Question: Where does the policy-docrine dichotomy come from?

[SeattleUte]

Has the policy-doctrine dichotomy ever been announced by the General Authorities? Is it a creature of the underground Internet LDS Church? Where does it come from? Can anybody even tell me?

Who, for that matter--and I mean who that matters--ever said denying blacks the priesthood was "policy" not doctrine? Where does it come from? Does anybody know?

[ewth8tr]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Has the policy-doctrine dichotomy ever been announced by the General Authorities? Is it a creature of the underground Internet LDS Church? Where does it come from? Can anybody even tell me?

Who, for that matter--and I mean who that matters--ever said denying blacks the priesthood was "policy" not doctrine? Where does it come from? Does anybody know?

It was written about a bit in the David O McKay book (blacks/priesthood) that most of us read a while back, didn't you join in and read it?

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Has the policy-doctrine dichotomy ever been announced by the General Authorities? Is it a creature of the underground Internet LDS Church? Where does it come from? Can anybody even tell me?

Who, for that matter--and I mean who that matters--ever said denying blacks the priesthood was "policy" not doctrine? Where does it come from? Does anybody know?

It was developed by the intellectual crowd here and inspired by your creative attacks of the Church that has many of our testimonies faltering under the daily assault of the great SeattleUte and his minions.

I call them DICKHEADS!

BLAH!

Besides that with a world wide organization with varied cultures wouldn't a distinction between doctrine and policy be intuitive, or perhaps the rest of us are just more inspired by that Heavenly light.....

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

It was developed by the intellectual crowd here and inspired by your creative attacks of the Church that has many of our testimonies faltering under the daily assault of the great SeattleUte and his minions.

I call them DICKHEADS!

BLAH!

Besides that with a world wide organization with varied cultures wouldn't a distinction between doctrine and policy be intuitive, or perhaps the rest of us are just more inspired by that Heavenly light.....

It's a proven fact SeattleUte has never caused anyone to apostatize. Give me one example. You can't.

Your intuitive theory is no way to run a religion; it leads to a slippery slope of homespun dogma. For example, who said the blacks/priesthood thing was policy? Cite? Who said that? That seems to me a fundamental starting place if you're going to convince even Mormons it's policy.

[Archaea]

"Doctrine", a term I hate, equals "canonized." Yet even canon can be changed.

"Policy" is a term of operations within Church culture, which often is used as an explanation to justify operations, even if the real reason is not understood.

The only persons we ever cause to apostasize is ourselves, and perhaps our young, impressionable children.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It's a proven fact SeattleUte has never caused anyone to apostatize. Give me one example. You can't.

If it's proven you should be able to give us the proof. Or, you could simply tell us why you are not a possible threat to cacuse apostasy.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

If it's proven you should be able to give us the proof. Or, you could simply tell us why you are not a possible threat to cacuse apostasy.

I can't prove a negative, as you know. I can tell you I'm unaware of anyone I've caused to apostatize. If I have, I invite the apostate to step forth and identify himself.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I can't prove a negative, as you know. I can tell you I'm unaware of anyone I've caused to apostatize. If I have, I invite the apostate to step forth and identify himself.

I know, I was only pointing out that YOU said it was proven.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Has the policy-doctrine dichotomy ever been announced by the General Authorities? Is it a creature of the underground Internet LDS Church? Where does it come from? Can anybody even tell me?

Who, for that matter--and I mean who that matters--ever said denying blacks the priesthood was "policy" not doctrine? Where does it come from? Does anybody know?

I am not aware of any church authority who has said what you are after. That said, why are you after such a statement? If you got it, you would only then criticize the church for having changed their official position by downgrading it to the level of "policy" anyways.

A primary problem you appear to have with the LDS church is the fact that much of LDS "doctrine" isn't canonized or methodically detailed. Much of LDS doctrine/policy lies in traditions, conference talks, customs, etc. You appear to take the position that methodically writing down every single aspect of LDS belief is necessary. Why?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am not aware of any church authority who has said what you are after. That said, why are you after such a statement? If you got it, you would only then criticize the church for having changed their official position by downgrading it to the level of "policy" anyways.

A primary problem you appear to have with the LDS church is the fact that much of LDS "doctrine" isn't canonized or methodically detailed. Much of LDS doctrine/policy lies in traditions, conference talks, customs, etc. You appear to take the position that methodically writing down every single aspect of LDS belief is necessary. Why?

I have no problem with it. Thank you for articulating this.

I have two issues (and my only aim here is to teach): First, is that those like the original poster in this thread who draw dinstinctions between "policy" and "doctrine" are assuming as a predicate that LDS doctrine is somethign other than it is.

Second, this discussion comes up most often in the context of the blacks and priesthood issue and people use the policy/doctrine dichotomy not only to rationalize about the ever-evolving nature of LDS beliefs, but also as a means to mitigate discrimination against blacks in this context. As I stated, this is a backward way of trying to mitigate that actually leads to the opposite result. But I think there should be a candid acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Again, unlike many here I had the painful experience of teaching this abomination and denying blacks equal membership in the LDS church. I think I am owed an apology as well.