What is doctrine?

I recommend going to the StayLDS reference library and read the essay on What is doctrine. It is a good article that I think answers your question.

One part reads:

– The Family, Proclamation to the World is not official doctrine because it has not been approved by the membership. But this very formal statement on the family unequivocally states, “Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan”. In the very heated California Proposition 8 campaign in 2008 a sizable majority of members followed the Church’s prompting to campaign against gay marriage.  The Church authorities censured no members who opposed their stand against gay marriage.

– President McKay had a personal dislike for crucifixes and directed the Church building committee to not use them, though they had been used earlier.  But once initiated in the Church Building Committee, 50 years later, his personal preference has taken on a life of its own. Some GA’s even speculate on theological reasons without regard to its history.

– President Heber J. Grant, in 1921, made abstinence from the four forbidden WofW items a requirement for a temple recommend. But there is no claim to any revelation as a basis for the change.

– Temple Recommend questions are thought to be a constant guide for the faithful, yet they change every few years.  In the 19th century, temple goers were asked if they maintained proper fences to prevent their cows from wandering into a neighbor’s field.

You can read the article here: http://www.staylds.com/docs/WhatIsOfficialMormonDoctrine.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/docs/WhatIsOfficialMormonDoctrine.html

And there is a good discussion here http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1073” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1073

Officially canonized doctrine goes through a three-step process: It is approved by the First Presidency, approved by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and must be voted on and accepted by the membership of the Church. This has only happened 6 times in LDS history since 1830.

ALL canonized doctrine and scripture is found in our four standard works. There is nothing outside of the four standard works that rises to the level of official and universally binding revelation on the whole church. Everything else is speculation, opinion and interpretation.

Also note that not everything in your “Quad” is official doctrine. The Bible Dictionary isn’t official doctrine, just the King James Bible. The Topical Guide contents are also not official doctrine, etc. Just wanted to point that out. I believe you could also claim that the chapter summaries are also not “doctrine,” because they were added after the contents of those scriptures were accepted and voted upon by the membership.

Interpretations of the scriptures are not official doctrine, regardless of who performs the “exegesis.”

The farther one drifts from the above standard, the less authoritative and binding it is. General Conference talks are not scripture. Lesson manuals are not scripture. Books written by apostles and presidents of the Church are not scripture. Personal revelation is not scripture. Only scripture is scripture, and the only place you find it is in our four Standard Works.

But even then, is everything in the standard works “doctrine”?

That opens up a whole ‘nother can-o-worms 😆

The Standard Works are like a theological Russian Matryoshka doll of Official Doctrine. You open up Official Doctrine to find The Standard Works. But the Standard Works are a collection of the speculation and personal revelations of the authors, who based their own personal framework on their perception of their own official doctrine from their own standard works.

LDS Official Doctrine —> Book of Mormon —> the original Nephi that left Jerusalem writes 1st & 2nd Nephi —> The Brass Plates —> Whoever wrote the Brass Plates —> The text they based the Brass Plates off of —> etc. etc.

So in the end, I loop back to your excellent point earlier in this conversation, that The Gospel contains only the things that are true. When we find something is wrong and see a new truth, we should let go of our cherished falsehoods and follow the truth. The Scriptures could be wrong (IMO).

The Standard Works contain the writings of MANY different authors, from different time periods, based on very different versions of “The Gospel,” with their own personalities and foibles. That’s another problem. The scriptures contradict the scriptures, or at least don’t seem to me to always contain a unified and perfectly coherent theology.

The main point I was trying to make is this: All the extra stuff in Mormon culture that is obviously NOT in the Standard Works is much farther away from being doctrinal.

-Don’t wear multiple earrings or flip flops in church?

-Women shouldn’t work outside the home?

-White shirt and tie is the “uniform” of the priesthood?

-etc.

None of those are canonize doctrines. They might still be good or bad ideas, useful or not.

I have a bit of a problem with idea that the Scriptures are Doctrine. I view the concept of Doctrine as being a body of work which lays out the eternal truths of the Gospel in a coherent manner, meaning one which could be understood as meaning essentially the same thing when different people read it (something like the 4th Article of Faith for instance). i.e., a well written textbook. So to me while the Scriptures are “true” – they are not (with the exception of a tiny handful of chapters) Doctrine.

I would conclude that the Doctrine of the LDS Church is whatever bits and pieces of Eternal Truth manage to survive 100 years or so of General Conference talks. If it is still being actively used, applied, and quoted 100 years after someone said it then it has a good chance of being Doctrine – but even then it has to “fit” in with what else is accepted. Anything else is a flash in the pan or simply culture run amuck.

For instance President Hinckley pulled a quote from Brigham Young out of the deep past with regard to children either born-in-the-covenant or sealed to their parents being eventually saved in spite of their bad behavior. President Monson has sort of addressed a similar concept a few times since, but not as forcefully. Both said they are not sure what the comment fully means. In between Brigham and Hinckley many prophets taught of the role of personal responsibility and answering for our own unrepented for sins. So the Church’s Doctrine with respect to the effects of being Born-in-the-covenant or sealed is still unsettled. Since much of what we do today as a Church (much of the temple ordinances, practices regarding tithing, Sunday observance, dress codes, even the way the Word of Wisdom is currently thought of) is not even mentioned in any of our scriptures it makes it difficult for me to think of the Scriptures as being the source/definition of Doctrine proper.

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. My friend and I had been discussing it because there are so many things that we do as a church, and we have no idea where they came from or if they’re necessary. I like the idea of living by what I believe to be truth. My bishop just called someone into his office for not wearing a white shirt, and then told the elders quorum president he could no longer wear colorful socks. That’s what started this discussion. I just don’t know where people even come up with some of this stuff!

Recommend that he starts wearing one black sock, and one white sock. Those are good priesthood colors.