An Different but Interesting Approach to Doctrine

[_moksha]

Most doctrine is like warm milk. If it helps calm your soul, have at it. If it conflicts with common sense or reason - or if extrapolation causes you to go to extremes - let it go.

http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/34789/27802349/Evangelical:_A_Mormon_President:_Are_Souls_at_Stake

This is from my friend Bill on the LDS Forum at Beliefnet. It seems a fairly radical approach to doctrine, but perhaps it is one that can be utilized on an individual basis. Keeping folks from going to extremes might improve life quality for everyone nearby.

Your thoughts?

[_consiglieri]

I'm glad you posted this, Moksha.

It occurs to me that the main reason some Mormons (read BCSpace) are so difficult to pin down on what constitutes "doctrine" is the implicit assumption that "doctrine" will never change, or be found to be incorrect.

Any LDS teachings that changed or were found to be indisputably wrong or socially embarrassing must therefore not be considered doctrine.

I think it might be possible to circumvent such pointless parsing by positing that "doctrine" is not static, but fluid, and capable of changing and developing as we grow in knowledge.

This would seem a giant leap for apologist kind.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_moksha]

I think it might be possible to circumvent such pointless parsing by positing that "doctrine" is not static, but fluid, and capable of changing and developing as we grow in knowledge.

This would seem a giant leap for apologist kind.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

One small step for Consiglieri, but one giant leap for apologist kind.

You are right on the money as usual. We Mormons should have the ability to grow, develop and refine our belief structure as we gain additional knowledge and insight.

[_consiglieri]

We Mormons should have the ability to grow, develop and refine our belief structure as we gain additional knowledge and insight.

Especially since there seems to be a statement dealing with that very issue in the temple . . .


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_bcspace]

It occurs to me that the main reason some Mormons (read BCSpace) are so difficult to pin down on what constitutes "doctrine"

It occurs to me that you cannot provide any examples of when I might have been difficult to pin down on what is doctrine. What part of "published by the Church" don't you understand?

is the implicit assumption that "doctrine" will never change, or be found to be incorrect.

To the contrary, continuing inspiration/revelation is part of the LDS Church's systematic theology. It is identified by latest publication. The problem has often been that where antiMormons, in or out of the Church, see change in doctrine, there hasn't really been any. Plural marriage and the Priesthood ban are prime examples.

Any LDS teachings that changed or were found to be indisputably wrong or socially embarrassing must therefore not be considered doctrine.

You're about to demonstrate one of my points.

I think it might be possible to circumvent such pointless parsing by positing that "doctrine" is not static, but fluid, and capable of changing and developing as we grow in knowledge.

I have always argued this. Another way to look at the problem is certain people seeing the Church presenting a different face and confusing it for a change in doctrine. Doctrine on homosexuality would be a good example here. That it is sin and that we love the sinner have always been doctrine, it simply depends on which of those is needed at the moment to put furthest forward. But so doing with one part of the doctrine doesn't change the fact of the other part of the doctrine.

To understand these things, one must not read into what the Church says something that isn't there. The Church does not state that plural marriage was a mistake and that such marriages that took place are invalid. The Church does not apologize for the Priesthood ban. It is not likely that publically self-identified homosexual will get a TR, even if celebate, etc.

We Mormons should have the ability to grow, develop and refine our belief structure as we gain additional knowledge and insight.

Especially since there seems to be a statement dealing with that very issue in the temple . . .

None that would allow us to redefine LDS doctrine for ourselves and still receive exaltation or even a higher degree of salvation

[_sethpayne]

It is not likely that publically self-identified homosexual will get a TR, even if celebate, etc.

False. I know several.

Seth

[_bcspace]

It is not likely that publically self-identified homosexual will get a TR, even if celebate, etc.

False. I know several.

True. I know several and have participated in denying several more. Self-identification as homosexual often has a lot to do with disbelief in the doctrines of the Church. In other words, apostasy.

So, if they continue to struggle with homosexuality, they might pass. If they are satisfied, they might not pass, especially if they feel they should stand pat. It's no different that an adulterer or fornicator who shrugs his shoulders and excuses by saying that's the way God made me.

[_Valorius]

It occurs to me that the main reason some Mormons (read BCSpace) are so difficult to pin down on what constitutes "doctrine"

It occurs to me that you cannot provide any examples of when I might have been difficult to pin down on what is doctrine. What part of "published by the Church" don't you understand?

Thanks, bcspace. Could you clarify that with a citation, something like an official statement from the church? I am also wondering what you mean by published by the church. Do you believe the Ensign contains only official doctrine, or does it also contain personal opinions?

[_bcspace]

Thanks, bcspace. Could you clarify that with a citation, something like an official statement from the church?

Yes. A summary of what's been taught can be found here:

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.
Approaching Mormon Doctrine

I am also wondering what you mean by published by the church.

When the publisher is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Not Bookcraft. Not BYU. Not the Deseret News. Etc.

So, for example, BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" is not official doctrine because it is not published by the Church. But specific quotes from BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" found in works published by the Church would indeed be doctrine.

Do you believe the Ensign contains only official doctrine, or does it also contain personal opinions?

Being published by the Church, they are doctrinal works. Caveats would be, of latest date, specific statements of nondoctrinicity, or contextual such as a statements of "My opinion" or I believe", etc. So yes, they can also contain opinion.

I don't have an Ensign example of nondoctrinicity off the top of my head, but a similar example would be the Bible Dictionary which, though published by the Church, contains a statement in it's introduction that it is not to be used for doctrine:

This dictionary has been designed to provide teachers and students with a concise collection of definitions and explanations of items that are mentioned in or are otherwise associated with the Bible. It is based primarily upon the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other books of scripture accepted as standard works by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth. Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation. The topics have been carefully selected and are treated briefly. If an elaborate discussion is desired, the student should consult a more exhaustive dictionary.

[_Valorius]

Thanks, bcspace. Could you clarify that with a citation, something like an official statement from the church?

Yes. A summary of what's been taught can be found here:

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.
Approaching Mormon Doctrine

Thank you. Believe me, I am not trying to be obstinate, but I have a couple of remarks. The Newsroom sounds official. And I really do look for a source that is reliable now and over time. But I see that the newsroom is "the official resource for news media, opinion leaders, and the public." I know next to nothing about the Newsroom. The article you linked to is identified as "commentary." I would hope for the people who present something as official doctrine, to be accountable. I should think they would append their names to their statements of official doctrine. I'm not saying I reject the Newsroom as an official source. I need to know more about it. I'd like to know who it was that decided to call the Newsroom, "official source". I'd like to know who write the "Commentary," and if they did so on their own initiative, and if they did so as a result of pondering and studying, or of praying and receiving inspiration, or of being assigned by someone who really is an "Authority". Is any of this information available?

I am also wondering what you mean by published by the church.

When the publisher is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Not Bookcraft. Not BYU. Not the Deseret News. Etc.

I totally accept that as your standard. No problem. It is a reasonable standard. But is that what the Church says? I mean, is that the official position, or is it one of a number of positions that individual Mormons can choose from?

So, for example, BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" is not official doctrine because it is not published by the Church. But specific quotes from BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" found in works published by the Church would indeed be doctrine.

I totally accept your judgement on this as your way of looking at it. I have no question or criticism of your taking this position. I do find it odd that Prophets and Apostles are in a position to present doctrines of the church that are not official. If I belonged to a church with Prophets, I would want every pronouncement they make on doctrinal matters to be "official". If they do not know something, and have not received revelation, their ayes can be ayes, but their nays should be nays, as in "Nay, I know that not." Speculation from Prophets has led to many splits in the Mormon Church.

Do you believe the Ensign contains only official doctrine, or does it also contain personal opinions?

Being published by the Church, they are doctrinal works. Caveats would be, of latest date, specific statements of nondoctrinicity, or contextual such as a statements of "My opinion" or I believe", etc. So yes, they can also contain opinion.

I sincerely appreciate your boldness. Time and again I have been told by the most fervent of Mormons that the contents of the Ensign are "just that man's opinions. It's not church doctrine unless..." followed by some condition like voting or canonization. Thank you for your gutsy answer.

I don't have an Ensign example of nondoctrinicity off the top of my head, but a similar example would be the Bible Dictionary which, though published by the Church, contains a statement in it's introduction that it is not to be used for doctrine:

Well, dang it then, that undoes your statement above that if the Church publishes it, it is doctrine. Sometimes it isn't. And sometimes something is a doctrine that is never published as such. I've just been put back into the Frustration Zone. While I appreciate your explanations, I am pretty much in the same place as before. Different Church members have different ways to identify "official doctrine." Their methods have exceptions - some things that fit their definition are not doctrines; some things that do not fit their definitions are doctrines. Ultimately, there seems to be no unarguably official statement on what official doctrines are. But thanks, bcspace, I will keep my eyes open, and I will see how well your definition ("published by the Church") works for the things I will be reading.