Reaching out for support after reading the Essays


WannaBelieve
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think mdfxdb at post 193 gives a good summation of the doctrine-versus-policy paradigm; though--as I've expressed earlier--I think it has its limits.  At the very least, we can't expect every Church leader from Joseph Smith onwards to have been referring to this paradigm when that leader referred to a particular teaching/practice as "doctrine" or "policy".  I think that when George Albert Smith uses the term "doctrine" in 1949, he means it in the generic sense of "a teaching of the Church"; not specifically as a facet of Mormon teaching/practice that will remain forever unaltered.

 

As for McConkie's statement:  We get so fixated on that one sentence, that we tend to forget the context

 

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. 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.

 

McConkie's "forget everything" admonition is clearly directed to a very narrow class of statements:  Statements to the effect that blacks would never receive priesthood blessings in mortality, which were obviously "contrary to the present revelation['s]" decree that "the long-promised day has come".

 

He is not throwing the prior policy under the bus.  In fact, he's not even distancing himself from the previous, speculative rationales that had been floated for the ban's existence in the first place.  In the very same talk, he observes:

 

The gospel goes to various peoples and nations on a priority basis. . . .

 

Not only is the gospel to go, on a priority basis and harmonious to a divine timetable, to one nation after another, but the whole history of God’s dealings with men on earth indicates that such has been the case in the past; it has been restricted and limited where many people are concerned. . . .

 

There have been these problems, and the Lord has permitted them to arise. There isn’t any question about that. We do not envision the whole reason and purpose behind all of it; we can only suppose and reason that it is on the basis of our premortal devotion and faith.

 

Yowza! 

 

And post-1978 editions of Mormon Doctrine continued to embrace those concepts. The Church's efforts to distance itself from the old explanations is a very recent thing, coming most notably in venues like Elder Holland's 2010 interview for PBS' The Mormons (transcript here); a Newsroom statement in 2012 (here), and ultimately a limited disavowal of some specific theories in the recent Gospel Topics article (here).

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

McConkie is clearly addressing a very narrow class of statements:  Statements to the effect that blacks would never receive priesthood blessings in mortality, which were "contrary to the present revelation['s]" decree that "the long-promised day has come".

 

I'm not sure it even needed further context, at least I felt it didn't. Brigham Young stated several times it would one day be lifted. I felt it was clear McConkie was talking about all the reasoning they applied to the ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jerome -

 

Young, I think, suggested that Cain's posterity wouldn't hold the priesthood until Abel had posterity that could hold the priesthood, which I think led McConkie to make some pre-1978 statements to the effect that blacks wouldn't get the priesthood until the Millennium. 

 

I'm ashamed to admit it, but I hadn't read McConkie's BYU talk in full until just this evening (I've edited/expanded my previous post accordingly).  The more I read it, the more it absolutely flabbergasts me that anyone who has actually read it would dare suggest that McConkie was conceding that the ban was an error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think mdfxdb at post 193 gives a good summation of the doctrine-versus-policy paradigm; though--as I've expressed earlier--I think it has its limits.  At the very least, we can't expect every Church leader from Joseph Smith onwards to have been referring to this paradigm when that leader referred to a particular teaching/practice as "doctrine" or "policy".  I think that when George Albert Smith uses the term "doctrine" in 1949, he means it in the generic sense of "a teaching of the Church"; not specifically as a facet of Mormon teaching/practice that will remain forever unaltered.

 

As for McConkie's statement:  We get so fixated on that one sentence, that we tend to forget the context

 

 

McConkie's "forget everything" admonition is clearly directed to a very narrow class of statements:  Statements to the effect that blacks would never receive priesthood blessings in mortality, which were obviously "contrary to the present revelation['s]" decree that "the long-promised day has come".

 

He is not throwing the prior policy under the bus.  In fact, he's not even distancing himself from the previous, speculative rationales that had been floated for the ban's existence in the first place.  In the very same talk, he observes:

 

 

Yowza! 

 

And post-1978 editions of Mormon Doctrine continued to embrace those concepts. The Church's efforts to distance itself from the old explanations is a very recent thing, coming most notably in venues like Elder Holland's 2010 interview for PBS' The Mormons (transcript here); a Newsroom statement in 2012 (here), and ultimately a limited disavowal of some specific theories in the recent Gospel Topics article (here).

 

It is interesting to note, per this discussion, that Holland refers to it as both policy and doctrine.

 

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Not only is the gospel to go, on a priority basis and harmonious to a divine timetable, to one nation after another, but the whole history of God’s dealings with men on earth indicates that such has been the case in the past; it has been restricted and limited where many people are concerned. . . .

 

There have been these problems, and the Lord has permitted them to arise. There isn’t any question about that. We do not envision the whole reason and purpose behind all of it; we can only suppose and reason that it is on the basis of our premortal devotion and faith."

 

This proves my whole point.  The priesthood is available to all.  That is doctrine.  However, the Lord's policy is/was to restrict it as he sees fit.

 

Thus, the ban on blacks holding the priesthood may have been an inspired policy, but it was never doctrine.  That it was taught as doctrine was a mistake/fault/error on the part of those using the wrong words to describe the Lords policies.  In effect when the leaders of the church referred to it as doctrine, they got it wrong.

 

That we in our limited understanding equate policy with doctrine is purely because we do not have the vision of the Lords full purpose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of if it was policy or what ever is a pointless exercise in splitting hairs over word choices.

 

The important question...  Is was the Priesthood ban of God or not?  I am sure no Prophet in the past was unduly concerned that is word choice would be considered incorrect by people decades into their future.  Just like I am sure none of the prophets today are to worried what people a hundred years from now might think of their word choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Not only is the gospel to go, on a priority basis and harmonious to a divine timetable, to one nation after another, but the whole history of God’s dealings with men on earth indicates that such has been the case in the past; it has been restricted and limited where many people are concerned. . . .

 

There have been these problems, and the Lord has permitted them to arise. There isn’t any question about that. We do not envision the whole reason and purpose behind all of it; we can only suppose and reason that it is on the basis of our premortal devotion and faith."

 

This proves my whole point.  The priesthood is available to all.  That is doctrine.  However, the Lord's policy is/was to restrict it as he sees fit.

 

Thus, the ban on blacks holding the priesthood may have been an inspired policy, but it was never doctrine.  That it was taught as doctrine was a mistake/fault/error on the part of those using the wrong words to describe the Lords policies.  In effect when the leaders of the church referred to it as doctrine, they got it wrong.

 

That we in our limited understanding equate policy with doctrine is purely because we do not have the vision of the Lords full purpose. 

 

Maybe if you could support this idea or what constitutes "doctrine" with some sort of, you know, doctrinal statement, it would hold more weight.

 

It's all easy and everything to say "That it was taught as doctrine was a mistake/fault/error on the part of those using the wrong words to describe the Lords policies." But just saying it doesn't make it true.

 

If you're going to define "doctrine" so narrowly, you'd better back it up, doctrinally speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of if it was policy or what ever is a pointless exercise in splitting hairs over word choices.

 

The important question...  Is was the Priesthood ban of God or not?  I am sure no Prophet in the past was unduly concerned that is word choice would be considered incorrect by people decades into their future.  Just like I am sure none of the prophets today are to worried what people a hundred years from now might think of their word choices.

It isn't pointless because words matter. 

 

Surely they also didn't worry that those who pointed out the fact they used the wrong words would be branded apostates. 

 

Believe it or not.  It's ok that they were wrong.  It in no way diminishes their "prophetness"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe if you could support this idea or what constitutes "doctrine" with some sort of, you know, doctrinal statement, it would hold more weight.

 

It's all easy and everything to say "That it was taught as doctrine was a mistake/fault/error on the part of those using the wrong words to describe the Lords policies." But just saying it doesn't make it true.

 

If you're going to define "doctrine" so narrowly, you'd better back it up, doctrinally speaking.

I believe the process as to how doctrine is defined and put into canon has already been covered here.  But since it doesn't match up with what you think it ought to be I guess it doesn't matter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the first presidency then intentionally misleading in 1949?

Law of Consecration is not in affect? Why am I covenanted to live it?

No, they were not intentionally misleading in 1949.  that doesn't mean they were right

 

You are covenanted to live the law of consecration.  If and when the policy is changed you are expected to live the law of consecration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus, the ban on blacks holding the priesthood may have been an inspired policy, but it was never doctrine.

mdfxdb, this strikes me as utterly meaningless babble. If this is the true distinction you are making, then this conversation literally has no purpose. If you define "doctrine" as meaning "true things, except if it's a true thing that is policy", and you define "policy" as "true things that aren't doctrine", then whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are covenanted to live the law of consecration.  If and when the policy is changed you are expected to live the law of consecration. 

I don't mean to be tiresome, but just so that the above doesn't go unchallenged:

 

We are indeed expected to live the law of consecration, today, right now, even as we speak. The law of consecration is not something that we will live one day but for now we don't have to worry about it. It's as real and as present a concern as the law of chastity or the law of sacrifice or any other law of God that we are under covenant to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mdfxdb, this strikes me as utterly meaningless babble. If this is the true distinction you are making, then this conversation literally has no purpose. If you define "doctrine" as meaning "true things, except if it's a true thing that is policy", and you define "policy" as "true things that aren't doctrine", then whatever.

yep, that's right, sounds exactly like what I've stated.....   :-/

 

for the record, I ran into the missionaries tonight.  Asked them if the Ban on blacks having the priesthood was policy or doctrine.....They said it was policy.

 

You define "doctrine" as everything that comes out of a prophets mouth, which by your definition is the same as "policy".  if that is the case then they are incapable of error, and if we exercise any form of dissent, we are apostates.  Better that we are mindless drones blindly oblivious to the distinction and power of words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be tiresome, but just so that the above doesn't go unchallenged:

 

We are indeed expected to live the law of consecration, today, right now, even as we speak. The law of consecration is not something that we will live one day but for now we don't have to worry about it. It's as real and as present a concern as the law of chastity or the law of sacrifice or any other law of God that we are under covenant to live.

Funny, I don't remember giving my bishop the title to my land/house/posessions.......For the record, I know exactly what we promise when we covenant the law of consecration, but some parts of it are definately not practiced today as a matter of policy.

 

You're not tiresome.  Whatever I say you will be contrary, or nitpick.  It's fine. 

Edited by mdfxdb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the process as to how doctrine is defined and put into canon has already been covered here.  But since it doesn't match up with what you think it ought to be I guess it doesn't matter...

 

Doctrine is defined by the First Presidency and the quorum of the 12. So how does their having defined the priesthood restriction as doctrine not fit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctrine is defined by the First Presidency and the quorum of the 12. So how does their having defined the priesthood restriction as doctrine not fit?

Um, because that's not how it happened.  I looked really hard in D&C and didn't find anything stating that blacks couldn't have the priesthood.  Definition by the First Presidency and quorum of the 12 is only part of the process towards doctrine.    Current infomation information provided by the church points to the fact that it was policy.  Which for some reason you don't think the first presidency, or quorum of the 12 is aware of. 

Edited by mdfxdb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, because that's not how it happened.  I looked really hard in D&C and didn't find anything stating that blacks couldn't have the priesthood.  Definition by the First Presidency and quorum of the 12 is only part of the process towards doctrine.    Current infomation information provided by the church points to the fact that it was policy.  Which for some reason you don't think the first presidency, or quorum of the 12 is aware of. 

 

This is the narrow scope I'm talking about. I don't see any evidence presented that something needs to be canonized in the D&C to be doctrine. Only that it must be given by the first presidency and the 12 in harmony one with another. You're trying to narrow the scope to suit your own understanding...doctrine has to be canonized scripture...doctrine only means eternal, unchangeable truths. I flatly reject that only canonized scripture qualifies as doctrine. And I believe if we're speaking of doctrine in terms of eternal truths, we must qualify it that way. Eternal doctrine or the doctrines of God. Show me how my rejection of these idea is any less valid than your rejection of the quotes we've shown you that it was, indeed, doctrine. You can't. You're interpretation is the only one you view as valid. But it is only your interpretation, just as mine is mine...every bit as valid. I admit it is my interpretation. I admit that others, including apostles, have interpreted it differently, and that those interpretations of the word are every bit as valid as the next. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that only your interpretation works. The plain and obvious truth is that it's just a word that can be used differently. I don't accept that your singular view of the meaning of the word is the only valid one.

 

I don't have any problem with it being pointed to as policy. As has been clearly stated, and I believe you even agreed, something can be policy and doctrine. Pointing out that it's referred to as policy in the web essay doesn't mean anything concerning its doctrinal status. We all agree it was policy. No one is questioning that in the least.

 

I even showed how President Holland referred to it, very plainly, as doctrine and policy. You ignored it. Oh...because it was just his opinion...because anything that doesn't fit your world view is just opinion.

 

Bottom line is, you can only come up with source materials that state that is was policy. To which we agree. You cannot come up with anything that states it was not doctrine. And yet we have provided plenty of sources that state it was doctrine. The rest of your claptrap is all wordplay and manipulation -- twists and turns to try and fit a square peg into a round hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I don't remember giving my bishop the title to my land/house/posessions.......For the record, I know exactly what we promise when we covenant the law of consecration, but some parts of it are definately not practiced today as a matter of policy.

Which parts of the law of consecration as covenanted by us do we not need to practice? Be specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't pointless because words matter. 

 

Surely they also didn't worry that those who pointed out the fact they used the wrong words would be branded apostates. 

 

Believe it or not.  It's ok that they were wrong.  It in no way diminishes their "prophetness"

 

 

It is pointless in the context I was discussing it.

 

People are saying... "Well it was JUST a Policy not Doctrine."  as if that makes a difference on the impact and the importance to know and understand if it was of God.  Its kind of like debating if the Law of Moses was Policy or Doctrine.  Totally irrelevant to people trying to understand accept it as God's will. Even more so to those that lived during the time and had to comply with its requirements.  The Book of Mormon teaches even those that understood completely the Law of Moses and what God was trying to do with it. couldn't just skip it and live just the Doctrine.

 

Same with the Ban. Same with Joseph Smith being sealed to multiple women.  The important thing is not if it was policy or doctrine, because that does not matter compared the question of "Was it of God?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys... I'm really getting confused here...

 

How is it that we can't even agree on what the word Doctrine means?

 

Why is it that an LDS Church that believes in Modern Revelation requires unchanging doctrine?  So much so that if it changes, then it must be just policy... or it is in error?

 

I just don't get it... I associate unchanging doctrine with Catholics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which parts of the law of consecration as covenanted by us do we not need to practice? Be specific.

CONSECRATE, LAW OF CONSECRATION

To dedicate, to make holy, or to become righteous. The law of consecration is a divine principle whereby men and women voluntarily dedicate their time, talents, and material wealth to the establishment and building up of God’s kingdom.

  • Consecrate yourselves to day to the Lord:Ex. 32:29; We do this
  • All that believed had all things common:Acts 2:44–45; We do this
  • They had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor:4 Ne. 1:3; We don't don't this
  • The Lord explained the principles of consecration:D&C 42:30–39; ( D&C 51:2–19D&C 58:35–36; ) 
  • One man should not possess more than another:D&C 49:20; We don't do this either
  • Every man was given an equal portion according to his family:D&C 51:3; Nope not doing this one
  • An order was established so that the Saints could be equal in bonds of heavenly and earthly things:D&C 78:4–5; Nope
  • Every man was to have equal claim according to his wants and needs:D&C 82:17–19; Nope
  • Zion can only be built up by the principles of celestial law:D&C 105:5; Trying to I think
  • The people of Enoch were of one heart and one mind and dwelt in righteousness, and there were no poor among them:Moses 7:18; Nope

So mostly at least from a physical good view point we do not practice the Law (doctrine) of Consecration. because it is the Policy of the church not to at this time. Could this change yes and I think that it will, but that is not the current policy.

 

To Clarify we are commanded and must obey and practice all parts of the Law of Consecration. We currently do not.

Edited by omegaseamaster75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify, 

 

Doctrine is defined by the First Presidency and the quorum of the 12. So how does their having defined the priesthood restriction as doctrine not fit?

In every instance of the history of the church where Doctrine has been added to our cannon of scripture and this has only happened 6 times a three step process has been followed. Approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership.

.

I had outlined this previously. The priesthood restriction does not fit because these three steps were not followed. It is not in our cannon of scripture, or official proclamations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys... I'm really getting confused here...

 

How is it that we can't even agree on what the word Doctrine means?

 

Why is it that an LDS Church that believes in Modern Revelation requires unchanging doctrine?  So much so that if it changes, then it must be just policy... or it is in error?

 

I just don't get it... I associate unchanging doctrine with Catholics.

Our Gospel Doctrines are unchanged because God does not change.

 

 Mormon 9:For do we not read that God is the same yesterdaytoday, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

 

As new Doctrines are revealed (new to us) policies and practices may change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you start reading about some of the stuff that went on in the early days of the Restoration it gets... interesting.  This is why anti-LDS folks love to go to that period to find stuff that isn't consistent with how things are done today.  Everything from using wine at Sacrament to Joseph Smith and the guys chewing tobacco during meetings to the number of wives Brigham Young had (WOW, by the way.)  

 

The thing to remember is these guys were just trying to figure stuff out.  It's not like everything was revealed in one big wave.  They got revelation little by little, and made a few mistakes and blunders while the gaps were being filled.

 

What matters is the end result, which is what we have today.  I'm quite sure if Joseph Smith were standing here right now, he'd probably do a few embarrassed facepalms as we look at some of the things that were done back then, but it's not a big deal.  I have no doubt that the weird cases like the ones discussed here were straightened out along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share