My question that I present to all of you is, where do you draw the line on official church doctrine?
This is the line that I draw and it is my opinion that official church doctrine is:
1) a much smaller encompassing "circle" when compared to the gospel as a whole, which is in turn a smaller encompassing "circle" when compared to the complete truth (revealed and unrevealed).
2) any statement published by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and ratified by the body of the church
3) any statement published by the First Presidency and ratified by the body of the church
4) any statement published by both the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and then ratified by the body of the church
5) any statement made by the living prophet to the body of the church when "moved" upon by the Holy Ghost (he is not constantly "moved" upon by the Holy Ghost even though he has the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost), which is then ratified by the body of the church
6) Canonized scripture (Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP, Declarations)
7) the only measure by which members of the church will be judged on at the last day
For example, I would accept the Proclamation to the World as "official" doctrine. I believe the Gospel Principles handbook closely mirrors the official doctrine of the church, but is not in itself official doctrine. Besides not meeting the criteria I set forth, they occasionally make changes here and there to bring it closer to what is official.
Another example is Jesus the Christ. It is not official doctrine because it failed the ratification by the body of the church test when presented for canonization.
It is also my belief that many people "stumble" when they stray outside this defined scope of official doctrine and begin to include journal of discourses, anything a prophet said during his entire life, opinions and speculation of prophets and other church leaders, something an Elder somewhere in Albania once said, or the Book of Lehi (you can google it these days). Those opposed to the church love to include all of this as "official" doctrine of the church and use it to tell members what they REALLY believe in. There are truths to be found, in my opinion, in some of these sources, but it is not official doctrine, merely opinion and speculation which everyone is entitled, including church leaders. Refer to Alma 40:20 if you think prophets cannot have their own opinions.
So where do you think the line is drawn?
1 comment:
I think I agree. I would be tempted to add in the First Presidency messages and Conference issues of the Ensign/Liahona, though it's not canonized, but could be considered to be what the leaders of the church felt "moved upon" to share with the body of the church. We also receive commandments and personal instruction in the magazine. I often wonder what scripture is being compiled today? Did it all stop with the Doctrine and Covenants? Is any more text specifically identified as "scripture" needed? I'm sure there's more instruction needed, and always will be. I guess the latest "scripture" would be from 1978 when The Church extended the rights of the priesthood to all worthy male members.
Post a Comment