Of Doctrine and Stationarity

[pelagius]

This repeats some of things I have said before but I want to provide some context. Lately, there have been lots of discussions about whether doctrines changes and/or are prophets infallibility. I don't want to address infallibility because as near as I can tell nobody believes in it on the board (despite the long threads about it). The non-mutilability of doctrine depends on ones definition of doctrine. If doctrine is defined as the immutable truth, then the very definition precludes mutability. Many members and church leaders do talk about doctrine this way. For example, Elder Packer said,

There will be changes made in the future as in the past. Whether the Brethren make changes or resist them depends entirely upon the instructions they receive through the channels of revelation which were established in the beginning.

The doctrines will remain fixed, eternal; the organization, programs, and procedures will be altered as directed by Him whose church this is. [Boyd K. Packer, "Revelation in a Changing World," Ensign, Nov. 1989, 14]

If you feel that way, then whenever I say doctrine replace it with "authoritative teaching." Given that, I just want to list at least a few doctrines or authoritative teachings that have changed. This is not comprehensive, mostly off the top of my head, and I am clearly not an expert in Mormon Studies.

• Adam God Doctrine (see Fair Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_God_theory and Buerger's seminal Dialogue article http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/doc...R=20104&REC=15 )
  
  
• Law of Adoption; which was ended by a revelation received by Wilford Woodruff (See Irving's BYU Studies article: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/do...OPTR=332&REC=5)
  
  
• Repabtism of members in good standing to show commitment and devotion, but apparently it was also used as a healing ordinance. (See Quinn's BYU studies article: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/do...PTR=614&REC=20)
  
  
• Women administering to the sick and blessing by the laying on of hands until I believe the early 1950s.

There are certainly things you could add like, “outside the Temple Prayer Circles” or things like the identification of Jehovah as Jesus Christ or the 1877 Priesthood reformation. I hope nobody takes this as an attempt to undermine people's faith. Church doctrine (at least defined as authoritative teachings) does change. I just don't see how it is a big deal. Pick your own personal favorite reason: revelation can be imprecise because human being are influenced by so many non-revelatory factors, implementation can be messy, etc.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by pelagius

There are certainly things you could add like, “outside the Temple Prayer Circles” or things like the identification of Jehovah as Jesus Christ or the 1877 Priesthood reformation. I hope nobody takes this as an attempt to undermine people's faith. Church doctrine (at least defined as authoritative teachings) does change. I just don't see how it is a big deal. Pick your own personal favorite reason: revelation can be imprecise because human being are influenced by so many non-revelatory factors, implementation can be messy, etc.

Thankfully the Church has become somewhat flexible in matters commonly referred to as "doctrine". One need look no further than the original 1958 edition of "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie. Among other items that have changed,he stated Blacks would never receive the priesthood, discounted evolution, death before the fall, etc. Those of you familiar with church history will recall that this book was not met with enthusiasm by President McKay, who in 1960, stated McConkie "must" not republish the book. A new edition was published in 1966 that was replete with many of the same inaccuracies.

McConkie's antagonism toward Mormon intellectuals was best stated in this quote from one of his letters:

"It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent."

I walk out of any Church meeting when anyone holds up a copy of Mormon Doctrine to cite authority. It is not accepted as a statement of doctrine.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Thankfully the Church has become somewhat flexible in matters commonly referred to as "doctrine". One need look no further than the original 1958 edition of "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie. Among other items that have changed,he stated Blacks would never receive the priesthood, discounted evolution, death before the fall, etc. Those of you familiar with church history will recall that this book was not met with enthusiasm by President McKay, who in 1960, stated McConkie "must" not republish the book. A new edition was published in 1966 that was replete with many of the same inaccuracies.

McConkie's antagonism toward Mormon intellectuals was best stated in this quote from one of his letters:

"It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent."

I walk out of any Church meeting when anyone holds up a copy of Mormon Doctrine to cite authority. It is not accepted as a statement of doctrine.

While I don't disagree with your assessment of Mormon Doctrine, I was wondering, do you have a contextual reference for that quote?

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Tex

While I don't disagree with your assessment of Mormon Doctrine, I was wondering, do you have a contextual reference for that quote?

Thank you for asking - the quote comes from an excellent book, "Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in America" by Philip Barlow.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I walk out of any Church meeting when anyone holds up a copy of Mormon Doctrine to cite authority. It is not accepted as a statement of doctrine.

I'm no fan of Mormon Doctrine but don't you think you are being a little hard on people by walking out? Or was that a little bit of hyperbole? Do you walk out if it a teacher quotes it but the quote comes from the lesson manual? Like here,

Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated, “The resurrection is a restoration, both a restoration of body and spirit and a restoration to the individual of the same mental and spiritual acquirements and attitudes he had in this life” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 641).

from: Lesson 30: “The Great Plan of Happiness”, Book of Mormon Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, 133. http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/me...____&hideNav=1

or

Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught: “As used in the revelations, hope is the desire of faithful people to gain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God hereafter. … Faith and hope are inseparable. Hope enables [us] to have faith in the first instance and then because of faith that hope increases until salvation is gained” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 365–66).

Lesson 48: “Come unto Christ”, Book of Mormon Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, 210 http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/me...____&hideNav=1

or

Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught: “Anyone serving in any capacity in the Church in which he [or she] is responsible for the spiritual or temporal well-being of any of the Lord’s children is a shepherd to those sheep. The Lord holds his shepherds accountable for the safety (salvation) of his sheep” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 710).

Lesson 16: “I Was Blind, Now I See”, New Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, 65. http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/me...____&hideNav=1

Once again, I am not a fan of the book. It has probably damaged the faith of some. On the other hand, it has probably bolstered the faith of some as well. Still, I get this feeling that it has become some sort of symbolic bogeyman for some people.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Thank you for asking - the quote comes from an excellent book, "Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in America" by Philip Barlow.

The quote is part of a letter from Bruce R. McConkie to Eugene England from 1981. It's a pretty famous letter these days so you can find copies of it floating around the net.

Here, for example: http://www.myplanet.net/mike/LDS/McC...nd_letter.html

[Requiem]

[QUOTE=pelagius;80145]I'm no fan of Mormon Doctrine but don't you think you are being a little hard on people by walking out? Or was that a little bit of hyperbole? Do you walk out if it a teacher quotes it but the quote comes from the lesson manual? QUOTE]

Like the Old Testament I meant it figuratively (TIC). Outwardly, I remain prim and proper; inwardly, I am at the beach. However, I do have it on good authority that Goat is a walker.

Have I said enough yet to get my own dossier Indy?

[Indy Coug]

That is a fantastic letter. I think Elder McConkie is spot on with his remarks.

Good old Eugene England. I remember some of his prize-winning letters to the editor to the Daily Universe when I was a student.

[Indy Coug]

[QUOTE=Requiem;80157]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I'm no fan of Mormon Doctrine but don't you think you are being a little hard on people by walking out? Or was that a little bit of hyperbole? Do you walk out if it a teacher quotes it but the quote comes from the lesson manual? QUOTE]

Like the Old Testament I meant it figuratively (TIC). Outwardly, I remain prim and proper; inwardly, I am at the beach. However, I do have it on good authority that Goat is a walker.

Have I said enough yet to get my own dossier Indy?

I think it's incredibly short-sighted to disregard and any and all comments from Mormon Doctrine just because a handful of comments in it may not be true.

[Requiem]

[QUOTE=Indy Coug;80160]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I think it's incredibly short-sighted to disregard and any all comments from Mormon Doctrine just because a handful of comments in it may not be true.

"May not be true"? There are more than a "handful" that have been officially discredited. Some of us prefer to think for ourselves - you should try it.