The Difficulty in Defining Doctrine

[consiglieri]

Defining what constitutes Mormon doctrine has been compared to nailing green jello to the wall.

I suggest that one of the reasons for this is that Mormons seem less interested in evaluating whether a given doctrinal statement is true on its own merits than arguing about who said it and when.

The only reason this comes up is because there do exist conflicting statements by different general authorities on the same doctrinal issue.

When this happens, the typical response is to look to who said it and when.

I frequently hear the following responses:

1. When a Seventy conflicts with an Apostle, "He was only a Seventy when he said that."

2. When an Apostle conflicts with the Prophet, "He was only an Apostle when he said that."

3. When one prophet conflicts with another prophet, "We must go with the words of the prophet who is the most recent."

Numerous variations on the theme could be elaborated.

The primary suggestion I am making here is this:

If we are after the truth, should we not be more interested in what the doctrinal statement is actually saying rather than arguing about who said it and when?

Edited December 29, 2015 by consiglieri

[cinepro]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

If we are after the truth, should we not be more interested in what the doctrinal statement is actually saying rather than arguing about who said it and when?

The implications of such an approach are too horrible to imagine.

[Avatar4321]

So why is it the people who don't want to follow doctrine that have difficulty defining it?

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

If we are after the truth, should we not be more interested in what the doctrinal statement is actually saying rather than arguing about who said it and when?

With that comes the loaded assumption that we as individuals are fit judges of doctrinal statements.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

With that comes the loaded assumption that we as individuals are fit judges of doctrinal statements.

Well, we're the ones being asked to believe or not believe them.  Who needs to judge their correctness more than those who have to act on them?

Edited December 29, 2015 by JLHPROF

[filovirus]

I guess I see it differently than many. For me there are different concepts for word choices involving the understanding of what God wants us to know and do. The Gospel of Christ means something different to me than the Doctrine of the Gospel which would mean something different than Mormon Theology. So I guess we need a better definition of what "doctrine" means to you?

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

If we are after the truth, should we not be more interested in what the doctrinal statement is actually saying rather than arguing about who said it and when?

That is creating a separation.  BOTH matter.  What was meant by what was said AND the situation in which it was said both provide the faith evidences as to whether something is true.

But how individuals determine the truthfulness of a doctrinal statement is the real challenge.  That is why it is like " nailing green jello to the wall".  The idea of one method (aka canonization) of determining whether a doctrine is true or not seems silly considering the vast variety of historical examples.

[Maidservant]

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. Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and 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. . . . [more description] . . . whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for 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.

2 Ne 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen

 

I don't know if it is widely understood actually, but it is my perception that it is; that many LDS understand: that what amounts to doctrine is only a small handful of things, called the doctrine of Christ.  And I do believe that "of" means "regarding CHRIST (and what that really means as operating in our personal lives)" not "from Christ" although that is the case as well.

Everything else is subject to change or interpretation (i.e. greater light, line upon line), or constitutes the current obedience required for the time we are in.  But cannot be described as doctrine.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Defining what constitutes Mormon doctrine has been compared to nailing green jello to the wall.

I suggest that one of the reasons for this is that Mormons seem less interested in evaluating whether a given doctrinal statement is true on its own merits than arguing about who said it and when.

The only reason this comes up is because there do exist conflicting statements by different general authorities on the same doctrinal issue.

When this happens, the typical response is to look to who said it and when.

I frequently hear the following responses:

1. When a Seventy conflicts with an Apostle, "He was only a Seventy when he said that."

2. When an Apostle conflicts with the Prophet, "He was only an Apostle when he said that."

3. When one prophet conflicts with another prophet, "We must go with the words of the prophet who is the most recent."

Numerous variations on the theme could be elaborated.

The primary suggestion I am making here is this:

If we are after the truth, should we not be more interested in what the doctrinal statement is actually saying rather than arguing about who said it and when?

You have already stated that you do not believe in "the truth". that truth is contextual and may "conflict".    You already understand these issues.

Scholars continually maintain that Mormons do not have "Doctrine" in the sense you use the term here and you know it.  If there are no "doctrinal statements" to start with, they cannot possibly "conflict" with each other.

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

If one can pass a temple recommend interview in good faith, one is as "doctrinally LDS" as it is possible to be.

This is not a genuine question but is raised strictly to create controversy and conflict.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

So why is it the people who don't want to follow doctrine that have difficulty defining it?

OK so then YOU define it since presumably you want to follow it.

Good luck.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, we're the ones being asked to believe or not believe them.  Who needs to judge their correctness more than those who have to act on them?

The Holy Ghost that should be guiding us and has godly wisdom.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Holy Ghost that should be guiding us and has godly wisdom.

Of course.  I didn't specify the method or tool we use to judge.  The Holy Ghost is how we judge.   When we use that tool we do become fit judges of doctrinal statements.

[mfbukowski]

I just posted this on another topic, which like all Consig's threads, are identical.

It works just as well on this topic as it did on the other

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66655-should-mormons-have-a-personal-relationship-with-jesus/?do=findComment&comment=1209572611

Quote

 

The answer is so simple you cannot see it.

Each member needs to have his or her own testimony of each principle.  That is what defines doctrine and what one should do in any situation or with any belief.

There is no way to even know if one should follow ANYONE if that is not confirmed by the spirit.  Those who follow the spirit will not be led astray, because what the spirit tells them confirms their belief in what they should do.

You who have been born into the church and followed blindly have this problem because you have followed blindly.

We who have testimonies and so have joined the church- and those born to it who actually are "converts" in their own right- do not have the problem.

This is not Jonestown.  We do not follow any leaders blindly.  We follow the spirit and our consciences.  If you have internal conflict you will go crazy.  You must do what you think is best no matter what.   If necessary you vote with your feet.

It really is that simple.  No one can force you to do what is not right for you unless you let them by not doing what you know is right.

We are not children any more and must put off childish things.

That covers virtually every single silly thread you start.

 

 

[sunstoned]

 

Quote

Each member needs to have his or her own testimony of each principle.  That is what defines doctrine and what one should do in any situation or with any belief.

I wish it was this easy. I have a good friend that was born into the church and has been an active member all of her life.  She is originally from Canada and was raised in a family who likes their tea.  Her parents were LDS, but apparently they were at odds with the tea and coffee restriction in the Word of Wisdom.  My friend, now that she has now re-located to Utah has found that her use of tea has come under level of scrutiny she has not experienced before, and she is conflicted.  She feels that she has received spiritual conformation that use of tea is not at odds with any commandments of God, and that there is nothing wrong with tea.  Of course modern medicine supports this view with recent studies that show the positive effects tea has.  However, she cannot pass the temple recommend interview.  

Here is a clear case of a spiritual conformation that is at odds with a policy.  

[CMZ]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

If we are after the truth, should we not be more interested in what the doctrinal statement is actually saying rather than arguing about who said it and when?

Yes! Truth is truth no matter the source.

(BTW, Word of Wisdom directives against hot drinks are not entirely about whether or not tea is healthy.)

Edited December 29, 2015 by CMZ

[sunstoned]

44 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Yes! Truth is truth no matter the source.

(BTW, Word of Wisdom directives against hot drinks are not entirely about whether or not tea is healthy.)

Then what is the "truth" about abstaining from a morning beverage that is good for you?  Where is the revelation that forbids tea and countermands D&C 89?  Explain to me what recourse a member who disagrees with this policy has?    

[CMZ]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

Then what is the "truth" about abstaining from a morning beverage that is good for you?  Where is the revelation that forbids tea and countermands D&C 89?  Explain to me what recourse a member who disagrees with this policy has?    

This question might be bigger than this thread. Maybe I can answer tomorrow. But a quick answer is that there is a lot of room for individualization in the gospel.

[sunstoned]

I'm going to answer my own question.  There is no recourse for a member who disagrees with a church policy.  Church policy and doctrine are dictated from the leaders in SLC.  Members have no say at all. There is no voting, except to pledge and sustain.  If you don't agree, then keep your mouth shut or face discipline.  Policy and doctrine are for all intents and purposes one in the same until for some reason (usually political or for PR) it needs to change.  Then it is classified as policy and the leaders who supported it were "speaking only as men".  The funny thing is that only dead leaders have spoken as men.  If a member categorizes a teaching of any of the current Q15 as only "speaking as a man" then at the very least the member will be viewed as less faithful.  

An recent example of this was the unfortunate gay policy that went into the handbook.  This was clearly a misstep and a revision was quickly made.   But there were rabid members, some right here on this forum, who came running to support support the initial policy and would not entertain the thought that it might be a product of leaders "speaking as men".

Edited December 29, 2015 by sunstoned

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

 

I wish it was this easy. I have a good friend that was born into the church and has been an active member all of her life.  She is originally from Canada and was raised in a family who likes their tea.  Her parents were LDS, but apparently they were at odds with the tea and coffee restriction in the Word of Wisdom.  My friend, now that she has now re-located to Utah has found that her use of tea has come under level of scrutiny she has not experienced before, and she is conflicted.  She feels that she has received spiritual conformation that use of tea is not at odds with any commandments of God, and that there is nothing wrong with tea.  Of course modern medicine supports this view with recent studies that show the positive effects tea has.  However, she cannot pass the temple recommend interview.  

Here is a clear case of a spiritual conformation that is at odds with a policy.  

Your point?

I left Catholicism because I disagreed with the beliefs and would leave Mormonism if the same problem arose.  If I were "in that place", I would ignore the criticism and/ or look elsewhere for another church.

In a minute.  

You have to be true to yourself, not someone else's rules for how you should live your life.   Tea is trivial to me- I miss my coffee and beer, but I practice the WOW for the sake of learning pure obedience on issues I see as actually irrelevant to my spirituality.  To me it is like fasting- I learn to control my passions and was able to lose a hundred pounds because of the disicpline I learned with the word of wisdom.  For that reason alone, I find it very valuable.

But if she likes her tea enough to be upset about it- were I in her place and I found such a thing troublesome and an obstacle to my becoming Christlike, I would be out. I would be Orthodox or Swedenborgian or something else.

To each his own.  I certainly would not stay and whine about rules.  Either you believe in it or you don't.

For me it has nothing to do with whether or not coffee is bad for you- it is about whether or not I have enough discipline to keep covenants I have made, even ones I might think are silly.  It is about practicing discipline for its own sake.

Edited December 29, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Then what is the "truth" about abstaining from a morning beverage that is good for you?  Where is the revelation that forbids tea and countermands D&C 89?  Explain to me what recourse a member who disagrees with this policy has?    

Walk or not.

The word of wisdom functions as a social barrier to make us "in the world but not of the world".  Coffee tea and alcohol are social beverages of the world.  We are not to be worldly so we abstain.

Premarital sex may be healthy too by some accounts. R rated movies. Piercings and tattoos. 

 Virtually all commandments have exceptions which might make breaking them justifiable.

It's just a question of how committed we are.

Honestly this sounds like immature rebellion issues to me.  "Mommy says I can't have beer and I waaaaaannt some."

So grow up and go to the store and get some if that's where your at.  Grow a p.....   

Nevermind.

Edited December 29, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I'm going to answer my own question.  There is no recourse for a member who disagrees with a church policy.  Church policy and doctrine are dictated from the leaders in SLC.  Members have no say at all. There is no voting, except to pledge and sustain.  If you don't agree, then keep your mouth shut or face discipline.  Policy and doctrine are for all intents and purposes one in the same until for some reason (usually political or for PR) it needs to change.  Then it is classified as policy and the leaders who supported it were "speaking only as men".  The funny thing is that only dead leaders have spoken as men.  If a member categorizes a teaching of any of the current Q15 as only "speaking as a man" then at the very least the member will be viewed as less faithful.  

An recent example of this was the unfortunate gay policy that went into the handbook.  This was clearly a misstep and a revision was quickly made.   But there were rabid members, some right here on this forum, who came running to support support the initial policy and would not entertain the thought that it might be a product of leaders "speaking as men".

Leaders speaking as men?  What else would they speak as?  Whining children?

Men - and and women with integrity- speak as adults who take responsibility for their actions.  They have the courage to stand up for their opinions and take the consequences and change what needs to be changed and admit they are wrong.

They take responsibility 

They stand up and speak their mind regardless of consequences and if necessary apologize if they are wrong, or in extreme cases, leave the church.   That is what "speaking as men" is all about and of course that includes women as well.

It's called courage of your convictions.

Quote

If you don't agree, then keep your mouth shut or face discipline.

It's not like we are talking about 40 lashes here you know.

Discipline for a cup of tea?  That is called a "fantasy".

Edited December 29, 2015 by mfbukowski

[CMZ]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

"one in the same"

One and the same.

Edited December 29, 2015 by CMZ

[CMZ]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I'm going to answer my own question.  There is no recourse for a member who disagrees with a church policy.  Church policy and doctrine are dictated from the leaders in SLC.  Members have no say at all. There is no voting, except to pledge and sustain.  If you don't agree, then keep your mouth shut or face discipline.  Policy and doctrine are for all intents and purposes one in the same until for some reason (usually political or for PR) it needs to change.  Then it is classified as policy and the leaders who supported it were "speaking only as men".  The funny thing is that only dead leaders have spoken as men.  If a member categorizes a teaching of any of the current Q15 as only "speaking as a man" then at the very least the member will be viewed as less faithful.  

An recent example of this was the unfortunate gay policy that went into the handbook.  This was clearly a misstep and a revision was quickly made.   But there were rabid members, some right here on this forum, who came running to support support the initial policy and would not entertain the thought that it might be a product of leaders "speaking as men".

Actually, it's not as bleak as you're portraying.

[salgare]

8 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

So why is it the people who don't want to follow doctrine that have difficulty defining it?

I remember making covenants, which I took very seriously.  I took to studying out the first of these one day, in hopes of checking my progression and if my part of that "Oath and Covenant" was being meet.  Was my part done?  I started in an effort to identify what is/was the law of the Gospel.  At that time (1980) we had the likes of Mormon Doctrine (might this Oath/Covenant need a cannon lawyer for basis?) and it was not that hard to define doctrine.  The problem was with how long my list was and how impossible it seemed that I would honestly ever be able to check them all off.

[salgare]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

With that comes the loaded assumption that we as individuals are fit judges of doctrinal statements.

Will we be judged by our compliance with doctrine?  If so, is it not like criminal law where ignorance of the law is no excuse?