Is the temple garment doctrine or policy?

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

Thoreau wrote:

Has Holland(?) or any other general authority actually said the handbooks are doctrine or did they say the handbooks contain doctrine? If they said the handbooks are doctrine how about a verifiable source with a link.

Oaks said the handbooks are doctrine during the worldwide bishopric broadcast and training about the new handbook rollout several years ago. I doubt there is a public recording of it available but that is what I thought I heard. “Handbooks are doctrine”

I remember thinking how can something be doctrine if less than 1% of the church has access to it.

I attended a training session about the new handbooks and the speaker I heard said it contained doctrine. I don’t remember the year or the speaker. I think it was after 2007 and before 2012.

[Anonymous]

I don’t want to derail this thread – I guess my thinking is that if it’s difficult to find clear direction about a specific doctrine, policy, or teaching, perhaps it falls into some other category like tradition or culture. Or maybe it’s the least binding of the three which is probably “teaching.” Last Sunday I made a comment to my ward clerk who I believe is a more liberal Mormon that I had no idea where the interpretation of hot drinks comes from. I told him I thought it was from Brigham Young. He said he thought it came from the temperance era in the 1920’s. As a church we preach no coffee or tea based on teachings that almost nobody knows the origin of. In my opinion doctrine should be clear, accessible, and with few internal contradictions.

There is so much tribal knowledge about temple garments and so little documented doctrine about it. To me means we have a great deal of choice in deciding for ourselves how garments should be worn.

[Author]

Posts