The mutability of doctrine
Church doctrine changes. Period. Some people get in a huff about this. I think that this is, perhaps, the result of a constrained perspective. The Church hierarchy, by common consent, has three divine mandates: to receive revelations for the body of the Church, to govern the Church (i.e., the rights of presidency), and to administer priesthood ordinances (baptism, sacrament, bestowal of the Holy Ghost, Temple). These three things don’t preclude changing doctrine.
Doctrine, pragmatically, equates to belief. What the Church hierarchy teaches/proclaims/disseminates today is its doctrine. What the majority of the Saints believe is their doctrine. What I believe is my doctrine. What any of these three demographics believe may not be true, in that case it is false doctrine (opposed to true doctrine). What the vast majority of the Saints believe today may be different than the hierarchy’s contemporary teachings or the “authorized” doctrine. In that case it is either “speculative,” “folk,” or “unauthorized” doctrine. What is authorized doctrine today may become folk doctrine tomorrow.
It is demonstrable that Bro. Brigham, Joseph Fielding Smith and Gordon B. Hinckley hold beliefs that are contrary to each other. It is also demonstrable that public sermons have contained conflicting “doctrine.” Most importantly, we live in a very different time, and everyone has a different world view than our pioneer co-religionists.
Perhaps some conflate doctrine and Truth. Perhaps, this conflation is because those in authority have access to revelation for the whole church. In the early days, there was a tremendous tension between revelation by the people and revelation for the people. Hiram Page had a seer stone through which he received revelations. Joseph curtailed reception of such general revelation by a revelation of his own (Sec 28) that asserted the exclusivity of the President to such. It is pretty evident that in many cases Joseph, himself, didn’t fully understand the revelations he received or that his understanding of them changed with time (the first vision being an excellent example).
After the death of the prophets who had lived in Nauvoo there has only been one revelation announced, the full text of which has never been made public (it is not sure that it was even recorded). Despite this, the hierarchy of the church leads, because beyond charismatic authority, they have the right to govern the Church. God gives individuals the priesthood and to some the keys of presidencies. God established an institution and established an order by which the bureaucracy can be managed. In the nineteenth century this was often referred to as a legal right to govern the Church. The choices that every presidency makes are not infallible, but God sustains the church despite the human weakness. It is by this right to governance that a teaching becomes “authorized.”
At the end of the day, the twelve governed the church after Joseph’s death not because there was a revelation that said they should, but because they were the only ones who had the right to administer all of the temple ordinances – not even the surviving members of the first presidency had that authority. They were the only ones who both had the fullness of the priesthood and had the right to bestow it upon others. Sidney was ultimately excommunicated for preparing fraudulent ordinances.
The absence of revelation on a topic does not preclude strong belief or tradition. Those that have the right to govern and administer the ordinances of the Church have been historically quite willing to champion certain beliefs and traditions that are not explicit in the revelations. Individuals, the church membership as a whole and church hierarchy have all been proven resilient against the changing tides of time. The mutability of our doctrine, on all levels, doesn’t show weakness and it shouldn’t upset anybody. I’m grateful that we are able to change.
J., thanks for a thoughtful and well-constructed post. I’ve discussed similar themes today in my Old Testament book review on BCC. And I think I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — 4/24/2006 @ 4:46 pm
Perhaps some conflate doctrine and Truth.
I think that is the big point of confusion. When people say that the “doctrine” can’t change, they are equating doctrine with truth. They would probably also concede that we might not fully understand the doctrine (i.e. the truth). I like your set of definitions better because I think they are more useful.
Comment by Bradley Ross — 4/24/2006 @ 5:50 pm
As I understand it there is a largely unspoken rule in CES that one should not openly disagree with opinions of GAs, present or past. Of course this becomes quite a problem when a present or past GA is just plain wrong. It is made more difficult when two GAs preach directly conflicting doctrines. I guess this habit/policy is in place to avoid bursting the bubble of all the members who like to cling to the idea that modern prophets/apostles are basically infallible (even though there are plenty of statements from those men that decries the infallibility notion). All said, I’m glad I’m a blogger and not a CES employee!
Comment by Geoff J — 4/24/2006 @ 5:59 pm
I have thought some about this as well. For me there are a few anchors to my testimony, the rest I ‘hold on loosely’.
Another good post.
Comment by Eric — 4/24/2006 @ 8:16 pm
Geoff, Amen, dude.
The key trademark of a fundy: they hold to Brethren Infallibility.
Comment by David J — 4/25/2006 @ 3:40 am
J.
Would you claim a further distinction between “policy” and “doctrine”? Or are they one and the same?
Comment by paul mortensen — 4/25/2006 @ 10:12 am
That is a good question, Paul. I definately draw a distinction between theology and policy. A distinction between doctrine and policy is not so perspicuous. I would say that policy is doctrine. Did certain leaders believe that a priesthood ban should be in place? Yes. That policy was doctrine for the church…regretibly. Is the Primary organization’s existance upheld as doctrinal? I would say yes.
Doctrine and Theology and Scripture are not necessarily in harmony. Look at Sec 132. Obviously, there is some theological foundation there – same as the OT patriarchs; but, doctrinely the practice is proscribed.
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/25/2006 @ 11:47 am
Nicely put.
Elder McConkie has said that the practice of the Church constitutes the interpretation of scripture. That ties policy and doctrine pretty closely together, I think.
Comment by Jared — 4/25/2006 @ 12:15 pm
J:
I hate to contribute little more than questions at this point but before I can substantively comment I need further clarifications. You make the distinction here between “truth” and “doctrine.” Do you make a further distinction between “theology” and “truth” (I think you use those terms interchangably but I don’t want to be too presumptuous)? Is it possible for the Church to preach theology rather than doctrine or is it inevitable that what proceeds from one’s mouth automatically becomes doctrine? Should the Church be preaching doctrine if it cannot be verified as being true (you assent to the fact that false doctrine has been/is being prached)? How are the Saints spiritually edified by following false doctrine? When doctrine “changes” must it necessarily displace prior doctrine?
Comment by paul mortensen — 4/25/2006 @ 2:54 pm
All very good questions. Truth is sepperate from everything. Theology and Policy as administered by the church are both Doctrine.
Should the Church be preaching doctrine if it cannot be verified as being true (you assent to the fact that false doctrine has been/is being prached)?
Well, verificaiton of truth becomes a question of epistemology, which I am not sure I want to address in this thread. But regardless of the veracity of any doctrine, the Church has a “legal right,” in the eye’s of God, to preach what it does.
How are the Saints spiritually edified by following false doctrine?
I don’t particularly think they are. I imagine that the amount of “false doctrine” in the Church has been a very small fraction. There are also changes in doctrine that are just equally true, but display a different perspective of it.
When doctrine “changes” must it necessarily displace prior doctrine?
Well if the doctrine changes, yeah, it is different.
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/25/2006 @ 3:06 pm
Another common problem – people who equivocate between “false doctrine” and “non doctrine”. The domain of non-doctrinal propositions is orders of magnitude larger than the domain of false propositions masquerading as religious doctrine.
Nobody who does theology seriously (in the modern world at any rate) propagates the idea that their conclusions are infallibly correct, or are an unfailing guide to empirical success. Any serious theology comes with an implicit disclaimer that what is being conducted is a tenative academic inquiry, not a delination of the articles of faith of some new religion.
It is only when people make that jump that theology moves from being a purely rational enterprise to the faith based precepts of a new sect or denomination.
Comment by Mark Butler — 4/25/2006 @ 7:05 pm
Good point Mark. I think a bit of the tension, at least in Mormonism, is a result of some conducting theology then asserting the doctrinal primacy of that theology.
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/25/2006 @ 8:35 pm
I think one reason for that is that so much of Mormon “theological” folklore is more the product of imaginations run wild than logical analysis, i.e. it runs closer to the speculation side of the spectrum – such that a quasi-faith or aesthetic attraction sustains it more than rational argument.
On the opposite end you have figures like John Calvin who take a couple of straightforward scriptural propositions and push their logical implications as far as they will go, in the case of Calvinism pretty far indeed.
Calvinism is a pretty impressive example of theological reasoning, but I would sure hate to see it or any narrowly drawn equivalent adopted as some sort of binding creed in the Church. For those of us who look on LDS “Neo-orthodoxy” as a less than welcome development, at least we can hope that some day the reverse impulse so prominent in nineteenth century LDS thought will again gain traction.
Comment by Mark Butler — 4/26/2006 @ 12:12 am
There is a relevant talk by Elder Packer. He makes a point of contrasting belief (doctrines/principles) with actions (procedures/organization). Here is a quote:
Contrast this with what Elder Oaks said more recently in a SLC stake training meeting. (This is based on the notes of two friends who were present; I was not.) When local leaders kept asking for instruction on specific decisions they faced, Elder Oaks made a distinction between doctrine and principles and rules. His point was that rules are based on principles which are in turn based on doctrine. If you understand the doctrine, then the rules should be clear. He made the point that doctrine does not change, but principles may and rules often do.
I think that Elder Oaks’ framework is very useful, but I can see where the way terms are defined could create confusion.
Comment by BrianJ — 4/26/2006 @ 12:18 am
It would seem BrianJ that they are equating Doctrine to Truth…and I guess that if that was the only way it was used, that would be fine. But it is not and so the usage is highly problematic and people get in a huff when the doctrine of the church does, indeed, change.
I think one reason for that is that so much of Mormon “theological” folklore is more the product of imaginations run wild than logical analysis
🙂
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/26/2006 @ 12:27 am
J, 15: I think that Elder Oaks is aiming at your kind of distinction whereas Elder Packer is not. In both cases, doctrine is being used to mean Truth (something unchanging). But Elder Oaks makes the distinction between things that are unchanging (what he calls doctrine) and things that are fundamental to our current faith but can still change (what he calls principles).
An example one of my friends shared with me–though I am not clear whether Elder Oaks actually used this example:
Doctrine: Charity is the greatest of all gifts (this never changes).
Principle: Make a finicial offering part of your fast (fasting and finances aren’t eternally linked, but we often talk about fast offerings as though they are essential to God’s plan).
Rule: Distribute fast offerings through the Welfare Program (clearly something that is changing).
I would have loved to hear Elder Oaks apply this to a more challening rule, such as the priesthood restriction.
And just so we are clear: I agree that members will confuse that which is specific to our time and place with that which is eternal and that this causes confusion (I am purposefully avoiding the terms that are used so loosely).
Comment by BrianJ — 4/26/2006 @ 12:55 am
J,
It seems to mt your argument rests on the idea that true doctrine can be seen as the opposite of false fdoctrine, a term we commonly use in the church. I think, however, that the usage is problematic here. Certainly many claim that their interpretations of scripture are doctrinal whithout them being so, or doctrine is sometimes taught from a particular historical perspective (We can only ever realte temporally to doctrinal truth.), and yet that doesn’t mean that we should divorce the word from its meaning, which, as I understand it, makes such a claim to express truth.
As I see it, the opposite of “false doctrine” is not “true doctrine”, but “doctrine. False doctrine is a term that we would use in the way we would speak of a false prophet, it is not actually doctrine, but presents itself as doctrine. It is counterfeit.
So, while what we beleive to be doctrinal might change, doctrine itself might change. There may be problems with ability to understand or express the doctrine, or there may be issues of a particular expression of doctrine arising from a particular historical perspective, but these seem to me to be different questions. Thus, what you say may express a phenomenon, it also presents it in a way that invites misplaced disagreement because it is semantically asking to miscommunicate.
Comment by Steve H — 4/26/2006 @ 11:45 pm
J:
I find your definition of doctrine (what the Church believes, teaches, and practices) a little too… convenient– and a bit distasteful. Religion should exist to illuminate our understanding of the metaphysical world and bridge the gap between the physical and spiritual. Your definition of doctrine is wholly existential. In responding to my question as to whether or not the Church should be preaching doctrine (by your definition) you basically exercised a philosophical dodge executed for the sake of convenience. Your definition of doctrine does not require the Church to teach truth. That’s a convenient dodge for the Church as an institution but does little to help its membership and others who are seeking truth and that connection to the metaphysical. Without being able to make truth claims for what the Church teaches your definition relegates doctrine to little more than “the philosiphies of men, mingled with scripture.”
In #15 you take issue with how the term “doctrine” is used and justify your definition by appealing to the least common denominator for the sake of convenience. You could take the higher road the “doctrine/policy” distinction similar to what BrianJ illustrates in the examples of GBP and DHO. For those seeking truth such an appeal is the only way to make sense of our history. The priesthood ban is an example of a policy not founded upon any recognizable doctrine/truth. It was a policy that arose out of speculation by individuals in Church leadership positions and an inability to correctly interpret scripture. The policy became institutionalized and required more than a century to correct. Polygamy is another example of a change in policy versus a change in doctrine. I would argue that as a Church we still teach polygamy as a doctrinal truth (to make the opposing argument valid I think you’d have to remove certain sections of the D&C from the canon) but the current Church policy is that it is not practiced.
Church policy represents the most “reasoned estimate” by those in authority of practices that will help membership understand the doctrine. That reasoned estimate is wrong sometimes (the priesthood ban) and pragmatic at others (polygamy) and it should never be confused with doctrine. Policy will change as those who make the “reasoned estimates” change but our doctrine will never change. Our doctrine may grow but it will never change. I think that’s a valuable indicator the Lord has given us so that we might be able to identify false prophets.
Comment by paul mortensen — 4/27/2006 @ 1:44 pm
Paul, it would seem that your framework only works in retrospect. As far as I can tell most GAs considered the ban to be doctrinal in nature as did many in the church. There are tons of beliefs that grew up to explain the ban, which where considered doctrinal. In your framework, any current doctrines may be changed to policy upon such a shift.
You mis-characterize my position in that I submit that the revelations of God are true inasmuch as they are communicated correctely. Any institutional belief or policy stemming from or in the absence of such revelation is doctrinal. Any other assertion is either equivicating or prevericating. Those beliefs and policies may or may not change. It is demonstrable that these beliefs and policies do on occasion change.
Steve, your definition seems problematic. If you have three different churches, with different beliefs, it is reasonable to say that they each have different doctrine. We don’t talk about the church’s compliment of doctrine vs. false doctrine.
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/27/2006 @ 3:28 pm
J,
The problem here is that doctrine is a cagey word. Cetainly no one is going to claim that they are teaching anything but correct doctrine. This leaves us in the position of not having a very frinely way of talking about their beliefs without calling them doctrine. So, while we might use doctrine in some cases to spak of things that aren’t true–that we recognise as not true, the word still makes a claim to the expression of truth. When we say things like “that is the doctrine,” what we mean is, that is the way it is. The claim is to a knowledge of actuality. We may be mistaken, but doctrine is a very different word from theology because it makes the claim to be correct in and of it self. This is all to say that we might use the wor din two ways, but that use simply masks the fact that all of those claiming to teach doctine cannot all be right. And so the two uses are very difficult to tie down. Perhaps this is just a thing with words, they are not so easy to tie down, though your argument seems to rely on this. What we can do is to deal in the sense of a word and the claims it seems to make. It seems to me that doctrine makes a claim to truth.
Comment by Steve H — 4/27/2006 @ 3:46 pm
…because it makes the claim to be correct in and of it self.
Perhaps this is a matter of exposure. I tend to think that this is not the normative use of the word, but the exceptional.
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/27/2006 @ 3:54 pm
J:
Not sure why you think my framework would only work in retrospect. Regarding the priesthood ban, I’m sure there were plenty of members, including those in leadership positions who did not believe that the ban was based on some doctrinal truth. Today the Church has a specific policy regarding D&C 89 (the Word of Wisdom) wherein the consumption of specific substances are proscribed. That list of substances is subject to change (and has over time) but the underlying doctrine (take care of the body God has given you) does not change. There are plenty of other policies, both explicit and implied, in place today for which the doctrinal basis for their implementation is dubious or strained at best– that is, if a doctrinal basis for the policy exists at all. It’s important that members and nonmembers alike recognize the distinction between doctrine and policy and understand that Church policies represent the best estimate of the leadership about what practices will best help us understand the doctrine.
You seem to be married to the idea that whatever happens to be the modal belief of the Church on any particular topic is the doctrine of the Church on that topic. That’s dangerous thinking because it leaves you with only two options: 1) the Church makes truth claims about a vast multitide of phenomena and those truth claims are subject to change at any time; or 2) doctrine is not necesarily tied to truth claims (which is the route you take). Neither option is sustainable. The first option requires a perverse definition of “truth” as a moving target– a definition not used in either philosophy or theology. The second renders doctrine as little more than a best guess at what the truth might be. Both would make Mormon doctrine, or any other doctrine, functionally and rationally worthless as a vehicle for understanding the divine because what’s the value of faith in probabilities.
Comment by paul mortensen — 4/28/2006 @ 9:45 am
The second renders doctrine as little more than a best guess at what the truth might be. Both would make Mormon doctrine, or any other doctrine, functionally and rationally worthless as a vehicle for understanding the divine because what’s the value of faith in probabilities.
I simply disagree with this analysis.
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/28/2006 @ 9:53 am
The older I get, the more I realize that change is an important part of life.
I don’t like it, I don’t do well with it, but it happens and we adapt.
I just don’t have a problem when things change. Perhaps it’s because a seemingly big change in Salt Lake has little real affect/effect on my life.
Comment by annegb — 5/1/2006 @ 1:33 am
What is doctrine? the discussion here seems to split hairs. Can doctrine change? It depends on one’s definition. According to dictionary.com, doctrine is defined as:
1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
4. Archaic. Something taught; a teaching.
Using the above defintion, then yes doctrine can change because it is a level of acceptance or belief, precedence, or something taught. Though note one of the definitions speak of a ‘rule or principle of law’. At this point it is necessary to determine if the law is developed by God or man. Though some laws are no longer practiced by members of the church, that does not mean that the law set by God has changed, only our current level of activity in following it. As such, if Doctrines are laws as set forth by God, then it is possible to declare that doctrines do not change. If they are laws as set by man, based on gospel knowledge, well, then we are safe to assume that doctrine is ‘mutable’.
If doctrin is equated with the gospel, and we as members accept that the gospel of Christ is unchanging since before the foundation of the world, then no, doctrine cannot change, only our interpretation of doctrine. Similarly if doctrine is equated with TRUTH (that is absolute TRUTH) then again we must say that doctrine cannot change but only our interpretation and understanding will change.
So what is doctrine? Let’s take two examples from church history; polygomy and priesthood. (actually polygomy is the incorrect word to use here as polygomy is actually defined as having multiple spouses, not multiple wives. to be accurate we should use polygany as that means having multiple wives. I wil use polygamy just because I am lazy.) Polygamy was a practice of the early saints. Though it wasn’t necessarily practiced by all, and most accounts that I have read detail it as more of a calling or some other form of ‘official’ action, it was a policy and rule that the memebers had to accept and follow. Today we do not practice polygamy due to revelation. That does not mean we do not believe in it or follow it in an inactive sense (take the fact that a man may be sealed in the temple to a second wife if the first is dead while a woman can only be sealed to one man). Contrast this with the revelation that gave all men the priesthood. Before this time it was the law/policy/practice to disallow non-white men to hold the pristhood. This is no longer practiced in any form, nor is it believed or followed.
Now according to Stapley, doctrine would have changed for both of these. Another commenter stated that in retrospect (again Stapley’s word) one or the other couldn’t have been doctrine because it was changed, yet the members of the time thus erroneously might have believed it to be doctrine.
Policy for each item changed. Did in our belief in each item chang? Well, I would argue that we still believe in polygamy even if we don’t pracice it (much the same way we still believe in the law of consecration even if we don’t currently practice it), but none should still be believing in the exclusion of the priesthood from any worthy man. Thus if doctrine is equated with belief, then one is still doctrin and the other is not.
But has the gospel changed? We still believe in the atonement and resurection of Christ. We still believe in eternal life. If doctrine is thus a representation of the gospel, which we as members believe to be the absolute TRUTH, then no, Doctrine cannot change and thus the non-inclusion of priesthood holders is not doctrine, while polygamy, to our knowledge, is.
Thus the real question is how is the term ‘doctrine’ being used in the church. If doctrine is the policy, rules, or practices of the church, then yes doctrine is mutable and we should not be upset when such changes occur. If doctrine is being used as the formal representation of the gospel of Christ, then no, it can’t change. It is no different than discussing that gospel as being the same for Moses, Abraham, Adam or Nephi but noting that the practices might have been different (especially the laws that had to be followed).
Unfortunately, the general authorities of the church do not normally make this distinction in their comments. When speaking of the ‘unchanging doctrines’ of the church, those that coincide with scripture and personal revelation, then we can assume that the doctrine is representative of the Gospel. Whereas, if the doctrine discussed is about about interpretation, practices or proceedures, then it is probably safe to assume that this is the more ‘fluid’ doctrine definition that allows for change.
Of course I must end by reminding everyong that we are expected (and in fact commanded) to ask for confirmation of the truth of all things, including the words of the GAs. We are not required to believe what is said solely on the basis of their words alone, but must also seek out confirmation through the spirit and prayer.
~A
Comment by Alexander — 5/18/2006 @ 6:37 pm
I aggree Alexander (cheers, btw) that the Doctrine of Christ as he outlined himself (faith, repentance and baptism) is immutable. Now, it would seem that anything beyond that is up for grabs. President Hinckley recently told reporters that polygamy wasn’t church doctrine…now what does that mean? The faithful can disagree.
President McKay claimed that the Priesthood ban wasn’t doctrine, but policy. I tend to think he was asserting that it wasn’t an eternal law as you state, but in a very real sense, it was the doctrine of the church.
Comment by J. Stapley — 5/18/2006 @ 7:15 pm
Again, it comes back to definition (of which I am a stickler). If Polygamy is not doctrine then obviously the use of the term doctrine in this case is one of policy and teaching as it was onced deamed an essential part of our religion. (Note: I believe that the actual comment by Hinckley was that we don’t teach it. I haven’t seen, yet, were he said it was not doctrine.) Similarly if the priesthood ban was doctrine of the church, but not eternal law, then again it is a case of defining doctrine as policy and rules.
Thus with this definition, I agree with the ability of doctrine to change. We can name numerous occasions when the policy and rules (doctrines?) of the church has changed, not the least is the Mosaic Law. It is unfortunate that the (mis)use of the word has lead to the belief that current policies and practices are immutable truths.
Yet at the same time, remember that rules and policies of the church might as well be immutable truths for the time in which they are in effect. They may not be TRUTH, but they are still True for us. Additionally, the doctrines of the church should be based on established TRUTH. So though doctrines may change, the need for us to accept and follow established doctrines do not (with the requisit need for prayer and confirmation).
~A
Comment by Alexander — 5/18/2006 @ 8:47 pm
I think we are pretty much in agreement, though I think that there is a significant amount of doctrine that is not a prerequisite for fidelity in the kingdom, which as it stands is dictated by the Temple Recommend questions.
The Hinckley comment was on Larry King in 1999. When commenting on polygamy he stated:
Comment by J. Stapley — 5/18/2006 @ 9:53 pm
This topic seems to come up quite frequently. I would like to add my ten cents (even if it is a little late).
I believe the real problems can be lumped into the following categories:
1) The church has always adhered to a Utilitarian ethic, and
2) those who define the doctrine for the church, do not take the time to sit down and think the semantics of their statements through.
I think the first item is self evident. The church has always conducted itself in whatever way is most advantages to its growth and preservation. I see the church as presenting itself in whatever way will ultimately carry out its goals most efficiently. It was requisite upon Joseph Smith to lie about polygamy for the preservation of the church, it was necessary for the church to disavow polygamy to ensure its continued existence, the priesthood ban had to be changed if the church was to continue to expand, President Hinkley must distance himself from all of these old practices in order to gain wider appeal in the modern world. I don’t see any of these changes as ultimately being driven by anything but the utility of the moment. And what’s more, I see nothing wrong with this. The church’s stated goal is the spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, whatever carries out that goal most efficiently is what is right in that moment. I am sure there are many who will argue with my point of view, but it is only that, my point of view.
The second problem is that church leaders do not analyze their words like we analyze them. It is in the church’s interest to propagate the belief that the beliefs of the Church are ‘true’, which they do by designating these teachings as doctrine. GA’s are not interested in splitting hairs, only in accomplishing the ultimate goals of the church.
Comment by Jared E. — 5/21/2006 @ 1:23 am
Stapley,
Although I agree with the need to conceptually “truth” from “doctrine,” I’m not sure what I make of the rest of your analysis. To say that “Doctrine, pragmatically, equates to belief” leaves me confused. What would be useful would be to see you carefully lay out definitions for the following terms:
1. Doctrine
2. Belief
3. Theology
4. Policy
Once I see the definitions, I’ll be able to grapple with the relationship between these categories, as you’re using them.
Note that I have despaired of ever coming up with a Church-wide agreeable taxonomy that defines all these terms and puts them in a neat little schema. I think we are destined to live with these semantic battles perpetually. Maybe I’ll blog about this soon.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — 5/24/2006 @ 4:26 pm
The first sentence should say “conceptually SEPARATE truth from doctrine …”
Comment by Aaron Brown — 5/24/2006 @ 4:27 pm
1. Policy: The rule of praxis.
2. Theology: A system of ideas about God, the hereafter and reality.
3. Belief: Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of policy or theology.
4. Doctrine: See belief as stipulated in the second paragraph of the original post.
Comment by J. Stapley — 5/24/2006 @ 4:39 pm
I think the problem here is that we are talking about the same things but using different words in defining them, and we can’t agree on what those words mean.
My take is that all principles, beliefs, rules, regulations, policies, etc., can be and are housed under the overarching term DOCTRINE. From there you must make a distinction, categorizing the different types of doctrine. The type of doctrine that certainly DOES NOT change is that kind that I will call principles. I use this term as it is used in the 4th article of faith (I think some of you were referring to this as “truth”). “The first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second repentance…”, etc.; and of course there are more than just the four mentioned. These gospel principles, fundamental to salvation, exaltation, etc., will NEVER change. I think these are what Oaks was referring to when using the word “doctrine”. I think his use of the words “principles” and “rules” were not referring to the Gospel Principles I just described, but rather referring to policy, programs, guidelines, etc.
Certainly the priesthood ban was considered doctrine, because it is irrefutable that it was thought to be the will of the Lord at the time. That is a clear example of doctrine changing. The absolute necessity of faith, repentance, baptism, temple work, and all other doctrine that falls under the category of Gospel Principles (essentials) will never change.
Joe
Comment by Joe — 10/21/2006 @ 7:43 pm