Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: LDS: What is LDS doctrine?
From: <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 27 Sep 1992 11:13:27 MDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Brigham Young University

What is Mormon "doctrine?"

1.  The LDS canon - the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of
Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price - are
the foundation of LDS doctrine.

2.  Teachings of LDS leaders and writers often try to
systematize LDS doctrine.  Note, that while we accept certain
leaders as prophets, this does not mean that *everything* they
say is revelation, scripture, or doctrine.  We believe that our
prophet can receive revelation from God.  This does not imply
that everything the prophet says or does is from God.  Prophets
have their opinions, and prophets speculate just like everyone
else (cf. the disputes between Paul and Peter in the NT, and
Paul's statements that he is writing "of myself")

3.  There are numerous topics, probably 80-90%, on which all
(or nearly all) Mormons agree.  On other topics, there are a
range of divergent opinions.

4.  On those topics on which there is a wide range of opinion, it
is perfectly reasonable for Mormons to insist that the views of
various leaders or writers are "speculations," meaning it is an
individual's opinion or interpretation.  If LDS leaders disagree
among themselves about doctrinal interpretations, it is
reasonable to assume that there is no "doctrine" on this
subject, but a range of "doctrines" or interpretations.

5.  Take Bruce R. McConkie, for example.  The anti-Mormons
love to quote him, because he is outspoken, bombastic,
pompous, and occasionally takes extreme positions on several
issues.  Note that most Mormons can agree with 90% of what
McConkie writes.  However, it is this other 10% which the
anti-Mormons like to quote.  Is McConkie the official
spokesman for LDS doctrine? No.  Is everything McConkie
believes LDS doctrine?  No. Can McConkie have his own opinion
on subjects?  Of course.  Can McConkie be an LDS Apostle and still
make doctrinal errors?  Yes.  Take, for example, a copy of a letter
from David O. McKay (dated 3 Feb. 1959), the LDS prophet when
McConkie first wrote his _Mormon Doctrine_.  A member of the
Church asked Pres. McKay if McConkie's book represented the
final word on LDS doctrine.  McKay's answer was "Neither "Man,
His Origin and Destiny" by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor
"Mormon Doctrine" by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official
publication of the Church."  In other words, those books do no
represent official Church doctrine.  Indeed, Mark E. Peterson,
another LDS Apostle, said that he found nearly 1000 doctrinal
errors in McConkie's _Mormon Doctrine_.

6.  The obvious and intelligent response to this situation is to
say on controversial topics where there is disagreement in the
LDS community there is no official doctrine.  There are,
instead, a range of opinions and interpretations.  This situation
is not unique to Mormonism, as witness the current doctrinal
battles in the Southern Baptist Convention, or the disputes
over various topics in Catholicism or any other denomination.

7.  Thus, anti-Mormons simply must accept that there are
doctrinal speculations in Mormonism.  Therefore, when we LDS
say that a particular statement by an LDS leader is
"speculation," what we mean is that the topic under discussion
is controversial, and there is a wide range of opinions about it
in the LDS community, and that therefore, the LDS community
as a whole is not bound by that idea.  It is a gross distortion of
the LDS position - but one typical of the anti-Mormons - for
the anti-Mormons to take out of context quotations of isolated
and extremist positions taken by LDS leaders at various times,
and attempt to force all LDS to accept this as scriptural
revelations.

It may be a useful rhetorical devise for those seeking a club
with which to beat their ideological opponents, but it is
dishonest, and does not bring us closer to the truth about
Mormonism.