Doctrine of Doctrine of Latter-day Saints

📝 Note: All content on this page is subject to further enhancement. This will be a continually updated page. Furthermore, the work below represents the opinions of the author and not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The word doctrine in LDS terminology may refer to a variety of concepts:

  1. a teaching
  2. a practice
  3. a truth revealed by God
  4. an official stance held by the Church

Points (1), (2), and (3) are not very difficult for most to understand; the word doctrine may simply be a synonym for a teaching or practice or truth revealed by God held by the Church. However, (4) is the most complicated kind because the Church accepts a variety of sources to build framework of beliefs. In this article we explore how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints formulates and evaluates teachings. First a note on communication and interpretation.

Communication

Human communication relies on a combination of verbal and non-verbal techniques. Many verbal techniques employ variations in the following ways to direct conceptual meaning:

Spoken words are often accompanied by the use of non-verbal cues to add meaning such as:

Additionally, meaning is supplied by context from:

All of these provide additional background to a message to enhance meaning. The challenge with written language is that it struggles to transmit non-verbal cues. Occasionally certain non-verbal features of a text can be deduced from the semantic content of a message. However, many written sources such as the standard works, non-verbal cues and context are either lost to history or they were intentionally ommited or removed. As a result, scriptural passages and statements from early leaders which were fractionally or inadequetely recorded are missing non-verbal details and context, thereby introducing ambiguity to the message. Such ambiguities require interpretation.

Interpretation

All messages in any language, spoken or written, must be interpreted for one to extract meaning. Interpretation is the act of taking something spoken, written, or non-verbal and perceiving information from it. When texts or speech lack certain features, the meaning of the message becomes more ambiguous which complicates interpretation. The more information there is to accompany a message, the more conspicuous the proper meaning becomes. Sometimes there are clues in passages which increase the likelihood of one interpretation over another. Others however, are quite vague and offer multiple equiprobable interpretations. At times, whether one interpretation is more probable than the other sometimes boils down to a matter of subjective preference. A method or philosophy for interpretation is called a hermeneutic. For Latter-day Saints, the interpretations of scriptures in a binding and unified-Church sense is relegated to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Types of Statements

Teachings found in scriptures by ancient and modern oracles possess varying levels of authority to LDS. Even within the same work given by a leader or messenger, there are varying levels of authority. For example, Alma 40 contains multiple statements that are personal questions and opinions from Alma himself alongside more definite statements to which he attributes more authority. The helpful hierarchy of scriptural statements for which teachings differ in authority and certainty seem to fall into three categories from first to last:

  1. Explicit divine speech from God (What divinity said or did). Some of these are preceded by statements like "thus saith the Lord" or "the Lord saith unto me". They are direct and often unambiguous messages from God to the person receiving the message. Literature like the book of Isaiah and Jeremiah contain many alleged direct utterances from God. They often take the form of commandments or instructions to the person or group of persons that the message is addressed to. Very unambiguous examples also include answers to specific questions or direct guidance on a particular course of action. Others include direct statements about a truth of the matter, such as God the Father's message that Jesus of Nazareth is His beloved Son, teachings given via the Holy Ghost to an audience or through Jesus's earthly teaching.
  2. Reflection of visions or revelations by their beholders (What one thinks divinity meant by what they said or did). Experiences like Lehi's vision of the tree of life, allegories of Zenos, or interpretations of dreams by Daniel fall into this category. They represent what the prophet or apostle believes God is trying to impress upon their minds. They involve more creative interpretation than the first category. God gives the beholder of the revelation the room to branch out in order to discover meaning from what God presented to them. Sometimes these statements are not mandated by God to purvey to an audience and they represent the personal speculations of the beholder. Often to the beholder, the explicit meaning of the vision or revelation is not fully explained or obvious and requires their effort to make sense of the experience.
  3. Commentary, expansion on prior revelation (What one thinks another prophet thought about what divinity meant by what they said or did). Inspired commentaries on scriptures from Joseph Smith and later prophets, doctrinal expansions, and new perspectives on the works of older prophets constitute this category. Many of these include updating or completing the works of predecessors.

Many works like the Book of Nephi contain all three of these kinds of statements. Others contain only one kind. It follows that a work which contains more of the first category carries more authority than a work that contains more the second and third category. Following the kinds of statements made, there is another measure that LDS rely on for determining the level of authority.

Source and Stewardship

Latter-day Saints tend to view sources of teaching with differing levels of authority. LDS view God himself as the ulimate authority, with direct promptings by the Holy Ghost holding the most amount of authority in their personal lives. Next are the teachings found in the scriptures supplied by interpretations of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The teachings then are followed in authority by official statements of the Church followed by statements by General Authorities from talks in General Conference talks and other places. Stewardship is also relevant since certain teachings have differing relevance to different audiences. For example, a personal revelation given to a member who isn't a general authority has less weight over the Church than a revelation given to a general authority concerning the Church.

Official Doctrines

As put aptly by Elder D. Todd Christofferson, an Apostle of the Church:

In the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.

— The Doctrine of Christ, Ensign, May 2012

The Church's official positions are determined via inspiration given to the living apostles in a Quorum. This group today includes fifteen men, with three in the First Presidency and twelve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They must agree unanimously on a teaching for it to be considered an official doctrine of the Church. That is why it is referred to as a quorum. Official doctrines of the Church are not necessarily official because they are true but because they are sanctioned by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

A Pragmatic Model for Measuring Authority

Statements can be measured for their authority practically and methologically. Nathan Oman suggested that the Church may establish its continuum of doctrine similar to the way a particular judicial system evaluates legal nuances in common law. He suggests the view that doctrines of the Church are amended and altered due to successive review and proceedings based on the unanimous collective decision of General Authorities who act as judges. The scriptures could serve almost as a constitutional document which form the basis and background for which rulings on doctrine are made. Further, statements by Joseph Smith and other early authorities add weight to interpretations of doctrines. The purpose of this system isn't necessarily to guarantee the apprehension of true doctrines but more to act as a safeguard against questionable or speculative teachings that attempt to creep into the Church. I propose that statements can be measured in authority based on various different vector components:

Teachings like the nature of the Godhead, the sonship of Jesus Christ, the Atonement, the Fall, premortality, the plan of salvation, the necessity of prophets, baptism by immersion, repentance, prayer, the sacrament, obedience to commandments, continuing revelation, temple worship, covenants, priesthood authority, charity, chastity, God's love for His children, judgment, an afterlife, are all affirmed to be official doctrines in the Church and fall within the criteria above. Every one of them receives support from each of these vector components.

Teachings like priesthood restriction on the basis of African descent, the rapture, blood atonement, scriptural infallibility, infinite regression of gods, transubstantiation, spirit birth, creatio ex nihilo, and Heavenly Mother are ideas that receive some attestation from some sources and not from others. Some of these ideas range from accepted but not official, to speculative concepts, or outright rejected doctrines of the Church.