A simple question - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SteelBlue · 05-25-2006, 06:45 AM

I often hear the phrase that some teaching is or isn't "church doctrine". What qualifies as official church doctrine and how can one know if something is or isn't official doctrine?

realtall · 05-25-2006, 11:52 AM

I'll take a swing at it: Anything that is official doctrine will be written down(GC talks, Ensign, etc) and should be somewhere on the Church's website. If you can't find it there then it probably isn't official.

Mormon Red Death · 05-25-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I often hear the phrase that some teaching is or isn't "church doctrine". What qualifies as official church doctrine and how can one know if something is or isn't official doctrine?

The articles of faith..or other proclamations those are official correspondence from church

jay santos · 05-25-2006, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I often hear the phrase that some teaching is or isn't "church doctrine". What qualifies as official church doctrine and how can one know if something is or isn't official doctrine?

My answer to this, is anything that is in the canon, i.e. Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP, and anything that is taught by a living prophet (GBH, not the apostles) in general conference.

How Wide the Divide by Stephen Robinson and the Christian author is the best I've seen at defining this.

SteelBlue · 05-25-2006, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

My answer to this, is anything that is in the canon, i.e. Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP, and anything that is taught by a living prophet (GBH, not the apostles) in general conference.

I agree. What I find interesting though is the fluidity of doctrine by this or any of the other definitions in this thread.

Archaea · 05-25-2006, 07:41 PM

Christ's doctrine is faith, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, anything else is not of him.

There are other, very few, absolute doctrines. All others are fluid and subject to change.

bluegoose · 05-26-2006, 07:33 PM

A similar thought ran through my head recently with the question about "deep doctine".

My feeling is that there really isn't a whole lot, if any, of "deep doctrine".

There is doctrine, there is church history, and then there is speculation. I think a lot of what we call deep doctrine actually falls into the speculation category.

I agree that the doctrine of the church is probably much more limited than how we often classify it.

And I don't know if the statement that the teachings of the modern day prophet in general conference necessarily qualify as being doctrine. This is where you can also clarify the difference between church doctrine and church policy. I realize that its simply a matter of semantics, but I typically like to think of doctrine as being unchangeable truths about the gospel of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation. Policies change, doctrine does not.

UtahDan · 05-26-2006, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

How Wide the Divide by Stephen Robinson and the Christian author is the best I've seen at defining this.

Which is ironic, since Robinson's allegory of the bicycle has become so popular that it has been raised to the level of doctrine for many, but is actually (IMO) incorrect.

All-American · 05-26-2006, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Which is ironic, since Robinson's allegory of the bicycle has become so popular that it has been raised to the level of doctrine for many, but is actually (IMO) incorrect.

Any analogy attempting to explain the atonement is going to be able to cover one or two facets of the doctrine, and none more. Robinson's "parable of the bicycle" shows 1) how our miniscule effort is inconsequential in gaining salvation; 2) how the love of God is really the source of our salvation. Any application beyond that would probably not only be incorrect, but disputed by Robinson himself.

The atonement is such a complex, multifaceted concept that any attempt to enclose it in one brief story is bound to fall short. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to use analogies to explain it-- after all, Jesus did the same thing on many occasions. We simply need to recognize such stories for what they're worth; no more, no less.

UtahDan · 05-26-2006, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

Any analogy attempting to explain the atonement is going to be able to cover one or two facets of the doctrine, and none more. Robinson's "parable of the bicycle" shows 1) how our miniscule effort is inconsequential in gaining salvation; 2) how the love of God is really the source of our salvation. Any application beyond that would probably not only be incorrect, but disputed by Robinson himself.

The atonement is such a complex, multifaceted concept that any attempt to enclose it in one brief story is bound to fall short. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to use analogies to explain it-- after all, Jesus did the same thing on many occasions. We simply need to recognize such stories for what they're worth; no more, no less.

I can buy most of that, though I would suggest that your point 1) is actually where it fails. It misframes the issue by suggesting that we kick in part and he kicks in most of it. He kicks in the whole thing.

It would be like me telling you that if you come by later today I will give you one million dollars. You do nothing to earn the one million or any part of it, you simply have followed my instructions for accessing it.

There. Now I have laid out my own bad analogy that we can critique. :-)

05-25-2006, 06:45 AM	#1
SteelBlue Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Norcal Posts: 5,821	A simple question I often hear the phrase that some teaching is or isn't "church doctrine". What qualifies as official church doctrine and how can one know if something is or isn't official doctrine?

05-25-2006, 11:52 AM	#2
realtall Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Krum, TX Posts: 891	I'll take a swing at it: Anything that is official doctrine will be written down(GC talks, Ensign, etc) and should be somewhere on the Church's website. If you can't find it there then it probably isn't official. __________________ http://realtall.blogspot.com/

05-25-2006, 07:41 PM	#6
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Christ's doctrine is faith, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, anything else is not of him. There are other, very few, absolute doctrines. All others are fluid and subject to change. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

05-26-2006, 07:33 PM	#7
bluegoose Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Northern California Posts: 2,919	A similar thought ran through my head recently with the question about "deep doctine". My feeling is that there really isn't a whole lot, if any, of "deep doctrine". There is doctrine, there is church history, and then there is speculation. I think a lot of what we call deep doctrine actually falls into the speculation category. I agree that the doctrine of the church is probably much more limited than how we often classify it. And I don't know if the statement that the teachings of the modern day prophet in general conference necessarily qualify as being doctrine. This is where you can also clarify the difference between church doctrine and church policy. I realize that its simply a matter of semantics, but I typically like to think of doctrine as being unchangeable truths about the gospel of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation. Policies change, doctrine does not.