As one who speaks in front of many different audiences, I hope to speak only truth. Yet, I know mistakes will happen, and occasionally (maybe regularly) I know I will stick my foot in my mouth. To compound the problem, listeners taking notes will write poorly, write the wrong information, or will miss the information altogether. The same fundamental human problems occur when a prophet speaks and an audience listens. The process of communication is difficult and errors happen. Given this reality, how can Latter-day Saints distinguish truth from error, especially as we teach one another in Sunday Schools or even as we write blogs?
We live in a world fallen from perfection. Only one perfect being has ever walked the earth, Jesus. Everyone else and much of everything else, including scripture, falls short of perfection. How can human words fully capture the mind of God? We do have the word of God, but some things are more clear than others.
Latter-day Saints do believe in ancient scripture and in modern revelation through authorized prophets. For example,
8th Article of Faith
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9th Article of Faith
9 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 do NOT believe in infallibility, or in creeds or catechisms that would confine our expanding knowledge. Although Latter-day Saints claim to have the fullness of knowledge necessary for salvation and exaltation, we also realize that religious knowledge has the capacity to grow over time.
All of these issues discussed above legitimately raise many questions. For example, which beliefs are on a firm foundation and which are built on sand? How can Latter-day Saints distinguish doctrine from educated opinion, or even from speculation?
I suspect most Latter-day Saints could answer these questions (with some study), but it is nice to have an official source to cite. An official post in the LDS "Newsroom" entitled "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," provides some well worded and thoughtful definitions.
It is highly recommended to read the entire document, but to me, the most important paragraph is the following:
Newsroom: The Official Resource for News Media,
"Approaching Mormon Doctrine," May 4th, 2007
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.
The statement goes on to say:
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. … [T]he 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.
These short quotations given above provide some very useful criteria for distinguishing doctrine from non-doctrine. Those criteria are:
1. Doctrines have evidence of being "established" by a modern First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve.
2. Doctrinal statements are "consistently" (repeatedly) taught through modern official Church publications.
3. All doctrines must be based in the "standard works" of scripture, or in official declarations / proclamations affirmed by both the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve in modern times.
Teachings from individual General Authorities are NOT binding as "Church doctrine" if they are isolated from meeting the above three criteria.
The "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" document extends this invitation to all members of the Church [emphasis mine]:
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.
Notice that the Church is NOT against members thinking (using their brains) about what they have been taught. Ultimately, each individual must come to their own conclusions about what they accept as truths that are relevant to their own lives.
BYU professor Valerie M. Hudson has written a fascinating article in reaction to the "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" statement. (See: "The 4 May 2007 Statement of the LDS Church: 'Approaching Mormon Doctrine,'" SquareTwo, Vol. 2 No. 2, Summer, 2009). In the article, she states:
In cases where we struggle, we should first ask, in accord with the 4 May statement, “Is this really Mormon doctrine? Is it in the standard works, and has it been consistently taught unto the present in official Church publications?” It may be that the answer is no, and there the struggle may have a natural end—there is no mandate to believe something that is not Mormon doctrine; such things are not “officially binding for the whole Church.” And there is no requirement to sit on one’s hands in Sunday School when things that are not Mormon doctrine are preached to be such. Several of my students have found great peace as they have understood that the LDS doctrinal hearsay that all will practice polygamy in the celestial kingdom is actually not Mormon doctrine as defined by the 4 May statement.
It is tempting to make a long list of favorite Mormon folk beliefs that do NOT reach full status as "doctrine." However, such an exercise would be extremely presumptive on my part. Each individual must engage in their own study of scriptures, Conference talks, official proclamations, etc. Each individual on his or her own efforts must decide what is to be believed. As we engage in that process, of course, we are all well advised to carefully listen to authorized modern prophets.
I am comforted by the following words from Joseph Smith:
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121
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.
Such is the doctrine taught most often in the Church, and in such is my greatest confidence. All else is subordinate, ancillary, and collateral. Sometimes these other matters are necessary appurtenants (when meeting the 3 criteria given above), but others could be little more than superfluous distractions.
At the personal level, making distinctions ultimately involves a spiritual framework in which "reason and faith work together." I can live with that.
Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
14 comments:
Listen to the spirit, read ponder and pray and through the power of the Holy Ghost, you will know all things.
So what then, did President Young abuse his authority in the Adam God theory? I do believe he taught it at General Conference.
Son #1
Son#1:
Your question refers to the so-called “Adam-God doctrine” ostensibly taught by Brigham Young. The Church does not accept the notion that Adam is equivalent to our Father in Heaven. However, Adam does have a special status as an earthly father, and he holds a special patriarchal status (see D&C 78:15-16). Brigham Young’s teachings on Adam-God were confusing and sometimes contradictory.
The “Adam = God the Father” concept is NOT scriptural (see Genesis 1, Luke 3:38; Moses 2-5; D&C 78:15-22). According to the following 1870 Brigham Young quotation, Adam was subordinate to the Father:
Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.311 - p.312, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870
"[T]he Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, 'we are the children of Adam and Eve.' So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere … ."
If Brigham Young believed in an Adam-God theory, then he was wrong. If he had taught a clear and consistent doctrine, then one must wonder why his teaching never became official doctrine. The Council of Twelve never accepted such a doctrine. Finally, teachings from the temple that Brigham Young promoted, recognized the subordinate role of Adam to God the Father.
Again, isolated (and confusing) teachings do NOT rise to the status of doctrine. Please note that subsequent prophets have NOT affirmed any Adam-God equivalence.
This post is really helpful. There seems to be a number of posts elsewhere dealing with the fallibility of men, especially in leadership positions. I would certainly expect such to be the case.
One does wonder how it is so many of the faithful become distracted and flounder on non doctrinal issues perceived to be doctrinal. Isn't the accurate acquisition of truth regarding spiritual and even temporal issues central to our belief? Why does it, at times, seem to be so... random?
Even more puzzling are the sometimes misguided statements of church leaders. Thankfully the body of such statements seems richer in the distant past. Still, one must wonder how it is that those to whom we look to for guidance and council, whom we assume to be even more attuned to the spirit of truth, to be at times wrong. Is it safe to assume that such leaders had pondered and prayed about their belief? Is it safe to assume they would only share what had been confirmed by the spirit of truth? I think this idea may be where many come to believe that if our leaders are fallible, perhaps they ought to be less fallible than the rest of us.
Finally, if indeed some leaders have spoken or written ambiguous, questionable or even false doctrine in an authoritative context (I'm thinking specifically or B.R. McKonkie and J.F. Smith) and those ideas permeate and thrive amongst the membership, what does that say of the reliability of the spirit of truth? Is the spirit simply not invoked as it could or should be?
I feel the following quotes are useful and show that the Scriptures take Precedence over other Writings
“We accept the ancient and modern scriptures as the word of God. They are unerring guides. But some teach doctrines contrary to the scriptures. Under those circumstances it is well to remember President Joseph Fielding Smith who said, ‘if I ever say anything contrary to the scriptures the scriptures prevail.’ It is so with everyone.” Mark E. Petersen of the Twelve in the introduction to his book ‘Adam who is he’.
“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said if it is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the church high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3:203).
“All that we teach in this church ought to be couched in the scriptures. We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures. If we want to measure truth we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, mans own personal opinion, and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.” Harold. B. Lee Improvement Era January 1969 page 13
“It is from the scriptures that we learn how to govern the church. When we have a decision to make and need help, ask yourself-what did the Lord say about this?-Is there anything in the scriptures that will show me what to do? Then read the handbook. Always follow the promptings of the Spirit. We must be unified in doctrine and principle.” Boyd K. Packer World Leadership Meeting 3 Jan 03
Leaders of the church do make mistakes in doctrine and practise. the problem is that many of the seventies and local leaders make them out to be perfect. I can give many examples today where the leaders of the church are not following their own scriptures and this is the major problem the church faces.
Stan:
Thanks for writing your thoughtful and provocative questions. My essay is in NO way meant to demean the efforts of prophets. Instead, it is meant to remind us that communication is hard. For that reason we have an authorized priesthood that is organized in such a way that the 3 main criteria (discussed in the essay) can be effective in distinguishing doctrine from non-doctrine.
Making the distinction between doctrine versus non-doctrine is NOT meant to imply that all non-doctrinal ideas are false. Many things that Elder McConkie claimed to be true could still be true and NOT be doctrinal. Many scientific ideas, like the age of the earth, could be true and NOT be doctrinal.
When the 1st Presidency and the Council of 12 establish a doctrine, consistently teach it, and the doctrine is supported by scripture or proclamation, then I am convinced that I should lead my life as if such were true.
It is nice to have criteria, along with faith and intellect, to assist me in making distinctions as to that which is on solid religious ground versus that which must be regarded more tentatively.
These criteria strengthen the utility of prophets, without which we would have a rather confusing outlook.
Malcomb:
Thank you for the quotations on the importance of scripture.
I would merely state that modern prophets are needed because they can add to scripture and because they can place existing scripture into a modern context.
I like this quote from the "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" document: " [T]he 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 [modern-day] challenges."
Modern-day prophets are needed to meet modern challenges. I accept their leadership because they have provided me with a solid religious foundation upon which to build my life. My life has improved because their modern leadership made ancient teachings come alive.
Many members still believe today that blacks not holding the priesthood was doctrine. Very few members know that President McKay said it was policy, not doctrine.
My concern is that the Mormon church does not have checks and balances. The six points that were brought into church to support CA's prop 8 were all misleading. Yet, this was accepted as truth because it was supported by the top leaders in the church.
Javelin:
In my opinion, the three criteria listed in the main essay contain a check and balance process.
The Family Proclamation is a good example of why the check and balance process is faulty. Most members see that proclamation as revelation. Some even say it was written by the Lord through President Hinkley.
When my dad, as a bishop, went to the official meeting to hear the Family Proclamation be declared for the first time, it was not at a priesthood meeting. Instead, it was presented to the primary and relief society. The general authority speaking at this meeting said, "I know that this was written by a prophet of God because I was personally involved in draft after draft of this proclamation."
My concern is that most members who display the Family Proclamation on their wall do so because either they as republicans do not support gay marriage, or as democrats are afraid of not falling in line with the church leaders. Neither has to do with the atonement of Christ, which is the center of true doctrine.
Javelin:
I guess we see things differently.
The Family Proclamation should be regarded as doctrine, since it clearly meets the three criteria. 1) The document is proclaimed by both the 1st Presidency and the Council of 12. 2) The teachings contained therein have been taught repeatedly by a wide range of General Authorities. 3) The teachings contained therein are consistent with the scriptures.
No, I do NOT regard the Proclamation to be a Republican document. To me, the document is a necessary appurtenant.
SFaux,
I like the 3 points on discerning doctrinal statements.
A great deal of what the general authorities say is nondoctrinal, but nonetheless true. I also think that several of their non dcotrinal statements are false. I am okay with this because they are fallible human beings, just like you and me. Far too often detractors like to latch onto these false nondoctrinal statements and use them against the church. E.g., "Look at what your prophet said! He was wrong. Your church is false."
They confuse doctinal and nondoctrinal statements.
Doctrinal statements are always true. Nondoctrinal statements are often just best guesses.
Great comment, Dave C.
I think there is a difference between truth and "Official Mormon Doctrine", *let me explain below*:
Bruce R. McConkie said, and the introduction in the D&C itself implies, that the "Lectures on Faith" are true but are not officially sanctioned as doctrine for the whole church.
Just because something is true doesn't mean it is official doctrine for the whole church.
Second example, while I was at BYU, another great physics major, Elder Eyring, said at a devotional he remembered as a student reading a thermodynamic textbook that some of the things he was learning *were just as true as anything in the Book of Mormon!*
Now, it is laughable that the church would "officially endorse" such a text book to stand next to the Book of Mormon. Though, as Elder Eyring recognized, it is just as true, that doesn't mean members of the church should be bound to it.
So, I think there are a lot more things out there that are true than are part of official Mormon Doctrine since the "official" stuff are only those truths the church is bound by.
Joseph Smidt:
Isn't it great that President Eyring was a physics major as an undergraduate? We cannot have enough science at the top, figuratively speaking.
Yes, I basically agree with you. Mormon doctrine does not capture all truth. First, as believers in continuing revelation, we know that there is MUCH more religious truth to learn. Second, there is a whole universe of truth out there that is not of a religious nature, such as physics.
Mormons embrace all truth, but we cannot teach it all.
Post a Comment