Policy, Doctrine, and Revelation

78 comments for “Policy, Doctrine, and Revelation”

1. The fundamental question for me is not policy vs. doctrine.

   I agree. For me, the fundamental question is based on the principle taught repeatedly in our scriptures of receiving the Savior’s servants. For example, see Matt. 10:40, John 13:20, D&C 84:36, and D&C 112:20. For me, this principle allows me to allow the Savior’s servants to magnify their callings without me always wanting to second-guess them. I want them to make decisions based on the Savior’s inspiration, not on the shrill and unkind voices of a loud minority who want to change active homosexuality from sin to celebrated.

2. Thank you. The portion about revelation being the same for everyone brought back a memory of something David B. Haight said in our ward decades ago. We were having an afternoon sacrament meeting, and Elder Haight was there. (Elder and Sister Haight were in our ward). Elder Haight stood up to bear his testimony. He said that earlier that morning, he had met in the temple for a testimony meeting with all the apostles. Elder Nelson had played the organ, and Elder Perry had conducted the hymns. Elder Haight said that the spirit he felt in our ward was the same spirit he felt in the temple that morning. My own revelation that day was that it IS the same for all of us. We get better at hearing heaven’s voice over a lifetime, but it is all the same, whether worldwide leadership or dealing with life at home. Thanks again. This post is a keeper.

3. I enjoy learning new things, so, can you explain “we know we’re going to drink wine again when Christ comes back”? I have never heard anything in this regard. thanks

4. The theoretical difference between “doctrine,” as something that does not change, and all the other stuff (teachings, policies, etc.), seems to me to be almost useless. Things may be taught as doctrine and then change, at which point we ret-con it by saying “well it turns out that wasn’t doctrine after all,” just to avoid saying that the doctrine changed. But what is the point? What good does it to to preserve this hard to define category of “doctrine” that doesn’t change? Why not accept that all church teachings and policies as subject to future change? What is the downside?

   But also, while I think “doctrine” is almost useless as a category, there is also a separate category of “my doctrine” or “the doctrine of Christ,” which is defined in the Book of Mormon essentially as the good news that Jesus came to do the father’s will, was crucified, and was resurrected, and the message of repentance, baptism, remission of sins, and sanctification by the reception of the Holy Ghost. If there is a category of doctrine that does not and cannot change, I think it would be limited to that definition of “my doctrine.” Everything else id beyond that may be wonderful and true and uplifting, but is not “my doctrine.”

   That my take, anyway.

5. I agree that there is no difference between the revelation our leaders receive and the revelation we receive. Thank you for expressing that so eloquently.

   However, I feel like you make a jump to promoting obedience to our leaders that doesn’t really follow. One of our Articles of Faith states in part, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly.” Most members, when they encounter something in the Bible that they feel was not translated correctly and therefore is not of God, have no difficulty ignoring it. That does not mean they do not recognize the Bible as God’s inspired word, or that they are working at cross-purposes with Christ. They are following God’s instruction to test all things, and are choosing to hold to the good and abandon the bad.

   It seems we should take the exact same approach with our church leaders, who are another tool God has given us to grow closer to Him, but which also, at times, are not translating God’s will correctly. Just as we have no problem disregarding mistranslations in our scriptures, so we should be equally confident in disregarding the false, ungodly notions our leaders tell us. That does not mean we do not value and respect the role God has called them to play, but it means we realize they will not be there on our judgment day, and that God will hold us accountable for our actions, just as He will hold them accountable for theirs, and it will not be enough to tell Him we did it because our leaders told us to.

   Nephi wasn’t content to just sit and starve while his father, his only priesthood leader, murmured against God. He helped point his father to God, and then went and brought life-saving food to their camp, sustaining all of them. It is the obligation of every one of us to follow Nephi’s example. We should prayerfully consider every word of the Bible, and every word of our prophet, and then go forward and do what is right.

   No matter what.

6. The OP is well argued and makes some very good points that should help we members support and have confidence in our earthly leaders. Note that the following is not meant to be an attack on your post, just me trying to get things settled in my own mind/faith…

   However, doing that (not doubting that they are led/inspired by God) leads to the conclusion that it is the Lord (therefore the author of policy changes) that wants the church to be always far behind society with regards to “social policy” issues such as, but not limited to, civil rights (blacks, women, gays). More specifically, HE wanted us to remain racists, sexists and homophobes longer than did our contemporaries. By definition (?) those of us that changed our beliefs, attitudes, and practice in these regards before the church did were/are not being obedient/righteous?

7. Great post. The only thing I would add is that some callings come with keys or gifts such as the Bishop’s ability to discern spiritual gifts. So even though one may not necessarily be more naturally attuned to the spirit than another, by virtue of a particular calling he/she may be endowed with addition keys or gifts for the sake of fulfilling a particular calling or office.

8. Jack-

   I think your clarification is a good one.

9. fbisti-

   However, doing that (not doubting that they are led/inspired by God)…

   I’m not trying to suggest that people should not doubt that the leaders are inspired by God in all things at all times. Specifically, I don’t think that the racial priesthood ban was ever inspired.

   In practice what I’m urging is a great deal of care in how we proceed when we disagree with our leaders. First, because they should get a very large benefit of the doubt. Else, what’s the point? This is especially true of statements that are made in concern and/or repeated frequently. However, “a very large benefit of the doubt” is not infinite. The other sense in which this is not blind acceptance is that, when we have a hard time reconciling their direction with our intuitions, we should spend a lot of time looking for the third option: a way to reconcile the two. I fear that too often folks get locked in an either/or that may miss the point.

   Secondly, because when we do disagree we should be careful in how we express that disagreement. To me, it’s important to keep in mind that the Church is an organization, not just a haphazard assortment of individuals. Concepts such as loyalty and unity are not of paramount importance (especially next to higher virtues of charity and kindness), but they do count for something.

10. mirrorrorrim-

    However, I feel like you make a jump to promoting obedience to our leaders that doesn’t really follow. One of our Articles of Faith states in part, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly.” Most members, when they encounter something in the Bible that they feel was not translated correctly and therefore is not of God, have no difficulty ignoring it.

    To the extent that this is true, I believe it is a grave mistake. We should not blithely ignore the parts of scripture we disagree with and citing the Article of Faith doesn’t actually justify that. Canon is still canon, even if it’s imperfect. and commands the highest degree of respect.

    This gets to something I mentioned in my response to fbisti: too often there’s a kind of either/or logic in how we consider counsel from leaders or scripture that we disagree with. Either they are right, or we are right.

    I think that it’s better to look for ways to reconcile, synthesize, or find new approaches that preserve our moral intuition and the scripture / leadership counsel we’re considering. When we just toss out our own moral intuitions and accept whatever we hear, we’ve abdicated our responsibility as free agents. When we just toss out the scripture or leadership counsel with which we disagree, we’ve exiled ourselves from the community of Saints and set ourselves apart from God’s Word and His chosen servants.

    The third way is, in many senses, the hardest way: we stay where we are and we do our best to wrestle the two apparently contradictory propositions into harmony. Over time, however, I believe it to be the most fruitful.

11. I know its not the primary purpose of the post, but I enjoyed the nugget describing how angelic visitation does not “bestow greater certainty. It just raises the stakes.”

    Well stated.

12. JKC-

    The theoretical difference between “doctrine,” as something that does not change, and all the other stuff (teachings, policies, etc.), seems to me to be almost useless.

    You make a valid point, and in particular the end of your comment, where you focus on narrower definition of “doctrine.” That’s probably the most important one to keep in mind, and I should probably come up with a different term for the idea of “eternal truths, broadly construed” other than doctrine.

    I do think that’s a useful idea to keep in mind, however. In a world where we have epistemological limitations, there might seem to be very little difference between objectivism and relativism, but in practice the two imply very different attitudes to the truth, I think. Same principle here.

13. The doctrine/policy distinction is a fiction. Christ never taught it. Nor Joseph or Brigham. It arose as a means to ease members’ qualms when the church changed significant teachings and wanted to save face – most notably with polygamy and the racial priesthood/temple ban. Or to put things in terms of this post, the doctrine/policy distinction tries to pass itself off as a “doctrine,” but it’s really just a “policy.”

    The doctrine/policy distinction is not our only attempt to save face. Recently, church leaders such as Elder Holland and the PR department have pushed a line between doctrines and “core doctrines” – without ever defining the line. Leaders have also pushed the notion that somehow the unified voice of the FP/Q12 is more reliable (perhaps infalliable?) as compared to the voice of only the prophet or even the combined FP. Of course, Joseph and Brigham never felt so constrained.

    I believe these notions come from an inability to otherwise explain the 1949 FP statement which declared that the racial priesthood/temple ban was “doctrine revealed from God” and further declared that the pre-mortal valiancy teaching which justified the ban was also “doctrine.” Perhaps in some future day, we’ll hear the principal that only pronouncements by the FP/Q12/1stQ70 + 3 Women’s general presidencies = the will of the Lord.

    The real underlying tension is this. LDS scripture sets out two conflicting ways to gauge “truth.” There’s the well-known Moroni ask+spiritual confirmation test. And there’s the equally-known (but less often taught) Alma “judge by the fruit” test.

    Throughout our history, we’ve seen points where a church teaching previously confirmed by the spirit turns out to conflict with the expected fruit. Promises of salvation from US persecution for polygamy failed to come. Notions of racial inferiority fell away through Jackie Robinson, MLK, and Darius Gray. And, currently, the teaching that gay families cannot be eternal is being undermined as members come to know gay families and see the good fruits they bear. Unless the trajectory changes – and gay families cease to produce good fruit – at some point in the future church teachings will have to change on this issue or risk undermining everything.

    Judging by history, I’m quite confident that we’ll throw out the bath water rather than the baby. Or to paraphrase D/C 121, we will embrace the righteousness of these families as a necessary step to continue our claims to priesthood authority. No authority can last when it conflicts with goodness.

14. So I guess distinguishing between doctrine and policy is pretty difficult unless or until it changes and then we know it was never doctrine at all? And the brethren are right except when they’ve been wrong? It sounds a bit like the problem of separating earthquakes into foreshocks and aftershocks you don’t have any idea until time has passed and even then you’re never completely sure. I prefer to check the brethren, and the correlation dept. and the church newsroom with personal revelation and so far the new policy doesn’t fly as doctrine. Defensive churching maybe but not doctrine.

15. Dave K-

    The doctrine/policy distinction is a fiction. Christ never taught it. Nor Joseph or Brigham.

    Although they may not have used those words, the idea that some commands are (1) a response to temporary circumstances and (2) have limited scope is not mentioned explicitly in the Bible or Book of Mormon only to the extent that it so thoroughly pervades both texts that no explicit discussion is required. In this sense, there is no question that the doctrine/policy–more than being taught by Christ–was enacted by him. One need only look at the debates and policy changes in the Early Christian Church to see numerous examples of this interplay at work, usually surrounding the question of application of Mosaic Law to Gentile converts.

    I believe these notions come from an inability to otherwise explain the 1949 FP statement…

    Another explanation is readily at hand: the leaders at the time thought the position was doctrinal, and this belief was based on erroneous and/or incomplete understanding of the historical record. This is evident from the fact that the statements (collected by FAIR) frequently refer to Joseph Smith but never quote him. The earliest quotes go to Brigham Young.

    This makes the Church’s position in 1949 (and 1969, etc.) one of error in history. They believed that Joseph Smith had initiated the policy in response to revelation. That was false. He did not initiated the policy in response to revelation. He did not initiate the policy at all. Brigham Young did. This puts the racial priesthood ban in the same category as Adam-God and Blood Atonement with the tragic exception that, unlike these other “innovations”, it was actually enacted. And, once enacted, it required direct revelation to overturn because the leaders thought it had been initiated by revelation (which it had not been).

    This is actually quite different from the question of introducing gay marriages into the temple, as you suggest. In the case of the racial ban, there was a positive policy to deny temple blessings to a group of people who already existed. In that case, it was the Church’s policy (under Brigham Young) that was the first mover. In the case of homosexuality, the concept of same-sex marriage is the innovation (rather than any policy of the Church).

    Of course anyone who says they know with absolute certainty how this will end is mistaken. But the parallels are not quite as exact as you might have them be.

16. Nathaniel Given, I appreciate the spirit of the concept you suggest, one of reconciliation, but in application that often simply amounts to subsuming personal revelation in order to follow authority. Certain things cannot be reconciled. Paul said women should not speak in church. I believe that translation is wrong, either due to Paul himself or due to later alterations, and have no problem disregarding that. Reconciliation in this case leads to folk doctrines, which are always harmful, and which led to more than a century of women not being allowed to give prayers in General Conference.

    Sincerely pondering what the scriptures or our prophet says is not at all the same as blithely ignoring them. The respect comes from taking that time to pray and ponder over things we normally would not even consider.

    One final point: scripture, and the words of our leaders, are not always themselves consistent. The Hebrew Bible is quite clear on the fact that certain foods are unclean. The New Testament goes against that, and God says all foods are clean when He makes them clean. The two positions cannot be reconciled: you must choose one or the other. The scriptures and prophets have said to suffer the children to come unto Him and forbid them not, and that people will be punished for their own sins, not those of their parents. Our current prophet Thomas Monson has said “love is the very essence of the gospel. . . . [and] [t]here are many attributes which are manifestations of love, such as kindness, patience, selflessness, understanding, and forgiveness.” (April 2014) If we see a policy that seems to go against these principles, we have to choose between them. Love and the absence of love cannot be reconciled.

    It comes down to the fact that true faith is not what you think, but what you do based on what you think, and in many cases, doing one action precludes doing another. You cannot half-baptize someone. You cannot half-marry someone. You cannot half-love someone. By trying to reconcile polar opposites, what you create is inaction, which is itself a very polar position. Sometimes revelation says, “Wait.” But sometimes it says, “Do.” And when it says “Do,” that should be enough, and we should go into action, and not defer until society concurs.

17. Nathaniel, the early Christian Church changes were not based on notions of policy vs. doctrine. They were simply changes to doctrine. Over time, many aspects of the law of Moses ceased to be doctrine. It wasn’t that they were better understood to have been policy all along. Rather, the doctrine ceased to be useful and so was changed.

    That’s how things continue to work today. Doctrines change as their usefulness ends or as more light/knowledge is gained. I think we’re both fine with that. The difference is that I see no benefit from pro-hac attempts to rewrite prior doctrines as “policy” as a means to avoid the unpleasant reality that today’s beloved doctrines are just as susceptible to change as yesterday’s.

    That’s the real rub. All this talk about historical teachings is really about whether current teachings can change. Leaders want to deflect the possibility of change by declaring that “doctrines” (or at least “core doctrines”) have never changed and, therefore, because XYZ teaching is a core doctrine, members should give up hope that it could ever change. That’s just bunk. Doctrine changes. Always have. Always will.

    As to the 1949 statement, the FP at the time did not mistake the doctrine. They were the designated leaders at the time and so they made the doctrine. They held the keys at the time, not their predecessors. I’m fine with acknowledging their mistake, but coupled with many other mistakes by church leaders (which the church essays now acknowledge) it’s clear that well-intentioned leaders can make mistakes as to points of doctrine. If Joseph could be mistaken as to whether he was translating the actual papyri (rather than using them as a catalyst) then he could have been mistaken in thinking the Nephites were a historical people or that Elijah gave him the sealing power. We must look to a source other than mere authority to gauge the truthfulness of those propositions.

    Finally, as to SSM, the historical record pretty clearly shows that Brigham instituted the racial ban because of a marriage “innovation” he’d previously not see – interracial marriage. The “first mover” were uppity mixed-race couples who wanted to destroy the boundaries Brigham believed God had established between the races. It’s actually quite parallel to today’s conflict.

18. Let me just ask, how exactly are we to know when some piece of information is doctrine? When the prophet of the time says so? If so, then this idea that doctrine is unchanging is complete and utter nonsense. Here is Brigham Young in the Deseret News, v. 22, no. 308, June 8, 1873:

    How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God

    And here is Spencer W. Kimball in 1976 while acting as prophet:

    Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

    FAIR has an explanation for this, but it is really more of an ad hoc hypothesis that doesn’t really grapple with the question of what LDS people are supposed to consider doctrinal and dismisses Brigham Young’s Adam-God theory as not doctrinal because it has no scriptural basis (never mind the fact that Brigham Young publicly declared that God revealed this to him).

    Now on the matter of the so-called policy of denying priesthood to the blacks never being based on “unchanging doctrine,” George Albert Smith and the leadership under him most certainly believed the ban to be rooted in doctrine. In 1947, the First Presidency made an official declaration to the church, which reads:

    From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

    And in 1949, the First Presidency issued yet another statement on the matter of blacks and the priesthood, which reads:

    The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

    The only possible option left in order to maintain logical consistency with the idea that doctrine in Mormondom in unchanging is to say that there were times in history when the leaders themselves didn’t actually understand true doctrine and actually misrepresented either by mistake or deliberate intent to deceive. In other words, we are forced to consider the possibility that former prophets were either delusional or fraudulent. And if that’s the case, then why should we ever believe the LDS church leaders when they say some piece of information is doctrine? Why should we believe Joseph Smith when he claimed he was receiving supposedly unchanging revelation-based doctrine from God? Why should we believe any of the Doctrine and Covenants to be the actually words of God?

19. Personally, I feel compelled to add a little nuance to the idea that doctrine never changes. I would agree that mortals are not allowed to change eternal doctrines…. but I think it’s pretty clear that several eternal doctrines have changes plenty through out history. Indeed, a more holistic understanding of meaning would reject the ideas that any meaning, doctrinal or not, can be utterly unchanging.

20. Darn it, I messed up the coding. Sorry about that.

21. Nathaniel,

    I have no problem with the idea of objective truth, and I agree that the theoretical/philosophical distinction between categories of unchanging truth and contingent truth/hypothesis can have important implications. The trouble I have with conversations like this is that we often talk about “doctrine” to mean both (1) the unchanging eternal truth and (2) the teachings of the church about the unchanging eternal truth, without ever distinguishing between the two. As you note, I don’t think accepting that our understanding of and ability to express eternal truth is necessarily limited and contingent makes us relativists.

    For example, to speak from personal experience, the Holy Ghost has given me a sure and specific witness, for example, that Abinadi’s words about the Father and the Son are true. But I don’t believe that I can fully explain what those words mean. It will probably take a lifetime before I can. I think that’s they way the spirit works–revealing stroke of pure intelligence, and leaving us to make sense of it with our own minds and try to determine how it fits into what we already know. But we’re not always very good at distinguishing between what is the revelation, and what is our attempt to make sense of the revelation. So I may sound like a relativist when I say that my own and anybody else’s attempt to explain Mosiah 15 is epistimologically limited and therefore contingent at best, but I still believe that there is an objective truth behind that passage that I have glimpsed, with spiritual eyes, only as through a glass, darkly.

    Not to repeat myself too much, but if those two categories ever truly meet, it is with the things that Jesus calls “my doctrine.” Church teachings on other issues may accurately reflect eternal unchanging truth, or they may not. My personal approach is to proceed as if church teachings on any given issue do reflect eternal unchanging truth, but to be open to further light and knowledge, and to keep in mind that especially on issues other than “my doctrine,” we are just doing our best and we may get it slightly or even spectacularly wrong from time to time. Making church teachings into eternal, unchanging doctrine not only runs the risk of getting it wrong, but also the risk of unneccesarily ossifying our teachings and making us less receptive to further light and knowledge. I don’t believe in making someone an offender for a word, and this comment should not be taken as a criticism of this post in particular, but at the same time, given Jesus’ statements in 3 Nephi about those who “declare more or less” than the good news of Jesus, faith, repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost and “establish it for my doctrine,” there is a part of me that cringes a little whenever we speak of “doctrine” on a whole host of other issues ranging from the nature of the Godhead to eternal marriage.

22. mirrorrirrom-

    Nathaniel Given, I appreciate the spirit of the concept you suggest, one of reconciliation, but in application that often simply amounts to subsuming personal revelation in order to follow authority. Certain things cannot be reconciled.

    I disagree with you on two points. First, I do not find nearly as many irreconcilable differences as you do. Second, I disagree that the search for reconciliation is, in practice, just subsuming personal revelation in order to follow authority.

    Your example is a good one: Paul said women should not speak in Church. Why? Was he expressing some kind of theological opposition to having women speak in public or teach? Or was he expressing a practical restraint on Christian worship to try and avoid arousing too much hostility from the deeply misogynistic society in which Christians found themselves? For me, the latter explanation is more plausible based on variety of factors (such as the obvious prominence of women in the New Testament in several places, etc.). If my view is correct, then clearly this was (1) a policy and (2) one that does not apply any longer, as it was based on circumstances that have changed.

    It comes down to the fact that true faith is not what you think, but what you do based on what you think, and in many cases, doing one action precludes doing another.

    Sort of.

    I agree very strongly that action trumps supposed belief, but I include among “action” things that you might not: such as our emotional investment. There’s a lot more to action than just the physical. The same physical action–undertaken for different motives–is to me not really the same action at all. You say there is no such thing as a half-baptism, and you are right. But there is such a thing as a half-hearted baptism (on the part of either the person performing the baptism or being baptized) and not only does such a thing exist, but it is different from either no baptism or a full-hearted baptism. For this reason, the more subtle questions of “why?” cannot be so easily swept aside as having no practical relevance. They have all the practical relevance in the world.

    After all: thinking is also an action. And it is one with vital spiritual significance.

    I believe the attempt to reconcile our moral intuitions and views and beliefs rather than to pick-and-choose between the two is not only necessary, but is perhaps the fundamental and elementary aspect of what it means to be a disciple.

23. Brad L-

    Let me just ask, how exactly are we to know when some piece of information is doctrine? When the prophet of the time says so? If so, then this idea that doctrine is unchanging is complete and utter nonsense.

    You’re conflating two separate questions:

    1. Is doctrine unchanging?
    2. Can we know (with absolute certainty)?

    The answer to the first is yes, and to the second is no. The difference still matters, because the model of unchanging doctrine is a core aspect to our attempt to understand. Otherwise, we could just dismiss every apparent contradiction as “Well, that was what the doctrine was yesterday.” It’s actually an important principle, even if we don’t get to have direct, perfect access to it. The idea of unchanging doctrine is more of an unreachable North Star than an open book for us to peruse.

24. The biggest thing the bloggernacle has unveiled about the church is that the brethren don’t really know any more than those who want to know. Bruce R. McConkie admitted as much when he said “We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject…” speaking of the 1978 revelation. There are many members who don’t study the scriptures and don’t have much access to the spirit, for them the brethren offer a beacon of light but to those who know more about the gospel this new policy has a very bitter taste to it as did the 1949 FP statement to many. The truth can be sorted out via personal revelation. Rote obedience to brethren error may not get you punished but neither will it add light to your knowledge and understanding.

25. Point 1:

    The difference still matters, because the model of unchanging doctrine is a core aspect to our attempt to understand. Otherwise, we could just dismiss every apparent contradiction as “Well, that was what the doctrine was yesterday.”

    Point 2:

    The idea of unchanging doctrine is more of an unreachable North Star than an open book for us to peruse.

    If doctrine is unreachable, then why can’t we dismiss apparent contradictions? Isn’t doctrine supposed to be consistent and non-contradictory? It appears you are contradicting yourself here.

    Look, if there is no real way to inform yourself of what unchanging doctrine actually is, if LDS church leaders can be wrong when they say that something is doctrinal (even to the point of saying that they received a revelation and have tied to the doctrine to scripture), then trying to determine what doctrine is is an absolutely pointless endeavor. Can anything really be pointed to and said with certainty to be unchanging doctrine? Or is nailing down LDS doctrine like trying to nail jelly to a wall? Your idea that doctrine is an unreachable North Star really begs the question of what the purpose of the LDS leaders actually is. Are they really orienting us towards true doctrine? Or is true, unchanging doctrine really just anyone’s best guess?

    Perhaps you wouldn’t mind telling us what you are absolutely certain to be a piece of unchanging doctrine and how exactly you know that to be the case.

26. Interesting comparing this discussion to the discussion of theories in science.

27. “As to the 1949 statement, the FP at the time did not mistake the doctrine. They were the designated leaders at the time and so they made the doctrine.”

    They certainly did mistake the history, which was conflated with the doctrine.

28. I agree with you that all policies and doctrines constitute “revelation,” whether big R or little r. And ultimately, I think that the Brethren are doing their best try and deal with the doctrines and follow the Spirit. They didn’t make the doctrines up, nor are they responsible for the contradictions inherent in them. If we have “issues” with the policies, we shouldn’t blame the Brethren, but blame God, asking along with Elder Packer, “why would He do such a thing?” I’m sure the brethren would LIKE to resolve the contradictions inherent in homosexuality and LDS doctrine, but God gave us no tools to be able to do so.

29. IOW, the 1949 FP (mistakenly) thought they were simply reiterating something handed down by Joseph Smith. They were making a doctrinal judgment based on a historical misunderstanding, which I think the new Gospel Topics essay makes pretty clear.

30. Ben S., my point was that the FP in 1949 was fully authorized to speak as to church doctrine at that point in time. Yes, they made a mistake in understanding history. But a member who wanted to argue that the position was just a misunderstanding of history at the time (consider Lowry Nelson) could not change the fact that FP was authorized to declare the church’s official doctrine at the time – and that’s exactly what they did.

    A parallel to today would be if the FP/Q12 issued a statement declaring that April 6 is Christ’s birthday. Lots of members could disagree and point out this historical error of this conclusion, but the statement would nonetheless constitute church doctrine.

    Also, unless you have a different version than me, the church essay on the priesthood ban does not mention the 1949 statement directly. It does discuss the historical context of the ban, but it’s rather difficult to assert that the ban was a policy and cite to an official FP release calling it a doctrine.

31. IOW, the 1949 FP (mistakenly) thought they were simply reiterating something handed down by Joseph Smith. They were making a doctrinal judgment based on a historical misunderstanding, which I think the new Gospel Topics essay makes pretty clear.

    The “Race and Priesthood” essay? It says nothing about the former leaders of the LDS church making “doctrinal judgment” based on any sort of “misunderstanding.” It never acknowledges that former leaders actually believed the ban to be doctrinal, which they most certainly did.

32. That blockquote function seems useful. Let me see if I can get it to work.

    Nathaniel Given said:

    I disagree with you on two points. First, I do not find nearly as many irreconcilable differences as you do. Second, I disagree that the search for reconciliation is, in practice, just subsuming personal revelation in order to follow authority.

    Your example is a good one: Paul said women should not speak in Church. Why? Was he expressing some kind of theological opposition to having women speak in public or teach? Or was he expressing a practical restraint on Christian worship to try and avoid arousing too much hostility from the deeply misogynistic society in which Christians found themselves? For me, the latter explanation is more plausible based on variety of factors (such as the obvious prominence of women in the New Testament in several places, etc.). If my view is correct, then clearly this was (1) a policy and (2) one that does not apply any longer, as it was based on circumstances that have changed.

    I agree with you completely here, except I think you add a component that is unnecessary. First, I believe learning empathy is an essential part of Heavenly Father’s plan for us. In that we are in complete agreement. I believe there is great value, as you suggest, in trying to understand why Paul said women should not speak in church, even if, maybe even especially if, we believe women should speak. However, to gain such empathy, I do not feel it is necessary, as you seem to be implying, to believe that Paul was correct in saying that to the women of the time in which he lived. To me, that is a completely separate issue. I feel we can seek to understand someone without at the same time agreeing with them.

    I am sincerely doing my best to understand why President Thomas Monson, Brother Russell Nelson, and the other apostles are opposed to the children of gay families being baptized. I am doing my best to understand the same about their stance on the children of polygamous families. From that effort I have formed my theories on the matter, some of which I have discussed elsewhere. But the fact that I am trying to understand does not mean I have to agree with the decision, or that I need to think it is the right one. Nor would I be comfortable basing my reaction to some other matter of doctrine on my assumptions about their motivations for this one.

    To me, whether something is right or wrong is completely separate from the feelings which motivated a person to do that thing. As a scriptural example, Isaiah is pretty explicit about the fact that God used Assyria to do His will on Israel, and that the actions of the king of Assyria, therefore, were the right ones. However, at the same time, Isaiah directly states that the king of Assyria did not do what he did because he was trying to follow God. He did it out of his own pride, and God would punish him for his evil motives. Isaiah’s example is one of negative motivations leading to correct actions, but I firmly believe the analogy is just as apt for positive motivations leading to errors. Thus, I feel motives and the worth of actions should be entirely separated, since God Himself clearly considers them separately.

    In short, why a prophet, ancient or modern, does something, while important, has nothing to do with whether a prophet should do something.

    I agree very strongly that action trumps supposed belief, but I include among “action” things that you might not: such as our emotional investment. There’s a lot more to action than just the physical. The same physical action–undertaken for different motives–is to me not really the same action at all. You say there is no such thing as a half-baptism, and you are right. But there is such a thing as a half-hearted baptism (on the part of either the person performing the baptism or being baptized) and not only does such a thing exist, but it is different from either no baptism or a full-hearted baptism. For this reason, the more subtle questions of “why?” cannot be so easily swept aside as having no practical relevance. They have all the practical relevance in the world.

    After all: thinking is also an action. And it is one with vital spiritual significance.

    I almost entirely agree. I believe why a person does something is every bit as important as what, and I think your example of baptism is a really good one, one which I cannot add anything to. However, in Latter-day Saint society today, I feel there is a tendency to disassociate feelings from actions. I think such a separation is valueless and often harmful. Action is always driven by motivation, and any strong motivation will lead to action. Therefore, if a person has an emotional investment in a thing, but she does nothing about it, then she does not really have a sufficiently strong emotional investment in it. For example, if someone says, “I care about gay people,” but does not actually ever do anything for the benefit of gays, then that feeling is not sufficiently strong, and cannot be characterized as love. Or if someone says he has faith in an idea, such as how essential personal revelation is, but never does something to demonstrate action based on personal revelation, then his belief in the principle is insufficient, and cannot be characterized as faith. True beliefs, in every instance, will result in action. Anything that leads to less is ambivalence. We all have conflicting thoughts and feelings inside our hearts and impacting our heads. Which of them define us is determined by the ones we value enough to act upon.

    I agree thinking can be an important part of that. Choosing to devote hours to thinking and studying about one topic, when we could have been thinking and studying others, or none at all, is an important action. Often, one of the earliest signs that a person does not value someone or something, whether a person, a belief, or anything else, is that she is not willing to set aside time for it. However, I feel that someone having the passing thought that she should study her scriptures, if she never actually does, is just ambivalence.

    That’s why I believe that the very fact that a person prays and considers the words of Paul shows full respect for the canon of scripture, entirely apart from whether that person decides Paul is right or wrong.

    I believe the attempt to reconcile our moral intuitions and views and beliefs rather than to pick-and-choose between the two is not only necessary, but is perhaps the fundamental and elementary aspect of what it means to be a disciple.

    For so much agreement, we still come to very different conclusions. I feel empathy is fundamental to discipleship. But I do not believe empathy requires permanently changing one’s own views to better align with the views of the person you have been trying to understand. I feel you can understand prejudice without yourself having to permanently become more prejudiced.

33. Sorry, I was so focused on getting the tags right I got your name wrong! My post should say “Nathaniel Givens said:”.

34. Not what I meant. It shows the history, that the ban did not go back to Joseph Smith. Anything else is implicit.

35. Fundamentally, there is one and only one reason to trust the leaders: because you think they were chosen by God. Not because you think they are especially wise or righteous. They may not be. Not because you think that callings come with premium access to revelation. It probably doesn’t. Obedience to our leaders and faith in their counsel can and should exist only as an extension of our personal faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ as the true leader of His Church. (It’s got his name, after all.) This trust is not unlimited because our leaders are not infallible, but it ought to be substantial. If it’s not, then we’re working at cross-purposes with Christ, who calls these leaders and (without our help or input) sees to their tutoring and education and–when necessary–correction. (If God loves His servants, then He disciplines them, too. “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” Hebrews 12:6)

    So, translation: you should trust potentially unwise and unrighteous leaders who may or may not actually be receiving revelation (even when they claim to be receiving revelation like Brigham Young did when speaking of Adam being God in 1873) because you think that they were chosen by God. Obeying what the leaders say and believing their counsel to reflect God’s counsel is how we show faith in God and Jesus. However, you shouldn’t trust them completely because they make mistakes in word and in deed, but you should trust them to a good degree. Because if you don’t, then you are going against Jesus Christ.

    So basically, acknowledge that the leaders are fallible (especially when it comes to things they’ve said in the past that they’ve claimed to be doctrinal, which are now inconvenient to believe because of things such as changing attitudes towards racism), but in essence treat them as mostly infallible, or at least as less fallible than any other individual or group of people on the planet, because Jesus himself tutors, educates, and corrects them (well, sometimes, because they aren’t always receiving revelation, and when Jesus tutors or corrects them, that could only be through revelation, right?) I’m sorry, but I cannot help but sense that the doublethink (they’re fallible, but should be treated as infallible) is very, very strong in this paragraph.

36. Brad L-

    There is not a trace of doublethink in anything you’ve quoted, no matter how hard you’ve tried to manufacture it. My point (related to leaders) can be summarized as follows:

    1. You should trust the leaders a lot, but not without limit You should be willing to obey beyond what you can understand, but not without limit.
    2. The reason for that trust is faith in Jesus, not faith in the leaders themselves
    3. When there are conflicts between the way you see things and the way leaders see things, you should do your best to reconcile before you discard either what they say or what you feel.

    Where in those principles is there doublethink?

37. Mirrorrorrim-

    I don’t disagree with much of your post, although I am a bit confused by an apparent conflict. At one point, you seem to say motive doesn’t matter. Later on, you say it’s crucial. Which is it?

    For example, when it comes to the King of Assyria, I don’t think he was “right” to attack Israel in any moral sense, and I think the scriptures make that clear, since he was subsequently punished. You don’t get punished for doing the right thing. He was being used as a tool by God, but the fact that God could use him as a tool doesn’t mean he was doing the “right” thing in any conventional sense.

    I also fear that there’s too much emphasis on empathy in your view. Empathy matters. A lot. Maybe more than anything else. But it’s not the only thing that matters.

    In particular, empathy without wisdom is of very limited value, speaking practically, since if you do not correctly understand principles then you cannot turn your empathy into helpful action. No matter how much empathy you feel for someone sick, what matters (practically speaking) is not empathy. it is medical understanding. Moreover, there is a very real sense in which empathy out of proportion with wisdom can actually (again, from a practical standpoint) do more harm than good. Try holding down your screaming child so that they can be given a vaccine sometime (perhaps you have already) and you will see that sometimes you have to quash your immediately empathic response in order to do more good.

    Quite obviously this is dangerous stuff, because the excuse of quashing empathy for the greater good is used both by doctors saving lives and also by monsters committing mass murder. But the challenge remains: empathy alone is impotent.

    And I’ll take that a step farther: if empathy is serious, then (as you pointed out with respect to motivation) it leads to action that can empower it. The stereotypical bleeding heart who cares all about the world’s poor but has never taken an economics class is my textbook example of this. If you really care, then you spend an awful lot of time gaining the boring, practical knowledge that can turn empathy into helpfulness. Otherwise, empathy is really just either pain-porn, voyeurism, or narcissism.

    In short: I don’t give empathy a free pass as the end-all, be-all of anything.

38. Ben S and Dave K-

    Just commenting to point out that I agree with Ben S. In particular, Dave K, I think your analysis here is flawed:

    the FP in 1949 was fully authorized to speak as to church doctrine at that point in time… FP was authorized to declare the church’s official doctrine at the time – and that’s exactly what they did.

    The FP did not declare that the policy was doctrine on their own authority. This is absolutely, 100% vital. In every case, they stated historical precedent. They didn’t have to do that. They had the authority–as you point out–to make an original statement based on that authority. They never did that. So, while they had the authority to definitively declare that the policy was doctrinal (or to declare that the historical record was correct), they did not exercise that authority. They simply stated, “We don’t need to exercise our authority because it already has been.”

    If the FP does not explicitly invoke their authority, then we should not attribute it to them.

    Ergo, Ben’s point–and mine–stands. The FP mistakenly believed that there had been a prior statement that authoritatively enacted the policy, or at least that it had been in place continuously since the beginning. These are historical arguments. And they turned out to be wrong.

    And so the FP’s position in 1949 was erroneous as a matter of historical fact. They did not create doctrine, they said it already existed as a matter of history. They were wrong.

39. Simpler way of saying the above:

    The FP in 1949 did not claim revelation. They said someone else had gotten it, and they said so as a matter of historical fact.

    The historical fact was wrong. There is no historical record that the racial ban was revealed to anyone at any point. Brigham Young got it wrong, just like with blood atonement and Adam-God.

    And so the FP was wrong, but they were wrong as a matter of historical fact. They were not claiming revelation, and (in hind sight) there was good reason for that. No one ever had any on this point.

40. But if you can unwind the 1949 statement with that argument, you can basically unwind ANYTHING. Nearly everything is in some way built upon historical record, whether it is what modern leaders have said or what is written in canon. What prevents unwinding canon in the same fashion other than a personal line in the sand?

41. Well this is a very good example of why we cannot blindly take them at their word nor can we assume that what they say implies revelation received either by them or by others. “It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord” But it wasn’t!

42. Sorry, I can see why you see an inconsistency. What I’m trying to say is that motive does matter to God when He judges a person, and it does matter because it is what leads people to do what they do. However, it has nothing to do with trying to decide if an action is objectively right or wrong.

    Motive matters for other things, but does not matter when someone is trying to find out if what someone else tells her or him is the righteous thing to do or not.

    So in other words, whether the policies that ban the children of gay and polygamous marriages from being baptized is right or wrong, for example, has nothing to do with whether President Thomas and Brother Russell Nelson are good people or evil ones, or whether they were motivated by good or evil when they created them.

    Once you get away from the issue of whether the policies are right or wrong, their motivations can be important for other reasons, and there is a lot that a person can gain from trying to understand them.

    To me, empathy is essential because it is a fundamental component of hope. If you cannot understand why a person does what she does, you cannot see her potential to become like God, or understand how God can see her and you as being the same. Empathy, then, is key in knowing how to act toward other people. An empathetic parent or doctor may still need to hold her child down, but her empathy may allow her to find ways to make the process easier for the child, by letting the child know she is not trying to hurt him, and how much she loves him. It may lead the parent to afterward take the child out for ice cream, to help make sure the child understands that she wants to do things to make him happy, not sad, even if the child had a hard time seeing it before.

    That’s part of what I mean when I say that having empathy for a person does not mean you have to agree: the child still needs his shot, and women still need to speak in church.

    I hope that makes sense.

    Sometimes, though, empathy can cause a person to change her or his views, because she or he sees that the other person’s view actually is the correct one. That’s a huge benefit, but it isn’t the only necessary outcome, or the only valuable one. Seeing why someone is wrong can be just as beneficial as seeing why someone is right.

    At least, that’s how I feel.

    And I agree that, as important as it is, empathy isn’t everything. Empathy without wisdom and a sense of self-worth can lead a person to blindly rely on the views of others, and without God’s help, you can think you know what motivates another person, while being completely mistaken. I do not think a person should ever rely on empathy alone when making a decision about anything. I also think while we should try to understand one another, we need to accept the fact that we can never be completely sure that we really understand everything about what another person is going through, even if they have described it to us.

    And we should never assume we know what’s best for another adult. As adults, we are all brothers and sisters. None of us should try to assume the role of mother or father. That goes for church leaders along with the rest of us.

43. Nathaniel,

    The 1949 FP Statement was not an expose on how President Grant and his counselors (who included David O. McKay) approached the historical development of the racial priesthood/temple ban. Yes, their view was based a mistaken understanding of history (and scripture), but – critically – they were not setting forth a mere historical explanation. They were setting forth doctrine for their current day in order to clear up any confusion members may have as to whether the ban was policy or doctrine. Based on their authority, they said declared the doctrine of the day.

    If you want more context, just look to the correspondence between the FP and Lowry Nelson in the 1947 time period, in which Brother Nelson argued that the ban was policy and could be changed. It was that notion – held by Brother Lowry and others members of the time – that led to the FP’s decision to issue the statement. Their intent was not to present history, but to clearly establish the doctrine of the church – which was their prerogative.

    I will (happily) concede that the 1949 FP did not claim any personal revelation. Thank goodness. But they did establish doctrine, and they did so on at least two faulty beliefs: (1) historical – that Joseph has instituted the ban, and (2) scriptural – that the ban was established in LDS canon. That should really give one pause. It’s not just history they can get wrong. They also make mistakes in interpreting scripture. So when Elder Oaks says that the scriptural account shows the Savior intended women to not be ordained, well, that’s just his personal view, and quite possibly wrong. He’s not claiming any personal revelation after all.

    So yes, if we want to cut things thinly, we can say that the 1949 FP statement is not an example of the prophet getting a personal revelation wrong. That’s nice. It really its. But the 1949 example still shows that the prophet can get history and scriptural interpretation wrong. And those two things cover 99%+ of the explanations given by the current FP/Q12.

    Further, if we choose to cut things that finely, it allows us to discard President Nelson’s recent explanation of the events leading to the policy change (the very lead-in to this post). Note that President Nelson never claimed that he personally received Revelation. He said that he got a confirming feeling as to instructions given by President Monson. If any Revelation was received, per President Nelson it was received by President Monson. And notably, President Monson has not personally said anything about receiving a Revelation (though he did sign the clarifying letter in December). So President Nelson’s explanation is mere hearsay. If nothing else is said on the subject going forward, I have no doubt that in 20 years FARMS will be able to just as easily dismiss President Nelson’s statement as they are to dismiss the 1949 FP statement.

44. Veston said:

    But if you can unwind the 1949 statement with that argument, you can basically unwind ANYTHING. Nearly everything is in some way built upon historical record, whether it is what modern leaders have said or what is written in canon. What prevents unwinding canon in the same fashion other than a personal line in the sand?

    I think you’re exactly right, and moreover, you are describing how God envisions His system of priesthood leadership and scriptures to work: people should never assume that anything, said by anyone at any time, is true or core doctrine, until finding out from God herself or himself. Our leaders and even our canon can give us things to consider, but it is still our responsibility to consider them.

    If that leads you to unravel all of everything you have accepted as canon, then you should be willing to do so. After all, isn’t that what we as missionaries ask people of other religions to be willing to do? It’s only fair we hold ourselves to the same standard.

45. It’s interesting that people have no problem rejecting Brigham Young’s statements that the priesthood ban and Adam-God theory were divinely inspired that reference his prophetic authority because they or the LDS church no longer believe those ideas. What is the difference between those statements and Young’s statements about his authority to succeed Smith as leader of the restored church? It would appear to me that there is as much justification in Smith’s statements for a priesthood ban or Adam-God theory as there is for the notion that Young was intended to be Smith’s successor. Should the authority of the current LDS church be viewed as a matter of inspiration and revelation or policy and belief?

46. Brian, of course it’s always possible in terms of logic. Whether it is true is an other matter entirely. I think most Mormons think they’ve had direct personal revelation for Pres. Monson being a prophet and (by extension) Brigham Young’s succession claims being correct.

    I doubt any of those people have similar personal revelation on Adam/God or the priesthood ban. With regards to A/G I think just a minor change fixes the doctrine so BY might have gotten a revelation and just pushed it beyond the original revelation. (My theory anyway) With regards to the blacks and the priesthood issue I don’t know enough about BY’s reasoning so I can’t speak to there. It appears to have arisen out of Young’s racist views on interracial marriage and the apostasy of William McCary. Where Brigham went wrong exactly I couldn’t say for sure.

    In any case I think many of us have had confirmed to use the truth of the priesthood going to all worthy regardless of race. So what Brigham thought is largely pointless – as much as what Peter thought about circumcising gentile converts during his period of getting it wrong. If Brigham was mistaken (and he most definitely was) I’m not sure it’s of a different magnitude of mistake from Peter’s own mistakes on race. (Depending upon how you interpret the Paul/Peter conflict – and of course some interpret it as applying more narrowly or even involving a different Peter)

47. Dave K (43) Surely it matters whether a doctrinal pronouncement is made via explicit revelation or via an interpretation of texts without a corresponding inquiry into the nature of those texts revelatory status. It seems to me your conflating a few issues there.

    My sense is that in this thread, as is all too common, people are simply equivocating over the various meanings of “doctrine” without being clear what senses they are using.

48. Clark, of course an explicit revelation should be treated differently. But as far as I can tell we haven’t had one of those since Joseph F. Smith’s vision over a century ago (now section 139). The apostles no longer claim to be visited by angels, much less the Savior (at least they don’t make the claim publicly). Even the 1978 “revelation” is tough to pin down. Gordon B. Hinckley says there was a spiritual outflowing unlike anything he’d previously experienced. But LeGrand Richards described the event as pretty much a normal council meeting in which it was decided that it was unfair to keep black Brazilians out of a temple they had sacrificed so much to build. No one has ever claimed a vision or visitation.

49. These are tricky topics. One issue I have is dealing with the ramifications of D&C 19 in which God basically says that “eternal punishment” actually means “God’s punishment that will not last for eternity but is instead for a relatively short period of time” (although I’m sure I’ll think it’s a long time when I undergo it). I’m 99% sure that without that section and with only scriptural references to “eternal punishment” that almost all of us would say that the clear reference is to punishment that is eternal in time/length. A T&S article that argued otherwise would be meet with a long list of comments citing the various “eternal punishment” scriptures themselves. I wonder if there are other words and phrases used by prophets (ancient and modern) which may at some point turn out to mean something completely different than what they appear to mean?

    I have young children and I sometimes answer their questions in ways that are appropriate for them, but would not be appropriate answers for an adult (i.e. they would be oversimplifications to the point of being misleading). I wonder how often God does that with me. And does He do it the way I do it with my 3 year old or my 9 year old?

50. Nice try. However Nelson says it was a revelation when it clearly looks like something else given the backtracking post-media storm. If the sun shines and it’s a clear day, how can you say it’s kinda cloudy?

51. One of the ideas that look like questionable truths we presently hear is that gay marriage, sex is a sin. If it weren’t for that one, what would we have left to oppose it but prejudice/culture?

    As for the 1949 proclamation, one of the apostles had been church historian for 20+ years, surely he would have known the truth?

52. So let’s say, for the sake of argument, that sometime in the future one of the Quorum of the Twelve declares that God has revealed to President Monson that polygamy is to be reinstated, and that it is a requirement to enter the highest level of the celestial kingdom. There’s historical precedent, and the doctrine is found in our current canon. I imagine plenty of people, if not most, would have personal revelation that this is not right, even though the Prophet said it. What then? Should people follow their own personal revelation or the prophet?

53. I think the question you asked is great, Anon, because it let’s me emphasize something that maybe hasn’t been clear enough: There is no rule that you can state now that will give the right answer on how to respond to all future statements from Church leaders..

    This isn’t a limitation or a bug to me. It’s a fundamental design aspect of the Church.

    Either the Church is there to absolve us of responsibility as free individuals, or it is there to enable us to reach our potential as free individuals. If the former, then it’s just a question of finding the right rule and then turning our brains and hearts off and living life on autopilot. Possible rules include:

    – Whatever the President says is correct
    – Whatever the President says is correct, provided he also adds a specific phrase (“Thus saith the Lord”) or says it in a particular place (i.e. General Conference)
    – Whatever the President, First Presidency, and Quorum of the 12 say in united voice is correct.
    – Whatever the President, First Presidency, and Quorum of the 12 say in united voice is correct, provided certain phrases or other conditions are added
    – Whatever is canonized is correct

    None of these rules will work. What’s more no rule of this form (i.e. “if x, then y without any further thought or consideration on my part”) is going to work. No rule of that form can work because the Church does not exist to absolve us of our responsibility as free agents to determine what is right for ourselves.

    This causes no end of frustration and confusion among members who want to know what exactly is required doctrine and what is optional. Who want a checklist that will unambiguously guarantee success. Who want an algorithm or a recipe to follow that will always work in every circumstance without any exceptions. But that desire goes against the fundamentals of the Plan of Salvation. We keep trying to give away our freedom. God keeps refusing to let us. And then we get cranky about it.

    What would happen in your scenario? (Aside: I don’t think it’s remotely plausible.) The answer is that I don’t know. All I know is that I would not unconditionally follow along because I don’t unconditionally follow along with anything.

54. Nathaniel,

    What would happen in your scenario? (Aside: I don’t think it’s remotely plausible.) The answer is that I don’t know. All I know is that I would not unconditionally follow along because I don’t unconditionally follow along with anything.

    Thank you for the reply. I, too, think the scenario is not likely. I don’t doubt that you would seriously consider both your own understanding and conscience plus the counsel of a prophet, but I’d be willing to bet 80-90% of my ward members don’t see it that way. ‘Follow the Prophet, no matter what’ is how they interpret anything coming from Salt Lake.

55. I’ve always had a little friction with some of the members who seemed too doctrinaire to me, but (1) that’s always been just one or two folks in a ward, not the overwhelming majority and (2) every time I’ve gotten to know one of these folks, I’ve found that they are at least as thoughtful as I am, and have their own reasons for living the Gospel the way that they do.

    The cynical caricature of Mormon obedience is much, much too simplistic to bear any relation to the men and women–my brothers and sisters–in any of the wards I’ve lived in.

56. “The idea of unchanging doctrine is more of an unreachable North Star than an open book for us to peruse.”

    Nathaniel, by this statement I believe you are conceding that what is taught as doctrine in the church does change—given the number of times this has occurred in the short history of the church, this assertion is really irrefutable—but that there is such a thing as “unchanging doctrine” which our imperfect condition doesn’t allow us to fully grasp or articulate, sort of the like the shadows on the walls of Plato’s cave. If this is your point I agree with it.

    The problem is, this isn’t what is taught from the pulpit. Instead, our leaders all too often attempt to couch their pronouncements in the cloak of “unchanging doctrine” for the purpose discouraging questions and encouraging conformity. This is closely linked to the myth of prophetic infallibility—a myth that finds its modern incarnation in the equally dubious proposition that apostles and prophets will never lead us astray.

57. [I revised this post from the first version to make it more concise.]

    FarSide-

    If this is your point I agree with it.

    Pretty much, albeit with one caveat (see next response).

    The problem is, this isn’t what is taught from the pulpit. Instead, our leaders all too often attempt to couch their pronouncements in the cloak of “unchanging doctrine”

    Someone else has already pointed out that we’re (including myself) a bit sloppy in our definition of “doctrine” in the comments and in the OP. I think that’s true. There are two definitions.

    The strict, narrow sense is that doctrine refers only to the core teachings regarding Jesus and His mission as Savior.

    The broader sense is basically “all the stuff that’s important and true.”

    I think that often the leaders refer to the narrow sense when reiterating the “unchanging” aspect of it, because that really is unchanging: not just out there in some unknowable sense, but also in our faith and (for that matter) across pretty much all of Christendom.

    …for the purpose discouraging questions and encouraging conformity.

    This is what I take exception to the most.

    Mormons have a reputation for obedience because, relative to other denominations, we are obedient. But relative obedience is not the Lord’s standard. He is not pleased with people who are “more ____ than those other guys.” So that’s not an indication that we’re obedient enough. Moreover, I believe our culture fosters a kind of selective, ostentatious obedience that further bolsters an appearance of hyper-obedience that is misleading. In short: I don’t think Mormons are obedient enough. Until the day where Church-wide home teaching is like 90% or higher, that’s kind of a bad joke to me.

    So it makes all the sense in the world for the GAs to continue to stress obedience. We have an orthoprax faith. That’s what we’re about.

    But to characterize the GA’s message as one of thoughtless obedience is unfair. We are also a faith that stresses free agency, after all, and while that principle is not stressed as frequently as obedience it is certainly not forgotten.

    The two are not contradictory. They point towards a very high degree of obedeience (higher than we have today), but also a kind of obedience that is thoughtful and deliberate rather than either ostentatious and selective or purely reflexive.

    Mormons are not obedient robots, and our leaders are not calling us to become such, either.

58. Thanks for the thoughtful response, Nathaniel, though I’m not inclined to agree with you regarding the motives of some of our leaders when they try to bring their teachings under the umbrella of “unchanging doctrine.” When Brother Holland became exasperated to the point of telling the members they need to “simply conform and sit the prescribed distance from the campfire,” the type of nuance you describe was conspicuously absent. Indeed, I don’t think our leaders “do” nuance, ambiguity, and paradox particularly well. Black and white seem to be their colors of choice.

    Having said this, I’m in complete agreement with your final observation: “It’s about thoughtful and deliberate obedience, rather than flashy selective obedience or even thoughtless, reflexive obedience.”

    As a final thought, I particularly like the way Pope Benedict, in his Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, express similar sentiments:

    “Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else; if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, as one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.”

59. FarSide-

    I don’t think our leaders “do” nuance, ambiguity, and paradox particularly well. Black and white seem to be their colors of choice.

    I agree with that. But I also fault the expectation that they should. They are general authorities. They give general counsel. They stick to simple, generic stuff. And it’s boring and kind of tedious but–until as a people we actually follow through on it–we have to expect that they are going to keep telling us to eat our veggies.

    The kind of thing that is interesting to me, that feeds my soul, that gets me engaged and passionate in the Gospel isn’t the same kind of thing that everyone in my ward craves. And so for me to expect to be catered to in that way by the General Authorities is not only unrealistic, but also selfish.

    The role of a General Authority is to speak to the lowest common denominator. THat’s a term that is often used pejoratively, with the emphasis on “lowest” but I’d rather place the emphasis on “common.”

    It does mean that educated, first-world Mormons are in a sense adrift. We’re left in many ways to fend for ourselves in terms of spiritual nourishment. Isn’t that exactly what we should expect? The term in vogue these days is “privilege.” I don’t know you so I don’t know if this applies to you, but I do know that it applies to a very great deal to Mormons in the Bloggernaccle in general: we are the privileged. And we should be proud, rather than complaining, that the leaders do not respond to our needs with the greatest alacrity.

    So I agree with a lot of your sentiment. I liked the quote from Pope Benedict. I just don’t feel that the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should have to spell things out quite so explicitly. The pieces are all there. It’s our job to put them together. Especially those of us with college degrees, comfortable houses, and access to first-rate medical care. We already have (to a great degree) our meals, our homes, our clothes, our entertainment, and pretty much everything else in our lives prepared for us. The Gospel is, and should always remain, more of a DIY project.

    Mormonism is not a turnkey faith.

60. Farside,

    Where does the quote “simply conform and sit the prescribed distance from the campfire” come from? The only instances of it that I can find online are of you and a couple of others quoting it but with no reference to the time or place. Did Elder Holland say this at a venue where it wouldn’t be recorded online? Just curious as to its source.

61. I am with JKC’s core doctrine explanation above. Every one is a solution of bittersweet. Motives, nuances etc. All that matters is how we treat each other (with or without a hope of resurrection).

62. ABM,

    My use of quotation marks was intended to paraphrase what Elder Holland said in his 2003 General Conference Talk titled “A Prayer for the Children.” Here are some of the relevant quotes:

    “But no child in this Church should be left with uncertainty about his or her parents’ devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Restoration of His Church, and the reality of living prophets and apostles who, now as in earlier days, lead that Church according to “the will of the Lord, … the mind of the Lord, … the word of the Lord, … and the power of God unto salvation.” In such basic matters of faith, prophets do not apologize for requesting unity, indeed conformity, in the eloquent sense that the Prophet Joseph Smith used that latter word.”

    Quoting Richard L. Evans, he also said: “Sometimes some parents mistakenly feel that they can relax a little as to conduct and conformity or take perhaps a so called liberal view of basic and fundamental things—thinking that a little laxness or indulgence won’t matter—or they may fail to teach or to attend Church, or may voice critical views.”

    “In this I speak carefully and lovingly to any of the adults of the Church, parents or otherwise, who may be given to cynicism or skepticism, who in matters of whole-souled devotion always seem to hang back a little, who at the Church’s doctrinal campsite always like to pitch their tents out on the periphery of religious faith. To all such—whom we do love and wish were more comfortable camping nearer to us—I say, please be aware that the full price to be paid for such a stance does not always come due in your lifetime.”

    Many in the church found this talk to be disturbing since the conformity Brother Holland seeks is premised on the notion that the leaders of the church ALWAYS lead according to “the will of the Lord . . . the mind of the Lord,” i.e., that they never get it wrong. Further, his admonition that the decisions, actions or policies of church leaders should not be questioned for fear that your children will be led astray was perceived as a not-so-thinly veiled threat that those who doubt or question—at least out loud—are placing their salvation in jeopardy. The fact that numerous past church policies and actions have been repudiated and disavowed suggests that there is a rational basis for being skeptical some of the time.

    I, for one, am partial to admonitions of President Hugh B. Brown who said: “We should be dauntless in our pursuit of truth and resist all demands for unthinking conformity.”

    Personal attacks against a leader of the church—or against anyone else, for that matter—are never acceptable. Nevertheless, their actions, decisions and policies should never be placed beyond scrutiny. And if such scrutiny is conducted prayerfully and with humility, I believe there is little risk that our children will suffer. To quote Brother Brown again: “Preserve, then, the freedom of your mind in education and in religion, and be unafraid to express your thoughts and to insist upon your right to examine every proposition.”

63. Policy is created (almost always by a bureaucracy) for a group of people. Revelation is the personal communication between the individual and God. When Moses went up on the Mount he had a revelation from God. When he came down with the stone tablets he had a policy for the people. It’s revelatory aspect is manifest in the personal witness each individual has of the policy.

    The commandments are policies. The revelation comes in how we individually adapt them to our circumstances. The policy is not to kill, but Nephi received a revelation to slay Laban due to his particular situation.

    Policies tend to be universal. Revelation is highly individual. Policy is public. Revelation is almost always private. Policy is social. Revelation is personal. Policy is born of bureaucracy, revelation from the Spirit.

    All policies are subject to review. God’s policies are subject to review. And, if God’s, then the policies of men are chopped liver. After all, Nephi was indeed struggling with the policies. Revelation can negotiate this struggle for the individual. Policies attempt to negotiate the struggle for the masses.

    The organ of revelation in the human soul is conscience. Here is a paradox. Conscience seeks the revelation of what is right in any situation, which can end up creating a policy that applies to more people. But the gospel principle is this, conscience never be subordinated beneath a policy. At least in a righteous use of policy, the conscience that creates it need not be bound by it.

    Using my example, did Nephi struggle slaying Laban because of his conscience? or because of his enculturated policy (thou shall not kill) despite the fact that it was his conscience telling him to get rid of this guy? Either way, it was not the doctrine or the policy that decided this situation, but the revelation which appeased Nephi’s conscience that found the conclusion.

    Herein lies the difficulty with the new policy of the Church. It is rubbing many people’s conscience the wrong way. You can talk about the difference between policy and revelation all you want, but when the organ of revelation senses a discrepancy in a policy, then declaring that policy as revelation is going to be a hard sale.

    It is true, conscience can be highly influenced by culture. Thus, the standard argument is my policy transcends culture and therefore you must follow it even if it is counter your conscience. Tyrants have been using this justification for centuries. Thing is, every once in a while God steps in with a very similar argument. The difference, though, is when God makes his argument, he appeases or enlightens the conscience. God’s revelations are not top-down, hierarchal, business management style declarations. They come in from underneath and from within. The whisper of the Spirit, the engendering of conscience, the inner sight of the soul–these are the revelations of God. Even when the occasional angel shows up, and despite Mormon cinematic portrayals, the communication is still spirit to spirit and not with a glowing white megaphone.

    So, the Church has a legitimate concern. They have produced a policy that runs counter to some people’s conscience. The worst thing to do in this situation is to demand obedience. Gratefully, none of the upper leaders have done this (I have heard a few of the local leaders doing this, sadly). I suppose we can argue policy/revelation/tradition/doctrine all day long. But in the end, what must be satisfied is not philosophical or historical points, but conscience.

    If the Brethren spent an enormous amount of time, energy, and consideration on this policy, as has been suggested, then they must allow for the membership to do the same. For some, this policy directly affects them, and their conscience cannot negotiate the moral consequences. Some have left as a result. I do not blame them.

    My job is to live by my conscience. Seek revelation. Consider policy. Love my neighbor. And support as best I can those who struggle for and against this policy.

    Even as I do.

64. When I think of the church’s policies, I think of domestic and foreign policies and how that word is used in government and in company politics. They are domestic and foreign policies because they affect the corporation side of the church and its interests and relations with others, not just in the US but internationally; and like all policies they consist of strategies that safeguard its interests that help work towards achieving or maintaining its goals (whatever they might be).

    We have a great example in the Bible of King Solomon and policies. Unlike his father who used the battlefield to build a strong and prosperous kingdom, Solomon used his diplomacy and economic skills. However not everyone liked Solomon’s policies because he poured money into strengthening his military power in the south to safeguard it from attack from Egypt but neglected to do the same for the northern kingdom from Syrian threat. He gave away land in the north to pay for materials and thus built capital at their expense. He also instituted an added tax, not of money but of physical labor (and you can imagine how the descendants of those that came out of Egypt felt about that policy. The policy reminded them of slavery). He also cut into the tribal system by instituting twelve districts to supply food for the court the boundaries of which did not correspond to that of the tribes. Needless to say for all Solomon’s diplomacy, we certainly get a different picture of his wisdom.

    Of course, while a king and his policies are not exactly the church, for them there was no separation between religion and state, and so for me this is what the church’s policies make me think of–domestic and foreign policies. Sorry, but they just do. They are so much more than what is in handbook of instructions book or what we are made to think they are as a set of guidelines on how to do your job.

65. FarSide,

    It is incredible that we can read the same words so differently. I do not see the threat of conformity in his words. I see genuine worry that stepping outside of the “camp” a little too much can have unforeseen consequences for children. The talk is called “A Prayer for the Children” after all.

    We have all seen examples of what he is talking about right? Don’t we all know parents that just don’t take church seriously and/or are lax in many of our practices, who ignore leadership consistently. Is it any surprise when their children choose not to attend as adults?

66. ABM,

    All that I can tell is that your charitable reading of Brother Holland’s remarks is not shared by everyone. My take on his talk has been echoed by several other members of the church who, like me, believe he could have expressed his concern for children without portraying those who sit further from the campfire than he deems proper (i.e., those that question certain church policies) as being on a slippery slope to hell.

    While inactivity and failure to observe things such as the Word Wisdom can obviously influence the thinking of our children in a negative way, properly questioning and expressing skepticism about certain ideas espoused by our church leaders can, I believe, be quite beneficial, countering the false notion of infallibility that still permeates our culture and preparing them for the messy truths about our history and the evolution of our doctrines that they will inevitably discover as they grow older.

67. FarSide,

    If I haven’t derailed the thread enough…

    I mostly agree with you. I don’t intend on raising my children with the mindset that perfect obedience, prophetic infallibility and hanging on every single word of a leader are the core of the gospel. They aren’t. But the very difficult part is teaching questioning and skepticism…. “properly” and in its rightful place. It’s a balance and I would rather err a little on the obedience side for my part.

68. “But the very difficult part is teaching questioning and skepticism…. “properly” and in its rightful place. It’s a balance and I would rather err a little on the obedience side for my part.”

    Well said, ABM.

69. Nathaniel, your attempt to clarify your point in comment 36 actually reveals more doublethink.

    “1. You should trust the leaders a lot, but not without limit You should be willing to obey beyond what you can understand, but not without limit.
    2. The reason for that trust is faith in Jesus, not faith in the leaders themselves”

    Obey the leaders beyond what we can understand? If so, then isn’t that essentially having faith in the leaders? Then right in principle number 2 you contradict yourself by saying that we shouldn’t have faith in the leaders themselves.

    What you say in principle 3 appears to explain your doublethinking tendencies.

    “3. When there are conflicts between the way you see things and the way leaders see things, you should do your best to reconcile before you discard either what they say or what you feel.”

    This suggests that you essentially live in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance in which you are unwilling to discard what the leaders say and things that you feel that may conflict with what they say, hence the doublethink.

    Lastly, let’s call a spade a spade. LDS doctrine has changed quite a bit in the last 185 years, the reversal on the ban on the priesthood being among biggest instances. It doesn’t matter that no leader ever claimed revelation or said, “thus saith the Lord,” when saying that the blacks couldn’t hold the priesthood was doctrine. They taught it as doctrine, they pointed to evidence of doctrinality in the scriptures, they was near consensus agreement among the leaders for decades that it was doctrine, and they didn’t overturn it except by claiming revelation from God (after all kinds of pressure from outside and within to change it). There are all sorts of other claims taught as doctrine that are accepted as doctrinal by the leadership without the leaders specifically claiming revelation or them saying, “thus sayest the Lord.” To say that doctrine is unchanging is flat out intellectually dishonest.

70. I’m confused. The JST modifies 1 Cor. 14:34 to say that women should not rule in church. Why are were debating about what a non-JST version of a scripture says?

71. jader3rd, only small portions of the JST have been canonized; 1 Cor. 14:34 is not one of them. Further, the JST contains several errors due, in part, to the prophet’s lack of proficiency in Hebrew and Greek. Moreover, in several places the translation merely reflects Joseph’s opinion and/or speculation regarding a particular passage. Barlow’s “Mormons and the Bible” has an excellent chapter on this subject, which he discusses in considerable detail.

    I treat the JST much as I do the Apocrypha—there are same valuable kernels in there, but also a fair amount of chaff.

72. Well, the comments are all over the place going back to the priesthood ban. However, Nathaniel’s basic ideas are pretty much in line with my own understanding on the difference between policy and revelation. That is a doctrine is a core principle that will never change and a policy is something that is put in place to address circumstances which may change, necessitating a change in policy. The priesthood ban always was a policy based upon that understanding. There was always the understanding that it would be lifted some day. Most believed that it would only happen in the millennium, however it came about much quicker. The only real question left is whether it came from God originally, as Brigham Young declared. That question is unanswered to this day, and is actually moot.

    Doctrine must, in my opinion, always come via revelation. Policy can come via revelation or it can come via the experience and ponderings of wise men when focused on a particular problem or situation. In the case in point, Elder Nelson said that it came via the revelatory process after much discussion, fasting, and prayer. One can believe or disbelieve at their pleasure.

73. Regarding the 1949 FP letters to Lowry Nelson, it is clear that the FP had been entirely deceived, and it is disheartening that they and others such as Joseph Fielding Smith used the doctrinal tools of the restoration concerning the pre-existence, and racial scriptures from the book of mormon and abraham to back up the doctrine they held as god given. Joseph Smith verified and approved of the ordination of Elijah Abel, yet Apostle Harold B Lee in his talk in 1961 on “Doing the Right Thing for the Right reasons” is bashing and criticizing historians for bringing him up. “Heralding the fact he was ordained in the early days – holding it up as saying that we have departed from what was done a way back.” Joseph F Smith claims his ordination was pronounced null and void by the prophet himself. Lee goes on and on bashing historians on the matter and claims that Joseph Smith when he found out about the ordination himself invalidated the ordination. “A little failure to research properly – they had reached a conclusion that they had wanted to reach to make it appear as though something had been done away back that we have departed from and therefore ought to be set in order.” “Saying the church is out of the way – while he himself is righteous – the know surely that that man is on the road to apostasy, unless he will repent he will surely apostatize as surely as god lives.” When a prophet and apostle is deceived they will hold their ground, give talks claiming historians and those who believe them are apostates, and continue proclaiming lies as doctrine. The revelation received by President Kimball was to reverse the false doctrine produced by Brigham Young. So we see that doctrine, policy, revelation, history and wranglings on these matters is a Rube Goldberg entanglement. We have to deal with deception, obedience to deception, entrenchment of the lies, invention of doctrine to elevate the false doctrine, wresting over doctrine, bashing of historians, – conversion of doctrine to policy to unfortunate policy to how to convince the 1 hold out guy, to finally revelation to overturn false doctrine, then a lot of “we don’t know why God did this” to cover-up, and now, “what racism? – never heard of it – haven’t you seen Meet the Mormons?”

74. “This suggests that you essentially live in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance in which you are unwilling to discard what the leaders say and things that you feel that may conflict with what they say.”

    You say that like it’s a bad thing. :)

75. The priesthood ban always was a policy based upon that understanding.

    Except when the First Presidency declared it to members and know-it-all academics that the ban was doctrinal. But those foolish members in 1949 believing something to be doctrine just because the FP issues an official statement saying as much. Sheesh, what were they thinking? Couldn’t they see that the ban was just a policy?

    The only real question left is whether it came from God originally, as Brigham Young declared. That question is unanswered to this day, and is actually moot.

    That’s right. When a church leader says a particular idea came from God, don’t trust them, but sure as heck don’t question them. Besides those types of questions about the priesthood ban coming from God or not aren’t at all important for salvation, and the idea that we’ll be saved from damnation because of ordinances that the LDS church is authorized to make is just something we know came from God, because the LDS leaders said that it did.

    Doctrine must, in my opinion, always come via revelation.

    Again, right on. That is why we must accept the idea that Adam is God is unchanging doctrine, because Brigham Young said that God revealed this to him. I mean, not to crib Brigham Young’s quote or anything, but how much unbelief exists in the minds of Latter-day Saints in regards to one particular doctrine that Brigham Young revealed to them which God revealed to him, namely, that Adam is our Father and God? Spot on (double)thinking there Thigpen.

76. Brad L. said “Again, right on. That is why we must accept the idea that Adam is God is unchanging doctrine, because Brigham Young said that God revealed this to him. I mean, not to crib Brigham Young’s quote or anything, but how much unbelief exists in the minds of Latter-day Saints in regards to one particular doctrine that Brigham Young revealed to them which God revealed to him, namely, that Adam is our Father and God? Spot on (double)thinking there Thigpen.”

    If the fullness of the Adam-God “theory” were known and understood, it might not sound so strange. When one understands that Brigham Young taught that the first man on each earth is an Adam and, according to Joseph Smith, work out their exaltation with “fear and trembling.”

    But I digress a bit, since neither the Adam-God teachings nor the King Follett sermon were ever canonized.

    But my original statement still stands. All doctrine must come by revelation. How else could we get it???

77. Brad L, the teachings are the church are not debate tools. You’re abusing what I find sacred in order to declare a rhetorical victory. Your attitude is consistently one that a faithful latter-day saint could do without. In a private discussion, it may be ok to engage with someone the way you are, but the comments just seem like granstanding with topics that someone finds sacred. Please stop.

78. I believe we’ve reached–and probably exceeded–the borders of useful comment on this post, and I’m going to close the thread now.

Comments are closed.