📐 Doctrine¶

Estimated time to read: 13 minutes

"You don't like that thing we (the church) do? Well, it's actually just a policy, not a doctrine of the church."

— A strawman argument I made up

The LDS church claims to be led by God, who has authorized its prophetic leadership to act in His name. To me, it isn't really a stretch of logic to assume that the LDS church's actions are of divine appointment and inspiration. Is that unreasonable?

Maybe some things are doctrinal, meaning they are immutable and eternal, while other things from God are a bit more malleable. I sure hope that the church doesn't try to rationalize something like banning children of gay couples from being baptized as being just a plain ol' policy. That'd be a bad look. Or if they gatekept salvation from an entire race of humankind, and then downplay it as a "disavowed theory." That would also be a bad look.

In order to have a sensible discourse, we really should delineate what is doctrine and what is not. Until I find better definitions, I'm going with the following:

Doctrine is what we find in scripture, during conference talks, revelation by the acting prophets. Commonality between these is that the words can be traced back to, and ascribed to God.
Policy is more secular. Rules, handbooks, organization of the worldly organization that is the LDS church. Possibly not what can be ascribed to God, but... I suppose these would be philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

Here's where problems arise. The canon book of scripture with modern revelation isn't called Policy & Covenants. Things found there are doctrinal. Things like the stocks for people to buy and fund Joseph Smith’s mansion, virginity being a circumvention against adultery, God abandoning you if you're disobedient, and clearly outlining the year of Christ's return. Doctrinal. Unchanging.

If simple "policy" can keep somebody from participating in saving ordinances, then policy carries the same weight as doctrine.

Behind every policy of the church, there's doctrine. Without doctrine to back policy, it has no justification, no grounds, no purpose. The hierarchical structure of the church (first presidency, quorum of 12, quorum of 70, area authorities, stake presidencies, bishopric) pertains to the workings of the earthly, mortal organization that makes up "the church."

Policy vs Doctrine¶

OAKS: I don’t know that it’s possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet… I’m not sure I could justify the difference in doctrine and policy in the fact that before 1978 a person could not hold the priesthood and after 1978 they could hold the priesthood.

— Elder Dallin H Oaks in interview with Associated Press SLC, regarding the 1978 revelation on race

Bravo, good sir. Bold and declarative, spoken just like a lawyer 👏

How important are leaders' words?¶

Pick a topic that has demonstrably changed since 1830. Could be the racial ban on priesthood, the November 2015 "policy," Adam-God doctrine, Blood Atonement, or some other that I haven't listed here.

We could certainly take time to argue if it was a real doctrine from God, or a worldly policy, or if the prophet wasn't prophesying, "speaking as a man," whatever... What matters is how it affected people. These leaders are seen as leaders. Leaders should not be surprised when congregants do what they say. Each year in general conference, the upper leaders are presented for a sustaining vote, where members signify that these men are "prophets, seers, and revelators." Then they act surprised when members take their words at face value.

What is and is not considered "doctrine" by the LDS church is the LDS church's problem, and it is their responsibility to clearly delineate what does and does not qualify as doctrine. Is Bruce McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine a record of Mormon Doctrine, or was that book "philosophies of men mingled with scripture?" Would that book have gained traction if it wasn't written by a member of the First Council of the Seventy of the LDS Church? Compare that idea to me, a dumbass with a computer, publishing these very notes on print and calling it Mormon Doctrine?

Insisting that "that was never doctrinal" puts the onus on us regular, lay common folk to read the minds of church leaders, and to discern what words to listen to and how to interpret them. Brigham Young taught some batshit ideas under his time as "the Prophet?" Well, fortunately for us in the 21st century, that wasn't actually doctrine! We know this because it would cause a lot of cognitive dissonance if it actually was doctrinal.

When church leaders don their professional business attire and stand behind a pulpit as their words are broadcast all across the world, is it safe to assume that what they say should be taken at face value? Even if they set a precedent that doctrines may change in the future? Is it too much to ask for them to clearly delineate and specify when their statements are immutable doctrines, or simply a policy to manage an earthly organization?

I could imagine being accused of misunderstanding leaders' teachings, and being told "that wasn't doctrine." What the fuck is doctrine, then? How do we know what qualifies as doctrine as its being said? Is this a matter of the speaker still being alive for their words to count? Is the idea of calling someone Mormon counting as a "victory for Satan" going to be seen as "just a policy" by year 2035? We have no way of knowing, since there isn't anything to indicate if that practice is doctrine or policy. The best we have for that specific teaching is "the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance" of names in conversation. It shouldn't be up to me as an individual, or us as members, to decide if this is doctrinal or not. Nelson didn't call it doctrine, nor policy. In the hypothetical scenario where Oaks or Bednar then reverse it, we'd have a clear demarcation that this "victory for Satan" was not doctrinal.

Among the distinguishing features of the LDS church is the claim of being actively led by God, and the church's leadership actively receives guidance directly from that god. God is taught to us as omnipotent and omniscient— He has to be, or else He wouldn't be deserving of worship, attention, or even consideration. LDS church leadership claims to have divine appointment to that office, and are authorized to act in His name. Is it unreasonable for church members to have high expectations for the conduct of leaders who are authorized to speak and act in behalf of God? If they fail to meet those expectations, and their words are just as definitive as yours or mine in terms of declaring doctrine, then why do we see them as leaders?

If we have the doctrinal precedent of "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same," then it doesn't matter if the teaching came from a mortal man or from God. What matters is the impact this teaching had. Does the church's hardline stance on LGBTQ+ people result in disproportionately high suicide rates? (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) The teaching is harmful, irrespective of calling it doctrine or policy. Defending those harms as being caused by mortal, fallible leaders of an imperfect organization isn't quite as effective as one might think—to a gay teenager, that means that this harmful teaching does not come from nonogenerians, but it comes from the highest authority possible—God Himself. How would you expect an impressionable youth to internalize "you are inherently broken, sinful by nature, and will be left alone for eternity because of who you are?" Is that just a policy, or is it doctrine from the highest authority possible? Does the distinction matter at that point?

Newsroom¶

Approaching Latter-day Saint Doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

I implore you to tell me what context makes the cursed skin of blackness teaching more palatable.

Yes, there's a middle ground between two extremes to be settled on here. I wrote in another page that if Gordon Hinckley is standing behind a pulpit before a gathered audience, his words in that moment carry more weight than if he's chilling at home in his PJ's. I understand that there is a difference here. I also understand that when Brigham Young is speaking to a congregation who reveres him as a divinely appointed leader, that carries more weight theologically than when he's berating wife #23 for whatever domestic matter.

Qualifying that "not every statement made by a church leader" is doctrinal also needs some context. Is this church leader speaking before an audience, ready to receive divine inspiration, or not?

Handbook¶

The bishop counsels with the stake president if he feels that a member’s action may constitute apostasy. ... As used here, apostasy refers to a member engaging in any of the following:

Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders.

Persisting in teaching as Church doctrine what is not Church doctrine after being corrected by the bishop or stake president

...

— General Handbook § 32.6.3.2: Apostasy

Sounds to me like acting in opposition to the church's doctrine or policies results in the same conclusion: you're an apostate! Why differentiate the two, then? The very next bullet point is that disagreeing about what is doctrine is grounds for excommunication, too.

If you can get excommunicated for breach of policy as well as doctrine, then there is no meaningful difference.

Institute Manual¶

Although the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, “only the President of the Church,” spoke President J. Reuben Clark Jr., “the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church. He is God’s sole mouthpiece on earth for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only true Church. He alone may declare the mind and will of God to his people. No officer of any other Church in the world has this high right and lofty prerogative.”

— Enrichment F: ‘As If from Mine Own Mouth’: The Role of Prophets in the Church, Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, Institute

... So why do we have counselors then? It's an autocracy, one man's words are all we need to change doctrine. I am legitimately asking: if this is the case, why does the president of the church need counselors? Does he counsel with them? Sure sounds like he doesn't need to.