When Is Doctrine Really Doctrine?

[canard78]

Duplicate

Edited December 9, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

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.

I agree that I'm often wrong.

The problem is that if we feel the leadership are wrong on something, we are supposed to stay quiet on it. If, for example, someone ignored the word of wisdom as a man made principle introduced and then made more stringent by the 1830s/40s and 1920s/30s temperance movements then they couldn't preach that or have a temple recommend.

The black priesthood "non-doctrine" shows that it's likely that we're being taught things today that are man made and not God's doctrine.

[BCSpace]

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.

 

 

Not only that, but it still is doctrine as the Church has not disavowed the ban itself, only some explanations surrounding it.

 

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/t...hood?lang=eng#8  &  http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

I will quote Elder Holland here to make the point -

Elder Holland himself refers to it as doctrine in the very quote you gave.  Point not made.

 

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

source - http://www.lds.org/g...-faith?lang=eng

 

The Church statement in my siggy agrees.  The First Presidency and Qo12 counsel together to establish doctrine....

 

as these conclusions can be easily made

 

 

Only your last one was conclusive and correct.

 

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?

 

 

The only potential change in doctrine (assuming you're referring to the recent topical addition), and it may not be a change at all pending further statements on the relevant Book of Mormon verses, is highlighted in the quote below:

 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

Edited December 9, 2013 by BCSpace

[DBMormon]

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. 

But then that goes against this -http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith

 

True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

 

 

I would argue that false principles are also taught often and our Doctrine is sometimes really hard to find.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

That's a new one to me. Christ being the first fruits of the Resurrection seems to me a pretty big change from what God said earlier.

Edited December 9, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[BCSpace]

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.

 

There are some people in the Church who disagree with the Church about how it defines doctrine.  There are some people in the Church who disagree with specific Church doctrines.  There are doctrines of the Church that are in conflict each other.  But there is no disagreement in the Church as to what doctrine is and how to define it.

[BCSpace]

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.

 

You could say that God's doctrine doesn't change as long as you acknowledge that God has not revealed all His doctrine.  Otherwise, the doctrine of continuing revelation is an explicit statement that the doctrine (that we know of) can change.

[jkwilliams]

You could say that God's doctrine doesn't change as long as you acknowledge that God has not revealed all His doctrine.  Otherwise, the doctrine of continuing revelation is an explicit statement that the doctrine (that we know of) can change.

 

So, Pres. Packer was wrong when he said that doctrines never change. Good to know.

 

Procedures, programs, the administrative policies, even some patterns of organization are subject to change. We are quite free, indeed, quite obliged to alter them from time to time. But the principles, the doctrines, never change.

If you over-emphasize programs and procedures that can change, and will change, and must change, and do not understand the fundamental principles of the gospel, which never change, you can be misled.

 

Apparently, you've been misled.

Edited December 10, 2013 by jkwilliams

[BCSpace]

So, Pres. Packer was wrong when he said that doctrines never change. Good to know.

 

Show me your context and I'll tell you if I think he is right or wrong.

[jkwilliams]

Show me your context and I'll tell you if I think he is right or wrong.

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/03/principles

 

There are principles of the gospel underlying every phase of Church administration. These are not explained in the handbooks. They are found in the scriptures. They are the substance of and the purpose for the revelations.

Procedures, programs, the administrative policies, even some patterns of organization are subject to change. We are quite free, indeed, quite obliged to alter them from time to time. But the principles, the doctrines, never change.

If you over-emphasize programs and procedures that can change, and will change, and must change, and do not understand the fundamental principles of the gospel, which never change, you can be misled.

 

I

[mfbukowski]

I kind of come down with Blake Ostler on this one.  We have no "doctrine" in a classic sense- what we have is orthopraxis- practices which make one "orthodox".

 

Look at the temple rec questions and the baptismal interview questions- they are very vague in these matters. 

 

Faith in and testimony in the following:

Christ,

living prophets including the present prophet,

sustaining of authorities,

"the restoration",

and then a bunch of behavioral questions about how we live- tithing, word of wisdom, etc. and that's it.  VERY basic stuff.

 

If you believe those principles you can be a member in full fellowship, go to the temple, hold callings etc.   We have no Magisterium, no materials which receive an "imprimatur" or any official way of certifying the "truth" of anything beyond what the Holy Spirit tells us individually.

 

Statements about doctrine (like the famous press release) tend to be ambiguous and full of holes.

 

I am glad we don't have everything codified like some churches- with an open canon, I cannot see how that would work. 

 

Yes some pronouncements by GA's contradict other announcements.  I personally have no problem with that at all.  "There are no facts, only interpretations".

[DBMormon]

There are some people in the Church who disagree with the Church about how it defines doctrine.  There are some people in the Church who disagree with specific Church doctrines.  There are doctrines of the Church that are in conflict each other.  But there is no disagreement in the Church as to what doctrine is and how to define it.

Then please explain

What is Doctrine?

How do we define it?

[jkwilliams]

The church does have codified doctrine, which is what Correlation accomplished.

[Spammer]

I kind of come down with Blake Ostler on this one.  We have no "doctrine" in a classic sense- what we have is orthopraxis- practices which make one "orthodox".

 

Look at the temple rec questions and the baptismal interview questions- they are very vague in these matters. 

 

Faith in and testimony in the following:

Christ,

living prophets including the present prophet,

sustaining of authorities,

"the restoration",

and then a bunch of behavioral questions about how we live- tithing, word of wisdom, etc. and that's it.  VERY basic stuff.

 

If you believe those principles you can be a member in full fellowship, go to the temple, hold callings etc.   We have no Magisterium, no materials which receive an "imprimatur" or any official way of certifying the "truth" of anything beyond what the Holy Spirit tells us individually.

 

Statements about doctrine (like the famous press release) tend to be ambiguous and full of holes.

 

I am glad we don't have everything codified like some churches- with an open canon, I cannot see how that would work. 

 

Yes some pronouncements by GA's contradict other announcements.  I personally have no problem with that at all.  "There are no facts, only interpretations".

Delete.  Never mind. 

Edited December 10, 2013 by Spammer

[CA Steve]

Not only that, but it still is doctrine as the Church has not disavowed the ban itself, only some explanations surrounding it.

 

The ban is no longer doctrine, unless of course you define doctrine as including practices that are no longer observed like the Law of Moses.

 

The official declaration #2 clearly states.

 

 

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

 

There is no ban.

 

On Edit. Has anyone else wondered if the ban ever actually applied to anyone at all in this dispensation?

Edited December 10, 2013 by CA Steve

[mfbukowski]

The church does have codified doctrine, which is what Correlation accomplished.

Thanks for your opinion.

[jkwilliams]

Thanks for your opinion.

 

If there is no body of doctrine, then correlation makes no sense whatsoever. What do you think they vet publications against? Opinion?

[mfbukowski]

Delete.  Never mind.

Can a person interpret the restoration not to have occurred or is its occurrence a fact not subject to interpretation?

Of course.

Former Mormons do that all the time.  And for the last two thousand years people have believed there were facts which were not subject to interpretation, but I disagree with that point of view and think it fails to take into account most of twentieth century philosophy.

[mfbukowski]

If there is no body of doctrine, then correlation makes no sense whatsoever. What do you think they vet publications against? Opinion?

Yes.  There is nothing else.

 

Clearly they pick and choose on the issue of say, Evolution and pick the opinion which is most correct according to contemporary opinions on the subject.   Do you think the infallible "correlation" committee has the same opinions about evolution and race that they did in the 1950's?

 

How sensitive would they have been to gay marriage in 1952?   Would their statements today be exactly what they said then?

[jkwilliams]

Yes.  There is nothing else.

 

Clearly they pick and choose on the issue of say, Evolution and pick the opinion which is most correct according to contemporary opinions on the subject.   Do you think the infallible "correlation" committee has the same opinions about evolution and race that they did in the 1950's?

 

How sensitive would they have been to gay marriage in 1952?   Would their statements today be exactly what they said then?

 

I have to say I like this church of yours, the one that doesn't care about obedience or doctrine or whatever. Sounds kinda like the Unitarians.

 

By the way, there was no correlation committee in 1950.

[mfbukowski]

I have to say I like this church of yours, the one that doesn't care about obedience or doctrine or whatever. Sounds kinda like the Unitarians.

 

By the way, there was no correlation committee in 1950.

Yeah, that's what you always say while you complain about others telling you what you believe.   It's not a consistent position John.  You complain about people who do that to you on World Table then do the same thing to others here.  Got any proof texts for me showing what I believe?

 

So then I guess it is clear that we had no doctrine before 1950???   If correlation produces doctrine then I guess we had none before 1950, right?

 

And now magically we do because we have an infallible committee, right?   The Mormon Magisterium that was just invented in 1950?

 

Show me the canonized revelation which put them in charge of doctrine please.

[jkwilliams]

Yeah, that's what you always say while you complain about others telling you what you believe.   It's not a consistent position John.  You complain about people who do that to you on World Table then do the same thing to others here.  Got any proof texts for me showing what I believe?

 

So then I guess it is clear that we had no doctrine before 1950???   If correlation produces doctrine then I guess we had none before 1950, right?

 

And now magically we do because we have an infallible committee, right?   The Mormon Magisterium that was just invented in 1950?

 

Show me the canonized revelation which put them in charge of doctrine please.

 

I'm not telling you what you believe and have never said I know better what you believe than you do. That's silly. I'm just talking about what I know, what I was taught, and last I heard, that's not binding on you.

 

We had doctrine before 1950, but the lack of centralized control of teachings led to organizations in the church teaching things that were not approved by the brethren. The correlation program, which began in earnest in 1971, was instituted by the FP and the 12 to establish doctrine and ensure that what was published by the church stuck to that established doctrine. Thus, anything before 1971 was not subject to correlation review and thus is not considered authoritative doctrinally. This is why the available church magazines go back only as far as 1971; the Improvement Era and other such publications could easily be digitized, but they won't be because they aren't considered doctrine.

 

You can believe whatever you want, but I know what I was taught and how things worked when I worked for the church. I don't care what you believe, but to say that the church has no doctrine and that correlation isn't involved in ensuring the doctrinal purity of church publications reflects an ignorance of church history and practice.

[Storm Rider]

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

 

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.  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 -

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

 

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?

 

Forgive me, I just saw this post and have not read all seven pages prior to answering - the following are just my personal thoughts. 

 

These are good things to discuss. Doctrine, to me, is only found in the Four Standard Works of the Church. If it is not important enough to add to our open canon then it is not and never will be doctrine. This prevents the vagaries of man to dictate what is and what is not doctrine. What is added to canon has been vetted to the degree that the servants of God are certain of his word and know that what is stated is, "thus saith the Lord". 

 

Though doctrine is found in the Standard Works, we as members are still susceptible to the dictates of the FP and the Qof12 because they can and do announce policy. Policy, if limited to the administration of the Church is necessary for the functioning of the organization; however, the moment that policy enters into areas of salvation then the Church departs from the Church of Jesus Christ and becomes like any other Christian church. 

 

As I have stated on other threads, revelation is a fundamental belief of the Church of Jesus Christ. We have men that are called of God to be prophets, seers, and revelators.  If they function as such then the heavens are open and God continues to talk to his disciples as a whole.  If they act as men then they cease to function in their callings and serve only as administrators.  

 

The Church, as an entity that God organizes and uses humans to do great works, will always have a need for repentance; it is the way of all men to fall short. When we personal fall short we repent; I see the Church being in the same position. May we as individuals and as a Church never be so proud as to feel we do not need to repent. 

[Buckeye]

DB, The SL Trib has an article regarding the new dictionary entry on the priesthood ban. I can't link to it from this device but I'm sure you can find it. The Trib piece quotes Bushman with some statements you may find helpful. I know I did. It seems Bushman views the ban as an unrevealed mistake.

------------------------------------

What is most important about the statement on race to Mormon historian Richard Bushman is its perspective.

"It is written as a historian might tell the story," Bushman says from his home in New York, "not as a theological piece, trying to justify the practice."

By depicting the exclusion as fitting with the common practices of the day, says Bushman, who wrote "Rough Stone Rolling," a critically acclaimed biography of Smith, "it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated."

But accepting that, Bushman says, "requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking."

Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God, so if you say Young could make a serious error, he says, "it brings into question all of the prophet’s inspiration."

Members need to recognize that God can "work through imperfect instruments," Bushman says. "For many Latter-day Saints, that is going to be a difficult transition. But it is part of our maturation as a church."

[DBMormon]

DB, The SL Trib has an article regarding the new dictionary entry on the priesthood ban. I can't link to it from this device but I'm sure you can find it. The Trib piece quotes Bushman with some statements you may find helpful. I know I did. It seems Bushman views the ban as an unrevealed mistake.

------------------------------------

What is most important about the statement on race to Mormon historian Richard Bushman is its perspective.

"It is written as a historian might tell the story," Bushman says from his home in New York, "not as a theological piece, trying to justify the practice."

By depicting the exclusion as fitting with the common practices of the day, says Bushman, who wrote "Rough Stone Rolling," a critically acclaimed biography of Smith, "it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated."

But accepting that, Bushman says, "requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking."

Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God, so if you say Young could make a serious error, he says, "it brings into question all of the prophet’s inspiration."

Members need to recognize that God can "work through imperfect instruments," Bushman says. "For many Latter-day Saints, that is going to be a difficult transition. But it is part of our maturation as a church."

 

Love it Buckeye.  Bushman was my father in a previous life!  and Givens my uncle