Doctrine

[MarginOfError]

What is taught by the church is the doctrine of the church.

Of course doctrine changes. Whoever rigidly holds to the idea that doctrine can never change is setting themselves up for serious shock and disappointment.

Truth, on the other hand, does not change.

Doctrine is just a word. So is policy. They can, theoretically, mean the same thing when applied to a church. We get so caught up in defining the words that we look past what's actually important. Who cares what is or isn't "doctrine"?

Is the Word of Wisdom doctrine? Yes. Is it also policy? Yes. Was it always doctrine? No? Was it always policy? No. So what. It's what is taught now. It is doctrinal and it is policy. So we obey.

What about blacks holding the priesthood. Was it policy? Yes. Was it doctrine? Yes. Is it now doctrine? No. Is it now policy? No. So...what's the problem?

In the Old Testament there were doctrines relation to slave ownership. They were doctrinal. They do not apply in our day. That doesn't make the scriptures non-doctrinal, it only means that we must understand the scriptures from the point of view of current revelation.

We should care about what the prophets and apostle teach. It's as simple as that. The fact that they haven't always taught exactly the same thing is easily reconciled via an understanding of continuing revelation and the line-upon-line principle. But what is currently taught is doctrine.

A few responses to comments herein:

I think that's a real stretch and part of the problem with people views on this. People tend to write off anything they disagree with as only a prophet's opinion. I would argue that finding obvious examples of opinions are few and far between and difficult to come by.

It does not mean we have to accept things that have been clarified by new teachings. What is CURRENTLY taught is doctrine.

This is the obvious answer. Doctrine does change over time. It has to. All truth has not been revealed. We know that. So how could we possibly content that doctrine will never change? As stated before, however, truth is truth and does not change.

No book is doctrine. Principles and teachings are doctrine. But the information in the handbooks does constitute church doctrine.

Based on the definitions you give to these words (doctrine, policy, practice, or whatever) it seems your logic is internally consistent. However, it isn't consistent with how church leaders and the church organization uses these words. For example:

Procedures, programs, the administrative policies, even some patterns of organization are subject to change. We are quite free, indeed, quite obliged to alter them from time to time. But the principles, the doctrines, never change. (Boyd K. Packer)

So, according to ranking church leaders, doctrine doesn't change, which would be consistent with the way that most in this discussion are using the word "doctrine." Of course, you could make the argument that this is only Elder Packer's opinion on the matter, but that would destroy the internal consistency of your argument thus far.

And forgive me for being bold, but I would suggest you need to attend and view more of the leadership training sessions. I can recall that when the current version of the Handbooks were released, the training included the explicit instruction that the Handbooks are not doctrine, but application of doctrinal principles.

[skippy740]

I wouldn't say 'instead'... but perhaps both. After all, the Jewish Sabbath is on Saturday.

3 Nephi 29:8

8 Yea, and ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor any of the remnant of the house of Israel; for behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn.

[Wingnut]

I wouldn't say 'instead'... but perhaps both. After all, the Jewish Sabbath is on Saturday.

3 Nephi 29:8

I agree...was just suggesting the idea. :) I think very much that Christ would attend a service with His literal kin, and probably do so before attending an LDS service. The House of Judah were His chosen people long before Mormons were.

[skippy740]

I wouldn't necessarily presume to assume which Christ would 'prefer' or attend first due to any preferences.

Besides, whether literal, or grafted/adopted... we are all the House of Israel.

[Wingnut]

I wouldn't necessarily presume to assume which Christ would 'prefer' or attend first due to any preferences.

Besides, whether literal, or grafted/adopted... we are all the House of Israel.

Fair enough. :)

I attended a bar mitzvah about a year ago. It took place during a Shabbat service at the synagogue. It was my first time inside a Jewish synagogue (or temple), and my first time in a large group of Jewish people, as opposed to conversation with one or two, here or there. As I sat in the service, I had the most powerful spiritual experience that I had had in a very long time (like, years). I listened to the Hebrew, and I watched the members of the congregation reach out and reverently touch the scriptures and the ark with their wrap/scarf (the word is escaping me now) as they were carried throughout the chapel. I was touched by the humility and faithfulness. I was struck by the tradition and the ancient nature of it. I was humbled that they would invite me to join them in such sacred rituals. And I felt an overwhelming confirmation that I was sitting among God's truly chosen people, and that it was a privilege to be there.

It changed my thinking somewhat. It was an experience I don't think I will ever forget.

[skippy740]

I went to a Shabbat service a few years ago, but it was with a reformed Jewish congregation. The Kantor had a full "band" behind him... and, for me, it seemed a little 'cartoonish'. Perhaps this was due to the 'reformed' vs 'orthodox'? I don't know, but they seemed to imitate what you talked about.

I agree it's neat to see and be a part of, but I wish my experience was a little more fulfilling spiritually.

[The Folk Prophet]

Based on the definitions you give to these words (doctrine, policy, practice, or whatever) it seems your logic is internally consistent. However, it isn't consistent with how church leaders and the church organization uses these words. For example:

So, according to ranking church leaders, doctrine doesn't change, which would be consistent with the way that most in this discussion are using the word "doctrine." Of course, you could make the argument that this is only Elder Packer's opinion on the matter, but that would destroy the internal consistency of your argument thus far.

I can accept that. I don't think how one defines doctrine is an apostolic/prophetic proclamation that is binding on the church. I think the way Elder Packer used the term doctrine does, actually, make things problematic without a bit of clarification. If we accept the idea that doctrine = eternal truths and ONLY eternal truths then doctrine does not change. I have no problem with that. But then we have other apostles saying that blacks will never have the priesthood and that it is doctrinal. So there's your inconsistency, because we know that changed. So either it wasn't doctrine (a concept I reject) or doctrine changes and Elder Packer is using an idea of doctrine that is not consistent with what other apostles have said. It doesn't, ultimately, matter. But one of the apostle got it wrong. And, regardless, it does not change what the current teaching of the church is on what constitutes doctrine: as in, what is currently commonly taught, easy to find, etc., etc...

And forgive me for being bold, but I would suggest you need to attend and view more of the leadership training sessions. I can recall that when the current version of the Handbooks were released, the training included the explicit instruction that the Handbooks are not doctrine, but application of doctrinal principles.

Boldness aside, you're misinterpreting what I said. "The application of doctrinal principles" is the same as "the information in the handbooks does constitute church doctrine."

[Irenaeus]

I've tried to work through this particular question, and by far the most satisfying answer I've yet to find (for me) is in the link below. It seems well researched, consistent, and deals well with the problem of "changing doctrines." I hope you find it helpful.

What is Official Mormon Doctrine?

[The Folk Prophet]

Here's Neil L. Andersen on doctrine:

There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

[Just_A_Guy]

To state that we have additional light means further explanation and clarification, what it does not mean is that what went before we in its essence wrong. Further light adds information that enhances understanding, this does not do that, it wipes out past views as false doctrine, and begs the question, why did the Lord allow such a wrong or misinterpretation to affect so many people for 140 years.

IMO the church should be a light on a hill, a beacon unto the world. In the issue of race and priesthood we were amongst the last to reach the point of recognising the civil rights movement.

I agree with your reasoning here, which is a major reason why I am inclined to accept the idea of the ban's being kept in place at the Lord's instruction (which accords with secondhand accounts of statements made by President McKay), and why I don't rule out the idea that the Lord may have even been behind its implementation. The Church has retreated into institutional agnosticism as to the rationale for the ban; but it has been very, very careful to NOT condemn the ban itself as spurious.

We were once again heading to court or boycotts etc which would have been damaging.

Ed Kmball's BYU Studies article re the 1978 revelation indicates to the contrary--the Church leadership felt the time was ripe to re-address the matter, in large part, precisely because public pressure had died down.

It seems to show a pattern of revelation reactive to crisis's not proactive and leading the world by example. I would hope our prophets would be at the forefront of the civil rights movement arguing for equal rights rather than being amongst the last . . .

I would hope so too, unless God had other priorities for the period in question and a premature change in policy could have undermined those priorities . . .

The scriptures make it clear that it refers to the skin and is a result of a curse caused by transgression. This is supported by the view that the lamanite skins could become lighter through righteousness.

Well, they at least support the idea that there was a physical change in skin tone that was interpreted as a sign of a curse that was spiritual in nature. But, yes; I think arguing that the BoM doesn't really speak of a change in skin tone at all, is going a bridge too far.

How do we know the modern versions aren't leaders speaking as men to overcome the major PC issues the church faces in the world?

It also sets a precident that we would then need to accept. Right now there are petitions for Gay marriage and for women to be ordained to the priesthood.

That's a hypothetical issue, certainly; but in practice not as likely as one might think. You never had united statements by the 1st Pres/Q of 12 saying that polygamy would ALWAYS be practiced, or that blacks would NEVER have the priesthood. To the contrary, there was scriptural and historical precedent for both mandatory monogamy and (in the future--though, granted, it was anticipated to be FAR in the future) of ordination for blacks.

In 50 years time will we discover that actually gay marriage is ok, as is ordaining women to the priesthood, it was just the prejudice of our leaders that prevented that from happening?

From a theological standpoint, I think the re-introduction of polygamy would be far easier than adopting a permissive attitude towards fornication generally and sodomy in particular.

The Church has dug in harder on the immorality of gay sex than it ever did on polygamy or black ordination. I don't think it can walk those statements back without completely undermining its leader's claims to any kind of superior insight into the mind and will of the Almighty.

What value do we get from prophets if the things they teach will turn out to be classed as racist false doctrine 100 years later?

"We" will be dead by then, anyways. The question is, how do we pattern our lives based on the statements made by the prophets in the here-and-now?

Edited March 19, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[MrShorty]

I agree with you, but what do you do when you don't get that confirmation and in fact are led in the opposite direction. There are many in the church that then default to the belief that it is then the individual that is wrong and they need to get themselves in harmony with God's prophet. Rarely, if ever have I heard a member or leader indicate that perhaps the leadership can or could be wrong.

--RM

In many ways, this is the heart of the question I asked over on the latest "how to sustain general authorities" thread. How to deal with those things taught be GA's that we as individuals don't quite agree? I don't think I have figured out the whole thing, but I think this idea what exactly is the eternal, unchanging doctrines might hold some key to the idea.

I notice that this thread seems to have focused a lot on those latter-day situations where it seems that things have changed. The other day in the shower, I thought of a scriptural example of this, and wondered if it could be instructive. For thousands of years, the true "doctrine" was the law of Moses, with all of its performances and ordinances. Then Christ came, suffered, died, and was raised the 3rd day, which atonement "fulfilled" the law of Moses. By fulfilling the law, the performances, ordinances, and sacrifices of the law were no longer required. Of course, many of the Jews in the old world were so focused on the law that they could not see the symbolism behind it, or could not see Christ as the fulfiller of the law, and so they rejected the dramatic change. The Book of Mormon describes a group of Nephites who were too quick to give up the law, wanting to abandon the law of Moses at Christ's birth rather than waiting for the complete fulfillment that came with his death.

I'm not sure I'm enough of a scriptorian to fully develop the idea, so if someone can see an application to the way the practices of the Church have changed since the Restoration, I would welcome any comments.