What is doctrine and what is not?

[Phineas]

On 9/12/2017 at 8:43 AM, Fether said:

In the LDS church, a lot of things been said about a lot of things and many of those things contradict other things. So in this world of many things, what things Are true, and what things are not true things?

Beyond use of the spirit, I have always gone with the idea that any statement with the church's logo stamped on it can be trusted 100% and all other statements, regardless of who said them, are up in the air.

Determining LDS doctrine is like nailing jello to a wall.  But looking for the church logo is a good guideline. 

[Fether]

5 hours ago, Phineas said:

Determining LDS doctrine is like nailing jello to a wall.  But looking for the church logo is a good guideline. 

“A doctrine is a fundamental, unchanging truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Such truths as Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and bones, baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom of God, and all men will be resurrected are examples of doctrines.”

- Gospel Teaching and Learning Manual

 

I found this a few weeks after I posted the thread. Doctrine now seems super simple 

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, Fether said:

"A doctrine is a fundamental, unchanging truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Such truths as Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and bones, baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom of God, and all men will be resurrected are examples of doctrines.”

- Gospel Teaching and Learning Manual

Ive always disagreed with this. A "doctrine" is a teaching and belief. It may be completely true or it may be completely false or anywhere inbetween. I dont think its wise to declare "doctrine" as unchanging truths.  

[Fether]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Ive always disagreed with this. A "doctrine" is a teaching and belief. It may be completely true or it may be completely false or anywhere inbetween. I dont think its wise to declare "doctrine" as unchanging truths.  

That’s true in a world sense. But in context with the the gospel of Jesus Christ, the definition stands

[Rob Osborn]

20 minutes ago, Fether said:

That’s true in a world sense. But in context with the the gospel of Jesus Christ, the definition stands

Even that is just a belief or teaching which may or may not be true.

[Fether]

56 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Even that is just a belief or teaching which may or may not be true.

Is there any truth in your eyes or is everything just a belief?

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Is there any truth in your eyes or is everything just a belief?

Sure, I believe there is truth, even in the gospel we believe there is truth. But to just have a blanket statement that "all" doctrine is truth isnt valid and even misleading. All gospels, religions, have truth. Some have many shared beliefs, some have more truth than others. However, no church, as of yet on this earth is perfect in doctrine. All churches, including our LDS church, has doctrines and principles and practices that perhaps arent perfect, change over time, etc. And, as LDS, we dont really have a right to redefine "doctrine" in such a manner that doesnt reflect the  principles of language semantics. The correct definition of "doctrine" in context just means teachings and beliefs. It encompasses what we "believe" is true, not necessarily what "is" actually true. Its interesting that almost all religions beleve it is their doctrine which is true while others are false. Almost all LDS believe our doctrine is all true. And yet, since the founding of our religion our doctrines have changed, our principles and practices have changed and as history tells us, it will still continue to change. Doctrines dont just include solid foundational truths such as the fall, resurrection, the atonement, they also include teachings and beliefs on the godhead, priesthood, race and gender, marriage, sexuality and morals, etc. We know that these doctrines have evolved, continue to be perfected, old ideals replaced with new, etc.

[Fether]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Sure, I believe there is truth, even in the gospel we believe there is truth. But to just have a blanket statement that "all" doctrine is truth isnt valid and even misleading. All gospels, religions, have truth. Some have many shared beliefs, some have more truth than others. However, no church, as of yet on this earth is perfect in doctrine. All churches, including our LDS church, has doctrines and principles and practices that perhaps arent perfect, change over time, etc. And, as LDS, we dont really have a right to redefine "doctrine" in such a manner that doesnt reflect the  principles of language semantics. The correct definition of "doctrine" in context just means teachings and beliefs. It encompasses what we "believe" is true, not necessarily what "is" actually true. Its interesting that almost all religions beleve it is their doctrine which is true while others are false. Almost all LDS believe our doctrine is all true. And yet, since the founding of our religion our doctrines have changed, our principles and practices have changed and as history tells us, it will still continue to change. Doctrines dont just include solid foundational truths such as the fall, resurrection, the atonement, they also include teachings and beliefs on the godhead, priesthood, race and gender, marriage, sexuality and morals, etc. We know that these doctrines have evolved, continue to be perfected, old ideals replaced with new, etc.

Now I know you have similar debates like this in the past. But this view is fundamentally different than views held by our leaders.

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

Now I know you have similar debates like this in the past. But this view is fundamentally different than views held by our leaders.

Rob and his opinions are like a brick wall (and the hardest brick wall I have ever seen online) - anything anyone else says will bounce off if it disagrees with Rob's personal conclusions.  No matter how true, no matter how well explained and supported by scripture or the words of prophets and apostles, no matter how many of us say the same thing or even have a witness from the Holy Ghost it's true, if it disagrees with his belief, it just bounces off.  In other words, he is unwilling to consider the possibility that he's the one who's wrong (ever, about anything, in any post I've ever seen).  At least, this has been my observation for the past year.  There's just no point in engaging him.  Post for the sake of other readers so they have a counter to Rob's assertions, but there's no point trying to convince Rob of anything.

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, Fether said:

Now I know you have similar debates like this in the past. But this view is fundamentally different than views held by our leaders.

FWIW, the problem with viewing doctrine as "unchanging and eternal" stems from our mortal perspective, in that we, as a church, accept as doctrine those things that our leaders teach us. But those things that our leaders teach us, in some instances, have changed. So it's fine in theory to say that doctrine is eternal but then one must accept that not everything we believe to be doctrine IS doctrine, which in my opinion confuses the issue rather than clarifying things. The most obvious example of this might be plural marriage and the teachings surrounding it, or race and the priesthood and the teachings surrounding it. It's easy enough to say after the fact that those teachings weren't doctrinal...but in the middle of them, hearing the teachings in general conference, repeatedly taught by the leaders of the church as truth.... It seems safe to believe that the members of the church accepted what was being said as doctrine...but those teachings changed. Now we hand wave it away -- that was just "policy" or some such. But the teachings were not viewed as "just policy" when they were being taught.

Moreover, for every cherry-picked quote one can find describing doctrine as one thing, another could find a cherry-picked quote defining it differently. It seems plain to me that there is no doctrinal definition of what is and isn't doctrine.

[Fether]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

FWIW, the problem with viewing doctrine as "unchanging and eternal" stems from our mortal perspective, in that we, as a church, accept as doctrine those things that our leaders teach us. But those things that our leaders teach us, in some instances, have changed. So it's fine in theory to say that doctrine is eternal but then one must accept that not everything we believe to be doctrine IS doctrine, which in my opinion confuses the issue rather than clarifying things. The most obvious example of this might be plural marriage and the teachings surrounding it, or race and the priesthood and the teachings surrounding it. It's easy enough to say after the fact that those teachings weren't doctrinal...but in the middle of them, hearing the teachings in general conference, repeatedly taught by the leaders of the church as truth.... It seems safe to believe that the members of the church accepted what was being said as doctrine...but those teachings changed. Now we hand wave it away -- that was just "policy" or some such. But the teachings were not viewed as "just policy" when they were being taught.

Moreover, for every cherry-picked quote one can find describing doctrine as one thing, another could find a cherry-picked quote defining it differently. It seems plain to me that there is no doctrinal definition of what is and isn't doctrine.

There seems to be a break in understanding between people who spend time in church sanctioned and monitored programs and those who do all their own studying and just attend Sunday school.

Im currently going through the seminary and institute teaching program and if you ask any of them what doctrine is, they would give you the quote I gave you. My mission president and bishop would say the same thing. I’m not using these examples as an “end all”, but just that those who are closely tied to the lds organization itself all agree on one definition while those who are not have different views.

But your comments are not lost on me. I just don’t know how to reconcile them and I’m ok with that. Ezra Taft Bensen says it well “Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.”

Edited November 13, 2017 by Fether

[The Folk Prophet]

On 11/13/2017 at 7:56 AM, Fether said:

There seems to be a break in understanding between people who spend time in church sanctioned and monitored programs and those who do all their own studying and just attend Sunday school.

Im currently going through the seminary and institute teaching program and if you ask any of them what doctrine is, they would give you the quote I gave you. My mission president and bishop would say the same thing. I’m not using these examples as an “end all”, but just that those who are closely tied to the lds organization itself all agree on one definition while those who are not have different views.

My point is that it's a bit of a stretch to imply that anyone who doesn't toe the party line on that "definition" is spouting false doctrine. It's just a word. And words have broad meanings and can be used in different ways at different times.

The very fact that the word doctrine may be proceeded by modifiers such as the word "false" implies that the word itself can mean something other than "eternal truth that never changes". If doctrine only means "eternal truth that never changes" and can NEVER mean anything else, then "false doctrine" isn't a thing. An oxymoron. It makes no sense. What on earth is "false eternal truth that never changes"? But there is such a thing as false doctrine, because the word itself does NOT mean eternal truth that never changes.

Edited November 14, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Fether]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

My point is that it's a bit of a stretch to imply that anyone who doesn't toe the party line on that "definition" is spouting false doctrine. It's just a word. And words have broad meanings and can be used in different ways at different times.

The very fact that the word doctrine may be proceeded by modifiers such as the word "false" implies that the word itself can mean something other than "eternal truth that never changes". If doctrine only means "eternal truth that never changes" and can NEVER mean anything else, then "false doctrine" isn't a thing. An oxymoron. I makes no sense. What on earth is "false eternal truth that never changes"? But there is such a thing as false doctrine, because the word itself does NOT mean eternal truth that never changes.

I understand, I just feel that this a problem of language and not if definition. Would you accept it if Instead of saying “false doctrine” we said  “doctrine that isn’t doctrine but people think it is”?

[zil]

I think we've done this before, possibly in this thread.  I have long thought of doctrine as being what @Fether's quote says.  I don't believe doctrine relating to plural marriage has changed one whit in all eternity.  Our application of that doctrine, our policies related to application of that doctrine have changed, but the doctrine itself is as eternal as God.  The Priesthood is eternal.  Policy regarding who holds priesthood authority and offices has changed over time, but not the Priesthood itself.

But I understand that this is all easily confused given the semantics and that not everyone uses the same dictionary, and not everyone has been taught the same thing since the Church is less concerned that we all use the same definition of the word "doctrine" and far more concerned with bringing us all closer to Christ.  Therefore, I rarely worry about it, but sometimes it comes up explicitly and I feel like spouting my opinion.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

I understand, I just feel that this a problem of language and not if definition. Would you accept it if Instead of saying “false doctrine” we said  “doctrine that isn’t doctrine but people think it is”?

It's less about my accepting it, methinks, and more about using terminology in a way that is publicly useful to everyone. If we simply use the term "doctrine" to mean what it means (teachings, beliefs) and use modifiers to modify it -- the way language is supposed to work -- then everything would be clear. If one is speaking of true doctrine -- call it "true" doctrine, etc.

Granted, the "doctrine" of the LDS church is implicitly understood by LDS members to be synonymous with "truth". But -- history shows us that this is not 100% the case in all instances.

[The Folk Prophet]

31 minutes ago, Fether said:

Ezra Taft Bensen says it well “Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.”

I'm not sure how this relates. By implication (per my inference) it seems like you're saying that the definition of doctrine and/or the way members of the church understand the word is a prophetic, revealed matter?

[Rob Osborn]

36 minutes ago, Fether said:

I understand, I just feel that this a problem of language and not if definition. Would you accept it if Instead of saying “false doctrine” we said  “doctrine that isn’t doctrine but people think it is”?

7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils (D&C 46:7)

Joseph Smith used the word in scripture in its proper context. Do devils teach doctrine? Yes. Is it unchanging truth? Absolutely not. 

The 1828 Websters sums it up exactly-

"DOCTRINE, noun [Latin , to teach.]

1. In a general sense, whatever is taught. Hence, a principle or position in any science; whatever is laid down as true by an instructor or master. The doctrines of the gospel are the principles or truths taught by Christ and his apostles. The doctrines of Plato are the principles which he taught. Hence a doctrine may be true or false; it may be a mere tenet or opinion."

This is how Josrph Smith used the word. It just means "teachings" which may or may not be true. In the above case it is a teaching that is untrue.

[Rob Osborn]

In its proper context, "official doctrine" in the church is the official established teachings we hold to be true. As history has shown, in the case of race, skin color and curses and the priesthood for instance, what we have called doctrine in the past has changed.

[wenglund]

On 11/12/2017 at 3:51 AM, Phineas said:

Determining LDS doctrine is like nailing jello to a wall.  

This makes sense since God can't rightly be nailed to a wall either. Attempts to do so run the risk of idolatry and creedalism condemned by God in the First Vision.

Doctrinal walls can be an impediment to unfolding mysteries of godliness, and may create a box into which God does not fully fit..

In short,  we are best served by concerning ourselves less with cementing doctrine, and more with attaining the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.

This is why our LDS faith is built on stories rather than systematic theologies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 16, 2017 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

36 minutes ago, wenglund said:

This makes sense since God can't rightly be nailed to a wall either. Attempts to do so run the risk of idolatry and creedalism condemned by God in the First Vision.

Doctrinal walls can be an impediment to unfolding mysteries of godliness, and may create a box into which God does not fully fit..

In short,  we are best served by concerning ourselves less with cementing doctrine, and more with attaining the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.

This is why our LDS faith is built on stories rather than systematic theologies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The doctrine of the church is actually very easy to find and define. We teach the doctrine at church, pretty standard stuff. 

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The doctrine of the church is actually very easy to find and define. We teach the doctrine at church, pretty standard stuff. 

Agreed. Like, for example, the three degrees of glory.

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Agreed. Like, for example, the three degrees of glory.

Oh snap!

[Rob Osborn]

30 minutes ago, Vort said:

Agreed. Like, for example, the three degrees of glory.

Yep. Anything the church has ever taught from day one is doctrine. Now, determining if all doctrine is truth...thats a whole different matter!

[wenglund]

45 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The doctrine of the church is actually very easy to find and define. We teach the doctrine at church, pretty standard stuff. 

Which explains the endless, and seemingly counter-productive  debates over what is "doctrine" and which teachings are "official doctrine."

I agree that many principles of the gospel are somewhat easy to find and define. Whether they may constitute "doctrine" or not, is of little concern to me. What is of concern is whether the principles assist in fulfilling the mission of the Church in bringing us to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. If they do, then therein is manifest their "truth."  I have found that debating what is or isn't "doctrine, " and more particularly which "doctrines are true," to be a distraction from that end. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 16, 2017 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Which explains the endless, and seemingly counter-productive  debates over what is "doctrine" and which teachings are "official doctrine."

I agree that many principles of the gospel are somewhat easy to find and define. Whether they may constitute "doctrine" or not, is of little concern to me. What is of concern is whether the principles assist in fulfilling the mission of the Church in bringing us to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. I have found that debating what is or isn't "doctrine" to be a distraction from that end. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, the discussion actually is helpful. Part of our education and progress is finding and knowing truth and establishing a testimony from that coupled with action. The prophets sure seem concerned with it as they are always in the news defending, defining, and proclaiming the doctrine on marriage, freedom, etc.