Policies And Doctrine - Future Limits

[JLHPROF]

In light of Elder Oaks discourse on the unchanging nature of truth and doctrines vs updating policies I have questions for the board residents.

Some of the biggest changes that have occurred in the church that have led to people apostatizing would include:

1880ish - ending United Order

1890/1904 - ending plural marriage

1923 - changing of temple ordinances & garments

1978 - extension of the priesthood to all worthy males

1990 - complete rewording of temple ordinances and many changes

2005 - further temple changes

2013 - revisions to the scriptures

Ongoing - several changes to the sacrament administration

 

Now, by definition apostasy is to move away from truth.  All of these changes have cause people to fall away who couldn't accept them and many others have seen them as continuing revelation providing further light and knowledge.

So here is my question: 

What possible future changes would cause you to question, even if revelation was claimed?

To YOUR mind, how far is too far?

 

Some possible future changes to ordinances and doctrine (not policies) could conceivably include:

1. Extending priesthood to women (I have an faithful uncle that said that could be his final straw)

2. Elimination of the garments

3. Changing the sacramental or baptismal prayer

4. Eliminating immersion baptism or changing the form of the ordinance

5. Dropping the Book of Abraham from scripture

6. Allowing outsiders to witness temple weddings

7. Others...

Edited October 7, 2013 by JLHPROF

[Freedom]

In light of Elder Oaks discourse on the unchanging nature of truth and doctrines vs updating policies I have questions for the board residents.

Some of the biggest changes that have occurred in the church that have led to people apostatizing would include:

1880ish - ending United Order

1890/1904 - ending plural marriage

1923 - changing of temple ordinances & garments

1978 - extension of the priesthood to all worthy males

1990 - complete rewording of temple ordinances and many changes

2005 - further temple changes

2013 - revisions to the scriptures

Ongoing - several changes to the sacrament administration

 

The United Order stopped because the members could not live it.

Plural Marriage stopped because men were going to jail

The temple ordinances have never changed, only the ceremony. The design of the garments were driven by the style of the day when they were first introduced.

The roll of the priesthood has not changed, so no doctrines have been adjusted.

The scriptures have not been revised, only the supplementary non-canonical addendums intended to provide clarity.

The administration of the sacrament has not changed at all.

[thesometimesaint]

The United Order stopped because the members could not live it.

Plural Marriage stopped because men were going to jail

The temple ordinances have never changed, only the ceremony. The design of the garments were driven by the style of the day when they were first introduced.

The roll of the priesthood has not changed, so no doctrines have been adjusted.

The scriptures have not been revised, only the supplementary non-canonical addendums intended to provide clarity.

The administration of the sacrament has not changed at all.

Agreed.

[JLHPROF]

The United Order stopped because the members could not live it.

Sad

Plural Marriage stopped because men were going to jail

Partly true

The temple ordinances have never changed, only the ceremony. The design of the garments were driven by the style of the day when they were first introduced.

Well, now that's just not true but we can't discuss specifics on this board

The roll of the priesthood has not changed, so no doctrines have been adjusted.

The scriptures have not been revised, only the supplementary non-canonical addendums intended to provide clarity.

Again, yes they have - there have been numerous wording changes since the originals

The administration of the sacrament has not changed at all.

Guess again - it has changed in many ways.

 

But this was not my question.  My question remains, how far is too far for the members on this board?  What do you consider unalterable in the ordinances and doctrines?

[Scott Lloyd]

Before we get too far down the road on this thread, I think it should be pointed out that classifying something as "policy" does not render the thing as uninspired. It is quite within the realm of likelihood that a policy in the Church represents the mind and will of God just as surely as if it were designated doctrine.

 

As a practical matter, I don't think there is much administratively that goes on in the top levels of Church administration that doesn't have divine approbation.

 

The policy/doctrine dichotomy may to a large degree be artificial.

[thesometimesaint]

When we discard D&C 76:19-24

 

19 And while we ^ameditated upon these things, the Lord touched the eyes of our understandings and they were opened, and the ^bglory of the Lord shone round about.

 20 And we beheld the ^aglory of the Son, on the ^bright hand of the ^cFather, and received of his fulness;

 21 And saw the holy ^aangels, and them who are ^bsanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who ^cworship him forever and ever.

 22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the ^atestimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he ^blives!

 23 For we ^asaw him, even on the ^bright hand of ^cGod; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the ^dOnly Begotten of the Father—

 24 That by ^ahim, and through him, and of him, the ^bworlds are and were created, and the ^cinhabitants thereof are begotten ^dsons and daughters unto God.

Edited October 7, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Buckeye]

Great question. And I agree with Scott (shock!) that the policy/doctrine dichotomy is largely artificial.

 

As one who (at least on this board) often seems to advocate for change, I can freely admit there are changes that I would not like. Here are a few that I could envision happening, at least in the very long term, that would disappoint me:

• Elimination of tracting (wait, already done)
• Elimination of garments outside the temple
• Elimination of father/son campouts
• Elimination of BYU
• Elimination to basketball courts in chapels
• Elimination of the POGP
• Rejection of the teachings in the KFD
• Elimination of temple work for the dead (just perform one ordinance for all)
• Elimination of early-morning seminary - or at least a move to all-internet study groups that removes the need/burden to gather
• Elimination of BSA in YM
• Elimination of patriarchal blessings

 

Some of these are obviously more likely than others. All would cause me problems. But I wouldn't leave the church over them. For me, the church being "true" isn't so much a fixed point to defend, but a river to follow. As Joseph said, truth cuts its own way. I hope to keep walking along the river as far as it goes.

[JLHPROF]

Great question. And I agree with Scott (shock!) that the policy/doctrine dichotomy is largely artificial.

 

As one who (at least on this board) often seems to advocate for change, I can freely admit there are changes that I would not like. Here are a few that I could envision happening, at least in the very long term, that would disappoint me:

• Elimination of tracting (wait, already done)
• Elimination of garments outside the temple
• Elimination of father/son campouts
• Elimination of BYU
• Elimination to basketball courts in chapels
• Elimination of the POGP
• Rejection of the teachings in the KFD
• Elimination of temple work for the dead (just perform one ordinance for all)
• Elimination of early-morning seminary - or at least a move to all-internet study groups that removes the need/burden to gather
• Elimination of BSA in YM
• Elimination of patriarchal blessings

 

Some of these are obviously more likely than others. All would cause me problems. But I wouldn't leave the church over them. For me, the church being "true" isn't so much a fixed point to defend, but a river to follow. As Joseph said, truth cuts its own way. I hope to keep walking along the river as far as it goes.

Patriarchal Blessings and the King-Follett discourse teachings are two that I find interesting and didn't think to put on my list.

[Brenda]

What possible future changes would cause you to question, even if revelation was claimed?

 

If it came from the Prophet, I HOPE I would accept anything ...... but to be honest, I don't think I could stand the return to polygamy.  I totally sympathize with Emma.  

 

I think I'd rather live alone.  

[BCSpace]

1880ish - ending United Order

1890/1904 - ending plural marriage

1923 - changing of temple ordinances & garments

1978 - extension of the priesthood to all worthy males

1990 - complete rewording of temple ordinances and many changes

2005 - further temple changes

2013 - revisions to the scriptures

Ongoing - several changes to the sacrament administration

 

What doctrines do you think changed in any of those examples?  I can't think of a single one.  Plural marriage is still our doctrine and previous authorized practice of it is still considered valid.  The Church explains the priesthood ban as the Lord's doing and in terms of from time to time, the priesthood has been denied based on lineage; so it's still doctrine.  The 'principal ancestors' textual change, considering the definition of principal, is not a change in doctrine.  The Law of Consecration is still on the books.  etc.

[JLHPROF]

What doctrines do you think changed in any of those examples?  I can't think of a single one.  Plural marriage is still our doctrine and previous authorized practice of it is still considered valid.  The Church explains the priesthood ban as the Lord's doing and in terms of from time to time, the priesthood has been denied based on lineage; so it's still doctrine.  The 'principal ancestors' textual change, considering the definition of principal, is not a change in doctrine.  The Law of Consecration is still on the books.  etc.

Not really the point of this thread, but all of these changes had doctrines attached at the time that said they couldn't change.  Just for example, and not by way of a new thread sub-topic, the leaders of the church from 1852-1890 taught specific official doctrines, by which I mean GA's in conference over the pulpit, on plural marriage (necessary for exalation, never will be done away with, God & Jesus lived it, synonymous with celestial marriage etc) and these teachings are no longer taught.

Every time a change is made in practice it necessitates redacting or explaining away any statements that teach against the change.  And that happened in all these cases.

 

But this thread is asking, how many changes are too many?  What ordinances or doctrines should the church/God never allow to be altered?

[Duncan]

I have long maintained and some of you will disagree with me but if they called John Bytheway or John Hilton lll to be general authorities that would be the day for me

[BCSpace]

Not really the point of this thread, but all of these changes had doctrines attached at the time that said they couldn't change. 

 

And none of them were apparently in the plural marriage case.

[JLHPROF]

And none of them were apparently in the plural marriage case.

Uh...yes there were?  Not sure what you're getting at there.  The GA's taught repeatedly that Plural Marriage would never be revoked, had to be lived, and was necessary for exaltation.

Now we're taught that it was unnecessary, can be revoke, is separate from Celestial marriage, and so forth.  Clearly changed.

Edited October 8, 2013 by JLHPROF

[BCSpace]

I have long maintained and some of you will disagree with me but if they called John Bytheway or John Hilton lll to be general authorities that would be the day for me

 

I have no idea about the opinions of either of these, but I've noticed changes in some called as General Authorities; more towards towing the line on doctrine.  I've also noticed some still trying to teach their opinions as doctrines while at times laying low (BRM, JFS).  Russell M Nelson of late has taken jabs at evolution, but being restrained by doctrine, has never been able to come out and say what you know he thinks.

[BCSpace]

 

And none of them were apparently in the plural marriage case.

Uh...yes there were?  Not sure what you're getting at there.  The GA's taught repeatedly that Plural Marriage would never be revoked, had to be lived, and was necessary for exaltation.

 

I would like to see what the Church actually published on that later, but no, plural marriage is still practiced in the Church, just not in mortality.  I agree that some said that last part yes, but are such sayings doctrine and what actually was the doctrine?  What I am getting at of course is that no doctrine has changed, at least in the major areas where some erroneously think it has, which means I disagree with the premise of your O.P. and in teh other thread I agree with Oaks.

[BCSpace]

1. Extending priesthood to women (I have an faithful uncle that said that could be his final straw)

2. Elimination of the garments

3. Changing the sacramental or baptismal prayer

 

Can be done without a change in doctrine.

 

4. Eliminating immersion baptism or changing the form of the ordinance

 

 

Would be a change in doctrine on the meaning of baptism.

 

5. Dropping the Book of Abraham from scripture

 

 

Obviously doctrinal change.  Won't happen.

 

6. Allowing outsiders to witness temple weddings

 

 

Would be a change in doctrine; the esoteric nature of certain truths.

 

Would any cause me to doubt?  Depends on the explanation and the personal revelation I receive.

 

[Duncan]

I have no idea about the opinions of either of these, but I've noticed changes in some called as General Authorities; more towards towing the line on doctrine.  I've also noticed some still trying to teach their opinions as doctrines while at times laying low (BRM, JFS).  Russell M Nelson of late has taken jabs at evolution, but being restrained by doctrine, has never been able to come out and say what you know he thinks.

 

 

it does seem that being a mission president helps in getting called to be a GA! probably just so you come to be known by the brethren and I heard you have to have no debt to serve, which makes sense I guess.

[JLHPROF]

Quote

 

1. Extending priesthood to women (I have an faithful uncle that said that could be his final straw)

2. Elimination of the garments

3. Changing the sacramental or baptismal prayer

Can be done without a change in doctrine.

 

You're kidding me right?  I think we define doctrine very differently.

 

4. Eliminating immersion baptism or changing the form of the ordinance

Would be a change in doctrine on the meaning of baptism.

 

Would also be a change in doctrine concerning what baptism is meant to represent as well as the definition.

 

5. Dropping the Book of Abraham from scripture

Obviously doctrinal change.  Won't happen.

 

Why not?  Lectures on Faith were dropped.  Pearl of Great Price was added.  The old D&C section 101 was removed.  OD 1 & 2 were added.

 

6. Allowing outsiders to witness temple weddings

Would be a change in doctrine; the esoteric nature of certain truths.

 

Yes, so would that be ok, and back to the original question of the thread - what wouldn't be ok?  What couldn't you accept as being "continuing revelation"?

Edited October 8, 2013 by JLHPROF

[BCSpace]

1. Extending priesthood to women (I have an faithful uncle that said that could be his final straw)

2. Elimination of the garments

3. Changing the sacramental or baptismal prayer

Can be done without a change in doctrine.

 

You're kidding me right?  I think we define doctrine very differently.

 

No kidding.  You didn't mention any specific changes here. And I accept the Church's definition of doctrine.

 

 

4. Eliminating immersion baptism or changing the form of the ordinance

Would be a change in doctrine on the meaning of baptism.

 

Would also be a change in doctrine concerning what baptism is meant to represent as well as the definition.

 

Sure.

 

5. Dropping the Book of Abraham from scripture

Obviously doctrinal change.  Won't happen.

 

Why not?  Lectures on Faith were dropped.  Pearl of Great Price was added.  The old D&C section 101 was removed.  OD 1 & 2 were added.

 

I don't see them dropping ancient scripture based on the interpretive powers given to JS which powers were also used to translate the BoM.  Besides, there is no reason to drop the BoA and I predict there never will be.  That the critics are relegated to speculating what's on some missing papyri shows how incredibly weak their argument really is and that it hasn't changed much from the days of the charlatan Dee Jay Nelson.

 

 

6. Allowing outsiders to witness temple weddings

Would be a change in doctrine; the esoteric nature of certain truths.

 

Yes, so would that be ok, and back to the original question of the thread - what wouldn't be ok?  What couldn't you accept as being "continuing revelation"?

 

I predict it won't happen because of esotericism, the types of things that Jesus won't let his apostles say to the rest etc.  Esotericism is part of the scriptures and therefore part of the LDS Church and part of what makes us a peculiar people.  It won't be touched.

Edited October 8, 2013 by BCSpace

[Hamba Tuhan]

So here is my question: 

What possible future changes would cause you to question, even if revelation was claimed?

 

Thus far it has been my experience that inspired utterances overwhelmingly come accompanied by a simultaneous spiritual conviction. Even when I've previously thought I'd be bothered by something, I'm therefore not. A simple case in point involves the calling of my current stake president.We all knew we were getting a new stake president because the previous one had announced that he was moving. A friend the day before the announcement of the new stake president had said he felt certain it would be Bro L-----. For reasons I don't need to repeat here, I quite literally shuddered inside at the thought and said something along the lines of 'Well, that'd get me to apostatise for sure'. The next day, I was on the stand when we were asked to sustain the new stake president, Bro L-----. For half a second my mind rebelled, but then I realised that the invitation had somehow filled me with an outpouring of both peace and joy, and my arm enthusiastically shot into the air as a sign of my desire to sustain this call.It was almost like I was watching someone else experience these feelings and actions that I had only moments earlier dreaded the very thought of. Unsurprisingly, Pres L----- has been exactly what our stake needed/needs, and I have loved working with him.

 

Consequently, I have a hard time imagining anything that might come from God being 'too much' or 'too far' for me. This is the miracle of how the Church operates.

[JLHPROF]

Thus far it has been my experience that inspired utterances overwhelmingly come accompanied by a simultaneous spiritual conviction. Even when I've previously thought I'd be bothered by something, I'm therefore not. A simple case in point involves the calling of my current stake president.We all knew we were getting a new stake president because the previous one had announced that he was moving. A friend the day before the announcement of the new stake president had said he felt certain it would be Bro L-----. For reasons I don't need to repeat here, I quite literally shuddered inside at the thought and said something along the lines of 'Well, that'd get me to apostatise for sure'. The next day, I was on the stand when we were asked to sustain the new stake president, Bro L-----. For half a second my mind rebelled, but then I realised that the invitation had somehow filled me with an outpouring of both peace and joy, and my arm enthusiastically shot into the air as a sign of my desire to sustain this call.It was almost like I was watching someone else experience these feelings and actions that I had only moments earlier dreaded the very thought of. Unsurprisingly, Pres L----- has been exactly what our stake needed/needs, and I have loved working with him.

 

Consequently, I have a hard time imagining anything that might come from God being 'too much' or 'too far' for me. This is the miracle of how the Church operates.

 

But there is a huge difference in what I can accept as in keeping with the Gospel as we currently have it revealed and accepting someone being called I don't like.

There were people who left the church when polygamy was revoked.  There were people that left the church after the temple ordinances were altered.  There were people that left the church after the negro revelation.  My point isn't to discuss these people.  My question remains, what do we personally consider as unalterable truths and/or practices of our religion?  What might we be unable to accept as still being gospel truth?

[thesometimesaint]

But there is a huge difference in what I can accept as in keeping with the Gospel as we currently have it revealed and accepting someone being called I don't like.

There were people who left the church when polygamy was revoked.  There were people that left the church after the temple ordinances were altered.  There were people that left the church after the negro revelation.  My point isn't to discuss these people.  My question remains, what do we personally consider as unalterable truths and/or practices of our religion?  What might we be unable to accept as still being gospel truth?

 

Abandoning the Articles of Faith would be a biggy for me.

[JLHPROF]

Abandoning the Articles of Faith would be a biggy for me.

Did you know that B.H. Roberts I believe it was altered them from the originals as Joseph wrote them in the Wentworth Letter.  However, the changes were purely cosmetic and not doctrinal in nature.

[Hamba Tuhan]

What might we be unable to accept as still being gospel truth?

 

OK. I can't accept anything that doesn't come from God. I can and will accept anything that does.