Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/60031/

I took a different approach than Mico on this answer. When the reader asked about "official revelations," I figured werf meant something that is binding doctrine on the Church. In which case it is limited to scriptural canon, official proclamations and declarations and the Articles of Faith (http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/ap ... n-doctrine).

In which case, the Family Proclamation is such. However, it would exclude much of what Mico referenced in werf's answer. (To be honest, I am a bit perplexed by the Church's/President Packer's decision to re-word that part of his talk. I assumed, when listening to his talk, that the transcript would differ at certain points, but that wasn't and continues to not be a part that strikes me as controversial or "redactable.")

Yeah, I also thought it was a little weird that that part got changed. I think "guide" might be a better description of it, just because it didn't really present any new information but rather take doctrines from other places and combine them into a more accessible document. But I certainly don't think referring to it as a revelation is inaccurate or controversial.

I also think "guide" is a better description for it because the Proclamation is exactly that. If you call it "revelation" in General Conference, you're giving it a pretty official stamp of approval, almost as though it is a list of commandments. It's not a list of commandments. It's not "do this or burn" material. Yes, there is a lot of official Church doctrine in it. But for the most part, it's just a guide that describes ideal family situations.

From a global standpoint, you need to be careful too...for example, in other countries (and the United States, really) where working moms are the norm and necessity. We don't want to make good people feel condemned when they are just doing the best they can.

NerdGirl: Actually, the Family Proclamation is the only official source of doctrine (see my link before) that has direct reference to "Heavenly Parents" insinuating a Heavenly Mother. While that was a widely accepted teaching in the Church, it wasn't what could be considered part of our measured doctrine until the Family Proclamation.

thebigcheese: It already has a pretty official stamp of approval. As I keep mentioning, it's one of the few things that constitutes official church doctrine. I agree that it is guide to achieve an ideal family, but I don't think that removes it from the revelation category. As for offending people in areas where working Moms are the norm, I agree that we ought not offend people. However, part of the Church's role is to teach the ideal and then allow individuals to seek personal revelation in tailoring it to themselves. I don't know that "risking offending" someone is a reason for the Church to make the change on Pres. Packer's talk.

Possibly hypothesis: they changed it to guide in order to disconnect any of Pres. Packer's comments as official interpretation of the Family proclamation. Sounds a bit odd, but that's the best I can come up with.

wired wrote:While that was a widely accepted teaching in the Church, it wasn't what could be considered part of our measured doctrine until the Family Proclamation.

What do you mean by the term "measured doctrine"? (I haven't heard the expression before.)

Canonical or Official Doctrine. Something that constitutes what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially espouses as doctrine. The term "measured doctrine" was something my own mind came up with; it's a not a phrase typically used. I was thinking of those teachings that can be be accurately relied on (i.e. measured) as the official body of Church doctrine.

I'm guessing that they decided to call it a guide because not all families can follow all the precepts and it can be hard to remember the part where it says,

Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

It is still revelation. It's also a guide that we are commanded to follow as much as we are able.

Dead Cat wrote:I'm guessing that they decided to call it a guide because not all families can follow all the precepts and it can be hard to remember the part where it says,

Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

It is still revelation. It's also a guide that we are commanded to follow as much as we are able.

This is basically what I was trying to say.

I don't have a problem with it being called a guide, because isn't that what all scripture is? A guide for us to live by.

True, but I would say that scripture takes it further than that. A "guide" sounds like good advice. Scripture is usually more than just advice, it's commandments. But I suppose you could argue that commandments are a form of heavenly advice. (You don't have to follow them, but it's always in your best interest to follow them.)

wired wrote:Canonical or Official Doctrine. Something that constitutes what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially espouses as doctrine. The term "measured doctrine" was something my own mind came up with; it's a not a phrase typically used. I was thinking of those teachings that can be be accurately relied on (i.e. measured) as the official body of Church doctrine.

1. What are the implications of something being Official Doctrine?

2. If something is Official Doctrine, isn't it the responsibility of the Church make that clear (almost by definition)?

If the Family Proclamation is official doctrine, the other four proclamations are as well. Can anyone name those off the top of their head? (I couldn't...)

The Official Declarations 1 & 2. Um... the Living Christ? I can't think of a fourth.

Also the 1st Presidency Declaration on the "Origin of Man."

ahem. wrote:The Official Declarations 1 & 2. Um... the Living Christ? I can't think of a fourth.

Nope, official declarations are in a category of their own. As are doctrinal expositions and public announcements.

The official list of proclamations is as follows:
(1) Proclamation of the First Presidency on January 15, 1841, at Nauvoo, Illinois
(2) Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles on April 6, 1845, in New York City, and on October 22, 1845, in Liverpool, England
(3) Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles on October 21, 1865, in Salt Lake City, Utah
(4) Proclamation from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, April 6, 1980, issued from Fayette, New York.
(5) The Family: A Proclamation to the World (September 23, 1995).

Katya wrote:

wired wrote:Canonical or Official Doctrine. Something that constitutes what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially espouses as doctrine. The term "measured doctrine" was something my own mind came up with; it's a not a phrase typically used. I was thinking of those teachings that can be be accurately relied on (i.e. measured) as the official body of Church doctrine.

1. What are the implications of something being Official Doctrine?

2. If something is Official Doctrine, isn't it the responsibility of the Church make that clear (almost by definition)?

I want to give both of these questions the time they deserve for an answer. I am busy through this weekend though, so I will respond sometime next week.

I don't remember where I heard this, so it could be way off base...but I heard that something must be endorsed by either the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency (as a group) to be considered doctrine. Individual apostles can say good things too, but their words are not instant doctrine.

For a little context, I believe I heard that during a discussion of the book Mormon Doctrine, which is perhaps one of the most controversial writings of an apostle, ever.

We have plenty of extra-doctrinal sources on what constitutes doctrine...

This doesn't seem to solve the problem.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:We have plenty of extra-doctrinal sources on what constitutes doctrine...

This doesn't seem to solve the problem.

Like

Everything below is my opinion and is authoritative only as you accept my interpretation of anything I reference.

RE: Waldorf's comment and what is doctrine in general

You are right, there are few sources of doctrine that say what doctrine is. (I can think of two spots - 3 Ne. 27 and somewhere around 2 Ne. 29 where Nephie discusses the "doctrine of Christ.") This are the definitive sources of doctrine insomuch as one accepts the scriptures as the primary source of truth and knowledge.

The Church also serves as an institution to deliver doctrine. Consequently, I look to the Church's description of what constitutes Church doctrine. For that, I again refer to http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/ap ... n-doctrine which I believe is un-contradicted in any other official Church materials - doctrine is found in the scriptures, official proclamations and declarations, and the Articles of Faith.

Even then, the interpretation of those documents can be debated in any number of ways. There is, in the Church, many common accepted interpretations of doctrine based on the repeated declarations of their interpretation by general authorities. These interpretations are not, of themselves doctrine, but are commonly accepted teachings. Additions to church doctrine come only as teachings become inclusive in these sources of truth.

For example, the scriptures say a bit about our post-mortal journey. What is included in those parts are the official doctrine of the Church. Some teach things that interpret the scriptures in a way that is commonly accepted among Church members; for instance, the exact progression of post-mortal life is not totally clear from the scriptures, but the common interpretation is that we go to the Spirit World, followed by resurrection, judgment, and an inheritance of glory. (I am not saying that timeline is not true, I am saying that the scriptures don't clearly draw it out in that way that is indisputable.) And, prior to Joseph F. Smith's dream about the spirit world, we did not know that missionary work continued in the life after this one. Furthermore, until it was included in the sources of canon, it was not considered doctrine.

RE: Katya's questions

What are the implications of something being doctrine?
There are two levels to discuss that question on. Philosophical and practical.

The philosophical level first. Considering what is not doctrine is probably an important place to start in understanding the implications of official doctrine. For instance, anything a prophet says is not considered Church doctrine. Nor is a publication by an apostle. Many, if not most, of the problems that people have with our Church comes from statements that are non-doctrinal. For instance, blacks and the priesthood, the necessity or re-institution of polygamy, theories on the relationship of Adam and God, and many other "hot button" topics for anti-Mormon attacks stem form non-doctrinal sources. Anti-Mormon attackers would have people believe that these statements from Church leaders are binding doctrine because that would mean our Church sponsors those statements as truth. Opposition to our Church often comes because people believe that the Church's philosophy is unjust or wrong, and they consequently turn away. Really though, the philosophy the Church espouses is its doctrine and when it is accurately assessed, it is always a perfectly just philosophy which can endure in any age. If we mistakenly believe that too much of Church members' interpretation is doctrine, we increase the chances of including too many individual and cultural biases in the doctrine of the Church which cannot stand the test of time.

Those teachings which are official doctrine constitute truth which the Church sponsors. This creates very practical changes. As I read the scriptures (irony alert for me asking someone to take my extra-doctrinal opinion on this) I find that the doctrines of the gospel are primarily concerned with helping us to become better daily, achieve salvation and exaltation, and then go on to become like Jesus Christ. What is considered doctrine then potentially changes one's paradigm of life and how we approach daily living. Doctrinal inclusion means that I ought to pay attention so I can do something different tomorrow.

If something is official doctrine, isn't it the responsibility of the Church to make that clear?
Yes. I am not sure what your question is driving at. (I don't think you have an underlying purpose of are trying to trap me, I just don't know what the question stems from.)

Part of the Church's responsibility, as I view it, is to keep the doctrine pure and clear. In my opinion, the Church has collectively become more aware of this as it has matured in the latter days. Elder Cook came to a stake conference of mine and said the Apostles (and the Church) have two goals. Increase faith in Christ and strengthen the family. I think given our unique doctrine of eternal families and the concept of faith in Christ both go to the point that they ought to be clarifying doctrine.

As for how this relates to the topic at hand, I think the Church is teaching what is doctrine. That is why the peel back on "revelation" to "guide" is so interesting to me. I feel like the Family is a source of doctrine and probably counts as much as anything else as revelation.