Defining Doctrine

[zil]

I'm creating this thread in hope that @Grunt and @Blossom76 may benefit from it.

People who have been Mormons for a long time tend to have an instinctual understanding of what is doctrine and what is not.  But the understanding will, of course, vary a little from person to person, and won't always be correct.  In recent years, I have seen the Church moving its curriculum a little closer to focusing on teaching doctrine, with a little less emphasis on principles (see below for definitions).  I believe this shift will continue.  But in the meantime, current adult members may be less than perfect at articulating correctly and consistently what is doctrine and what is an appendage to it - as Joseph Smith once said:

Quote

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, Section Three 1838-39 Pg.121

(The 13 Articles of Faith may be another good source of doctrine, though there may be some principles mixed in - I haven't given that enough study to say for sure, and don't want to delay this post long enough to figure it out.)

On Sunday, in our Teacher Council meeting, we were discussing the "Teach the Doctrine" section of Teaching in the Savior's Way.  The bishop and several other presidents / quorum leaders happen to be in that class at the same time as me.  I mentioned the scattered nature of where our doctrine can be found,  Blossom's struggle with the fact that we don't have it centralized, and the "What is doctrine and what is not?" thread wherein we couldn't even agree on the definition of doctrine.  The bishop quoted a devotional by Elder Bednar entitled "Teach Them to Understand" (I'm quoting a larger portion than he did):

Quote

...doctrine refers to the eternal, unchanging, and simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are several key words in that definition: eternal, unchanging, simple, and truth. Doctrines are never altered. They never vary. They will always be the same. You can always count on them. There is, for example, the doctrine of the Atonement. There is doctrine related to priesthood and priesthood keys. There is doctrine related to continuing revelation and the pattern whereby our Heavenly Father communicates with us and we communicate with Him. These are eternal, unchanging truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

There are also principles. Principles are doctrinally based guidelines for what we ought to do. Therefore, if there is a doctrine of the Atonement, then the first principle of the gospel is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance is the second principle or doctrinally based guideline for how we should live. Both of these principles are linked to the doctrine of the Atonement. Brothers and sisters, doctrine answers the why questions of our lives. Principles provide us with direction about the what and the how.

Someone else posted a similar definition of "doctrine" earlier in the thread mentioned above (and others rejected it and insisted on using the world's definition - I personally use and believe the truth of Elder Bednar's definition - and if needed, I would explain that to someone with whom I was discussing doctrine).  I think this is key to understanding Church teachings - one must understand this viewpoint of the difference between doctrine and principles.

The bishop (who is a seminary teacher) also reminded us that there is a new Seminary curriculum / approach entitled "Doctrinal Mastery" wherein 9 core doctrines are taught.  In that document (which is short and which I *highly* recommend to both @Grunt and @Blossom76), you will find an introduction (which lists the 9 doctrines), and then a chapter entitled "Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge" - I think this holds valuable keys that would help both of you in your study of the Church and the gospel of Jesus Christ - it's a short read, but worth hours of study and pondering - even if you read nothing else, consider reading that.  But I think you'll find the synopsis of these nine doctrines of value - I think, Blossom, it is the closest thing you'll find to a centralized list of Mormon doctrines.

(Personally, I think every member of the Church ought to study this document - including me - I can't say I've studied beyond the Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge chapter.)

I hope this is of use to you both - and perhaps some others.

[zil]

29 minutes ago, zil said:

In recent years, I have seen the Church moving its curriculum a little closer to focusing on teaching doctrine, with a little less emphasis on principles (see below for definitions).  I believe this shift will continue.

This might be interpreted as saying the Church has not been teaching doctrine - that, of course, is not correct.  But in my experience, teaching has focused on doctrine, principles, truth, scripture, and even, on occasion, policy/procedures (and application of all of these) - without explicitly trying to distinguish between them, so that while a member would know the doctrine, they might not have any conscious distinction between doctrine and principle (or even know there was a difference, depending on the member and the teaching in their area).  But now the Church seems to be trying to ensure that we learn the difference.  I think the change is happening somewhat gradually so-as not to overwhelm those who are accustomed to learning the way "it's always been done".  But the youth curriculum and new Seminary doctrinal mastery approach seems intended to start with the youth, who are more able to adapt to changes.

Anywho, I just wanted to make sure it was clear - we've been teaching doctrine all along, just not explicitly trying to draw a line between doctrine vs. principles.  (NOTE: Members have had the resources to study this out on their own for a long time, if not the entire time.  How many do this, I don't know.)

Edited December 12, 2017 by zil

[SilentOne]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

we've been teaching doctrine all alone

I'm guessing you meant all along, since this sort of goes against what you said earlier.

3 minutes ago, zil said:

But in my experience, teaching has focused on doctrine, principles, truth, scripture, and even, on occasion, policy/procedures (and application of all of these) - without explicitly trying to distinguish between them,

 

[Blossom76]

Thanks Zil, this is a great resource and I really appreciate you taking the time to do it.

[askandanswer]

 

I think the following is a good example of doctrine

3rd Nephi 27: 13-21

13  Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
14  And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
15  And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.
16  And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.
17  And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.
18  And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men.  And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.
19  And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.
20  Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.
21  Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;
22  Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be lifted up at the last day.
 

Basically this is repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost and endure to the end. This, plus the Priesthood, the atonemnt of Jesus Christ, the reality of true and living prophets, and the truthfulness of the scriptures are the most important, most central components of our doctrine. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by askandanswer

[zil]

@askandanswer - maybe next time, include the book and chapter (for newbies, or those who don't have the location memorized).

[Rob Osborn]

This topic always frustrates me because its a massive play on semantics that not everyone agrees upon. A typical dictionary definition of "doctrine"-

"a : something that is taught

b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma"

 

Now, look at the definition of "principle"-

 

"a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption"

 

As one can easily see, both doctrine and principle can be defined the same. Perhaps moreso for "doctrine" as it includes principles. Not sure why we get so hung up on the semantics. If we use a different word it brings balance. That word is "teachings". Another word is "beliefs". If we just strictly use "doctrine" to mean "truth" it convolutes everything as we have no way to properly agree as to what constitutes absolute unchanging, unwavering truth.

 

Thus, its not hard to define "teachings" and "beliefs". Those two things are what constitutes our "doctrine".

[Rob Osborn]

To add- Just by changing the wording a little bit takes it from a semantics debate and convoluted duscussion to where the rubber meets the road. Instead of "defining doctrine" what if we said "defining our teachings and beliefs". It means exactly the same thing yet clarifies our intent.

[zil]

12 hours ago, zil said:

"Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge"

In October 2017 General Conferference, the talk "The Truth of All Things" by Elder David F. Evans fits hand-in-glove with this chapter of the Doctrinal Mastery manual linked above.

Also, from my perspective, the concept taught in both the above is reflected in what we sometimes call "The Nephite Promise", but which would more accurately be called the Lord's promise to Israel - "obey and prosper" - which is most often mention in relation to the Book of Mormon, but is repeated in all volumes of scripture.  It is most often shown in terms of a society prospering economically, but I believe it can be equally applied to the idea of prospering in spiritual knowledge and understanding (as well as prospering in other ways).

Anywho, I recommend above talk to any who wish to study this topic.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

To add- Just by changing the wording a little bit takes it from a semantics debate and convoluted duscussion to where the rubber meets the road. Instead of "defining doctrine" what if we said "defining our teachings and beliefs". It means exactly the same thing yet clarifies our intent.

Actually, that makes the semantics even worse.  There is often a difference between "doctrine" and "beliefs" from a theological perspective.  You yourself have a BIG problem with a doctrine of the faith and you dismiss it by calling it a "common belief" that isn't really true.

While the dictionary may say one thing, sometimes a religious definition is simply going to be something different.  This is when you can CHOOSE to use semantics really as a useful tool  OR use them as an impediment to understanding (as is often the case).

This is the way many theologians look at the definitions of such words.  Notice that "Belief" and "Doctrine" are not on the same level.  There are going to be beliefs that are just outside the realm of doctrine.  And that's ok as long as it doesn't contradict doctrine.  But when a belief precludes doctrines, then the beliefs are known to be wrong.

When Joseph said in @zil's quote:

Quote

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, Section Three 1838-39 Pg.121

He uses the word "principles".  Notice that it doesn't show up in the concentric circles model.  But by context and use of words such as "fundamental" we realize it fits into the CORE circle very nicely. 

Yes, sometimes words get in the way.  But often, words are the only way to clear the air.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

Theologins are on their own strange private plane lost in the fog.

Its really not so complex. A "doctrine" is nothing more than a teaching or set of beliefs held by a person or collective group. Even in our religion we have had leaders come out and try to define doctrine in such a manner that doesnt make sense. Strictly speaking, a doctrine is nothing more than a belief. In speaking collectively as a church, "doctrine" is defined as their teachings and beliefs.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Theologins are on their own strange private plane lost in the fog.

Its really not so complex. A "doctrine" is nothing more than a teaching or set of beliefs held by a person or collective group. Even in our religion we have had leaders come out and try to define doctrine in such a manner that doesnt make sense. Strictly speaking, a doctrine is nothing more than a belief. In speaking collectively as a church, "doctrine" is defined as their teachings and beliefs.

So, when a general authority says that there is no progression between kingdoms is he teaching false doctrine?  Is it his belief?  Is an apostle's belief considered doctrine?  If not, how can you declare that doctrine is "a set of beliefs"?

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, when a general authority says that there is no progression between kingdoms is he teaching false doctrine?  Is it his belief?  Is an apostle's belief considered doctrine?  If not, how can you declare that doctrine is "a set of beliefs"?

Doctrines can be true, false, or a combination of them in any degree. If an apostle was to teach a particular belief that was or ended up being false it can be defined as both teaching a false teaching or false doctrine. When the church defines its core set of agreed upon teachings and beliefs that is considered its official doctrine. It too may be true, false or any combination of truth and falsehoods. Doctrines are nothing more than "teachings". Doctrine is not synonymous with "truth" as even devils and false teachers such as Nehor in the Book of Mormon have their own "doctrine".

An apostle that speaks a certain belief as truth but then later it turns out to be false, it can be defined as teaching a "false doctrine". 

There is no difference in someone asking "what are the doctrines of the church?" vs. "What are the teachings and beliefs of the church?" They mean the same thing.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

An apostle that speaks a certain belief as truth but then later it turns out to be false, it can be defined as teaching a "false doctrine". 

So in your book apostles teach false doctrine.

[Rob Osborn]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So in your book apostles teach false doctrine.

They can teach false doctrine. They can teach true doctrine. We, as LDS are under the same charge. We can teach each other either true or false doctrines.

[Anddenex]

16 hours ago, zil said:

I'm creating this thread in hope that @Grunt and @Blossom76 may benefit from it.

People who have been Mormons for a long time tend to have an instinctual understanding of what is doctrine and what is not.  But the understanding will, of course, vary a little from person to person, and won't always be correct.  In recent years, I have seen the Church moving its curriculum a little closer to focusing on teaching doctrine, with a little less emphasis on principles (see below for definitions).  I believe this shift will continue.  But in the meantime, current adult members may be less than perfect at articulating correctly and consistently what is doctrine and what is an appendage to it - as Joseph Smith once said:

(The 13 Articles of Faith may be another good source of doctrine, though there may be some principles mixed in - I haven't given that enough study to say for sure, and don't want to delay this post long enough to figure it out.)

On Sunday, in our Teacher Council meeting, we were discussing the "Teach the Doctrine" section of Teaching in the Savior's Way.  The bishop and several other presidents / quorum leaders happen to be in that class at the same time as me.  I mentioned the scattered nature of where our doctrine can be found,  Blossom's struggle with the fact that we don't have it centralized, and the "What is doctrine and what is not?" thread wherein we couldn't even agree on the definition of doctrine.  The bishop quoted a devotional by Elder Bednar entitled "Teach Them to Understand" (I'm quoting a larger portion than he did):

Someone else posted a similar definition of "doctrine" earlier in the thread mentioned above (and others rejected it and insisted on using the world's definition - I personally use and believe the truth of Elder Bednar's definition - and if needed, I would explain that to someone with whom I was discussing doctrine).  I think this is key to understanding Church teachings - one must understand this viewpoint of the difference between doctrine and principles.

The bishop (who is a seminary teacher) also reminded us that there is a new Seminary curriculum / approach entitled "Doctrinal Mastery" wherein 9 core doctrines are taught.  In that document (which is short and which I *highly* recommend to both @Grunt and @Blossom76), you will find an introduction (which lists the 9 doctrines), and then a chapter entitled "Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge" - I think this holds valuable keys that would help both of you in your study of the Church and the gospel of Jesus Christ - it's a short read, but worth hours of study and pondering - even if you read nothing else, consider reading that.  But I think you'll find the synopsis of these nine doctrines of value - I think, Blossom, it is the closest thing you'll find to a centralized list of Mormon doctrines.

(Personally, I think every member of the Church ought to study this document - including me - I can't say I've studied beyond the Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge chapter.)

I hope this is of use to you both - and perhaps some others.

Doctrinal Mastery link looks similar what they gave us when I was on my mission. This was definitely beneficial and worth the study.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Anddenex
like to similar

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Strictly speaking, a doctrine is nothing more than a belief.

This technically would be oversimplifying "doctrine" within the realm of the Church. As to the world, then strictly speaking, doctrine would be equivalent to "belief" or a core of beliefs.

In the realm of the Church, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we are not looking for "belief," we are looking for core truths (doctrine), that bring salvation, which would be different than "belief." People constantly believe many things, this does not make their belief true>>doctrine.

I would say @zil's attempt is for @Grunt and @Blossom76 to comprehend "doctrine" particularly "core doctrine" and principles in the Church - the Gospel of Jesus Christ - that lead one to salvation.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Anddenex

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This technically would be oversimplifying "doctrine" within the realm of the Church. As to the world, then strictly speaking, doctrine would be equivalent to "belief" or a core of beliefs.

In the realm of the Church, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we are not looking for "belief," we are looking for core truths (doctrine), that bring salvation, which would be different than "belief." People constantly believe many things, this does not make their belief true>>doctrine.

I would say @zil's attempt is for @Grunt and @Blossom76 to comprehend "doctrine" particularly "core doctrine" and principles in the Church - the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Again, its just semantics. If we try to define "doctrine" as "core truths" it convolutes many areas of the gospel and creates debate. For example- the doctrine regarding the word of wisdom changed between Joseph Smiths time and later prophets. If we state that a doctrine is core truth then we would have to say that the word of wisdom isnt "doctrine" because it changed. 

Official doctrine of the church are its "core beliefs". As such, beliefs can be true or false or any degree of them. It is that system that constitutes its doctrine. We then teach that doctrine. 

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

They can teach false doctrine. They can teach true doctrine. We, as LDS are under the same charge. We can teach each other either true or false doctrines.

Let me clarify what the above post means.

"I have no idea what the truth is and neither do the apostles or any Mormon."  Ok.  I guess we now know how much stock we should put into reading your posts if you admit you don't know.

[Anddenex]

18 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Again, its just semantics. If we try to define "doctrine" as "core truths" it convolutes many areas of the gospel and creates debate. For example- the doctrine regarding the word of wisdom changed between Joseph Smiths time and later prophets. If we state that a doctrine is core truth then we would have to say that the word of wisdom isnt "doctrine" because it changed. 

Official doctrine of the church are its "core beliefs". As such, beliefs can be true or false or any degree of them. It is that system that constitutes its doctrine. We then teach that doctrine. 

The Official doctrine of the Church are its "core truths," not beliefs. Nothing convoluted. The Word of Wisdom is not a "core truth" but a practice that can be commanded and removed at anytime.

The Word of Wisdom has changed from previous prophets to Joseph Smith and to later prophets. It would be similar to saying polygamy, a practice (not core truth) that can be commanded or removed at any time.

A core truth is that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the Savior of the world. Seek to change that and the gospel that "believes" (belief) the change is "false." Doctrine is not synonymous with "belief".

Edited December 12, 2017 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Let me clarify what the above post means.

"I have no idea what the truth is and neither do the apostles or any Mormon."  Ok.  I guess we now know how much stock we should put into reading your posts if you admit you don't know.

I don't think this is a fair clarification of his post.

[Rob Osborn]

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Let me clarify what the above post means.

"I have no idea what the truth is and neither do the apostles or any Mormon."  Ok.  I guess we now know how much stock we should put into reading your posts if you admit you don't know.

So way off still.

We do have an idea of what the truth is. Its what makes up our beliefs and teachings. That is what constitutes our doctrine. Now, that said, it doesnt mean what we believe and teach never can change as history has shown that in fact it can and sometimes does change in some degree or another.

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The Official doctrine of the Church are its "core truths," not beliefs. Nothing convoluted. The Word of Wisdom is not a "core truth" but a practice that can be commanded and removed at anytime.

The Word of Wisdom has changed from previous prophets to Joseph Smith and to later prophets. It would be similar to saying polygamy, a practice (not core truth) that can be commanded or removed at any time.

A core truth is that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the Savior of the world. Seek to change that and the gospel that "believes" (belief) the change is "false." Doctrine is not synonymous with "belief".

Do we we teach our beliefs?

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Do we we teach our beliefs?

We teach our family, especially our children (those under our stewardship), what we are inspired to teach.  Outside of the family, we teach what the prophets tell us to teach under the authority given to us through the Priesthood.  Under this authority, we teach doctrine and practices relevant to our time.

[Anddenex]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Do we we teach our beliefs?

Yes, we teach both doctrine and beliefs. We teach what we believe the doctrine to mean (e.g. were were all "intelligences"), and the doctrine is "that we are all intelligences" and many people teach their interpretation (belief) on what that doctrine means.

The statement, "I believe were were intelligences," is simply stating that a person "believes" in the doctrine of intelligences. They are welcome to share their "belief" on this doctrine, and what that means (which may be true or false).