Posted by:
Ex-CultMember
(
)
Date: July 10, 2013 12:44PM
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?