- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I read through the article on the home page of StayLDS.com. It indicates the process for establishing formal doctrine by which the Church and its members are bound. One comment made is that policies and handbooks aren’t official doctrine. My question is this — does this matter? We still have to abide by them whether they have been formally accepted by the Church or not.
You can’t get into the temple if you say “I drink beer every Saturday evening with my buddies at the club” and get a temple recommend. So, you have to give up your beer. But alcoholic drinks have never been specifically banned in the scriptures and accepted as doctrine. The scriptures refer to “hot drinks” which is ambiguous. [addendum — I just read D&C on Wow and it does seem to mention alcoholic bevies – however, there are lots of other examples, like defining tithing].
I don’t believe the formal definition of tithing as 10% of your income has ever been put to the Church and accepted as formal doctrine either. It’s been described as “interest” in the scripures and interpreted different ways throughout the history of the Church, but never has it been put to the Church for a vote.
So, the article is meant, I presume, to help people feel they have more wiggle room than they might think given all the things that are mistakenly construed as doctrine. But at the same time, policy makes it impossible to make use of this wiggle room due to policies and procedures that local leaders enforce when people come to them wanting formal access to ordinances or the temple.
So, why does this distinction between Doctrine, and policy even matter if policy restricts behavior just as effectively as Doctrine WOULD HAVE, if those policies are treated like doctrine by Church leaders when issuing temple recommends?
P.S. (I see how this distinction between doctrine and practice matters on items that are not enforced by leaders, such as the cultural “norm” you should be republican, but on commandments enforced in temple recommend interviews that haven’t been put to the Church, this distinction has no comfort or meaning to me).
Good question Silent Dawning. I think the clarification is to help people see that the “doctrine” is not so specific and limiting as they may initially think. It’s all in an effort to let questioning members see that what they believe may not be so far off what they are “required” to believe as their first impression may say. Steps closer, for those who are looking for ways to reconcile.
If for example, you are living true to how you personally understand tithing, nobody on earth should be able to tell you you’re wrong. Some things are between you and God, even if popular opinion may say otherwise. All humans have their limitations after all. All we can do is live true to our best internal beliefs. We need to take and trust what our searching and inspiration give us to work with.
Orson wrote:Good question Silent Dawning. I think the clarification is to help people see that the “doctrine” is not so specific and limiting as they may initially think. It’s all in an effort to let questioning members see that what they believe may not be so far off what they are “required” to believe as their first impression may say.
Steps closer, for those who are looking for ways to reconcile.
If for example, you are living true to how you personally understand tithing, nobody on earth should be able to tell you you’re wrong. Some things are between you and God, even if popular opinion may say otherwise. All humans have their limitations after all. All we can do is live true to our best internal beliefs. We need to take and trust what our searching and inspiration give us to work with.
Orson — I think this works on issues that are not formally held to task in temple recommend interviews (such as political beliefs), or enforced by denying priviledges such as performing or participating in ordinances. It may even work with tithing since the TR question is “do you pay your tithing?” and the exact basis for calculating it isn’t spelled out in the interview (although in tithing settlement is — “does that represent 10%”? )
Can it work with WoW? I think the TR question is “do you obey the word of wisdom”. Doesthis mean that if you drink our beer ice cold it’s OK because it’s not a hot drink?
By the way, I have no issues with the WoW, I’m using it as test of the ideas in the Official Doctrine article.
It’s okay, good question. I don’t mind a push. I can answer this two ways: For me personally, I would not feel right answering “yes I live the word of wisdom” if I drank beer. My understanding of the best way to live my life includes the abstinence from alcohol. (And I think the WOW terms “strong drinks”)
On the other hand, I wouldn’t feel it my place to try to convince someone else, who had an honest and sincere view that differed from mine – that they’re wrong. If they feel right with God and the universe, and they are striving toward “becoming” or progressing toward a greater state. If they honestly feel the proper response to that question is “yes” from how their personal revelation is directing them to live their lives — then if I was their Bishop I wouldn’t want to try to interfere. I think the last question is the most important, and I know many leaders think the same.
SilentDawning wrote:So, why does this distinction between Doctrine, and policy even matter if policy restricts behavior just as effectively as Doctrine WOULD HAVE, if those policies are treated like doctrine by Church leaders when issuing temple recommends?
SD, good questions.
I guess it depends on what you are seeking after, and what your motives are, IMO.
There is a distinction between understanding doctrine and practicing religion. All commandments or church policies (WoW, tithing, etc) all have some reason why they are required of us (good or bad, they came from some need to institutionalize them to help run the church in order). Those reasons should be doctrinal in nature, and sometimes those reasons change as we come to understand doctrines better (i.e. priesthood).
The doctrine is not the commandment, it is why we have the commandment, just as the church is not the gospel, it is why we have the church.And I think many members don’t think about it that way, they are just taught the policies and accept them on faith without thinking deeply about why we have them. They are just given to us by a representative of God (bishop, prophet, etc) and that’s good enough for some people. And to get a temple recommend or be judged worthy in church leaders’ opinions, they judge us by the actions around the policies because that is a measurable yes/no question. Drinking a beer = breaking WoW. You can make that judgment. So does it matter to distinguish doctrine from policy if the policy restricts behavior? Only to the person who wants to understand more why we should accept the church policies. To the person who doesn’t care because they just choose to follow the church policy regardless, or the person who doesn’t care to abide by church policy, no I would not think it matters to distinguish them. But I would also say there is a greater chance of faith crisis for someone that obeys the letter of the law and does not understand the doctrines behind them, because they are shocked to see church change policies that they thought were unchanging eternal truths.
For someone struggling with faith around church policies but haven’t thought about the doctrines specifically, the essay is helpful. The essay states:
Quote:If a person is struggling with faith issues, it may become important to distinguish between Official Doctrine and less authoritative council. A clear understanding of Official Doctrine can reduce controversy, minimize anxiety and perhaps open up new options for resolving faith issues.
I think it achieves this purpose.
If I only focus on the policy around the Word of Wisdom…I have a problem, because I just don’t feel coffee and tea have any relation to my spirituality and if that kept me from seeing my daughter’s sealing in the temple…that leads to a huge problem with me and the church. However, if I understand the doctrine behind it, I care less about coffee, tea, or caffeine in chocolate (meaning I don’t understand why one substance is banned and this other is not)…and instead read the scriptures to understand the doctrine that helps change my heart and that helps me deal with it by separating that policy from the doctrine.
I would argue Christ was teaching us to understand the doctrines, so we can better live the commandments with our hearts in the right place, not do away with commandments all together, but become converted by those policies and commandments because they are helping to become more like Him IF the person understands why they are living them, and how they should adapt them to personal circumstances. As I understand doctrines more, I realize the church policies have their purpose, but are a means to an end…not unchanging eternal truths…and this helps me to let go of angst on living by the policies or disagreeing with others about them.
I think Orson and Heber gave great comments. I would add that the essay isn’t intended to help people break commandments, and certainly not to encourage them to break religious practices they feel are valuable to them. You are correct SD, the policies of the Church are the lower level, detailed, front line framework we deal with in our relationship to the Church. The church controls access to the temple (physically) and to ordinances (at least the record keeping and official recognition of them). That is all administered and regulated through current policy. So yeah, violating policies will hinder someone to some degree or another.
Understanding the relationship between Gospel, Doctrine and Policy is also useful for a lot of people, like many of us here, when we are trying to get a handle on church history, scripture and doctrinal/policy development over time. I think it helps some people in their faith crisis to transition into a more nuanced way of seeing “commandments” in their life (is it a doctrine, or a policy that has changed over time).
Here’s one great example: Joseph Smith revealed the Word of Wisdom, but neither he nor most other early saints followed a policy of this “doctrine” the same way
welive the policy today. For me in particular (and this is common), growing up in the Church, I picked up the expectation that the
policiesof the Church today are ETERNAL truths, never-changing doctrines of the Gospel. What I experience in Church every Sunday is the same way it has always been, all the way back to Adam and Eve. Adam had to make a white shirt and tie from animal skins so he could serve the sacrament to Eve every Sunday. And they did 3 hours of Church, separating for quiet contemplation (I guess) when it was time to split for Relief Society and Priesthood. God never changes or alters His course, right? But then I find out that Joseph Smith drank beer, wine and enjoyed an occasional cigar — AFTER the word of wisdom revelation. How can this be?
Without a broader understanding, it is easy to assume that the Word of Wisdom is a false revelation, and that Joseph Smith and others were just making it all up. But then again … maybe I don’t have to have such a harsh and literal perspective about the policies I encounter in the Church.
Gospel: You will be more happy if you are healthy and take care of yourself. Try not to be self destructive. This is a GREAT idea, but lacking in any details of how to do this.
Doctrine: Section 89 of the D&C. This is still lacking in details, especially relevant ones for living in the year 2010, which is very different than living in 1838.
2010 Policy: Don’t consume alcohol in the form of beverages (rum cake and medicine is OK, hehe), no coffee, no tea, and no smoking tobacco. That is what it means to follow the WofW and be in compliance with the Church. You don’t really have to worry about anything else it says in Section 89. This is a micro-management level of detail. This is also very different than the policy of 1838 and subsequent years all the way up to the 1930’s.
Understanding these relationships informs us, and helps us to make decisions about what it all means to us spiritually and religiously. Knowledge is power.
I love the points that have been offered. Brian’s continuum of Gospel, Doctrine, Policy is very useful. I will add a fourth: Culture. The temple recommend questions are considerably more nebulous than we tend to assume. If I abstain in general from alcohol, and if I believe that I live the gospel and build the LDS Church best by graciously accepting an offer of my nice friends Barack and Michelle Obama to join them for dinner including small glasses of wine, then I would in good conscience declare I keep the word of wisdom in a temple recommend interview even after that dinner party.
So that begs another question: Are we great Mormons when we align with culture? With policy? With doctrine? With gospel? Are we lousy Mormons when we suggest that culture, policy, doctrine, and gospel are not identical?
Quote:Are we great Mormons when we align with culture? With policy? With doctrine? With gospel? Are we lousy Mormons when we suggest that culture, policy, doctrine, and gospel are not identical?
Do we care – and, either way, should we – and, if so, how much?
I don’t mean that to be flippant. I think those questions are central to our individual reconciliation – and I think “proper” answers can vary individually. Often, I don’t care enough to go against things; often, I care enough to go against things; always, I care enough to strive to act carefully and consciously – and attempt to do so charitably.
Tom Haws wrote:So that begs another question: Are we great Mormons when we align with culture? With policy? With doctrine? With gospel? Are we lousy Mormons when we suggest that culture, policy, doctrine, and gospel are not identical?
My answer is yes — provided you aren’t starting some movement to encourage others to adopt these views. The dominant culture is that these things are all the same. And many people treat them that way, and benefit from the structure. I woudn’t want to be responsible for tearing down those structures around them — particularly people who really need that structure, like my children, for example who lack the ability to think in terms of paradoxes, judgment, etcetera.
Do wine gums violate the WoW? (Not that I eat them often, but the expensive ones have liqueurs in them) Interesting question. I am going to say for all intents and purposes there is no difference between doctrine, policy, instruction, or anything else that proceeds forth from the mouth of the leaders. As Mormons we take all these in and many begin to alter their lives and make judgment calls based on the information they get. Take the whole earring and tattoo thing. It is not doctrinal or even scriptural, yet most devout members are going to adhere to it and expect others in the church to do so. They are going to make a judgment against you if you do not. It is just the culture we live in. To me it is just splitting hairs to try and nail down doctrine vs policy. They are both control mechanisms to modify behavior. If you truly believe in the church then you should probably obey and do everything you are told. If you do not believe well then you get to make up your mind what is important as you go along
Cadence wrote:Interesting question. I am going to say for all intense purposes
I think the actual usage is “for all intents and purposes”. Sorry, that’s the teacher coming out in me….apologies.
Quote:there is no difference between doctrine, policy, instruction, or anything else that proceeds forth from the mouth of the leaders.
I remember standing up in front of a HP quorum as leader and giving them “instruction” and I would say 50% didn’t listen and didnt’ care. And there was nothing I could do about it And further, the people above me (Stake President/Bishop wouldn’t lift a finger to support or enforce what I was teaching even though they agreed with it. So, I think there’s a lot of room for private assimilation/rejection of what leaders say. Home teaching is a prime example.
Quote:As mormons we take all these in and many begin to alter their lives and make judgement calls based on the information they get. Take the whole earring and tattoo thing. It is not doctrinal or even scriptural, yet most devout members are going to adhere to it and expect others in the church to do so. They are going to make a judgment against you if you do not. It is just the culture we live in.
Yes, but they can only judge what they see…..
Quote:To me it is just splitting hairs to try and nail down doctrine vs policy. They are both control mechanisms to modify behavior. If you truly believe in the church then you should probably obey and do everything you are told. If you do not believe well then you get to make up your mind what is important as you go along
ON matters that are enforced through interviews, where they put you in a position where you are asked point blank questions about whether you live certain commandments, I agree with you wholeheartedly there is less substantive difference between doctrine and policy. HOwever, there is even room for interpretation on the part of the individual about whether they live the commandment. For example, garments. There have been times when I have gone swimming and then stayed in my swimming trunks throughout the day, taking dips now and then. That happens probably 3 or 4 times a year — am I in violation when I wear them religiously the rest of the year? I think not. If once raise this in an interview and the Bishop just told me it was important to wear the garment and then issues my temple recommend.
But I think the distinction matters on issues that aren’t the subject of interviews. These I will call soft commandments. Many of these soft commandments/practice/policy issues are flexible and are open to private interpretation — such as what it means to keep the Sabbath Day Holy.
The other distinction — between cultural values and doctrine is also a meaningless distinction, but I think that’s true only when the value is visible to everyone AND people are likely to make your life uncomfortable by pointing out your violation of that cultural value. You have less flexibility to interpret the cultural value liberally because there is consensus among Mormons and they are willing to enforce that value when they see you.
I think I’m going to try to focus on those things I can control and interpret and chalk up the other stuff to the cost of being part of the MOrmon community.
In this area, Cadence, we couldn’t disagree more when it comes to your last paragraph. I’ve let go of trying to live up to what I perceive to be others’ expectations of me. I’m not sure you have – but I am sure it’s unhealthy for you to keep insisting everyone else has to toe a line you know you can’t and don’t want to toe if they are to be faithful and believing.
This particular aspect (especially feeling controlled) is eating you up inside, and that’s something you have to figure out, ultimately, within yourself. We are here to help give our own perspectives, but you are going to have to come to terms with your competing ideals – one way or the other – if you are going to find real joy inside OR outside the LDS Church. That conflict is not caused by the Church; it’s caused by life. It’s going to be there now that you are aware of the competing ideals that cause it no matter where you go – unless you embrace one extreme or another that denies one of them. I don’t think you can do that and not end up in a destructive situation, personally.
However, if you can do that, and if that is necessary to bring peace to you, I will support you fully – but I sincerely hope and pray you can recognize a way to carve out an individual path between the general ideals, constructing a vision that constitutes your own ideal – whether that is inside the Church or outside it. It’s possible in both places, but I believe you are going to have to embrace paradox and opposition fully to do it. Your biggest hurdle is determining the level of “control” (acquiescence, really) you are willing to accept to be part of a group and community, imho – although I wouldn’t stake my eternal reward on it.
Finally, please don’t condescend to imply that others don’t believe just because they are forging their own path and constructing their own visions inside the communal journey. I believe what I’ve chosen to believe, and it puts me solidly within Mormonism – even if it doesn’t put me in the middle of the cultural stream. Many, many more members than you are willing right now to acknowledge can say the exact same thing. I know you are going through a cynical time right now with intense pressure, but try to grant us a degree of understanding and credit us with a degree of sincere and personal belief. You deserve that consideration from us, and we deserve it from you.
I think what adds another layer of complexity is how to apply things. Conceptually, I enjoy studying the difference between what Elder Uchtdorf refers to as “many good ideas” that have been handed down and become expectations vs. what is truly Mormon doctrine. It can be a personal journey and interesting for me to increase the depth of my testimony. But now add how do I choose to live that principle and live with my fellow saints in my ward. Ultimately, I have come to not care what others think, and my rum cake is yummy, whether others think I should eat it or not, I can honestly answer to the interview questions “Yes, I live the word of wisdom”
A greater level of complexity is how I teach it to my kids. Many of you have heard my interactions with ward members with my daughter and dating before 16. My ward absolutely teaches that is doctrine from the prophet and a sin for youth to break that rule.
While I don’t care, my kids do, and are approached about it in interviews all the time. And so it is not so easy to just develop my own interpretations with doctrines and policies….in order to participate in my ward, my family will face confrontations about things, and we either fall in line, outwardly rebel, or have painstakingly repeating conversations about it where it takes up more effort than it should, IMO.
For me, the essay helps remind me I should separate out doctrine from policy from tradition, to know how to best handle individual situations. But it gets complex at times, and therein is opportunity to grow in working through issues.
Ray, I’m going to tread lightly here, but I’m really not sure what your are refering to. I’ve read Spocks comment, and your comment, and I don’t get the corralation. Which part of this paragraph merited your response? What part “got your goat” so to speak? Perhaps i just don’t understand your lingo and philosophy – perhaps you are trying to be too PR and careful in your wordage (beating around the bush), rather than just coming out and saying what you think? What is it you are trying to say in plain terms? I don’t want to “read between the lines” or try to assume what your point is, because I know you will call me on that — so I will not respond until/unless you clarify your post. Maybe I’m just an idiot and can’t understand the message too, but the whole thing has me shaking my head as to what it is you are trying to get at. I am not trying to be rude. I just don’t want to misunderstand your response and say something and have you say, “I never said that, that is why I am very careful in what I write…’
Cadence wrote:To me it is just splitting hairs to try and nail down doctrine vs policy. They are both control mechanisms to modify behavior. If you truly believe in the church then you should probably obey and do everything you are told. If you do not believe well then you get to make up your mind what is important as you go along
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.