Question: Where does the policy-docrine dichotomy come from?

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It's a proven fact SeattleUte has never caused anyone to apostatize. Give me one example. You can't.

Your intuitive theory is no way to run a religion; it leads to a slippery slope of homespun dogma. For example, who said the blacks/priesthood thing was policy? Cite? Who said that? That seems to me a fundamental starting place if you're going to convince even Mormons it's policy.

Not true. I was a true believer until I started reading your posts. At first, I was strong. Slowly, but surely your posts whittled away my testimony. I hope your posts were all true. My salvation is at stake.

On a side note, the 10 percent raise has come in handy.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I have no problem with it. Thank you for articulating this.

I have two issues (and my only aim here is to teach): First, is that those like the original poster in this thread who draw dinstinctions between "policy" and "doctrine" are assuming as a predicate that LDS doctrine is somethign other than it is.

Second, this discussion comes up most often in the context of the blacks and priesthood issue and people use the policy/doctrine dichotomy not only to rationalize about the ever-evolving nature of LDS beliefs, but also as a means to mitigate discrimination against blacks in this context. As I stated, this is a backward way of trying to mitigate that actually leads to the opposite result. But I think there should be a candid acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Again, unlike many here I had the painful experience of teaching this abomination and denying blacks equal membership in the LDS church. I think I am owed an apology as well.

I truly sympathize with the difficulties you and others faced in denying blacks the right to hold the priesthood, which difficulties were infinitely less than the difficulties blacks must have had in wanting to hold the priesthood but not being allowed to. That said, the church also hasn't been clear that the priesthood issue was a matter of doctrine.

You said:

First, is that those like the original poster in this thread who draw dinstinctions between "policy" and "doctrine" are assuming as a predicate that LDS doctrine is somethign other than it is.

Ironically, you are assuming as a predicate the very same thing- that LDS doctrine is what YOU think it is, and that the rest of us are assuming incorrectly that it is not what you think it is. What is the basis of your assumption?

So much of religion is a matter of personal interpretation, particularly in the LDS faith. The priesthood ban certainly isn't unique in that regard. In my attempt to understand it, I find it most logical to believe that it was a matter of wrongheaded policy that was corrected once the will of the Lord was actually sought on the matter. How is that any different than the personal interpretation of countless other matters of doctrine/policy in any religion or even in atheism? Each of us seeks truth and understanding. Much of that process involves forming beliefs, questioning beliefs, and then growing in our beliefs. None of us are infallible, so we are all prone to error. Once I recognized that fact, and then applied that fact to church leaders, the existence of policy versus doctrine became an absolute. The challenge being determining what is policy and what is doctrine. Since I don't believe God is racist, the priesthood ban appeared quite clearly to me to be a matter of policy (and because other evidence compelled that conclusion, such as Joseph Smith's ordination of blacks to the priesthood and Brigham Young's frequently racist views).

[All-American]

Bottom line: if you don't buy the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet, then there really is no difference between policy and doctrine. Either way, it is the scrambled brainchild of a group of power-hungry old coots out to take over the world by instituting a theocracy. SU has managed to render himself irrelevant once again, though not without managing to procure precious time and attention that could have been devoted to more profitable affairs, such as conversing with a brick.

Let us agree to ignore SU's improfitable ramblings and move along to bigger and better things.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Let us agree to ignore SU's improfitable ramblings and move along to bigger and better things.

You mean like debating aaronshaff re grace vs. works?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You mean like debating aaronshaff re grace vs. works?

1st grade is a step above kindergarten.