Reader Rebecca V. points out a fascinating new church newsroom statement intended to clarify the meaning of church doctrine. As she notes, the statement appears to adopt the approach long suggested by Robert Millet. The lengthy statement reads:
SALT LAKE CITY 4 May 2007 Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.
The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.
The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:
* 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 â€œstandard worksâ€ 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.
* Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Churchâ€™s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: â€œThe 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.â€
* 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. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the 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. According to the Articles of Faith, â€œWe 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.â€
* Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, â€œBy their fruits ye shall know them.â€
* 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.
* Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.
Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.
This is a welcome clarification — official doctrine is found in statements on important church issues that are promulgated by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, which generally means the standard works, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. This definition is very helpful. In addition, if one accepts this definition, then a number of problematic statements over time by church leaders (e.g., pre-existence status of Blacks) can be dismissed as not doctrine.
However, if this standard is applied, the new statement itself cannot be viewed as doctrine. It is a church news release, with no apparent claim to doctrinal status. There is no indication that it was promulgated by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. If one accepts the statement’s own definition, one is compelled to view the statement itself as non-doctrinal.
Can a non-doctrinal statement serve to properly define the boundary between church doctrine and non-doctrine? Probably not. Non-doctrinal statements are, as a group, potentially subject to personal bias, insufficient vetting, and so on — the problems that motivate Millet’s approach in the first place. (If they weren’t, there would be no need to set out the distinction, or to downplay non-doctrinal statements.) Because of this, there is no reason to think that anything less than a truly doctrinal statement should be allowed to define doctrine.
So this statement is a nice gesture, but because of its status — a self-defined non-doctrinal statement — it is not capable of accurately setting out a doctrinal definition of doctrine. And anything less than a doctrinal definition of doctrine is only an opinion.