- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The essay on StayLDS’s home page is relevant as it more or less distinguishes between Official Doctrine, Official Teaching, Official Policy, and Conventional Wisdom. Each has a specific roll in our Church, and with varying penalties for violating them. Drinking tea, coffee, alcohol or smoking can result in loosing a calling and/or loss of a temple recommend, but until the 1930’s the word of wisdom was by suggestion and not by commandment. But publicly lobbying for a change in a currently maintained doctrine/policy can result in excommunication, as Kate Kelly recently learned. “What is Official Mormon Doctrine?”
Quote:I have decided to keep the word doctrine out of my church conversation for the time being.
I also don’t use “doctrine” when I talk about “commandments” or “programs” or “practices”. I use it only when talking about love, faith, repentance, enduring to the end, meekness, mercy, humility, the existence of God, the Atonement, grace, charity, etc. Those are pretty much the only things I believe have no chance of ever changing – and I don’t want people to think I believe something will never change if I use “doctrine” to describe it, so I don’t use it.
Sincere questions that relate to this topic: Was the Law of Moses doctrine at the time of Christ? Was the restriction of priesthood to the Levites doctrine? Yes, to both questions. Interestingly, there is NO indication in our scriptures that Jesus ever tried to officiate in temple sacrifices – in our modern terminology, to perform Priesthood ordinances. That means absolutely nothing about whether or not he approved of that part of his religious community, but it’s interesting to note that he didn’t appear to challenge it openly in any way.
DarkJedi wrote:…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…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 knowanything 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… Old-Timer wrote:I also don’t use “doctrine” when I talk about “commandments” or “programs” or “practices”. I use it only when talking about love, faith, repentance, enduring to the end, meekness, mercy, humility, the existence of God, the Atonement, grace, charity, etc. Those are pretty much the only things I believe have no chance of ever changing– and I don’t want people to think I believe something will never change if I use “doctrine” to describe it, so I don’t use it. There’s not necessarily anything magical about the word “doctrine.” All it really means is basically “what is taught”; it doesn’t mean that there are very good reasons to believe all these official doctrines are correct or that they can’t ever change. Sure Church leaders claim that traditional LDS doctrines came from God through direct revelation but they also made similar claims about past doctrines that we typically don’t hear about anymore so some of the common associations in the Church between LDS doctrine and eternal truth, divine origin, etc. are highly questionable given the history we see.
I’m with you that the word doctrine is a messy word and probably doesn’t deserve the special status it sometimes gets. Here’s a little story that kind of fits in this thread. Yesterday at church I was out in the hall with my fussy one year old. I overheard the bishop of another ward making an announcement in sacrament meeting to the effect that the church handbook of instructions stated that the ward choir should sing in sacrament meeting at least once a month. He said he was calling the entire ward to the choir, because there was no way the choir could fulfill these instructions from the Lord without more members. I’m sure this bishop is not alone in believing that every statement in the CHI comes directly from God. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Daeruin wrote:I’m sure this bishop is not alone in believing that every statement in the CHI comes directly from God.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m sure of this also. Reading through the thing, it’s almost all policy – which, strangely enough, is what it’s intended to be.
The problem is that many leaders are very authoritarian. They look to the people above them to tell them what to do so that they will be perceived well by the people above them. They manage up. Most people either manage up well or manage down well, not both. And those that manage down well, but don’t manage up well, often aren’t leaders for long in any organization.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.