Reaching out for support after reading the Essays

[omegaseamaster75]

duplicate post

Edited December 19, 2014 by omegaseamaster75

[estradling75]

Women and the priesthood- Policy or Doctrine that they do not have it (the priesthood)?

 

 

if it is doctrine or policy is Irrelevant:  The question is ... Do you believe our leaders are inspired of God on this issue?  

 

Not submitting the names of Holocaust victims to be submitted for baptism for the dead unless they are direct decedents- Policy or Doctrine?

 

 

if it is doctrine or policy is Irrelevant:  The question is ... Do you believe our leaders are inspired of God on this issue? 

 

Wearing a white shirt to church if you are a male? policy or Doctrine?

 

 

if it is doctrine or policy is Irrelevant:  The question is ... Do you believe our leaders are inspired of God on this issue? 

 

 

And so one for every question that was in the post that you have now removed.

 

Yes...  You are splitting hairs and you are distracting from the more important question

[Vort]

 I am astounded that there are questions about such things. Let's review these:

 

Women and the priesthood- Policy or Doctrine that they do not have it (the priesthood)?

 

Both, obviously.

 

Not submitting the names of Holocaust victims to be submitted for baptism for the dead unless they are direct decedents- Policy or Doctrine?

 

Clearly our present policy, and just as clearly not a Church doctrine.

 

Wearing a white shirt to church if you are a male? policy or Doctrine?

 

Partaking of the sacrament with your right hand? Policy or Doctrine?

 

Not wearing crucifix, or having one on your wall or having one in your local chapel? Policy or Doctrine?

 

You cannot be serious in such questions. Clearly, these are neither doctrinal matters nor issues of policy.

 

We are not splitting hairs as others have claimed, there is a difference.

 

Based on this post, the most reasonable conclusion I can reach is that you have no idea what you're saying.

[The Folk Prophet]

To clarify, 

 

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. 

 

To clarify, You still need to backup the idea that ONLY those things that have been canonized as scripture qualify as "doctrine".

[mdfxdb]

To clarify, You still need to backup the idea that ONLY those things that have been canonized as scripture qualify as "doctrine".

 

So prove that those things stated by the prophets are not doctrine?  Prove the negative?  Just because a prophet has an idea, and the 12 agree with him does not make it doctrine.  The process for establishing doctrine has been covered.  

[omegaseamaster75]

To clarify, You still need to backup the idea that ONLY those things that have been canonized as scripture qualify as "doctrine".

History is on my side on this one, dispute it if you want I have shown how the church establishes doctrine via historical precedent.

 

Doctrine is eternal, does not change (because God does not change) which is why the establishment of "new" (to us) doctrine is so rare. 

 

You have shown nothing other than to out of hand say that I am incorrect. 

[The Folk Prophet]

So prove that those things stated by the prophets are not doctrine?  Prove the negative?  Just because a prophet has an idea, and the 12 agree with him does not make it doctrine.  The process for establishing doctrine has been covered.  

 

You repeating the same things over and over again qualifies, in a strange way, as "covered", but it in no way settles the issue.

[mdfxdb]

I am astounded that there are questions about such things. Let's review these:

 

omegaseamaster75, on 19 Dec 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

 

Women and the priesthood- Policy or Doctrine that they do not have it (the priesthood)?

 

Both, obviously. - um are you sure?  Policy for sure, Doctrine not so sure.  

 

omegaseamaster75, on 19 Dec 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

 

Not submitting the names of Holocaust victims to be submitted for baptism for the dead unless they are direct decedents- Policy or Doctrine?

 

Clearly our present policy, and just as clearly not a Church doctrine. -  clearly policy

 

omegaseamaster75, on 19 Dec 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

Wearing a white shirt to church if you are a male? policy or Doctrine?

 

Partaking of the sacrament with your right hand? Policy or Doctrine?

 

Not wearing crucifix, or having one on your wall or having one in your local chapel? Policy or Doctrine?

 

You cannot be serious in such questions. Clearly, these are neither doctrinal matters nor issues of policy. - crucifix - policy not doctrine, white shirt - policy (sometimes.  read the handbook) not doctrine, sacrament with right hand.  well that was a dumb one.

 

omegaseamaster75, on 19 Dec 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

We are not splitting hairs as others have claimed, there is a difference.

 

Based on this post, the most reasonable conclusion I can reach is that you have no idea what you're saying.

 

it matters very much the difference between policy and doctrine.  to be honest the most reasonable conclusion that I can reach is you care not for the distinction, and you have no idea what you're saying.

[Just_A_Guy]

 

CONSECRATE, LAW OF CONSECRATION

See also Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven; United Order

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 51:2–19; D&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

 

I object.  The Guide to the Scriptures was never canonized and is therefore not doctrinal.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

You have shown nothing other than to out of hand say that I am incorrect. 

 

Honestly? You're just going to ignore the quotes I've given and go with that, huh?

 

I'm not just saying stuff. I have provided quotes by authorities supporting it. What I am asking is for you to do the same concerning the matter of canonization to scripture being required before something is considered doctrine. Can you provide such a quote or not?

 

In review of the thread, you have given a quote (with which I agree) that doctrine must be established by the first presidency and the twelve, here. It does state that doctrine is in the standard works. But it also states doctrine is in official proclamations and declarations. It also does NOT state that there are no other means of establishing doctrine. It only states that any old opinion doesn't count. But there are several quotes (some as already given by me) that state doctrine may be established otherwise. In this post, you practically agree. 

 

You also gave a process that you claim is the only viable way to establish doctrine, here, but this has no official supporting quote associated, with the exception of the D&C reference where it states something about common consent. I accept common consent is required for canonized scripture. What I'm questioning is whether something must be canonized by common consent and added to scripture to be considered doctrinal. That's the idea I'm asking you to back up. 

 

You're trying to twist this by making it look like I'm just saying stuff without backup. That is a lie. I have backed up my point of view. You have given, as near as I can tell, insufficient backup to support that only canonized scripture qualifies as doctrine. Obviously canonized scripture qualifies. But ONLY canonized scripture? That's what I'm asking you to support. Can you?

 

I'm well aware that you've stated this three step process. I'm well aware that this three step process is required to canonize scripture. But where your skirting the issue is in showing that this is the only means for establishment of "doctrine".

 

And, btw, I have not said you are incorrect. I have said that I disagree with you. And I'm asking you, accordingly, to back something up that you have not.

 

I cannot make this more simple. Show me a quote where it is stated that only canonized scripture qualifies as doctrine.

 

I'm not saying such a quote doesn't exist. Maybe it does. Show me.

 

But whatever. I weary of this. So, fine. You're definition of doctrine wins. I give in.

 

Ultimately, I agree completely with estradling. Who cares whether you call it doctrine or policy or whatever? Meaningless. The only question that matters: is it the will of God?

[omegaseamaster75]

 D&C 28:13 explains “all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith."  Since the Church was founded in 1830, new doctrine has been accepted six times. On every occasion, a three-step process was followed to add Official Doctrine:  It requires the approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and then it must be accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership.

Only then is it binding on the membership of the Church. The change will then be made to the body of accepted (canonized) scriptures. Those occasions are:

1. 1830, Bible and Book of Mormon were officially accepted with the organization of the Church
2. 1835, Doctrine and Covenants, first 103 sections were officially accepted
3. 1880, Doctrine and Covenants additional 32 sections were accepted along with the Pearl of Great Price
4. 1890, Polygamy was repealed (Official Declaration, p. 291)
5. 1976, D&C sections 137 & 138 were officially accepted
6. 1978, The priesthood was made available to all worthy males regardless of race (Official Declaration 2, p. 292)

Previously posted but you can see that I have included Official Declarations.

 

I think I have proved my case, Precedent: 

1.Law. a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.

2.

any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification forsubsequent situations.

Synonyms: example, model, pattern, standard.

[mdfxdb]

"The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone.These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.”

 

 Official Doctrine. Brigham H. Roberts, sermon of 10 July 1921, delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle, printed in Deseret News (23 July 1921)

 

“It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.”  GA’s consistent with Standard Works. Elder Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye In Holy Places, pp. 162-3, "The Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," Address delivered to seminary and institute teachers, BYU, July 8, 1964

[The Folk Prophet]

 

 D&C 28:13 explains “all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith."  Since the Church was founded in 1830, new doctrine has been accepted six times. On every occasion, a three-step process was followed to add Official Doctrine:  It requires the approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and then it must be accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership.

Only then is it binding on the membership of the Church. The change will then be made to the body of accepted (canonized) scriptures. Those occasions are:

1. 1830, Bible and Book of Mormon were officially accepted with the organization of the Church
2. 1835, Doctrine and Covenants, first 103 sections were officially accepted
3. 1880, Doctrine and Covenants additional 32 sections were accepted along with the Pearl of Great Price
4. 1890, Polygamy was repealed (Official Declaration, p. 291)
5. 1976, D&C sections 137 & 138 were officially accepted
6. 1978, The priesthood was made available to all worthy males regardless of race (Official Declaration 2, p. 292)

Previously posted but you can see that I have included Official Declarations.

 

I think I have proved my case, Precedent: 

1.Law. a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.

2.

any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification forsubsequent situations.

Synonyms: example, model, pattern, standard.

 

 

At the very least, you did not include the Proclamation on the Family, which is very clearly a proclamation, which was included as what constitutes doctrine, per this post/quote. If nothing else, this puts a serious kink in the theory.

[omegaseamaster75]

1902 Joseph F. Smith to Lillian Golsan, July 16, 1902. "[T]he theories, speculations, and opinions of men, however intelligent, ingenious, and plausible, are not necessarily doctrines of the Church or principles that God has commanded His servants to preach. No doctrine is a doctrine of this Church until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority–the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated until proper permission is given.” - Joseph F. Smith Correspondence, Personal Letterbooks, 93–94, Film Reel 9, Ms. F271; cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 221–222. Also in Statements of the LDS First Presidency, compiled by Gary James Bergera (Signature, 2007), page 121. Bergera indicates it is a letter from JFS to Lillian Golsan, July 16, 19

 

Dallin H. Oaks , "Teaching and Learning by the Spirit," Ensign (March 1997), 14 Revelations from God . . . are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality. Fortunately, we are never out of our Savior's sight, and if our judgment leads us to actions beyond the limits of what is permissible and if we are listening, . . . the Lord will restrain us by the promptings of his Spirit.

 

Boyd K. Packer, "I Say unto You, Be One," in BYU Devotional and Fireside Speeches, 1990–1991 Even with the best of intentions, [Church government] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but not to the permanent injury of the work

 

What constitutes official or "core" doctrine of the Church? Joseph Smith defined our fundamental core doctrine: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121.)

 

In Mormon Doctrine, Elder Bruce R. McConkie was equally clear:

 

The books, writings, explanations, expositions, views, and theories of even the wisest and greatest men, either in or out of the Church, do not rank with the standard works. Even the writings, teachings, and opinions of the prophets of God are acceptable only to the extent they are in harmony with what God has revealed and what is recorded in the standard works. 

[The Folk Prophet]

"The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone.These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.”

 

 Official Doctrine. Brigham H. Roberts, sermon of 10 July 1921, delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle, printed in Deseret News (23 July 1921)

 

“It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.”  GA’s consistent with Standard Works. Elder Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye In Holy Places, pp. 162-3, "The Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," Address delivered to seminary and institute teachers, BYU, July 8, 1964

 

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!

 

Thank you.

[The Folk Prophet]

1902 Joseph F. Smith to Lillian Golsan, July 16, 1902. "[T]he theories, speculations, and opinions of men, however intelligent, ingenious, and plausible, are not necessarily doctrines of the Church or principles that God has commanded His servants to preach. No doctrine is a doctrine of this Church until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority–the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated until proper permission is given.” - Joseph F. Smith Correspondence, Personal Letterbooks, 93–94, Film Reel 9, Ms. F271; cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 221–222. Also in Statements of the LDS First Presidency, compiled by Gary James Bergera (Signature, 2007), page 121. Bergera indicates it is a letter from JFS to Lillian Golsan, July 16, 19

 

This quote is useful. The rest you gave, not so much.

[mordorbund]

We need to canonize some of these quotes from the General Authorities. Until we do, the definition of, and process for establishing doctrine is merely a policy (not doctrine) and subject to change on their whims.

[omegaseamaster75]

At the very least, you did not include the Proclamation on the Family, which is very clearly a proclamation, which was included as what constitutes doctrine, per this post/quote. If nothing else, this puts a serious kink in the theory.

Proclamation on the Family does not constitute doctrine because it was never accepted or submitted to a sustaining vote by the membership of the church. My theory is sound.

[The Folk Prophet]

We need to canonize some of these quotes from the General Authorities. Until we do, the definition of, and process for establishing doctrine is merely a policy (not doctrine) and subject to change on their whims.

 

Proclamation on the Family does not constitute doctrine because it was never accepted or submitted to a sustaining vote by the membership of the church. My theory is sound.

 

You're theory is only partially sound -- per mordorbund's comment above. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

If everything you need to run a church is in the canon, then where does prophetic authority come in?  Is the whole point of the restoration, to ensure that there's an earthly mechanism to expand the canon if/when appropriate?

[mdfxdb]

The revealed policies as pertains to the doctrines of the church are extremely important, in fact this why we have prophets, seers, and revelators.  They also receive doctrine, and implement it as previously explained.  There is no other way.

 

If us lay people interpret the canon of scripture/doctrine for ourselves without the guidance of our prophets, we are lost.  

[The Folk Prophet]

If us lay people interpret the canon of scripture/doctrine for ourselves without the guidance of our prophets, we are lost.  

 

On this we very much agree.

[Just_A_Guy]

The revealed policies as pertains to the doctrines of the church are extremely important, in fact this why we have prophets, seers, and revelators.  They also receive doctrine, and implement it as previously explained.  There is no other way.

 

If us lay people interpret the canon of scripture/doctrine for ourselves without the guidance of our prophets, we are lost.  

 

I'm not trying to be flippant, so please don't read me as such; but . . .

 

What happens when a prophet tells us that we're reading the canon wrong, and a particular concept actually is in the canon and therefore "doctrinal"?  What if, for example, an apostle teaches that the priesthood ban was doctrinal/canonical, citing Moses 7:22 and Abraham 1:26-27?

[Guest]

Our Gospel Doctrines are unchanged because God does not change.

 

 Mormon 9:9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, 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.

 

Were you a convert?

 

This is the Catholic position... because... in the Catholic Church, ALL has been revealed.  There is no new Revelation.  Therefore, old revelations (doctrines) have already been superceded by new revelations (changed doctrines, the latest of which are encompassed in the New Testament).

 

There is Universal Truth - a whole of which is unknown to us as they have not been revealed.  Those truths that we do not know are not yet doctrine.  Those that have been revealed ARE doctrine.

 

Doctrine is what has been revealed.  And we all know - from the history of the Church - that these revelations DO CHANGE.  Hence, the importance of a living prophet.  We don't know how these revelations contribute to Eternal Truth... we don't know why such and such is revealed today and then changed tomorrow... all we know is that, what God reveals he reveals for the purposes of bringing us to His Kingdom.

 

So, for example - a Catholic would go through painful gyrations to try to explain how the doctrine on the Beatific Vision of unbaptized infants did not change after the Pope contradicted a previous teaching.  Whereas, an LDS does not need those painful gyrations... because, we claim the privilege of new revelation on such matters that may change a previously held doctrine.

 

But hey, that's just my understanding of it.  If what you consider doctrine is the Universal Truth and not the revealed truths, then yes... God is the same all throughout the eternities - because that's why He is God and we aren't.  But that's not how I understand doctrine to be.  So that, if tomorrow God would reveal that eternal families are devoid of gender, it wouldn't sink my faith to the abyss... it will merely get me to study and research and pray and get personal revelation on the matter.

[omegaseamaster75]

“For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.” (2 Ne. 28: 30)

 

Learning Eternal Truths is an evolving process between man and God. As the ninth Article of Faith says, “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.”