When Is Doctrine Really Doctrine?

[DBMormon]

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.

 

You understand his statement different then I do.  I see him no wanting to be pinned down on calling it one of those three.  I see him as unsure which of those thee to call it.

[jkwilliams]

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.

 

The problem I have here is that the church's "approaching doctrine" statement indicates that official proclamations are indeed doctrine. There's no statement that only those proclamations that have been voted on and accepted as binding are doctrine. Just trying to figure this out. When I worked for the church, we were told repeatedly that doctrine resides in the scriptures and is proclaimed consistently in church publications. Thus, if something was published by the church, it had been through correlation and deemed consistent with doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

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. 

 

It has always been relative. I'm just as glad I don't have to build a boat like Noah's for the reason he did. 

Also we do have Scripture that says in Abraham 3:25. And we will ^aprove them herewith, to see if they will ^bdo all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem I have here is that the church's "approaching doctrine" statement indicates that official proclamations are indeed doctrine. There's no statement that only those proclamations that have been voted on and accepted as binding are doctrine. Just trying to figure this out. When I worked for the church, we were told repeatedly that doctrine resides in the scriptures and is proclaimed consistently in church publications. Thus, if something was published by the church, it had been through correlation and deemed consistent with doctrine.

That has been my understanding as well.

 

Certainly, the fact that an entire Sunday School gospel doctrine lesson is devoted to the family proclamation is a strong indication that the proclamation is doctrinal.

[jkwilliams]

That has been my understanding as well.

 

Certainly, the fact that an entire Sunday School gospel doctrine lesson is devoted to the family proclamation is a strong indication that the proclamation is doctrinal.

 

The whole point of the correlation program was to ensure that doctrine is proclaimed consistently. To say that what the church publishes isn't necessarily doctrine makes correlation rather irrelevant, IMO. That's not how it was treated when I worked for the church.

[Spammer]

It has always been relative. I'm just as glad I don't have to build a boat like Noah's for the reason he did. 

Also we do have Scripture that says in Abraham 3:25. And we will ^aprove them herewith, to see if they will ^bdo all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

 

If doctrine is relative, then it's not absolutely true.  A changing truth is not Truth, but a fashion.  Which church teachings are eternal Truths that will never change?  It seems the word doctrine no longer means True in that absolute sense.

[thesometimesaint]

The problem I have here is that the church's "approaching doctrine" statement indicates that official proclamations are indeed doctrine. There's no statement that only those proclamations that have been voted on and accepted as binding are doctrine. Just trying to figure this out. When I worked for the church, we were told repeatedly that doctrine resides in the scriptures and is proclaimed consistently in church publications. Thus, if something was published by the church, it had been through correlation and deemed consistent with doctrine.

 

I don't believe that it is necessarily true. We have no correlated doctrine on the Pythagorean Theorem. We just assume it is true regardless of its provenance.

 

[jkwilliams]

I don't believe that it is necessarily true. We have no correlated doctrine on the Pythagorean Theorem. We just assume it is true regardless of its provenance.

 

To what are you referring when you say "it"?

[Scott Lloyd]

The whole point of the correlation program was to ensure that doctrine is proclaimed consistently.

True -- well, that's one point of it, anyway.

 

To say that what the church publishes isn't necessarily doctrine makes correlation rather irrelevant, IMO. That's not how it was treated when I worked for the church.

 

Nor is it treated that way today.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

That has been my understanding as well.

 

Certainly, the fact that an entire Sunday School gospel doctrine lesson is devoted to the family proclamation is a strong indication that the proclamation is doctrinal.

 

I eagerly await its inclusion in our doctrine. Maybe next General Conference.

[thesometimesaint]

To what are you referring when you say "it"?

PotF

[Buckeye]

You understand his statement different then I do.  I see him no wanting to be pinned down on calling it one of those three.  I see him as unsure which of those thee to call it.

 

Correct.  Holland is saying that, regardless of the label you affix, the teaching is wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

I eagerly await its inclusion in our doctrine. Maybe next General Conference.

Don't wait too long. I submit that it's already binding -- and doctrinal.

[jkwilliams]

True.

 

Nor is it treated that way today.

 

I've submitted publications for correlation review, so I know they are keenly interested in making sure what goes out is doctrinal. True story: After I edited the Aaronic Priesthood 1 manual, the Curriculum guys told me they had promised to do a simple reprint with no edits. I told them it was too late, but they made me put things back the way they were. The result was a 52-page correlation report. Not one of my finer hours at the COB.

[jkwilliams]

Don't wait too long. I submit that it's already binding -- and doctrinal.

 

I don't know about binding, but given that it's been through Correlation, it's doctrinal.

[Buckeye]

Don't wait too long. I submit that it's already binding -- and doctrinal.

 

So why did the correlation department make this change to President Packer's remarks:

 

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.

[jkwilliams]

So why did the correlation department make this change to President Packer's remarks:

 

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.

 

Probably because they didn't want to promote the idea that it was given by revelation.

[Scott Lloyd]

So why did the correlation department make this change to President Packer's remarks:

 

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.

I'm not familiar with this specific quotation, and I haven't been following the thread closely. A cite or a link would help. Are you certain it was Correlation that made this change and not President Packer himself?

 

Edited to add:

 

After a search, it turns out I am acquainted with this talk from President Packer at general conference of 2010.

 

This article from that biased mouthpiece for the Mormons, the Salt Lake Tribune, indicates that it was President Packer himself who made the edit.

 

Who told you it was Correlation? Or was that merely your own supposition?

Edited December 9, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

Which if not given by revelation, it is not a revealed truth.  and Hence it is not Doctrine by the definition that Doctrine is truth revealed by revelation.

 

Elder Anderson says our Doctrine is not hard to find .... I disagree 

Doctrine is hard as heck to pin down if we define Doctrine as truth revealed from God. and then say the Doctrine of the past may not really be Doctrine.

 

BUCKEYE - I really appreciate what you said and at the end of the day I share your approach.

 

TO OTHERS - I appreciate some of you understanding what I am saying and offering insight how you handle it.

 

But in the end it is frustrating that in many ways as a Faith, theologically speaking, we talk out both sides of our mouth.  We really do not ourselves know for certain what is and isn't Doctrine.  We have no litmus test that all could go by (even going by the spirit we come to different answers).

 

We simply have to live by the current requirements our leaders give us with no certainty that these are Doctrine or not and yet disobedience to them even if your are going by the spirit and even if future changes makes you right,  makes one an apostate.  Just frustrating. 

[CV75]

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?

We can have faith that doctrine comes through divine revelation, as described in Elder Cristofferson’s talk ( and the subheading also reads, “In the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation.”).

 

We can also have faith in the doctrine of Christ as articulated by the Lord in 3 Nephi 11, and in Joseph Smith’s witness that “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.”

 

Doctrine can mean various things, and any could be valid under various circumstances. But using a more refined definition as Elder Cristofferson did for the purposes of his talk, I think it fair to conclude for the purposes of this thread:

 

1- Today’s leadership allows for what was thought to be doctrine by all 15 in 1947 to not be doctrine today. Note that from the days of President McKay to President Kimball, those with the keys of revelation clearly wrestled with the issue of changing or correcting the practice. We need to consider that a) explanations such as those given in 1947 are not considered official doctrine (per Elder Cristofferson); and b) likewise, not having explanations or knowing the reasons for the past practice/policy/doctrine is not doctrine (per Elder Holland).

 

2- Doctrine for the Church is received through the keys of divine revelation held by the First Presidency and the Twelve, and the revelations can change (per Elder Cristofferson).

 

3 - We can still have faith in the new or corrected doctrines and the process which reveals them, especially if we receive a confirmation of their truthfulness ourselves and have an abiding relationship with the Lord from living His doctrine in 3 Nephi 11. I don’t think Elder Andersen’s statement offers a loophole since he wasn’t using the same definition we are, which distinguishes between explanations, teachings, policies and practices and revealed doctrine as Elder Cristofferson described.

[CV75]

But in the end it is frustrating that in many ways as a Faith, theologically speaking, we talk out both sides of our mouth.  We really do not ourselves know for certain what is and isn't Doctrine.  We have no litmus test that all could go by (even going by the spirit we come to different answers).

 

We simply have to live by the current requirements our leaders give us with no certainty that these are Doctrine or not and yet disobedience to them even if your are going by the spirit and even if future changes makes you right,  makes one an apostate.  Just frustrating. 

Here is how I am not frustrated:

 

John 7:17: “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” This goes back to 3 nephi 11 and Joseph Smith's statement.

 

I have some ideas about what to do when there is a discrepancy in what a person knows to be the doctrine on this basis, shared in another thread.

 

Edit:

 

 

Whatever we do, I think it is essential not to promote an air of enmity that keeps folks from staying in the present and looking to the future. I don’t think it is healthy to wonder what else is wrong based on the errors of the past, at the expense of pursuing and understanding the doctrine of Christ. One lesson from the past is definitely to stay in the present and look to the future.

 

I think the thing to do with a sense of reliability in doctrine is to use sufficient faith and humility to understand and promote everything else in the system that is right. No question or disagreement should be so severe that it instigates enmity and contention. I think if we make enough right in our own life and relationships, and find the right balance of truth, grace, faith, humility, friendship and harmony, coming across as apostate wouldn’t be an issue for us or others.

 

We are taught how to pursue truth and how not to fault-find. It is to do so with real intent. Enmity and contention are not tools or fruits of spiritual discovery and sharing.

 

Having the keys to actually do something with what you know is right on a Church-wide basis is also essential. If steadying the reliability of a doctrine for the Church is that important right now, the Lord will make sure you get the keys to do it, or will reveal the same thing to those that do have the keys to do something about it right now. Otherwise the right thing will eventually be revealed.

 

I think there is enough in the covenants to keep us focused on where they lead every one of us, regardless of differences in belief and doctrine. And the Gift of the Holy Ghost will comfort us and make any burden over doctrine easier to bear, and bearable.

Edited December 9, 2013 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

Don't wait too long. I submit that it's already binding -- and doctrinal.

 

I'm patient. My view of it is like that of our times and meeting schedules. The doctrine is that we meet regularly. When and where is a matter of policy. Important that we show up at the correct place at the correct time, but those are subject to change.

[Spammer]

 

1- Today’s leadership allows for what was thought to be doctrine by all 15 in 1947 to not be doctrine today.

 

Will tomorrow's leadership allow for what is thought to be doctrine by all 15 in 2013 to not be doctrine then?

[Buckeye]

I'm not familiar with this quotation, and I haven't been following the thread closely. A cite or a link would help. Are you certain it was Correlation that made this change and not President Packer himself?

 

Here is a video of the original remarks:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNuHzKDUXXM  (start around the 1 minute mark)

 

Here is the published version of his remarks with the revision: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel

 

Here is a DN article regarding the revisions: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700072230/Mormon-church-clarifies-intent-of-President-Boyd-K-Packers-talk.html. 

 

I'm glad you asked for the cites because I hadn't read the DN article until I did this research.  I now see that, per the church spokesman, it was President Packer who made the change in order to "clarif[y] his intent."  That's good to know, but somewhat confusing since the revision is a big substantive change.  It's not a just a word switch, but a removal of his spoken claim that the Proclamation qualifies a revelation.  I honestly can't see how that is just a clarification.  Apparently President Packer changed his mind and does not believe the Proclamation is a revelation.  I can't see another way to read these facts.

[CV75]

Will tomorrow's leadership allow for what is thought to be doctrine by all 15 in 2013 to not be doctrine then?

Stay in the present!

 

And if you stick with the doctrine of Christ, it won't be an issue!