All About Mormons

Many convert to Mormonism from religions that have very well-defined “official doctrine.” These want to know what constitutes “official doctrine” in Mormonism.

Mormons believe that God continues to speak to modern prophets and apostles just as He spoke to men in ancient times. We do not believe, however, that prophets and apostles are infallible. They are human, and they can make mistakes. This brings up an interesting and challenging question: what is considered official doctrine in the Mormon Church? How can we know if the words that a prophet speaks are actual revelation from God?

The problem of defining “official Mormon doctrine” is complicated by the following:

1. In most churches, official doctrine is clearly defined in accepted “creeds.” Mormons reject the early post-apostolic creeds as unbiblical; we avoid modern creeds as well. Instead, Mormons believe God continues to clarify and reveal His will through modern revelation. Because of this belief in modern, ongoing revelation, our theology is more dynamic than that of many other religions. To “fix” doctrine by publishing it in an immutable creed is to deny modern revelation, which enables God to update and clarify the doctrines He has revealed as He sees fit.
2. According to Doctrine and Covenants 9:8, the Mormon revelatory process involves two steps: “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.” It seems, then, that to learn theological truth a prophet must first study a given theological question out in his mind, what I like to call “hypothesis forming.” This process almost certainly requires speculative thinking and many “what if” questions as the prophet mentally searches all of “hypothetical theological space” for actual theological truth. After forming a theological hypothesis, the prophet must “ask God if it be right,” what I like to call “hypothesis testing.” Surveying Mormon history, it seems that this process may span many years; in fact, it may even be “multi-generational.” One prophet may form a theological hypothesis, and another prophet, years later, may finally get a response from God as to whether or not the hypothesis is theologically true. In an ideal world, when speaking from the pulpit prophets would limit their words to divinely-confirmed theological principles, not mentioning the unconfirmed theological theories they may be privately considering, which may or may not be theologically true. It seems to me that recent prophets have done an excellent job of limiting their comments to what is “theologically known.” The earliest Mormon prophets seemed to be more speculative in their sermons. Brigham Young is particularly notorious for expressing unconfirmed theological hypotheses from the pulpit; theories like the “Adam-God doctrine” and “blood atonement,” which Brigham occasionally mentioned, were subsequently determined, through revelation from God, to be theologically incorrect. (That having been said, the vast majority of Brigham’s teachings have been confirmed theologically true over the years).
3. As if the above challenges were not enough, in Mormonism there is a difference between a “doctrine” and a “policy.” A “doctrine” is a divinely-confirmed theological principle–a theological truth. A “policy” may or may not be divinely influenced; often times, God may permit “policies” that He did not necessarily instigate. It may well be that God is unconcerned with many of the Church’s “policies,” which are necessary to run the mundane day-to-day activities of the Church bureaucracy. Complicating matters even further, history suggests that in some cases it is not clear whether or not a teaching is a doctrine or a policy. In some circumstances, even prophets seem to disagree. The priesthood ban is a perfect example; Brigham Young probably saw it as a doctrine, but David O. McKay reportedly considered it to be a policy. To this day God has not explained whether that ban was a doctrine or a policy. (I personally tend to side with President McKay on this issue.)
4. Additionally, not everything a prophet says is even intended to be prophetic revelation from God, making it even more challenging to define what is “doctrine.” Joseph Smith once said, “This morning… I visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet’; but I told them that a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such.” Prophets are human beings just like the rest of us. They have opinions and make mistakes like anyone else. Again, recent prophets have done a much better job of limiting their public comments to that which is theologically known. Earlier prophets did not make the same efforts to keep their personal opinions out of their sermons. Brigham Young’s sermons are so peppered by his strong personal opinions that at times when reading them one cannot help but crack a subtle smile. Brigham had a very strong personality.

So what is “doctrine” in Mormonism? The actual doctrines are far fewer than one might expect. I think we can safely conclude that those teachings which have been taught by multiple prophets and that continue to be taught by our modern prophets have been confirmed theologically true by divine revelation. For example:”

1. Jesus is the Christ, the divine Savior of the world. Salvation comes only through Him.
2. The authority to act in God’s name was taken from the earth with the death of the New-Testament apostles. God restored it to the earth through Joseph Smith. That authority is had in the LDS Church today.
3. The Old and New Testaments, as well as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, are inspired of God. They can help us understand God’s will.
4. Under God’s tutelage, men and women can progress to become more like God in the next life, through the grace of Jesus Christ.

Many other Mormon ideas (sometimes misleadingly called “deep doctrines”) have not yet been confirmed true or false by divine revelation. As Mormons, we must become comfortable with the idea that the answers to some theological questions are simply not known.

So if Mormon doctrine is constantly evolving under the influence of divine revelation, in what can we as Mormons place our faith? I believe we can take comfort in the following:

1. While God may not confirm or deny the veracity of all our theological hypotheses at the very hour we ask, we can have faith that He will provide us with the knowledge we need to obtain salvation. Everything else, in the end, is of secondary importance anyway.
2. We can have faith in the revelatory process itself. While we may not know the truthfulness of all things now, we can have confidence that with the passage of time God will reveal more and more according to His own timetable. He still speaks today.
3. We can have faith that the Church is headed in the right direction. Specific “theological hypotheses” may be proved wrong and human policies may fail, but under God’s influence the beautiful, dynamic, almost organic thing that is Mormon theology is evolving towards a perfected state. The ship is headed in the right direction; Christ is the captain at the helm.

Truth be told, I love the way God has established His Church. Mormonism is not static, not imprisoned by the traditions of the past. We look to the past with reverence to learn how God dealt with His people in ancient times, but we also look excitedly towards the future, to what the Church will become. The knowledge that my Mormon theology will not be identical to my grandchildren’s Mormon theology is exciting! While we will certainly have many beliefs in common–while the eternal doctrines which have been thus far revealed will certainly endure–my grandchildren will understand principles that I do not. God will reveal to them things that He has not yet revealed to me.

“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.”–Joseph Smith