What is doctrine and what is not?


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 8:14 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

Debatable.

The true doctrine of Christ is always true. Generic "doctrine" is not.

It's a definition matter that spans a fairly wide spectrum.

 

It is my observation that regardless of how clear, comprehensive, pure or true any particular doctrine may be – someone can interrupt scripture and draw conclusions such that the truth of the doctrine is unrecognizable as far as any consistancy is concerned.   I do not think there is even a single doctrine of Christ in all of Christendom that all Christians will agree upon.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2017 at 10:30 AM, Traveler said:

I am convinced that for most - if you do not believe it - it is not doctrine.  And the opposite is true - if you believe it; then it is doctrine.

This also could be a slippery area for some of the head strong group individuals we have as adult children who actually believe that society laws and morals are now "true". Now, since they truly believe it's true - they now truly believe it's doctrine.

All we (I) can do is pray for said child to have a V8 moment and knock herself up along side her head when she realizes she should have made another choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a world of converts. Not surprisingly converts do their best to read church history and sometimes get things a bit muddled. Part of cramming a lot of info into our heads. I also live a long way from Utah. Some of the policies dreamt up in Utah, become law here and cause pain and suffering here,

Some examples:

Before the 3 hour block, families had activities almost every night of the week. Here many live a long way to a meetinghouse. Picture being a single mom with 4 kids, trying to keep your children active under such a regime. We moved to the 3 hour block because we were driving mom's crazy. So the dispersed meeting model - not doctrine.

How about today? Here we have long visiting teaching lists. How do you visit teach 5 people when your companion is inactive and you work long hours and you have two callings? Simple, stop visiting teaching. So visiting teaching has become something that people with jobs don't do. Bad idea.

Whenever, in Relief Society or sacrament they announce that there is a statement from Utah, we all inwardly groan. Someone from Utah has a great idea for a policy. And will they please stop giving the new 'kill me now' policy with that beautific smile on their face? We are not 3 year olds. Some of these people have spent too long in primary.

 We are barely treading water here. The policy about visit teaching investigators and inactives first, almost lead to open rebellion. Thank you, Salt Lake.

 

Edited by Sunday21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sunday21 while there are some things that the Church is pretty adamant about in terms of how things are done, there is actually a lot of customization that can and is intended to be done at the local level. My guess is that the majority of the overly burdensome policies your unit faces could actually be tailored to meet your needs. This is why we have ward councils. Maybe there is a break down in up the ladder communication taking place that needs to be addressed. But even in those areas where customization can't take place or if local leadership is unresponsive its important to remember that the Lord is aware of us and if we are truly doing our best he will help us prioritize our responsibilities. I've never been a bishop but I can guarantee that most have had to let some things slide because they simply don't have the time to do everything. But the principle of being saved by grace after all we can do applies here as much as anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lindy said:

This also could be a slippery area for some of the head strong group individuals we have as adult children who actually believe that society laws and morals are now "true". Now, since they truly believe it's true - they now truly believe it's doctrine.

All we (I) can do is pray for said child to have a V8 moment and knock herself up along side her head when she realizes she should have made another choice.

 

I realize that almost always there is an exception but I have become convinced in life that it is more about the process than the conclusion.  Often, I am very curious about someone’s process when they tout their conclusion.  Kind of a, “what were they thinking to come up with that?”; moment.    Sometimes when drilling down – I discover that the conclusion had nothing to do with any process at all.

This is why I posted that, from time to time, doctrine is more an expression of someone’s bias than it is a principle of divine truth.  Usually, when someone has no process they are angered, upset and offended when someone attempts to explore with them their process.  It is not a V8 moment but rather a very un-Christ like desire to get even or shut someone up that made them “feel” less than the authority of the doctrine.

My parents thought me that greatness is not in the majesty of someone’s success and the humility that comes because of their failure (anyone can be great with success and humbled with failure).  But rather true greatness is expressed in the humility of their success and the grandeur and majesty of their failures.

Or as a very good friend of mine once said about caffeine soft drinks and the Word of Wisdom – “I am not going to waste my chances of the Celestial kingdom over something little, stupid and trivial like caffeine soda drinks.  If I am going to ruin my soul, it is going to be something big and grand – like adultery.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

It is not a V8 moment but rather a very un-Christ like desire to get even or shut someone up that made them “feel” less than the authority of the doctrine.

Wow.... never thought that wanting my daughter to choose to follow the Word of Wisdom, or the words of the prophets, or the advice of her bishop, was a un-Christ like desire for anything.

 Maybe I am wrong and should think about "rethinking" doctrine as it stands now..... I might be able to drink coffee again! I just have to believe... believe..... believe.

 Folgers here I come! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Lindy said:

Wow.... never thought that wanting my daughter to choose to follow the Word of Wisdom, or the words of the prophets, or the advice of her bishop, was a un-Christ like desire for anything.

What's a V8 moment?

In any case, not sure if this was part of the smiley... if it isn't, then I think you misunderstood Traveler's point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike the Catholic Church, the LDS Church do not have an official process of canonization.  This is because of the inherent structure of a church built upon modern revelation.  The teachings of the modern prophets is what modern people follow more so than the prophets of different dispensations or even different generations.  The Catholic Church, on the other hand, believe in a closed canon, therefore, the structure of instruction revolves around a fixed point.

In this sense, for me, it is futile to the dispensation of the restoration to put up fixed boundaries around doctrine.  Yes, I do understand that one of the main effects of the apostasy was bishops teaching their own version of doctrine to their churches.  But, with the keys of the priesthood restored and the Church organized according to the House of the Lord, it will be harder for this kind of apostasy to spread too far.  Follow your prophet.  That's where doctrine is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

It is my observation that regardless of how clear, comprehensive, pure or true any particular doctrine may be – someone can interrupt scripture and draw conclusions such that the truth of the doctrine is unrecognizable as far as any consistancy is concerned.   I do not think there is even a single doctrine of Christ in all of Christendom that all Christians will agree upon.

 

The Traveler

I would also argue that regardless of how clear, comprehensive, pure or true any particular doctrine may appear to be even within one body of a particular belief such as that of us Mormons, most will not agree on the details or premises of a doctrine.

As a side note to that, there is really very little that everyone generally will all believe in as to be absolute truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lindy said:

Wow.... never thought that wanting my daughter to choose to follow the Word of Wisdom, or the words of the prophets, or the advice of her bishop, was a un-Christ like desire for anything.

 Maybe I am wrong and should think about "rethinking" doctrine as it stands now..... I might be able to drink coffee again! I just have to believe... believe..... believe.

 Folgers here I come! ;)

I am sorry but you have misunderstood - being angry with someone (which includes because of their view of doctrine) is what is un-Christ like.  Jesus taught anger is associated to murder.  It is not doctrine that distinguishes who is and who is not a disciple of Christ but rather love for one another.  Not my idea but his.  I believe that not being angry with someone should include those that have a different view of doctrine than you.  

BTW - If you really wish to break a commandment – why pick the Word of Wisdom?  Surely you can do much better than that.  Pick something a lot more exciting and fun.  Something that really sets you apart.   I just do not understand doing things half way.  Or as my father would say – if you are going to fail don’t fail doing easy stuff – fail at something really hard and difficult; preferably something no one else has succeeded at either.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I would also argue that regardless of how clear, comprehensive, pure or true any particular doctrine may appear to be even within one body of a particular belief such as that of us Mormons, most will not agree on the details or premises of a doctrine.

As a side note to that, there is really very little that everyone generally will all believe in as to be absolute truth.

Do you consider yourself as someone that has difficulity with details or premises of doctrine?  Also do you think that being loyal to covenants alters someone's view of doctrine or beliefs?  (I am thinking of a specific scripture).  For the record - I do not believe doctrine is all that important - especially compaired to loving and having compassion for others - and a willingness to sacrifice for others.  I think it is easier to deal with mistakes in doctrine when someone is loving and kind.  But I think there is a very big problem for those that are experts in doctrine but cannot or will not love others - especially those that do not get the doctrine right.  It is easy to change someone's mind - even idoits can change their minds from time to time.  But it is almost impossible to change someone's heart.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Unlike the Catholic Church, the LDS Church do not have an official process of canonization.  This is because of the inherent structure of a church built upon modern revelation.  The teachings of the modern prophets is what modern people follow more so than the prophets of different dispensations or even different generations.  The Catholic Church, on the other hand, believe in a closed canon, therefore, the structure of instruction revolves around a fixed point.

In this sense, for me, it is futile to the dispensation of the restoration to put up fixed boundaries around doctrine.  Yes, I do understand that one of the main effects of the apostasy was bishops teaching their own version of doctrine to their churches.  But, with the keys of the priesthood restored and the Church organized according to the House of the Lord, it will be harder for this kind of apostasy to spread too far.  Follow your prophet.  That's where doctrine is.

Unless your definition of canonization is different from mine, the LDS Church DOES have an official process of accepting scripture:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng

 

Quote

Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–6726:22838:34–3541:9–1142:11102:9124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).[/quote]

We will notice the end of Official Declaration 1:

 

 
President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

And the end of Official Declaration 2:

 

 
Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

Edited by skippy740
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

Do you consider yourself as someone that has difficulity with details or premises of doctrine?  Also do you think that being loyal to covenants alters someone's view of doctrine or beliefs?  (I am thinking of a specific scripture).  For the record - I do not believe doctrine is all that important - especially compaired to loving and having compassion for others - and a willingness to sacrifice for others.  I think it is easier to deal with mistakes in doctrine when someone is loving and kind.  But I think there is a very big problem for those that are experts in doctrine but cannot or will not love others - especially those that do not get the doctrine right.  It is easy to change someone's mind - even idoits can change their minds from time to time.  But it is almost impossible to change someone's heart.

 

The Traveler

Not sure what angle you are coming from. 

My point was to just say that most in our church and even in other churches will not be able to agree on different points in the details of doctrine or the premise of those details. A for instance would be the "Holy Ghost". We may all believe in the HG in our religion but in the details we will seldom all agree- Who is He? How can He be everywhere at once? Will He ever get a body? Why is his future eternal spot on the throne alongside Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ never mentioned?

You can pick almost any doctrine in our church and start peeling back the layers and in so doing find we have a lot of varrying views in the details. I think all churches are like that also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, skippy740 said:

Unless your definition of canonization is different from mine, the LDS Church DOES have an official process of accepting scripture:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng

 

I don't know your definition of canonization.  Basically, if there's an official LDS canon, we wouldn't have this discussion on which is doctrine and which is not doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not sure what angle you are coming from. 

My point was to just say that most in our church and even in other churches will not be able to agree on different points in the details of doctrine or the premise of those details. A for instance would be the "Holy Ghost". We may all believe in the HG in our religion but in the details we will seldom all agree- Who is He? How can He be everywhere at once? Will He ever get a body? Why is his future eternal spot on the throne alongside Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ never mentioned?

You can pick almost any doctrine in our church and start peeling back the layers and in so doing find we have a lot of varrying views in the details. I think all churches are like that also.

 

Perhaps your observation has possibilities of interest.  But let’s drill down into this thought a little. – Why do you think (critical?) details are clouded (or missing) from revelation?  Do you think you are better connected to the details than others – if so why?  What is so special about you?  What sets you apart – or are you also guessing at the details like (as you say it) most involved and thinking of such matters? 

One other question – Do you find my method of inquiry troublesome and agitating or are you excited, anxious and happy to explain how you came to conclusions and why you think so?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Doctrine for me has always been two fold.  Using Alma 12:9 as a pivot point, in my opinion it must needs be so:

 

Quote

 

Alma 12:9

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

 

In essence there is doctrine that I consider the Church approved foundational points that we teach readily and freely in our classes, find in our manuals and hopefully limit ourselves too in group discussion.  This is "the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men."

However, after one has fully taken the Holy Ghost as their guide, they should find that they are understanding material that is not considered "that portion which he doth grant unto the children of men".  We should find ourselves grasping the "mysteries of God".  These things become personal doctrine.  Things we know that have been taught by study and confirmation of the spirit but which are not for public dissemination.  We should not confuse this material with doctrine that is defined within the church required definition of the concept of doctrine, nor should we expect that we will have a great deal of success convincing others on different paths of our personal doctrine.  Neither should we teach personal doctrine that is  not somewhere taught by apostles and prophets.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
16 hours ago, RemnantofJoseph said:

Repentance, in the scriptures, doesn't necessarily mean what it means today.  Repentance in the BOM is turning from your current path, turning towards Christ and following Him, not "confessing your sins" to your bishop. 

From the Gospel Principles manual:

Quote

We Must Confess Our Sins

Confessing our sins is very important. The Lord has commanded us to confess our sins. Confession relieves a heavy burden from the sinner. The Lord has promised, “I, the Lord, forgive sins, and am merciful unto those who confess their sins with humble hearts” (D&C 61:2).

We must confess all our sins to the Lord. In addition, we must confess serious sins—such as adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, spouse or child abuse, and the sale or use of illegal drugs—which might affect our standing in the Church, to the proper priesthood authority. If we have sinned against another person, we should confess to the person we have injured. Some less serious sins involve no one but ourselves and the Lord. These may be confessed privately to the Lord.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RemnantofJoseph said:

 

I wrote that "repentance" in the Book of Mormon means turning towards Christ, not "confessing your sins to your bishop."  Your quotes and statements don't refute that.  As Christ said, "You must repent and become as a child."  Look to Christ and allow Him to teach you.  That's all it means.

D&C 61:2 makes no mention of confession sins to a "priesthood authority."  Yes, we should acknowledge our sins and transgressions to the Lord as only the Lord can forgive.

There's a big difference between moral failings (adultery, etc) and illegal activities (child abuse, etc).

The church can impose whatever conditions it desires on people who wish to belong to it, but I don't think we should confuse membership in the church with worthiness before the Lord. 

The trouble with your suggesting that Mormonism uses an extra-scriptural definition/practice of “repentance” (and with any implicit criticism intended therefrom), is that you immediately propose an extra-scriptural definition/practice of your own.  The scriptures speak a great deal of “confession” in conjunction with “repentance”; and they *never* suggest that such confession is limited to activities that are illegal under the collected statutes of the United States of America (or any other nation-state) as they stood in AD 2017 (or any other year).  Legally speaking, the concept of “child abuse” as we know and punish it today pretty much didn’t exist either in the ancient Levant where the Bible was written or in the antebellum USA when the bulk of the D&C was revealed—if you say “illegal child abuse” should indeed be confessed to ecclesiastical leaders, then you’ve departed from scripture as much as anyone else in the Mormon hierarchy has.

The LDS practice of relegating formerly-public “confessions” to the confines of the bishop’s office, while not fully articulated in scripture, at least has the benefit of priesthood authority as well confirmation from the Holy Spirit affirming that such is indeed the Lord’s will for our time.  And it also has the advantage of discomfiting sinners who would rather use the “nonya bidness, bishop!!!” line as an excuse to sweep their own sins under the rug.  Because as we all know, a major purpose of the Gospel is to afflict the comforted as well as to comfort the afflicted.  And the idea that I don’t have to be accountable for—say—my sexual choices; is a pretty darned comfortable idea.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2017 at 11:42 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

I do not believe this.  I have never met anyone who believes or heard anyone say that prophets are perfect.  

Just because you never saw this does not mean it did not happen.  I was taught that as well, but there is a lot I was taught that I have found later on to not be "legit", as well.  Which is a problem endemic to small remote communities.  Sometimes leaders start getting this idea they are on the same level, or even above, the First Presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RemnantofJoseph said:

At no point did I say or infer that one is not accountable for his or her sins.  I plainly said that we are to acknowledge and confess our sins to God.  I don't see what the issue is with this.  Very perplexing. 

I simply stated what repentance means in the Book of Mormon in conjunction with Christ's doctrine:  turning to him, repenting and being baptized; not sitting in the bishop's office.  That's it.

So sorry about my lack of clarity on the “accountability” verbiage.  I thought you’d  know very well, from the context of the statement, that I was talking about accountability to the local body of believers in Christ as represented by the Lord’s duly authorized representative in their geographical region.  Again, I apologize that I wasn’t more clear.  

As we’ve just seen, it’s so easy for  misunderstandings to happen.  It’s a wonderful feeling to know we’re actually on the same page.  Beneath all the perplexion, it appears that what you’re trying to convey is that you do believe that there is a spiritual (not just administrative) significance to confessing one’s sins to a priesthood authority just as the LDS Church currently teaches; and that the keys to priesthood authority are held exclusively in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And I’ll bet you’ll go even further and agree with me that the actions of local LDS priesthood authorities in excommunicating folks like—say—Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, and John Dehlin were not only appropriate under Church procedure; but represented the word and the will of the Lord to the Body of Christ in our day.  And I’m sure we’re going to learn that—ironically, given your moniker—you actually believe that the so-called “remnant movement” is a coalition of apostates who have forfeited their spiritual birthright and, if they continue in their path, are jeopardizing their exaltation.

So glad we agree!  Isn’t harmony wonderful?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Book of Mormon Alma organizes the church of God.  After doing so members of the Church begin to sin some grievous sins.  Alma was unsure how the Lord wanted his church to handle such sins so he prayed and asked.  The Lord's answer was quite clear (this is in Mosiah 26)

In verse 29

Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.

 

Note how God includes Alma in the Confessional Loop

 

Then in verse 35-36

35 And whosoever repented of their sins and did confess them, them he did number among the people of the church;

36 And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out.

Thus in Alma's day the Lord commanded the sinners of the Church to sit in "Alma's Office."  Alma listened to their confessions (or lack thereof) as the Lord commanded him to and judged them as the Lord commanded him to.  Those that wanted to repent he helped, those that did not he removed from being a part of the church.

The LDS church follows the same pattern today.  The only difference is that we are much larger and President of the Church does not have the time to hear all of us sinners so that responsibly has been given to the Bishop's and Stake President's.

Anyone that teaches otherwise clearly does not understand the scriptures and what they say the Lord has said on such matters.

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It remains obvious to me that doctrine is not the measure of a disciple of Christ.  Not that doctrine has no place - but the place of doctrine is not the place of prominence.  I know someone will quote scripture thinking otherwise but I do not believe that even the main purpose of scripture is for doctrine but rather to bring us to Christ.  Devils know that Christ is G-d and they know what is true doctrine but it does them no good and they remain evil and damned.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

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