Comments on: How Do We Tell Doctrine?

By: Kerry A. Shirts

Kerry A. Shirts — Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:20:11 +0000

Doctrine has never been agreed on by even the leaders, so it’s unlikely the laypeople in the church will ever get agreement. It’s just too slippery. It was anti-Mormonism that Joseph Smith married a 14 year old Fanny Alger in my childhood. In fact, there was only ever Emma until I got home off my mission and finally learned some Mormon history, and not from many Mormon authors at that. Today it’s actual history accepted now by the church since the essays. It was pure doctrine that the negro being denied the priesthood was a direct revelation from God Himself. But now that doctrine is no longer doctrine, but is understood to be a mere opinion and perhaps a prejudice, a human error, according to the essays again. Granted anti-Mormons or critics or whoever, nowadays say today’s doctrine is tomorrow’s heresy. But, with the essays now out, this is actually more true than not. The actual important question is do we have any evidence that doctrine is true at all? Because if its true today, it very well could be that it’s not true in 50 years. Anyway, my two cents on Clark’s excellent little essay.

By: Tomw

Tomw — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 18:27:02 +0000

For me I like to go back to D&C 68:3-4. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

So the test for true doctrine rests on a single question, was it inspired by the Holy Ghost?

I also connect this to a statement by Elder McConkie:

“Since ‘the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets’ (1 Cor. 14:32) whatever is announced by the presiding brethren as counsel for the church will be the voice of inspiration. But the truth or error of any uninspired utterance of an individual will have to be judged by the standard works, and the spirit of discernment and inspiration that is in those who actually enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost” – comes from a unpublished manuscript, I think a personal letter.
Source: http://www.truthwillprevail.xyz/2016/05/elder-bruce-r-mcconkie-and-adam-god_9.html

Also, NV or Clark – I have some thoughts on the whole “no death before the fall” debate, you can read the gist of them here: http://faithisbychoice.com/mormonism-theory-evolution but my book has more fleshed out thoughts.. link is there if you’re interested.

By: Northern Virginia

Northern Virginia — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 17:56:50 +0000

Rockwell, interesting to hear that you were taught that. All I can vaguely recall is that the Seminary instructor presented several theories as to how old the earth was, including the scientific view (4B years or so, last I checked).

Clark, good point. I don’t hear much about the Fall and death in church anymore.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 15:03:17 +0000

People have told me the BYU religion department is tons better than when I was there. I had great religion classes in the honors department but all the regular ones I took were not. Since they got rid of the honors department a few years ago I rather fear what that’s done to the quality and variety of religion classes.

By: JR

JR — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 13:44:44 +0000

Clark, Oddly (?), I found your use of “oddly” odd. I think that may be the result of generationally different experience of Church teaching. Glenn Pearson and Reid Bankhead of the BYU religion dept. were, among others, very avid proponents of the BRMcC creed which he turned into something like a catechism here:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1984/10/the-caravan-moves-on?lang=eng
and elsewhere, though he was reportedly forced by SWK to significantly modify his [in]famous Seven Deadly Heresies talk for print, at least on the subject of evolution. From the 1984 conference talk: “There is no salvation in a system of religion that rejects the doctrine of the Fall or that assumes man is the end product of evolution and so was not subject to a fall.” Training those who want to be CES teachers out of teaching what was taught in general conference talks by the self-assured (and not edited as some have been) cannot be an easy task. For those for whom it is not immediately obvious, the logic was — evolution depends upon uniformity (including specifically, death); there was no death before the Fall of Adam, a fully formed human; if there had been, there could have been no Fall; if there had been no Fall, there would be no need for an Atonement; so, faith in Christ would be misplaced rather than a foundation for salvation; so, no evolution of man. While I have not been able to subscribe to the fundamentalist literalism of some Mormon teachers, in the context of Mormon culture I can’t see it as odd that many do.

p.s. As I quipped when my concerned father objected to my starting graduate school in philosophy, the thing about higher education most damaging to my testimony was the BYU religion dept. Good luck with CES at Timpview. Some parents of high schoolers have handled the problems, when they crop up in Church teaching, by noting that we have a great many people at Church doing their best to perceive and teach the truth and that all of us make mistakes. At least some high schoolers can be trusted to take their teachers’ perceived mistakes (and their own) in stride without causing inordinate problems for themselves or others. I hope CES and the BYU religion dept. have grown up a bit in recent decades.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 05:01:38 +0000

Rockwell, CES used to be staffed by a lot of people who oddly found evolution disturbing. This was problematic for a lot of reasons not the least of which it unnecessarily pushed kids to choose seminary or biology. Given the evidence of biology I suspect it pushed some away from church when such a choice never was necessary.

I’ve heard CES has improved a great deal although part of me is terrified of when my son starts High School at Timpview. He is an avid reader of science and I don’t think would put up with such talk for long.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 01:58:35 +0000

FGH:

Lets go get donuts.

or Starbucks for the …you know who you are.

By: Rockwell

Rockwell — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 17:06:55 +0000

Northern Virginia,

Good question. I was taught young earth creationism in Sunday school and seminary, straight from D&C 77. I count Seminary teachers as clergy. More recently I’m aware of teachers scoffing at evolution, although I’m not sure if young-eartherism is still prevalent.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 16:29:04 +0000

Virginia, I don’t know any Mormons who espouse a full young earth creationism. However there’s a fair number who embrace a no death before the fall position which is a very similar position. The main difference is that most adherents to Joseph Fielding Smith’s no death before the fall also frequently embrace Brigham Young’s take on catastrophism where this earth was made out of prior earths and fossils are due to those prior creations. So there are some important variations from young earth creationism. It’s just as problematic though in terms of explaining the actual evidence.

Kruiser, typically the way the term “policy” is used is that it’s very context sensitive and often (but not always) has a somewhat arbitrary aspect to it. It’s also much more open to change.

By: jader3rd

jader3rd — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 16:04:10 +0000

Doctrines are things which we can’t objectively prove to another person, about things which did happen, or things which will happen. There also a descriptor for different aspects to a religion, where different religions/denominations have different versions, for those doctrines.
They are also statements which stronger than beliefs because they create the framework for other aspects of the religions belief system.
For example: “The Lehites are the primary ancestors of native Americans.” Some may believe in it strongly enough to consider it a doctrine, but if you do a thought experiment about if you found out that it wasn’t true, how would that effect your relationship with any other aspect of the religion, you discover that it doesn’t. So that makes it a personal belief. But “Christ atoned for your sins” is something which if you do the same thought experiment has a drastic change on the rest of your belief system, if it turns out not to be true. Therefore: Doctrine.
Perhaps put another way: Doctrines are beliefs with strong measure of hope behind them.

By: JR

JR — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 15:46:04 +0000

FGH, more great ideas! However, I may simply take refuge in simplicity (and ambiguity) and continue to refer to it as the GD Class. Of course, the first time my former stake president heard that from me he seemed shocked until I pointed out that I was referring to the Gospel Doctrine Class and anything else he chose to think came from his head, not mine. He laughed. Laughter is healthy — at least if it is not loud.

By: FGH

FGH — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 15:18:53 +0000

Other ideas:

Gospel Options Class
This Was My Gospel Doctrine Class
This is my Gospel Doctrine Class?
This Should Be Gospel Doctrine Class
United We Stand! Class
What Is the Gospel Doctrine Class
Where Is the Gospel Doctrine Class
This Could Be Gospel Doctrine Class
Gospel Inferred Doctrine Class
Gospel Normative Doctrine Class
“The Gospel Doctrine Class that Goes Like This” Class
Church Manuals Class
Second Hour for Non-Leaders Class
I Think This Is Gospel Doctrine Class
That Which Must Not Be Named Class.
Gospel Doctrines You Never Knew You Knew
It Will All Be Worked Out Later Gospel Doctrine Class
Gospel Shelves

By: Northern Virginia

Northern Virginia — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 14:43:48 +0000

FGH and JR, Bravo!

By: JR

JR — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 14:03:28 +0000

FGH, Great Job! However, you could include some alternatives that leave out the word “gospel” as it, perhaps like “doctrine”, also seems to mean (in Mormon-speak) something much broader than the word means in any of its alternative English definitions. Maybe it is the “Teachings of the Correlation Committee Designed for 12-Year-Olds Some Decades Ago Class.” Compare, for example, the Pr/RS manuals that should be titled “Teachings Of or About a Man Who Sometime, Often Later, Became President of the Church, Selected According to What the Curriculum Committee Wants You to Talk About and With an Eye Toward Ignoring or Obscuring the Teachings of That Same Man That They Wish You and Others Would Not Think About.”

By: FGH

FGH — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 13:49:16 +0000

What should we rename “Gospel DOCTRINE” class?

Gospel Opinions Class
Gospel Policies Class
Gospel Ideas class
Gospel Beliefs class
“This may be Gospel Doctrine” class
This Contains Gospel Doctrine Class
Gospel Teachings – Current Generation Edition
Gospel “This-isn’t-necessarily-doctrine” class
Gospel Wisdom Class
The Gospel Is True Class
Gospel Education Class
Gospel Re-education Class
Gospel Remediation Class
The Gospel Is for Everyone! Class
Gospel Chat
Gospel Tangents Class
Gospel Hobbies Class
“This Is My Gospel, and Quite a Lot More” Class
Beyond My Gospel Class
“Before You Were Born You Knew This” Class
Gospel “The church has no official position on this issue” class.
The Gospel Is Simple Class
“The Gospel Is Simple, Made Even Simpler” Class

Did I leave anything out?