When Is Doctrine Really Doctrine?

[stemelbow]

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. 

 

 

As I see it.  There are going to exceptions to general rules.  There will be mistakes made in defining doctrine and that which is revealed by God.  We'll get past it though. 

 

I'm not saying any of it is easy, but I am saying this is our reality. 

[Spammer]

Stay in the present!

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

It's a bit difficult to stay in the present when the 15 of the past were so mistaken about doctrine. Today's 15 might be just as mistaken about something else.

[jkwilliams]

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.

 

Hmmm. That's not how I read it. In the first, Pres. Packer suggests that the proclamation ought to be treated the same as a revelation, emphasizing its importance and its doctrinal authority. I know a lot of people who would then automatically assume the proclamation was received as a revelation, much like the sections of the D&C. The revision suggests to me that he wanted to clarify that such was not the case.

[thesometimesaint]

God has yet to reveal many great and important things concerning his kingdom. We are not stagnant. Any church, or other organization, that can't change will go the way of the Shakers.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

See the addition to my prior post. Before you posted this, I already searched on my own and identified the talk by President Packer.

 

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.

 

On the contrary, the revision does not contradict the earlier wording.

 

He could still regard it as a revelation but, for whatever reason, decline to say so explicitly in print. Perhaps he was endeavoring to avoid the negative firestorm such a declaration might cause. Perhaps he felt it wasn't his place to say so publicly on his own part, that such a statement should carry the imprimatur of the First Presidency and perhaps the Quorum of the Twelve.

 

Can you cite a statement by one or more of the Brethren to the effect that the Proclamation did not come forth in accordance with revelation?

Edited December 9, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

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

It appears we have already altered this with the PH and Race article

[Buckeye]

Hmmm. That's not how I read it. In the first, Pres. Packer suggests that the proclamation ought to be treated the same as a revelation, emphasizing its importance and its doctrinal authority. I know a lot of people who would then automatically assume the proclamation was received as a revelation, much like the sections of the D&C. The revision suggests to me that he wanted to clarify that such was not the case.

 

In the spoken remarks he said the Proclamation "qualifies according to the definition as a revelation ...."  In the written remarks he said the Proclamation "is a guide ..." 

 

I can see that, perhaps, in the spoken remarks he was not saying that the proclamation was a direct revelation (hand the Lord, etc.).  But then what was the point the statement?  What does it mean for something to qualify as a revelation if it not a revelation?  What is the "definition" under which something qualifies as a revelation? 

 

And whatever President Packer meant by the statement, I can't see a reading of his revised remarks that is anything other than a change of mind on that point.  First de said it qualifies as a revelation.  Then he struck that line and said it is a guide.  Regardless of whether the operable statement was "revelation" or "qualifies ... as a revelation", the removal of the statement in the revised remarks constitutes a substantive withdrawal of a pretty important assertion. 

[Scott Lloyd]

In the spoken remarks he said the Proclamation "qualifies according to the definition as a revelation ...."  In the written remarks he said the Proclamation "is a guide ..." 

 

False dichotomy. It can be -- and very probably is -- both a revelation and a guide.

 

 

And whatever President Packer meant by the statement, I can't see a reading of his revised remarks that is anything other than a change of mind on that point.

 

Change of mind on what point? That the Proclamation is revelation or that he should say so on his own part explicitly in print?

Edited December 9, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

Stay in the present!

 

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

Which is exactly why I stick with 2nd nephi 31 and I don't put a lot of weight in other things.  Do I obey the WOW?... yep.  Do I pay tithing?... yep (my definition may not fit the one the majority use but I follow the spirit and the commandment.  But for me 2nd Nephi 31 is the Only Doctrine I trust 100% and feel I am 100% safe that we won't recant on and someday say, sorry we might have been wrong.

[Buckeye]

On the contrary, the revision does not contradict the earlier wording.

 

He could still regard it as a revelation but, for whatever reason, decline to say so explicitly in print. Perhaps he was endeavoring to avoid the negative firestorm such a declaration might cause. Perhaps he felt it wasn't his place to say so publicly on his own part, that such a statement should carry the imprimatur of the First Presidency and perhaps the Quorum of the Twelve.

 

Can you cite a statement by one or more of the Brethren to the effect that the Proclamation did not come forth in accordance with revelation?

 

I didn't say the revision contradicted the original.  But it doesn't have to contradict in order to be a substantive revision.  He said X.  Then he removed X.  Why?  Per the church spokesman, he wanted to clarify his intent.  To me, that means he no longer believes that X is correct.  Perhaps, as you suggest, what really happened was that he did not want to make a claim that should instead come from the full FP/Q12 (and which, btw, 2+ years later has not come).  That makes the most sense to me too.  But that is not what the spokesman said.  He said President Packer revised the remarks to clarify his - Packer's - intent.  So I read that to say that he changed his mind.  If the reality were as you suggest, I would expect the spokesman to have said something like "President Packer removed a statement that he was not authorized to make, but which he sincerely believes." 

 

To answer your last question, I can't point to any statement from any of the Brethren that says the Procamation is not due to revelation.  I can find a statement from Sister Okazaki that says the General RS presidency was not consulted on the substance of the Proclamation, even though it was read in their meeting, and that, had they been consulted, she would have suggested changing some of the wording.  (http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf) 

 

Can you point to anything that suggest the Proclamation is the result of revelation? 

[DBMormon]

False dichotomy. It can be -- and very probably is -- both a revelation and a guide.

 a revelation implies binding and should be followed strictly.  A guide says a pointing into a general direction and while good advice is not binding and allows flexibility.

[Buckeye]

False dichotomy. It can be -- and very probably is -- both a revelation and a guide.

 

I was quoting President Packer.  The dichotomy is his, not mine.  I agree that something can be both a guide and a revelation.  But obviously something can be a guide and not a revelation (e.g., Scoutmasters Handbook). 

[DBMormon]

As I see it.  There are going to exceptions to general rules.  There will be mistakes made in defining doctrine and that which is revealed by God.  We'll get past it though. 

 

I'm not saying any of it is easy, but I am saying this is our reality. 

 

So you agree our Doctrine is not always easy to find?

[Buckeye]

So you agree our Doctrine is not always easy to find?

 

Some is.  Some isn't.  Think of it like the gameshow Family Feud.  If you polled 100 members, how many would say that X is a doctrine?  The closer the answer is to 100, the easier it is to say with confidence that X is our doctrine. 

 

Actually, the more I think of it, the more I think Family Feud is an apt name for the church.  For whatever reason, the Lord chose to revise Joseph's name for the church by tacking on "of latter-day saints."  Apparently he thinks the church body is so important that they need to be part of the church's name.  Yes, we come after "Jesus-Christ" in the name, but the church is still named after us.  To use the analogy in the D&C, if a church is named after Moses, then it is Moses' church.  If it is named after Jesus, it is Jesus' church.  If it is named after Jesus and the Latter-Day Saints, it belongs to both of them.  Perhaps the whole point of the church is to unify both of these elements - the Savior and the church body.  So our collective will is vital.  Not more vital than Christ's, but it doesn't work without us. 

Edited December 9, 2013 by Buckeye

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't say the revision contradicted the original.  But it doesn't have to contradict in order to be a substantive revision. 

You said he had "changed his mind" about it being a revelation. I submit that you are not qualified to make that assertion.

 

 

He said X.  Then he removed X.  Why? 

 

I suggested a couple of plausible reasons, neither of which compels the conclusion that he "changed his mind" about it being a revelation.

 

Per the church spokesman, he wanted to clarify his intent.  To me, that means he no longer believes that X is correct.

 

And in that, you are jumping to a conclusion.

 

Perhaps, as you suggest, what really happened was that he did not want to make a claim that should instead come from the full FP/Q12 (and which, btw, 2+ years later has not come).  That makes the most sense to me too. 

 

 

So you admit, then, there is at least one plausible explanation other than that he had "changed his mind."

 

But that is not what the spokesman said. 

The spokesman would hot have had to say it to the news media for it to be true.

 

So I read that to say that he changed his mind.  If the reality were as you suggest, I would expect the spokesman to have said something like "President Packer removed a statement that he was not authorized to make, but which he sincerely believes." 

 

 

Perhaps the spokesman was not privy to that explanation. Perhaps the spokesman had not been authorized to say such a thing to the news media.

 

By the same token, the spokesman could have told the media that President Packer had "changed his mind" about it being a revelation -- if that were indeed what had happened.

 

 

 

To answer your last question, I can't point to any statement from any of the Brethren that says the Procamation is not due to revelation.  I can find a statement from Sister Okazaki that says the General RS presidency was not consulted on the substance of the Proclamation, even though it was read in their meeting, and that, had they been consulted, she would have suggested changing some of the wording.  (http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf) 

 

 

Sister Okazaki does not define Church doctrine or policy and, in my opinion, was out of line in saying such a thing. The Proclamation was not dependent upon the setting in which it was presented; thus, neither Sister Okazaki nor any of the general Relief Society presidency had ownership over the Proclamation.

 

Can you point to anything that suggest the Proclamation is the result of revelation?

 

President Packer's earlier wording, for one thing. I think he still believes it -- as do I.

 

And, as I have sought to make clear, I reject your conclusion that he "changed his mind" about that."

Edited December 9, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I was quoting President Packer.  The dichotomy is his, not mine.  I agree that something can be both a guide and a revelation.  But obviously something can be a guide and not a revelation (e.g., Scoutmasters Handbook). 

He didn't draw the dichotomy; you did. Don't foist the blame on him.

[Scott Lloyd]

 a revelation implies binding and should be followed strictly.  A guide says a pointing into a general direction and while good advice is not binding and allows flexibility.

So you're saying that a revelation can't be a guide then?

[Buckeye]

Scott, I have to run to a kids' Christmas concert (yes, we still use the "C" word here in Ohio).  I'll be sure to wish everyone merry smithmas for you.

 

As to the issue we've been discussing, if I'm completely honest, I agree with you that Packer still believes the proclamation is a revelation.  But that means the church spokesman was less than fully honest when he said the change in wording was due to Packer "clarifying his intent."  Or possibly the spokesman was ignorant of the real reason and the church allowed him to mispeak, but that also looks pretty bad.  Either way, Packer's real intent was what he said live in conference.  After that, someone (Monson, Uchtdorf, Correlation) told him to take the statement out of the published version and he did.  The removal was their idea, not his.  That's what I actually think.  I was just trying to be charitable and take the spokesman and Packer at their word.

 

Regardless of the inner workings of the COB, the real issue is this:  someone with more authority that President Packer does not agree with him that the Proclamation is revelation.  Maybe that person is President Monson.  Maybe it's a junior apostle, but President Monson would require unanimity for such a declaration.  Maybe it's correlation that really runs the show.  You know much better than me.  But the change was substantive.  Packer chose to take out a very important claim - perhaps the most important that a church leader can make; namely, this is revelation.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Buckeye

[canard78]

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? 

 

Huh? Because God's doctrine aren't supposed to change. I'm bemused that people can just shrug this whole thing off as if it's a non-issue.

[stemelbow]

Huh? Because God's doctrine aren't supposed to change. I'm bemused that people can just shrug this whole thing off as if it's a non-issue.

 

I think i'ts an issue, an interesting one at that. 

 

I would say not all things that past leaders have called doctrine and revelation are doctrine nor were revelation.  I think it offers us some amount of confusion as a result. But, it's our reality. 

 

God's doctrines may not change, but that which we are calling God's doctrines tend to change over time, it seems.

[CV75]

It's a bit difficult to stay in the present when the 15 of the past were so mistaken about doctrine. Today's 15 might be just as mistaken about something else.

Don't let the focus on others co-opt your focus on Christ or a cop-out for knowing His doctrine. If you seek Him with real intent, you will get some clarity on this issue.

 

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.

 

No matter how you tally doctrinal mistakes (real, imagined and misperceived) they will never outnumber or outweigh the blessings of the restored keys, or the doctrinal truths, for that matter.

[stemelbow]

So you agree our Doctrine is not always easy to find?

 

Of course not.  I would suggest there is some disagreement over some issues about what the Doctrine really is.  I've seen it.  I don't particularly mind the disagreement either. 

[Spammer]

Don't let the focus on others co-opt your focus on Christ or a cop-out for knowing His doctrine. If you seek Him with real intent, you will get some clarity on this issue.

 

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.

 

No matter how you tally doctrinal mistakes (real, imagined and misperceived) they will never outnumber or outweigh the blessings of the restored keys, or the doctrinal truths, for that matter.

 

If doctrine's can change, what if the doctrine of the restored keys turns out not to be doctrinal?  Or, is that one of those untouchable, eternal Truths, in the same category to which the 15 in 1947 thought the priesthood ban justifications belonged? 

[CV75]

Which is exactly why I stick with 2nd nephi 31 and I don't put a lot of weight in other things.  Do I obey the WOW?... yep.  Do I pay tithing?... yep (my definition may not fit the one the majority use but I follow the spirit and the commandment.  But for me 2nd Nephi 31 is the Only Doctrine I trust 100% and feel I am 100% safe that we won't recant on and someday say, sorry we might have been wrong.

Great! I think everyone can rely on the doctrine of Christ 100% and not put too much weight on those things that are clearly not His doctrine (see 3 Nephi 11:30):

 

“Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.” This is as much an individual responsibility of Church membership as it is leadership’s, which I think explains why the leadership puts their harmony on a par with doctrine (The risen Lord was speaking to the twelve Nephite disciples, for them to teach unto the people).

 

Often we can stir up our own heart to anger against the Brethren and not see just how much the “other things [doctrines] which pertain to our religion” do align with the “fundamental principles of our religion …concerning Jesus Christ.” Often we can spend too much time giving too much weight to past and/or current mistakes (real, imagined, or misperceived).

[stemelbow]

If doctrine's can change, what if the doctrine of the restored keys turns out not to be doctrinal?  Or, is that one of those untouchable, eternal Truths, in the same category to which the 15 in 1947 thought the priesthood ban justifications belonged? 

 

Then jaws will drop and we'll see what comes of it, I suppose. 

 

Why are we so afraid of being wrong about something.  We're each individually wrong about tons of things every day.  That thought tells me of course we're going to have an organization be wrong about something at some point.

Edited December 9, 2013 by stemelbow