What is Considered Doctrine in the LDS Church

[MelanieAnne]

How can I make it more clear that if the scriptures and the words of the unitedly written words of the prophets and apostles are quoted in those classes, then the students are hearing doctrine.

If the teachers expand on the quotes or seek to “clarify” or “amplify” or “water down” then they are stating their own opinions, and yes, that happens.

Well that’s a convenient explanation. But what actually happened was the the LDS changed their doctrine and now teachers deny what was taught in the past.

Denial doesn’t work for Holocaust deniers either, it won’t work for Mormons.

 

[twopekinguys]

The mark of Cain, as far as I know, was a remark by Brigham Young. The only modern apostle I know of who commented on it was Mark E. Peterson as late as the 1960’s but here again it was a personal opinion and not widely supported by the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency.

But, in 1978, God changed his mind, and told the lds leadership that it was ok for blacks to receive the priesthood right?

 

[JLFuller]

Or maybe the “God as an Exalted Man” is one of those doctrines that has CHANGED

To my knowledge, none of the leadrship believes God the Father is just a man. I am quite sure they don’t. Bruce R. McConkie, a now dead apostle, stated that ‘It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God,’ the inspired word continues, ‘and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.’ The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same." We may be talking past each other here. I can see where that might happen. An exalted being, a God is not a man. He may have been one at one time but he is not currently one. You can look at the early Christian Church to how they understood the doctrine. Two early Church fathers wrote the following:

Athanasius of Alexandria: *“God became human so humans would become gods” (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B)." *Maximus the Confessor said *“A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God Himself became man.” and “let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods.” * So you see Joseph Smith didn’t just make this up out of whole cloth. It was believed by the Church in ancient times and was lost.

 

[MelanieAnne]

To my knowledge, none of the leadrship believes God the Father is just a man. I am quite sure they don’t. Bruce R. McConkie, a now dead apostle, stated that ‘It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God,’ the inspired word continues, ‘and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.’ The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same." We may be talking past each other here. I can see where that might happen. An exalted being, a God is not a man. He may have been one at one time but he is not currently one. You can look at the early Christian Church to how they understood the doctrine. Two early Church fathers wrote the following:

Athanasius of Alexandria: *“God became human so humans would become gods” (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B)." *Maximus the Confessor said *“A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God Himself became man.” and “let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods.” * So you see Joseph Smith didn’t just make this up out of whole cloth. It was believed by the Church in ancient times and was lost.

OK, maybe we can stick with that for a moment.

God is an exalted man. He was once (in some distant past ?) a man like any other human man but over time was exalted (worshiping some OTHER GOD?) and now He is a God.

And by the same mechanism, worthy LDS men can, over time, achieve exaltation and become Gods of their own worlds. At least that USED to be what was taught as doctrine.

 

[ParkerD]

But according to lds, God did change his mind, by the revelation in 1978 that allowed Blacks to receive the priesthood. Right?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but before 1978, it was taught as doctrine by the lds, that blacks could not receive the priesthood due to the mark of Cain, for being less valiant in the pre-existance. Then lo and behold, a revelation in 1978 says they can. Sounds like God changed his mind to me.

Or.

Why weren’t blacks allowed the priesthood prior to 1978?

No, it was not “taught as doctrine”, it was taught as opinion. There are plenty of scriptural verses that say the gospel will go in its fullness to all mankind. There are also scriptures that say “the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.” There is an order to these things (that is my opinion, based on the scriptural text.)

In answer to your last question, whatever I were to say would be an opinion because there is no revealed doctrine on the matter.

 

[ParkerD]

Well that’s a convenient explanation. But what actually happened was the the LDS changed their doctrine and now teachers deny what was taught in the past.

Denial doesn’t work for Holocaust deniers either, it won’t work for Mormons.

Melanie,
If I were you, I wouldn’t make that comparison given your church’s history. (I think it was an “open mouth insert foot” statement. Your church’s history frankly makes me sick, revolted, disgusted, and appalled.

If teachers “deny what was taught in the past,” then that is their business. I don’t deny any doctrine (as I have clearly defined the term) that was “taught in the past”.

 

[twopekinguys]

No, it was not “taught as doctrine”, it was taught as opinion. There are plenty of scriptural verses that say the gospel will go in its fullness to all mankind. There are also scriptures that say “the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.” There is an order to these things (that is my opinion, based on the scriptural text.)

In answer to your last question, whatever I were to say would be an opinion because there is no revealed doctrine on the matter.

So, the entire lds community denied the priesthood to blacks for how many years based on “opinion”? I’m sorry, but even you can’t believe that.

You did see ldsguy’s response that said that was correct right?

This is the point that Melanie has been trying to prove to you that there doesn’t seem to be a clear understanding of what lds doctrine really is. We have two individuals that seem to be very strong in their faith in the lds church, but yet have two different opinions on what doctrine is.

Personally, if you’re happy with the lds, I say great! But I hope you understand why a person on the outside looking in may be skeptical.

As I said in an earlier post, it seems to me that lds doctrine depends alot on the social climate of the times.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Athanasius of Alexandria: *“God became human so humans would become gods” (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B)." *Maximus the Confessor said *“A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God Himself became man.” and “let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods.” * So you see Joseph Smith didn’t just make this up out of whole cloth. It was believed by the Church in ancient times and was lost.

You almost have it right. God became Man, which is describing the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Something Mormons do not believe or understand. Mormons believe man becomes a god. You have what the Church has taught, including our Early Fathers, twisted around backwards.

As for theosis, it most certainly is taught. Nothing has been lost, therefore, nothing had to be restored.

 

[JLFuller]

OK, maybe we can stick with that for a moment.

God is an exalted man. He was once (in some distant past ?) a man like any other human man but over time was exalted (worshiping some OTHER GOD?) and now He is a God.

And by the same mechanism, worthy LDS men can, over time, achieve exaltation and become Gods of their own worlds. At least that USED to be what was taught as doctrine.

Yes. It still is. But it isn’t just LDS men and women. There are no denomiational divisions on the other side. One is either or. You are on the Celestial KIngdom track and deification or you are not. There is only one religion in heaven. Everyone who has ever been born or will be will have an equal chance to hear and accept the Gospel. We all make our choices and live with the consequenes. But I think Christ goes so far overboard in making allowances that no one will ever be able to say they didn’t have a chance. Christ is the final judge.

 

[JLFuller]

You almost have it right. God became Man, which is describing the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Something Mormons do not believe or understand. Mormons believe man becomes a god. You have what the Church has taught, including our Early Fathers, twisted around backwards.

As for theosis, it most certainly is taught. Nothing has been lost, therefore, nothing had to be restored.

If you read what objective biblical scholars say I am accurately portraying the belief. If you listen to those with a particular theology to protect, they disgaree.

 

[ParkerD]

So, the entire lds community denied the priesthood to blacks for how many years based on “opinion”? I’m sorry, but even you can’t believe that.

You did see ldsguy’s response that said that was correct right?

This is the point that Melanie has been trying to prove to you that there doesn’t seem to be a clear understanding of what lds doctrine really is. We have two individuals that seem to be very strong in their faith in the lds church, but yet have two different opinions on what doctrine is.

Personally, if you’re happy with the lds, I say great! But I hope you understand why a person on the outside looking in may be skeptical.

As I said in an earlier post, it seems to me that lds doctrine depends alot on the social climate of the times.

No, the denial was based on revelation that the timing for a change wasn’t right, until June 1978.

If Blacks had been given the priesthood and priesthood leadership openly during the Missouri period, then you can bet your bottom dollar that every mob in the state would have risen up and killed every Mormon they could find.

 

[JLFuller]

So, the entire lds community denied the priesthood to blacks for how many years based on “opinion”? I’m sorry, but even you can’t believe that.

You did see ldsguy’s response that said that was correct right?

This is the point that Melanie has been trying to prove to you that there doesn’t seem to be a clear understanding of what lds doctrine really is. We have two individuals that seem to be very strong in their faith in the lds church, but yet have two different opinions on what doctrine is.

Personally, if you’re happy with the lds, I say great! But I hope you understand why a person on the outside looking in may be skeptical.

As I said in an earlier post, it seems to me that lds doctrine depends alot on the social climate of the times.

Have you read Robert Millet’s piece on what doctrine is and isn’t? He spells it out but it is 20 pages long. I have tried to provide a short hand version of it but I may not have been very effective. Follow this link.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If you read what objective biblical scholars say I am accurately portraying the belief. If you listen to those with a particular theology to protect, they disgaree.

Which Biblical “scholars” are those?

 

[JLFuller]

I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but you seem to be a little hung up on this “living prophets and apostle” thing.

Am I understanding you correctly, that it only matters what the current living prophet and apostles think, say, do, or revelate? What about your previous prophets?

You have it down fairly well. It is the current living prophets who are the final arbitors of what doctrine is. But Jesus Christ is the one who is in charge. As far as I know there are only two doctrines that have changed in the 100 years. Doctrinal stability is a hallmark of the Church. We don’t sway back and forth with breeze. People may confuse practices or policies with doctrine and think such minor changes are fundamental changes but they are not. So far in this thread I can only recall polygamy and priesthhod as the only two changes people have brought up. Is there anything else I overlooked?

For conversation sake lets say a doctrine is a law. I think most agree to that. A practice is how we go about implimenting that law. A policy is the standard or approved method for implimenting the practice. So, paying a full tithng is the doctrine or law. The policy says tithng is based on 10% of the person’s increase or gross income. The practice is that it is paid to the ward bishop or financial clerk on a monthly basis.

In the case of blacks holding the priesthood, **the doctrine was **that African black men could not hold it. **There was no policy **for black men not holding the priesthood. **The practice was **to encourage them to be faithful and wait. They could be baptised and made members of the Church. A further practice was that the president of the Church continued to pray for a change. That went on for decades and by multiple presidents. Brigham Young and some others had opinions about why that was but the Lord was silent until 1978. In 1978 Jesus Christ changed the law.

During the days of polygamy, Christ said this:“If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall [have only one wife]” (Jacob 2:30; see also v. 27)." That is the law or doctrine. The Church’s website says this about plural marriage. This was the policy: “The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. At certain times and for His specific purposes, God, through His prophets, has directed the practice of plural marriage (sometimes called polygamy), which means one man having more than one living wife at the same time”

This was the practice: “After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandmen” Somemay want to put a finer point on this.

Regarding prophets and apostles: The doctrine is God will only communicate through prophets concerning the direction of his church. The policy is for Jesus Christ to select his apostles. The practice is that these men shall be Christs leadership of His church on the earth and are the only ones to speak with authority in Church matters but only through the Holy Ghost’s promptings. This is a short hand vesion. Others may think it needs fleshing out or modified in some way.

 

[twopekinguys]

No, the denial was based on revelation that the timing for a change wasn’t right, until June 1978.

If Blacks had been given the priesthood and priesthood leadership openly during the Missouri period, then you can bet your bottom dollar that every mob in the state would have risen up and killed every Mormon they could find.

So here we are, going around in circles again.

God doesn’t change his mind, then he does. As in, Cant give the priesthood to blacks, now you can. You can have multiple wives, now you can’t.

From what I understand the BoM has had close to 4000 changes to it since its beginning. If that is your “scripture” or “gospel”, and it has been changed 4000 times, doesn’t that appear to be God changing his mind multiple times.

Trust me, I am not trying to be argumentative here, but, you have to admit trying to find out exactly what mormon doctrine is, is a rather daunting and dizzying task.

By the way, you totally glossed over the fact that ldsguy said that the prohibition of the priesthood for blacks was doctrine at one point, and you’re saying it wasn’t.

How is someone supposed to get a straight answer if you all aren’t on the same page with these things?

Exactly what makes up your doctrine? I am assuming your Doctrines and Covenants, but what else?

 

[hosemonkey]

hosemonkey;4964723:

Polygamy was practice by Abraham, Jacob and others. Genesis 16:1–3; 29:23–30; 30:4, 9; Judges 8:30; 1 Samuel 1:1–2.

. That same link will also provide the official statement by the Church that “Groups who teach polygamy today are not part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
Read the post . "Polygamy was not an ancient CHRISTIAN practice. Of course, mormonism is not christian, so I guess you get a by if you are citing OT practices.

 

[twopekinguys]

You have it down fairly well. It is the current living prophets who are the final arbitors of what doctrine is. But Jesus Christ is the one who is in charge. As far as I know there are only two doctrines that have changed in the 100 years. Doctrinal stability is a hallmark of the Church. We don’t sway back and forth with breeze. People may confuse practices or policies with doctrine and think such minor changes are fundamental changes but they are not. So far in this thread I can only recall polygamy and priesthhod as the only two changes people have brought up. Is there anything else I overlooked?

For conversation sake lets say a doctrine is a law. I think most agree to that. A practice is how we go about implimenting that law. A policy is the standard or approved method for implimenting the practice. So, paying a full tithng is the doctrine or law. The policy says tithng is based on 10% of the person’s increase or gross income. The practice is that it is paid to the ward bishop or financial clerk on a monthly basis.

In the case of blacks holding the priesthood, **the doctrine was **that African black men could not hold it. **There was no policy **for black men not holding the priesthood. **The practice was **to encourage them to be faithful and wait. They could be baptised and made members of the Church. A further practice was that the president of the Church continued to pray for a change. That went on for decades and by multiple presidents. Brigham Young and some others had opinions about why that was but the Lord was silent until 1978. In 1978 Jesus Christ changed the law.

During the days of polygamy, Christ said this:“If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall [have only one wife]” (Jacob 2:30; see also v. 27)." That is the law or doctrine. The Church’s website says this about plural marriage. This was the policy: “The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. At certain times and for His specific purposes, God, through His prophets, has directed the practice of plural marriage (sometimes called polygamy), which means one man having more than one living wife at the same time”

This was the practice: “After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandmen” Somemay want to put a finer point on this.

Regarding prophets and apostles: The doctrine is God will only communicate through prophets concerning the direction of his church. The policy is for Jesus Christ to select his apostles. The practice is that these men shall be Christs leadership of His church on the earth and are the only ones to speak with authority in Church matters but only through the Holy Ghost’s promptings. This is a short hand vesion. Others may think it needs fleshing out or modified in some way.

Thank you for that. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it so well, even though I may disagree with it.

Now, could you explain that to Parker? If I am correct, (and I have been known to be wrong in the past) he believes that the lds doctrine has never changed at all.

Also, if I am not mistaken, didn’t JS confer the priesthood on a black man during the early days of the church? So wouldn’t it be, you can have it, now you can’t, now you can?

If I am wrong on that, please let me know. Again, thanks for your answers.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Which Biblical “scholars” are those?

Yes please, which are those.

 

[twopekinguys]

Here’s another question for you.

In an earlier post somewhere, someone mentioned that if the prophet has a revelation, it is sustained by the rest of the church leadership, and then voted on in general conference. (I think I have that right)

Have there been cases where your head prophet. (sorry, not sure of the right title) has received what he believes was a revelation, and it was shot down by the rest of the leadership, or voted down in your general conference?

 

[hosemonkey]

So here we are, going around in circles again.

God doesn’t change his mind, then he does. As in, Cant give the priesthood to blacks, now you can. You can have multiple wives, now you can’t.

Stand by for more tapdancing. We are never going to get straight answers because, contrary to Catholic practice, where doctrine is unchanging, morman doctrine is written on whiteboard, with a big eraser handy. mormonism could be called "The “Church of What’s Happening Right Now.” Flip Wilson would be proud. Don’t like mormon “doctrine?” Stick around, it’ll change. Seriously though, how do mormons keep track? Do they have like a weekly briefing, so they can stay current. Seems like a poor way to run a religion.