Doctrine vs Policy -- a distinction without a difference?

[jfro18]

I've been reading a lot of believers and apologists moving the goalposts this weekend about the church reversing the Nov 15 LGBT revelations, saying that they are policy and thus it's good that they're constantly changing even if it's incredibly difficult to believe God would change his mind 3.5 years later.

And reading Dallin Oaks making the point that there's no real difference between policy and doctrine furthers that point:

I don’t know that it's possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet.... I’m not sure I could justify the difference in doctrine and policy in the fact that before 1978 a person could not hold the priesthood and 'after 1978 they could hold the priesthood.

Personally I think the policy vs doctrine debate is semantics designed to give the church an out when they have to make changes that don't fit the mold of a revelatory church, but the church really shoots itself in the foot when it intertwines policy with revelation and then tries to pretend that's not doctrine.

It's like calling something a guideline but not a rule, or something a carefully worded denial vs an outright lie. The church always wants to have it both ways, and in doing so tries to do so in a legalistic sense and hope members don't stop to think about it.

[Palerider]

O.K......

So policy changes but doctrine never does, right? Here is part of the 1949 First Presidency statement on why blacks could not receive the priesthood. My comment parenthetically in red.

"The attitude of the Church with reference to the 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 (So, the Lord has commanded it, therefore it is now church doctrine) 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 prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.....”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes."

Now this from the new church essay on blacks and the priesthood restriction:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life..."

No matter how apologists or the leadership try to spin this it looks like CRAP.

Why? Because that's what it is..... Like it or not, in 1978 the DOCTRINE of the church changed. Period.

Semantics about what is policy and what is doctrine are, as jfro18 has said, nothing more than weaseling to maintain the gig.

[Lucidity]

Ah yes one of the legs of the trifecta of pass the buck, that my TBM friends use.

1. It was a policy, not doctrine
2. They were speaking as men (never mind they were at the pulpit saying it’s God’s will)
3. (And recent addition) God really wanted it different but He’s hamstrung by the limitations of his servants and the saints. Aka, God really didn’t want black people banned but Brigham was a racist and the saints just went along. What’s a deity to do? Tell them to stop? GTFOH!

John 7:16. “Jesus answered them, and said, My policy is not mine, but his that sent me.”

See even Jesus passed the buck.

“Honesty is the best policy ”. Jesus.

It really all just boils down to “do what we say”. The current leaders trumps past prophets, tradition, doctrine, scholars, historians, scripture, and Jesus himself.

When your claim to authority is “God said so”. You either believe it or you don’t. But it’s not up for discussion

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

The argument that doctrine never changes but policy is by nature always changing is a bad argument due to being demonstrably false in history.

Examples:
Lectures on Faith (originally the "doctrine" part of the D&C) removed due to changing nature of the Godhead in LDS theology.

Adam/God doctrine as taught at the veil of the temple in Brigham Young's days being declared heresy by later leaders.

Blood Atonement doctrine being abandoned as a bloody 19th century relic.

The Priesthood ban as mentioned above.

[Palerider]

The argument that doctrine never changes but policy is by nature always changing is a bad argument due to being demonstrably false in history.

Examples:
Lectures on Faith (originally the "doctrine" part of the D&C) removed due to changing nature of the Godhead in LDS theology.

Adam/God doctrine as taught at the veil of the temple in Brigham Young's days being declared heresy by later leaders.

Blood Atonement doctrine being abandoned as a bloody 19th century relic.

The Priesthood ban as mentioned above.

Doctrine being "never changing" is indeed a bad argument and yet it is made all the time:

"Doctrine is eternal truth, set from before the foundation of the world." (“For the Strength of You,” Ensign, Oct. 2007, p.14)

""Doctrine" refers to the eternal, unchanging, and simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are several key words in that definition: eternal, unchanging, simple, and truth. Doctrines are never altered. They never vary. They will always be the same. You can always count on them." - David A. Bednar (Ricks College Education Week, 1998)

"Doctrines are eternal and do not change; however, the Lord, through His prophet, may change practices and programs, according to the needs of the people." (Teachings of the Living Prophet Student Manual, Chpt 2)

"A doctrine is a fundamental, unchanging truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ." (Gospel Teaching and Learning Manual, The Objective of Seminary and Institutes of Religion"

"Procedures, programs, the administrative policies, even some patterns of organization are subject to change. We are quite free, indeed, quite obliged to alter them from time to time. But the principles, the doctrines, never change." - Boyd K. Packer (March 1985 Ensign)

I have noticed lately that David A. Bednar (most likely after receiving further light and knowledge, if that's possible) has begun to make a subtle change in his verbiage regarding doctrine. If I recall correctly, it is now the "core" doctrines that matter and will not change....

Hmmmmm.....I think I detect someone scrambling for wiggle room. Is that a change in Bednar's doctrine?

[Hagoth]

I feel sorry for people who have to juggle this stuff into something that makes sense for them. I feel even sorrier for those who succeed and feel superior to those who continue to struggle because they recognize that it is irreconcilable.

[wtfluff]

* See: Gaslighting

[jfro18]

I feel sorry for people who have to juggle this stuff into something that makes sense for them. I feel even sorrier for those who succeed and feel superior to those who continue to struggle because they recognize that it is irreconcilable.

I've seen so much of this... I would love to know what DW thinks of this, but I can't really ask until it comes up more naturally.

There's just no way to make it work unless you redefine what policies and doctrines are against what the church itself has said about them.

Words have no meaning when you are defending the indefensible.

[2bizE]

When was the first time the word policy was used in the church? Probably post correlation.

[Palerider]

When was the first time the word policy was used in the church? Probably post correlation.

I think 1949 was pre- correlation.

ETA: Whoa....I guess correlation actually had it's beginnings in 1908 according to wiki. You're probably right.

[nibbler]

If I had a simple disagreement with a church policy would I face any social repercussions in my faith community?
If I had a simple disagreement with a church doctrine would I face any social repercussions in my faith community?

On that front there may be no difference between a policy and a doctrine because I can imagine there being similar social repercussions in either scenario. Members hold members to the correlated doctrines and police the wiggle room. Members hold members to the handbook and police the wiggle room.

As much as I hate to call it this, in Pharisaical cultures policies (rules) are king. What difference does it make whether the rules are labeled doctrines, revelations, or policies?

It would help to know what the orthodox definitions of each word are. Through observing what we say at church I'd say:
1) Doctrine - a True (capital T) teaching of the church. It is something that cannot change because it is True and to change would make it something other than Truth.
2) Policy - what we label a doctrine that has changed.

Please correct me if I get this wrong, but the PoX was presented as a "revelation" by Nelson. To get super technical, a revelation doesn't have to reveal a doctrine, it can reveal a policy. I don't know whether any leader ever called it a "doctrine" (like they most certainly did with the PH ban).

But I think the debate over policy and doctrine won't bear much fruit. It's too easy to slip out from under what I feel are more weighty issues by making the focus of the debate one of word choice.

When the PoX was in effect, why wasn't it culturally acceptable for someone to disagree with it? When it was later rescinded, does that mean the person that disagreed with the PoX was correct all along? What does that tell us about our reaction to the people that disagreed with the policy when it was in effect? What does that tell us about people that may not agree with some other current policy, revelation, or teaching?

Does this experience teach us that personal revelations can sometimes go against established policies, revelations, doctrines, and teachings of the church yet still be valid?

[Palerider]

When the PoX was in effect, why wasn't it culturally acceptable for someone to disagree with it?

Does this experience teach us that personal revelations can sometimes go against established policies, revelations, doctrines, and teachings of the church yet still be valid?

Oh, you can disagree with a doctrine or policy to your heart's content. But you can't verbalize it openly without the repercussions.

And your personal revelation might be spot on and much more accurate than that of the "brethren" but don't you dare make them look bad by disagreeing with them publicly. Those boys are extremely thin skinned. The charade must be preserved at all costs and you will be the one who pays....

[Hagoth]

All of this talk about kids being shunned by the church, or killing themselves over policy/doctrine/policy is so tedious. We need to focus more of our attention on weightier matters, like who stands up first at the end of a meeting and how quickly people jump to their feet when an Anointed One enters the room.

[alas]

You guys are confused. The #1 doctrine of the church is: follow the prophet. Perhaps that is the only doctrine. So, if you disagree with what he says, you are in violation of doctrine. Doesn’t matter if he says one thing one year and the opposite the next. Doesn’t matter if he says something that goes against what other prophets have said. Doesn’t matter if it goes against what the Bible says. Doesn’t matter if it goes against what the BOM says. If he says something is doctrine, then it is doctrine until he tells you otherwise. If he tells you it was just a policy, then it is just a policy until he tells you otherwise. If he says, “jump” you don’t bother asking “how high?” You just keep jumping as high as you can until he tells you it is good enough.

[Palerider]

You just keep jumping as high as you can until he tells you it is good enough.

And sadly, it never is....

[jfro18]

If he says, “jump” you don’t bother asking “how high?” You just keep jumping as high as you can until he tells you it is good enough.

And when he says "I want your wife" or "I want your daughter," you smile as you trade your family over for a promise of exaltation.

Seriously how does any believing member think that was normal when Joseph Smith did it?!?

[1smartdodog]

It can be simple when you live by the idea that the 'golden rule" is doctrine, but everything else is policy. If you make doctrine more complicated than that you will forever be explaining yourself.

Everything changes over time. The leaders problem is they keep claiming what they teach is eternal, yet they change. And in todays world they don't have the luxury of changing things over a generation or two to normalize it. Everything is moving faster.