Policy vs Doctrine

[Guest]

In light of the recent policy regarding children with gay parents some have suggested that there is a distinction between policy and doctrine. In his interview with RadioWest http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/homosexuality-and-lds-doctrine-family Russell Stevenson suggests that the priesthood restriction was also just a policy (at 6:00 minutes.)

I don't get it. How can one believe that God's messengers run this church and yet believe he doesn't get involved in making these decisions whether we choose to call them "policy" or "doctrine?" Sure if we were talking about something petty, something insignificant, we could say God didn't dictate it. But once the stakes are high enough why wouldn't God get involved?
When does he get involved?

So a group of kids will no longer be able to get baptized and the First Presidency signed a letter, but God had no input? It will likely lead to ugly custody battles, but God had no input? Did the First Presidency even pray about it? If God didn't agree with it he could have had his messengers quietly kill it before it made it into the handbook. Yet he stays silent. Now everyone is putting in their two cents except God. I don't believe it.

[_Tobin]

There is nothing to get. They are making it all up.

[_DarkHelmet]

For hardcore TBMs, there is no real distinction between policy and doctrine. As you point it, they believe it all comes "from the Lord". Some of the more moderate TBMs may decide that doctrine is direct commandment from the Lord, while policy is simply the decisions of the church leadership on how to administer the church, without any direction from the big guy upstairs. If you take this approach, you believe that doctrines cannot change without a revelation, but policies can. The problem with this is when the church declares things doctrine that they should have labeled policies, like the black priesthood ban. Now they have to pretend to get a revelation to reverse it, and it makes them look even more like idiots.

[_sock puppet]

In light of the recent policy regarding children with gay parents some have suggested that there is a distinction between policy and doctrine. In his interview with RadioWest http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/homosexuality-and-lds-doctrine-family Russell Stevenson suggests that the priesthood restriction was also just a policy (at 6:00 minutes.)

I don't get it. How can one believe that God's messengers run this church and yet believe he doesn't get involved in making these decisions whether we choose to call them "policy" or "doctrine?" Sure if we were talking about something petty, something insignificant, we could say God didn't dictate it. But once the stakes are high enough why wouldn't God get involved?
When does he get involved?

So a group of kids will no longer be able to get baptized and the First Presidency signed a letter, but God had no input? It will likely lead to ugly custody battles, but God had no input? Did the First Presidency even pray about it? If God didn't agree with it he could have had his messengers quietly kill it before it made it into the handbook. Yet he stays silent. Now everyone is putting in their two cents except God. I don't believe it.

I find that the dubbing of this current move as a "policy" rather than doctrine interesting. It was until long after the direct-commandment-from-the-Lord/doctrine (8/17/1949) about the ban against blacks getting the priesthood was repealed (6/8/1978) that it is now (21st Century) relegated to merely having been a "policy".

The additions to HB1 included a new category of apostasy: being same sex married. Same sex cohabiting (with benefits) is just a sin, not rising to the level of apostasy as now being in a same sex marriage is. The LDS leaders and apologists need to own this one as doctrine.

Since their canonized scripture sets age 8 as the age for baptism, how do the 15 Masqueraders treat the exclusion until age 18 and then only if the new adult denounces gay cohabitation and gets FP approval for those primarily residing with gay cohabitant parent(s) a policy? It is in derogation of a clear canonical doctrine?

Stevenson is obviously engaging in the dark art of LDS word play. By doing so, he owns the responsibility for this stupidity just as much as the 15 Masqueraders.

[_Dr Exiled]

I think the policy v. doctrine excuse shows that the Mormon god is invented like all the other religions do. This is the answer to the policy/doctrine riddle - that they are making this up as they go along. Robert M. Price likes to say on his Bible geek podcast and in the various debates he's had over the years with christian apologists that everyone likes to create a god in their own image. Certainly, with all of the contradictions with other policies/doctrines in the Mormon past, and the latest retreat from the new policy/doctrine pronouncement, it is easy to see that the Mormon leadership is inventing this stuff as they go along.

They may believe in their drivel. They may be sincere. However, they engage in too much emotional reasoning and confirmation bias to be valid. Man gets promoted to bishop, then SP, then mission pres, then GA and along the way starts to believe that all his thoughts are inspired. He is then surrounded by yes men and women and isolated from society. No body inside opposes him and the wealth of the church must have a tremendous appeal skewing his thinking further. It is no wonder then that these policy/doctrine blunders happen.

[_Tator]

I think the policy v. doctrine excuse shows that the Mormon god is invented like all the other religions do. This is the answer to the policy/doctrine riddle - that they are making this up as they go along. Robert M. Price likes to say on his Bible geek podcast and in the various debates he's had over the years with christian apologists that everyone likes to create a god in their own image. Certainly, with all of the contradictions with other policies/doctrines in the Mormon past, and the latest retreat from the new policy/doctrine pronouncement, it is easy to see that the Mormon leadership is inventing this stuff as they go along.

They may believe in their drivel. They may be sincere. However, they engage in too much emotional reasoning and confirmation bias to be valid. Man gets promoted to bishop, then SP, then mission pres, then GA and along the way starts to believe that all his thoughts are inspired. He is then surrounded by yes men and women and isolated from society. No body inside opposes him and the wealth of the church must have a tremendous appeal skewing his thinking further. It is no wonder then that these policy/doctrine blunders happen.

I can't make a single argument against anything you have said and it was well said.

[_sock puppet]

They may believe in their drivel. They may be sincere. However, they engage in too much emotional reasoning and confirmation bias to be valid. Man gets promoted to bishop, then SP, then mission pres, then GA and along the way starts to believe that all his thoughts are inspired.

That makes them all the more pathetic, really.

He is then surrounded by yes men and women and isolated from society. No body inside opposes him and the wealth of the church must have a tremendous appeal skewing his thinking further. It is no wonder then that these policy/doctrine blunders happen.

The ranks of the Brethren suffer from incest in who is being admitted and in no one giving them a gut check.

I suspect that this all having occurred so early in the tenure of the 3 newbies (Rasband, Stevenson and Renlund) will markedly affect their attitudes. Sure, they've been yes-manned on their paths of ascension, but they been part of the yes-manning to the 12 ahead of them. Now they are getting to see how sausage is made, and they might not think it tastes so great right now.

ETA: Perhaps, however, the 3 newbies will become hardened in their attitudes. It seems the Hoffman fiasco early in Oaks' apostleship turned him into a rabid dogmatist.

[_SuperDell]

Doctrine is revealed truth. Such as Polygamy.

"Polygamy is not Doctrinal". Gordon B. Hinckley

That should clear things up nicely.

[_ludwigm]

Doctrine is revealed truth. Such as Polygamy.

"Polygamy is not Doctrinal". Gordon B. Hinckley

That should clear things up nicely.

Words. Like "horse" and "tapir".

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9y5eY1hKuE -

[_Stumpy Pepys]

How can a statement defining apostasy not be doctrinal?

The term "apostasy" draws a line around a core doctrine that cannot be rejected if you wish to be considered an adherent.