That's Not Doctrine!

[_Aristotle Smith]

You can't go for very long in talking to various defenders of the LDS faith these days without hearing the words, "That's not doctrine!" While there are documents which purport to establish where one can find LDS doctrine, it doesn't actually tell you what IS doctrine. However, even defining where to find doctrine really doesn't solve the problem because defenders of the faith tend to be haphazard in applying the rule to their own beliefs as to what constitutes doctrine.

But when you think about it, this situation is ludicrous from both a logical and historical point of view. Historically, for most of the LDS church's existence, people had little problems identifying and agreeing upon doctrine. Sure, esoterica was discussed and debated, such as during the era when Orson Pratt and Brigham Young publicly argued over various doctrines. But, I imagine that there was still a very long list of doctrines upon which Orson and Brigham could agree. This inability to define doctrine (again, not talking about where you might go to find some) also makes little logical sense for a religion that claims to be led by a prophet. If he can't define doctrine, he really doesn't have much of a reason for existence, other than to be an administrative leader. One of the main reasons for following Joseph Smith was to get away from bickering protestant denominations who couldn't agree amongst themselves about doctrine; Joseph cut through the BS by declaring, "Thus saith the Lord."

But when did "That's not doctrine" start? I'm going to venture a hypothesis, tell me where I am wrong.

"That's not doctrine!" (hereafter TnD) started on June 9, 1978, one day after blacks were allowed to receive the priesthood. In essence the brethren created the conditions, and practically forced defenders of the faith to pull out TnD to make sense of what had just happened.

Up until June 8, 1978 all kinds of reasons were given from the highest levels as to why blacks could not hold the priesthood. For over a century there was a general understanding as to why this was the case, and it was said in no uncertain terms from the highest levels. But then on June 8, the brethren did something really weird, they said "OK, blacks can have the priesthood now," and they said nothing else. No attempt was made to change the old reasons. No attempt was made to give new reasons as to why blacks could not have the priesthood. No attempt was made to denounce the old reasons. No attempt was made to apologize. The best Bruce R. McConkie could manage was, "Forget what we said earlier, we were working with limited light and knowledge." For the most part the brethren have remained completely silent about the whole situation, hoping that church members and the rest of the world would conveniently forget about the whole thing.

But the world doesn't work that way. People need to understand why things have happened and why they are happening. But, the brethren completely abdicated on this. This left defenders of the faith in a very precarious situation. LDS defenders of the faith cannot posit new doctrines, that's the purview of the brethren, but there was no new doctrine given to explain the new situation and make sense of the old. Practically the only thing the defenders of the faith could do was simply to say, "Well, it was never doctrine to begin with." It explained the new situation but did not require them to trample on the prerogative of the brethren to define doctrine. None of the brethren seemed to care that the defenders were doing this, so it became the de facto explanation for the more than century long priesthood ban.

At this point, the cat was out of the bag. The brethren seemed more than content to let the reasoning stand. Then during the 1980's and 1990's several things happened which made TnD the go to defense for apologists. First, the COB really retrenched when it came to openness. The Camelot era was over and the church clamped down tight on access to historical documents. Second, correlation really kicked into overdrive during this period and really focused on providing fluff instead of real answers to real questions. Third, the brethren became much more interested in managing the church as opposed to preaching new doctrine. The last of the fiery preachers died during this period, to be replaced by soft spoken administrators. Finally, the church made a very public example out of academics (Sept 6 and others) who tried to push the envelope by trying to advocate for change based on church history and/or new theology.

The net result was that the brethren abdicated leadership and got out of the business of defining and defending LDS doctrine. But, the example of the Sept 6 was clear, though the brethren weren't going to bother themselves with defining and defending doctrine, they were not going to let anyone else take up that job. The only thing left for defenders of the faith to do was to continue to bring up TnD more and more often. New scientific and historical discoveries were being made which put traditional LDS doctrines in precarious territory. The only thing defenders could do to salvage Mormon beliefs was to relegate certain beliefs to the status of TnD to save others.

I welcome any and all critiques.

[_Buffalo]

TnD has been used as a bandage so frequently that one wonders if the church has any doctrine left.

[_stemelbow]

I welcome any and all critiques.

Goodie.

But when did "That's not doctrine" start? I'm going to venture a hypothesis, tell me where I am wrong.

"That's not doctrine!" (hereafter TnD) started on June 9, 1978, one day after blacks were allowed to receive the priesthood. In essence the brethren created the conditions, and practically forced defenders of the faith to pull out TnD to make sense of what had just happened.

I don't think that's all that "good" of a guess. BY's purported Adam-God "doctrine" was addressed before that.

But then on June 8, the brethren did something really weird, they said "OK, blacks can have the priesthood now," and they said nothing else. No attempt was made to change the old reasons. No attempt was made to give new reasons as to why blacks could not have the priesthood. No attempt was made to denounce the old reasons. No attempt was made to apologize. The best Bruce R. McConkie could manage was, "Forget what we said earlier, we were working with limited light and knowledge." For the most part the brethren have remained completely silent about the whole situation, hoping that church members and the rest of the world would conveniently forget about the whole thing.

It seems out of convenience you're ascribing motives to the brethren that you don't know, but it is par for the course for most here. Perhaps it was more along the lines of there is no concesus among the brethren about what exactly what happened. Perhaps its more along the lines of, since they can't be sure on it all, they are left to say nothing than say something that might not be correct.

[_stemelbow]

TnD has been used as a bandage so frequently that one wonders if the church has any doctrine left.

Oh such hyperbole. Would you suggest that when people head off to church and discuss their beliefs, they don't know what to say? They don't know whether its appropriate to express their belief that Jesus is the Christ or not?

[_just me]

Perhaps it was more along the lines of there is no concesus among the brethren about what exactly what happened. Perhaps its more along the lines of, since they can't be sure on it all, they are left to say nothing than say something that might not be correct.

Why does there need to be a consensus? Can't the prophet just ask God the reason? Why is god silent on so many vitally important topics?

[_DarkHelmet]

I especially love Bruce R. McConkie's "we were working with limited light and knowledge" excuse. You call yourselves prophets and apostles?

The church has no real doctrine, it is whatever the current leaders say, and that can change later because the leaders are not infallible. In other words, Mormonism is the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

[_stemelbow]

Why does there need to be a consensus?

I don't know if there "has to be", but it'd be good to have unity.

Can't the prophet just ask God the reason?

Of course the prophet can. Its a matter if God the prophet is in tune to the answer, or is able to handle it, and if God sees it necessary to answer. Perhaps in God's eyes He feels it most appropriate to not say anything on the matter for right now.

Why is god silent on so many vitally important topics?

Beats me. Perhaps what we see as vitally important, He sees as not so important. He has HIs ways.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Aristotle,

I enjoyed this post. Do you think there was ever a time when the Church had something close to a systematic theology? If so, did it get lost around the same time ‘blacks’ were given the Priesthood?

In my opinion, I think the Church lacks a place for Theologians, and as a result, proper Theology isn’t done in a manner that reaches people. I understand the need for a hierarchy to keep tight control on speculation, but it seems to me the Church could adopt something like the Roman Catholic Church, where trained theologians serve the papacy in the form of guidance behind close doors.

[_Buffalo]

It seems out of convenience you're ascribing motives to the brethren that you don't know, but it is par for the course for most here. Perhaps it was more along the lines of there is no concesus among the brethren about what exactly what happened. Perhaps its more along the lines of, since they can't be sure on it all, they are left to say nothing than say something that might not be correct.

Maybe it's the fact that some forward thinking brethren had already tried to get rid of the ban years earlier, and it took a lot of politicking to finally make it happen in 1978. That doesn't sound very much like a revelation, hence the silence. Just an idea.

[Guest]

Of course the prophet can. Its a matter if God the prophet is in tune to the answer, or is able to handle it, and if God sees it necessary to answer. Perhaps in God's eyes He feels it most appropriate to not say anything on the matter for right now.

God totally threw his prophets and apostles under the bus with the black priesthood thing. First, he introduces a doctrine of denying blacks the priesthood with no real explanation, forcing his prophets to come up with wild and crazy theories about blacks sitting on the sidelines in the pre-existence. Then God abruptly gives blacks the priesthood with no explanation why, forcing his prophets to try to explain themselves again, and they end up looking like idiots who don't know what they're doing, and god won't answer them why he did it. They get beat up in the media while god sits in his cushy office insulated from the problem.