With all this talk about "what is doctrine" in the LDS Church, I'd like to add something. I see people constantly trying to nail down whether certain commandments, practices or policies are "doctrine" only to have these commandments, practices or policies change over time.

Should we REALLY even consider commandments, practices or policies doctrines though?

When I think of "doctrine," I think more along the lines of ABSOLUTE TRUTHS in a particular religion. OBVIOUSLY commandments and practices of a faith can change. Just look at Christianity. The commandments and practices obviously changed over time (Law of Moses, ten commandments, Sermon on the Mount,saved through Jesus atonement, etc). Not even Christians, or even Mormons, will argue that those things don't change.

What I consider as doctrine are things such as,

1) what is the nature of God?
2) Is Jesus the same person as the Father?
3) Is such and such writing a revelation from God?
4) Do children who die go to heaven without baptism, hearing the message, etc.
5) Was there a pre-existence?
6) Is Satan real?
7) Are we reincarnated?
8) Will there be a millenium of peace for a thousand years after Christ comes?
9) Are ALL sins forgiven through the atonement of Christ/
10) Is the sacrament REALLY the blood & body of Christ, or only a symbol?
11) Will we be resurrected into physical bodies or only spiritual bodies?
12) Will the ten tribes regather in the last days?
13) Are we saved through faith or works or both?

I would consider the answers to the above questions as actual doctrines. They are either true or they aren't. You can't change them over time, otherwise I might question the legitimacy or truthfulness of that religion. Playing devil's advocate here, certain commandments, practices, or policies CAN change over time. If a church grows, or times change, I suppose God could change his rules, policies and practices to change too.

For example, should it have been considered "doctrine" that the age to go on a mission for men was 19? Not really, because the age has just been changed. I don't consider the previous age a false doctrine. It was a policy that could be changed. Theoretically I could accept that the God could change his policy on something like this. I don't know I would consider it a doctrine though. Now, I'm not saying these types of changes don't cast some suspicion on the religion for me. I wonder why God didn't just have the age at 18 all along, if that made more sense.

What do you all think?

I think you're spot on. Seems mormons are very confused about the meaning of words.

Doctrine - answers to theological question.
Example: God lives on a planet.
Commandments - laws presumably from god
Example: Thou shalt no other gods have but me.
Policy - rules to regulate an organisation.
Example: You should obey your leaders even when they are wrong.
Principle - rule of thumb or ways to derive at what is right.
Example: You will be rewarded with health if you eat healthy, or if the letter x is evil the so is every word with the letter x in it.

You are welcome lurking mormons.

This thread reminds me of the one I posted a little while ago on the WoW being doctrine, principle, or policy. The problem I had with the whole thing was that tscc (in my experience) (1) never made the effort to explain the difference to members and (2) never told us what was what. In the end, regardless of which of the three it was, it always came down to "JUST OBEY".

So thank you, Ex-CultMember for the discussion on doctrine. I realize a lot of teachings in the church have been changed over the years, but recognizing these things as doctrines and the inherent problems with having them changed adds more weight to my (already-collapsed) shelf.

And a thank you from an ex-mo too, brefots! It makes all those terms quite a bit more clear to me now.

Yeah, it was actually your thread that got me thinking about about what the term doctrine means, or should mean. People keep talking about whether this or that is "doctrinal." I think the term itself needs some clarification. I'm not really sure what that is.

As winegirl showed with the word of wisdom. It's policy in alot of ways, it's been treated as a commandment from god for over a century, and it's based on the common sense principle that a healthy lifestyle leads to health.

brefots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you're spot on. Seems mormons are very
> confused about the meaning of words.

See also: gospel, redemption, fellowship, amazing, love...

Members just don't question it. Everything is doctrine to them. That's why if members took their religion seriously they would be a horrible mess of a human being.

While doctrine is immutable, our understanding (as a Church, community or as individuals) of it may change.

I think it's useful to consult Merriam Webster:

"Definition of DOCTRINE

1 archaic : teaching, instruction


2

a : something that is taught

b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma

c : a principle of law established through past decisions

d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations

e : a military principle or set of strategies"

I think our LDS background has given us the notion that the word "doctrine" is really special, but it's pretty pedestrian. As seen above it can be defined as simply as "something that is taught." All of these somethings that are taught constitute Mormonism's system of belief, which in a larger sense is the Doctrine. Yes it may matter who said it and when, and the teachings may contradict one another.

That's the point. The system of Mormon doctrine (teaching) is not as clear cut as it is sometimes made out to be. The watchmen on the tower don't know any better than your barber! We see the contradictions, the gradual de-emphasis of certain points over time, complete reversals, and start to wonder.

Maybe I don't need to obey the prophet today, if the subsequent prophets are just going to back out of this. If previous prophets were wrong about something, then it follows that the current leaders could be wrong.

Personally, I think that the LDS position on the nature of God is just as slippery as what they say about how many earrings to wear or what the mission age is. The LDS Church was firmly committed to the doctrine of plural marriage as revealed in DOCTRINE & Covenants section 132, but then reversed. LDS people can draw this false distinction between doctrine and policy all they want, but it really doesn't exist. It's just ad hoc spin.

snowball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think our LDS background has given us the notion
> that the word "doctrine" is really special

This is because it is elusive and shifty, like Bigfoot. It has a mystique.

I agree, they use the word "doctrine" because it sounds so formal, important, and totally official.

It's not just our rules and regs, it's our DOCTRINE. Never question the doctrine, it is unfallable.

Other indicator of a cult.