Where can we Find the Official Doctrine of the Church

[Amonhi]

We have all sorts of discussions on this forum and each person presents their personal views of the gospel and principles of truth. Sometimes those views agree and sometimes they don't.

When they don't, everyone often begins claiming that their view is "Church Doctrine". Sometimes that view is considered church doctrine because so many members in the church believe or accept it, or maybe a prophet or an apostle taught it.

But we see that prophets often teach things that are disavowed by later prophets or church administrations. When it is a policy, which is not taught as an eternal truth or principle of truth, then sure it makes sense that later church leaders can change the way things are done to adjust for the different circumstances of the time.

However, there are many instance in which Presidents of the church have taught something as doctrine only to see it denounced by the church years later. For example, the Formal Declaration by the First Presidency on December 15, 1969 regarding Negos, HERE, which specifically taught things that are now denounced by the church today as merely racist theories,

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. - [urlhttps://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng]HERE[/url]

What was doctrine in the past is now theory and racist and this was a message from the First Presidency of the church given with more authority and process than was the Proclamation on the Family. If Declarations given and signed by the First Presidency of the Church can be disavowed and condemned as racism, then it certainly wasn't a doctrine of Christ. The Doctrines of Christ do not change.

Was it a church doctrine that was not of Christ, or was it actually true and it is our current church doctrine that is wrong? When we are dealing with policy, then what is right at one point may change and not be right at another, but when we are dealing with doctrines, and truths, I do not think that they can change so easily.

If we were members of the church on December 15, 1969, would we be required to accept and agree with the letter from the First Presidency regarding the Negros? Would we be forced to be racist because we belonged to the Mormon church? Can we accept that Official Doctrine of the church can be thrust on us so easily and without our assent?

The question is, What is considered an "Official or Authorized" source of church doctrine? Surely I would expect that the First Presidency would be able to declare official doctrine, but as has been shown, if that were the case, then Christ's true church would have been officially racist in 1969. That doesn't sound like a characteristic of Christ's true church in any age. This would mean that the imperfections of men, even at high levels have major influence in Christ's church, but are they able to derail it so thoroughly that it can not be considered His church any more? I don't think so. I think that the prophets and even the First Presidency are subject to be checked against a greater source of truth and official Doctrine then even them selves and their own positions. They cannot make up doctrine that contradicts truth, eternal truth and pass it off as Christ's doctrine. Could you imagine them saying that God can't do something that we find God doing often in the historical record of the scriptures. They can't change the past to fit their whim and convenience or understanding today. They can't rewrite history and stop God from ever doing what they said He never did and doesn't ever do.

I submit that Fairmormon.org does not count as an official source of doctrine for the church. Neither does the Encyclopedia of Mormonism nor does Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, nor does even "The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" or the Biography of President Benson or any other prophet, nor Neil A. Maxwells wonderful quote book, nor any other book written by a prophet or apostle as a personal work. I don't think we can consider articles provided in the Liahona or ensign, even when those articles are written by prophets and apostles. While they may be good, enlightening and useful, they are not considered official Standard Doctrines of the church.

What is the highest Official source of doctrine of the church such that if there was a disagreement, between Prophets and apostles, that source would always win?

I think that whatever we are able to show that source to be, it should also be our source for official Doctrine as we are discussing these various topics. Rather than making up what we want and calling it official Doctrine of the Church, we should be able to find it in that source befor we are allowed to call it "official doctrine" or even say that the church teaches. Do do otherwise would make us liars.

Let's all get on the same page here. Where can we find the Official Doctrines of the church?

Peace,
Amonhi

[Jeremy]

Where can we find the Official Doctrines of the church?

I believe the current norm is to accept whatever the most current statement is given by a general authority and addressed to the whole church.

[FTC]

It completely depends on which decade you're referencing.

[Contemplator]

I kind of think that what we are looking for is truth (see D&C 93: 24, "...truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;") rather than doctrine. But, if you want to know what the church currently calls "doctrine," here is the statement from the church's newsroom:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/a ... n-doctrine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context, and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

• 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.
  
  Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

• Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
  
  Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
  
  Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.
  
  Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.

Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.

[rewcox]

Certainly not from the nameless one, Amonhi.

[AI2.0]

We have all sorts of discussions on this forum and each person presents their personal views of the gospel and principles of truth. Sometimes those views agree and sometimes they don't.

When they don't, everyone often begins claiming that their view is "Church Doctrine". Sometimes that view is considered church doctrine because so many members in the church believe or accept it, or maybe a prophet or an apostle taught it.

But we see that prophets often teach things that are disavowed by later prophets or church administrations. When it is a policy, which is not taught as an eternal truth or principle of truth, then sure it makes sense that later church leaders can change the way things are done to adjust for the different circumstances of the time.

However, there are many instance in which Presidents of the church have taught something as doctrine only to see it denounced by the church years later. For example, the Formal Declaration by the First Presidency on December 15, 1969 regarding Negos, HERE, which specifically taught things that are now denounced by the church today as merely racist theories,

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. - [urlhttps://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng]HERE[/url]

What was doctrine in the past is now theory and racist and this was a message from the First Presidency of the church given with more authority and process than was the Proclamation on the Family. If Declarations given and signed by the First Presidency of the Church can be disavowed and condemned as racism, then it certainly wasn't a doctrine of Christ. The Doctrines of Christ do not change.

Was it a church doctrine that was not of Christ, or was it actually true and it is our current church doctrine that is wrong? When we are dealing with policy, then what is right at one point may change and not be right at another, but when we are dealing with doctrines, and truths, I do not think that they can change so easily.

If we were members of the church on December 15, 1969, would we be required to accept and agree with the letter from the First Presidency regarding the Negros? Would we be forced to be racist because we belonged to the Mormon church? Can we accept that Official Doctrine of the church can be thrust on us so easily and without our assent?

The question is, What is considered an "Official or Authorized" source of church doctrine? Surely I would expect that the First Presidency would be able to declare official doctrine, but as has been shown, if that were the case, then Christ's true church would have been officially racist in 1969. That doesn't sound like a characteristic of Christ's true church in any age. This would mean that the imperfections of men, even at high levels have major influence in Christ's church, but are they able to derail it so thoroughly that it can not be considered His church any more? I don't think so. I think that the prophets and even the First Presidency are subject to be checked against a greater source of truth and official Doctrine then even them selves and their own positions. They cannot make up doctrine that contradicts truth, eternal truth and pass it off as Christ's doctrine. Could you imagine them saying that God can't do something that we find God doing often in the historical record of the scriptures. They can't change the past to fit their whim and convenience or understanding today. They can't rewrite history and stop God from ever doing what they said He never did and doesn't ever do.

I submit that Fairmormon.org does not count as an official source of doctrine for the church. Neither does the Encyclopedia of Mormonism nor does Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, nor does even "The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" or the Biography of President Benson or any other prophet, nor Neil A. Maxwells wonderful quote book, nor any other book written by a prophet or apostle as a personal work. I don't think we can consider articles provided in the Liahona or ensign, even when those articles are written by prophets and apostles. While they may be good, enlightening and useful, they are not considered official Standard Doctrines of the church.

What is the highest Official source of doctrine of the church such that if there was a disagreement, between Prophets and apostles, that source would always win?

I think that whatever we are able to show that source to be, it should also be our source for official Doctrine as we are discussing these various topics. Rather than making up what we want and calling it official Doctrine of the Church, we should be able to find it in that source befor we are allowed to call it "official doctrine" or even say that the church teaches. Do do otherwise would make us liars.

Let's all get on the same page here. Where can we find the Official Doctrines of the church?

Peace,
Amonhi

You claim that 'doctrine' has changed. But, IMO, I think you need to recognize that some teachings are doctrine, some are practices and some are policies. Some will say that Polygamy was a 'doctrine' and it changed. Not so, while it's no longer practiced, in fact, it is forbidden, the belief that polygamy may be acceptable if the Lord, through HIS present day Prophet commands it, has not changed. Blacks not holding the priesthood was a policy and practice(to which changes were made over decades before it was removed in 1978). There was no doctrinal basis for it, as was figured out by church leaders several times when they looked into this over the years. But they felt it needed a revelation to remove the ban, because it was so ingrained. So, there is a difference in doctrines, policies and practices--but many confuse them. Also, you have to recognize that in a church which believes in continuing and changing revelation, there is going to be change--the hope is that the change will come as the members grow in spirituality, commitment and ability to accept higher teachings. The hope is that the members will not refuse to accept and fail to recognize that these changes come from the Lord. If they pray for understanding, they can have the spirit witness to them that these are the Lord's will.

Official doctrine are things like the need for ordinances, performed by one holding authority. The Doctrine of Christ, found in the Book of Mormon, The need for baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. The belief in a priesthood, which means authority to act in God's name. The belief in Prophets, 12 Apostles and how this means continuing revelation. The Sacrament ordinance and temple ordinances.

Some fundamental Doctrines, such as the Plan of Salvation, the Atonement--these can be found in the Scriptures. From time to time, church leaders have given their beliefs on these subjects and some have misunderstood these to be 'official doctrine'. A great example is Elder McConkie's book, Mormon Doctrine, which he did get some flak for.

I think you know that Joseph Smith taught that a Prophet was the highest authority to preach 'doctrine', and in this church, that means the present day prophet--because of the whole, line upon line, precept on precept and the FACT that if we are moving forward, then we need to expect changes, otherwise we are stagnant and not preparing to meet the Savior at the second coming. This is one reason that rejecting the need to follow the counsel of our present day prophets is such a problem--this is a fundamental requirement to continue to know the will of the Lord for his church. It will come through his prophet at the head of his church and each member should pray to receive their own witness so they can have full confidence and faith as they move forward.

[Amonhi]

I kind of think that what we are looking for is truth (see D&C 93: 24, "...truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;") rather than doctrine. But, if you want to know what the church currently calls "doctrine," here is the statement from the church's newsroom:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/a ... n-doctrine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context, and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

• 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.
  
  Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

• Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
  
  Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
  
  Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.
  
  Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.

Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.

Thank you.

Here is another reference to consider (Although it is not official, it comes from Fairmormon.org which I think we would all agree are Mormon friendly and well researched and of course they are referencing supposed authorities on the topic. http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/up ... ctrine.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

3. “Official” LDS Doctrine
Not every utterance by every general authority constitutes
“official” doctrine. “There are many subjects,” we read in the
First Presidency-authorized Encyclopedia of Mormonism,
“about which the scriptures are not clear and about which the
Church has made no official pronouncements. In such
matters, one can find differences of opinion among Church
members and leaders. Until the truth of these matters is made
known by revelation, there is room for different levels of
understanding and interpretation of unsettled issues.”14
Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they
are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,”
they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the
Church.”15 This includes statements given in General
Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for
the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on
revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being
given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine. As Harold
B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by
the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved
upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.”16 To claim
that anything taught in general conference is “official”
doctrine, notes J. F. McConkie, “makes the place where
something is said rather than what is said the standard of
truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by
someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is
not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”17
How do we know then, what is “doctrine”, and what is not?
First it must generally conform to what has already been
revealed. “It makes no difference what is written or what
anyone has said,” wrote J. Fielding Smith, “if what has been
said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set
it aside.” The standard works, he explains, are the “measuring
yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s
doctrine.” 18
Harold B. Lee expressed similar thoughts when he taught that
any doctrine, advanced by anyone—regardless of position—
that was not supported by the standard works, then “you may
know that his statement is merely his private opinion.” He
recognized that the Prophet could bring forth new doctrine,
but “when he does, [he] will declare it as revelation from
God,” after which it will be sustained by the body of
Church.19

The Prophet can add to the scriptures, but such new additions
are presented by the First Presidency to the body of the
Church and are accepted by common consent (by sustaining
vote) as binding doctrine of the Church (See D&C 26:2;
107:27-31).
20 Until such doctrines or opinions are sustained
by vote in conference, however, they are “neither binding nor
the official doctrine of the Church.”21
How can we know if teachings, which have not been voted
upon, are true? J. Reuben Clark explains that when “we,
ourselves, are ‘moved by the Holy Ghost,’” then we know that
the speakers are teaching true doctrine. “In a way, this
completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to
determine when they so speak.”22
It is likely that the Lord has allowed (and will continue to
allow) his servants to make mistakes—it’s all part of
progression and the growing process. We are not forced to
accept teachings with which we disagree. We’re supposed to
receive confirmation from the spirit if what is taught is the
doctrine of God, and of course we’re the one who put
ourselves in jeopardy if we fail to accept things which will
bless us.

The LDS News room and Fairmormon.org both agree on where to find LDS Official Doctrine. I think we have heard those exact same things taught by members of this forum. But it is correct?

Peace,
Amonhi

[Amonhi]

We have all sorts of discussions on this forum and each person presents their personal views of the gospel and principles of truth. Sometimes those views agree and sometimes they don't.

When they don't, everyone often begins claiming that their view is "Church Doctrine". Sometimes that view is considered church doctrine because so many members in the church believe or accept it, or maybe a prophet or an apostle taught it.

But we see that prophets often teach things that are disavowed by later prophets or church administrations. When it is a policy, which is not taught as an eternal truth or principle of truth, then sure it makes sense that later church leaders can change the way things are done to adjust for the different circumstances of the time.

However, there are many instance in which Presidents of the church have taught something as doctrine only to see it denounced by the church years later. For example, the Formal Declaration by the First Presidency on December 15, 1969 regarding Negos, HERE, which specifically taught things that are now denounced by the church today as merely racist theories,

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. - [urlhttps://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng]HERE[/url]

What was doctrine in the past is now theory and racist and this was a message from the First Presidency of the church given with more authority and process than was the Proclamation on the Family. If Declarations given and signed by the First Presidency of the Church can be disavowed and condemned as racism, then it certainly wasn't a doctrine of Christ. The Doctrines of Christ do not change.

Was it a church doctrine that was not of Christ, or was it actually true and it is our current church doctrine that is wrong? When we are dealing with policy, then what is right at one point may change and not be right at another, but when we are dealing with doctrines, and truths, I do not think that they can change so easily.

If we were members of the church on December 15, 1969, would we be required to accept and agree with the letter from the First Presidency regarding the Negros? Would we be forced to be racist because we belonged to the Mormon church? Can we accept that Official Doctrine of the church can be thrust on us so easily and without our assent?

The question is, What is considered an "Official or Authorized" source of church doctrine? Surely I would expect that the First Presidency would be able to declare official doctrine, but as has been shown, if that were the case, then Christ's true church would have been officially racist in 1969. That doesn't sound like a characteristic of Christ's true church in any age. This would mean that the imperfections of men, even at high levels have major influence in Christ's church, but are they able to derail it so thoroughly that it can not be considered His church any more? I don't think so. I think that the prophets and even the First Presidency are subject to be checked against a greater source of truth and official Doctrine then even them selves and their own positions. They cannot make up doctrine that contradicts truth, eternal truth and pass it off as Christ's doctrine. Could you imagine them saying that God can't do something that we find God doing often in the historical record of the scriptures. They can't change the past to fit their whim and convenience or understanding today. They can't rewrite history and stop God from ever doing what they said He never did and doesn't ever do.

I submit that Fairmormon.org does not count as an official source of doctrine for the church. Neither does the Encyclopedia of Mormonism nor does Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, nor does even "The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" or the Biography of President Benson or any other prophet, nor Neil A. Maxwells wonderful quote book, nor any other book written by a prophet or apostle as a personal work. I don't think we can consider articles provided in the Liahona or ensign, even when those articles are written by prophets and apostles. While they may be good, enlightening and useful, they are not considered official Standard Doctrines of the church.

What is the highest Official source of doctrine of the church such that if there was a disagreement, between Prophets and apostles, that source would always win?

I think that whatever we are able to show that source to be, it should also be our source for official Doctrine as we are discussing these various topics. Rather than making up what we want and calling it official Doctrine of the Church, we should be able to find it in that source befor we are allowed to call it "official doctrine" or even say that the church teaches. Do do otherwise would make us liars.

Let's all get on the same page here. Where can we find the Official Doctrines of the church?

Peace,
Amonhi

You claim that 'doctrine' has changed. But, IMO, I think you need to recognize that some teachings are doctrine, some are practices and some are policies. Some will say that Polygamy was a 'doctrine' and it changed. Not so, while it's no longer practiced, in fact, it is forbidden, the belief that polygamy may be acceptable if the Lord, through HIS present day Prophet commands it, has not changed. Blacks not holding the priesthood was a policy and practice(to which changes were made over decades before it was removed in 1978). There was no doctrinal basis for it, as was figured out by church leaders several times when they looked into this over the years. But they felt it needed a revelation to remove the ban, because it was so ingrained. So, there is a difference in doctrines, policies and practices--but many confuse them.

Thank you. I agree. That is what I was trying to point out is that while it was presented as a Declaration by the First Presidency, it was not really doctrine of the church. The Declaration was simply theories that might explain the policy that was being maintained for that time. You explained that part much better than I did. Thank you.

Also, you have to recognize that in a church which believes in continuing and changing revelation, there is going to be change--the hope is that the change will come as the members grow in spirituality, commitment and ability to accept higher teachings. The hope is that the members will not refuse to accept and fail to recognize that these changes come from the Lord. If they pray for understanding, they can have the spirit witness to them that these are the Lord's will.

Agreed. Good point. So when Black are allowed to be sealed in the temple, it doesn't come as a "leave the church" type shock that some people experienced.

Official doctrine are things like the need for ordinances, performed by one holding authority. The Doctrine of Christ, found in the Book of Mormon, The need for baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. The belief in a priesthood, which means authority to act in God's name. The belief in Prophets, 12 Apostles and how this means continuing revelation. The Sacrament ordinance and temple ordinances.

I think we agree in the concept.

If Blacks not having the priesthood and not being allowed to be sealed to their family was not a doctrine, but a practice, then the sacrament is also a practice which was instituted during Christ's time but not before. Animal Sacrifice was a practice that was instituted from the time of Adam down to Christ and then stopped. It was a practice and not a doctrine. (Are we on the same page?)

Official Doctrine sounds like it is more closely related to eternal truth whereas "current doctrine" is actually Current practice and will change or was changed which explains why we call it current verses future or past. It's what we do right now but not what we did in the past or will do in the future.

This then begs the question, How can we tell between actual doctrines and temporary practices that we think are doctrines?

Some fundamental Doctrines, such as the Plan of Salvation, the Atonement--these can be found in the Scriptures. From time to time, church leaders have given their beliefs on these subjects and some have misunderstood these to be 'official doctrine'. A great example is Elder McConkie's book, Mormon Doctrine, which he did get some flak for.

Right.

I think you know that Joseph Smith taught that a Prophet was the highest authority to preach 'doctrine', and in this church, that means the present day prophet--because of the whole, line upon line, precept on precept and the FACT that if we are moving forward, then we need to expect changes, otherwise we are stagnant and not preparing to meet the Savior at the second coming. This is one reason that rejecting the need to follow the counsel of our present day prophets is such a problem--this is a fundamental requirement to continue to know the will of the Lord for his church. It will come through his prophet at the head of his church and each member should pray to receive their own witness so they can have full confidence and faith as they move forward.

Do you have a quote for that? I have no doubt that the prophet can change practice for the church. But Doctrine seems different. If it is Christ's church, it needs to teach His doctrine. If it doesn't teach His doctrine, can it really be his church?

What is Christ's Doctrine?

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. - 3 Nephi 11

Peace,
Amonhi

[brianj]

I don't know why people have such difficulty with the changes in church doctrine or policies over the years. We are only fed as much as we can take, a little at a time, and sometimes what is right at one point in time is not right at another point in time.
Quick question: What church did Joseph Smith found in April 1830? If you answered The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you are wrong.
In 1830 he founded the Church of Christ. Later it was renamed The Church of Jesus Christ, then the Church of Latter-day Saints. In 1838 the current name was given by divine revelation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Smith, and all of us, learn line upon line and precept upon precept.

We all do our best, and hopefully we all have the occasional experience of opening our mouth and having the Holy Ghost fill it with words, but that doesn't happen every time or to everybody. General Authorities, including presidents of the church, don't sit down for daily conversations with the Savior to get exact direction for the church. They discuss issues with their counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve, pray for guidance, and keep discussing the issues until they come to a consensus. They are inspired in this approach, but this approach allows human imperfection into the mix so no everything they do is perfect. The church will never be led astray by our leaders, but we won't follow a perfectly straight path. We will generally go in the right direction, needing course corrections to bring us closer to the ideal path until we finally make it through the narrow gate.

[Juliet]

What church leaders declare as doctrine is only half of the picture. The other half is whether or not you choose to sustain it. We should be responsible and not sustain something that grieves the Holy Spirit within us. The followers of the church have responsibility to make sure they are only sustaining what is right and true as made known to them through the Holy Spirit. How dare we to think that men could lead us perfectly. There is a way for dissent to be discussed and it must if something is in error with the official presented doctrine of the church. So it was in the councils of heaven, so it is in the councils on earth.

[Rachael]

...

The question is, What is considered an "Official or Authorized" source of church doctrine? Surely I would expect that the First Presidency would be able to declare official doctrine, but as has been shown, if that were the case, then Christ's true church would have been officially racist in 1969. That doesn't sound like a characteristic of Christ's true church in any age. This would mean that the imperfections of men, even at high levels have major influence in Christ's church, but are they able to derail it so thoroughly that it can not be considered His church any more? I don't think so. I think that the prophets and even the First Presidency are subject to be checked against a greater source of truth and official Doctrine then even them selves and their own positions. They cannot make up doctrine that contradicts truth, eternal truth and pass it off as Christ's doctrine. Could you imagine them saying that God can't do something that we find God doing often in the historical record of the scriptures. They can't change the past to fit their whim and convenience or understanding today. They can't rewrite history and stop God from ever doing what they said He never did and doesn't ever do.

I submit that Fairmormon.org does not count as an official source of doctrine for the church. Neither does the Encyclopedia of Mormonism nor does Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, nor does even "The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" or the Biography of President Benson or any other prophet, nor Neil A. Maxwells wonderful quote book, nor any other book written by a prophet or apostle as a personal work. I don't think we can consider articles provided in the Liahona or ensign, even when those articles are written by prophets and apostles. While they may be good, enlightening and useful, they are not considered official Standard Doctrines of the church.

What is the highest Official source of doctrine of the church such that if there was a disagreement, between Prophets and apostles, that source would always win?
..

...Rather than making up what we want and calling it official Doctrine of the Church, we should be able to find it in that source befor we are allowed to call it "official doctrine" or even say that the church teaches. Do do otherwise would make us liars.

Let's all get on the same page here. Where can we find the Official Doctrines of the church?

Peace,
Amonhi

Whatever wind of doctrine the correlation committee blows out in our updated Gospel Doctrine manuals and the latest General Conference. That is the official doctrine for the time being. You got to keep in mind living prophets are more important and trump dead ones, and scripture.

[Amonhi]

I agree with AI2.0. I think that Blacks not getting the priesthood or being allowed to be endowed or sealed in the temple was a practice. It was not a doctrine of Christ. Christ's doctrine is spelled out so clearly that he tells us anything more or less than this is not my doctrine.

What is Christ's Doctrine?

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. - 3 Nephi 11

Recap in English, Here is Christ's doctrine:

1. Believe in me = Faith
2. Repent = Repentance
3. Baptism = Baptism by Water
4. he will visit him with fire = Remission of sins
5. and with the Holy Ghost = the Gift of the Holy Ghost = The Voice of the Lord to us directly

That is the Doctrine of Christ, he said it 3 times so we wouldn't miss it.

As dumb and obvious as it might sound, there is a direct connection between the doctrine of Christ and the Gospel of Christ. We learn that in the Book of Mormon, the prophets went around preaching the Gospel which was the same as saying the doctrine of Christ.

Jacob 7:6
6 And it came to pass that he came unto me, and on this wise did he speak unto me, saying: Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ.

We see another explanation of the direct connection between the Gospel and the Doctrine of Christ as explained by the Lord just after the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon were lost to Martin Harris. The rest of the Book of Mormon hadn't yet been translated and so the Gospel and Doctrine of Christ as taught by Christ had not yet been revealed. Here is what he said about the ,

62 Yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was ministered unto them, and, behold, they shall not deny that which you have received, but they shall build it up, and shall bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.
63 And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them. - D&C 10

Now, why is this important? Because there are two criteria the we must match in order to be Christ's Church. They are:

1. Called in his name
2. Teach his gospel or doctrine

Here is How Christ taught it to the Nephites.
The two criteria

3 Nephi 27:8
8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.

The Church of Christ must be built on His Gospel which is his doctrine because if it is not, then the gates of hell are open to receive it. Look again at 3 Nephi 11 where Christ explained that if you build on his doctrine, then the gates of hell will not prevail but if you don't then the gates of hell stand open to receive it...

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell SHALL NOT prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell STAND OPEN TO RECEIVE SUCHwhen the floods come and the winds beat upon them. - 3 Nephi 11

Certainly the True Church of Christ teaches the Doctrines of Christ or else the True Church of Christ teaches people that which opens the gates of hell to received them. It is so simple, Christ's Church MUST teach Christ's Doctrine or it is not Christ's church, it is not build on the rock and Satan will prevail against it.

Can anyone see any way around this? I can't.

Ultimately what does this mean? I means that everything else might be true, but cannot be considered doctrine. They would be principles, practices, teachings, commandments, policies or some other thing, but not doctrine.

The teachings that were given by past presidents of the church were taught as if they were doctrines, but they were just racist theories and practices created by the leadership of the church who either didn't know better or who were catering to a people who demanded it. (Give us a king.)

The practice, not doctrine, which prevented blacks from holding the priesthood and being sealed to their families by the priesthood was ended just as the practice of animal Sacrifice was ended. Doctrines cannot end. They are either true or they are not.

The problems is that until this discussion, many of us have accepted and taught and claimed that certain teachings and practices of the church were doctrines. (Myself included.) IF they were doctrines, then they must be the doctrines of Christ or this isn't his Church, which means that we all have been teaching more or less than the true doctrines of Christ and claimed that they were his doctrine. This means that whenever any of us, myself included have said, "This is the doctrine of the church which is Christ's church" and were were teaching more than faith, repentance, baptism, the remission of sins by fire and the gift of the Holy Ghost, then were were teaching things that opened the gates of hell to receive us and thereby leading people astray, to hell. I can see that at times I myself did this because I called various beliefs I hold the doctrines of the church and therefore the doctrines of Christ.

Perhaps this is the reason the Lord placed the church under condemnation and said that it was because we neglected the primary message and importance of the Book of Mormon.

52 And whoso receiveth not my voice (the Holy Ghost) is not acquainted with my voice, and is not of me.
53 And by this you may know the righteous from the wicked, and that the whole world groaneth under sin and darkness even now.
54 And your minds in times past have been darkened becauseof unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—
55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.
56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. (From the newest lay member to the Prophet and President of the church.)
57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

This condemnation was pronounced in 1832 by the Lord. 154 years later, in 1986, President Benson told the church that we were still under condemnation for "treating lightly the important information contained in the Book of Mormon".

In 1832, as some early missionaries returned from their fields of labor, the Lord reproved them for treating the Book of Mormon lightly. As a result of that attitude, he said, their minds had been darkened. Not only had treating this sacred book lightly brought a loss of light to themselves, it had also brought the whole Church under condemnation, even all the children of Zion. And then the Lord said, “And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon” (D&C 84:54–57)....
If the early Saints were rebuked for treating the Book of Mormon lightly, are we under any less condemnation if we do the same? The Lord Himself bears testimony that it is of eternal significance. Can a small number of us bring the whole Church under condemnation because we trifle with sacred things? What will we say at the Judgment when we stand before Him and meet His probing gaze if we are among those described as forgetting the new covenant?
...
The first is that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. This was the Prophet Joseph Smith’s statement. He testified that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion” (Introduction to the Book of Mormon). A keystone is the central stone in an arch. It holds all the other stones in place, and if removed, the arch crumbles.

There are three ways in which the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It is the keystone in our witness of Christ. It is the keystone of our doctrine. It is the keystone of testimony.
...
“Do eternal consequences rest upon our response to this book? Yes, either to our blessing or our condemnation.

“Every Latter-day Saint should make the study of this book a lifetime pursuit. Otherwise he is placing his soul in jeopardy and neglecting that which could give spiritual and intellectual unity to his whole life. There is a difference between a convert who is built on the rock of Christ through the Book of Mormon and stays hold of that iron rod, and one who is not” (Ensign, May 1975, p. 65). (Remember that the rock on which we must build is, the doctrine of Christ. If we build on it, then the gates of hell cannot prevail if we do not then they stand open to received us.)

I reaffirm those words to you this day. Let us not remain under condemnation, with its scourge and judgment, by treating lightly this great and marvelous gift the Lord has given to us. Rather, let us win the promises associated with treasuring it up in our hearts.

Here is for me, the big kicker. We know the doctrines of Christ and the doctrines of His church. We know that anything more or less than this presented as the doctrines of Christ or the doctrines of his church comes of evil and opens the gates of hell and means that we are leading others to hell or astray from the rock and Christ.

But have we not been enforcing the teachings and practices of church as if they were the doctrines of Christ?

I have learned and taught my whole life all sorts of things which I called doctrines of the church or Doctrines of Christ. I am sure you can relate. It is so easy to point at others and say that they are doing wrong because they do this or that, but can we look at ourselves and see our own error? Can we see and remove the beam in our own eye so easily?

Did not Nephi teach so clearly by the spirit of prophecy and revelation saying,

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.
...
16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.

17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, (Through the Holy Ghost), and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. - 2 Nephi 31

This message is repeated again and again so clearly throughout the Book of Mormon. IT is the ONLY and true doctrine of the Father AND the son AND the Holy Ghost. If we teach any other doctrine and claim it to be from God or the Son or the Holy Ghost, we are deceived and the gates of hell open to receive us and those we lead astray after strange doctrines.

Have we not all taught for doctrines the commandments of men because we did not know and understand the only doctrine given by Christ and his Father?

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. - Matt. 15:

Do we as a church teach for doctrines the commandments of men? Is this why we are under condemnation for our neglect of the Book of Mormon which repeatedly and clearly corrects this error?

Where do we find the doctrines of Christ which are the doctrines of HIS Church and the ONLY and true doctrines of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?

Peace,
Amonhi

[Amonhi]

Just thinking again...

Bruce R. McConkie wrote an entire book called, "Mormon Doctrine". But we learn repeatedly that God and Father and Jesus Christ have only a few doctrines.

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.
...
16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.

17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.
...
21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. - 2 Nephi 31

If these are the ONLY and the True doctrines of God the Father and His son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, then shouldn't they be the ONLy and True Doctrines of the Church that claims to be Christ's church?

Especially when Christ himself tells us that anything more or less than this taught as his doctrine comes of evil and opens the gates of hell. In other words, leads people astray. If the church is not going to lead people astray to hell then I really thing that the only doctrines of the church must match up with Christ's doctrines which he tells us is the only rock on which if we build we can prevail against the gates of hell.

Can we all agree that the doctrines of Christ as spelled out in the Book of Mormon are the Only and true doctrines of the true church of Jesus Christ?

Peace,
Amonhi

[Amonhi]

Anyone want to respond to the previous post. It's kind of important for us to know if the only doctrines God the Father accepts and Christ accepts are also the only doctrines that Christ's church accepts too.

How is it that God the Father and Jesus Christ would be willing to only teach, approve and accept a few simple principles and ordinances as doctrines and say that nothing else is considered a doctrine of God or a doctrine of Christ.

Should we also be like God and Christ and only accept these things as doctrine and nothing else?

Peace,
Amonhi

[Finrock]

Anyone want to respond to the previous post. It's kind of important for us to know if the only doctrines God the Father accepts and Christ accepts are also the only doctrines that Christ's church accepts too.

How is it that God the Father and Jesus Christ would be willing to only teach, approve and accept a few simple principles and ordinances as doctrines and say that nothing else is considered a doctrine of God or a doctrine of Christ.

Should we also be like God and Christ and only accept these things as doctrine and nothing else?

Peace,
Amonhi

As a missionary I taught others that the gospel of Jesus Christ is simple and easy to understand, but life is complicated. The doctrine of Christ is simple because it is meant for everyone. It is simple because God wants it to be understood by everyone. God is not an elitist. He is inclusive. The gospel is not reserved to just a special group of individuals, with esoteric knowledge or privilege. It comes down to a simple concept: Love. Love is simple, pure, and anyone who desires can obtain it and learn to live by the pure love of Christ.

We are here on earth to learn to love as Jesus Christ loved.

We should also be like God and Christ and only accept the doctrine of Christ as doctrine and nothing else. Everything else is just peripheral and an appendage to this. Everything else is in place or exist, as a large fishing net, to gather people and prepare them at whatever level they might be, to accept God's love.

I would rather be around someone who was full of love and the simple humility that exist with God's love, than anyone body else. No matter their knowledge, skills, status, etc. if they don't have love, they are nothing.

-Finrock

[Sarah]

Just thinking again...

Bruce R. McConkie wrote an entire book called, "Mormon Doctrine". But we learn repeatedly that God and Father and Jesus Christ have only a few doctrines.

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.
...
16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.

17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.
...
21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. - 2 Nephi 31

If these are the ONLY and the True doctrines of God the Father and His son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, then shouldn't they be the ONLy and True Doctrines of the Church that claims to be Christ's church?

Especially when Christ himself tells us that anything more or less than this taught as his doctrine comes of evil and opens the gates of hell. In other words, leads people astray. If the church is not going to lead people astray to hell then I really thing that the only doctrines of the church must match up with Christ's doctrines which he tells us is the only rock on which if we build we can prevail against the gates of hell.

Can we all agree that the doctrines of Christ as spelled out in the Book of Mormon are the Only and true doctrines of the true church of Jesus Christ?

Peace,
Amonhi

If you "follow the son" you keep his commandments. So we need to know what his commandments are. We must learn all his commandments and all his ways. He has given us tools to help us know how to conform our thoughts, feelings and behaviors to reflect His image.

If the doctrine is to "repent of sin," then somehow we must recognize what sin is. Sin is tied to understanding God's commandments. Baptism is the sign we give signifying that we will promise to do all these things, and receiving the Holy Ghost works to sanctify us.

How does it sanctify us? One way is to awaken us to eternal truth, help us recognize it when we see it, help us see our own sin and weaknesses that have not been corrected, and the H.G. prompts us to love correctly. And Finrock is right that everything has one purpose, and that is to teach us to love correctly, but, and if you have the Holy Ghost as your companion, you will see how every commandment actually is formed to teach us about love and how to love correctly.

[Red]

We have all sorts of discussions on this forum and each person presents their personal views of the gospel and principles of truth. Sometimes those views agree and sometimes they don't.

When they don't, everyone often begins claiming that their view is "Church Doctrine". Sometimes that view is considered church doctrine because so many members in the church believe or accept it, or maybe a prophet or an apostle taught it.

But we see that prophets often teach things that are disavowed by later prophets or church administrations. When it is a policy, which is not taught as an eternal truth or principle of truth, then sure it makes sense that later church leaders can change the way things are done to adjust for the different circumstances of the time.

However, there are many instance in which Presidents of the church have taught something as doctrine only to see it denounced by the church years later. For example, the Formal Declaration by the First Presidency on December 15, 1969 regarding Negos, HERE, which specifically taught things that are now denounced by the church today as merely racist theories,

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. - [urlhttps://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng]HERE[/url]

What was doctrine in the past is now theory and racist and this was a message from the First Presidency of the church given with more authority and process than was the Proclamation on the Family. If Declarations given and signed by the First Presidency of the Church can be disavowed and condemned as racism, then it certainly wasn't a doctrine of Christ. The Doctrines of Christ do not change.

Was it a church doctrine that was not of Christ, or was it actually true and it is our current church doctrine that is wrong? When we are dealing with policy, then what is right at one point may change and not be right at another, but when we are dealing with doctrines, and truths, I do not think that they can change so easily.

If we were members of the church on December 15, 1969, would we be required to accept and agree with the letter from the First Presidency regarding the Negros? Would we be forced to be racist because we belonged to the Mormon church? Can we accept that Official Doctrine of the church can be thrust on us so easily and without our assent?

The question is, What is considered an "Official or Authorized" source of church doctrine? Surely I would expect that the First Presidency would be able to declare official doctrine, but as has been shown, if that were the case, then Christ's true church would have been officially racist in 1969. That doesn't sound like a characteristic of Christ's true church in any age. This would mean that the imperfections of men, even at high levels have major influence in Christ's church, but are they able to derail it so thoroughly that it can not be considered His church any more? I don't think so. I think that the prophets and even the First Presidency are subject to be checked against a greater source of truth and official Doctrine then even them selves and their own positions. They cannot make up doctrine that contradicts truth, eternal truth and pass it off as Christ's doctrine. Could you imagine them saying that God can't do something that we find God doing often in the historical record of the scriptures. They can't change the past to fit their whim and convenience or understanding today. They can't rewrite history and stop God from ever doing what they said He never did and doesn't ever do.

I submit that Fairmormon.org does not count as an official source of doctrine for the church. Neither does the Encyclopedia of Mormonism nor does Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, nor does even "The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" or the Biography of President Benson or any other prophet, nor Neil A. Maxwells wonderful quote book, nor any other book written by a prophet or apostle as a personal work. I don't think we can consider articles provided in the Liahona or ensign, even when those articles are written by prophets and apostles. While they may be good, enlightening and useful, they are not considered official Standard Doctrines of the church.

What is the highest Official source of doctrine of the church such that if there was a disagreement, between Prophets and apostles, that source would always win?

I think that whatever we are able to show that source to be, it should also be our source for official Doctrine as we are discussing these various topics. Rather than making up what we want and calling it official Doctrine of the Church, we should be able to find it in that source befor we are allowed to call it "official doctrine" or even say that the church teaches. Do do otherwise would make us liars.

Let's all get on the same page here. Where can we find the Official Doctrines of the church?

Peace,
Amonhi

Wouldn't that just be us as individuals, if we are following the path toward Christ? Don't we receive confirmations of the "official doctrine" through personal revelation? We read a concept then we ask God if it is true and correct. I suppose this idea wouldn't work for weirdos, but assuming we are diligently seeking Him and can recognize revelation, wouldn't that official doctrine be our personal revelation? My thoughts go to tithing. Many believe it is 10% before we pay our bills. I would argue that it's 10% of surplus. I argue this bc of my own personal revelation. I realize this isn't ideal in an organized religion, but I strive to follow a higher law. But I can't follow the higher law without Christ. I seek Him always, so I justify my theory to myself because I feel I am genuinely following Christ, not vainly satiating my carnal desires. But for a more plain answer, I think the scriptures are the official doctrine.