Stuff That Is NOT Doctrine

[Anonymous]

On May 4, 2007, the church stated the following:

Quote:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency…and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles…counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications…

Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.

I’ve been thinking of things are not doctrine IN MY OPINION and I made a list. Please add your’s.

Some of the “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”

It is important to note that Elder (not President) Ezra Taft Benson gave this address to students at BYU, so it was not even given at General Conference. Some points in the address are not doctrine:

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Brigham Young said:

Quote:

The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for it they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth. Your leaders are trying to live their religion as far as they are capable of doing so. (Brigham Young, 9:289)

However, he also said:

Quote:

The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness, each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray. (Brigham Young, 6:100)

---

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inqure for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. (Brigham Young, 9:150)

And we know of President Wilford Woodruff’s statement: “I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13). This was said during the Priesthood ban, which was condemned in 2012, so we know the people had been led astray. However, I believe members who sincerely follow incorrect teachings in ignorance are not condemned for it.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

I do believe a “prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture,” but some of what follows in the address is problematic. First, Elder Benson said:

Quote:

Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.)

That quote is taken out of context and is missing something very important. It reads “thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me.” Therefore, it doesn’t mean people should follow all of the prophet’s words – it means we should follow words that are received from God.

Second, Elder Benson said:

Quote:

Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” (Journal of Discourses, 13:95.)

The following sentence by Brigham Young was “Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.” I see two criteria for his sermons to be called scripture: 1). It must be sent out to the people and 2). He must have the opportunity to correct it. Switch the order of those, and we see that a sermon may be called scripture if Brigham had the opportunity to correct it and then deliberately promulgates the sermon among the people. I do not believe Brigham was saying that all of his sermons were scripture, as Elder Benson seemed to posit.

We Must Accept Any Calling

In the “Determining Whom to Call” section of Handbook 2, it reads:

Quote:

Leaders seek the guidance of the Spirit in determining whom to call. They consider the worthiness that may be required for the calling. They also consider the member’s personal or family circumstances. Each calling should benefit the people who are served, the member, and the member’s family.

Although service in Church callings requires sacrifice, it should not compromise a member’s ability to fulfill family and employment responsibilities.

I take that to mean members should not accept a calling that doesn’t fit their personal, family, or employment circumstances or a calling that will not benefit them and their family.

Also, I think some leaders are sometimes not inspired when they extend a call. It’s okay for us to seek spiritual confirmation about a calling we receive.

White Shirts andTies

The wearding of white shirts and ties is simply not doctrinal. The end.

No Facial Hair

Simply not doctrine.

Earrings

President Hinckley said:

Quote:

May I mention earrings and rings placed in other parts of the body. These are not manly. They are not attractive. You young men look better without them, and I believe you will feel better without them. As for the young women, you do not need to drape rings up and down your ears. One modest pair of earrings is sufficient.

This was some counsel that people understood to be doctrine, but it isn’t.

Plural Marriage Required for the Celestial Kingdom

Any quote saying that polygamy is required to go to the Celestial Kingdom does not apply to us. Maybe it applied to members in the 1800s. If so, one only needed to accept the doctrine so as not to oppose the prophet, and practicing it was not required. Here are a couple quotes from Wilford Woodruff:

Quote:

Presidet Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all.

-Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 12 February 1870

---

Then Presidt Young spoke 58 Minuts. He said a Man may Embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart & not take the Second wife & be justified before the Lord.

-Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 24 September 1871

Tithing Must Be Paid on Gross Income

The standard for tithing is the First Presidency letter issued in 1970. No one is justified in defining it beyong that.

We Must Attend Ward Activities

Ward events, Young Men/Young Women activites, scouting, and other such things are totally optional. A family should decide what will benefit them.

Prayers Must be Said a Certain Way

If using old words like “thou” helps someone get in a reverent, prayerful mood, then that’s fine. However, I don’t believe we must use those words and pray using a certain format. Leaders in the church provide guidances and suggestions on this, but it’s not all doctrine.

Testimonies Must Contain Certain Elements

Leaders in the church provide guidances and suggestions on testimonies, but it’s not all doctrine. We don’t have to mention all or any of:

-Heavenly Father lives and loves His children

-Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement

-Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel

-The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth

-The Church is led by a living prophet today

(see this)

I am okay with people mentioning those things – I especially enjoy testimonies regarding the Savior – but I am also okay with people mentioning other things. I also think people should feel great about saying “I believe,” but I am also okay with people saying “I know.”

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Presidet Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all.

-Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 12 February 1870

😯 No wife at all??? :wtf: Was the idea that one had to be married to be exalted less evolved at the time of BY or was he perhaps saying that singles and monogomous people can be saved in the lower levels of the celestial kingdom (though not exalted)?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

And we know of President Wilford Woodruff’s statement: “I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13). This was said during the Priesthood ban, which was condemned in 2012, so we know the people had been led astray.

Shawn, rather than tying that quote to the priesthood ban, the better context of the quote is that it was immediately following the Manifesto. Woodruff was trying to calm the saints who questioned the elimination of polygamy, and was reassuring them that it was a real revelation and that he wouldn’t lead them astray. (Certainly there were many who felt Woodruff was leading the saints astray by eliminating polygamy.)

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Shawn wrote:

Presidet Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all.

-Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 12 February 1870

😯 No wife at all??? :wtf: Was the idea that one had to be married to be exalted less evolved at the time of BY or was he perhaps saying that singles and monogomous people can be saved in the lower levels of the celestial kingdom (though not exalted)?

Good eye, sir. I reckon that quote allows for the possiblity of a man going to the CK without being exalted. Perhaps it also allows for someone being sealed in the afterlife and then being exalted.

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

Shawn, rather than tying that quote to the priesthood ban, the better context of the quote is that it was immediately following the Manifesto. Woodruff was trying to calm the saints who questioned the elimination of polygamy, and was reassuring them that it was a real revelation and that he wouldn’t lead them astray. (Certainly there were many who felt Woodruff was leading the saints astray by eliminating polygamy.)

Yeah, it’s good to consider the context. I meant that Brother Woodruff made those remarks at a time when the Priesthood ban was in place. I didn’t intend to imply he was actually referring to the Priesthood ban. At the very time he told them the Lord would not permit a church president to lead them astray (spoken as an assurance it was right to ditch polygamy), they were in a state of being led astray on race issues.

[Anonymous]

I should explain why I started this thread. It is because of this:

Quote:

In a general sense I am really not disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place. I have never experienced the frustrations and disillusionment that many Mormons experience. I now occasionally encounter young people who are discovering for the first time things about the Church that they should have known from their childhood. They are the ones who become disillusioned. Often they are caught in a difficult intellectual and personal struggle with themselves and their families.

–An Interview with Sterling McMurrin

I am glad hawkgrrrl pointed out that quote. I am determining what things in the church are illusions, such as things that are incorrectly thought to be doctrine, so I can avoid being further disillusioned and bring up my children in a way that will help them avoid it.

I have had some success with my children. Last week I asked them, “Should you follow everything the prophet says, no matter what?” I was expecting to hear “Yes!” because that would be the “primary answer.” What I actually heard is, “No. We should pray about it.” I thought that was great. I then told them I do sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. I agree with a super-majority of what they say. I really mean this – I am not writing this because I fear someone in my ward is reading this 🙂

Also, I believe leaders extend callings after sincere prayer and consideration in most cases.

I really don’t like white shirts and ties because they make church seem like a business meeting.

Lastly, most ward activities are awesome.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

No Facial Hair

Simply not doctrine.

So is that you in the profile picture then

[Anonymous]

Man, I wish I had that much hair!

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Man, I wish I had that much hair!

I had beard and hair for a while. Lots of it. Think Joaquin Phoenix during his ‘fake rapper’ film.

Who is it then?

[Anonymous]

Whoa, that was Joaquin’s nuttiest moment.

I’m glad you asked about my profile picture. It’s Desmond Hume from “Lost.”

Quote:

Desmond David Hume was a Scotsman who spent years on the Island. He had a number of unusual experiences there with electromagnetism, sending his mind repeatedly through time.

Before coming to the Island, Desmond’s life seemed to be defined by failure…

http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Desmond_Hume

He looks very thoughtful and weighed down in my picture. He’s a very interesting character. However, I am actually changing the picture tomorrow so stay tuned :wtf:

[Anonymous]

Your list pretty much sums it all up. I agree men not being allowed isn’t doctrine at all. In my ward facial hair isn’t an issue at all. In fact, our ward mission leader wore a beard for several years as an active member of our ward before shaving it off. Sometimes I go to church with several days growth on my face and nobody says any about it. In our ward, white shirts and ties is required for passing and blessing the sacrament. Any other time It doesn’t matter what color shirt you wear.

Haha. Shawn, I was wondering earlier if that picture on your profile was yours or from somewhere else. I will be putting a profile picture up for me soon.

[Anonymous]

Ilovechrist77 wrote:

Your list pretty much sums it all up. I agree men not being allowed isn’t doctrine at all. In my ward facial hair isn’t an issue at all. In fact, our ward mission leader wore a beard for several years as an active member of our ward before shaving it off. Sometimes I go to church with several days growth on my face and nobody says any about it. In our ward, white shirts and ties is required for passing and blessing the sacrament. Any other time It doesn’t matter what color shirt you wear.

I’m glad you have a somewhat ‘liberal-minded’ ward. But a white shirt is not required.

We had a guy pass in a grey shirt with no tie recently (fairly new member). And another passed in a blue shirt and tie.

If it’s no big issue then don’t worry about it. But in the handbook, white shirt not required.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

He looks very thoughtful and weighed down in my picture. He’s a very interesting character. However, I am actually changing the picture tomorrow so stay tuned :wtf:

Oh no, I always find avatar changes confusing. (He says, with none).

[Anonymous]

I will give you $100,000,000 if you use this:

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0n4SmBwToJ4/UbdXvjft4iI/AAAAAAAAAho/QY2SKijyoH8/s1600/jp.jpg[/img]

I cropped it so it’s ready to go for you. By the way, this thread is still on topic because profile pics are not doctrine.

[Anonymous]

Mackay, you are right about white shirts not being required for passing and blessing the sacrament. I’ve been told by leaders in the past it’s just a recommendation. Where did men not having facial hair in the church and men only allowed to wear white shirts at church come from? No wonder members are leaving the church. Why doesn’t Christ just appear to others and tell them, “That’s not required for salvation! So stop teaching it!” Hahaha!

[Author]

Posts