Why Policy Reversals Should Strengthen Your Testimony.
Read in Español
Within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there are two constants. First, Doctrine does not change; second, Church policy does change. The big problem here is that many members of the church struggle to understand the differences between doctrines and policies, or they misunderstand how policies are made. These mistakes cause many to have a faith crisis. I hope to address both of these issues, so that policy changes never hurt your testimony, but strengthen it.
Doctrines Never Change.
The doctrines of the church never change, but they are a lot more core than most members realize. For example, many members think that the Word of Wisdom is doctrine; it is not. Instead, the doctrine is that God gives us commandments and laws to live by. One of the laws God gives us is the Law of Health, a law that is adapted to each dispensation. For Adam and Eve, the law of Health was don't eat the fruit of knowledge and good and evil. For Moses' day, it was Kosher guidelines established in the Law of Moses, in our day the Lord established the Word of Wisdom as our Law of Health.
The following is a list of Basic Doctrines of the gospel: (As per ChurchOfJesusChrist.org)
- Godhead
- Plan of salvation
- Atonement of Jesus Christ
- Dispensation, apostasy, and restoration
- Prophets and revelation
- Priesthood and priesthood keys
- Ordinances and covenants
- Marriage and family
- Commandments
“Procedures, programs, the administrative policies, even some matters of organization are subject to change. We are quite free, indeed, quite obliged to alter them from time to time. But the principles, the doctrines, never change”
Boyd K Packer (“Principles,” Ensign, Mar. 1985, 8).
Policies, ever-changing.
Whereas doctrine is never-changing policy is ever-changing. The policies of the church are the prophetic guidelines to the application of the doctrine, and standardization of the organization of the Church. The Church Handbooks are handbooks of policy. For example, it is a doctrine that men need to hold the Priesthood, but it is a policy that they need to be 12 years old to be ordained a deacon. If the intent of the policy, which is to help us live the doctrine, is not happening, then that policy is ripe for change or repeal. But, until it is repealed, it is still Church policy.
How is Policy Set?
Just like doctrine is revealed line by line, so is policy. Having sat in councils where the policy was discussed at a mission level, I gained a testimony of how policy is established, changed, and sometimes completely repealed. Policy changes always are spurred by revelation, but rarely is it the crystal clear revelation that explains every detail of the new policy, in fact, I've never heard of, or experienced that type of revelation before.
Often revelation for policy follows the general pattern for revelation by the Lord. Where it is a directional nudge from the Lord. We understand that there is a problem, and the Lord will frame the problem and sets boundaries of what is acceptable within the plan, but then expects the prophet and apostles to figure out the best way to do it and act. A scriptural example of this is the Brother of Jared in Ether 2:18-25, 3:1-6. In a nutshell, he sought light on the boats the Lord told him that he can't use fire or windows. But then left it up to him to figure out the best way.
Revising Policy.
This pattern being followed means that sometimes the resulting policy does not provide the results wanted and therefore will be repealed and a new policy will be put in place. One of the best examples of this would be the missionary change in 1982. For those unfamiliar with it, here is a readers digest version:
In April 1982 the Church changed the length of missions for Elders from 24 months down to 18. President Hinckley even gave a list of reasons why they thought this was a good policy change (they usually do not give their reasons, but they also have them). But in Nov 1984, just 2 years later, the church announced the complete repeal of the policy at the start of 1985, returning to 24-month missions.
A vital lesson can be taken from this story. Whereas we know that the Prophet will not lead the Church astray (See Offical Declaration 1) the plan does have wiggle room so to speak, which means, that there is not always a correct and wrong answer for church policy. Just like how in our lives sometimes God gives direction and then lets us learn, with the promise the Holy Ghost will warn us before we make a mistake.
Therefore the Church will sometimes introduce a policy after prayer, studies, and counseling, and here is the vital part, and that policy may be 100% within the acceptable terms of the plan of salvation, but if the desired results are not produced, it can be repealed and replaced. (For more on this concept see "Why I Follow A Fallible Prophet, And You Should Too!")
Strengthening Your Testimony.
Whether it is the policy to change missions, refocus on the name of the church, allowing blacks to receive the priesthood, allowing children of LGBTQ parents to get baptized, or any other policy. We can always pray and gain confirmation of the prophets prophetic mantle. And once we know that we can trust that he will always lead the church within the acceptable framework of the Plan of Salvation.
We might not like every policy; in fact, you won't like every policy. But that is the point of the test, will we have the integrity to keep our covenants? If we do then when policies are announced, changed, or repealed we can rejoice in the fact that we do have a living prophet, Christ indeed is the head of His Church, and just like Christ, His Church Lives!
Here are two excellent talks on this topic:
Revelation in a Changing World by Boyd K. Packer
The Gospel and the Church by Elder Ronald E. Poelman
Nicely written. Although I would argue that the revelation on the priesthood was a fulfillment of prophecy and not simply a change in policy.
I agree it was a fulfillment of prophecy as well.
Spot on Kathryn - and I am constantly amazed that so many long standing members don't understand that. I waited for years for the prophecy to be fulfilled that black people would one day be ordained to the Priesthood. I was so excited the day that I heard the announcement.
I have to thank you for this article. This makes so much sense to me now. I struggle to define the line of doctrine and policy and this neatly summed up the differences.
I appreciate insight like this as I wonder sometimes if others have fallen away because they do not study these nuances of the Gospel and what they mean.
Exactly. Making covenants with God is a basic doctrine, how those covenants are administered is policy, so changes to the temple are not only ok, but to be expected.
Wow that is awesomeness I always knew it the Lord's speaks to his servants the prophet just like old Amos 3;7
Interesting article. It’s hard to read with so many typos. Also, check your facts on when mission length was changed back to 24 months. My brother and husband both left in May, 1984 - when missions were still 18 months. I believe it was more than halfway through their 18 month assignment that it was changed back to 24 months and they were given the option of 18 or 24. (Both finished at 18.)
It changed in 1984, It should've read just two years later, not less than two years. It has been updated.
It was stated as 2 years later, from 1982-1984. That would be within that time for your family members. My husband also went at that time.
Just some clarity. The policy change from 18 months to 24 months was announced in November of 1984 effective in January 1 1985.
I remember it well because I came home from my mission in late Oct. 1984 before the policy change was announced.
Thanks for that catch, it has been updated.
Wondering if you can please clarify something for me? In the beginning of the article, you state: "Instead, the doctrine is that God gives us commandments and laws to live by" what you were referencing things such as the Word of Wisdom. You state that the Word of Wisdom is not doctrine. But then, the last item in your list of things that is doctrine you have included: Commandments. So, if commandments IS dicotrine and "God gives us commandments and laws to live by", does that not make the Word of Wisdom doctine by default because it is a commandment and law to live by? Things aren't as easily clear cut as one would like to think.
Doctrine: God gives us commandments, including various laws.
God will always have a law of health.
The policy of what God wants us to do, in our day, for the Law of the Health is always changing. The Word of Wisdom has been the policy (how to live the doctrine) for us. At first it was guidelines, then the policy changed and it became requirements.
Think of it this way.
Doctrine = Through ordinances we enter into covenants with God (baptism, endowment, sealings, etc). This is never changing.
Policy = How we administer the ordinances. This is subject to change. (temple changes, baptisms, and confirmation changes, etc).
These changes in policy, or how we live the doctrine, do not change the fact that the doctrine is that through ordinances we enter into covenants with God.
When was the revelation that changed the Word of Wisdom from guideline to requirement?
Early 1900's here is a great article.
http://www.ldsliving.com/How-Our-View-of-the-Word-of-Wisdom-Has-Changed-from-1833-to-Now/s/84774
@Britney Lee, It falls into the category of policy, as it was first issued as, you might say, a "strongly worded suggestion" in the 1830s, with the Lord and His prophet knowing that alcohol, tobacco and caffeine addictions are hard to kick (My father had serious withdrawal symptoms when he was taken off coffee after his angina took him too close for comfort to a full-blown heart attack), but President Grant then adjusted the policy to mandatory after sufficent time for the Saints to get on board, and in subsequent years it has been interpreted, with cola allowed in moderation. The underlying doctrine is not to do things that harm our bodies, which can change given advances in medicine and hygiene (for example, the prohibition on shellfish and pork in Mosaic Law was because of those foods are not properly cooked or harvested, you run the risk of food-borne illness, such as trichinosis or hepatitis).
Forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden was a "health" law? Ummm. I don't think so. Otherwise some nice thoughts here. Thanks.
Yes, it was. As per Jesus the Christ, James E. Talmage, the Apostle said:
“This, [the Word of Wisdom] like other revelations that have come in the present dispensation, is not wholly new. It is as old as the human race. The principle of the Word of Wisdom was revealed unto Adam. All the essentials of the Word of Wisdom were made known unto him in his immortal state, before he had taken into his body those things that made of it a thing of earth. He was warned against that very practice. He was not told to treat his body as something to be tortured. He was not told to look upon it as the fakir of India has come to look upon his body, or professes to look upon it, as a thing to be utterly condemned; but he was told that he must not take into that body certain things which were there at hand. He was warned that, if he did, his body would lose the power which it then held of living for ever, and that he would become subject to death. It was pointed out to him, as it has been pointed out to you, that there are many good fruits to be plucked, to be eaten, to be enjoyed. We believe in enjoying good food. We think that these good things are given us of God. We believe in getting all the enjoyment out of eating that we can; and, therefore, we should avoid gluttony, and we should avoid extremes in all our habits of eating; and as was told unto Adam, so is it told unto us: Touch not these things, for in the day that thou doest it thy life shall be shortened and thou shalt die.
“Here let me say that therein consisted the fall—the eating of things unfit, the taking into the body of the things that made of that body a thing of earth: and I take this occasion to raise my voice against the false interpretation of scripture, which has been adopted by certain people, and is current in their minds, and is referred to in a hushed and half-secret way, that the fall of man consisted in some offense against the laws of chastity and virtue. Such a doctrine is an abomination. What right have we to turn the scriptures from their proper sense and meaning? What right have we to declare that God meant not what He said? The fall was a natural process, resulting through the incorporation into the bodies of our first parents of the things that came from food unfit, through the violation of the command of God regarding what they should eat. Don’t go around whispering that the fall consisted in the mother of the race losing her chastity and her virtue. It is not true; the human race is not born of fornication. These bodies that are given unto us are given in the way that God has provided. Let it not be said that the patriarch of the race, who stood with the gods before he came here upon the earth, and his equally royal consort, were guilty of any such foul offense. The adoption of that belief has led many to excuse departures from the path of chastity and the path of virtue, by saying that it is the sin of the race, that it is as old as Adam. It was not introduced by Adam. It was not committed by Eve. It was the introduction of the devil and came in order that he might sow the seeds of early death in the bodies of men and women, that the race should degenerate as it has degenerated whenever the laws of virtue and of chastity have been transgressed.
“Our first parents were pure and noble, and when we pass behind the veil we shall perhaps learn something of their high estate, more than we know now. But be it known that they were pure; they were noble. It is true that they disobeyed the law of God, in eating things they were told not to eat; but who amongst you can rise up and condemn?”—From an address by the author at the Eighty-fourth Semiannual Conference of the Church, Oct. 6, 1913; Conference Report, pp. 118, 119.
Jeremy, where can I read more of that Talmage talk?
I don't know, that is all I found in Jesus The Christ's footnote.
Don't eat this or you will die. I'd say that is a pretty clear and simple law of health. It may be other things as well but death is for sure a health issue.
I do social media missionary work with same sex attracted individuals, most of which are members of the Church. Rather than warm acceptance of yesterday's announcement, there was a firestorm of criticism. Your post was helpful and appreciated. I'm hoping the upcoming General Conference will soften many people's hearts.
Thank you very much for posting this. I made in bed awake for hours 2 nights ago when the policy changes were announced. I was thinking about the things I was taught many years ago in seminary class and wanted to write a post that explained this topic. This article has said it more clearly than I think I could have. It can be hard to know the difference between doctrine and policy, especially when policy has been long standing. I believe that’s why we are taught to go home and ponder and study and pray about the things we are taught so the spirit can help us better understand those differences and nuances and come to our own personal testimonies.
I forgot to say in the last example of my former comment, that both when the church decided to dissolve the foreign language units, and when it abandoned such policy, in no case was presented to the church as a new policy and when the practice was abandoned a few years later, it was also done without saying a word on the subject.It is good that we explain the difference between a church policy and a doctrine, but it would be nice to have such explanation before the experience, because as you mentioned, some leave the Church. thank you.
I'm an engineer by profession but, I've been studying public policy, law, and political science as of late. My mom said you sound much like myself. I think you are spot on about church policy and changes. Policies and precept are about the same thing (rules that guide our behaviors and actions - not what defines sin but help us avoid it and grow perfect like unto the father) and Jesus did a good job showing the policy idea with the Bill of Divorcement discussion (marriage discussion - hardness of hard/ precepts). I don't completely understand the view points and best perspective to use in understanding the non-policy side of things. I came to either policy or doctrine, although I suspect there are better ways to analyze the topic. I don't agree with your view of commandments and laws. I suspect that the 2 words have more meaning to us (men) than they do to God. Basic Doctrines of the gospel, is a less accurate description or almost an incorrect description, example commandments, godhead, apostacy. Those Basic Doctrines are somewhat of the gospel but not really (gospel is the good news brought by Jesus. Or the word of a savior. Or a plan of our salvation based on the first principles of the gospel, faith and repentance, not those things that help define our Churches understanding). These are basic Church Doctrine, not basic doctrine of the gospel (although they kind of are, I'd have said that Faith, Repentance, Loving and caring for other are more gospel doctrine and that is doctrine we see Adam and Moses reaching for, not always successfully). I'm just saying that those are core gospel doctrine. I'll admit that they are doctrine. You are trying to force laws and commandments in your explanation. Example, Law of Health. Is it a law of health? Truly? I'm not convinced that is the doctrine behind the Word of Wisdom. I think the idea that our bodies are temples, we are responsible for our bodies and need to be capable of controlling them and bridling passions and urges, including the things that we eat and think. Obedience and Sacrifice are other gospel doctrine that are core to Jesus' gospel.
So many people hyperventilate over seemingly contradictory "reversals" of policy, etc.
They fail to reason correctly on an important truth I call "the Bathtub Principle" of revelation.
Consider a child who needs a bath. His father tells him to go and put the drain plug in and turn the water on. Sometime later, the father gives another direction: Turn off the water to the bathtub. Why would he do that? Don't those two pieces of instruction contradict each other?
The child might not realize that in a sense he is thinking the world is flat. There is another dimension he might not have thought of: Time. It is the right time for some things now, and it may not be the right time for those same things later. We fill the bathtub with water until it is full. Real life has richness and variety and so does the Lord in His infinite wisdom. Our greatest objective is to have faith that the Lord knows what He is doing, and to assist Him boldly and nobly in accomplishing it, without complaining or whining because we can't yet see His purpose in it. The ancient prophets give us a model to follow; they would often say, "I know not [why I do such-and-such], save that the Lord commanded me (But I know that the Lord commanded me and that is good enough!)." We can see some of the fruits today. Those not yet fulfilled will come to similarly astonishing fruition, and we get to participate in that. Thank the Lord!
Two comments in one today:
(1) Your list of basic doctrines seemed a little odd to me.
So I reread it. I see it apparently came from the Church's website.
So I followed the link. It seems that your link has been redirected to a much more Christ-centered presentation. Within that is a link to a set of slides about our core beliefs. I do think the list of core beliefs is very appropriate to our present situation, where the list you quoted was probably more appropriate when you originally posted this.
Policy changes. Policy is not an exact equivalence to implementation of doctrines, but it is not exactly wrong to explain it as such.
The doctrines don't change. But the things we focus on and the ways we explain them do. The Articles of Faith once provided a good coverage of our core doctrines for someone inquiring in the early-to-mid 1800s. The first four of those, particularly the fourth, was a really good summary for a very long time -- referring also to 3rd Nephi 27.
It seems we are now turning more from Jesus' warnings to the wicked towards His pleadings to His believers -- the two great commandments on which all the rest hang.
(2) I must admit, when you present the direction/commandment about the fruit of knowledge of good and evil as a law of health, I also raised my eyebrows.
I'll acknowledge that there is a sense in which it seems to be a law of health, and there seems to be much that can be gained in viewing it as such.
However, I think there are many for whom the analogy will present a bit of a dilemma -- mostly because the Word of Wisdom is often presented as a law or as a general commandment, with the proscriptions on certain substances being the implied teeth thereof.
Now I know that calling Section 89 "The Word of Wisdom" is in itself a bit of vulgar usage (in the linguistic sense). There are many words of wisdom in scripture.
Wisdom is not just about health. Neither is knowledge of good and evil. There is a bit of overlap (Venn diagram-style) between wisdom and knowledge of good and evil. (Talmadge's reassurances that sex is not the fruit are appropriate, but his wording can be misleading in a modern, more global context.)
Adam was advised to wait for further instruction. (Leaving out a lot of stuff,) Eve was prodigious, but she turned her heart to God when called, and was commended by God. Health is definitely an integral concept, but encouraging making the direction/commandment equivalent to a health code may be a cause for concern.
Anyway, thanks for your posts, including this one.
I appreciate this article, but I always have a hang-up with this idea. There have been things in the church that leaders and prophets have declared as doctrine and declared as unchanging that have later been downgraded to policies and then changed. At what point can a doctrine can be downgraded to a policy that is subject to change?
Sorry for the late reply. I have gotten behind on approving comments. Anyways: I don't think it is so much as doctrine being downgraded as a misuse of the word doctrine. A lot of Churches use "doctrine" to apply to any church teaching. And because a lot of what the Church teaches are the principles, policies, and practices that are designed to help us live the doctrines. They get construed to be doctrine itself. It does not help people incorrectly use the label of "doctrine" to rather loosely to mean the teachings of the Church. Even general authorities have and still do this. And the reason it is ok, is because at the end of the day, it is not a vital concept to understand. Helpful, yes, vital no.
Think about how the single word of "Saved/Salvation" is used to man soooooooo many different things.
In the most basic sense saved = saved from death. That salvation is a free gift of God.
A more complete view of salvation means saved from sin aka Spiritual Death. That requires the combination of Grace and works. (Works for the Telesital Kingdom is literally just bending the knee and confessing the tongue, works for the Terrestrial Kingdom is being honorable and good, works for the Celestial Kingdom is keeping your baptismal covenant).
And in the most complete and fullest view of the word Salvation is used as a synonym for Exaltation.
So someone using Salvation to mean saved from death (grace alone) will never agree with someone talking about what is needed for Salvation meaning Exaltation. As they are not event talking about the same thing!
The same applies to how many people use the label "doctrine".
I think I am even more confused then I was when I thought certain things were doctrine. If they are policy, not doctrine, why are we asked if we obey the Word of Wisdom, are a full tithe-payer, etc., when we are being interviewed for recommends or certain callings? Are we not being asked if we follow God's doctrine? They dont ask how long your mission was, or if you became a Deacon at 12. If a commandment is a doctrine, isnt the Word of Wisdom a commandment and therefore, doctrine?
The doctrine is that God gives us commandments. That does not change. The induvial commandments that are applicable to us, do change depending on the dispensation and what the prophets have said.
Perhaps it is better to explain it this way, some commandments are irrevocable, others are subject to only small timeframes of applications. Sacrificing animals no longer applies to us, but it did to prior dispensations. The Word of Wisdom applies to us, as it is for OUR day, but it does not apply to prior dispensations. We are asked about the commandments that the Lord wants to ensure His people are living at this very moment. For years the Word of Wisdom was NOT a recommend question, then the prophets told the leadership of the Church 'It is time for us, as the leaders to live this commandment in the fulness' and then a few years later they then told the general membership of the Church it was time for every saint to live the Word of Wisdom if they wished to enter the temple. Adjusting the temple recommend requirements is the right, and prerogative of the Lord via His prophet.
Doctrines are very limited concepts at the core of the gospel. They do not change. I recommend reading this for the overview of our nine basic doctrines: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/appendix/basic-doctrines?lang=eng
Most excellent in the fullest. Such a great example for us to live by.
Charles Wisdom
Great article. I've always looked at the doctrine/policy issue from the perspective that the doctrine is the bedrock that is firm and immovable. Upon that rests the policies, which is the implementation of the doctrine and can be altered on an as-needed basis (we don't need to have paddles on the end of our spears to dig cat holes anymore, for example).