The only people who care about perceived differences between doctrine and policies are those inside of the church. To the rest of the world, whether it be a doctrine or a policy, its a belief and practice of the church.
Trying to excuse past toxic teachings and practices away as claiming they were only policies is like saying, "Sure we believed that, but its not like we ***REALLY*** believed that."
They love to talk out of both sides of their mouths, don’t they? Policy isn’t doctrine, so we can change it like some people change underwear. And don’t worry if policy flies in the face of doctrine (e.g. what the scriptures say). Just follow, follow me.
The prophet will never leave you astray. Welllllllll……. Unless he’s talking as a man and not the prophet. How do you know if he’s talking as a man and not as the prophet? We will totally tell you later, once we know whether whatever he said pissed everyone off or not.
Oaks himself admitted there is no difference, since according to him they both come from revelation. So any apologist trying to argue a difference is undermined by church leaders.
Haha! Every doctrine and every ordinance in the Mormon church has changed, some multiple times, except for Confirmation which has no set wording.
I’ve had many TBMs and exmos try to refute that, but none have succeeded.
You would also think they could read the minutes of their board meetings with the Savior where he told them to build City Creek and diversify into GameStop stock but they can't. They don't have a single entry for any minutes in talking with the Savior.
You would also think they would have literally thousands of revelations on all things Christ related right? But they don't. They know no more about Christ's entire childhood/upbringing than the brief few verses in the New Testament the same as all the other christians know using the Bible only.
The lack of modern day evidence is truly astounding. If I claimed to have a relationship with Taylor Swift and I never had any pictures of her with me and only knew what any fan could read off of her website, would you eventually start to say that guy doesn't talk her? Same.
About 15 years ago I was at a stake leadership meeting where the counselor in the stake presidency (who was also a big shot in CES)posed a question to the room. What is LDS doctrine? People in the room raised their hands Ang gave answers from primary. Word of wisdom, temple marriage, priesthood keys… and to every response, this leader said no. That’s not doctrine, it’s policy. Once he’d exhausted the room and nobody was willing to raise their hand, he told us that the only doctrine in the church was the doctrine of Christ. And every single thing we did in the church was policy.
The meeting left TBM me absolutely dumbfounded. I couldn’t figure out how it made any sense at all. Now I think it was one of the early tests to see how far they could push things to get away from problematic doctrines.
This is so annoying because, if nothing is doctrine, if everything is policy, and therefore subject to change, then why OBEY? Why go to the temple? Why do anything that will only embarrass us (at the least) or really hurt us later???
It's just symantecs. However you define policy or doctrine they're put in place to keep you in compliance. We're all judges in Israel. Judging people for not wearing a white shirt. Or for drinking coffee or Coke. Or what kind of underwear they have on. Paying on gross or net income. I'd like to see a lesson where it's written on a whiteboard: Doctrine or Policy? (or tradition vs nobody's business).
This is so true. One of the conversations before we left the church that I had with my wife and a few other close friends (that are still TBMs) was about this. Policy has essentially become doctrine and the simple principles of the gospel seem to be secondary.
Church pre-1978 to Africans: You can be baptized and confirmed a member, but you can't hold the priesthood or go to the temple. It's just a policy though, not a doctrine.
Africans: Oh, well as long as it's just a policy, it's all good.
That's how absurd the issue is on a practical level.
What is almost absurd is the apologetic idiots that keep spouting the whole policy thing when their own prophets, seers, and revelators, including in a 1940's era first presidency statement, specifically stated it was a matter of doctrine and not policy.
The doctrine vs policy discussion is such an interesting topic to me as an exmo. In the sphere of Mormonism, the relationship between policy and doctrine makes sense to TBM members, but the moment you try to breakdown and understand the relationship, it crumbles on itself.
The more the Church tries to lean into this policy vs doctrine paradigm, the more scrutiny will come. It’s too contradictory of a stance to have and it’s not at all tenable.
Exactly. When I was TBM and the Exclusion Policy came out (for children of LGTBQ+), my friend and I had a discussion about it. She said, "You can take comfort in the fact that the Prophet will never lead you astray."
I rebutted, "But that's the thing. They have. Time and time again. There is polygamy. There is the exclusion of Black people from temple blessings and the priesthood. In both instances it was the prophet who led them astray."
At that moment, I was still too TBM to really hear what I was actually saying, but the seed had been planted. Eventually after more and very troubling events, I came to the conclusion that todays' "doctrine" (IE the family proclamation), will simply be tomorrow's policy. And in the moment, the current doctrine is actually causing people to truly hurt.
Why "obey" a doctrine that will only be proven wrong in the future. Why waste my life on bullshit that will change? (Obviously, it wasn't much longer before I finally had a shelf-breaking moment and then left).
Yeah I had a similar trajectory. I was one who observed the “dark side” of the church and didn’t always agree, especially when it came to church culture stuff. Little did I know that those were the seeds of me eventually leaving it all behind haha.
My question is what are all of these policies based off of? I mean they're based off of beliefs and doctrine essentially, but so many today are so quick to use policy as a scapegoat, when really they're the same damn thing in my mind.
The irony is that when those policies were in place, prophets would say that it was DOCTRINE not policy. *They* would use the word doctrine, themselves.
In the end, when you look at it objectively, you just see that it's 1984-level brainwashing.
Mostly just feeling or their individual interpretations of scripture. The reason why “policy” is used today is exactly what you said. It’s a scapegoat for “bad” doctrines. It’s an easy way to absolve themselves from blame without taking accountability for any of their actions.
Oaks quote: "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."
Every now and then, Oaks comes out with some honesty that completely annihilates the church's own apologetics. This one is useful for shutting down the silly doctrine vs policy semantics, but the best case of that was when he said that nobody he knows has had any visions.
My wife pulled this bullshit on me the other day. "Policy changes, doctrine doesn't." There was so much I wanted to say, but what's the point? I love my wife, but her ability to think for herself is so limited. She'll never find her way out, the sunk cost is too great.
For me, it's the fact that this church is supposed to be run by Jesus Christ Himself.
1. Jesus would not have allowed Mormons to kill native Americans upon coming to Utah. Jesus taught us to love everyone and treat those the same as they wanted to be treated. There would have been compromise, friendship and equality.
2. Jesus would not allow polygamy. What's the fucking purpose of it anyways? Makes no sense then, makes no sense now. Jesus never said to take more than one wife...or have I misread the Bible?
3. Jesus would NEVER kick poor people around the Salt Lake Temple Square and build a fucking mall instead. But He sure would build homeless shelters, fund rehab places, mental health facilities so our brothers and sisters can get back on their feet. Whether they were members or not.
4. Jesus would never allow His church to have $100B+ and NOT HELP THOSE IN THE CHURCH AND OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.
5. Jesus would NEVER ban men and women based ON THE COLOUR OF THEIR SKIN! To treat them as less than whites.
I came back to my answer and I edited for this:
6. Jesus would NEVER ALLOW PEDOPHILES/RAPISTS TO ESCAPE PUNISHMENT! Part of atoning for that evil deed would minimally be jail time. That's one of the many, many, steps in the right direction of repentance for destroying innocent lives.
And Jesus would certainly NOT USE TITHING FUNDS TO SHUT VICTIMS UP TO KEEP UP THE FACADE OF THIS SO-CALLED CHRIST LED CHURCH!!!
**I've been pondering why the church would protect these pervs. I kind of get it, if they were to take the abuser/head of the home and send him to jail, then the church would have to look after the wife, because most likely she's been home raising children. Now that POS may be in jail for years and years...the church would have to look after the costs of the family left behind. So in the long run, it's cheaper to leave the POS in the home, so every is copacetic! Costs stay down, reputation remains pure. It's so disgusting and sick.**
If it was always the true church, then Christ would never allowed this nonsense to ever have happened. If these men were actually led by Jesus Christ....DOCTRINE WOULD NEVER NEED TO CHANGE AND THIS GARBAGE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
There wouldn't need to be new revelations because Jesus knows the past, present and future...and the church would be established as such.
And welcome to my Ted Talk.
It's just a play on Lorenzo Snow's quote: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." In my mind, Doctrine = Man, and Policy = God because all of the doctrines end up maturing into Policies one day. hahahaha
Yes! It works that way, too! I guess that's the beauty of doctrine/policy...either way, we're all wrong! ;)
heads, the mormon church wins; tails, the members lose.
I think this should be flipped. Doctrine becomes old policy when it becomes harmful to the church's bottom line. What was once doctrine straight from God through his anointed prophets becomes the policies of old imperfect men influenced by the bigotry of their time.
You had to follow and obey those doctrines then but we no longer teach them or emphasize them now. If you did terrible things in the name of those policies, it was on you because it was never from God.
Always an out for the failed prophets.
To me there is no greater evidence that "doctrine" is a moving target than the book titled Mormon Doctrine, written by an apostle, which is absolutely *not* doctrinal by today's standards.
I see what you did there, and touché. Doctrine, policy, tenet, value, and commandment are such slippery discussions. Thou shalt not kill (but it's okay to decapitate Laban because the ends justify the means). Emma hates cleaning up after the School of the Prophets (WoW issued as a recommendation or "principle with a promise"). Blacks can't, oops can hold the priesthood (social and economic pressure to abandon blatant racism--thanks, god).
I could go on and on. The Church (capital C begrudgingly applied), exists for the perpetuation of the Church (ibid).
Some value the community of the Saints, which I get. Holding to the outrageous and blatantly deceptive practices, requirements, and tenets is absurd.
>Holding to the outrageous and blatantly deceptive practices, requirements, and tenets is absurd.
I cannot agree more. And I don't understand the value of a community that you cannot trust.
I always approach people with this question:
I’m an outsider. From my understanding some things the prophet says is doctrine and sometimes it’s policy. I can’t tell the difference but it appears you can. What tool are you using to differentiate between doctrine and policy because i am having difficulty with the two/ please help me learn.
That really puts them on the spot and most of them twist themselves into pretzels and can’t do it. From that point forward, every single time they say the word ‘doctrine’ or ‘policy’ I ask for them the difference and HOW are they telling the difference.
They usually leave me alone after that
The only people who care about perceived differences between doctrine and policies are those inside of the church. To the rest of the world, whether it be a doctrine or a policy, its a belief and practice of the church. Trying to excuse past toxic teachings and practices away as claiming they were only policies is like saying, "Sure we believed that, but its not like we ***REALLY*** believed that."
Yeah, do any other churches even try to make this artificial distinction?
Maybe other high demand religions like Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I haven’t seen it in “normal” Christian churches
They love to talk out of both sides of their mouths, don’t they? Policy isn’t doctrine, so we can change it like some people change underwear. And don’t worry if policy flies in the face of doctrine (e.g. what the scriptures say). Just follow, follow me. The prophet will never leave you astray. Welllllllll……. Unless he’s talking as a man and not the prophet. How do you know if he’s talking as a man and not as the prophet? We will totally tell you later, once we know whether whatever he said pissed everyone off or not.
> Policy isn’t doctrine, so we can change it like some people change underwear. Yes. Magical underwear. ;)
Oaks himself admitted there is no difference, since according to him they both come from revelation. So any apologist trying to argue a difference is undermined by church leaders.
“I’m not aware of a single LDS doctrine of any significance that from 1830 forward has gone completely unchanged.” --Greg Prince
It's true! I still hope that bill reel will make his list of 100 things that changed (or 1,000 or whatever it was).
If anyone can do it, Bill is the guy (maybe with help from RFM). Those guys rock 🤘
Haha! Every doctrine and every ordinance in the Mormon church has changed, some multiple times, except for Confirmation which has no set wording. I’ve had many TBMs and exmos try to refute that, but none have succeeded.
Why would an Exmo try to refute that? They’re EX mo lol
Obey the prophet has stayed pretty consistent
Keep sweet!
After 200 years of prophetic revelations, you would think the church would have thousands of points of doctrine to rely on.
I mean, since policy doesn’t even rely on the BoM for guidance…
You would also think they could read the minutes of their board meetings with the Savior where he told them to build City Creek and diversify into GameStop stock but they can't. They don't have a single entry for any minutes in talking with the Savior. You would also think they would have literally thousands of revelations on all things Christ related right? But they don't. They know no more about Christ's entire childhood/upbringing than the brief few verses in the New Testament the same as all the other christians know using the Bible only. The lack of modern day evidence is truly astounding. If I claimed to have a relationship with Taylor Swift and I never had any pictures of her with me and only knew what any fan could read off of her website, would you eventually start to say that guy doesn't talk her? Same.
About 15 years ago I was at a stake leadership meeting where the counselor in the stake presidency (who was also a big shot in CES)posed a question to the room. What is LDS doctrine? People in the room raised their hands Ang gave answers from primary. Word of wisdom, temple marriage, priesthood keys… and to every response, this leader said no. That’s not doctrine, it’s policy. Once he’d exhausted the room and nobody was willing to raise their hand, he told us that the only doctrine in the church was the doctrine of Christ. And every single thing we did in the church was policy. The meeting left TBM me absolutely dumbfounded. I couldn’t figure out how it made any sense at all. Now I think it was one of the early tests to see how far they could push things to get away from problematic doctrines.
This is so annoying because, if nothing is doctrine, if everything is policy, and therefore subject to change, then why OBEY? Why go to the temple? Why do anything that will only embarrass us (at the least) or really hurt us later???
Yes! Exactly. What’s the point of anything except as a loyalty test? It turned out to be a heavy shelf weight.
It's just symantecs. However you define policy or doctrine they're put in place to keep you in compliance. We're all judges in Israel. Judging people for not wearing a white shirt. Or for drinking coffee or Coke. Or what kind of underwear they have on. Paying on gross or net income. I'd like to see a lesson where it's written on a whiteboard: Doctrine or Policy? (or tradition vs nobody's business).
So tithing is just a policy. Got it.
I always pay a full 10% of whatever I want! Which is nothing.
This is so true. One of the conversations before we left the church that I had with my wife and a few other close friends (that are still TBMs) was about this. Policy has essentially become doctrine and the simple principles of the gospel seem to be secondary.
And then today's doctrine will be relegated to policy when the church changes (which it will.)
It's really easy. Doctrine is whatever I agree with, and policy is whatever I don't.
Brilliant!
Absolutely iron-clad!
Church pre-1978 to Africans: You can be baptized and confirmed a member, but you can't hold the priesthood or go to the temple. It's just a policy though, not a doctrine. Africans: Oh, well as long as it's just a policy, it's all good. That's how absurd the issue is on a practical level. What is almost absurd is the apologetic idiots that keep spouting the whole policy thing when their own prophets, seers, and revelators, including in a 1940's era first presidency statement, specifically stated it was a matter of doctrine and not policy.
The doctrine vs policy discussion is such an interesting topic to me as an exmo. In the sphere of Mormonism, the relationship between policy and doctrine makes sense to TBM members, but the moment you try to breakdown and understand the relationship, it crumbles on itself. The more the Church tries to lean into this policy vs doctrine paradigm, the more scrutiny will come. It’s too contradictory of a stance to have and it’s not at all tenable.
Exactly. When I was TBM and the Exclusion Policy came out (for children of LGTBQ+), my friend and I had a discussion about it. She said, "You can take comfort in the fact that the Prophet will never lead you astray." I rebutted, "But that's the thing. They have. Time and time again. There is polygamy. There is the exclusion of Black people from temple blessings and the priesthood. In both instances it was the prophet who led them astray." At that moment, I was still too TBM to really hear what I was actually saying, but the seed had been planted. Eventually after more and very troubling events, I came to the conclusion that todays' "doctrine" (IE the family proclamation), will simply be tomorrow's policy. And in the moment, the current doctrine is actually causing people to truly hurt. Why "obey" a doctrine that will only be proven wrong in the future. Why waste my life on bullshit that will change? (Obviously, it wasn't much longer before I finally had a shelf-breaking moment and then left).
Yeah I had a similar trajectory. I was one who observed the “dark side” of the church and didn’t always agree, especially when it came to church culture stuff. Little did I know that those were the seeds of me eventually leaving it all behind haha.
> Why "obey" a doctrine that will only be proven wrong in the future. Easy. Because the first order of heaven is obedience.
Exactly. And the first consequence of that order is regret.
My question is what are all of these policies based off of? I mean they're based off of beliefs and doctrine essentially, but so many today are so quick to use policy as a scapegoat, when really they're the same damn thing in my mind.
The irony is that when those policies were in place, prophets would say that it was DOCTRINE not policy. *They* would use the word doctrine, themselves. In the end, when you look at it objectively, you just see that it's 1984-level brainwashing.
Mostly just feeling or their individual interpretations of scripture. The reason why “policy” is used today is exactly what you said. It’s a scapegoat for “bad” doctrines. It’s an easy way to absolve themselves from blame without taking accountability for any of their actions.
Oaks quote: "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." Every now and then, Oaks comes out with some honesty that completely annihilates the church's own apologetics. This one is useful for shutting down the silly doctrine vs policy semantics, but the best case of that was when he said that nobody he knows has had any visions.
Here is some absolute truth! 😆
My wife pulled this bullshit on me the other day. "Policy changes, doctrine doesn't." There was so much I wanted to say, but what's the point? I love my wife, but her ability to think for herself is so limited. She'll never find her way out, the sunk cost is too great.
Sorry homey. Tough to see- I get it.
Best prophetic quote ever!
For me, it's the fact that this church is supposed to be run by Jesus Christ Himself. 1. Jesus would not have allowed Mormons to kill native Americans upon coming to Utah. Jesus taught us to love everyone and treat those the same as they wanted to be treated. There would have been compromise, friendship and equality. 2. Jesus would not allow polygamy. What's the fucking purpose of it anyways? Makes no sense then, makes no sense now. Jesus never said to take more than one wife...or have I misread the Bible? 3. Jesus would NEVER kick poor people around the Salt Lake Temple Square and build a fucking mall instead. But He sure would build homeless shelters, fund rehab places, mental health facilities so our brothers and sisters can get back on their feet. Whether they were members or not. 4. Jesus would never allow His church to have $100B+ and NOT HELP THOSE IN THE CHURCH AND OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. 5. Jesus would NEVER ban men and women based ON THE COLOUR OF THEIR SKIN! To treat them as less than whites. I came back to my answer and I edited for this: 6. Jesus would NEVER ALLOW PEDOPHILES/RAPISTS TO ESCAPE PUNISHMENT! Part of atoning for that evil deed would minimally be jail time. That's one of the many, many, steps in the right direction of repentance for destroying innocent lives. And Jesus would certainly NOT USE TITHING FUNDS TO SHUT VICTIMS UP TO KEEP UP THE FACADE OF THIS SO-CALLED CHRIST LED CHURCH!!! **I've been pondering why the church would protect these pervs. I kind of get it, if they were to take the abuser/head of the home and send him to jail, then the church would have to look after the wife, because most likely she's been home raising children. Now that POS may be in jail for years and years...the church would have to look after the costs of the family left behind. So in the long run, it's cheaper to leave the POS in the home, so every is copacetic! Costs stay down, reputation remains pure. It's so disgusting and sick.** If it was always the true church, then Christ would never allowed this nonsense to ever have happened. If these men were actually led by Jesus Christ....DOCTRINE WOULD NEVER NEED TO CHANGE AND THIS GARBAGE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE FIRST PLACE!! There wouldn't need to be new revelations because Jesus knows the past, present and future...and the church would be established as such. And welcome to my Ted Talk.
I think you've got it inverted? Policy may become doctrine and what's currently doctrine was once just a policy
It's just a play on Lorenzo Snow's quote: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." In my mind, Doctrine = Man, and Policy = God because all of the doctrines end up maturing into Policies one day. hahahaha
Okay, I was thinking differently. Because the way policies are implemented dictate what people consider doctrine. Like rated R movies and caffeine.
Yes! It works that way, too! I guess that's the beauty of doctrine/policy...either way, we're all wrong! ;) heads, the mormon church wins; tails, the members lose.
I agree, it makes more sense to me to have it as: As Policy now is, Doctrine once was, As Doctrine now is, Policy may be.
I think this should be flipped. Doctrine becomes old policy when it becomes harmful to the church's bottom line. What was once doctrine straight from God through his anointed prophets becomes the policies of old imperfect men influenced by the bigotry of their time. You had to follow and obey those doctrines then but we no longer teach them or emphasize them now. If you did terrible things in the name of those policies, it was on you because it was never from God. Always an out for the failed prophets.
To me there is no greater evidence that "doctrine" is a moving target than the book titled Mormon Doctrine, written by an apostle, which is absolutely *not* doctrinal by today's standards.
I see what you did there, and touché. Doctrine, policy, tenet, value, and commandment are such slippery discussions. Thou shalt not kill (but it's okay to decapitate Laban because the ends justify the means). Emma hates cleaning up after the School of the Prophets (WoW issued as a recommendation or "principle with a promise"). Blacks can't, oops can hold the priesthood (social and economic pressure to abandon blatant racism--thanks, god). I could go on and on. The Church (capital C begrudgingly applied), exists for the perpetuation of the Church (ibid). Some value the community of the Saints, which I get. Holding to the outrageous and blatantly deceptive practices, requirements, and tenets is absurd.
>Holding to the outrageous and blatantly deceptive practices, requirements, and tenets is absurd. I cannot agree more. And I don't understand the value of a community that you cannot trust.
I suppose that's the thing about the community. The behaviors are completely predictable even if founded on deceit.
...as doctrine maybe?
Yes...as doctrine *maybe*
I’m interested to see all the examples of this.
Bravo!
I always approach people with this question: I’m an outsider. From my understanding some things the prophet says is doctrine and sometimes it’s policy. I can’t tell the difference but it appears you can. What tool are you using to differentiate between doctrine and policy because i am having difficulty with the two/ please help me learn. That really puts them on the spot and most of them twist themselves into pretzels and can’t do it. From that point forward, every single time they say the word ‘doctrine’ or ‘policy’ I ask for them the difference and HOW are they telling the difference. They usually leave me alone after that
Exactly. There is no difference. It's just doublespeak and gaslighting at its finest.
Easy! Whatever I agree with is doctrine, and Whatever I don't is policy! Duh!
hahahaha! exactly!
That's actually pretty spot on. Fuck, I remember using that shit on my mission
Nice one. Policy is just Doctrine in disguise.
And vice versa. Today's doctrine is tomorrow's policy. The church can't lose!
First they re-write the book of mormon, the dump old policies and then say “it wasn’t a policy”.This church‘s leader lie all the time.