Changes in doctrine vs. changes in policy

[ute4ever]

The argument is that the gospel does not change, but rather the church's application of doctrinal principles are modified as social circumstances change, while the core gospel remains the same.

For example, the gospel is that people should live the law of consecration. The gospel is also that in the event that it is not feasible for the people to live that law because they are not ready for it, the lesser law of tithing shall govern. Both consecration and tithing are different grades of the same gospel.

Another example is: the gospel is that the priesthood is extended to all worthy males regardless of race. The gospel is also that in the event that social circumstances would cripple the acceptance of that standard, a lesser standard will be applied.

To elaborate on that point, the church faced much persecution during the 19th century. Suppose that the church was also giving priesthood rights to blacks in that day and age? Opposition to the church would have been that much larger, probably too much for it to survive. So until the Emancipation Proclamation and the civil rights movement arrived, and until the church grew in its strength, the lesser priesthood law - which was still in accordance with the gospel - was what governed.

So in a nutshell, when church policies change, the gospel is not changing, but rather the church is moving from a lesser grade of doctrine to a higher grade of doctrine that still conforms to the same gospel and was part of the same gospel all along.

Does that sound correct?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Does that sound correct?

I like to call the prophet the "doctrine changer," although not all prophets really live up to this title.

The Church is very afraid of people realizing that doctrine does in fact change, which is why President Monson said in his recent press conference that "the doctrine never changes." That's a bunch of bologna, IMO, and I don't understand what's to fear about doctrines changing from time to time.

Denial of the priesthood to blacks was once doctrinal, and now it's considered policy by many, despite the fact that people still make attempts to justify it doctrinally. It's a bunch of confused revisionist history + excuses. Time to start calling things by their names.

I like being part of a Church that can change its doctrine. Some changes are good, and some are bad, but at least it gives me hope that most of the future changes will be good. Being part of a Church that never changes its doctrine would be lame.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Another example is: the gospel is that the priesthood is extended to all worthy males regardless of race. The gospel is also that in the event that social circumstances would cripple the acceptance of that standard, a lesser standard will be applied.

To elaborate on that point, the church faced much persecution during the 19th century. Suppose that the church was also giving priesthood rights to blacks in that day and age? Opposition to the church would have been that much larger, probably too much for it to survive. So until the Emancipation Proclamation and the civil rights movement arrived, and until the church grew in its strength, the lesser priesthood law - which was still in accordance with the gospel - was what governed.

So in a nutshell, when church policies change, the gospel is not changing, but rather the church is moving from a lesser grade of doctrine to a higher grade of doctrine that still conforms to the same gospel and was part of the same gospel all along.

Does that sound correct?

How do you explain away polygamy? Because it works exactly the other way than your example, that is it increased persecution, or at least what the LDS historians spin as persecution.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by hyrum

How do you explain away polygamy? Because it works exactly the other way than your example, that is it increased persecution, or at least what the LDS historians spin as persecution.

You have a good point, and along those lines I'm sure there are many things that would increase persecution, as well as increase a greater resistance towards conversion. However, 19th century polygamy did not topple the church. Perhaps polygamy AND concurrent black equality would have been too much in those days, so polygamy it was.

Moreover, some speculate that polygamy is a higher gospel law like consecration (or is it doctrine?), but Jacob 2:27 shows that it is not endorsed by God at all times.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I like to call the prophet the "doctrine changer," although not all prophets really live up to this title.

The Church is very afraid of people realizing that doctrine does in fact change, which is why President Monson said in his recent press conference that "the doctrine never changes." That's a bunch of bologna, IMO, and I don't understand what's to fear about doctrines changing from time to time.

Denial of the priesthood to blacks was once doctrinal, and now it's considered policy by many, despite the fact that people still make attempts to justify it doctrinally. It's a bunch of confused revisionist history + excuses. Time to start calling things by their names.

I like being part of a Church that can change its doctrine. Some changes are good, and some are bad, but at least it gives me hope that most of the future changes will be good. Being part of a Church that never changes its doctrine would be lame.

Because true doctrine (as opposed to false doctrine) is truth. And truth does not change. It is underlined by the laws of God. If you accept that truth changes, then you have a much larger theological problem.

Your statement more correctly should read, "Denial of the priesthood to blacks was once incorrectly justified as doctrinal." In other words, doctrinal explanations for the ban were false doctrine. Bruce McConkie said as much. And I imagine if Brigham Young, Harold Lee, Mark Peterson or any other Cougarguard bête noire could speak to us today from the grave, they would say the same thing.

This naturally raises another (different) question about discerning truth. We'll save that one for another day. But the concept that doctrine (meaning true doctrine) does not change is itself ... a true doctrine.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Because true doctrine (as opposed to false doctrine) is truth. And truth does not change. It is underlined by the laws of God. If you accept that truth changes, then you have a much larger theological problem.

Your statement more correctly should read, "Denial of the priesthood to blacks was once incorrectly justified as doctrinal." In other words, doctrinal explanations for the ban were false doctrine. Bruce McConkie said as much. And I imagine if Brigham Young, Harold Lee, Mark Peterson or any other Cougarguard bête noire could speak to us today from the grave, they would say the same thing.

This naturally raises another (different) question about discerning truth. We'll save that one for another day. But the concept that doctrine (meaning true doctrine) does not change is itself ... a true doctrine.

I can accept the statement that true doctrine does not change, and that sometimes (maybe even rarely) the Church organization has promoted false doctrine. That's a fair way to look at things.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

The argument is that the gospel does not change, but rather the church's application of doctrinal principles are modified as social circumstances change, while the core gospel remains the same.

For example, the gospel is that people should live the law of consecration. The gospel is also that in the event that it is not feasible for the people to live that law because they are not ready for it, the lesser law of tithing shall govern. Both consecration and tithing are different grades of the same gospel.

Another example is: the gospel is that the priesthood is extended to all worthy males regardless of race. The gospel is also that in the event that social circumstances would cripple the acceptance of that standard, a lesser standard will be applied.

To elaborate on that point, the church faced much persecution during the 19th century. Suppose that the church was also giving priesthood rights to blacks in that day and age? Opposition to the church would have been that much larger, probably too much for it to survive. So until the Emancipation Proclamation and the civil rights movement arrived, and until the church grew in its strength, the lesser priesthood law - which was still in accordance with the gospel - was what governed.

So in a nutshell, when church policies change, the gospel is not changing, but rather the church is moving from a lesser grade of doctrine to a higher grade of doctrine that still conforms to the same gospel and was part of the same gospel all along.

Does that sound correct?

more policy than doctrine. He was surrounded by some staunch John Birchers that promoted the supposed doctrine. BTW........I have NEVER been able to find any scriptural basis for the ban.....other than McConkie's book (the first presidency found something like 1,000+ errors in the first edition).