When Is Doctrine Really Doctrine?

[jkwilliams]

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?

 

Would it make any difference if the First Presidency issued a formal statement indicating the reasons why?

[DBMormon]

How I define these words

 

Doctrine - a revealed truth from God

Policy - a implemented practice by leaders without direct revelation though it may be thought to be inspired it may or may not be by definition

practice - a structured bahavior that is felt by leaders to be in the best interest of the Church and may have much influence from culture.

 

Elder Holland seems very unsure and the new article also seems unwilling to state with certanity

[DBMormon]

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?

 

Because that is not the definiton we give it - 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.

[DBMormon]

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.

 

Forget the reasons.  Did the Ban itself come from God or was it an implemented policy by Brigham Young without revelation? Today's Brthren I am suggesting, do not know - that is the issue.

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

I allow that even the First Presidency can be wrong in the reasoning behind any doctrine. IE; The original First Presidency questioned why a man was born blind. Whether it was his own sin or the sin of his parent was to blame. Neither were correct, it was to show for the poser of God.

[foster]

Dbmormon, Holland ended his statement by calling it Doctrine, why do you take that as him being unsure?

[DBMormon]

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?

 

Again reason for said Doctrine are not the issue.  What if that said the WOW itself, that they are unsure section 89 came by revelation.  That is essentially waht we are doing to the ban.  We are taking out the absolute certainity it came from God and no longer feel certainity that it did

[DBMormon]

Dbmormon, Holland ended his statement by calling it Doctrine, why do you take that as him being unsure?

 

Why do you assume that he by using Doctrine last is essentially disregarding his previous use of policy and practice?

[DBMormon]

I allow that even the First Presidency can be wrong in the reasoning behind any doctrine. IE; The original First Presidency questioned why a man was born blind. Whether it was his own sin or the sin of his parent was to blame. Neither were correct, it was to show for the poser of God.

Again the why is unimportant in this debate.  In the Current Church's eyes - Was the Ban, regardless of reason, from God or rather a man made policy that lacked a revelation to implement it?

Edited December 9, 2013 by DBMormon

[stemelbow]

Why do you assume that he by using Doctrine last is essentially disregarding his previous use of policy and practice?

 

 

I'm just not certain he's as hung up on the terms as you appear to be.  Language is rather fluid.  Whether it is doctrine, was doctrine or not doesn't really matter.  What matters is I can freely say, "They were wrong" and not have any negative consequence.  What matters is what is true. 

[DBMormon]

When the Church says "In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."  Don't you find it odd that they refuse ti insinuate that such ban came via a revelation and was doctrine regardless of the bad reasons and theories for why given by man?

[thesometimesaint]

Forget the reasons.  Did the Ban itself come from God or was it an implemented policy by Brigham Young without revelation? Today's Brthren I am suggesting, do not know - that is the issue.

 

I assume that yes it did come from God for his own purposes. Until God tells us why he did it I think it is better to leave all such explanations to the realm of speculations. IE; Sometimes "I Don't Know" is the best answer.

[DBMormon]

I'm just not certain he's as hung up on the terms as you appear to be.  Language is rather fluid.  Whether it is doctrine, was doctrine or not doesn't really matter.  What matters is I can freely say, "They were wrong" and not have any negative consequence.  What matters is what is true. 

 

It does matter as it directly impacts what I can rely on as absolute Doctrine and what may turn out later to not be Doctrine.

[foster]

Dbmormon why do you assume he is waffling when the last word he used was Doctrine. His final word was Doctrine, therefore he is in agreement with past Prophets that it was Doctrine, it is no more known why i.e.Gods reasoning, than it is known Gods reasoning that hot chocolate isnt a hot drink covered by the Word of Wisdom.

[thesometimesaint]

To be doctrine of the Church it must be sustained as binding on the Church by the general membership in General Conference. TTBOMK none was such for such occurred for the Priesthood ban. But it was a long standing policy that thankfully changed in 1978. Just like we still have the doctrine of polygamy in the D&C. It is the policy of the Church to not practice it in mortality at this time.

[stemelbow]

It does matter as it directly impacts what I can rely on as absolute Doctrine and what may turn out later to not be Doctrine.

 

I think what you are suggesting, then, is that due to this example, you can't really be sure that some teachings coming to us are really doctrine, even if they are claimed to be doctrine?

 

Fair enough.  I feel the same concern.  But I do take comfort in the notion that I can search, ponder, pray upon the teachings coming at me and learn to apply it or rely on it in that way.  Does that work for yoU?

[jkwilliams]

To be doctrine of the Church it must be sustained as binding on the Church by the general membership in General Conference. TTBOMK none was such for such occurred for the Priesthood ban. But it was a long standing policy that thankfully changed in 1978. Just like we still have the doctrine of polygamy in the D&C. It is the policy of the Church to not practice it in mortality at this time.

 

CFR that doctrines must be sustained as binding by a vote in conference. Scriptures, yes, but doctrines? That's news to me.

[foster]

By prefacing Brigham Young with President, I think the Church is not shying away from saying it was revelation; Gods will; or Doctrine.

[stemelbow]

CFR that doctrines must be sustained as binding by a vote in conference. Scriptures, yes, but doctrines? That's news to me.

This has me thinking, though.  Is there not room for us to have false doctrine and not realize it?  Sure there is.  Indeed, I'd suggest this whole ban thing is a very real, very clear, case in point.  We gotta stop acting like we know so much, sometimes.

[thesometimesaint]

CFR that doctrines must be sustained as binding by a vote in conference. Scriptures, yes, but doctrines? That's news to me.

 

From the LDS Newsroom: . This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith

[jkwilliams]

From the LDS Newsroom: . This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith

 

Are official proclamations (such as the one on the family) voted on as binding? If not, are they not doctrine?

 

I'm just trying to understand your position.

[thesometimesaint]

Are official proclamations (such as the one on the family) voted on as binding? If not, are they not doctrine?

 

I'm just trying to understand your position.

 

While there are many very good, and true ideas/ideals in the PotF. It is not doctrine yet. Maybe in this next April General Conference. Personally I find there is not enough already established doctrine for a Mother-in-Heaven beyond the idea that she exists. Before she become doctrine I'd like to see more doctrine for and about her. But that is just my personal wish.

[Mystery Meat]

Very interesting question Bill. I am going to attempt to answer and I am sure more than a few people will think it is entirely off base.

 

First, doctrine in LDS theology is critical. Second, the role of prophets, seers, and revelators is almost equally critical. Third, prophets, seers, and revelators are called to, among other things, reveal doctrine. Fourth, prophets are human and therefore subject to error and mistake. Fifth, we as members of the Church covenant to sustain the men who stand as prophets, seers, and revelators and God has instructed us time and time again to follow their lead. Sixth, each individual is entitled to personal revelation and confirmation of truth, but may not overstep the bounds of his authority.

 

I strongly believe that all of those are true. In some cases, albeit very rare in my opinion, they MAY (note I didn't say do) come into conflict with one another. There is no Church without Prophets (see Amos 3:7). While they are men, they aren't just men. Since we are using blacks and the priesthood I will piggy back off of that one. What if it wasn't doctrine? What if Brigham Young was a, gasp, racist? What then? Well, and I think when we examine the issue through a finite lens only factoring our mortal existence, the answer seems obvious: you call out the man for being a racist and get upset and angry. If you add an eternal prospective I think the answer gets less clear. I think in such an examination there is room for praying to know what is right, receiving a witness that the ban is not doctrine (if it indeed wasn't doctrine), but still honoring and following and sustaining the Lord's anointed. So, I guess what I am saying is that we have prophets for a reason and the Lord has commanded (not just requested) that we follow them, sustain them, and not speak evil against them. Do I think being a racist precludes someone from being a prophet? Not anymore then I believe being impatient precludes someone from being a prophet.

 

The problem is while we have the right to take all of these issues to the Lord and receive answers (in the Lord's time) to these issues according to His will, the simple fact remains that without prophets to establish what is and isn't doctrine the Church would fall into apostasy. Gay marriage for example, I have had very personal spiritual experiences that are undeniable to me that confirmed the Church's stance on homosexuality. Yet, there have been others on this board who have said they have had the opposite experience. I don't know how that works exactly, but I do know that I am in accordance with the prophets. And I think, as unpopular as it is going to sound, that the Lord would rather have us follow the prophets and be wrong, then murmur, smear, and apostatize and be right, because the former at least tests and strengthens our faith and humility, not to mention our love of God. That makes perfect sense to me only when I view things with an eternal perspective and trust that the Lord in his mercy is capable of correcting all wrongs if not in this life in the world to come.  

Edited December 9, 2013 by lvjd66

[Buckeye]

DB, I emphasize with and share your struggle.  Here are my 2 cents.  While we would like "doctrine" to mean "the revealed word of God," and perhaps also mean "revealed word that will never change," that just is not what the term has come to mean in practice.  Practically speaking, doctrine simply means "teaching."  Yes, there is an unofficial sliding scale between doctrines, policies, practices, speculation, folklore and any other labels you want to affix.  But those labels are simply indicators of how much the church body, and in particular the FP and Q12, are in agreement regarding the teaching.  For something we all agree with ("Jesus is the Christ") the teaching is called doctrine.  For teachings where there is not complete agreement (white shirts for passing the sacrament) or for which a prior agreement is lapsing (no caffeine) the teaching may be called a policiy or practice.  For teachings that have become unacceptable (curse of cain) the teaching is called folklore or speculation, at least if you do not personally agree with it.

 

Adding to the confusion, there is not a uniform agreement as to who gets to specify church doctrine, particularly when looking through history.  Originally Joseph decided alone.  Then the FP needed to be in agreement (hence the 1949 letter where only FP stated what is "doctrine").  Now the framework requires the FP and Q12.  Perhaps in the future we'll also add the auxiliary heads and presidency of the 70.  Who knows?  

 

Adding even more confusion, it is not uncommon for leaders to ratchet up the label they apply to a teaching in order to try to garner more support.  Hence Brigham taught a lot of things as doctrines that Orson Pratt strongly disputed.  Fortunatly, that practice is much less frequent today, at least on the world-wide level.  At lower levels, you can still find leaders who will over-label teachings in order to get obedience (e.g., calling the one-earning policy a "doctrine"). 

 

In my view, as the number of persons needed to define doctrine has increased, so has the prevelance of the church practice of officially taking the "we don't know" position.  While that position is frustrating, it is completely understandable.  The position does not mean that none of the decisions makers know (or a least think they know).  It simply means there is not agreement and the governing body has decided to only speak when they can do so in unison.  So for the case in point, Elder Holland may very well believe that the ban was not the revealed word of God, but that will not be doctine so long as other members of the Q12 and/or FP do not agree (or at least are not sure). 

 

What does this mean for me?  First, the term "doctrine" has no value as to whether a teaching is correct or eternal.  What it does signal is how prevelant church leaders and members agree with the teaching and so helps me understand how I should approach the teaching if I disagree with it.  Claiming that sleep is more important for your child than seminary may ruffle some feathers.  Saying the BOM is not historical would lead to stronger reaction.

 

Second, as I've aged I've come less to view truth as a castle that needs to be defended, and more like a stream that needs to be followed.  I expect my view of truth, even really important truth, to constantly change.  That isn't because truth itself changes.  But I have changed through experience and knowledge.  In the moment when new truth is learned, it can be discouraging to find out the Santa is not real or that most jobs don't give you 2 months of summer vacation.  But in my experience most adults would not go back to infancy even if they could.  The same is true with the gospel.  It would be nice to have some north star that doesn't move.  But it's more nourishing to keep walking along the stream with the water of life, even though the terrain keeps changing.  That's a poetic way of saying, "sure I could recommend that you always follow the spirit, but I rather believe that the spirit will keep changing on you too."  Sorry.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Buckeye

[Spammer]

I've often heard church members say "we believe in continuing revelation; look to what the current prophet teaches for our doctrinal beliefs."  If past prophets could mistakenly believe something to be doctrinal, what about the current prophet?  Is he immune?  If what was doctrinal yesterday is opinion today, then what's doctrinal today might be opinion tomorrow.  The jury has yet to meet and decide on which of President Monson's statements during his presidency will turn out to be doctrinal.  Future prophets will make that determination and then prophets subsequent to those future prophets will assess whether those pronouncements about President Monson are doctrinal.  And so on, ad infinitum.  Taken to its logical consequences, it seems this is a slippery slope that leads to relativism. 

Edited December 9, 2013 by Spammer