Over and
over again the consistent message from LDS apostles and prophets is that Mormon
doctrine comes from the scriptures (the four standard works) as interpreted by
prophets and apostles. The way new doctrine or modification of present doctrine
comes is by revelation to the President of the Church (such as section 138 and
the two Official Declarations in the Doctrine and Covenants). As fundamental as
this principle is, many still seek to change, reinterpret, alter, or reject
church doctrine. The reason is usually because some of it does not mesh with
modern social issues and the philosophies of men.
Along with
this and future blog posts in this series, readers are encouraged to review the
following essays on the subject: the Mormon Newsroom article on Approaching
Mormon Doctrine, Robert L. Millett’s fine longer examination What
is Our Doctrine, and FairMormon’s piece on What
is “Official” LDS Doctrine.
Other authors and bloggers have
also posted various opinions on the subject but often (though not always) these
are so academically oriented or misinformed (or even hostile) as to be either
worthless or worse than worthless.
The below
quotations should help with providing a more rounded perspective of how to
determine genuine, authentic, gospel doctrine. Later blog posts will continue with
this important matter as it relates to prophets, scripture, teaching, and
revelation:
From the Doctrine and Covenants:
And gave
him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate
the Book of Mormon;
Which
contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus
Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;
Which was
given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels,
and is declared unto the world by them—
Proving to
the world that the holy scriptures are true, and that God does inspire men and
call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in
generations of old;
Thereby
showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen.
Therefore,
having so great witnesses, by them shall the world be judged, even as many as
shall hereafter come to a knowledge of this work.
And those
who receive it in faith, and work righteousness, shall receive a crown of
eternal life;
But those
who harden their hearts in unbelief, and reject it, it shall turn to their own
condemnation. (D&C 20:8-15.)
Hyrum M. Smith:
“Doctrine”
means “teaching,” “instruction.” It
denotes more especially what is taught as truth, for us to believe, as distinct
from precepts, by which rules, to be obeyed, are given. “Doctrine” refers to belief; precept to
conduct. (Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, rev. ed. [Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 1951], xiv.)
B. H. Roberts:
Here is a
statement to which I call your attention.
You will find it published in a little work called, “The Compendium of
the Doctrines of the Gospel,” issued by Messrs. Little and Richards, the
authors. I quote from the third edition,
1898:
“We
consider the Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of
Great Price, and sayings of Joseph the Seer, our guides in faith and
doctrine. The first four have been
adopted as such by a vote of the saints in general conference. References to other writings are only for
illustration of the subjects.”
As to the
“Sayings of Joseph Smith,” they must be well attested sayings of his, not the
mere repetition of rumor as to what he said, before they can be of much
influence in doctrine. Indeed, I feel
that the Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to
be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the
Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of
Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been
repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled,
and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine. So that when our Church is charged with
believing this or that or the other thing we shall ask, Do you quote in support
of your charges these sources of revelation which we accept as setting forth
our doctrine? And is it a doctrine of
ours or a deduction of your own?
If it is a
doctrine of ours established as here proposed, we must stand for it. If you bring up the sayings and teachings of
individual men who have not had their doctrines officially accepted by the
Church, decidedly by the spirit of inspiration in the membership of the Church,
as evidenced by their official acceptance of them, then we are not bound by
them, and it is not accurate to say that the Church teaches those doctrines
which do not come from the above-noted sources of revelation to the Church….
This, then,
represents the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints upon
the authoritative sources of their doctrine.
It is not sufficient to quote sayings purported to come from Joseph
Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine. Our own people also need instruction and
correction in respect of this. It is common
to hear some of our older brethren say, “But I heard Brother Joseph myself say
so,” or “Brother Brigham preached it; I heard him.’ But that is not the question. The question is has God said it? Was the prophet speaking officially, what the
Catholics would call excathedra?
In his
journal, under date of January the 8th, 1843, the prophet writes: “This morning
I read German, and visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought
that a prophet is always a prophet,” but I told them that a prophet was a
prophet only when he was acting as such.”
That is to say, when acting officially and delivering the word and will
of God—speaking excathedra.
As to the
printed discourses of even leading brethren, the same principle holds. They do not constitute the court of ultimate
appeal on doctrine. They may be very
useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in
doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church,
and are not binding upon the Church. The
rule in that respect is: what God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the
Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in
doctrine. When in the revelations it is
said concerning the Prophet, Seer and Revelator that the Church shall “give
heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he
receiveth them—for his word ye shall receive as if from mine own mouth, in all
patience and faith:—(Doctrine and Covenants, Section 21)—it is understood, of
course, that this has reference to the word of God received through revelation,
and officially announced to the Church, and not to every chance word
spoken. And when it is further said, as
it is in one of the revelations, that whatsoever the elders of the Church
“shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost, shall be the mind of the Lord
and shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord and the power
of God unto Salvation:--it is to be precisely noted that this is “when” the
elders “speak as moved upon by the Holy Ghost,” and not otherwise; and as the
elders do not always speak as moved upon by the Holy Ghost, the Church does not
admit their utterances as on the same level for deciding upon Church doctrine
as the four books that have been mentioned. (“Answer [response] given to [anti-Mormon
article] ‘Ten Reasons Why “Christians” Cannot Fellowship with Latter-day
Saints,’” in Millennial Star, August
18, 1921, 516-19.)
Stephen E. Robinson:
So what
constitutes genuine Mormon doctrine?
What is the LDS equivalent of “nihil obstat” and “imprimature”? What do the Latter-day Saints believe? Can something be said to be “Mormon” doctrine
if any Latter-day Saint anywhere believes it?
If my LDS grandmother believed that frogs cause warts, or that the earth
is flat, does that make those ideas LDS doctrine? If some LDS missionary somewhere believes
that the earth is hollow and that the lost ten tribes are hiding inside, is his
or her belief therefore LDS doctrine? Of
course not.
Virtually
every religion has procedures for distinguishing the individual beliefs of its
members from the official doctrines of the church, and so do the Latter-day
Saints. In fact among the Mormons the
procedure is remarkably similar to that of many protestant
denominations….[Canonization procedure from 1880 general conference quoted.]
Subsequent
changes of content in the standard works of the Church have been presented
similarly to the membership in general conference to receive a sustaining
vote. It is that sustaining vote, by the
individual members or by their representatives, that make the changes officially
binding upon the membership as the doctrine of the Church.
When
Wilford Woodruff, as President of the Church, committed the Latter-day Saints
to discontinue the practice of plural marriage, his official declaration was
submitted to the sixtieth Semiannual General Conference of the Church on 6
October 1890, which by unanimous vote accepted it “as authoritative and
binding.” It was that vote which made
the document official (it is now printed as Official Declaration—1 in the
Doctrine an Covenants). Similarly, when
President Spencer W. Kimball declared in 1978, by revelation from the Lord,
that the priesthood was henceforward to be given to all worthy male members,
this pronouncement became Official Declaration—2 by the sustaining vote of a
general conference on 30 September 1978.
B. H.
Roberts, a General Authority of the LDS church, summarized the issue perhaps as
well as anyone has:
The Church
has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before
the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has
officially accepted, and those alone.
These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and
Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and
endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only
sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.
Of course
it is true that many Latter-day Saints, from the Presidents of the Church and
member of the Quorum of the Twelve down to individual members who may write books
or articles, have expressed their own opinions on doctrinal matters. Nevertheless, until such opinions are
presented to the Church in general conference and sustained by vote of the
conference, they are neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church. The critics of LDS doctrine seldom recognize
this vital distinction. Rather, if any
Latter-day Saint, especially one of the leading Brethren, ever said a thing,
these critics take it to represent “Mormonism,” regardless of the context of
the particular statement and regardless of whether any other Latter-day Saint
ever said it or believed it. Often the
Latter-day Saints themselves are guilty of this same error and search through
the Journal of Discourses as if it were some sort of Mormon Talmud, looking for
“new” doctrines not found in the standard works and not taught in the Church
today.
Usually the
critics insist that the Latter-day Saints must defend as doctrine everything
that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or any other General Authority ever
said. But the LDS concept of doctrine
simply cannot be stretched this far. The
Latter-day Saints allow that sometimes the living prophet speaks in his role as
prophet and sometimes he simply states his own opinions. This distinction is not different than that
made in some other Christian denominations.
For example, even though Roman Catholics believe in “papal
infallibility,” they insist that the pope is infallible only in certain clearly
defined circumstances—when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and
morals. Cannot the Latter-day Saints be
allowed a similar distinction? The LDS
view was expressed succinctly by Joseph Smith himself: “I told them that a
prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.”
Non-Mormon
critics, on the other hand, often insist that the Brethren must speak and write
prophetically at all times. This
absolutist expectation usually flows out of an extreme inerrantist view of
prophecy and of scripture that is held by the critics, but not by the
Latter-day Saints. The critics’ belief
in the Bible as absolutely perfect, without error and inspired in every word,
leads them to make the same demands of anyone claiming to be a prophet. They would impose their inerrantist view on the
Latter-day Saints and their prophets.
But the Latter-day Saints have no such inerrantist views, neither of the
scriptures nor of the prophets. The
scriptures are the word of God, but only as far as they are translated
correctly; and prophets sometimes speak for the Lord, and sometimes they express
their own opinions. Certainly, if the
Latter-day Saints were radical inerrantists, such a view as the foregoing would
be a contradiction and a scandal, but since we are not inerrantists, the view
scandalizes only our inerrantist critics….
In their
encounters with anti-Mormon critics, quite often the Saints seem to feel
constrained to defend too much. For
example, the fact that Orson Pratt may have said such and such on this or that
occasion does not make it a proposition that needs defending. Elder Pratt was very outspoken in his
opinions, which sometimes disagreed with the opinions of other General
Authorities. He was frequently
instructed to make clear to his hearers or readers that his views were his own
and not the doctrine of the Church; and on at least one occasion he was
instructed by the President of the Church to recant publicly opinions he had
represented as doctrine.
Yet time
and again the private opinions or even the half-serious speculations of Orson
Pratt and others are presented in the literature of the anti-Mormons as
mainstream LDS doctrine. The problem is
compounded by some enthusiastic Latter-day Saints who themselves will not
observe that distinction and insist on teaching the personal opinions and
speculations of past leaders as though they were the official doctrines of the
Church.
Now, none
of this should be taken to mean that in matters of administration within the
LDS church the General Authorities are not inspired or that they must submit
every policy decision to the members for a sustaining vote. The revelations recorded in the Doctrine and
Covenants, already accepted as binding by the Church, along with the ordination
to their callings give the Brethren the keys and authority to administer the
affairs of the Church as the Lord may direct without their needing a sustaining
vote for each individual decision. Thus
the Church in conference sustains only the individuals who hold the keys, but
does not need to sustain separately every detail of their administration. Consequently, the policies and procedures of
the Church are “official” and “inspired’ whenever those holding the keys of
that ministry unitedly declare them to be so.
Similarly the revelations already accepted by the Church give to the
General Authorities and to many others the right to “preach, teach, expound,
exhort,”—that is, to interpret and apply existing doctrines within the context
of their individual stewardships. The
Brethren need no further license or sustaining vote to interpret, define, and
apply the doctrines of the Church, or to administer the affairs of the Church
and dictate its policies and procedures, than to be sustained in conference as
prophets, seers, and revelators and as duly ordained members of their
respective quorums.
Latter-day
Saints believe that the General Authorities receive inspiration and revelation
from God constantly in the administration of the affairs of the Church. They also believe that individuals within the
church may receive personal revelation, even on doctrinal matters, for their
private benefit. When doctrinal
revelation is given to such individuals, however, the Lord commands them to
keep it to themselves (see Alma 12:9).
Such revelation is not for the Church generally, but for that individual
alone. No new doctrine is binding as the
official doctrine of the Church unless it has been received by the President of
the Church and until it has been sustained by the Church in general conference.
Finally,
from an LDS point of view some things may be correct without being official
Church doctrine. For example, it is
probably true that the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is
equal to the square of its hypotenuse, but the Pythagorean theorem has never
been sustained in a general conference of the Church. Similarly the doctrinal opinions of
individual Latter-day Saints could very well turn out to be correct—and some
such opinions are believed by many of the saints—but that does not make them
the official doctrine of the church. This category of things that may be true
and that are believed by some in the Church is confusing to member and
nonmembers alike. Hence the Brethren
have insisted again and again that the members avoid such speculative matters
and teach only from the standard works, for only they contain the official
doctrines of the Church. (Are Mormon’s Christians? [Salt Lake
City: Bookcraft, 1991],13-18.)
B. H. Roberts:
I find in
this review ten lengthy quotations from the Seer which was published by Orson
Pratt, yet the Seer by formal action of the first presidency and twelve
apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned
the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the
23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the first presidency and twelve
setting forth that this work—the Seer—together with some other writings of
Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising,
as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say:
But the
Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star of Oct. 15, and
Nov. 1, 1850…contain doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt
to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not
be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these
objectionable works or parts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they
should be cut out and destroyed.
And yet
these gentlemen, our reviewers, who, of course, we must believe, since they are
ministers of the gospel, and hence they are ministers of the truth and believe
in fair dealing, make ten long quotations only from a work that is accepted as
standard in the Church, viz., the Doctrine and Covenants! for a long time the
Church has announced over and over again that her standard works in which the
word of God is to be found, and for which alone she stands, are the Bible, the
Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. All else
is commentary, and of a secondary character as to its authority, containing
much that is good, much that illustrates the doctrines of the Church, and yet
liable to have error in them for which the Church does not stand.
"Well,"
says one, "do you propose to repudiate the works of men holding your
priesthood, and who are supposed to speak and act under the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit? Do you not destroy the effectiveness of your Church ministry when
you take this attitude?" Not at all. We merely make what is a proper
distinction. It would be a glorious thing for a man to so live that his life
would touch the very life and Spirit of God, so that his spirit would blend
with God's Spirit, under which circumstances there would be no error to his
life or utterances at all. That is a splendid thing to contemplate, but when
you take into account human weakness, imperfection, prejudice, passion, bias,
it is too much to hope for human nature that man will constantly thus walk
linked with God. And so we make this distinction between a man speaking sometimes
under the influence of prejudice and pre-conceived notions, and the utterances
of a man who, in behalf of the Church of God, and having the requisite
authority, and holding the requisite position, may, upon occasion, lay aside
all prejudice, all pre-conception, and stand ready and anxious to receive the
divine impression of God's Spirit that shall plead, "Father, thy will and
thy word be made known now to thy people through the channel thou hast
appointed." There is a wide difference between men coming with the word of
God thus obtained, and their ordinary speech every day and on all kinds of
occasions.
In thus
insisting that only the word of God, spoken by inspiration, shall live and be
binding upon the Church, we are but following the illustrious example of the
ancient Church of Christ. You do not have today all the Christian documents of
the first Christian centuries. These books that you have bound up, and that you
call the word of God, Holy Bible, were sifted out by a consensus of opinion in
the churches running through several hundred years. They endured the test of
time. But the great bulk of that which was uttered and written, even by
apostles and prominent servants of God in the primitive Christian Church, the
Church rejected, and out of the mass of chaff preserved these Scriptures—the
New Testament. The Christian world up to this time is not quite decided as to
all that should be accepted and all that should be rejected. You Protestant
gentlemen repudiate several books called Apocrypha which the Catholic church
accepts as of equal authority with the rest of the books of the New Testament.
And so I say in this procedure of ours, in refusing to accept only that which
time and the inspiration of God shall demonstrate to be absolutely true, we are
but following the example of the ancient Church of Christ. (“Answer to
Ministerial Association Review,” Improvement
Era, vol. 10, July 1907, no. 9, 691-92.)
Joseph F. Smith:
Your letter
of the 27th… making certain inquiries upon points of doctrine, faith and
practice of our Church, concerning which you say some of our elders differ, was
received by me on the 8th… and I answer at the earliest opportunity. In all such matters as this there is one
thing that should be kept constantly in mind, and that is, that the theories,
speculations and opinions of men, however intelligent, ingenious and plausible,
are not necessarily doctrines of the Church or principles that God has commanded
his servants to preach. No doctrine is a
doctrine of this Church until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and
not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has
first been approved by the presiding authority—the one through whom the Lord
makes known His will for the guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest upon any
one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and,
however true, they must not be inculcated until proper permission is given.
The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes, outside the direct and
heaven-inspired utterances of its prophet, seer and revelator, four standards
of doctrine, namely, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants
and the Pearl of Great Price, containing the revelations of God given in times
past and present for the guidance, salvation and exaltation of his people. These books have been accepted by the Church,
in general conference assembled, as its doctrinal standards, and nothing
outside of them, whether true or false, has any practical bearing or
significance, so far as the conduct of the Church is concerned. If our elders would always remember these
things, and preach and practice accordingly, the differences you speak of would
speedily disappear. We should avoid
disputations, whatever our differences of opinion may be, and following the
advice of Paul, all learn to speak the same things. (Joseph F. Smith Correspondence, Personal
Letterbooks, p. 93-94, Film Reel 9, Ms. f 271; in LDS Church Historical
Archives.)
Joseph Fielding McConkie:
It is not
uncommon in gospel discussions for someone to challenge what is being said with
the question, “Is that official Church doctrine?” This question often means the one asking it
does not like what is being said and is seeking a reason not to be bound by
it. The question is generally successful
in putting the one being challenged in the defensive because of the
difficulties associated with defining “official Church doctrine.” … If the body of “official doctrine” is to be
limited to formal declarations by the First Presidency, the Church has precious
little doctrine. From the time of its
organization in the spring of 1830 to the present, there have been very few
instances in which the First Presidency has issued “official” doctrinal
declarations. These have included the
statement on the origin of man, a doctrinal exposition on the Father and the
Son, and most recently the proclamation on the family. Each of these declarations is marvelous in
its own right, but if our definition of “official doctrines” is defined so
narrowly that it is limited to these declarations and the few others we have
received, we could not even declare faith, repentance, and baptism as doctrines
of the Church. Indeed, most of what we
understand to be the doctrine of the Church finds no mention in such
documents. Certainly the standard works,
the temple ceremony, and much instruction that has come to us by those whom we
sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators is also “official doctrine.”
The
difficulties in defining doctrine too narrowly are matched by those that are
too broad and sweeping. For instance, it
is not uncommon to hear someone say that anything taught in general conference
is “official doctrine.” Such a standard
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. (Answers:
Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions [Salt Lake City: Deseret
Book, 1998], 212-14.)
Joseph F. Smith:
How to
decide Doctrinal Questions: Where two
writers, in as many Church works, hold to different opinions on a question, as
is sometimes the case, how am I to know which is correct, or which is the view
held by the Church?
The
revelations of God are the standards of correctness. When a difference appears in writers, the
enquirer must reach the truth by examination from that standpoint. If it can not be reached by the word of the
Lord in the standard Church works: the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and
Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, the enquirer must wait until it shall
please the Father to give more light on the subject by revelation. (“Editor’s Table,” Improvement Era [Jan. 1903], 6:233.)
J. Reuben Clark:
When any
man except the President of the Church undertakes to proclaim one unsettled
doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of
the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy
Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of
the President. ("When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders
Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?" second part of an address delivered 7
July 1954 at Brigham Young University; cited in David H. Yarn, ed., J. Reuben Clark: Selected Papers, vol. 3
[Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 1984], 112.)
Bruce R. McConkie:
Every truth
in every field, in all the earth, and in all eternity, is in complete and total
harmony with every other truth. Truth is
always in harmony with itself. The word
of the Lord is truth, and no scripture ever contradicts another, nor is any
inspired statement of any person out of harmony with an inspired statement of
any other person….
The Lord
expects us to seek for harmony and agreement in the scriptures and among the
Brethren rather than for seeming divergences of views. Those who have faith and understanding always
seek to harmonize into one perfect whole all the statements of the scriptures
and all the pronouncements of the Brethren.
The unfortunate complex in some quarters to pounce upon this bit of
information or that and conclude that it is at variance with what someone else
has said is not of God. (Mark L. McConkie, ed., Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons & Writings of Bruce R.
McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989], 230-31.)
Bruce R. McConkie:
No comments:
Post a Comment