I agree 100%

>>> We need to come up with another word for the “policies” that masquerade as doctrines. Any takers on creating the new word?

I smell a contest idea!

Bruce: “the profound truths of the scriptures mixed with an infinite and changing body of traditions allowing us to envision such truths.”
This is a great description, although we need to become more cognizant (not just in retrospect) of what are traditions and what are the profound truths lest we slip into the creeds (per your point) and start teaching the “doctrines of men.”

Bruce: “[4] Contrary to anti-Mormon smears, I’ve never actually found a definitive quote from 19th century Mormons leaders confirming a belief in a sexual act between a sealed Mary and God.”
True story, someone just quoted this in sacrament meeting 2 Sundays ago. My eyebrows immediately went up (I tell you I can smell folklore a mile off!). Happy ending – the next speaker who was there from the stake kindly clarified that there is no official stance on how Jesus was conceived. But a quick google search revealed the following three sources (two by prophets, both unclear, one by Orson Pratt, the likely culprit):

“The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood- was begotten of his Father, as we are of our fathers.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 8:115) Frankly, not that clear about the “act,” as it were.

“The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully… Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in the mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158) This is the one the guy in my ward referenced. Clearly not a canonical reference, and it fits very nicely with your above statements about not being able to envision in vitro fertilization.

“They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches No Such Thing! Neither does the Bible…Christ was begotten of God. He was NOT born without the aid of man and that man was God!” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18) Again, not that clear about how it was done.

Bruce (2): “he had the best of intentions and simply didn’t understand the difference between his speculations and actual doctrine. This is the very problem that creates creeds in the first place. We Mormons are not immune to the urge.”
Immune to the urge? You would think it was jello the way some LDS lap this stuff up. My parents, converts in the 1950s in the midwest, eat the folklore with a spoon because they feel like they now have the inside scoop. That’s one reason speculation is so damaging. I really believe the current crackdown on folklore and speculation (that I perceive) is the best thing that could happen in the church. I got called to repentance by a fellow student at the Y for expressing my frustration over the folklore that has been perpetuated over the years in the church (I was talking about McConkie specifically) that has misinformed people and capitalizes on a base desire in people to lord it over others that they know something others don’t know. It’s still frustrating to me. Joseph Smith comes out of the grove with the knowledge that “their creeds are an abomination” and they teach “doctrines of men.” Then, the church is founded, and the first thing people do is start coming up with more doctrines of men. If I had a nickel for every time I had to tell my parents, “That’s not true” . . . Oy vay!

Mark D.: “I agree 100% that the problem lies in the unconventional way many LDS use the term “doctrine”.”
The etymologist in me has to add that IMHO, the word “doctrine” is only problematic in an LDS context because we’re the only religion that eshews (or tries to anyway) the traditions and doctrines of theologians and committees that are the doctrines of other churches. If you belong to a church that doesn’t have both kinds (revealed doctrine and human policies in support of doctrine), there’s no need for another word. We need to come up with another word for the “policies” that masquerade as doctrines. Any takers on creating the new word?

No wonder his brothers doubted he could build a boat. When they withheld their labor, was he talking about individually or withholding the servants and slaves they controlled? When they talk of making them slaves in the wilderness, is it just a figure of speech, or did Nephi insist, as each came on the seven year point, that they either submit and have a hole bored in their ears, becoming slaves or go out into the desert alone? The party could have easily numbered several hundred, not just a score or so, when they came to the new world. Vast differences in the way the text looks, all from things we read into it.

In regards to official doctrine of the Church, I have stated elsewhere there are several views on the topic. It may look as though Mormons are trying to be slippery by “conveniently” dismissing a statement they disagree with as not being official doctrine. However, this is the freedom granted us by God in His Church.

The nature of religious thought and doctrine is a lot more ambiguous than some people might like to think- including Mormons and otherwise. The lack of a catechized Mormon theology has been part of the “creed” of the Mormons perhaps since the Church was organized. There are statements of belief, faith, history, etc. and we are to discover the doctrine.

(I would add, the most critical doctrine may be the least studied; that of gaining faith in Christ, hope, and finally, charity, and all that entails. Hence, Christ instructing his followers to “do” His will in order to “know” of His doctrine, whether it is of God, or whether Christ was just giving some nice ideas, or incorrect theories, see John 7:17).

As members we may be prone to desire a comprehensive theological treatise on doctrine. B.H. Roberts pined for such a work. Bruce R. McConkie, among others, attempted to complete something similar to a complete work on doctrine. But overall in the history of this Church we find that God was as interested in telling stories, history, as He was in dictating lists of doctrine.

Richard Bushman pointed out that people, in their desire to comprehend the Book of Mormon, brought their own views to what they read. Mormons believe in “likening the scriptures,” but when does “likening” become “wresting”? Bushman related the problem with an example from the Book of Mormon, how some people read “republicanism” into the record. He concluded, saying “The preconceptions of the modern age led Mormons as well as critics to see things in the Book of Mormon that are not there.” (Believing History, pg. 122)

Hence, some Mormons may read Alma’s letter to his son Corianton and come away believing that whatever sin (usually interpreted as sexual) Corianton had engaged in was literally second only to murder, or denying the Holy Ghost. So we have some members teaching a view of different “weight” of sins, but a different reading of the text could yield different results. There is a definite “cultural doctrine” aspect to the Church, and critics can use this to criticize the Church just as members can use it to relate incorrect traditional renderings of text. I am reminded of Henry Eyring, the scientist, when he said “you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true.” I don’t feel compelled to believe anything that isn’t true, even if my whole ward or stake believes it.

We should also keep in mind these “doctrines” can ultimately lead to divisions and contentions, something Jesus Christ warned the New World disciples about during His visit in 3 Nephi.

The doctrines I mentioned were declared by Joseph Smith in the early years of the Church. Apart from McConkie et al I know of very little if any subsequent exegesis. I know there are journal and diary entries that refer to ordinances. Does that make it doctrine? How do we learn of their existence? Are they ever taught by General Authorities? Are they taught in Gospel Doctrine classes? Calling and Election is referred to every 4 years when 1st Peter cannot be ignored. Of course it is never explained because no one really understands it. How do we learn about these secret doctrines?
Whispered late at night perhaps between missionary companions or in a car on a long drive to zone conference.

Sounds like folk doctrine to me.

Are these doctrines so precious that no one must teach them or understand them?

If we relied on all of the utterances made by 19th century Church leaders that had since been officially abandoned we could just as well believe that Adam was our God and the only God with whom we have to do.

As J. Hamer might ask, where is our credibility?

Indeed, that is the striking thing about the practice, was that everyone agreed it was temporary. They just disagreed about why it was temporary and when they could expect it to end.

Well, if I read my own article correctly, the answer is “it depends.” We have a doctrine that we become gods. That’s straight up scriptural, so there should never be a doubt about it. We might also have a “doctrine” (or did have a “doctrine”) that this means we’ll own a world in some corner of the galaxy and populate it with our children. This is interpretive and not scriptural. Thus it may or may not be true and may or may not stick around later on. But even if it’s not literally true, it does still serve a useful purpose. It helps us (or the 19th century Mormons in any case) turn a more abstract doctrine into something concrete that they can wrap their minds around. Does this help?

>>> Obviously, men that we consider to be very inspired believed that the priesthood ban was eternal truth (doctrine), and now we say it was just a policy

I disagree. Every quote I’ve seen on this subject said that African’s would eventually receive the priesthood. Thus there was never a belief it would be etneral. Then again, there was a belief it wouldn’t happen until the Millenium which didn’t turn out to be true.

Wade, are you seriously suggesting that these are mere folk doctrines, and that they refer to some “imaginary ordinance associated with” them? If I read you correct, I’d love to know more about your background, that would lead you to this conclusion.

John A. Widtsoe did. When he was president of the then-named Utah Agricultural College, he invited eugenics speakers to campus and wrote favorably about the concept. I’ve done research in his official university files, and found these, much to my surprise.

My concern is that this approach doesn’t allow us to evaluate any teachings ex ante – we can only say ex post “that wasn’t a doctrine, I guess, since it got changed.”

What teachings of the church now are merely “policies” and which are doctrines? Is there any way to know for sure? Obviously, men that we consider to be very inspired believed that the priesthood ban was eternal truth (doctrine), and now we say it was just a policy. If they can’t tell what the doctrine is, how can we?

Nicely said, though it is also true that we just don’t have the language yet.

I like your quote, that I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fullness and have to note that it wasn’t a singular time that Brigham Young addressed that theme, he hit the point over and over and over again as did Joseph Smith.

They were both looking for a pure language and both very aware that the one they had was so terribly limited by both its context (their lives) and its meanings and vocabulary. That we could not denote because we did not have the right connotations, somewhat turning the traditional approach around.

Excellent post Bruce.

I was going to link to the Millett talk as well.

He quotes an Evangelical stating that determining LDS doctrine is much like nailing Jell-O to a wall.

Millett’s conclusion is that LDS doctrine consists of those principles and teachings that regularly appear in General Conference and LDS publications. I have found that to be useful tool as I sit in classes or hear other members declare that washing of the feet is an ordinance that must be performed every time a new church President is chosen.

Maybe it is, but I don’t want to have to hear President Hinckley deny it to Larry King.

BTW, Calling and Election hasn’t appeared in General Conferernce in 40 years.

http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/11/an-interpretive-tradition-rather-than-church-doctrine/471/

But the last one is good for this topic also.

http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/12/does-mormonism-have-a-theologyies/478/

However, he should not have been teaching such speculation to anyone else as if it was “truth”. That *is* blasphemous in my mind. However, I would be willing to assume he had the best of intentions and simply didn’t understand the difference between his speculations and actual doctrine. This is the very problem that creates creeds in the first place. We Mormons are not immune to the urge.

#2: I like your substitute phrase better than mine.

#3 and #4: I am going to defer to Jennifer Burns on this. I did not suggest that Darwin backed the view of darwinism between races. This is a theory that I’m sure arose after his death and he would have disowned. But it was widely believed in the 19th century according to Burns. Likewise, I’m not suggesting people sat around reading about eugenics. The cultural elite did that and they created the culture that everyone else subscribed to. It’s not much different than today. Ideas permeate a culture and people don’t even know where they come from in most cases. But they don’t think to challenge the ideas either. Cultural assumptions are rarely challenged. You simply grow up believing them.

You make a good point on the Ham and Cain references. I’m sure that played a huge role since such ideas were not challenged back at the time. I should have mentioned that in my article. Then again, it was already dang long.

You should collect all these posts and produce a book! You have obviously thought about these issues at great length.

Several points:

1. One of my mission presidents apparently believed in a physical sexual act between God and Mary. I called him on it as he was teaching it at a mission leadership meeting, and he backed down once he saw at least one other missionary near me was very opposed to the idea as well. Would you consider this to be a fundamentalist doctrine? He was aware of in-vitro fertilization, so I am at a loss as to how to explain his motivation for believing in something so blasphemous, especially if you hold that God already has a wife.

2. I still think that if we substitute the phrase “God’s personal view” for the word “doctrine” it captures nicely how most active LDS use the word. We are encouraged to believe all that the Church teaches, so we assume it’s all “God’s personal view”.

3. De Gobineau, not Darwin, was the first to suggest the existence of inequality between races. Darwin was less interested in the social implications of his ideas that people like Herbert Spencer who appropriated them to justify pure capitalism, opposing safety regulations, child labor laws, etc.

4. I doubt there were more than a handful of 19th century Mormons who had read Darwin, let alone heard of him. 19th century statements justifying the priesthood ban use biblical references to Cain and POGP references to Ham, not eugenics. Eugenics was a pet theory of Eastern intellectuals and didn’t die out until after the Holocaust had been uncovered. Western Mormons simply weren’t imbibing this stuff until the twentieth century…

Not any more that I know of, but some did at one time. Or at least they offered it up as a theory. I haven’t heard any one espouse this theory in a very long time, like since the early 80′s (it died shortly after 1978.) McConkie was the last I heard of to pursue this thinking, but he was asked to remove it from his book “Mormon Doctrine” (and got in trouble for this and other views he pushed.)

But I can’t presume to know what every Mormon in the world believes or doesn’t believe.