- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My wife came home from WW training today and said “The guys at StayLDS aren’t going to be very happy…after what I heard at the training today. She said the following: 1. Elder Oakes said the CHI is doctrine.
2. Elder Holland said it is “based on doctrine”.
3. Someone stood up and said it was doctrine.
Don’t know if anyone else was there, but this sounds kind of disturbing.
Was anyone there to vouch for this? Comments?
In the last meeting, it was clarified that the policies and procedures need to be implemented when managing a large institution but that the Spirit should be what determines how we execute the Lord’s work and our callings. Was that changed? If so, I’ve got some serious concerns…
I will ask around and find out. In the training in November, it was stated clearly that the CHI is NOT doctrine.
Now, if the first time they meant “immutable Truth” (not) and the second time they meant “what the Church teaches generally” (sure) . . . I can agree with both statements.
😆 The distinction between doctrine and mere policy is starting to become very blurry. SilentDawning wrote:The distinction between doctrine and mere policy is starting to become very blurry.
SD,On another forum, someone said that the statement was very specifically applied to Book 2 – the auxiliary leaders handbook.
Quote:SD, On another forum, someone said that the statement was very specifically applied to Book 2 – the auxiliary leaders handbook.
I thought there was a process that information had to go through to be accepted as doctrine — involving a vote before the Church….there has been much ado about that on this site with the What is Doctrine Essay. So, how a leader can just up and say it’s doctrine is beyond me. Also, I would think the Prophet would be the one to indicate what is doctrine and what isn’t on big matters like this.
Also, I’m starting to believe the Q12 and Prophet don’t think much about whether the various Church publications we experience are revelation/doctrine or mere policy. If what my wife says is true, there has been lack of unity on these subjects among high level leaders. BKPacker says the Proclamation qualifies as revelation, then his talk was edited to remove or soften that claim. In one meeting we hear the CHI is doctrine, then we hear it is only based on it. In the first WWW training, Ray said E Bednar indicated the new CHI represents the current crop of top leaders “best understanding” (not doctrine) of how to apply gospel principles to Church work….and the list goes on.
So, I’m wondering if we’re paying more attention to the classification of the CHI as doctrine/revelation/policy than even the GA’s have considered.
In the end, whether doctrine or revelation, it will control behavior within the Church to some extent, and we will have to deal with it — whether it’s revelation, doctrine or policy or not. And whether I get behind any idea in the Church is ultimately my judgment. The only constraints are the social impact of being ostracized or somehow punished for not following it, limits on one’s ability to particpate in ordinances, and my own view of the concept in question….
Policy in the church might as well be doctrine. If you go against it, ignore it, or publicly express a contrary opinion you are a heretic just like doctrine. So maybe doctrine tells us about the nature of God and sets out commandments and policy just is just that policy. But in the end both will control your life in the church to pretty much the same degree. SilentDawning wrote:
So, I’m wondering if we’re paying more attention to the classification of the CHI as doctrine/revelation/policy than even the GA’s have considered.
I could be wrong but I think so.Cadence wrote:Policy in the church might as well be doctrine. If you go against it, ignore it, or publicly express a contrary opinion you are a heretic just like doctrine. So maybe doctrine tells us about the nature of God and sets out commandments and policy just is just that policy. But in the end both will control your life in the church to pretty much the same degree.
This is where I’ve come to rest as we’ve discussed the whole doctrine/revelation/policy issue. Although the distinctions we discussed here provided some comfort.
What Cadence said. And as cwald said in another thread: “For all intent and purposes, Brian is right – there really is not much difference between “suggestions, council, commandments, revelation, policy.” As far as the local leaders are concerned, they are the same thing, in most cases.”
Why split hairs? It doesn’t seem to really matter.
SilentDawning wrote:
1. Elder Oakes said the CHI is doctrine.2. Elder Holland said it is “based on doctrine”.
3. Someone stood up and said it was doctrine.
Old-Timer wrote:In the training in November, it was stated clearly that the CHI is NOT doctrine.
… and I would like to add that the most important doctrine to remember is that doctrine never changes. It is eternally fixed as the laws of heaven.
😆 Now for my serious answer: There’s doctrine … and then there’s doctrine. It depends on what we mean when we say something is “doctrine.” I would say they are using that term loosely in reference to the CHI. In their usage, they are talking about:
“something that is taught” or “a principle of law established through past decisions” (Merriam-Websters online)
So yes. The CHI is church doctrine as in it details the policies and positions of “church law” that will be used right now to govern the organization. What I think we are all getting upset about is conflating the CHI with what we think of as “Official Doctrine” that we really see more as immutable truths (as Ray put it).
Official Doctrine, canonized and accepted by the body of the Church:
The essence of the Gospel is to have faith, repent, be baptized and to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. <<
That is very unlikely to ever change. It is an immutable truth within the Church. This was true 2,000 years ago. It is true today.Church policy (guiding doctrines to govern the church):
The CHI is “doctrine”
To extend Brian’s comment, I think there is worth in describing doctrines which are essential for salvation, and those that are not. If you want to call the ENTIRE CHI doctrine, that’s fine, but just how critical are many of its parts for salvation? If you proclaim that the CHI is doctrine, then I think the it’s a fair statement that doctrine goes beyond principles necessary for salvation, which are centered on right-living and ordinances. Much of the CHI focuses on procedures and best-practices, which in my view have little or direct bearing on salvation at all. Ultimately, it’s salvation that matters, not whether you followed established rules of execution, which aren’t applicable to all situations anyway! So, if you define the entire CHI as doctrine, then that opens up a can of worms about what is inviolate and what is not….
I think it’s better for the Church as a whole to have a narrow definition of what constitutes doctrine so bedrock principles are distinguished from “flexible” ones.
Turns out the word used was “DOCTRINAL” meaning rooted in doctrine which gives some internal consistency to the talks. The news section at lds.org has the quote, I think. I read it last night. After reading the news report, seems like much less of an issue to me.
mercyngrace wrote:After reading the news report, seems like much less of an issue to me.
I think it would be a non-issue for me, but the What is Doctrine article on the front page of this website has prompted us to talk about it at different times. The intent of the article appears to distinguish between firm commandments and principles that are inviolate, and those aspects of our religion which are more flexible and policy-based. Presumably, this would help reduce the angst people feel about every aspect of their experience in the Church being scripted.
So, one reason this is a bit of an issue to some of us at this site is the conditioning and discussions we’ve had on this point. I personally agree with Cadence above, that in the end, it doesn’t matter because doctrine and CHI both create culture together, and many members do not distinguish between the two when deciding what to believe or do.
For me, it has a bit of significance on the subject of tithing. For some time, I believed that the description in the scriptures — 10% of our INCREASE was the guiding principle, and provided a certain amount of flexibility in its definition. We also discussed the 1970-ish FP letter stating that tithing is 10% of our INCOME, and that letter was deemed as non-doctrinable, to be taken under advisement rather than as a firm command. So, there are SOME implications to some of us about the distinction between doctrine and mere policy that hasn’t been formally put to the Church as a form of doctrine. At least, on the issue of tithing, that matters to me. The CHI quotes the 1970’s FP letter as the definition of tithing, I believe — at least, the old one did — so the statement that the CHI is doctrine removes personal judgment from defining the amount on which one pays their 10%.
See how this could be construed as more relevant than we think on this particular issue (tithing). On other issues, I think the distinction is meaningless, but the Church really emphasizes tithing, so, this has me concerned.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.