There is no doubt that TSCC would like to distance itself from the steaming pile of excrement that is the 2015 “revelation” on same sex couples that was added to the Church Handbook of Instructions. I’m sure the geriatrics at the helm of Good Ship (FKA) Mormon would love it if everyone would just forget the mess. The problem (for them) is that a “prophet, seer, and revelator” (who has since become president of the church) declared that it came directly from God.

It won’t be long (if it hasn’t happened already) that when forced to confront the issue, apologists will try to dismiss it as “simply a policy” that was implemented by imperfect men.

I’ve heard it said that trying to pin down LDS doctrine is much like nailing Jello to a tree, but if something that comes directly from God isn’t doctrine, what in heaven (pun intended) is doctrine?

They have used this shell game before. When it came to blacks and the priesthood, an official statement from the first presidency in 1949 said “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.” The statement goes on to justify the ban by blaming those “cursed” with black skin for their conduct in the premortal existence. Compare that to the essay “Race and the Priesthood,” which states in “February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination.” In 1949, they made a point of the fact that it was NOT a policy, but somehow it became one.

I suppose that once doctrine (received directly from God) becomes embarrassing to the church, it transforms into an abandoned "policy."

Exactly -- today's doctrine is tomorrow's discarded policy

The mormon apologists commenting on the multitude of news stories are already crying about these. "You people just don't understand the difference between policy and doctrine!" Bologna. There is no difference. There is no such thing as "policy" from the mouth of a prophet, seer, and revelator. Can you imagine Moses saying "Thus saith the lord, at this time we recommend that you do not bear false witness. Stay tuned though. God might change this policy if I am ever called to testify about who really killed that Egyptian guy a while back."?

Here's the bottom line: If you believe that a man is god's true prophet on the earth. And that "prophet" says you must (or must not) do something, then that is a commandment. Commandments don't get to change. If the commandments change, then you've got yourself a false prophet.

Hahahahahahahaha!

I just read this on another site. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the fact:


"I wonder what Sheri Dew is thinking right now. In her book 'Worth the Wrestle', she said she received revelation about the purpose of the gay policy that gave her comfort, but the reasons were 'too sacred to share.'"


I'm sure there are going to be many, many more such stories that will be promulgated over los interwebz in the coming new dispensation!

Hmmm, now that the revelation, I mean “policy,” has been rescinded, I wonder if her revelation is still too sacred to share.

Well, no longer believing makes it easy to decipher. Its all a bunch of steaming manure with whipped cream on top to make it palatable for those who still prefer to dine on such.

I think the only stuff they're willing to stick their necks out and call doctrine are the basics like the godhead, the restoration, faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, priesthood, and temple ordinances. Everything else is just policy.

Oh, and tithing. Forever tithing.

Maybe not temple ordinances. They change those occasionally to make them less sexist and crazy.

The NECESSITY of temple ordinances (whatever they are this year).

The godhead?

The notion in the BoM that God and JC are one was "doctrine" and then became "policy," so too the idea expressed in Lessons on Faith that God does not have a body. Perhaps we know what those mistaken principles have become, since the priesthood ban went from doctrine to policy and was then described as "folklore," which enables us to chuckle about those wacky old slave owners and bigots.

Folklore: that's the final resting place for horrific old doctrines.

Seems the policy is to throw the dead prophet under the bus and make new doctrine, which can be discarded when the next prophet dies.

is to take it one logical step further. Ignore everything the current prophet says and wait to see what the NEXT prophet will say.

Save time.

Save effort.

Don't follow. Be first!

Ignore the current prophet, look forward to the next prophet!

It's a no-brainer!

Don't waste your time following a boss whose days are numbered.
Just wait for instructions from the new boss who's coming next week.

Rinse and repeat with each current prophet.

mikemitchell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems the policy is to throw the dead prophet
> under the bus and make new doctrine, which can be
> discarded when the next prophet dies.

Nothing new. Joseph Smith even mowed over his own previous doctrine. The early members of the church like David Whitmer called him out on it too. The result of Joseph changing things was members exiting the church.

is whatever the current PPSR (Peepisser) thinks is a good idea...and especially any good idea that he gets credit for.

Policy is any doctrine that any previous PPSR promulgated that the current PPSR thinks was a stupid idea.

funny thing is: it is all over the internet.
The articles and written speech of Nelson stating that it was a direct communication from god are easy to find.

There is no way they can erase all that.

I am really curious how they will explain this away.
And how many people will lap it up!

Becca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> funny thing is: it is all over the internet.
> The articles and written speech of Nelson stating
> that it was a direct communication from god are
> easy to find.
>
> There is no way they can erase all that.
>
> I am really curious how they will explain this
> away.
> And how many people will lap it up!

Nelson is a disaster. As you say, read some of the stories on him. They are painting him as a lunatic.

Oh some of the members will start to wonder what the hell is going on and the more true believing ones will still be loyal to Russ and the church.

Russ is making news headlines a lot but not the kind you really want to get. I think the guy's high water mark was meeting the pope. It's all downhill from there.

Isn’t it normal for 94 year-olds to get a little eccentric in their old age? He’s not crazy, he has money. They have to be wondering what God is thinking, since He’s supposed to be calling the shots.