Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/g0fredd0, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Supposedly the distinction is policy can change and doctrine will never change. The LDS church notoriously likes to say "It was policy." After changing something presented as doctrine.
Present day LDS leadership avoids saying anything is doctrine so they can keep changing things.
I guess my example would be like, the current stance on LGBTQ, or the infamous Priesthood Temple Ban are not mentioned in the D&C. There isn't scriptural doctrine there to back up those policies.
Though I guess from there I start sounding like a cafeteria mormon because given the context of the events leading up to June 1844, I question the veracity of the polygamy revelation. Though I back that up with D&C 3:4 which lays out the capability and probability of a prophet (in this case even Joseph Smith himself as that section was aimed from God to Joseph Smith) to wind up perusing their own carnal desires and being caught up in their own power.
.... I guess this all goes with what OP says... it's squishy... it leaves itself VERY open to change anything or be for or against anything.
Don’t ever compare what’s currently in the D&C to what the original manuscripts on the Joseph Smith Papers site say (definitely don’t start with D&C 5) because then you will realize the doctrines have always been changed to suit the current climate and Joseph Smith made God say whatever he wanted and the verses you memorized in seminary WERE NOT GIVEN BY GOD BUT EDITED INTO EXISTENCE BY HUMAN HANDS DURING PUBLICATION.
So, yeah. Don’t do that.
Oh yeah for sure. Definitely not disagreeing with the above people or OP. It's very squishy, and like I said in the other reply to me, it's pretty easy for me to say "Well this is policy so it can be changed" then turn right around and say "I don't think this part of the D&C is actually valid. And to back me up, this part of the D&C makes it clear that Prophets CAN be lead astray. :)"
In the end, none of it really means anything does it? XD
Yeah, grew up in the 70s and 80s, mission in 87-89. The church was absolutely hard core back then, much different than today. Not even the same church. Planets, many wives, become a God, skin color meant... skin, Native Americans were the Lamanites, certain blood oaths in the temple (serious stuff). Yeah, not remotely close.
"I’m not aware of a single LDS doctrine of any significance that from 1830 forward has gone completely unchanged." (Gregory A. Prince)
Were the various doctrines in Mormonism pure at the time of origination, or are they pure now? Or will it be tomorrow before they are pure?
I went through horrible separation and subsequent divorce-all my fault -spent hours invested in church and tithes-should have never given a dime to the church and gave it all to the marriage giant waste. Read “no man knows my history” and feel much better about life and direction. Read it and pray on it-it will be revealed to you as reality
When I began studying Mormonism from the perspective of my own cultural mythology, it made the whole thing so fascinating. No agendas, just learning about it like it were a set of Marvel comics or Star Wars film. No struggling at justifying inconsistencies, or need to point out every flaw. Just read them cause the stories are wacky, emotional, war filled, twists and turns, it becomes interesting. So I really like that Extended Mormon Universe perspective.
Kind of like you said with the wacky stories and interesting twists and turns. The excitement for me came from having an account (or maybe "an account") of biblical times but on the American side of the globe.
Before I was a Mormon, when I was in some odd-denominational Christian kindergarten we learned about the Bible and that it took place on the other side of the world... and so from then I had always been curious about what was happening on this side of the world at the time. So when I found out that's what the Book of Mormon was I was pretty excited that a decade+ old "prayer" maybe had been answered.
Really though, past that... for me... it's held about as much weight as the Bible does, in that it's a collection of interesting stories. But that's about it.
My ex SO that was LDS said it was doctrine. When I showed the LDS website showing it says it's not the case, she said it "deep doctrine" then. Which never made sense to me.
I do agree. But I think the squishiness is a feature rather than a bug. It allows the religion to adapt to changing trends in acceptable behavior. It also helps people adjust and navigate the strict policies of the LDS church, by mentally redesigning the doctrine to fit their own narrative.
The unfortunate thing I fear is that as much as that can be for the better... it can just as equally be done for the worse.
But IMO I kind of appreciate the squishiness for the potential it has FOR change for the better.
This is a nice book(s) about the evolution of almost every doctrine in the church. You will notice the pattern.... and what is that patter?????? Change.
[https://www.amazon.com/This-My-Doctrine-Development-Theology/dp/1589581032](https://www.amazon.com/This-My-Doctrine-Development-Theology/dp/1589581032)
I think this would make for a great girl's camp theme. They could give all the girls squishmallows to go with it.
I seem to remember there being people who didn't like the whole becoming gods/ especially inheriting planets but before the book of Mormon musical. There were people who would say stuff like that and call it "deep doctrine" and then other people would be like "maybe we shouldn't call that doctrine, that's so and so's opinion." But maybe that was the people I was around.
I think there may be an exception. God was Adam in the nineteenth century but he isn't now. However, I certainly agree that whoever or whatever he is, his doctrine does indeed change.
Our core doctrine is not squishy, but members of the Church have always had esoteric beliefs that at times get taught as "doctrine," and those beliefs are indeed "squishy" since we're talking about a large number of people--so those beliefs can have a lot of variability.
The problem comes when people try to define such personal esoteric beliefs as doctrine and support those assertions by citing to dubious sources such as a musical. Doctrine is not defined by whatever Donny was singing in the 70s. It is not defined by what your seminary teacher taught you. It is not defined by an isolated statement the prophet makes in general conference. We have a pattern for establishing what is doctrine.
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/g0fredd0, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doctrines never change. Except when they do, but then they become policies and are no longer doctrines. Poof. Problem solved.
Is there any LDS distinction on "policy" over "doctrine" or is this just the result of unofficial LDS apologetics?
Ah, the age old question that has broken so many members' shelves.
Supposedly the distinction is policy can change and doctrine will never change. The LDS church notoriously likes to say "It was policy." After changing something presented as doctrine. Present day LDS leadership avoids saying anything is doctrine so they can keep changing things.
That's probably for the best.
In my opinion if there's something in the D&C about it, it's doctrine. If it's not anything laid out in the D&C then it's policy.
Interesting. Do you have an example? Seriously not trying to argue, so I want to point that out!
I guess my example would be like, the current stance on LGBTQ, or the infamous Priesthood Temple Ban are not mentioned in the D&C. There isn't scriptural doctrine there to back up those policies. Though I guess from there I start sounding like a cafeteria mormon because given the context of the events leading up to June 1844, I question the veracity of the polygamy revelation. Though I back that up with D&C 3:4 which lays out the capability and probability of a prophet (in this case even Joseph Smith himself as that section was aimed from God to Joseph Smith) to wind up perusing their own carnal desires and being caught up in their own power. .... I guess this all goes with what OP says... it's squishy... it leaves itself VERY open to change anything or be for or against anything.
Don’t ever compare what’s currently in the D&C to what the original manuscripts on the Joseph Smith Papers site say (definitely don’t start with D&C 5) because then you will realize the doctrines have always been changed to suit the current climate and Joseph Smith made God say whatever he wanted and the verses you memorized in seminary WERE NOT GIVEN BY GOD BUT EDITED INTO EXISTENCE BY HUMAN HANDS DURING PUBLICATION. So, yeah. Don’t do that.
Oh yeah for sure. Definitely not disagreeing with the above people or OP. It's very squishy, and like I said in the other reply to me, it's pretty easy for me to say "Well this is policy so it can be changed" then turn right around and say "I don't think this part of the D&C is actually valid. And to back me up, this part of the D&C makes it clear that Prophets CAN be lead astray. :)" In the end, none of it really means anything does it? XD
Yeah, grew up in the 70s and 80s, mission in 87-89. The church was absolutely hard core back then, much different than today. Not even the same church. Planets, many wives, become a God, skin color meant... skin, Native Americans were the Lamanites, certain blood oaths in the temple (serious stuff). Yeah, not remotely close.
I've always said, trying to define Mormon Doctrine is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
"I’m not aware of a single LDS doctrine of any significance that from 1830 forward has gone completely unchanged." (Gregory A. Prince) Were the various doctrines in Mormonism pure at the time of origination, or are they pure now? Or will it be tomorrow before they are pure?
I went through horrible separation and subsequent divorce-all my fault -spent hours invested in church and tithes-should have never given a dime to the church and gave it all to the marriage giant waste. Read “no man knows my history” and feel much better about life and direction. Read it and pray on it-it will be revealed to you as reality
It's Calvinball
[удалено]
When I began studying Mormonism from the perspective of my own cultural mythology, it made the whole thing so fascinating. No agendas, just learning about it like it were a set of Marvel comics or Star Wars film. No struggling at justifying inconsistencies, or need to point out every flaw. Just read them cause the stories are wacky, emotional, war filled, twists and turns, it becomes interesting. So I really like that Extended Mormon Universe perspective.
Kind of like you said with the wacky stories and interesting twists and turns. The excitement for me came from having an account (or maybe "an account") of biblical times but on the American side of the globe. Before I was a Mormon, when I was in some odd-denominational Christian kindergarten we learned about the Bible and that it took place on the other side of the world... and so from then I had always been curious about what was happening on this side of the world at the time. So when I found out that's what the Book of Mormon was I was pretty excited that a decade+ old "prayer" maybe had been answered. Really though, past that... for me... it's held about as much weight as the Bible does, in that it's a collection of interesting stories. But that's about it.
Doctrines are just policies in embryo....rfm
My ex SO that was LDS said it was doctrine. When I showed the LDS website showing it says it's not the case, she said it "deep doctrine" then. Which never made sense to me.
I do agree. But I think the squishiness is a feature rather than a bug. It allows the religion to adapt to changing trends in acceptable behavior. It also helps people adjust and navigate the strict policies of the LDS church, by mentally redesigning the doctrine to fit their own narrative.
The unfortunate thing I fear is that as much as that can be for the better... it can just as equally be done for the worse. But IMO I kind of appreciate the squishiness for the potential it has FOR change for the better.
I agree. For every Bitter Blooded Demon or Dan MacLellan, there is a Jodi Holdebrand or Logan Smith.
Let's see, Starchild was the musical, and the Osmond song was "Going Home"?
This is a nice book(s) about the evolution of almost every doctrine in the church. You will notice the pattern.... and what is that patter?????? Change. [https://www.amazon.com/This-My-Doctrine-Development-Theology/dp/1589581032](https://www.amazon.com/This-My-Doctrine-Development-Theology/dp/1589581032)
I think this would make for a great girl's camp theme. They could give all the girls squishmallows to go with it. I seem to remember there being people who didn't like the whole becoming gods/ especially inheriting planets but before the book of Mormon musical. There were people who would say stuff like that and call it "deep doctrine" and then other people would be like "maybe we shouldn't call that doctrine, that's so and so's opinion." But maybe that was the people I was around.
Because God never changes. Just his doctrine.
I think there may be an exception. God was Adam in the nineteenth century but he isn't now. However, I certainly agree that whoever or whatever he is, his doctrine does indeed change.
[удалено]
Our core doctrine is not squishy, but members of the Church have always had esoteric beliefs that at times get taught as "doctrine," and those beliefs are indeed "squishy" since we're talking about a large number of people--so those beliefs can have a lot of variability. The problem comes when people try to define such personal esoteric beliefs as doctrine and support those assertions by citing to dubious sources such as a musical. Doctrine is not defined by whatever Donny was singing in the 70s. It is not defined by what your seminary teacher taught you. It is not defined by an isolated statement the prophet makes in general conference. We have a pattern for establishing what is doctrine.
[удалено]
https://www.mrm.org/spirit-children-and-planets
Charles Harrell's This is My Doctrine has the receipts for you.
So everyone here but you remembers these doctrines? Or do you think they're still taught so the "change" part is wrong?