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

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

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.

The Hinckley comment was on Larry King in 1999. When commenting on polygamy he stated:

I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

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

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.

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

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.