And they came to pass...the sacrament?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that doctrine needs to be fully representative of eternal, unchanging truth.

 

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think it can be fully representative.

 

I agree with both of you... it was not a good choice of words on my part.

[Rain]

 

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, whether or not our leaders seek and receive divine direction on policy is irrelevant to the discussion.

God could certainly give direction or inspiration on a policy (and I believe that He does) but that doesn't make it more than a policy.  A policy serves a specific function at a certain time and changes when it stops being useful.  That's not how doctrine works.  That's a very important distinction in my view.  

Elder Bednar says, "applications are the actual behaviors, action steps, practices, or procedures by which gospel doctrines and principles are enacted in our lives. Whereas doctrines and principles do not change, applications appropriately can vary according to needs and circumstances."

Sounds like policies to me.

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that doctrine needs to be fully representative of eternal, unchanging truth.

He also says "gospel doctrines are eternal, do not change, and pertain to the eternal progression and exaltation of Heavenly Father's sons and daughters" so it is close.

There is a pretty big difference between the two, but both can be prayed about, pondered over and even revealed to man/prophets. 

This all reminds me - my niece recently had a still born baby. She chose to cremate the baby. My sister-in-law struggled with this at first because it was policy/application in the handbook for a time. After she thought through it she was ok because she realized this was no longer in CHI and was not doctrine.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Rain

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/23/2018 at 11:57 AM, bluebell said:

We do believe in following the prophet, and I take that very seriously.  We also believe that prophets are fallible.  I think that Christ expects us to follow the prophet even when he's wrong because I think most of the time, when the prophet is wrong, it still isn't going to hurt us to follow him (and Christ knew, when He taught that whether or something comes from Him or the prophet it's the same, that they have weaknesses and will be wrong sometimes).

But I don't think any of that means that we shouldn't care about the difference between a policy and doctrine.

 

If it comes from God as revealed through a prophet, there effectively <is> no difference as pertaining to choosing whether or not to heed it. What I see happening all too often is an attitude that anything one chooses to put under the broad category of “policy” is optional as to whether or not it should be heeded. I think that sort of attitude can be foolhardy. God reveals His will for our own safety and well-being, and we ignore it — whatever the pretext might be — at our peril. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it comes from God as revealed through a prophet, there effectively <is> no difference as pertaining to choosing whether or not to heed it. What I see happening all too often is an attitude that anything one chooses to put under the broad category of “policy” is optional as to whether or not it should be heeded. I think that sort of attitude can be foolhardy. God reveals His will for our own safety and well-being, and we ignore it — whatever the pretext might be — at our peril. 

I disagree.  Policy can and has been set aside when it doesn't serve the needs of the people or work for a specific location, etc.  Bishops and Stake presidents have a lot of leeway in following different policies, sometimes they don't even need approval from SLC to change something.  Doctrine doesn't work like that.

We're all foolhardy sometimes in our observance of the gospel.  If it wasn't so we wouldn't all need a Savior.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I disagree.  Policy can and has been set aside when it doesn't serve the needs of the people or work for a specific location, etc.  Bishops and Stake presidents have a lot of leeway in following different policies, sometimes they don't even need approval from SLC to change something.  Doctrine doesn't work like that.

We're all foolhardy sometimes in our observance of the gospel.  If it wasn't so we wouldn't all need a Savior.

You appear not to have taken cognizance of the conditional clause in my statement: “IF it comes from God as revealed through a prophet. ...” 

Given that condition, one ignores or dismisses the divine communication to his own detriment, regardless of whether he labels it as policy or counsel or whatever. 

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it comes from God as revealed through a prophet, there effectively <is> no difference as pertaining to choosing whether or not to heed it. What I see happening all too often is an attitude that anything one chooses to put under the broad category of “policy” is optional as to whether or not it should be heeded. I think that sort of attitude can be foolhardy. God reveals His will for our own safety and well-being, and we ignore it — whatever the pretext might be — at our peril. 

If there is no difference between policy and doctrine, is there any practical difference between scripture and the handbook of instructions? Or should members treat both with the same kind of reverence and obedience?

IMO- policy is the means to the end of knowing and accepting and living the doctrine. Seeing how doctrine and policy are being so confused/conflated reminds me of the Pharisees and Sadducees  who were so focused on the law (policies) that they undervalued the doctrines the policies were originally intended to uphold. The law in essence replaced the doctrine. Jesus didn't seem to like that very much  

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If there is no difference between policy and doctrine, is there any practical difference between scripture and the handbook of instructions? Or should members treat both with the same kind of reverence and obedience?

IMO- policy is the means to the end of knowing and accepting and living the doctrine. Seeing how doctrine and policy are being so confused/conflated reminds me of the Pharisees and Sadducees  who were so focused on the law (policies) that they undervalued the doctrines the policies were originally intended to uphold. The law in essence replaced the doctrine. Jesus didn't seem to like that very much  

I wonder if it would be easier if we said that doctrines are truths and policies are actions that are/should be based on those truths.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You appear not to have taken cognizance of the conditional clause in my statement: “IF it comes from God as revealed through a prophet. ...” 

Given that condition, one ignores or dismisses the divine communication to his own detriment, regardless of whether he labels it as policy or counsel or whatever. 

Which policies have come from God as revealed through a prophet, and which haven't?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I wonder if it would be easier if we said that doctrines are truths and policies are actions that are/should be based on those truths.

I see what you are suggesting but I'm not sure. It's an interesting question. At the very least there would need to be a hierarchy of policies.

For example, are the 10 commandments merely policies aimed at getting people to become the kind of people God wants us to become, or are the commandments more than that? Or if they are a policy, are they a more important & foundational policy than policies we'd find in the handbooks? Is obedience to the 10 commandments of equal importance to obedience to the handbook?

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Which policies have come from God as revealed through a prophet, and which haven't?

My statement was theoretical. It was conditional. I’m saying <if> a policy amounts to divine direction — and it would surprise me to learn that you don’t believe that at least some of them are — then it would be imprudent to ignore or dismiss or resist it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If there is no difference between policy and doctrine, is there any practical difference between scripture and the handbook of instructions? Or should members treat both with the same kind of reverence and obedience?

IMO- policy is the means to the end of knowing and accepting and living the doctrine. Seeing how doctrine and policy are being so confused/conflated reminds me of the Pharisees and Sadducees  who were so focused on the law (policies) that they undervalued the doctrines the policies were originally intended to uphold. The law in essence replaced the doctrine. Jesus didn't seem to like that very much  

I didn’t say there is no difference between policy and doctrine. I said that <if> the one or the other comes from God via prophecy, there ought to be no effective difference in whether or not we heed it. 

Please (and this goes for everyone here who is pushing back on me regarding this) try to understand my position before you choose to contest it. 

[ksfisher]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Which policies have come from God as revealed through a prophet, and which haven't?

Church policies, other than those which are in place to comply with law, are based on the doctrines of the church.  I don't see the need to try and differentiate which are and which aren't from God. 

 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t say there is no difference between policy and doctrine. I said that <if> the one or the other comes from God via prophecy, there ought to be no effective difference in whether or not we heed it. 

Please (and this goes for everyone here who is pushing back on me regarding this) try to understand my position before you choose to contest it. 

We'll just agree to disagree.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Church policies, other than those which are in place to comply with law, are based on the doctrines of the church. I don't see the need to try and differentiate which are and which aren't from God. 

 

I don't think it's important to differentiate either, but that's because I don't agree with Scott's assessment of the issue.  

If I agreed with him--if I believed that there were some policies that would be detrimental and foolhardy to set aside or disagree with regardless of the reason--then I would believe it was important to differentiate.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You appear not to have taken cognizance of the conditional clause in my statement: “IF it comes from God as revealed through a prophet. ...” 

Given that condition, one ignores or dismisses the divine communication to his own detriment, regardless of whether he labels it as policy or counsel or whatever. 

 

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If there is no difference between policy and doctrine, is there any practical difference between scripture and the handbook of instructions? Or should members treat both with the same kind of reverence and obedience?

IMO- policy is the means to the end of knowing and accepting and living the doctrine. Seeing how doctrine and policy are being so confused/conflated reminds me of the Pharisees and Sadducees  who were so focused on the law (policies) that they undervalued the doctrines the policies were originally intended to uphold. The law in essence replaced the doctrine. Jesus didn't seem to like that very much  

 

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Which policies have come from God as revealed through a prophet, and which haven't?

 

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My statement was theoretical. It was conditional. I’m saying <if> a policy amounts to divine direction — and it would surprise me to learn that you don’t believe that at least some of them are — then it would be imprudent to ignore or dismiss or resist it. 

 

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

We'll just agree to disagree.

Would you agree that whatever God says, and by whatever means He chooses to convey it, is right, prudent and proper? Because that is essentially what I’m saying. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

 

 

Would you agree that whatever God says, and by whatever means He chooses to convey it, is right, prudent and proper? Because that is essentially what I’m saying. 

Yes, I agree with that.  It's that statement as it's applied to policies and doctrines (the topic of our discussion) where I think we disagree.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's important to differentiate either, but that's because I don't agree with Scott's assessment of the issue.  

If I agreed with him--if I believed that there were some policies that would be detrimental and foolhardy to set aside or disagree with regardless of the reason--then I would believe it was important to differentiate.

I’m not sure even now that you grasp my “assessment.” 

For example, I never said that “there [are] some policies that would be detrimental and foolhardy to set aside or disagree with regardless of the reason.” 

What I did say is that whatever God conveys to His children, be it through prophets or in some other way, is right and ought to be heeded, regardless of whether one chooses to call it doctrine, policy, counsel or something else. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I agree with that.  It's that statement as it's applied to policies and doctrines (the topic of our discussion) where I think we disagree.

If one were certain that a given policy were divinely directed, what rational reason would there be to disregard it? 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If one were certain that a given policy were divinely directed, what rational reason would there be to disregard it? 

Because I believe that, when it comes to policy, it being rule doesn't mean that God doesn't allow exceptions.  

For example, it's policy that members go to the ward they are assigned based on their geographical location.  I believe that that policy is divinely inspired. However, I've known members who have gotten permission to attend a different ward than the one they were assigned for special reasons.  It's policy that women are not to be sealed to more than one man while they are alive, for example.  However, the first presidency has granted exceptions to that policy as well.

I think there could be many reasons (condoned by God) to disregard certain policies.  Exceptions are sometimes necessary.

 

 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

For example, it's policy that members go to the ward they are assigned based on their geographical location.  I believe that that policy is divinely inspired. However, I've known members who have gotten permission to attend a different ward than the one they were assigned for special reasons.

The policy here is that exceptions to attending a geographic ward must be approved by the First Presidency.  The exception is part of the policy.  Same, I believe, with your other example.

Edited October 26, 2018 by ksfisher

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Because I believe that, when it comes to policy, it being rule doesn't mean that God doesn't allow exceptions.  

For example, it's policy that members go to the ward they are assigned based on their geographical location.  I believe that that policy is divinely inspired. However, I've known members who have gotten permission to attend a different ward than the one they were assigned for special reasons.  It's policy that women are not to be sealed to more than one man while they are alive, for example.  However, the first presidency has granted exceptions to that policy as well.

I think there could be many reasons (condoned by God) to disregard certain policies.  Exceptions are sometimes necessary.

 

 

OK, I can accept that in principle. That’s what occurred when Nephi was commanded to slay Laban and when plural marriage was temporarily instituted in the latter-day dispensation with monogamy being the de facto commandment.

But too often, what I observe is an attitude (not on your part, but with some) that if something is designated “policy,” it may be freely disregarded, bypassed, rejected, argued against, disparaged, because, after all, it is only “policy,” and God only communicates eternal doctrine to His people and never bothers with an inconsequential thing like “policy.”  Then, too often, we see the Martin Harris syndrome at play, where he is so certain he knows better than the Lord what is best in a given instance, that he pesters the Prophet until the Prophet relents, and — surprise — grave consequences result.  

Or sometimes folks don’t even bother with the pestering. They just go ahead and act on their own part. 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The policy her is that exceptions to attending a geographic ward must be approved by the First Presidency.  The exception is part of the policy.  Same, I believe, with your other example.

And, presumably, where the First Presidency is involved, divine direction is sought and received even where an exception is made. 

So it’s not just a matter of disregarding the policy. There must be an affirmative effort to ascertain the will of God in making any exception to it. 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And, presumably, where the First Presidency is involved, divine direction is sought and received even where an exception is made. 

So it’s not just a matter of disregarding the policy. There must be an affirmative effort to ascertain the will of God in making any exception to it. 

Just curious...do you believe that every request for exception that goes to the First Presidency is actually reviewed by the First Presidency as an individual matter? It is my understanding that many of the required FP exceptions go to the "office" of the First Presidency but are generally funneled through their Executive Secretaries who make decisions about what exceptions should or should not be permitted. The FP may then review the recommendations of the ES or simply accept them.

Do you have any personal information about how the actual process works? I don't find it realistic to expect the FP personally reviews every item that requires FP permission because there are sooooo many items. From sealing cancellations to rebaptisms, to allowing bishops to perform a marriage out of their ward boundaries to... There are a LOT of things that require FP approval and I simply don't see how they could spend the time to seek divine direction on each specific item.

[Analytics]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And, presumably, where the First Presidency is involved, divine direction is sought and received even where an exception is made. 

So it’s not just a matter of disregarding the policy. There must be an affirmative effort to ascertain the will of God in making any exception to it. 

It's kind of ironic that in a church that believes in personal revelation, "divine direction" isn't expected, much less authorized, until the First Presidency becomes involved.

It reminds me of what a Quaker told me once--the difference between Mormons and Quakers is that Mormons go to a Prophet to hear the Word of God, while Quakers go directly to the source.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

to allowing bishops to perform a marriage out of their ward boundaries to

Since this is not something that requires First Presidency approval, a lot of time should be taken off of their plate to attend to the other matters you brought up. 

"Unless contrary to legal requirements, these Church officers [stake president, mission president, bishop, branch president] may perform marriages for members of their units outside the boundaries of their units."

(Handbook 1, 3.5.3)

 

I realize that this is not the main thrust of your post, but I didn't want anyone going away with the impression that this was not allowed.