It is easy to find yourself asking just what is doctrine and what is policy. Luckily, the Book of Mormon tells us what is doctrine. It is set forth as what Christ calls “my doctrine” and it is what Christ teaches in 3 Nephi, Chapter 11:
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.”
And, in case there were any questions:
“38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.”
The doctrine seems pretty simple if I’m reading it right, though there are a lot of things that look simple to see, but are complex to apply.
So, that brings up whether or not one has understood the message (and the implied commandments) that Christ had to to with the doctrine.
What does the doctrine require of us? How can we, or other people, tell if we have gotten the message that Christ intends his doctrine to bring to us?
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
John 13:34-35
I think with those three quotes I have the doctrine Christ gives us and the test we can apply to figure out if we have the right understanding of what it means. I think it is consistent with what Christ otherwise had to say. E.g. http://biblehub.com/john/13-34.htm. “I give you a new commandment–to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.”
I would suggest that everything else is policy.
What do you think?
What is doctrine to you, what is policy?
What do you think is the test of whether or not we are disciples of Christ or not?
Do you think Christ was serious when he warned us against confusing doctrine and policy and calling things doctrine that are not?
“What is doctrine?” is a question i have struggled with. I do like your rather simple definition that really limits what is doctrine is. Your verses from John is about where I am at now. All else to me seems a bit like the Pharisees.
If Christ said it it is probably doctrine.
Struggling with what is doctrine seems to be a problem manufactured by the common LDS adoption of the idea that “the doctrine never changes” — apparently a historically false idea at least if one is speaking English and not Mormonese.
From Oxford living dictionary:
doctrine: “belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group”
from Late Middle English: from Old French, from Latin doctrina ‘teaching, learning’, from doctor ‘teacher’, from docere ‘teach’
The cited scriptures are statements of what Christ’s doctrine is. They are not statements of what the LDS church’s doctrine is. (Again, writing in English rather than a Mormonese dialect.)
But why suggest that “everything else is policy”? In Mormonese are “doctrine” and “policy” exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories of teaching?
Policy is variable implementation or a program for specific instances or times.
So. Catfish are not to be eaten—a policy.
The difference is in the amount of change to expect.
Doctrine is anything stated by church leaders until it changes. Then it’s policy.
Stephen, Are you suggesting, e.g., that D&C 132 (current edition) and the contrary D&C 101 (1835-1876 editions) are comparable to not eating catfish and that neither is “doctrine” of Christ?
I’m suggesting that Abraham didn’t have a home teaching companion (and now, neither do we) and that so many things we think of as absolutes are not.
God speaks to us but we only hear what our knowledge, language and experience allows us to hear and in accordance with our own needs.
Think of the lawyers calling Christ out on the way he taught about divorce and his response.
Or what Deacons (and the Deaconesses in the Bible) do at different times.
What about 3 Nephi 27:13 et seq? Although he says “gospel,” do we exclude other things modern revelation has provided, such as temple ordinances? Robert Millet once wrote an interesting piece to CES types on doctrine (google Millet and What is our doctrine) He provides great insight, but in the end, I wasn’t left with any definitive answer. Even the Sunday School manual for new and returning members is labeled “Gospel Principles,”, not Gospel Doctrine. I would posit that very few things are doctrine, and they all revolve around the saving ordinances. “Love” to me is great, but it’s just an invitation for litigation. It’s too subjective to simply “love” someone. Is that love unconditional, conditional, familial, spousal, charitable, or what? Is it “tough love” when encouraging someone to repent? Anyway, as much as I love scripture, I like modern revelation better. It also sounds like baptism is the end all of doctrine, with no need for any further. Forget the beatitudes and other admonitions of Christ. Get baptized and you’re done. I don’t think that jives with other teachings.
Stephen; I can’t tell you how much I like and appreciate this post. This post opened up a new level of understanding of the Gospel. Thank you.
Your question, “What do you think is the test of whether or not we are disciples of Christ or not?”
And verse 38 above: “ And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child…”
And marry that with Mosiah 3:18-19: to help understand what it means to become a little child.
“18 For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.
19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.”
And even in the temple there is a reference to one becoming “as a little child” which opens a whole different understanding for me on the subject. There is so much wrapped up in this simple phrase, so much deeper, a source for much future study.
So thanks again for leading me (with the help of the Holy Ghost) to this spiritual feast which I have enjoyed this day.
A commentary posted at the Newsroom in 2007, “Approaching Mormon Doctrine,” outlines essentially a three-level categorization of doctrine: core doctrines, peripheral doctrines, and stuff that isn’t doctrine at all:
In a nutshell: (1) “Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine”; and (2) “Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines.”
Of course, no two leaders or members would actually agree on what goes into a list of core doctrines, what are peripheral doctrines, and what is not doctrine at all (speculation, cultural beliefs, politics, folklore, and all the other stuff talked about in church every Sunday).
“The central, saving doctrine is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of humankind; that He lived, taught, healed, suffered, and died for our sins; and that He rose from the dead the third day with a glorious, immortal, resurrected body (see 1 Corinthians 15:1–3; D&C 76:40–42). It was the Prophet Joseph Smith who spoke of these central truths as the “fundamental principles” of our religion to which all other doctrines are but appendages.[3] President Boyd K. Packer observed: “Truth, glorious truth, proclaims there is . . . a Mediator. . . . Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice. This truth is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them.”[4]”
Thank You Scott and IDIAT.
My own understanding of this has been greatly enhanced by a section of Elder David A. Bednar’s book, Increase in Learning (Deseret Book, 2011, pp. 151-172)
Elder Bednar suggests “The framework of doctrines, principles, and applications is a flexible tool that can be used to enhance our gospel learning.”
He provides these definitions:
“A Gospel doctrine is a truth – a truth of salvation revealed by a loving Heavenly Father. Gospel doctrines are eternal, do not change, and pertain to the eternal progression and exaltation of Heavenly Father’s sons and daughters…The core doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ are relatively few in number. Gospel doctrines answer the question of why?”
“A Gospel principle is a doctrinally based guideline for the righteous exercise of moral agency. Principles are subsets or components of broader gospel truths. Principles provide direction. Correct principles always are based upon and arise from doctrines, do not change, and answer the question of what?”
“Applications are the actual behaviors, action steps, practices, or procedures by which gospel doctrines and principles are enacted in our lives. Whereas doctrines and principles do not change, applications appropriately can vary according to needs and circumstances. Applications answer the question of how?”
He describes the process of figuring out the distinctions and connections between doctrines, principles, and applications as “messy”, but spiritually rewarding. He also provides this complicating clarification: “What appears to be a doctrine in one example may legitimately be considered to be a principle in another illustration – or a principle as an application. Doctrines, principles, and applications are not discrete, separate, and unrelated truths… they are often overlapping and interrelated truths.”
As an example:
Doctrine: Priesthood is the delegated power and authority of God to perform ordinances and bless the human family. (This is not explicit in the 3 Nephi 11 quotation, but implied by “baptism”.
Principle: Holders of the priesthood are organized into quorums.
Application: The restructuring of Melchizedek priesthood quorums at the ward and stake level announced in April 2018 conference represent a policy change. This was a significant administrative change, but not a doctrinal one, though it did “grow out of” the doctrines.
I kind of struggle with the idea that anything beyond the two great commandments is doctrine. I’ll just stick to those, thanks.
If by “doctrine” one means principles held to be unchangeable [certainly not the general English meaning of the word], then I rather like the doctrine of Cody. Implementation is another matter — either of the spirit, the circumstances, or “policy.”
We had a lesson about Deborah the prophet a couple of weeks ago. The writers of the lesson could not bring themselves to say Deborah was a prophet even though the scripture does.
The Lord could not call Deborah to be a prophet in the mormon church. The same people who could not say Deborah was Gods prophet, in the lesson manual, along with the doctrine on who can hold the priesthood, and the method of calling the prophet, all prevent it.
The place of women in the world has become closer to ” all being alike unto God” but we have “doctrine” that would prevent the Lord calling Debotah as a mormon prophet.
Wheat & Tares 
“What is doctrine?” is a question i have struggled with. I do like your rather simple definition that really limits what is doctrine is. Your verses from John is about where I am at now. All else to me seems a bit like the Pharisees.
If Christ said it it is probably doctrine.
Struggling with what is doctrine seems to be a problem manufactured by the common LDS adoption of the idea that “the doctrine never changes” — apparently a historically false idea at least if one is speaking English and not Mormonese.
From Oxford living dictionary:
doctrine: “belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group”
from Late Middle English: from Old French, from Latin doctrina ‘teaching, learning’, from doctor ‘teacher’, from docere ‘teach’
The cited scriptures are statements of what Christ’s doctrine is. They are not statements of what the LDS church’s doctrine is. (Again, writing in English rather than a Mormonese dialect.)
But why suggest that “everything else is policy”? In Mormonese are “doctrine” and “policy” exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories of teaching?
Policy is variable implementation or a program for specific instances or times.
So. Catfish are not to be eaten—a policy.
The difference is in the amount of change to expect.
Doctrine is anything stated by church leaders until it changes. Then it’s policy.
Stephen, Are you suggesting, e.g., that D&C 132 (current edition) and the contrary D&C 101 (1835-1876 editions) are comparable to not eating catfish and that neither is “doctrine” of Christ?
I’m suggesting that Abraham didn’t have a home teaching companion (and now, neither do we) and that so many things we think of as absolutes are not.
God speaks to us but we only hear what our knowledge, language and experience allows us to hear and in accordance with our own needs.
Think of the lawyers calling Christ out on the way he taught about divorce and his response.
Or what Deacons (and the Deaconesses in the Bible) do at different times.
What about 3 Nephi 27:13 et seq? Although he says “gospel,” do we exclude other things modern revelation has provided, such as temple ordinances? Robert Millet once wrote an interesting piece to CES types on doctrine (google Millet and What is our doctrine) He provides great insight, but in the end, I wasn’t left with any definitive answer. Even the Sunday School manual for new and returning members is labeled “Gospel Principles,”, not Gospel Doctrine. I would posit that very few things are doctrine, and they all revolve around the saving ordinances. “Love” to me is great, but it’s just an invitation for litigation. It’s too subjective to simply “love” someone. Is that love unconditional, conditional, familial, spousal, charitable, or what? Is it “tough love” when encouraging someone to repent? Anyway, as much as I love scripture, I like modern revelation better. It also sounds like baptism is the end all of doctrine, with no need for any further. Forget the beatitudes and other admonitions of Christ. Get baptized and you’re done. I don’t think that jives with other teachings.
Stephen; I can’t tell you how much I like and appreciate this post. This post opened up a new level of understanding of the Gospel. Thank you.
Your question, “What do you think is the test of whether or not we are disciples of Christ or not?”
And verse 38 above: “ And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child…”
And marry that with Mosiah 3:18-19: to help understand what it means to become a little child.
“18 For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.
19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.”
And even in the temple there is a reference to one becoming “as a little child” which opens a whole different understanding for me on the subject. There is so much wrapped up in this simple phrase, so much deeper, a source for much future study.
So thanks again for leading me (with the help of the Holy Ghost) to this spiritual feast which I have enjoyed this day.
A commentary posted at the Newsroom in 2007, “Approaching Mormon Doctrine,” outlines essentially a three-level categorization of doctrine: core doctrines, peripheral doctrines, and stuff that isn’t doctrine at all:
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine
In a nutshell: (1) “Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine”; and (2) “Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines.”
Of course, no two leaders or members would actually agree on what goes into a list of core doctrines, what are peripheral doctrines, and what is not doctrine at all (speculation, cultural beliefs, politics, folklore, and all the other stuff talked about in church every Sunday).
https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-4-number-3-2003/what-our-doctrine
“The central, saving doctrine is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of humankind; that He lived, taught, healed, suffered, and died for our sins; and that He rose from the dead the third day with a glorious, immortal, resurrected body (see 1 Corinthians 15:1–3; D&C 76:40–42). It was the Prophet Joseph Smith who spoke of these central truths as the “fundamental principles” of our religion to which all other doctrines are but appendages.[3] President Boyd K. Packer observed: “Truth, glorious truth, proclaims there is . . . a Mediator. . . . Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice. This truth is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them.”[4]”
Thank You Scott and IDIAT.
My own understanding of this has been greatly enhanced by a section of Elder David A. Bednar’s book, Increase in Learning (Deseret Book, 2011, pp. 151-172)
Elder Bednar suggests “The framework of doctrines, principles, and applications is a flexible tool that can be used to enhance our gospel learning.”
He provides these definitions:
“A Gospel doctrine is a truth – a truth of salvation revealed by a loving Heavenly Father. Gospel doctrines are eternal, do not change, and pertain to the eternal progression and exaltation of Heavenly Father’s sons and daughters…The core doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ are relatively few in number. Gospel doctrines answer the question of why?”
“A Gospel principle is a doctrinally based guideline for the righteous exercise of moral agency. Principles are subsets or components of broader gospel truths. Principles provide direction. Correct principles always are based upon and arise from doctrines, do not change, and answer the question of what?”
“Applications are the actual behaviors, action steps, practices, or procedures by which gospel doctrines and principles are enacted in our lives. Whereas doctrines and principles do not change, applications appropriately can vary according to needs and circumstances. Applications answer the question of how?”
He describes the process of figuring out the distinctions and connections between doctrines, principles, and applications as “messy”, but spiritually rewarding. He also provides this complicating clarification: “What appears to be a doctrine in one example may legitimately be considered to be a principle in another illustration – or a principle as an application. Doctrines, principles, and applications are not discrete, separate, and unrelated truths… they are often overlapping and interrelated truths.”
As an example:
Doctrine: Priesthood is the delegated power and authority of God to perform ordinances and bless the human family. (This is not explicit in the 3 Nephi 11 quotation, but implied by “baptism”.
Principle: Holders of the priesthood are organized into quorums.
Application: The restructuring of Melchizedek priesthood quorums at the ward and stake level announced in April 2018 conference represent a policy change. This was a significant administrative change, but not a doctrinal one, though it did “grow out of” the doctrines.
I kind of struggle with the idea that anything beyond the two great commandments is doctrine. I’ll just stick to those, thanks.
If by “doctrine” one means principles held to be unchangeable [certainly not the general English meaning of the word], then I rather like the doctrine of Cody. Implementation is another matter — either of the spirit, the circumstances, or “policy.”
We had a lesson about Deborah the prophet a couple of weeks ago. The writers of the lesson could not bring themselves to say Deborah was a prophet even though the scripture does.
The Lord could not call Deborah to be a prophet in the mormon church. The same people who could not say Deborah was Gods prophet, in the lesson manual, along with the doctrine on who can hold the priesthood, and the method of calling the prophet, all prevent it.
The place of women in the world has become closer to ” all being alike unto God” but we have “doctrine” that would prevent the Lord calling Debotah as a mormon prophet.
Is it doctrine, or policy?