When Is Doctrine Really Doctrine?

[DBMormon]

For the purpose of this thread, Doctrine is defined as Divine Truths revealed by God to his Church through Prophets and Apostles that we can bank on.  source - https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

 

 

“This is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

 

This is to say that while there is much we do not yet know, the truths and doctrine we have received have come and will continue to come by divine revelation.

 

 

 

 

As Background I am hoping we can concede some points of view.

1.) That the Church Leaders at least in one instance at one given time considered the Priesthood ban Doctrine

source - Nelson Lowery correspondence with the First Presidency.

From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel. (signed by First presidency in 1947)

Indication here is in 1947 all 15 men understood and believed this to be Doctrine and the First Presidency is teaching this to Bro. Lowery in a letter confirming that.

 

 

2.) That the brethren today are uncertain of it having been Doctrine and seem to be unwilling to declare it Doctrine and acknowledge it may have also been just a policy and not revealed truth (leaving open the possibility it was wrong)

source - http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#8  &  http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

I will quote Elder Holland here to make the point -
 

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

 

 

 

 

3.) That Elder Anderson indicates Doctrine is what is taught by all 15 men unitedly.

source - http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng

 

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

 

 

 

Now taking those three points, we are back to where we started

 

as these conclusions can be easily made

1.)The 1947 First Presidency and Qo12 was wrong or at least the current leadership allows for that possibility or another way of saying is Todays leadership allows for what was thought to be Doctrine by all 15 of the past regime to not be absolute Doctrine today.

 

2.) We are left to either redefine Doctrine to make a loophole or we have a definition that is impossible to arrive at (Doctrine is whatever we say it is at the current moment and does not completely correlate with revealed truth) and we in any age have no surefire way to have a definition that is trust worthy

 

3.) Hence Doctrine is not what is taught by all 15 men and hence we seemingly have to throw Elder Anderson's definition out and are left once again with Doctrine being like jello - darn hard to nail to a wall.

 

What say ye?

Edited December 9, 2013 by DBMormon

[jkwilliams]

 

1.)The 1947 First Presidency and Qo12 was wrong or at least the current leadership allows for that possibility or another way of saying is Todays leadership allows for what was thought to be Doctrine by all 15 of the past regime to not be absolute Doctrine today.

 

2.) Hence Doctrine is not what is taught by all 15 men and hence we seemingly have to throw Elder Anderson's definition out and are left once again with Doctrine being like jello - darn hard to nail to a wall.

 

What say ye?

 

Doctrine is what the church teaches now. The statement from 1947 (and the more formal First Presidency statements in 1949 and 1969) reflect doctrine as it was then. The church's current statement reflects the doctrine as it is now.

[DBMormon]

Doctrine is what the church teaches now. The statement from 1947 (and the more formal First Presidency statements in 1949 and 1969) reflect doctrine as it was then. The church's current statement reflects the doctrine as it is now.

 

but if Doctrine is divine truth revealed by revelation and the Dcotrine of then ins't Doctrine now (and not because God decided to change direction but rather the brethren are no longer confident in past leaders grasp of what is Doctrine and what isn't) then I feel we are creating circular reasoning

Edited December 9, 2013 by DBMormon

[jkwilliams]

but if Doctrine is divine truth revealed by revelation and the Dcotrine of then ins't Doctrine now then I feel we are creating circular reasoning

 

I don't know how else to reconcile what the First Presidency declared in previous years as doctrine with the current statement that such is not doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

That's pretty sophomoric reasoning. Any ban on Priesthood is at sole discretion of God. He sets the terms. Our often feeble and wrongheaded explanations for any ban have never constituted doctrine.

[jkwilliams]

That's pretty sophomoric reasoning. Any ban on Priesthood is at sole discretion of God. He sets the terms. Our often feeble and wrongheaded explanations for any ban have never constituted doctrine.

 

So, you're saying the First Presidency was wrong when it declared the reason for the ban and said it was doctrinal. Fair enough.

[DBMormon]

I will add this, We need to retreat in my opinion.  We need to back off to this bare bones definition that Nephi  declares 2nd Nephi ch 31

speaking of Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Confirmation, and Enduring to the end Nephi says

 

And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

 

 

and then allow for 32:6 to add that Temple ordinances is what is to be inferred here.

 

Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.

 

 

And then be blunt that everything else is either flexible (tithing ten percent of what? gross net, surplus) or an appendage to it (Word of Wisdom).

 

My opinion only and in no way am I suggesting I know more then anyone else only sharing how my logical side deals with stuff like this.

Edited December 9, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

That's pretty sophomoric reasoning. Any ban on Priesthood is at sole discretion of God. He sets the terms. Our often feeble and wrongheaded explanations for any ban have never constituted doctrine.

 

And Elder Holland is unsure of why the ban started in the first place and is unsure of whether to call it Doctrine, Policy, or Practice which tells me your avoiding the evidence unless you want to say Elder Holland was speaking out of turn?

[DBMormon]

So, you're saying the First Presidency was wrong when it declared the reason for the ban and said it was doctrinal. Fair enough.

 

I think they believed it was but had no divine reason to believe so and were sharing their opinion and were possibly wrong.  Whether right or wrong is not up for debate in this thread and has no bearing on my opening post..  I grant it is messy and I for one don't know.  The issue is todays leaders no longer know either and so they themselves are not using Elder Anderson's definition to uphold the brethren in 1947 and their united belief as Doctrine.  If they don't follow the definition then how can I?

Edited December 9, 2013 by DBMormon

[jkwilliams]

I think they believed it was but had no divine reason to believe so and were sharing their opinion and were possibly wrong.  Whether right or wrong is not up for debate.  I grant it is messy and I for one don't know.  The issue is todays leaders no longer know either and so they themselves are not using Elder Anderson's definition to uphold the brethren in 1947 and their united belief as Doctrine.  If they don't follow the definition then how can I?

 

I wasn't responding to you but rather to tss. His comment suggests to me that what the First Presidency declared as doctrine in 1949 falls into the "feeble or wrongheaded explanations" category.

 

Personally, I find the idea of changing and progressing doctrine to be pretty appealing.

[foster]

DBMormon, shouldn't you have included the statements from the First Presidency made in 1949 and I believe sometime in the 1960s, I believe each of those statements referred to the ban as Doctrine. As I brought up in another thread there is a lot of presentism going on. Can we take a "definition" created in the last decade or less and retroactively define for past Prophets what was Doctrine for them and what was not?

 

Why shouldn't we accept the ban as Doctrine that has been repealed? Numerous First Presidencies referred to as Doctrine and such Doctrine no longer exists in the Church today?

[thesometimesaint]

And Elder Holland is unsure of why the ban started in the first place and is unsure of whether to call it Doctrine, Policy, or Practice which tells me your avoiding the evidence unless you want to say Elder Holland was speaking out of turn?

 

While I personally opposed the ban on all worthy male black members holding the Priesthood. I'm not responsible for making the change. God is. Personally I think the reason(s) for the ban are lost to history, and BY isn't here to clarify. Just as the reason(s) for declining any but the first born sons of a High Priest in the tribe of Levi are now lost to history. We are of course free to speculate. However such speculation isn't the reason(s) for the ban.

[jkwilliams]

While I personally opposed the ban on all worthy male black members holding the Priesthood. I'm not responsible for making the change. God is. Personally I think the reason(s) for the ban are lost to history, and BY isn't here to clarify. Just as the reason(s) for declining any but the first born sons of a High Priest in the tribe of Levi are now lost to history. We are of course free to speculate. However such speculation isn't the reason(s) for the ban.

 

So, again, just to clarify, are you saying that the First Presidency statement of 1949 was speculation?

[DBMormon]

Sometime Saint and Foster, I don't feel your dealing with the issue at hand.

 

Doctrine is what all 15 men agree on (according to Elder Anderson in Conference and the LDS newsroom).  All 15 men agreed in 1947 that the ban was Doctrine (First Presidency Letter).  Leaders today no longer feel sure or safe assuming what all 15 men in 1947 believed is indeed Doctrine (Elder Holland and the new Race article).  How am I supposed to be comfortable using that definition when today's leaders are not?

Edited December 9, 2013 by DBMormon

[stemelbow]

Sometime Saint and Foster, I don't feel your dealing with the issue at hand.

 

Doctrine is what all 15 men agree on (according to Elder Anderson in Conference and the LDS newsroom).  All 15 men agreed in 1947 that the ban was Doctrine (First Presidency Letter).  Leaders today no longer feel sure or safe assuming what all 15 men in 1947 believed is indeed Doctrine (Elder Holland and the new Race article).  How am I supposed to be comfortable using that definition when today's leaders are not?

 

Is was doctrine then it is not now.  Why is that a problem?  Why does that make anyone uncomfortable to use a definition of a word or not? 

[DBMormon]

Is was doctrine then it is not now.  Why is that a problem?  Why does that make anyone uncomfortable to use a definition of a word or not? 

 

Stemelbow - It is not a matter of it having been Doctrine then and today The Lord changed from having it done way X and now Way Z  but rather it is a matter of Leaders today acknowledging they are not certain God is the Author of the original ban.  That it in essence while taught as Doctrine was not actually Doctrine then.  When Elder Holland says - we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

He is demonstrating that he is unsure that it was Doctrine in the first place even though the Brethren then thought so.  He is acknowledging they may have been wrong.  That in essence it is permittable in his mind that the ban was never Doctrine in the first place.  It may have only been an uninspired Policy or even a bad practice that had it's roots in culture and not divine truth in the first place.  I have no issue with God establishing laws today different then yesterday but this is not apples to apples with that concept.

 

 

It would be like Presiden Monson coming forward and stating that we are no longer certain that the Word of Wisdom came as a revelation and that we are open to it being only a policy or practice.  Or what if he did that with temple ordinances

Edited December 9, 2013 by DBMormon

[thesometimesaint]

Sometime Saint and Foster, I don't feel your dealing with the issue at hand.

 

Doctrine is what all 15 men agree on (according to Elder Anderson in Conference and the LDS newsroom).  All 15 men agreed in 1947 that the ban was Doctrine (First Presidency Letter).  Leaders today no longer feel sure or safe assuming what all 15 men in 1947 believed is indeed Doctrine (Elder Holland and the new Race article).  How am I supposed to be comfortable using that definition when today's leaders are not?

 

The doctrine of bans is still in place. Its practice, and rationales are not. Tomorrow a ban COULD be put in place saying that only those worthy members with green eyes and naturally curly hair COULD hold the Priesthood. I don't see that as happening, but our doctrine does allow for it.

[DBMormon]

The doctrine of bans is still in place. Its practice, and rationales are not. Tomorrow a ban COULD be put in place saying that only those worthy members with green eyes and naturally curly hair COULD hold the Priesthood. I don't see that as happening, but our doctrine does allow for it.

 

Elder Holland is not comfortable saying the ban was doctrine and neither is the Church.  I disagree that the Church still considers the ban absolutely Doctrine that revealed by God prior to God ending it.  Show me a leader saying so in the last 15 years?  I already have shown a leader who is unsure of whether to call it Doctrine, Practice, or Policy

Edited December 9, 2013 by DBMormon

[foster]

DBmormon, Holland calls it Doctrine so which means he is in agreement with past Prophets. There is no escaping Holland called it Doctrine, trying to say he waffled does not withstand scrutiny, because he ended the statement by calling it Doctrine.

[stemelbow]

Stemelbow - It is not a matter of it having been Doctrine then and today The Lord changed from having it done way X and now Way Z  but rather it is a matter of Leaders today acknowledging they are not certain God is the Author of the original ban.  That it in essence while taught as Doctrine was not actually Doctrine then.  When Elder Holland says - we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

He is demonstrating that he is unsure that it was Doctrine in the first place even though the Brethren then thought so.  He is acknowledging they may have been wrong.  That in essence it is permittable in his mind that the ban was never Doctrine in the first place.  It may have only been an uninspired Policy or even a bad practice that had it's roots in culture and not divine truth in the first place.  I have no issue with God establishing laws today different then yesterday but this is not apples to apples with that concept.

 

 

It would be like Presiden Monson coming forward and stating that we are no longer certain that the Word of Wisdom came as a revelation and that we are open to it being only a policy or practice.  Or what if he did that with temple ordinances

 Emphasis mine.

 

Let's see, that seems to be a distinction without a difference to me.  So I suppose I'll bow back out.  Not sure what you are saying to be honest. 

[DBMormon]

The doctrine of bans is still in place. Its practice, and rationales are not. Tomorrow a ban COULD be put in place saying that only those worthy members with green eyes and naturally curly hair COULD hold the Priesthood. I don't see that as happening, but our doctrine does allow for it.

If and only if God revealed it and not leaders just decided to do it.  That would not be Doctrine unless God commanded it.  Otherwise it is just policy

[stemelbow]

If and only if God revealed it and not leaders just decided to do it.  That would not be Doctrine unless God commanded it.  Otherwise it is just policy

 

hm...It seems to me people are too hung up on the term doctrine.  Why can't doctrine be wrong from time to time--as in doctrine, or people claiming doctrine, about that which God does not reveal?

[thesometimesaint]

If and only if God revealed it and not leaders just decided to do it.  That would not be Doctrine unless God commanded it.  Otherwise it is just policy

 

As I said the reasons are lost to history. For better or worse we humans have a tendency to rationalize when other arguments are either lost to history and/or not really applicable to present day circumstances.

[jkwilliams]

As I said the reasons are lost to history. For better or worse we humans have a tendency to rationalize when other arguments are either lost to history and/or not really applicable to present day circumstances.

 

The First Presidency was pretty clear about the reasons in 1949.

[foster]

DBMormon, if i ask any Apostle or Prophet "Why are coffee and black tea, the only hot drinks forbidden by the Word of Wisdom?"

What do you think the answer would be, i suspect the answer would be"We do not know we only know it is the Doctrine of the Church". Now would wuch a statement give any grounds to claim the word of wisdom is false and that the Brethern dont know whether it is true or not?