When Is Doctrine Really Doctrine?

[Buckeye]

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

Then we may be brothers! For your sake, though, I hope not. I have another brother named lucifer.

[Stone holm]

The problem is we consider doctrine to be unchangeable. It stems from our concept of absolute truth. Yet truth is and always will be a matter of perception based upon our current understanding of reality.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I see.

 

Sounds like that includes the standard works, all of Talmadge, all of the materials now used in classes that come from prophets who spoke before 1971.

 

Not too clear a definition I would say.

 

And it's amazing that one can get into the temple believing ONLY non-doctrinal truths which existed before 1971 then.  That definition is both unclear and has no relevance to the real way the church is run.

[jkwilliams]

I see.

 

Sounds like that includes the standard works, all of Talmadge, all of the materials now used in classes that come from prophets who spoke before 1971.

Well, not quite. Anything before 1971 that has been cited in church publications since that date have been reviewed by Correlation and are thus considered doctrinal. For example, McConkie's 1958 "Mormon Doctrine" wasn't published by the church, so it cannot be considered doctrinal as a whole; however, if a current publication quotes something from that book, the current publication is considered doctrinal, including the quotation. The standard works from before 1971 (in practice before the 1979 and 1981 LDS editions) would not be cited in current publications. Talmage's works always occupied a semi-canonical place among church-related publications, but again, since 1971, only those parts of his works that have been published by the church would be considered doctrinal.

 

Not too clear a definition I would say.

It's clear to me. Scott Lloyd can confirm what I'm saying. But, as I said, I am not telling you what to believe, just what I know about current church practice and how doctrine is established and presented.

 

And it's amazing that one can get into the temple believing ONLY non-doctrinal truths which existed before 1971 then.  That definition is both unclear and has no relevance to the real way the church is run.

Please clarify what you mean here. That there was no formal system of codifying doctrine before 1971 doesn't mean there was no doctrine. Correlation simply implements a formal system of "vetting" publications, talks, and so on against established doctrine. For example, any changes to temple ceremonies would have to go through a correlation review (they were when I was working at the COB).

The relevance is that the brethren instituted Correlation to ensure that anything the church presents to the membership or the world reflects established doctrine, no matter the medium by which it is presented. These doctrines are quite relevant to the real way the church is run, as every single program instituted by the church must conform to the doctrines.

[Spammer]

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.

 

Can a person validly interpret Brigham Young or Nelson Mandela not to have existed or not to have been presidents of their respective domains?  Or are the facts of their existence/jobs just that - concrete historical occurences that really happened, with the bare fact of their occurence not subject to any interpretation?  I'm thinking here of 'facts' with only two possible interpretations: did an event occur, yes or no.  I'm not asking whether someone can say no (e.g, a crackpot), but whether someone can reasonably assert that the fact of Brigham Young's past existence is subject to a different interpretation. 

Edited December 10, 2013 by Spammer

[Buckeye]

Following up on the citation I provided to Richard Bushman above.  The below quote is from Armand Mauss and can be found here:  (http://news.hjnews.com/features/article_3b351cf8-6134-11e3-9312-0019bb2963f4.html):

 

 

Armand Mauss, a retired professor of Sociology and Religious Studies at Washington State University, said the article is the most comprehensive explanation yet about the past exclusion of blacks from the priesthood and marks the first time the church has explicitly disavowed its previous teachings on the topic.

 

Mormon scholars over the years have written much of what is in the posting, but it is noteworthy coming from church headquarters in Salt Lake City, he said. He and other scholars were interviewed several months ago by staff from LDS Public Affairs in preparation for the new article, Mauss said, adding that it reflects a “new Church commitment to greater transparency about its history, doctrines, and policies.”

 

 

So it appears that Public Affairs interviewed multiple historians of LDS history in preparing the new statement on race and the priesthood.  That comports with the footer to the church statement which says: "The Church acknowledges the contribution of historians and scholars to the historical context set forth in this article, whose contribution is used with their permission."

 

While I have not seen any source that explicitly affirms Bushman was one of those interviewed, it would hardly be surprising.  He is one of the foremost historians and is very trusted by church leaders.  If in fact he was interviewed, that would give added weight to his interpretation of the new church statement; namely, that the statement repudiates not only the rationales for the ban, but the ban itself.  In Bushman's own words, "[the new statement] drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated."

[Buckeye]

...

 

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.

 

...

 

 

Scott, I meant to ask you yesterday about this statement.  In what way was Sister Okazaki "out of line?"  I assume you mean she should not speak publicly about internal disputes, but I want to make sure I know where you are coming from. Assuming that is the basis, do you think it right for ordinary members such as us to publicly criticize a former member of the General RS Presidency?  I know sometimes people say we should not criticize the Prophet or Apostles as that is "speaking ill of the Lord's annointed."  Would female general leaders also be included in the "Lord's annointed?"  Or does that only apply to leaders with keys?

 

Also, I'm interested to know if you think President Packer was "out of line" in stating in conference that the Proclamation qualified as a revelation.  I know you think he still believes that to be the case.  [We've discussed that issue to the ground]  But regardless of whether he is correct in his conclusion, was it within his authority to make such a statement? 

[stemelbow]

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.

 

So there is disagreement in the Church about how it defines doctrine but there is no disagreement?  Alright.  I get ya.

[stemelbow]

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.

 

Excellent post.  Wanted to point this out, because the one just before this I suggest is the opposite of excellent. 

[stemelbow]

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.

 

I would think opinion becomes a pretty large part of it.  They look to opinions and thoughts already published, I'm thinking, and offer their own opinion, while neglecting opposite points of view on some issues--like evolution for instance.  As I recall, some LDS leaders of the past were staunchly against evolution, some even current (Elder Nelsen) but it seems the promoted view of the Church in publications is the Church takes no stand on it. 

[jkwilliams]

I would think opinion becomes a pretty large part of it.  They look to opinions and thoughts already published, I'm thinking, and offer their own opinion, while neglecting opposite points of view on some issues--like evolution for instance.  As I recall, some LDS leaders of the past were staunchly against evolution, some even current (Elder Nelsen) but it seems the promoted view of the Church in publications is the Church takes no stand on it.

The Correlation committee operates under the direction of the 12 and based on guidelines provided by the 12 to determine whether a given publication or other material conforms to established doctrine. So, regardless of an individual's opinion, what gets published must conform to established doctrine, or it isn't published. It's the Correlation committee's responsibility to make sure of that.

How they arrived at the doctrinal guidelines the committee uses is not something I know about, so sure, it may reflect the cumulative wisdom and opinions of past leaders, as well as scripture. I'm not passing judgment on whether the process is "right" or "wrong," but I think it's important to understand that the church does have a system of declaring doctrine, so it's difficult to dismiss official publications as irrelevant or non-doctrinal because that's not how they are meant to be taken.

Despite what some have said, the church "approaching doctrine" statement is pretty clear about how this all works. Can doctrines change or new ones supersede old ones? Yes, of course, and that's what we would expect of a religion that believes in continuing revelation and an open canon. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the church now officially rejects the statements made by past First Presidencies as the doctrinal reasons for the priesthood ban, but it seems a bit problematic to call those earlier statements "speculation." It's clear--to me, anyway--that what was doctrine in 1949 is not doctrine today, but I understand why the church would rather not say that.

[stemelbow]

The Correlation committee operates under the direction of the 12 and based on guidelines provided by the 12 to determine whether a given publication or other material conforms to established doctrine. So, regardless of an individual's opinion, what gets published must conform to established doctrine, or it isn't published. It's the Correlation committee's responsibility to make sure of that.

How they arrived at the doctrinal guidelines the committee uses is not something I know about, so sure, it may reflect the cumulative wisdom and opinions of past leaders, as well as scripture. I'm not passing judgment on whether the process is "right" or "wrong," but I think it's important to understand that the church does have a system of declaring doctrine, so it's difficult to dismiss official publications as irrelevant or non-doctrinal because that's not how they are meant to be taken.

Despite what some have said, the church "approaching doctrine" statement is pretty clear about how this all works. Can doctrines change or new ones supersede old ones? Yes, of course, and that's what we would expect of a religion that believes in continuing revelation and an open canon. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the church now officially rejects the statements made by past First Presidencies as the doctrinal reasons for the priesthood ban, but it seems a bit problematic to call those earlier statements "speculation." It's clear--to me, anyway--that what was doctrine in 1949 is not doctrine today, but I understand why the church would rather not say that.

 

Just to be clear, I agree with what you've said to a large extent.  But I did want to suggest, concerning you ending point, its not a matter, at least to those who are saying it, that the Church would rather not say something.  It's more about they are wanting to establish true principles and let the masses rule themselves.  That things have been over-stated in the past, that teachings have been repudiated since, is the whole point here, as I see it.  it happens.  No big deal.  We should expect to see it--mistakes and all that.  And I'm glad we each can use our own thinkers to sort through these things. 

 

I like this whole approach.  Correlation itself--not so much.  I wish it was all a little more open and less constrained.  There are too many things I'd rather talk about in Church, but it is what it is.  I can live with it well enough. 

[teddyaware]

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?

Personally I believe there have been repeated periods, throughout the history of the Lord's kingdom on

earth, when the people of His Church quite simply cannot handle the actual truth. During these periods of limited receptivity to the "strong meat" of the gospel, the leaders tailor the more controversial

portions of the gospel message in such a manner as to make these difficult doctrines more

intellectually palatable and spiritually digestible. It is the leaders solemn responsibility to be sure

that they impart eternal truth only insofar as the members of the Church are able to properly ingest

and digest what they are taught. Alma the Younger taught the Church of his day this sacred principle:

"9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the

mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only

according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the

heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and

he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given

unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full." (Alma 12)

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that the truth of God can be a dangerous and destructive thing for

those who are unprepared to receive it. On this point, Parley Parker Pratt tells us of the following

highly instructive incident in Church history: The Prophet Joseph said:

“'Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up

and kill me.’ Brother Brigham arose and said, ‘Don’t tell me anything that I can’t bear, for I don’t want to apostatize.’” (As recalled by Parley P. Pratt in Millennial Star 55 [sept. 4 1893]: 585.)

A perfect example in our day of the members of the Church apparently becoming less and less able to

ingest the meat of the gospel can be found in the changes made to the temple endowment that occurred in

the 1980's. I remember immediately after attending an endowment session for the fist time, just after

the changes were made, asking the temple president if I could to speak with him privately in his

office. To him I expressed my great sorrow and disappointment that some wonderful sacred things had

been withdrawn from the ceremony, great things that would ultimately make the symbolic meaning of the

endowment ordinance more difficult to understand and interpret. He told me I was the only individual

who ever had anything negative to say to him, or to anyone else in authority for that matter, about the

truncations made to the ceremony. But said I, how can that be? Who would be glad that the Lord had just

withdrawn from the earth, and back into heaven, so much impactful sacred truth? He had nothing further to say. In retrospect, I now realize the Lord had to withdraw those sacred things back into the hidden

precincts of heaven because the world, and even the Church, was changing.

The fact is that political correctness has so affected the world, and even many active and otherwise

valiant members of the Church, that much of the truth of God can no longer be openly told. We have

become like unto the Hebrews of the meridian apostolic church, to whom the Apostle Paul said the

following:

"12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the

first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong

meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Hebrews 5)

Generally speaking it is not the doctrine that changes, but it is the ability of the Church members to receive deeper truth without going apostate that changes. If the Prophet Joseph Smith had to withhold

much of the truth of the gospel in order to preserve the strength of the Church and prevent wholesale

apostasy, why should it be any different in our day.

"114 But great and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his kingdom which he

showed unto us, which surpass all understanding in glory, and in might, and in dominion;

115 Which he commanded us we should not write while we were yet in the Spirit, and are not lawful for

man to utter;

116 Neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and understood by the power

of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who love him, and purify themselves before him;

117 To whom he grants this privilege of seeing and knowing for themselves;" D&C 76)

Edited December 10, 2013 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, I meant to ask you yesterday about this statement.  In what way was Sister Okazaki "out of line?"  I assume you mean she should not speak publicly about internal disputes, but I want to make sure I know where you are coming from.

Perhaps I need to see a direct quote -- and even the entire context of that quote -- for an explicit understanding of what was written, but from how you have conveyed it, it seems that she is saying that because she wasn't consulted in advance on the wording of the Proclamation, that it therefore lacks the force and stature it otherwise would have had.

 

I take strong exception to that notion. When the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, acting in their authority as prophets, seers and revelators, draft a proclamation to the world, they are under no obligation to have anyone else sign off on it. The setting in which the Proclamation was first presented is of no great moment. It could have been delivered just as effectively and appropriately in the priesthood session of general conference or one of the general sessions. It would have carried as much authority if it had simply been printed in one of the Church publications or sent out to the individual wards and branches to be read over the sacrament meeting pulpit. The fact that the setting was the general women's meeting doesn't give Sister Okazaki or anyone else any degree of ownership over it.

 

Assuming that is the basis, do you think it right for ordinary members such as us to publicly criticize a former member of the General RS Presidency?  I know sometimes people say we should not criticize the Prophet or Apostles as that is "speaking ill of the Lord's annointed."  Would female general leaders also be included in the "Lord's annointed?"  Or does that only apply to leaders with keys?

 

 

As I indicated above, your assumption about the basis for my comment was incorrect.

 

With that said, my disapproval would be just as strong had such public criticism come from a former member of the presidency of one of the other auxiliary organizations of the Church, be it male or female. If there is ever a choice that must be made between the two, I take my direction from prophets and apostles, not former members of auxiliary presidencies.

 

Also, I'm interested to know if you think President Packer was "out of line" in stating in conference that the Proclamation qualified as a revelation.  I know you think he still believes that to be the case.  [We've discussed that issue to the ground]  But regardless of whether he is correct in his conclusion, was it within his authority to make such a statement?

 

All that can be accurately and conscientiously drawn from the known facts is that President Packer thought it best to alter the wording in the printed version of his conference talk from the way he delivered it from the pulpit. I don't share your readiness to jump to the conclusion that this amounts to a disavowal of what he said in the conference session.

 

He is, after all, the president and senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and has many decades of leadership experience on a general Church level. If anyone could be relied upon to understand what constitutes revelation, it would surely be he.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Here is the relevant section.

 

Greg Prince: Should the Relief Society president sit in on bishopric meetings?

 

Chieko Okazaki: It would be a great idea. They are in the council meetings, but in many council meetings the person who is in charge is the only one who is talking. I’m on several community boards, and sometimes I’m the only woman there or one of two or three women. I’m on the YWCA advisory board; I’m on the advisory board for the University of Utah Graduate School of Social Work; and I’m on the Belle Spafford Chair board. If I got the message that I was supposed to just sit there and listen to the men, I’d quit that board. I’d say, “What am I here for?” I speak up a lot in all of these board meetings.

 

In contrast, in 1995 when “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was written, the Relief Society presidency was asked to come to a meeting. We did, and they read this proclamation. It was all finished. The only question was whether they should present it at the priesthood meeting or at the Relief Society meeting. It didn’t matter to me where it was presented. What I wanted to know was, “How come we weren’t consulted?”

 

Greg Prince: You didn’t even know it was in the works?

 

Chieko Okazaki: No. They just asked us which meeting to present it in, and we said, “Whatever President Hinckley decides is fine with us.” He decided to do it at the Relief Society meeting. The apostle who was our liaison said, “Isn’t it wonderful that he made the choice to present it at the Relief Society meeting?” Well, that was

fine, but as I read it I thought that we could have made a few changes in it.

 

Sometimes I think they get so busy that they forget that we are there. It’s different from the time when Belle Spafford was president of the Relief Society. She was her own boss, as I read her life. And so was Florence Jacobsen. There’s a great deal of difference now.

[Stone holm]

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.

 

But, isn't this the way most religions develop as they mature, there becomes an increasing demand for some group of what might be called religious bureaucrats to review the wild-eyed prophets and make sure they are all consistent and do not ruffle too many feathers.  Its pretty much always been true as a religion progresses from radical innovative doctrine, to sanitized doctrine acceptable to the world, and eventually into fossilization.  Why should we expect our Church to be any different?  Its called death by milk as all the air slowly gets snuffed out.

[mfbukowski]

But, isn't this the way most religions develop as they mature, there becomes an increasing demand for some group of what might be called religious bureaucrats to review the wild-eyed prophets and make sure they are all consistent and do not ruffle too many feathers.  Its pretty much always been true as a religion progresses from radical innovative doctrine, to sanitized doctrine acceptable to the world, and eventually into fossilization.  Why should we expect our Church to be any different?  Its called death by milk as all the air slowly gets snuffed out.

The difference, hopefully is that we actually have an open canon for a reason, and in my book THAT is largely the reason we can claim to be the "true church" which can adapt to the times.

 

I personally think this church is directed by the Lord and that your "fossilization" will not happen, but your opinion is your opinion. 

 

We seem to have no problem with ambiguous doctrine as a church- we have had it since the Adam-God theory, changing views on polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, evolution, adding quorums of general authorities, changing the endowment, etc etc.- AND recent statements to this effect by elders Uchtdorf and Holland, and yet the church has survived just fine.

 

Yes there are fundamentalists who think that every word spoken is unambiguously written in stone in heaven, but thank God we are getting out of the semantic trap and being led by the Spirit, still.  I see no reason for it to change.

[mfbukowski]

Well, not quite. Anything before 1971 that has been cited in church publications since that date have been reviewed by Correlation and are thus considered doctrinal. For example, McConkie's 1958 "Mormon Doctrine" wasn't published by the church, so it cannot be considered doctrinal as a whole; however, if a current publication quotes something from that book, the current publication is considered doctrinal, including the quotation. The standard works from before 1971 (in practice before the 1979 and 1981 LDS editions) would not be cited in current publications. Talmage's works always occupied a semi-canonical place among church-related publications, but again, since 1971, only those parts of his works that have been published by the church would be considered doctrinal.

 

It's clear to me. Scott Lloyd can confirm what I'm saying. But, as I said, I am not telling you what to believe, just what I know about current church practice and how doctrine is established and presented.

 

Please clarify what you mean here. That there was no formal system of codifying doctrine before 1971 doesn't mean there was no doctrine. Correlation simply implements a formal system of "vetting" publications, talks, and so on against established doctrine. For example, any changes to temple ceremonies would have to go through a correlation review (they were when I was working at the COB).

The relevance is that the brethren instituted Correlation to ensure that anything the church presents to the membership or the world reflects established doctrine, no matter the medium by which it is presented. These doctrines are quite relevant to the real way the church is run, as every single program instituted by the church must conform to the doctrines.

When I see what you have said canonized I will be glad to accept it as doctrine.

 

All you have given me are your opinions.  I am sticking with what many others have said, as well as what the spirit tells me.  I suppose I could quote back to you Blake Ostler's opinion and it would be just as valid as yours.  And we would again be going in circles as we always do.

 

But I go by what I have found out for myself.

 

I have yet to see a coherent and authoritative definition of what qualifies as "doctrine" and yes, I am saying that the famous press release is neither clear nor authoritative.  In fact it sounds like something you would write. 

 

And yes, I like Scott a ton, but unfortunately, and I think he will acknowledge it as well, he does not speak for the church.

 

Correlation simply implements a formal system of "vetting" publications, talks, and so on against established doctrine.

 

Can you see how circular this is?  There has to BE "established doctrine" which is defined as such for anything to be "vetted" against it.

 

No such established doctrine exists.  The scriptures are ambiguous.  The vetting process is ambiguous.

 

I see what correlation puts out as "guidelines" certainly to be followed in classes, and that's about all.  It is mostly very elementary stuff which is contradictory and not well thought through.

Edited December 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

When I see what you have said canonized I will be glad to accept it as doctrine.

 

All you have given me are your opinions.  I am sticking with what many others have said, as well as what the spirit tells me.  I suppose I could quote back to you Blake Ostler's opinion and it would be just as valid as yours.  And we would again be going in circles as we always do.

 

But I go by what I have found out for myself.

 

I have yet to see a coherent and authoritative definition of what qualifies as "doctrine" and yes, I am saying that the famous press release is neither clear nor authoritative.  In fact it sounds like something you would write. 

 

Obviously, I must not be a very clear writer because you are still laboring under the impression that I'm a postmodernist.

 

Yes, those are my opinions, but they also reflect what I was taught in my job at the COB and how it was implemented. Sure, there's plenty of room for ambiguity, but it's a huge overstatement to say that there's no real doctrine in the church. But if the spirit tells you so, go for it.

 

And if that's Ostler's position, that's fine. I'm not exactly impressed by what he has to say.

[mfbukowski]

Obviously, I must not be a very clear writer because you are still laboring under the impression that I'm a postmodernist.

 

Yes, those are my opinions, but they also reflect what I was taught in my job at the COB and how it was implemented. Sure, there's plenty of room for ambiguity, but it's a huge overstatement to say that there's no real doctrine in the church. But if the spirit tells you so, go for it.

 

And if that's Ostler's position, that's fine. I'm not exactly impressed by what he has to say.

In fairness to you, I had edited my post at the same time you were writing this, but I don't think the edits changed anything relevant.

 

Yes I know you worked at the COB- you mention it quite often.  And I am positive it is indeed "what you were taught".

 

That's nice, but I guess I am taking exception with "what you were taught".  Bureaucrats perhaps really do run the church, but I still prefer to think that prophets do.  And though they could define doctrine quite clearly if they wanted to, they have left that job to the bureaucrats for a reason, in my never humble opinion.

 

Edit: And yet I notice you still have not referenced anything clear and authoritative to back up your position, except "what you were taught".

Edited December 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Obviously, I must not be a very clear writer because you are still laboring under the impression that I'm a postmodernist.

Not sure where you got this impression at all.

 

It has been clear to me for sometime that you have never understood postmodernism even when I thought that you thought that you were one.

[mfbukowski]

Can a person validly interpret Brigham Young or Nelson Mandela not to have existed or not to have been presidents of their respective domains?  Or are the facts of their existence/jobs just that - concrete historical occurences that really happened, with the bare fact of their occurence not subject to any interpretation?  I'm thinking here of 'facts' with only two possible interpretations: did an event occur, yes or no.  I'm not asking whether someone can say no (e.g, a crackpot), but whether someone can reasonably assert that the fact of Brigham Young's past existence is subject to a different interpretation. 

That "an event" occurred is pretty uninteresting.  Events occur all the time.  What happened and what it means, and whether or not it is important is the problem.

 

I don't think anyone has a problem with those individuals "existing"- but of course that is a circular argument.  You name an individual and by doing so are already stipulating that he "existed".  I mean I can tell you a lot of things about unicorns because they have a name and we tell stories about them, though they don't "exist" in the sense you mean it.  On the other hand, I would argue that they do "exist" in the sense that we can talk about them and tell stories about what they do, etc.

 

I mean where do the legends about George Washington end and "what really happened" begin?  And more importantly, how do we tell the difference?  And perhaps MOST importantly, what difference does knowing "what really happened" make when we cannot possibly know what really happened?

 

"Existence" is not very interesting either.  If you can name it, it exists at least as a name I suppose.

 

What it was and what it means and what it did is always subject to interpretation.

[jkwilliams]

In fairness to you, I had edited my post at the same time you were writing this, but I don't think the edits changed anything relevant.

 

Yes I know you worked at the COB- you mention it quite often.  And I am positive it is indeed "what you were taught".

 

That's nice, but I guess I am taking exception with "what you were taught".  Bureaucrats perhaps really do run the church, but I still prefer to think that prophets do.  And though they could define doctrine quite clearly if they wanted to, they have left that job to the bureaucrats for a reason, in my never humble opinion.

 

Edit: And yet I notice you still have not referenced anything clear and authoritative to back up your position, except "what you were taught"

 

Oddly enough, the instructions we were given (in writing) about the correlation process were directly from the Twelve, so it wasn't something that came out of the bureaucracy. The committee is made of members of the 12 and others, including bureaucrats. The staff is, as far as I know, made of paid church employees.

 

I suppose I could spend some time discussing the history of the correlation program, why it was implemented, and what it does, but I don't think that would make much difference. In the meantime, here's a pretty good summary, written incidentally by my former boss at the COB, Frank May (an absolutely wonderful man, btw):

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Correlation_of_the_Church_Administration

 

As Brother May mentions, correlation "systematically" connects everything the church does (doctrines, policies, publications, programs, etc.) to ensure that everything works together as part of a unified whole. To do that, the committee reviews everything that is proposed to ensure that it not only is doctrinally consistent but also that it works effectively in conjunction with everything else in the church. As I mentioned in a previous post, there's a reason that the church's web site does not include materials published before 1971.

 

I ought to note that the EOM went through normal church review channels, and we on the editing staff edited the finished product, even though it wasn't officially published by the church.

 

No, I don't expect you to accept what I have to say just because I say so. I'm glad people like you have a less rigid attitude toward what the centralized church publishes; IMO, it's that independence of spirit that will carry the church through the future.

[Kevin Christensen]

Then please explain

What is Doctrine?

How do we define it?

For definitions, we have a choice between socially constructed assumption, or Book of Mormon demonstration.

What is currently meant by "doctrine" includes virtually everything that is taught or believed, and also perhaps whatever supports or explains what is done by Latter-day Saints. But when we look at the way in which the word is used in the Book of Mormon, we are in for a surprise.

The word "doctrine" appears in the Book of Mormon twenty-four times, always with the narrow meaning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. McConkie and Millet are fascinated with what they call "the doctrines within the Book of Mormon" (2:xiii). In the two page preface to the second volume, they mention "doctrines" four different times. Clearly, they assume that the book is full of various "doctrines." But when the word "doctrine" is used affirmatively in the Book of Mormon, it is always singular, though there are "points of doctrine" (1 Nephi 15:14; Alma 41:9; Helaman 11:22-23; 3 Nephi 11:28; 21:6); when plural, the word identifies foolish, vain, and false teachings that deny the gospel--that Jesus is the Christ (see 2 Nephi 28:9, 15; Alma 1:16).

The "doctrine" of Jesus Christ is declared by him to consist of the following: "And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned" (3 Nephi 11:33-34). The Book of Mormon, of course, contains more information about both human and divine things than the fulness of the gospel, which is the doctrine of Jesus Christ. But the additional historical information, as well as the norms, descriptions, emblems, figures, images, tenets, categories, and instructions are never identified as "doctrine." That word is reserved for the core message that Jesus is the Christ--the Messiah, the Redeemer of mankind. Everything else is strictly subordinated to the one "doctrine of Christ," by which we may "know how to come unto Christ and be saved" (see 1 Nephi 15:14), for it is the Redeemer who is the way of salvation, the way, truth, life, light, and so forth--that being the one and only doctrine identified as such in the Book of Mormon. What we need is a commentary on the Book of Mormon--one that begins with an examination of the conception of doctrine found in the text, and not a doctrinal or doctrinaire commentary. When we get clear on exactly what constitutes the doctrine of Jesus Christ, we are able to understand the term "anti-Christ," for they who teach false, vain or foolish "doctrines" are those who deny the doctrine that Jesus is the Christ.

"Doctrine" (usually in the singular, as opposed to the plural form, as in "false doctrines") identifies the gospel understood as faith, repentance, and baptism--how to come unto Christ to be saved. It does not identify the whole range or complex of opinions, speculation or beliefs about divine and human things, or the rites, practices, and traditions that go into the making of a contemporary Mormon; it is, instead, the most primary, elementary, plain teachings of Jesus Christ. Ironically, Doctrinal Commentary rests upon an understanding of doctrine which is foreign to the text upon which it comments. This is obviously innocent, and would be harmless except that the careless use of the word "doctrine" leads McConkie and Millet to pay inordinate attention to the details of beliefs as currently understood, beliefs they think of as crucial doctrines concerning which one must have the right opinion in order to be saved. On this matter it is instructive that after Jesus declared his doctrine to the Nephites (3 Nephi 11:31-39), he added that "whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it as my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them" (3 Nephi 11:40).

From Louis Midgley, RBBM 1. "Prophetic Messages or Dogmatic Theology?

Commenting on the Book of Mormon: A Review Essay"

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1424&index=12

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[mfbukowski]

For definitions, we have a choice between socially constructed assumption, or Book of Mormon demonstration.

From Louis Midgley, RBBM 1. "Prophetic Messages or Dogmatic Theology?

Commenting on the Book of Mormon: A Review Essay"

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1424&index=12

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Thanks Kevin!

Straight to the point, as usual- thanks for the reference.  I support this view entirely.