LDS Doctrine According to LDS and Non-LDS

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by inquirer_Jn1717

But here is what bugs me all the same, or what I believe would bug me if I were in your shoes:

That there is a difference between what the LDS Propets say and what Official LDS Doctrine actually is. (Now I'm not for a second trying to say that Evangelical Christianity has ever actually done everything "by the book." We usually fail miserably, and that bugs me too.)

As for me, I can dismiss or accept anything outside the Bible said by a Church leader, because they do not claim to be directly speaking for God (but merely to be correct and could very well be wrong). Yet the LDS Prophets do claim that authority by claiming the title, but not everything they teach is taken as doctrine.

To me, that would be like saying that "Isaiah was a Prophet, but don't worry about chapter 53, he was just going off on a tangent."

So I see a disconnect. How do you resolve it?

You ask a good and valid question. Here's how I look at it:

Imagine that you are living in the days of the Apostles, following the resurrection of Christ. Suppose you're a convert to Christianity and you have become acquainted with Paul, Peter, and the others. Do you believe that everything they say would be considered scripture? Do you think that they would ever express opinions that were not embraced by the Church as official doctrine? Would that detract from the fact that they are God's appointed representatives to speak for God? Would it change the fact that some of their writings will become canon and accepted by billions of people as the word of God?

Personally, I rarely wrestle with trying to figure out whether an Apostle is speaking for God or not. We have semi-annual General Conference where they all speak and give council to the church members. I consider their teachings to be inspired and to be the word of God to me. I'm quite slow to be one who would say "well, that was just their opinion, I think I believe something else".

[inquirer_Jn1717]

Scott,

Yes, I'm sure that the original 12 Apostles sometimes mused and shared their particular ideas with others at times. But what if they actually taught those ideas and expected them to taken as the truth, even the word of God, and the church did not accept it as doctrinal?

In the KFD for example, Joseph Smith clearly intended is words to be understand as the word of God--to be doctrine, but some LDS say that some of the things he said were just his opinion. Same deal with some of Brigham Young's teaching.

I don't think your analogy quite works.

[Worshipper]

Inquirer, I wouldn't be so hasty to ignore LDS doctrine that isn't Official Church Doctrine (which I will call OCD below) if I were you. It might upset some of my fellow Mormons that I say that, but the truth is that if you limit yourself to OCD you won't get an accurate understanding of the faith of the Mormons you actually meet.

Let me provide some examples.

According to OCD, there's no reason not to drink caffeinated soda. Yet many Mormons think drinking caffeinated sodas is a sin (it's even impossible to buy caffeinated soda at Brigham Young University), and they frequently cite various Prophets' statements to support that view.

According to OCD, the Church does not advocate any political party, claims that all political parties are working to achieve good ends, and encourages members to be actively involved in the political party of their choice. Yet in reality, Mormons who are not Republicans are often treated as though they were living in sin by their fellow Mormons.

According to OCD, we do not know whether Adam was literally the first human being on earth or whether there were other human beings who preceded him. And yet almost all Mormons believe that Adam was a literally existing man who was miraculously and literally created directly from dust and that he was the first of all men, and that he lived roughly 6000 years ago.

A person could write a fairly large book on all the differences between prevailing Mormon beliefs and OCD. If you want to understand what Mormons believe, don't be tricked into looking no further than OCD. To understand what Mormons believe, you have to talk to a lot of Mormons who are willing to tell you what they honestly believe.

On the other hand, if what you want to understand is OCD, then your work is pretty simple. Just limit yourself to the Standard Works (i.e., the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price) and official statements from either the whole First Presidency or the whole Quorum of Twelve Apostles. But I really don't think you'll understand Mormonism very well by sticking to OCD. There's a whole lot in how we worship that has little to no basis in OCD.

Also, you need to understand that Mormonism isn't a faith that focusses on orthodoxy. Our focus is orthopraxy. It's more important to do what is expected of us than it is to believe what is expected of us. So individual Mormons could believe a wide variety of things.

Take the KFD. In my religious experience, the KFD is a major component of Mormon doctrine. One of the foundational expositions of the faith, really. The doctrines of the KFD were taught to me as being central to our faith, in my family and in church, all my life — from the time I was a young boy all the way up to and including my wedding. Yet clearly some of the other Mormons here at RF don't really focus on or even necessarily believe in the KFD. For me and many other Mormons, it's central. For many others, it's false. That kind of variety is commonplace in the Church. But we all abstain from tobacco, we all pay tithing, and we all receive the necessary rites (sacraments, or as we call them, ordinances).

As for prophets and apostles speaking sometimes for God and sometimes for themselves, that's nothing new. A couple of times in the first dozen or so verses of I Corinthians 7, for example, Paul speaks sometimes on God's behalf and sometimes on his own, and does so explicitly. Furthermore, since John tells us in Revelation 19:10 that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy," we know that anyone with a testimony of Jesus can prophesy on God's behalf. But that doesn't mean that everything that every Christian says is always God's word.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by inquirer_Jn1717

Thank-you again you guys for replying, as you are taking time out of your days to do so.

No problem! I've got to admit, Inquirer, you have proven yourself to be an honest "inquirer," and I apologize again for having initially misjudged you. It's just that discussions of this nature so seldom actually result in increased understanding. I've spent hours upon hours over the years responding to many of the same questions you've posed only to see my efforts met with sarcasm, insults and accusations. I guess I've become jaded over time. So far, it's been a real pleasure talking to you, and so I thank you.

But for now, the questions that I had (stated or otherwise) have been answered.

In that case, I'll forego responding to the items I hadn't gotten around to yet. We can go back to them at any time, however, if you'd like.

By un-stated questions, I mean I am often more interested in how a question is answered or what reasoning is behind it than the answer itself.

I can understand that. A quote from Austin Farrer comes to mind: "Though argument does not create belief, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced, but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it nourishes a climate in which belief may flourish." If I can't defend my beliefs, why should I expect you to do anything other than simply dismiss them without even attempting to understand them?

But here is what bugs me all the same, or what I believe would bug me if I were in your shoes:

That there is a difference between what the LDS Prophets say and what Official LDS Doctrine actually is. (Now I'm not for a second trying to say that Evangelical Christianity has ever actually done everything "by the book." We usually fail miserably, and that bugs me too.)

Actually, official doctrine can always be measured "by the book" (or, more accurately stated, "by the four books"). Provided we recognize that our doctrines can all be found in the "Standard Works," we can state that we do, in fact, do everything "by the book." It's when we start speculating on those doctrines that are not well-defined that we get into trouble. For that reason, those of us who are accustomed to having this kind of discussion are generally pretty careful to distinguish between "official doctrine" and "commonly held beliefs."

As for me, I can dismiss or accept anything outside the Bible said by a Church leader, because they do not claim to be directly speaking for God (but merely to be correct and could very well be wrong). Yet the LDS Prophets do claim that authority by claiming the title, but not everything they teach is taken as doctrine.

I can see what you're saying, but none of our prophets have ever claimed to be infallible. (As an aside, I did hear someone say once that in Catholicism, the Pope's infallible but no one believes it. In Mormonism, the Prophet's fallible but no one believes it." ). Several LDS prophets have actually made statements declaring their fallibility. Here are some of those statements (all of them from men who have served as the LDS prophet):

Joseph Smith: "A prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such."

David O. McKay: "When God makes the prophet, He does not unmake the man."

Harold B. Lee: "There have been times when even the President of the Church has not been moved upon by the Holy Ghost.... The Lord can move upon His people but they may speak on occasions their own opinions."

Harold B. Lee: "“If you want to measure truth, measure it by the four standard Church works…. If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation. It is man’s own personal opinion…”

Gordon B. Hinckley: "We recognize that our forebears were human. They doubtless made mistakes."

To me, that would be like saying that "Isaiah was a Prophet, but don't worry about chapter 53, he was just going off on a tangent."

Now if you were to say, "Alma was a prophet, but don't worry about chapter 18. He was just going off on a tangent," I would agree with you. But we're not talking about something Isaiah may have said that is not in the Bible. Furthermore, Isaiah was pretty prolific. Consider Noah, though. He was one of the best known Old Testament prophets. He is said to have lived several hundred years, and yet look at how few of his actual words we have today. During the period of time in which he lived, he undoubtedly had more to say than what we can read in the Bible. It goes without saying that He must have said some things that were never recorded and others which were recorded but lost over the ages. Because we don't have a record of anywhere near everything that he said, we don't even stop to consider how many things he said over his lifetime were merely his opinions or perspective. We don't assume that every word that he ever uttered was "God's word." Why should we assume that every word ever uttered by God's latter-day prophets is "God's word"?

Anyway, I'd like to just comment on the question that summarized your OP:

So, is this a strawman argument? Have I misrepresented LDS Doctrine in points 1-7? Is my conclusion way off base?

I wouldn't say that you've necessarily "misrepresented" LDS doctrine. If you have, I would say that it appears to me to be unintentional. On the other hand, you have focused on some very peripheral doctrines and have placed far greater emphasis on them than we do. Boyd K. Packer, a living Apostle, put it this way:

"Truth, glorious truth, proclaims there is... a Mediator.... Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice. This truth is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them."

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Worshipper

Inquirer, I wouldn't be so hasty to ignore LDS doctrine that isn't Official Church Doctrine (which I will call OCD below) if I were you. It might upset some of my fellow Mormons that I say that, but the truth is that if you limit yourself to OCD you won't get an accurate understanding of the faith of the Mormons you actually meet.

Let me provide some examples.

According to OCD, there's no reason not to drink caffeinated soda. Yet many Mormons think drinking caffeinated sodas is a sin (it's even impossible to buy caffeinated soda at Brigham Young University), and they frequently cite various Prophets' statements to support that view.

According to OCD, the Church does not advocate any political party, claims that all political parties are working to achieve good ends, and encourages members to be actively involved in the political party of their choice. Yet in reality, Mormons who are not Republicans are often treated as though they were living in sin by their fellow Mormons.

According to OCD, we do not know whether Adam was literally the first human being on earth or whether there were other human beings who preceded him. And yet almost all Mormons believe that Adam was a literally existing man who was miraculously and literally created directly from dust and that he was the first of all men, and that he lived roughly 6000 ago.

As a Latter-day Saint who has her first Diet Coke of the day at about 8:00 in the morning, who intends to vote for Obama in the upcoming election, and who has some fairly unconventional views about Adam, I've got to say that you've raised some very good points. I can totally understand where you're coming from. Still, I think we do need to differentiate between OCD and our own opinions. All too often, we don't do so.

Also, you need to understand that Mormonism isn't a faith that focusses on orthodoxy. Our focus is orthopraxy. It's more important to do what is expected of us than it is to believe what is expected of us. So individual Mormons could believe a wide variety of things.

AMEN! AMEN! AND AMEN!

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by inquirer_Jn1717

Scott,

Yes, I'm sure that the original 12 Apostles sometimes mused and shared their particular ideas with others at times. But what if they actually taught those ideas and expected them to taken as the truth, even the word of God, and the church did not accept it as doctrinal?

In the KFD for example, Joseph Smith clearly intended is words to be understand as the word of God--to be doctrine, but some LDS say that some of the things he said were just his opinion. Same deal with some of Brigham Young's teaching.

I don't think your analogy quite works.

Using my analogy, I think you might attend a funeral (which I think is where the King Follett Discourse was given) and hear Paul give a message, which would not become canonized. The Apostles probably gave many discources which were never canonized.

By the way, I'm not saying that the King Follett Discourse is incorrect. I'm saying that it's not canonized and is therefore not official doctrine.

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by Worshipper

Inquirer, I wouldn't be so hasty to ignore LDS doctrine that isn't Official Church Doctrine (which I will call OCD below) if I were you.

I pretty much agree with everything you said in this post. Thanks for clarifying.