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 But, until it is repealed, it is still Church policy.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

Don
Monday 26th of February 2024
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).
Chuck Wisdom
Saturday 1st of July 2023
Most excellent in the fullest. Such a great example for us to live by. Charles Wisdom
Lynne Norris
Wednesday 10th of May 2023
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?
Jeremy
Monday 29th of July 2024
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
Jay
Wednesday 6th of July 2022
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?
Jeremy
Tuesday 12th of March 2024
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".
Joel Rees
Saturday 18th of September 2021
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.