Doctrine

[RMGuy]

I have a question that I would be grateful for any insight on. I am curious as to what constitutes doctrine in the church. I am particularly looking for any direction on this topic that conclusively points to what is doctrine and what is not. While opinions are welcome, I don't know that they are particularly helpful.

Allow me to explain:

I have heard the opinion that if it is scriptural then it is doctrinal, yet we can all point to aspects of scripture that are clearly not doctrinal. Nor can we pass off all incorrect scriptural doctrine as merely mistranslation. For example we don't follow Doctrine and Covenants 89 as written.

I have also heard the opinion that what is spoken by a prophet is doctrinal, yet I think it is easy to find many instances in which a prophet is voicing his opinion as opposed to a prophetic utterance.

I have heard the thought that doctrine is what is spoken by the general authorities over the pulpit in general conference. Yet that would mean accepting things like blood atonement, the Adam-god theory, and many statements on polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, etc. as doctrinal. So that clearly can't be a defining characteristic either.

Is it perhaps that which is contained in the handbook? I have heard some members and leaders offer this opinion. Yet, I have copies of several older handbooks and clearly the council contained therein has changed over time on several important subjects. So I feel as though I am forced to disregard this as the ultimate source of doctrine.

Unless we are willing to accept or concede that doctrine changes over time (and I don't find many supporters of that concept) then I am left with the question of what is doctrine? I hear the statement that this is doctrine tossed around a lot. Most recently it was in the letter to the Ordain Women movement. In that instance we were told "Ordination of women to the priesthood is a matter of doctrine that is contrary to the Lord’s revealed organization for His church." But in a signed first presidency letter of 1947 we can read this statement, "From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." Yet the current essay on LDS.org disavows this very statement.

So if we can't count as doctrine any of the following:

The scriptures

The words of a Prophet

The words of a Prophet in General Conference

The content of the handbook

Signed first presidency statements

Then seriously, what is doctrinal?

Or are we forced to admit that doctrine changes.

Most Sincerely,

RM

[Wingnut]

Great discussion points, RMGuy!

I have heard the opinion that if it is scriptural then it is doctrinal, yet we can all point to aspects of scripture that are clearly not doctrinal. Nor can we pass off all incorrect scriptural doctrine as merely mistranslation. For example we don't follow Doctrine and Covenants 89 as written.

Funny you should mention that section. It's one that I often point to in this conversation as well.

Is it perhaps that which is contained in the handbook? I have heard some members and leaders offer this opinion. Yet, I have copies of several older handbooks and clearly the council contained therein has changed over time on several important subjects. So I feel as though I am forced to disregard this as the ultimate source of doctrine.

No! The Handbooks are based on doctrinal principles, but they are not doctrine at all! They are policy.

Unless we are willing to accept or concede that doctrine changes over time (and I don't find many supporters of that concept) then I am left with the question of what is doctrine? I hear the statement that this is doctrine tossed around a lot. Most recently it was in the letter to the Ordain Women movement. In that instance we were told "Ordination of women to the priesthood is a matter of doctrine that is contrary to the Lord’s revealed organization for His church." But in a signed first presidency letter of 1947 we can read this statement, "From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." Yet the current essay on LDS.org disavows this very statement.

I agree.

Or are we forced to admit that doctrine changes.

It's an unpopular position, but I think there may be something to this. If not, then it's something that my human mind can't yet understand.

To me, doctrine is the most distilled basic principles upon which everything else is based. For example, since you mentioned D&C 89, I'll go with that. I personally don't believe that the Word of Wisdom is doctrine. We know that the Lord has given different health standards over the history of the earth, and they haven't all been the same. So we know that that can change. The Word of Wisdom is the current application of the doctrine that our bodies are created in the image of God, and are temples. The Lord has given us the Word of Wisdom as the commandment that helps us live that doctrine.

With regard to the Priesthood, there are one of two explanations:

(1) The 1947 letter was true, which means the doctrine changed. Which means it can change again.

(2) The 1947 letter was inaccurate, which means that black men not having the Priesthood was an application or practice of doctrine, which changed. That could mean that the current application could also change, or it could mean that the Priesthood doctrine excludes women, and that won't change.

I lean toward the 1947 letter being inaccurate. In fact, setting aside the reference to doctrine altogether, it's historically incorrect. Joseph Smith himself ordained black men to the Priesthood. It was Brigham Young that instituted the ban.

[estradling75]

My take is very simple. 3 Nephi 11... Christ teaches his doctrine.

Its Faith in Christ, Repentance, Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end in keeping the commandments.

That is... For me that is the sum total of all the doctrine. The bulk of what we confuse as doctrine is because of that last one. The commandments that God has given us that we are accountable for. They are important, they are necessary, but they can change as the Lord sees fit.

[mnn727]

The best (and most official) definition

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

[Just_A_Guy]

Not to get all Clintonesque, but it really depends on what you mean by "doctrine".

In one sense, "doctrine" means "truth". Truth (and error) transcends the manner in which it is proclaimed. And, of course it's not going to change--although the truth may be more nuanced than we tend to think (for example, if you presume that God did not intend for blacks to have the priesthood then, but He does intend it to be the case now in 2014; then both the 1947 statement and the 2014 statement are "true" when applied to their respective times and places).

In another sense, "doctrine" means "the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", both in theology and in policy/practice. I don't think there can be any question but that that will evolve (within certain parameters, at least) as we receive further light and knowledge; and that shouldn't bother us.

[RMGuy]

My take is very simple. 3 Nephi 11... Christ teaches his doctrine.

Its Faith in Christ, Repentance, Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end in keeping the commandments.

That is... For me that is the sum total of all the doctrine. The bulk of what we confuse as doctrine is because of that last one. The commandments that God has given us that we are accountable for. They are important, they are necessary, but they can change as the Lord sees fit.

That is helpful estradling. Thank you. Some other recent insight that I received on the matter was that doctrine differs from practice. Like JAG said as well, it is influenced by what we mean as doctrine. I think that for me Doctrine should be the bedrock principles of the gospel.

I think what I am wrestling with is the concept that truth shouldn't change. Either something is true or it is not, particularly when it comes to the gospel. Hence, what I think I am looking for is some guidance as to where you can find that core bedrock doctrine.

I hear a lot about following the words of the prophet, but then we know that not everything that a prophet says (even over the pulpit in general conference) is doctrinally correct. I like what you had to say here a lot. I could probably go a bit more into depth on how that impacts us with regards to commandments as well, but I think I need to weigh that out a bit more first.

-RM

[estradling75]

I hear a lot about following the words of the prophet, but then we know that not everything that a prophet says (even over the pulpit in general conference) is doctrinally correct. I like what you had to say here a lot. I could probably go a bit more into depth on how that impacts us with regards to commandments as well, but I think I need to weigh that out a bit more first.

-RM

You need a follow up step to the words of the prophets... which is confirmed to you by the spirit

Then it is not the prophets that are speaking but the Lord

[RMGuy]

You need a follow up step to the words of the prophets... which is confirmed to you by the spirit

Then it is not the prophets that are speaking but the Lord

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

[MarginOfError]

I've written about this elsewhere on the boards, but I'm too lazy to search for it.

In general, I think most things can be pigeon-holed into one of the following categories

Doctrine

Scripture

Teaching/Application

Interpretation

Policy

The doctrine is unchanging. It can be found in the scriptures. But it is not the scriptures. The scriptures contain teachings, applications, and stories related to the doctrine.

The scriptures themselves are the canonized works that form our reference for doctrine. For the LDS Church, that is limited to the Standard Works.

Teachings and applications are methods used to enlighten doctrine. They are useful in context, but often not so useful when taken out of context or the analogies extended beyond their original application.

Interpretations are the ways that people put together various aspects of doctrine and teachings in order to make decisions for themselves.

Policies are specific applications of principles (eternal or otherwise) meant to bring order and commonality to the way the temporal organization of the church operates.

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

Based on the description I gave above, it's also possible that neither person is wrong. But that the interpretation of the principle described by the prophet may not be well suited to the conditions in which the individual is living. An alternate interpretation (and therefore, application) may be more suited to the individual. These don't have to be either/or (right/wrong, true/false) dichotomies. The doctrines can be true without everyone behaving in exactly the same manner.

[RMGuy]

Thank you MOE. Do you think that this is a common or accepted understanding? To build on a couple of items that were mentioned above: If we look at doctrine as foundational, bedrock principles, and other items as things like teachings, practices, policies, etc. and if we pick a specific item be it WoW, Tithing, Masturbation etc. and the individual prays about it and truly believes that they have gained personal revelation that this policy, practice either doesn't apply to them or applies in a different way that that commonly accepted how do you think that would play out.

I mean I don't see them getting a temple recommend for example. In other words are they not perceived to then be wrong?

There is an instance on my mission that is one of those life altering events, though I didn't recognize it at the time. I was a District Leader and training. My "greenie" asked a question as we walked along one day. He asked, "What would you do if Christ told you to do something contrary to the council of the prophet." My response was that this would never happen because we have been told that the prophet would never lead us astray. (In my pride, and to my everlasting shame, I was sure I was right, after all I was the senior companion). Of course the correct answer should have been I would do as Christ instructed. We even have scriptural examples. Nephi murders Laban even though I am sure his prophet father taught him that "Thou shall not kill."

I guess this is just something I am really, really wrestling with. How do you handle a situation when you find yourself in opposition to something you have been taught yet have either not received confirmation that the leader is correct or worse have received confirmation that they are in fact wrong?

If you truly have a desire to do that which is good, right, and true how do you handle this? I would have hated to be one of the people at Mountain Meadows that went along because my leaders told me it was the right thing to do.

I feel like I am caught up in some cosmic Milgram experiment.

-RM

[Praetorian_Brow]

Rely on yourself then when you are getting conflicting orders because in the end, its your actions that will define the outcome and you will face the consequences. Evidently you have the capacity to understand that such a situation could happen and you asked the question, which infers that you know the answer, but fear it. Doctrine is fluid, as is truth and so are the people who tell us the doctrine, but that doesn't mean we should ignore, just weigh the scales of ethical morality in our own mind.

The Nuremburg trials defined to the world that "following orders" was not a good defence when faced with moral and ethical dilemmas.

I wonder if Jesus would even attend a LDS service, given that we are so smug about having the "truth", as I am sure some of our doctrine/understanding would be immediately questioned.

[MarginOfError]

Thank you MOE. Do you think that this is a common or accepted understanding? To build on a couple of items that were mentioned above: If we look at doctrine as foundational, bedrock principles, and other items as things like teachings, practices, policies, etc. and if we pick a specific item be it WoW, Tithing, Masturbation etc. and the individual prays about it and truly believes that they have gained personal revelation that this policy, practice either doesn't apply to them or applies in a different way that that commonly accepted how do you think that would play out.

My personal philosophy is that I give people the benefit of the doubt and do my best not to judge them. Such judgment I leave to bishops and stake presidents, people who hold the keys of common judges in Israel.

So yes, while the individual may feel that they may not need to pay tithing, for example, they should understand that following their personal inspiration doesn't guarantee that the priesthood leaders will receive identical confirmation of their revelatory experience. So they may not get to enjoy all the blessings of the temporal organization of the Church.

It stinks, but that's life.

[skippy740]

I wonder if Jesus would even attend a LDS service, given that we are so smug about having the "truth", as I am sure some of our doctrine/understanding would be immediately questioned.

D&C 1:30

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

The Lord said it, so yes, He would attend.

[Free_Born_John]

For me I'm more concerned about why doctrines change than the fact that they have. For example, the recent church essay on Polygamy on LDS.org seems apologetic about Polygamy, and never really explains that it absolutely is Mormon doctrine.

I'm not ashamed of what we believe. It doesn't have to be popular or PC. If the world does not like it I don't care. If we believe in Polygamy then we believe in it as a doctrine and a principle. I wasn't sure when I read that essay if the church was playing too PC or just chickening out and trying to sound mainstream.

But I absolutely agree with the main thrust of your question. Growing up, when the prophet spoke I believed that was doctrine. Now, years later having read more widely, I recognise that we face some really tough contradictions. As mentioned in the Race and Priesthood discussions, there are really significant quotes by LDS leaders that are official on the record statements about that issue that have now been disavowed by the church.

This then begs the question, if a Prophet states something as Doctrine today, isn't there risk that tomorrow or in 50 years time it will be viewed as just his opinion.

Now to be balanced here we need to be very careful IMO, as there is no name on those essays, so they could have been written by church apologists. Nor do they claim to be written by revelation, so could be utterly wrong.

On the Race and Priesthood issue, I'm really happy with the statements in terms of equality. However, somehow I am then forced to reconcile quotes like:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else". Church Essay on Race and Priesthood - LDS.org

Against this:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time" - George Albert Smith, The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949

Since this statement is from the first presidency and it makes the claim that is not policy but a direct commandment from the Lord, Doctrine of the Church, then it really creates a problem IMO.

And, 2 Nephi 5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Therefore, it's my opinion, and I'm happy to be proven wrong that declarative statements by the first presidency like the one cited by George Albert Smith in an official statement and quotes from scripture like the " Nephi 5:21 absolutely have to trump modern Church Essays (even though I don't like the racial implications) because the Essays do not claim any official revelation or authority via authorship.

If Prophets and Scriptures could be that wrong, then we have a problem in know which bits are right, which statements at general conference are opinion and which are doctrine. Further, if we accept that such statements are Racist, and we've heard President Hinckley state that racists have no place in this church, which implies that Racism is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which I hope it is) then we have a situation where for 140 years Prophets and Apostles taught as doctrine a falsehood that would lead members astray and have very significant and punishing implications for our Black brothers and sisters. Yet we're told Prophets can't lead the church astray, so we have a logical conflict - only one statement can on the face of it be true - the question we all face is which one is it?

For me I just have to be open minded. My conscience tells me racism is wrong, my intellect tells me statements need to be evidenced and consistent.

I think this particular essay places a risk of causing a constitutional crisis in the church, as members might be unclear as to which Prophets to follow on this matter. IMO this is definitely a sizeable issue that Pres Monson and the Presiding authorities really could resolve through revelation.

[The Folk Prophet]

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 have also heard the opinion that what is spoken by a prophet is doctrinal, yet I think it is easy to find many instances in which a prophet is voicing his opinion as opposed to a prophetic utterance.

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.

I have heard the thought that doctrine is what is spoken by the general authorities over the pulpit in general conference. Yet that would mean accepting things like blood atonement, the Adam-god theory, and many statements on polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, etc. as doctrinal. So that clearly can't be a defining characteristic either.

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

Unless we are willing to accept or concede that doctrine changes over time

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 contend that doctrine will never change? As stated before, however, truth is truth and does not change.

No! The Handbooks are based on doctrinal principles, but they are not doctrine at all! They are policy.

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

Edited March 19, 2014 by church

[The Folk Prophet]

Rely on yourself then when you are getting conflicting orders because in the end, its your actions that will define the outcome and you will face the consequences. Evidently you have the capacity to understand that such a situation could happen and you asked the question, which infers that you know the answer, but fear it. Doctrine is fluid, as is truth and so are the people who tell us the doctrine, but that doesn't mean we should ignore, just weigh the scales of ethical morality in our own mind.

The Nuremburg trials defined to the world that "following orders" was not a good defence when faced with moral and ethical dilemmas.

I wonder if Jesus would even attend a LDS service, given that we are so smug about having the "truth", as I am sure some of our doctrine/understanding would be immediately questioned.

I heartily disagree with this post.

Rely on the teachings of the prophets and apostle even if you "feel" differently in your own thoughts and prayers. If you know the church is true, this is the only wise course. If you don't know the church is true, then find out or get busy finding the one that is true.

Doctrine, as I've said, is fluid. But truth is not.

And the idea that Jesus wouldn't attend the meetings of His own church is just silly.

[Free_Born_John]

Church, whilst I see where you're trying to go with your argument, the church does use Doctrine and Policy as separate and distinct items. Further, you'd need to reconcile that with the idea that the Doctrines given by heavenly father are eternal and unchanging, doctrines are the principles upon which we live, policies are merely the principles upon which we organise in a temporal sense.

The Commandments are Doctrines, they are statements of principle as well as rules and not just policies. You don't get excommunicated for breaching a policy, you do for breaking commandments and Doctrines.

[skippy740]

Let me help you a little bit here:

All are alike unto God - Bruce R. McConkie

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

Now, let's dissect 2 Nephi 5:21 a bit:

First, did you notice the chapter heading? It used to read (grab your printed scriptures for this):

The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple - Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.

In the 2013 edition (and on lds.org) it now reads:

The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.

Perhaps we can infer what the curse was? They are cut off from the presence of the Lord.

Now, 2 Nephi 5:21 -

21 And he had caused the acursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and bdelightsome, that they might not be centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a dskin of eblackness to come upon them.

Normally I correct for the footnotes, but I'm going to leave them in there.

a - cursing: TG Curse.

b - delightsome: Gen. 24:16; 1 Ne. 13:15; 4 Ne. 1:10; Morm. 9:6.

c - enticing: TG Marriage, Temporal.

d - skin: 2 Ne. 30:6; 3 Ne. 2:15 (14–16).

e - blackness: 2 Ne. 26:33; Moses 7:8.

The most often quoted scripture on this topic is 2 Nephi 26:33

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them ball to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

However, they forget to compare to Alma 11:44 and Alma 1:30

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

30 And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.

I don't understand the nuances of translation, but there's more to the words of "black and white" than today's definitions.

So, what do we do with it today? We forgive these men of their errors. The Lord did and does.

D&C 1:24-28

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

If the Lord knew... why can't we be okay with it too?

[prisonchaplain]

If I want to compare LDS doctrine to that of any other religion--particularly my own--I'd feel pretty safe using the Articles of Faith as foundation. After all, they are not only statements of faith, but are considered scripture, right?

In a live discussion with an LDS member, I'd be on thin ice to say, "Well, I read a post over at LDS.net that says you guys believe..." But, if I asked, "Doesn't this Article say such and such?" I might get an explanation--perhaps a correction of my misinterpretation--but I should never get a response of, "Well...that's not doctrine."

Right?

[The Folk Prophet]

For me I'm more concerned about why doctrines change than the fact that they have. For example, the recent church essay on Polygamy on LDS.org seems apologetic about Polygamy, and never really explains that it absolutely is Mormon doctrine.

That's because it wasn't meant to address the doctrine of Polygamy, or to fully explain everything about it.

This then begs the question, if a Prophet states something as Doctrine today, isn't there risk that tomorrow or in 50 years time it will be viewed as just his opinion.

Yes, there is that risk. But we follow the living prophet, regardless.

Now to be balanced here we need to be very careful IMO, as there is no name on those essays, so they could have been written by church apologists. Nor do they claim to be written by revelation, so could be utterly wrong.

A dangerous point of view in my opinion.

On the Race and Priesthood issue, I'm really happy with the statements in terms of equality. However, somehow I am then forced to reconcile quotes like:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else". Church Essay on Race and Priesthood - LDS.org

Against this:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time" - George Albert Smith, The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949

Since this statement is from the first presidency and it makes the claim that is not policy but a direct commandment from the Lord, Doctrine of the Church, then it really creates a problem IMO.

And, 2 Nephi 5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Therefore, it's my opinion, and I'm happy to be proven wrong that declarative statements by the first presidency like the one cited by George Albert Smith in an official statement and quotes from scripture like the " Nephi 5:21 absolutely have to trump modern Church Essays (even though I don't like the racial implications) because the Essays do not claim any official revelation or authority via authorship.

I can see your logic, but I, personally, think it wiser to follow the modern teachings (a.k.a. doctrine) of the church with a healthy benefit-of-the-doubt attitude. Moreover the wording in the current teaching can be easily reconciled against the scriptures and the like. In saying, "the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse", for example, it is referencing those theories mentioned in the essay, and does not mean that all doctrinal p.o.v.'s that might be considered racist by the world (like the Book of Mormon examples) are included.

If Prophets and Scriptures could be that wrong, then we have a problem in know which bits are right, which statements at general conference are opinion and which are doctrine. Further, if we accept that such statements are Racist, and we've heard President Hinckley state that racists have no place in this church, which implies that Racism is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which I hope it is) then we have a situation where for 140 years Prophets and Apostles taught as doctrine a falsehood that would lead members astray and have very significant and punishing implications for our Black brothers and sisters. Yet we're told Prophets can't lead the church astray, so we have a logical conflict - only one statement can on the face of it be true - the question we all face is which one is it?

I just don't see the dilemma. We follow the living prophet. It's really that simple.

For me I just have to be open minded. My conscience tells me racism is wrong, my intellect tells me statements need to be evidenced and consistent.

But you, (and I include all mortal beings, including myself) have such a ridiculously limited perspective on the eternities and the reality of truth that it is silly for us to rely upon conscience and intellect alone. That is why we need continuing revelation, and why we follow the teachings of our inspired leaders in spite of our personal convictions and thought processes.

I think this particular essay places a risk of causing a constitutional crisis in the church, as members might be unclear as to which Prophets to follow on this matter.

Who are you worried is going to "follow" older teachings? The implication here is that you worry that someone will refuse to ordain a black man.

[Free_Born_John]

Hi Skippy,

I'm familiar with the arguments you've just laid out, but I'm sorry, I just don't find them even remotely convincing.

To start with, for Bruce R McConkie to simply say "wipe the past and do over" does not fly with me. He certainly was not referring to the idea of a curse, but was referring to statements that Black people would not receive the priesthood until the very last.

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

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 and being near forced to obey the law.

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.

I'm really not a fan of trying to re-write church history or scripture because it is problematic today. I'm so pro equality its not even funny, but I'm also sufficiently able to read a wide variety of scripture and history to the point that no amount of referencing BR McConkie or changes to the headings of scriptures overcomes.

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.

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?

We end up on really shaking ground when we say the Gospel is unchanging, same yesterday today and forever (and there are some much more tightly worded quotes than that given by Joseph Smith to bind un into these problems).

A firm foundation states you get told the truth from the start. What is the point of getting bits of revelation that nobody understands and then goes completely astray on?

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?

Prophets either speak the word of God and agree or we have to resolve why those challenges exist at all.

[The Folk Prophet]

Church, whilst I see where you're trying to go with your argument, the church does use Doctrine and Policy as separate and distinct items. Further, you'd need to reconcile that with the idea that the Doctrines given by heavenly father are eternal and unchanging, doctrines are the principles upon which we live, policies are merely the principles upon which we organise in a temporal sense.

The Commandments are Doctrines, they are statements of principle as well as rules and not just policies. You don't get excommunicated for breaching a policy, you do for breaking commandments and Doctrines.

Some leaders of the church use Doctrine and Policy as separate and distinct items. And I understand why. And if one defines them accordingly, I'm fine with that. But I personally think it makes things more complicated, and does not adhere to the actual meaning of doctrine.

doc·trine [dok-trin] Show IPA

noun

1.

a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2.

something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3.

a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Doctrine is what is taught. And what has been taught has changed. So doctrine changes.

Trying to define doctrine as something that it isn't just makes things confusing. And some of the leaders of the church have been guilty of making things more confusing, as I think we can all agree.

Anyhow, even if we accept what you're saying, it would by default fall under the category of policy -- meaning that if the church does indeed officially regard policy and doctrine separately (which I do not think there is anything official about it) then it is a policy, and not doctrine, and therefore, even according to those who hold dogmatic doctrine-never-changes views, subject to change. :) How was that for a run-on sentence?

[skippy740]

What does the word "true" mean to you? As in "this is the only true and living church"?

What if true... was a verb? That we, as a Church, are continuously trying to true ourselves and our policies/practices to the will of the Lord?

[The Folk Prophet]

What does the word "true" mean to you? As in "this is the only true and living church"?

What if true... was a verb? That we, as a Church, are continuously trying to true ourselves and our policies/practices to the will of the Lord?

It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure it's consistent with the usage. First, it doesn't seem contextual:

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

Also Elder Oaks on it: The Only True and Living Church.

And finally, corresponding scriptural ideas from the First Vision, as in:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Overall, I think "true" means just what it seems to mean. We know that it doesn't mean the church is the only source of truth or goodness. But, collectively, the church is the only true church.

[Wingnut]

And the idea that Jesus wouldn't attend the meetings of His own church is just silly.

Are you sure He wouldn't attend Jewish Shabbat services instead?