Does doctrine change?

[Anonymous]

We seem to dance around this issue here and probably secretly in general in the church. The last few days with Kate Kelly and Ordain Women taking a front seat in the bloggernacle, I have been thinking about this. What the Ordain Women group is asking, IMO, is a change of doctrine (or depending on your own understanding or point of view, they’re asking for the prophet to ask about a change of doctrine). That is of course with the caveat that you believe that the priesthood being given only to men is doctrine, and that is admittedly debatable.

It seems also, though, that some people try to link the ideas of Ordain Women with the race and the priesthood issue. Again, arguably there was a change in doctrine by giving the priesthood to all worthy males in 1978 and the idea that is was doctrine is given some credibility by the idea that a revelation changed the past practice. There are of course many who argue both sides of the issue in the bloggernacle, with some asserting that disallowing the priesthood to some men was never doctrine while others vehemently assert it was the “doctrine of the time.”

So, is there any such thing as a “doctrine of the time” which changes or is true doctrine really unchangeable?

[Anonymous]

I was reading the comment section in the Deseret News on the recent “Blacks and the Priesthood” essay. Several people said the essay showed that it was never doctrine, and was a mistake. An obviously very TBM person posted that is was doctrine, and God changed the doctrine when he was ready. I guess it is just the mental gymnastics that some TBMs have to do to get over the cognitive dissonance of what that essay implied.

[Anonymous]

We have talked about this in a number of threads, but I don’t have time today to find them. I would encourage you to search our archives, perhaps by using “doctrine changes” or “doctrines change” or something similar.

“Doctrine”, in its purest form, means nothing more than “what is taught” – so, of course, doctrine changes. Anyone who says otherwise either is wrong or means something different – like “eternal doctrine”, which, by definition, means “things that are taught and never change” (or, in LDS-speak, “God’s doctrine”). I absolutely believe that sort of “doctrine” never changes, but I also believe it is FAR narrower than we tend to realize. Perhaps it is as simple as:

Quote:

Love everyone (God, yourself and everyone else), and act always from that love.

Even that, however, doesn’t result always in the exact same actions in the same situations. It says absolutely nothing objective about what someone will do but rather grounds everything on one’s conscience and how one views acting in love. Thus, in a time of perceived danger, one person can: give a hug; cry with someone else; give gentle advice; give a stern rebuke; reach out and physically drag someone away. The “doctrine” and its application can remain pure and be followed with exactness in all the cases above – and that is incredibly hard to understand and accept. Thus, the admonition:

Quote:

Judge not, that ye be not judged – and, With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.

[Anonymous]

I seem to remember Wayfarer describing church doctrine once as “that which is taught.”

Using that definition then it is clear that there are some shifts to “that which is taught” over time.

Another interesting thing is the difference between doctrine and policy. The priesthood ban (IMO) morphed from a doctrine to a command without concrete explanation (similar to what many now teach about polygamy) then to a policy and finally to an errant policy (in other words that I believe the most current understanding is that the ban was a policy that was out of step with what we now believe the core gospel doctrine to be).

So here we have an example of a doctrine being downgraded over time. I believe that a major function of this downgrading is to give people time to adjust to changing doctrine.

I specualte that if polygamy and/or the priesthood ban were current church practice today then both would still be defended as inviolable doctrines.

Finally, I don’t understand where people would call women not getting the priesthood as a core doctrine as I have seen lately described. Was it core doctrine in the meridian of time that only those of Jewish faith be presented with the Christian message? We have a long history of the gospel door being opened to people to whom it was previosly shut.

[Anonymous]

Yes.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Finally, I don’t understand where people would call women not getting the priesthood as a core doctrine as I have seen lately described. Was it core doctrine in the meridian of time that only those of Jewish faith be presented with the Christian message? We have a long history of the gospel door being opened to people to whom it was previously shut.

Actually, Roy, I read a blog where that exact argument was made in support of the idea of doctrine of the time. Before Peter’s dream, the gospel was primarily preached only to the Jews (although no one seems to have stopped those who lived among the Jews from being taught) and Peter thought it was only for the Jews. His dream and revelation changed that, therefore in the view of some people doctrine changed. My personal take on the whole story is that Peter, a Jew, didn’t think outside the box and only taught Jews initially because that’s what Jesus did – but Jesus did have some limitations of time and those most ready for the message were Jews. I don’t think Jesus ever only intended for the gospel to only be taught to Jews, and God (some part or parts of the Godhead) fixed Peter’s erroneous idea with the dream.

[Anonymous]

I’ll admit that almost always when I refer to doctrine I’m doing the “LDS speak” of God’s doctrine. IE doesn’t change. What I’ve noticed, however, is that what we often talk as doctrine in the church is usually an application of doctrine. Do this in this situation type of thing. I think it’s easier for us to talk in this manner, even though I don’t think it’s correct nor our place to provide sweeping applications of doctrine because as it’s been stated situations necessitate different actions, but I do not think that we are correct in speaking this way. It’s clearly evident (especially in this forum) that when we make sweeping generalizations and esteem certain ways of applying doctrine over others that we narrow the scope of the gospel and put ourselves in boxes. It is much more freeing to talk of doctrines in their core, but I know that it scares certain people because that freedom and resulting responsibility is not what they’re looking for.

[Anonymous]

Yes, DC, there is definitely an element of “Mormonspeak” or vernacular involved. I’m sure there are members who when they say “doctrine” include things that are really policy or something else, while there are also members who are referring to real core doctrine (God’s doctrine – a new term for me, I’m still looking into it). I think that’s part of the confusion I and others might experience. How do we know who is talking about what? FWIW, when I say doctrine, I think I’m referring to something much closer to core doctrine (love your neighbor, Jesus is the Christ) than the “skin of the onion” (missionary age). Also please understand that I am still very much in the midst of separating the gospel and the church and doctrine is one of those areas where it’s all tangled and knotted.

[Anonymous]

I do think some doctrine is time or situation bound based on the limitations of people at a time or place. But generally speaking, I think what really changes is man’s understanding of the divine will.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I do think some doctrine is time or situation bound based on the limitations of people at a time or place. But generally speaking, I think what really changes is man’s understanding of the divine will.

I definitely agree with this. DJ, I think that separating church and gospel and doctrine is very, very tricky, and I applaud your desire to separate them. I think that’s how I get away with not caring about certain things other people are really rooted to. A really useful piece of advice I saw recently was from this Facebook page called “Humans of New York.” This photographer goes around the streets of NYC and takes pictures of anybody, has a conversation with them, and then posts what he got from them. No judgment or bias, just plain information. Last week or so he posted a picture of a boy who couldn’t have been older than 14. He asked him “What’s one piece of advice you would give a large group of people?” He replied, “Just because you admire someone, it doesn’t mean you have to be like them.” There was an explanation of how he tried to dress like a skate boarding idol and his friends made fun of him for it. Then he realized that even though he admired this guy, he didn’t have to dress and act like him because who he was was already acceptable. I LOVE taking methods/hypotheses/ideas/etc from people I admire, usually because I admire them for their strength, intelligence, integrity and the like. But this FB post helped me see that even if something works for someone else, that it doesn’t have to work for me. I realize that people in the church “need” some of the things they interpret as doctrine (my own mother included, for things I disagree with her on vehemently), but it is not my place to knock her off of her belief stool regardless of what it is. Nor do I need to twist my brain to try and accept something she does.

I hope I didn’t come off as accusatory or demeaning. That certainly wasn’t my intention. I was trying to say that the way a lot of members speak about doctrine is usually the application of a doctrine, and not necessarily the doctrine itself. And that I don’t like it and try not to do it myself. It can all get very jumbled, but as I said before, I think you’ll find a lot of peace in being able to separate the two. I wish you the best!!

[Anonymous]

It clearly does change — and church leaders have been famous for allowing Mormon ideas to float freely between the categories of Theory, Policy and Doctrine — as it suits them.

For example, there were actual letters from the FP posted here to a sociologist they consulted about the presence of blacks in the Carribean. IN answering their questions, the sociologist objected to the racism the church might bring to that area if they started a missionary expansion there. The FP wrote back that the priesthood ban was doctrine, that this sociologist (a professor, if memory serves) shouldn’t let the ideas of men contradict the ideas of God. They clearly stated the priesthood ban was doctrine.

Then, the most recent priesthood ban disavowal rejected all racism, past and president, and indicated the reasons behind the doctrine were all “theories”. It also indicated that people needed to understand tthe prevailing culture at the time that put racism into most aspects of everyone’s lives. So, clearly, doctrine is often contextual.

That’s why I’m not entirely sure what is doctrine any longer. Doctrine is supposed to be what is in the scriptures, but even that is open to so much interpretation it’s unreliable. To use JS’ own words as evidence — “the teachers of the different religions understood the same passage of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the bible”.

I think the same argument can be said for settling doctrinal questions by an appeal to our own LDS Scriptures. They can mean different things in the hands of different scholars, leaders, and inspired priesthood holders.

The other thing that changes doctrine is the legal system. Plural marriage is a good example. Plural marriage was considered doctrine , and the church allowed their leaders all to be thrown in prison rather than give it up. However, when the legal system threatened to confiscate the church’s lands and property, suddenly there was revelation that plural marriage should stop. Therefore, it was no longer doctrine.

So, if you ever see the prevailing laws impose material penalties on the church that threaten its existence or a large portion of its material wealth, you’ll see doctrine change. And to justify it (lest we lose the faith of the members) there will be a torrent of rationalization about why the leaders decided to make the change — including calling the former doctrine mere policy or theory.

The LDS church has a very ambiguous line about what is doctrine, what is policy, and what is theory. And they use it to allow the church to make fundamental shifts in doctrine to suit its survival and perception of what is most advantageous to the church.

[Anonymous]

DancingCarrot wrote:

DJ, I think that separating church and gospel and doctrine is very, very tricky, and I applaud your desire to separate them. I think that’s how I get away with not caring about certain things other people are really rooted to.

This has been key to any “progress” I have made over the past year. If I had not made this effort and found success, I very likely would not be a member today.

DancingCarrot wrote:

…but it is not my place to knock her off of her belief stool regardless of what it is.

This is also a key philosophy. I try to never do harm.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

…What the Ordain Women group is asking, IMO, is a change of doctrine (or depending on your own understanding or point of view, they’re asking for the prophet to ask about a change of doctrine). That is of course with the caveat that you believe that the priesthood being given only to men is doctrine, and that is admittedly debatable…It seems also, though, that some people try to link the ideas of Ordain Women with the race and the priesthood issue. Again, arguably there was a change in doctrine by giving the priesthood to all worthy males in 1978 and the idea that is was doctrine is given some credibility by the idea that a revelation changed the past practice. There are of course many who argue both sides of the issue…with some asserting that disallowing the priesthood to some men was never doctrine while others vehemently assert it was the “doctrine of the time.”…So, is there any such thing as a “doctrine of the time” which changes or is true doctrine really unchangeable?

There is no question that what has traditionally been presented as doctrine that came straight from God has changed dramatically over time. All you have to do is pay some attention to the Bible and the relatively short LDS Church history to see that this is definitely the case; the real is question is why things would have ever turned out this way if revelation was ever really as reliable as the Church continues to claim. For example, in the Old Testament God supposedly wanted a limited group of “chosen” people to sacrifice animals to show their devotion to him and literally kill people for supposed sins that in some cases are not even illegal or generally frowned on by the majority nowadays. Later on Jesus promoted extreme examples of being willing to repeatedly forgive wrong-doing as well as other radical ideas that are a stark contrast with much of the Old Testament.

Of course, in LDS history the complete reversal of the racial priesthood ban and practice of polygamy are well-known changes. This is one reason why I don’t understand how Church leaders can act like many relatively minor changes from the way the Church is now would be practically the end of the world as we know it and impossible to even consider when so many obvious changes have already been made so far. I guess the faithful orthodox LDS perspective is typically to assume that many of these changes were directed by revelation and it’s not that important to know exactly why God would change things according to this specific time-frame and also if there were a few past doctrines that weren’t ever inspired to begin with they have already been corrected so now the Church is supposedly already more or less the way it should be.

I used to think that way myself but after I noticed more and more problems with this theory I started to feel like it is much more likely that many of these past and present doctrines are largely a product of the time, place, and people they originally came from and there is really no need to try to defend the idea that God was ever directly behind some of them. What is still passed off as God-given doctrine now could easily be completely discredited and/or abandoned at some point down the road just as easily as some of these past doctrines have already been discarded or downplayed. Furthermore I think that stubbornly refusing to change some of the existing doctrines and policies at all costs will result in the Church being mostly left behind by the mainstream culture and this will make many Mormon traditions increasingly difficult to sell future generations born into the Church and new converts on the idea of going forward.

[Anonymous]

Ignoring that old wisdom “fools rush in where angels fear to tread,” I’ll post my preliminary thoughts.

I would say the word “doctrine” has different meanings in Mormonism. And that it is rather open-ended. We believe in following the scriptures, but we also believe in the real possibility of instantaneous revelation to the prophet and to individuals which could trump whatever scriptures or prophets have said in the past. This must drive non-Mormon scholars nuts

The more I think about Mormonism, the more I think how both simple and complex it is. The simple aspect is “just follow the prophet.” And, individually, follow the promptings of the Spirit – the fact that we allow members to individually follow the Spirit is a pretty amazing theology. How does our church still exist?

The complexity comes in that we don’t have a fixed body of doctrine, something that we can be sure will never change, because we believe in revelation and that more things will be revealed in the future.

The story of Nephi being commanded to kill Laban (1 Nephi chapter 4) is a great example. The ten commandments said don’t kill, but the Spirit told Nephi something different in that specific instance. I imagine as we get closer to God thoughts and God’s mind, our perspectives will keep changing. Line up on line, and all that. My favorite quote, as you may know: “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” – Isaiah 55

THE EOM has a very long entry on “Doctrine,” which I admit I haven’t read most of.

But here are a couple passages that jumped out from that

Quote:

MEANING OF DOCTRINE. The word “doctrine” in the scriptures means “a teaching” as well as “that which is taught.” Most often in the Church it refers to the teachings or doctrine of Jesus Christ, understood in a rather specific sense. Scripturally, then, the term “doctrine” means the core message of Jesus Christ-that Jesus is the Messiah, the Redeemer. All other teachings are subordinate to those by which all people “know how to come unto Christ and be saved”-that is, to the “points of doctrine,” such as faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. At one time, stressing the preeminence and foundational nature of this message, Jesus taught, “And 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” (3 Ne. 11:40).

…

Most occurrences of the term “doctrine” in the New Testament are in the singular and refer to the “doctrine of Jesus Christ.” The plural “doctrines” usually refers to the teachings of men and devils, false and vain teachings contrary to or denying the Savior’s “doctrine.” Jesus’ message comes from the Father and has its content in Jesus Christ, the Messiah and Redeemer, the way of salvation. The “doctrine” of Jesus Christ is the foundation upon which all other teachings, principles, and practices rest.

The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants use the word “doctrine” in the same way. In the singular it always refers to the “doctrine of Jesus Christ” or to the “points of his doctrine” and means “that which will ensure the salvation of those who accept and act upon it.”

Thus, the “doctrine of Jesus Christ” is the only teaching that can properly be called “doctrine.” It is fixed and unchanging. It cannot be modified or contradicted, but merely amplified as additional truths that deepen understanding and appreciation of its meaning are revealed. It is the basis on which the test of faith is made, and the rock or foundation of all other revealed teachings, principles, and practices.

…

In addition to its scriptural use, the word “doctrine” has a broad meaning in Mormon vernacular, where it is used to mean virtually everything that is, or has been, taught or believed by the Latter-day Saints. In this sense, doctrinal teachings answer a host of questions. Some relate closely to the core message of the gospel of Jesus Christ; others are farther removed and unsystematically lap over into such disciplines as history, psychology, philosophy, science, politics, business, and economics. Some of these beliefs qualify as official doctrine and are given to the Saints as counsel, exhortation, reproof, and instruction (2 Tim. 3:16). Continual effort is made to harmonize and implement these principles and doctrine into a righteous life. Other teachings, ones that lack official or authoritative standing, may also be widespread among Church members at any given time.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine

[Anonymous]

Since my original post here I have done some research and pondering. I like pondering. I have come to an understanding that the word doctrine does have different meanings to different people in the church and that there actually seems to be no universal LDS definition of the word. Hence, just as I don’t know if the person sitting next to me in the pew believes the story of Adam and Eve to be figurative or literal, I also don’t know what she or he believes is or isn’t doctrine. I don’t actually care either way what my neighbor believes about Adam and Eve because we likely can have a discussion about them while believing differently and still come to the same conclusion without the other ever knowing I might believe differently. However, having a conversation about doctrine might depend on a mutual understanding or agreement as to what the word means and what is or isn’t doctrine. In the normal course of conversation I’m not prepared, or even willing, to have that kind of a prelude.

So, I have decided to keep the word doctrine out of my church conversation for the time being, just like I leave “know” out for the most part. I believe things, I hope things, and I’m pretty sure of a few things – but I don’t know anything of a spiritual nature. I believe that loving my neighbor and that Jesus is the Christ are both doctrine, and as such I do not believe they change. Beyond that I’m not sure anything else is more than policy, tradition, or common practice, each of which can and do change. I will probably need to come up with a word for those things that fall into the latter categories collectively without using doctrine.

[Author]

Posts