Grace/works trending along with polygamy and racism issues?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Look, I don't think the idea of the church for most of its history viewing an issue a certain way (as doctrine) and the modern church viewing it as policy are incompatible.

In other words, I'm not sure that saying that something was not thought previously to be a policy answers the ultimate question of whether in fact it was or not.

Part of this is how we define policy vs. doctrine. I'm not really sure I know how those things are being defined for the puspose of this discussion. Maybe if I knew that it would clarify where everyone was coming from.

I guess my thought is that to the extent you are trying to argue that because the policy or doctrine or whatever you want to call it changed that this means that either nothing is really inspired or that the "true doctrine" is being disregarded to pander to the philospohies of men...that is just one way to interpret it.

Another way to interpret it is that neither the gospel nor the church has been revealed fully formed. It may not be fully formed yet. There are plenty of examples of Joseph and and other early leaders of the church being confused about how things fit together because the information didn't come all at once.

I agree with you that this is at least a somewhat bothersome issue and I can see where someone can interpret it the way you have. I think there are other reasonable interpretations is my point I suppose.

Fair enough. I like your icon.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I grew up in the Church, served a mission, was a zone leader, my family is seven generations Mormon, missions go back multiple generations, I attended church every week growing up, general authorities were friends of the family, and I can attest that this policy vs. doctrine thing never came up until recently, as an effort to explain away embarrasing things like the priesthood ban and polygamy. There was never any question in members' and leaders' minds until recently that each of these practices, while strange in retrospect, were inspired, the product of revelation, and served some inscrutable purpose.

Okay, first things first, this is how you quote each other people. We don't need to see the whole argument each time we quote each other!

Now, to address your point about policy vs doctrine. It has simply been a matter of information that has changed the way many in the church feel regarding the issue of blacks and the priesthood. When we learn via McKay's journals that there wasn't even agreement on policy vs doctrine among the brethren we begin to see that the issue was more complicated than we knew "back in the day". FWIW, is it really any less embarrassing that it may have been a policy decision all along? Certainly not, and you made that point as well. I don't think we are attempting to explain anything away. We are simply taking a look at history for our own personal knowledge.

Regarding polygamy, I think you'd still be hard pressed to find a significant portion of the LDS population who felt that it was policy and not doctrine. Again, I think we are dealing with the church in an age where more information/history is available than ever before. We are able to dig deeper than in previous generations. This may be leading to alternate conclusions for some, but I think for the most part people are simply educating themselves regarding the true history of polygamy vs the simplistic and sometimes nonsensical rationales we were given in the past. Not from church leaders per se, but from our teachers, family and friends.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

And I'll tell you another thing that's a recent phenomenon: How quick members are now to savage the character and memory of an apostle in the interest of making the institution look better.

I don't believe that BRM's character has been savaged. The very point I think people make in criticizing the Mormon Doctrine title/book is that it never was doctrine as a whole. It was BRM's opinion, much of it containing doctrine, and never should have been used as an official meter of what was and was not church doctrine. Put simply, the book should never have carried the weight that it did in making the institution look better or worse. It is again a matter of information being available to the general membership now that was not public knowledge before. The fact that McKay had a committee read the Mormon Doctrine book and that they found some 1,000 plus errors therein is evidence enough for many that the book was ill named. That book was used for many years by some church members to assert doctrine that was never doctrine. I think that is the only point people are trying to make.

[SeattleUte]

Maybe "savage his character" is too strong. But some people are downright disrespectful, saying thigs like "McConkie's doctrine." I've seen him put down as kind of a loose cannon. My only point is that it wasn't that long ago that apostles were considered pretty much infallible and this quality of fairly widespread criticism (by and large generated by what he said about the priesthood ban, so it's understandable) is new. Ironically, my true feelings are that I applaud those members who practice the faith but have made a consciencious decision that they think this was wrong from the start.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Maybe "savage his character" is too strong. But some people are downright disrespectful, saying thigs like "McConkie's doctrine." I've seen him put down as kind of a loose cannon. My only point is that it wasn't that long ago that apostles were considered pretty much infallible and this quality of fairly widespread criticism (by and large generated by what he said about the priesthood ban, so it's understandable) is new. Ironically, my true feelings are that I applaud those members who practice the faith but have made a consciencious decision that they think this was wrong from the start.

What I found very intriguing about the DOM book was the fact that many of The Brethren had their agendas and pushed them at varying degrees. The decision-making became quite messy and not everyone got along. I suspect the same happens today. Quite different from the perception that it is all love and kisses. I like that, it seems more real and let's me know that He works with them the same way He works with me: He's not a micro-manager and is willing to let us mess up.

My perception is that many members don't want that window into decision-making, preferring the image of blissful unity and agreement. Easier to view GAs as infallible than deal with the alternative.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

What I found very intriguing about the DOM book was the fact that many of The Brethren had their agendas and pushed them at varying degrees. The decision-making became quite messy and not everyone got along. I suspect the same happens today. Quite different from the perception that it is all love and kisses. I like that, it seems more real and let's me know that He works with them the same way He works with me: He's not a micro-manager and is willing to let us mess up.

My perception is that many members don't want that window into decision-making, preferring the image of blissful unity and agreement. Easier to view GAs as infallible than deal with the alternative.

Well said.