, indeed, essential for salvation and exaltation for those called to practice it, just as any principle of the gospel is of no binding force unless and until the Lord approves its associated practices and conduct. For us then, it’s a moot point in mortality. For Moses, Abraham, or Jacob, on the other hand, or for Joseph Smith, rebellion against or rejection of such a principle, once one has been called to its observation, constitutes a rejection of Christ and his gospel to that degree.
Again:

Furthermore, even if such criteria are justifiable through scriptural and other authoritative sources, they face the problem of overcoming the fact that the relevance of those sources as justification for the criteria would be based on the criteria they are attempting to justify. This circularity is a challenge because similar reasoning could be used to establish a variety of methodologies for determining what qualifies as authentic Church doctrine.

This, as I mentioned in the OP, is indicative of Ericson’s approach of applying secular philosophical modes of analysis and reasoning to gospel principles, which, were the gospel nothing more than simply another human system of theology or philosophy, would be perfectly apt. The problem, as I see it here, is precisely his abandonment of the spiritual, revelatory criteria of ascertaining official doctrine for a purely philosophical approach, which are the only grounds upon which he can base his entire thesis.

Oman’s interpretive model depends on the assumed ability to appeal to easily identifiable brute facts of Church doctrine; however, upon examination, these supposed clear cases of doctrine are not so clear at all. This is because no accessible and widely accepted framework for determining doctrine has been established for which these cases could be determined. Instead of clear cases of doctrine, we have only vague and abstract terms with no definitive understandings of what they should actually mean.

Again, the framework is, as generally understood within the church today:
1 The scriptures
2. The united teachings and interpretations of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve
3. The “rock” upon which the Church is built, or revelation, both personal and individual and to the church as a whole through the Lord’s servants, the prophets.

Ericson thinks there are also problems of the definition of just what “doctrine” actually is. As he says:

The authoritative and interpretive models both suffer from a definitional problem in their proposals for determining doctrine in that they fail to define what it is they are determining. In asking the question, “Is ‘x’ a doctrine?” whatever ‘x’ may be is carefully examined and defined, but the term doctrine is left unexplored or deficiently defined. This lack of a proper definition is especially problematic as it often leads to a confusing conflation of beliefs, teachings, policies, and doctrine.

While Ericson has a point regarding the conceptual ambiguity of some of these terms in relation to the others, he still seems to be assuming that the gospel is primarily a human, philosophical project with the function of LDS intellectuals being primarily to grapple with the thorny conceptual and logical problems of the Church’s “teachings.” Thus seemingly appropriating to themselves what the gospel (and, not inconsequentially, official church doctrine) teaches is the province of the Brethren, i.e., to tell us, in cases of confusion or definitional quandaries, what correct doctrine is and how sundry verses of scripture, or the “teachings” of other of the Brethren are to be understood. To provide, in other words, the authoritative framework of definition and conceptualization Ericson claims is missing from the gospel and priesthood as a system.

[_moksha]

Is there, or has there been, for most active, doctrinally educated members, of for the Brethren, a “challenge in establishing precise criteria” for that which stands as “official” doctrine and that which does not?

The Priesthood Ban against those of African descent probably stands as a good example. Past leaders spoke most definitively in support of this practice, yet the current answer is "we do not know why this was done".