When Is Doctrine Really Doctrine?

[mfbukowski]

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.

He only mentions the word doctrine once, here:

 

Correlation is the process of identifying the role of each part of the Church, placing each in its proper relationship to the others, and ensuring that each functions properly. The parts include doctrines and ordinances, organizations and agencies, programs and activities, meetings, and printed and audiovisual materials. All of these parts should be "fitly framed together" (Eph. 2:21). They function properly when they are connected systematically and operate in harmony and unity. Like the parts of a human body, each has its function, none is sufficient of itself, and none can usurp the tasks of others (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-28; D&C 84:108-110).

 

Unfortunately the article is about "correlation" meaning making sure the programs of the church operate in a unified way.

 

It says nothing about defining doctrine.

[jkwilliams]

He only mentions the word doctrine once, here:

 

Unfortunately the article is about "correlation" meaning making sure the programs of the church operate in a unified way.

 

It says nothing about defining doctrine.

 

The prophets and apostles establish the doctrine. Correlation simply makes sure that what goes out adheres to the doctrine.

 

I agree with Kevin that the central, guiding doctrine is that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of all. Beyond that, you need a prophet.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

Then as much as ever, I stand by the points I made.

[Stone holm]

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.

 

We have an open canon which is a good thing.  We also have a membership which is probably more "doctrine" conscious than the vast majority of Christians.  I believe, except for possibly some break off groups and possibly a few others, we are about the only ones who still believe in living prophets running around saying things and we have this amazing tendency not only to listen, but to have what they say written down.  Once something get written down then it escapes into the world and even if later retracted, well its still out there running around.  I believe the Lord is directing the Church, or I would no longer be a member.  It does make me edgy, however, to see the Church behaving in a lot of ways like various Christian Churches before it as they matured.  I don't see the Church fossilizing, but it is going down the same road as several other Christian denominations as they matured IMNSHO.

[Scott Lloyd]

The prophets and apostles establish the doctrine. Correlation simply makes sure that what goes out adheres to the doctrine.

 

I agree with Kevin that the central, guiding doctrine is that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of all. Beyond that, you need a prophet.

For what it's worth, what John says here comports with my own understanding.

 

And I interact weekly with Correlation, and my work is routinely scrutinized by them.

[mfbukowski]

The prophets and apostles establish the doctrine. Correlation simply makes sure that what goes out adheres to the doctrine.

 

I agree with Kevin that the central, guiding doctrine is that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of all. Beyond that, you need a prophet.

You have a most amazing ability to turn on a dime.

 

I know, I misunderstood you the whole time, right?

[mfbukowski]

For what it's worth, what John says here comports with my own understanding.

 

And I interact weekly with Correlation, and my work is routinely scrutinized by them.

Except the apostles and prophets are not consistent, quite obviously.  You have pre-1978 apostles statements being refuted by present apostles statements.  You have apostles reversing themselves (McConkie).

 

I'm sticking with the Midgley quote Kevin referenced above.

[Stone holm]

For what it's worth, what John says here comports with my own understanding.

 

And I interact weekly with Correlation, and my work is routinely scrutinized by them.

Including what goes out from Apostles and the Prophet. That being the case shouldn't we be sustaining the Correlation? Since ultimately this implies they have the last word?

[Scott Lloyd]

Including what goes out from Apostles and the Prophet. That being the case shouldn't we be sustaining the Correlation? Since ultimately this implies they have the last word?

No, you've taken reality and turned it upside down with this supposition.

 

Correlation take(s) its (their) direction from the prophets and apostles and function(s) accordingly.

[Scott Lloyd]

Except the apostles and prophets are not consistent, quite obviously.  You have pre-1978 apostles statements being refuted by present apostles statements.  You have apostles reversing themselves (McConkie).

You have to take a time-lapse view covering several generations to identify such inconsistencies.

 

The Brethren as they are constituted today are remarkably consistent in their individual views. I think any snapshot at any given time (with the possible exception of the turbulent days in the early history of the Restoration) would show similar consistency.

 

I'm sticking with the Midgley quote Kevin referenced above.

 

I don't see that jkwilliams disputed it.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

Emphasis added:

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.

 

The prophets and apostles establish the doctrine. Correlation simply makes sure that what goes out adheres to the doctrine.

 

I agree with Kevin that the central, guiding doctrine is that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of all. Beyond that, you need a prophet.

See why I have a problem with your definitions?

 

In one point correlation "establishes" doctrine and in the other they are checking "adherence" to "doctrine" which remains undefined.

Edited December 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I don't see that jkwilliams disputed it.

He said that Correlation establishes doctrine.

I don't see that as what Midgley said at all. He said essentially that there is only ONE "doctrine" and that is that Jesus is the Christ, and he got that definition out of the Book of Mormon.

Correlation correlates- it doesn't "establish" anything except perhaps correlations if you want to see it that way.

I am sure if you are submitting articles and waiting for approval, they might seem like god himself, but they are not.

[Scott Lloyd]

Emphasis added:

 

See why I have a problem with your definitions?

 

In one point correlation "establishes" doctrine and in the other they are checking "adherence" to "doctrine" which remains undefined.

As with most terms, to establish has varying shades of meaning.

 

establish can mean "to begin or create (something)."

 

But according to the online Mirriam-Webster dictionary, it can also mean "to cause (someone or something) to be widely known and accepted"; "to put (someone or something) in a position, role, etc., that will last for a long time"; or "to make firm or stable."

 

It seems to me that jkwilliams could have intended any of these latter definitions with the term establish and he would have been consistent.

 

But here I am speaking for him, and perhaps I ought not do that, but rather, allow him to speak for himself.

 

At any rate, my understanding is that the role of Correlation in the Church, under the direction of the Brethren, entails ensuring that published material is consistent with Church doctrine and policy.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

He said that Correlation establishes doctrine.

I don't see that as what Midgley said at all. He said essentially that there is only ONE "doctrine" and that is that Jesus is the Christ, and he got that definition out of the Book of Mormon.

 

But many people profess to believe that Jesus is the Christ, yet they err in their understanding and practice.

 

It is a role of a prophet to ensure the purity of that doctrine and to convey the mind and will of God in its application.

[mfbukowski]

You have to take a time-lapse view covering several generations to identify such inconsistencies.

Well I certainly think the difference between what was said about race between the 1960's and the 1980's is not exactly "several generations" nor is the evidence that given apostles reversed what they had said just a few years earlier.

And besides that, inconsistency is inconsistency. For those who do not believe in an open canon, clearly this inconsistency, even over generations, is a troubling problem and takes up I would wager 80% of the space on this board.

I personally don't care if the positions appear "consistent" or not.

Every other thread is based ultimately on this kind of problem.

If we just get over it and understand that beliefs change over time and an open canon is designed specifically to be able to accommodate "further light and knowledge" we wouldn't have this problem.

Science changes daily, but if religion changes, oh my- what a problem it creates!

We need to get over that. We need to learn that we are always learning about everything and changing our understandings as we progress in maturity and understanding.

[mfbukowski]

But many people profess to believe that Jesus is the Christ, yet they err in their understanding and practice.

 

It is a role of a prophet to ensure the purity of that doctrine and to convey the mind and will of God in its application.

I agree to a point.

Did you think I disagreed with that principle?

THAT is the job of Correlation- they are in the consistency business. I said they are not in the "establishing doctrine" business- the two are not the same.

Edited December 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Does Correlation interfere with the progress of gospel understanding?

 

How do we incorporate "further light and knowledge" into an open canon if it is not approved by "Correlation"?

 

We still DO believe in learning line upon line don't we?  Or has all knowledge been given once and for all and we don't need any new knowledge?

 

Doesn't that sound familiar?

 

"A Bible a Bible- we don't need any more Bibles".

[mfbukowski]

Gosh, does this mean BYU would never hire me? 

 

Oh well, my hopes are dashed. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree to a point.

 

At what point do you differ?

 

 

Did you think I disagreed with that principle?

 

I know you better (online identity, that is) than to think you doubt or deny the role of a prophet.

 

But your posts seem to convey that you minimize the prophetic role (carried out with the aid of Correlation) in ensuring the purity of what is proclaimed as doctrine. Hence, my response.

 

THAT is the job of Correlation- they are in the consistency business. I said they are not in the "establishing doctrine" business- the two are not the same.

 

 

Did you miss my point about varying shades of meaning for establish?

Edited December 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Does Correlation interfere with the progress of gospel understanding?

 

Of course not. It facilitates it.

 

How do we incorporate "further light and knowledge" into an open canon if it is not approved by "Correlation"?

 

 

How would Correlation inhibit it, since it is the role of prophets to declare new doctrine and it is the role of Correlation to carry out the wishes of the prophets and not the other way around? Why are you even posing this question?

 

We still DO believe in learning line upon line don't we?  Or has all knowledge been given once and for all and we don't need any new knowledge?

 

 

Who here has made that contention?

Edited December 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

At what point do you differ?

But many people profess to believe that Jesus is the Christ, yet they err in their understanding and practice

Did you read the Midgley quote Kevin posted?

His point as I understand it is that there is only ONE "doctrine" according to the BOM and that is that "Jesus is the Christ", and I tend to agree with that statement. The rest are practices which change from time to time.

So to "err" in understanding and practice- and I agree that it is possible- with a qualifier- to err, then those errors would have to be definable, correct? And who defines them? Apostles and prophets, I suppose. THAT is it self the qualifier. The problem is that apostles and prophets themselves do not totally agree on what constitutes "correct" understanding of "understanding and practice". I attended a meeting a few years back- a regional conference in Long Beach CA in which Boyd K Packer said that drinking caffeinated soda was against the word of wisdom. Certainly many would disagree with that. The priesthood ban is another point, etc etc.

 

I know you better (online identity, that is) than to think you doubt or deny the role of a prophet.

 

I'm glad you know me better- I have never denied that.  Of course I don't deny it.  He gives us further light and understanding- but guess what?  If a prophet tells me something different than what previous prophets have taught- what would I do?  Go to the Holy Spirit for confirmation.  With that confirmation, I go with the further light and understanding- no matter what it is.  Without it, nothing happens.

 

I MUST do that because that is the only way I can know that a "prophet" is indeed a prophet in the first place- by confirmation of the Holy Ghost.  Without that, he might as well be a guy preaching on the street corner.

 

But your posts seem to convey that you minimize the prophetic role in ensuring the purity of what is proclaimed as doctrine. Hence, my response.

 

Nope.  Somebody has to do it- but we STILL have not defined "doctrine" and I am STILL with Midgley on that one.

 

Clearly the prophet is in charge of clarifying what the Lord is teaching us, for us to pray about and receive our own testimonies, and accept and reject as confirmed by the Lord.

 

Did you miss my point about varying shades of meaning for establish?

 

Could be.  Where's that?

[mfbukowski]

As with most terms, to establish has varying shades of meaning.

 

establish can mean "to begin or create (something)."

 

But according to the online Mirriam-Webster dictionary, it can also mean "to cause (someone or something) to be widely known and accepted"; "to put (someone or something) in a position, role, etc., that will last for a long time"; or "to make firm or stable."

 

It seems to me that jkwilliams could have intended any of these latter definitions with the term establish and he would have been consistent.

 

But here I am speaking for him, and perhaps I ought not do that, but rather, allow him to speak for himself.

 

At any rate, my understanding is that the role of Correlation in the Church, under the direction of the Brethren, entails ensuring that published material is consistent with Church doctrine and policy.

Indeed I missed this post.

 

I will assume that is what he meant. 

 

I suppose then there is nothing more to discuss.  This is the only point upon which we differed, I think.

[Scott Lloyd]

Indeed I missed this post.

 

I will assume that is what he meant. 

 

I suppose then there is nothing more to discuss.  This is the only point upon which we differed, I think.

I do hope so.

 

Except that one of the roles of a prophet, as I understand it is to "declare new doctrine" from time to time. (This, by the way, was taught to me by a member of the Correlation Department, ironically. And yes, he used that precise phrase: "declare new doctrine".) You seem to be saying (and correct me if I am misunderstanding ) that there can be no new doctrine, or no doctrine that is not already in the scriptures.

[mfbukowski]

So to summarize my further light and knoweldge, Correlation in no way "creates" doctrine, but is responsible for correctly representing what the prophets have taught.

 

Whether or not they do that is of course subject to question. 

 

And that certainly does away with the idea that "everything the church publishes is doctrine" because what it publishes is largely written not by apostles and prophets, who sometimes err and disagree themselves, but by writers who also are human and speak only for their understanding of what the apostles have perhaps erroneously stated.

 

I think I have it now. 

[mfbukowski]

I do hope so.

 

Except that one of the roles of a prophet, as I understand it is to "declare new doctrine" from time to time. (This, by the way, was taught to me by a member of the Correlation Department, ironically. And yes, he used that precise phrase: "declare new doctrine".) You seem to be saying (and correct me if I am misunderstanding ) that there can be no new doctrine, or no doctrine that is not already in the scriptures.

Heck no- I am saying that interpretations change over time, and we accept them according to the spirit.

 

Midgley says there is only one "doctrine" and I tend to agree with that.  I am sure that meaning of "Jesus is the Christ" changes over time as well- surely Aquinas would disagree with Brigham Young considerably on what that phrase means.

 

But yes, the prophets are here to set us straight on theology.

 

Maybe if we dropped "doctrine" and substituted "theology" we would be closer to figuring this out.  Prophets teach theology? 

 

Oh I suppose then we will get into the "philosophies of men " stuff.  But after all, prophets are men.  How about "inspired theology"?