rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Can anyone help me understand how I am supposed to interpret Elder Oaks' implication that our policies and doctrines have not and do not change? Some have. And to say that they don't/won't seems antithetical to a church guided by continuing revelation. I don't have the exact quote cause it isn't published yet but he said something to the effect of: Unlike some churches that change their policies and doctrine, ours are based upon unchangeable truths from God. I agree that truths from God do not change but our understanding of them (as reflected in our policies/doctrines) has seemed to change. Thoughts? 3
Senator Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Can anyone help me understand how I am supposed to interpret Elder Oaks' implication that our policies and doctrines have not and do not change? Some have. And to say that they don't/won't seems antithetical to a church guided by continuing revelation. I don't have the exact quote cause it isn't published yet but he said something to the effect of: Unlike some churches that change their policies and doctrine, ours are based upon unchangeable truths from God. I agree that truths from God do not change but our understanding of them (as reflected in our policies/doctrines) has seemed to change. Thoughts? He made a distinction between changeable and unchangeable doctrine.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Can anyone help me understand how I am supposed to interpret Elder Oaks' implication that our policies and doctrines have not and do not change? Some have. And to say that they don't/won't seems antithetical to a church guided by continuing revelation. I don't have the exact quote cause it isn't published yet but he said something to the effect of: Unlike some churches that change their policies and doctrine, ours are based upon unchangeable truths from God. I agree that truths from God do not change but our understanding of them (as reflected in our policies/doctrines) has seemed to change. Thoughts?One need only look at the frequency with which the Primary and Young Men/Young Women auxiliaries have been restructured to realize that we do change policies from time to time. Perhaps your question can be answered in terms of context. I appreciated Elder Oaks's talk, but I look forward to studying it in depth to get a better grasp of it.
rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 He made a distinction between changeable and unchangeable doctrine. Where did he make that distinction?
rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 One need only look at the frequency with which the Primary and Young Men/Young Women auxiliaries have been restructured to realize that we do change policies from time to time. Perhaps your question can be answered in terms of context. I appreciated Elder Oaks's talk, but I look forward to studying it in depth to get a better grasp of it. Yeah, I was intrigued enough by that statement that I listened to it again this morning as part of my personal study. I still didn't see a context that made sense to me. But, I'll read it more carefully when the text is published.
JLHPROF Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Can anyone help me understand how I am supposed to interpret Elder Oaks' implication that our policies and doctrines have not and do not change? Some have. And to say that they don't/won't seems antithetical to a church guided by continuing revelation. I don't have the exact quote cause it isn't published yet but he said something to the effect of: Unlike some churches that change their policies and doctrine, ours are based upon unchangeable truths from God. I agree that truths from God do not change but our understanding of them (as reflected in our policies/doctrines) has seemed to change. Thoughts? The funny thing was I agreed with absolutely everything he taught, but I found it hypocritical considering how may changes in doctrine and ordinances have occurred and continue to occur. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 I think Brother Oaks was referencing changes in policy and doctrine not coming from Christ.
rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 I think Brother Oaks was referencing changes in policy and doctrine not coming from Christ. Could you elaborate on that? I'm not sure what you are saying.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) One need only look at the frequency with which the Primary and Young Men/Young Women auxiliaries have been restructured to realize that we do change policies from time to time. Perhaps your question can be answered in terms of context. I appreciated Elder Oaks's talk, but I look forward to studying it in depth to get a better grasp of it.Lets see, as far as I can recall he was talking about marriage so in context his comments should be interpreted to mean that marriage is between one man and one woman and that will not change. It is an unchangable doctrine.I can understand why Rockpond might have an issue with this. If man legalizes a practice that does not mean it is not a sin anymore. God's ways are unchanging. Edited October 7, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 1
Buckeye Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Can anyone help me understand how I am supposed to interpret Elder Oaks' implication that our policies and doctrines have not and do not change? Some have. And to say that they don't/won't seems antithetical to a church guided by continuing revelation. I don't have the exact quote cause it isn't published yet but he said something to the effect of: Unlike some churches that change their policies and doctrine, ours are based upon unchangeable truths from God. I agree that truths from God do not change but our understanding of them (as reflected in our policies/doctrines) has seemed to change. Thoughts? That struck me as odd as well. I'm used to hearing that doctrines can't change (even though they do). But we generally accept that policies can change. Heck, the new introductions to OD-1 and OD-2 specifically describe polygamy and the racial priesthood ban as "policies" that changed. So it was odd when Elder Oaks said that policies can't change. I expect that was a slip and we'll see it changed to just "doctrines" in the printed version. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Could you elaborate on that? I'm not sure what you are saying. We are exclusive in that we claim modern revelation from God. IE; So while I believe that our block of three hours for Church meetings is just a policy subject to change. That change would come through revelation.
rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 Lets see, as far as I can recall he was talking about marriage so in context his comments should be interpreted to mean that marriage is between one man and one woman and that will not change. It is an unchangable doctrine.I can understand why Rockpond might have an issue with this. If man legalizes a practice that does not mean it is not a sin anymore. God's ways are unchanging. I've listened to it twice and, in context, it didn't seem like he was only referring to marriage between a man and a woman. But I'll look for that when I read it. Also, our policies and doctrines with respect to marriage have changed so even that restriction still seems problematic. 2
rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 We are exclusive in that we claim modern revelation from God. IE; So while I believe that our block of three hours for Church meetings is just a policy subject to change. That change would come through revelation. But he said that God's truths are unchangeable. So our policies and doctrines reflect our best understanding of current revelation, right? Therefore, they have changed and likely will change. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Lets see, as far as I can recall he was talking about marriage so in context his comments should be interpreted to mean that marriage is between one man and one woman and that will not change. It is an unchangable doctrine.I can understand why Rockpond might have an issue with this. If man legalizes a practice that does not mean it is not a sin anymore. God's ways are unchanging.I think you've pretty much nailed it from what I can recall hearing. As I said, I look forward to exploring the written text of the talk in greater depth.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) I've listened to it twice and, in context, it didn't seem like he was only referring to marriage between a man and a woman. But I'll look for that when I read it. Also, our policies and doctrines with respect to marriage have changed so even that restriction still seems problematic.They have not changed. It has always been the case that God will institute and rescind the practice of plural marriage to suit His purposes. Edited October 7, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 1
omni Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Lets see, as far as I can recall he was talking about marriage so in context his comments should be interpreted to mean that marriage is between one man and one woman and that will not change. It is an unchangable doctrine. Umm, you sure about that? I think D&C 132 disagrees with you. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Umm, you sure about that? I think D&C 132 disagrees with you.Marriage between one man and one woman is not inconsistent with D&C 132. Even when plural marriage is present, each instance of marriage is an individual union. That is, the wives involved are not married to one another. 2
rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 They have not changed. It has always been the case that God will institute and rescind the practice of plural marriage to suit His purposes. Not what I was referring to. We could pull out JoD quotes to argue that BY taught plural marriage was the only way to the highest level of exaltation. But too much to debate on that one. Why not go with a much simpler policy change: interracial marriage. 1
JLHPROF Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Can anyone help me understand how I am supposed to interpret Elder Oaks' implication that our policies and doctrines have not and do not change? Some have. And to say that they don't/won't seems antithetical to a church guided by continuing revelation. I don't have the exact quote cause it isn't published yet but he said something to the effect of: Unlike some churches that change their policies and doctrine, ours are based upon unchangeable truths from God. I agree that truths from God do not change but our understanding of them (as reflected in our policies/doctrines) has seemed to change. Thoughts? Policies can be changed a hundred times over...it means very little.Ordinances and doctrines of the gospel are eternal and should not be altered or changed in any way. Even if we receive further light and knowledge to understand them better, it shouldn't change them. Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles. - Joseph Smith 1
rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 Policies can be changed a hundred times over...it means very little.Ordinances and doctrines of the gospel are eternal and should not be altered or changed in any way. Even if we receive further light and knowledge to understand them better, it shouldn't change them. Elder Oaks specifically referred to policies. Not just doctrines. And I disagree that changing policies "mean very little". They can be significant when the affect individuals' access to ordinances. 1
phaedrus ut Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 This talk is a gift to the enemies and critics of the church that will serve them well for years to come. People no longer need to go back decades to find a church leader officially making disparaging and offensive remarks about a certain class of people. Phaedrus 1
EllenMaksoud Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Can anyone help me understand how I am supposed to interpret Elder Oaks' implication that our policies and doctrines have not and do not change? Some have. And to say that they don't/won't seems antithetical to a church guided by continuing revelation. I don't have the exact quote cause it isn't published yet but he said something to the effect of: Unlike some churches that change their policies and doctrine, ours are based upon unchangeable truths from God. I agree that truths from God do not change but our understanding of them (as reflected in our policies/doctrines) has seemed to change. Thoughts?Take a breath. This conference I was sat in front of the TV with my phone in my hand and when each of the speakers got up, I looked them up on the internet wiki. This helps me gain perspective on their point of view. Dallin H. Oaks is an Attorney and Judge. To me this means a certain rigidity in viewpoint, and high need for order. In the short view, the church's views do not change. However we all know that over a long period of time it does. We need these varying points of view so that Heavenly Father can build his church. The Huffington Post, the liberal trumpet, says that he said "Gay Marriage is immoral", and that if fine for this day. Still, it is my sincerest hope that in time, we will find the causation for these variant issues. I know of no gay person who will say it was voluntary. 3
thesometimesaint Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 But he said that God's truths are unchangeable. So our policies and doctrines reflect our best understanding of current revelation, right? Therefore, they have changed and likely will change. What other way could our doctrines and policies work? The doctrines are that we are to meet together often to receive the Sacraments, and to teach one another the doctrines, and how best to impliment the Gospel. Policy can change the times of the day, even what day in 7 we are to meet.
rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 What other way could our doctrines and policies work? The doctrines are that we are to meet together often to receive the Sacraments, and to teach one another the doctrines, and how best to impliment the Gospel. Policy can change the times of the day, even what day in 7 we are to meet. I agree... at a basic level, or looking at it from Elder Christofferson's POV (Apr 2012) our doctrine is what we teach of Christ. That hasn't changed and won't change. But a lot of the rest of it changes. If he had only said "doctrine" I probably would not have batted an eye. But when he added "policies" into his statement it made me think.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 I agree... at a basic level, or looking at it from Elder Christofferson's POV (Apr 2012) our doctrine is what we teach of Christ. That hasn't changed and won't change. But a lot of the rest of it changes. If he had only said "doctrine" I probably would not have batted an eye. But when he added "policies" into his statement it made me think.I would add that today's "policies" of racial priesthood ban and plural marriage were "doctrines" (and referred to as such) when they were practiced.
Recommended Posts