In Theory, In Principle, In Doctrine, In The Law of the Gospel

[Rob Osborn]

Many threads have really brought to my attention the need to understand the basics of knowledge and how so often we misconstrue doctrine into a giant mess. I am reminded of this scripture-

77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.

78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; (D&C 88:77-88)

The bigger problem we have now is that we seem to not even understand what "theory", "principle", and "doctrine" mean. And so things get mighty confusing. I will list the three definitions all taken from Websters 1828 dictionary-

 

Theory: 2. An exposition of the general principles of any science; as the theory of music.

Principle: 7. Tenet; that which is believed, whether truth or not, but which serves as a rule of action or the basis of a system; as the principles of the Stoics, or of the Epicureans.

Doctrine: 1. In a general sense, whatever is taught. Hence, a principle or position in any science; whatever is laid down as true by an instructor or master. The doctrines of the gospel are the principles or truths taught by Christ and his apostles. The doctrines of Plato are the principles which he taught. Hence a doctrine may be true or false; it may be a mere tenet or opinion.

This is the correct definition of these words. Many have confused doctrine to mean only that which is true. Yet, if that were the case then D&C 88:78 would be wrong as it states that even doctrine isnt perfect. Truth is perfect. Therefore, if something isnt perfect then it means it lacks truth or has untruths in it. As per the definitions given a "doctrine" is merely "whatever is taught" and it "may be true or false". Whether we are talking about race and the priesthood or tge three degrees of glory, both are doctrines and both may be true or not or have greater or lesser elements of truth and untruth within them. It is wrong to try to establish "doctrine" as being defined as an unchanging truth. 

But, thats only one part of the equation. You have principles in the gospel that are the basis or tenets of, or that create, the foundation of doctrine. "Principles" are what should be kind of what we believe to be an unchaging truth or point regardless of whether it actually is or isnt. Its what doctrine, or that which we teach hinges off of. We consider principles to be general truths. For instance- the priesthood and its power and authority is a principle. But when you combine it with topics such as race and the priesthood then that becomes a doctrine but not necessarily a principle. The general rule of thumb is that whereas doctrine can change, principle may not change with it, and vice versa- but if principle changes doctrine must change.

Lastly, theory includes the whole set of principles and doctrines in its whole concerning the thought process and application. 

As long as we continue to misunderstand the true definitions of doctrine and principle we will continue to stumble. We are an imperfect people with yet still an imperfect view and practice of our religion. It may be the most correct, its just not "all" correct...yet.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[NeuroTypical]

Good post.  I disagree with the final paragraph, but little else.   

I have to admit, stuff like this is important to understand.  There's no such thing as a "false theory", just a theory proven false.  And you can have "incorrect principles" and "false doctrine".  

I loved my college symbolic logic course.  Where the teacher made us start with some statements (like "all dogs have four legs" and "fred is a four legged cat"), and then we'd spend an entire hour working through a complex proof to arrive at a logically consistent conclusion.  And although the conclusion was logically consistent, and every single step of the way was sound and valid, the conclusion was false.  Because we started with stuff that wasn't true.   "Most dogs have four legs" would be true.  But you can find three-legged dogs.

 

(And yes, "logically consistent", "sound", and "valid" all have specific meanings as well.  Misunderstanding these terms results in you losing arguments online without knowing it.)

Edited May 7, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[wenglund]

23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The bigger problem we have now is that we seem to not even understand what "theory", "principle", and "doctrine" mean. And so things get mighty confusing.

I think a more accurate way of stating this is that the "bigger problem" for you is that many of us don't understand fundamental aspects of the gospel the same way you do, and you assume that your problem with us will be resolved if we would just accept your application of certain relevant definitions of terms--among many, the ones mentioned above.

I say this because we tend not to believe we have a problem with understanding or with confusion, and can have rather productive discussions with each other, with you being one of the more rare exceptions to the rule.

As such, your presumed assumption about how to resolve your "bigger problem" is highly unlikely to work any differently than your myriad failed attempts in the past.

And, while I would wish to help you save your breath and not waste your time, I doubt that you will see it that way. And, so, I will simply wish you all the best in this next attempt, and leave it at that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vort]

20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Misunderstanding these terms results in you losing arguments online without knowing it.

If a man loses an online argument due to logical fallacies but does not recognize his fallacies or his loss, did he really lose?

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

If a man loses an online argument due to logical fallacies but does not recognize his fallacies or his loss, did he really lose?

Depends on whether there were any trees harmed in the process.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

 

The bigger problem we have now is that we seem to not even understand what "theory", "principle", and "doctrine" mean. And so things get mighty confusing. I will list the three definitions all taken from Websters 1828 dictionary-

Not sure why you believe Webster’s 1828 dictionary to be the best reliable source – What does your source say is the proper understanding of “gay”?

 

Also, I believe much of the problems we face in conversing is understanding the term "Gospel".  Obviously, gospel means a lot more than information.  Yet, many seem to be thinking in terms of information and doctrine.  I would remind all that there is a "Law of the Gospel". 

We may gather information about such law - but information or doctrine is separate from the Law itself.  We may be taught concerning the Law through doctrine and information but such is not “the Law”.  In addition, there are “Principles” of the law.  Principles are more important than doctrine and information but principles are not the law. 

Can we come to an agreement that Principles are part of the law but are not the law and that doctrine and information are very different from the law but are attempts to interpret the law and thus can be true or false.  But Principles must be true in order to be a principle of the law.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Not sure why you believe Webster’s 1828 dictionary to be the best reliable source – What does your source say is the proper understanding of “gay”?

 

Also, I believe much of the problems we face in conversing is understanding the term "Gospel".  Obviously, gospel means a lot more than information.  Yet, many seem to be thinking in terms of information and doctrine.  I would remind all that there is a "Law of the Gospel". 

We may gather information about such law - but information or doctrine is separate from the Law itself.  We may be taught concerning the Law through doctrine and information but such is not “the Law”.  In addition, there are “Principles” of the law.  Principles are more important than doctrine and information but principles are not the law. 

Can we come to an agreement that Principles are part of the law but are not the law and that doctrine and information are very different from the law but are attempts to interpret the law and thus can be true or false.  But Principles must be true in order to be a principle of the law.

 

The Traveler

I refer to the Webster's when interpreting scripture as I have found it's the most correct for that task.

I think we are pretty much in agreement with principle and doctrine. I would add though that we place great hope in the belief our principles are true, a belief that they must be true. We must see the wisdom in having the faith something is true all the while recognizing it may be false. The one failing in our church Gospel learning and teaching is we get trapped thinking because we are the true church all of our principles and doctrines we teach are unchangeably true also. But as history has proven, that is not a wise paradigm.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, wenglund said:

I think a more accurate way of stating this is that the "bigger problem" for you is that many of us don't understand fundamental aspects of the gospel the same way you do, and you assume that your problem with us will be resolved if we would just accept your application of certain relevant definitions of terms--among many, the ones mentioned above.

I say this because we tend not to believe we have a problem with understanding or with confusion, and can have rather productive discussions with each other, with you being one of the more rare exceptions to the rule.

As such, your presumed assumption about how to resolve your "bigger problem" is highly unlikely to work any differently than your myriad failed attempts in the past.

And, while I would wish to help you save your breath and not waste your time, I doubt that you will see it that way. And, so, I will simply wish you all the best in this next attempt, and leave it at that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's not really it at all. I'm not really concerned about discussing particular doctrines here and who is right or who is wrong, that's not my point. My point is with the basic logic and mindset we have. I bring up the race and the priesthood as an example because it's got both valid and invalid arguments from both the church side and the critic side and it kind of proves a valid argument that we should be careful with how we apply and definitely principles and doctrine because it can turn into a mess real quickly. For instance, the church may claim it was just "theories" being promoted by various church leaders about the reason why blacks were withheld blessings but the real truth is it was more along the lines of being a "doctrine" as it was a common teaching in the church. Doctrines can come and go with various generations but once you have church leaders repeatedly state opinion it does become a doctrine as people will quote said leader and over time it is accepted as such. It becomes "doctrine" because it becomes what is generally taught and understood. It doesn't matter if it originated from a revelation, opinion, prejudice, etc, it is still a doctrine. But, just because it is considered "doctrine" doesn't make it true. As such, the church refuses to state it ever was a doctrine because they hold to the ideal that "doctrine" is unchanging truth. It's just not the right approach.

[wenglund]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

That's not really it at all. I'm not really concerned about discussing particular doctrines here and who is right or who is wrong, that's not my point. My point is with the basic logic and mindset we have. I bring up the race and the priesthood as an example because it's got both valid and invalid arguments from both the church side and the critic side and it kind of proves a valid argument that we should be careful with how we apply and definitely principles and doctrine because it can turn into a mess real quickly. For instance, the church may claim it was just "theories" being promoted by various church leaders about the reason why blacks were withheld blessings but the real truth is it was more along the lines of being a "doctrine" as it was a common teaching in the church. Doctrines can come and go with various generations but once you have church leaders repeatedly state opinion it does become a doctrine as people will quote said leader and over time it is accepted as such. It becomes "doctrine" because it becomes what is generally taught and understood. It doesn't matter if it originated from a revelation, opinion, prejudice, etc, it is still a doctrine. But, just because it is considered "doctrine" doesn't make it true. As such, the church refuses to state it ever was a doctrine because they hold to the ideal that "doctrine" is unchanging truth. It's just not the right approach.

How is this not boiled down essentially your same old discussion about what you believe constitutes "doctrine?"

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Rob Osborn]

17 minutes ago, wenglund said:

How is this not boiled down essentially your same old discussion about what you believe constitutes "doctrine?"

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

It's a discussion in part about what makes something doctrine and how it's defined. A doctrine is something taught. It may be true or false. For instance, in another thread they were debating if the ban on blacks holding the priesthood due to a racial bias was "doctrine". Yes, technically it was taught and believed by many church leaders in the past. It thus fits the criteria for being a "doctrine". The church however just called it a theory. But, the church was wrong to merely call it theory. It's true there may have been some theories in place to explain the doctrine but it wasn't merely just a theory void of being a doctrine.

 

[zil]

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

It's a discussion in part about what makes something doctrine and how it's defined. A doctrine is something taught. It may be true or false. For instance, in another thread they were debating if the ban on blacks holding the priesthood due to a racial bias was "doctrine". Yes, technically it was taught and believed by many church leaders in the past. It thus fits the criteria for being a "doctrine". The church however just called it a theory. But, the church was wrong to merely call it theory. It's true there may have been some theories in place to explain the doctrine but it wasn't merely just a theory void of being a doctrine.

Clearly, the Church defines doctrine differently from you (and yes, differently from the dictionary).  They aren't the only ones.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The bigger problem we have now is that we seem to not even understand what "theory", "principle", and "doctrine" mean. And so things get mighty confusing. I will list the three definitions all taken from Websters 1828 dictionary-

Rob,

Again and again, you keep cherry picking. While it is necessary to choose a definition communicate a point you're making, that is not a complete method for interpreting the written word.

EXAMPLE:

You stated the definition of "doctrine".  And it is, of course, a correct definition per definition #1 (Webster).  But you ignored additional definitions that my be equally acceptable for interpretive purposes.

Quote

2. The act of teaching.

3. Learning; knowledge.

4. The truths of the gospel in general.

#2 and #3 are not under contention since they fit in with any other definition used by participants here.  But #4 is different in that it is required to be true.  This is the definition most people tend to mean.

I submit that the real meaning that most people mean is something in between which encompasses all four definitions.

Quote

A religious belief which is taught to be true, believed to be true, and accepted to be true by the body of its adherents.

I've stated elsewhere that there will always be some percentage of that which we accept as true in the gospel which will be incorrect simply because our limited mortal minds can't comprehend the whole Eternal picture. I also stated that this is a very small percentage of doctrine and the reason for it is not that what is given to us is wrong, but that our ability to comprehend it correctly is limited.

Your statements and positions are not qualified with the same conditions.  Instead, your declarations are that the Prophets throughout the dispensation have all taught an incorrect belief and that the Doctrine and Covenants itself is a flawed book of scripture.  This is what we have a problem with.

You can believe whatever you want as long as it takes you down the correct path.  And in spite of all my complaints about your beliefs, I don't believe you to be harmed in your path.  The problem I have seen from the beginning is that you're placing yourself above the Prophets and even above a book of scriptural canon.  You sate you love, sustain, and support.  But in your next breath, you say that they've (multiple prophets) been doing it wrong for over 180 years as have the great majority of the body of the saints throughout the same period, and they need to correct themselves to align with your interpretation. 

This is not loving, supporting, and sustaining.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Rob,

Again and again, you keep cherry picking. While it is necessary to choose a definition communicate a point you're making, that is not a complete method for interpreting the written word.

EXAMPLE:

You stated the definition of "doctrine".  And it is, of course, a correct definition per definition #1 (Webster).  But you ignored additional definitions that my be equally acceptable for interpretive purposes.

#2 and #3 are not under contention since they fit in with any other definition used by participants here.  But #4 is different in that it is required to be true.  This is the definition most people tend to mean.

I submit that the real meaning that most people mean is something in between which encompasses all four definitions.

I've stated elsewhere that there will always be some percentage of that which we accept as true in the gospel which will be incorrect simply because our limited mortal minds can't comprehend the whole Eternal picture. I also stated that this is a very small percentage of doctrine and the reason for it is not that what is given to us is wrong, but that our ability to comprehend it correctly is limited.

Your statements and positions are not qualified with the same conditions.  Instead, your declarations are that the Prophets throughout the dispensation have all taught an incorrect belief and that the Doctrine and Covenants itself is a flawed book of scripture.  This is what we have a problem with.

You can believe whatever you want as long as it takes you down the correct path.  And in spite of all my complaints about your beliefs, I don't believe you to be harmed in your path.  The problem I have seen from the beginning is that you're placing yourself above the Prophets and even above a book of scriptural canon.  You sate you love, sustain, and support.  But in your next breath, you say that they've (multiple prophets) been doing it wrong for over 180 years as have the great majority of the body of the saints throughout the same period, and they need to correct themselves to align with your interpretation. 

This is not loving, supporting, and sustaining.

I don't know why you think I place myself above the prophets. All I am doing is taking the available information on a subject and trying to find the correct explanation for it. As this topic pertains to defining "doctrine" I chose the best applicable definition. A "doctrine" in the church is that which we teach. Problems arise however when we wrongly assume that "doctrine" only means "truths" of the Gospel. It's an improper application. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

I don't know why you think I place myself above the prophets. All I am doing is taking the available information on a subject and trying to find the correct explanation for it.

1) You've acknowledged that your interpretation does NOT align with what the Prophets have taught.
2) You've outright said that it is your calling to correct them at some future date.
3) You've been shown that your idea of the three degrees does not align with the D&C, and instead of correcting yourself, you've stated that the D&C is flawed.  To this date, I have not read you even acknowledging this giant hole in your interpretations.

The correct explanation has been provided which is perfectly acceptable to millions of other very well versed, reasoned, and thoughtful individuals who know the gospel just as well as or better than you. And instead of accepting it and admitting that the weakness must be with you, you're trying to correct the Prophet and millions of others.

 

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

As this topic pertains to defining "doctrine" I chose the best applicable definition. A "doctrine" in the church is that which we teach. Problems arise however when we wrongly assume that "doctrine" only means "truths" of the Gospel. It's an improper application. 

And I've addressed that.  You may have missed that paragraph.  If not, please comment on my explanation to continue discussion down that path.  If you don't care to, then admit that was a useless bit of sophistry and start talking about something else.

[The Folk Prophet]

17 hours ago, Vort said:

If a man loses an online argument due to logical fallacies but does not recognize his fallacies or his loss, did he really lose?

Doesn't someone win an online argument when more people in the thread agree with him/her than the other person?

The idea of "winning" and argument online is such a ridiculous thing. Realistically the only way to "win" is for the other person to capitulate and admit they were mistaken. How often does that happen? What typically happens, as I joked above, is that whoever gets more support by the bystanders walks away feeling smug. But no one "wins" the argument.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Clearly, the Church defines doctrine differently from you (and yes, differently from the dictionary).  They aren't the only ones.

The way the church defines doctrine is rather vague. If we understand from the view of the church that "doctrine" means an unchanging truth and only that then it really creates problems such as-

7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils. (D&C 46:7)

Is there unchanging truths the devils teach? That's an oxymoron. "Doctrine" is best defined as a teaching. We can believe either a teaching (doctrine) is true or false. For instance- we believe the doctrine (teachings) of Christ are true whereas we believe the doctrine (teachings) of Satan are false. Does that make sense?

[anatess2]

37 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Doesn't someone win an online argument when more people in the thread agree with him/her than the other person?

The idea of "winning" and argument online is such a ridiculous thing. Realistically the only way to "win" is for the other person to capitulate and admit they were mistaken. How often does that happen? What typically happens, as I joked above, is that whoever gets more support by the bystanders walks away feeling smug. But no one "wins" the argument.

Winning arguments is what trolls do.  Sometimes I get my red banana groove on and troll.  I usually do it when I knew the discussion is going nowhere just to show how ridiculously personal things are getting. 

[Rob Osborn]

51 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

1) You've acknowledged that your interpretation does NOT align with what the Prophets have taught.
2) You've outright said that it is your calling to correct them at some future date.
3) You've been shown that your idea of the three degrees does not align with the D&C, and instead of correcting yourself, you've stated that the D&C is flawed.  To this date, I have not read you even acknowledging this giant hole in your interpretations.

The correct explanation has been provided which is perfectly acceptable to millions of other very well versed, reasoned, and thoughtful individuals who know the gospel just as well as or better than you. And instead of accepting it and admitting that the weakness must be with you, you're trying to correct the Prophet and millions of others.

 

And I've addressed that.  You may have missed that paragraph.  If not, please comment on my explanation to continue discussion down that path.  If you don't care to, then admit that was a useless bit of sophistry and start talking about something else.

Yeah, I'm not here to discuss the particulars the the heavens. Start a new thread if you want to get on that rant. I'm here to discuss the correct meaning and application of "doctrine" and "theory" and "principle".

Read my post to zil on "doctrine".

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, I'm not here to discuss the particulars the the heavens. Start a new thread if you want to get on that rant. I'm here to discuss the correct meaning and application of "doctrine" and "theory" and "principle".

Read my post to zil on "doctrine".

I did.  I'm talking about doctrine.  You've apparently chosen to ignore my comment about it.  Ok.  That's you're choice.

But consider this.  After your vacation, I was impressed by your apology.  I in turn apologized to you.  I was hoping to actually have a real conversation with you.  But your behavior hasn't changed.

I'm not going to force anything on you.  But I really wanted to have a chance at trying to welcome you and engage in reasoned discussion.  But apparently you're more interested in being right than having any sort of discussion.

BTW, I was not talking about the afterlife any more than you were talking about the priesthood ban. I was only talking about your behavior and how you have approached doctrine, scripture, and the consistent statements from prophets.  I thought that was what we were talking about.  You are trying to make that about the afterlife.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I did.  I'm talking about doctrine.  You've apparently chosen to ignore my comment about it.  Ok.  That's you're choice.

But consider this.  After your vacation, I was impressed by your apology.  I in turn apologized to you.  I was hoping to actually have a real conversation with you.  But your behavior hasn't changed.

I'm not going to force anything on you.  But I really wanted to have a chance at trying to welcome you and engage in reasoned discussion.  But apparently you're more interested in being right than having any sort of discussion.

BTW, I was not talking about the afterlife. I was only talking about your behavior and how you have approached doctrine, scripture, and the consistent statements from prophets.  I thought that was what we were talking about.  You brought up the afterlife.

What exactly do you believe is the correct definition of "doctrine"?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

What exactly do you believe is the correct definition of "doctrine"?

Now I KNOW you simply didn't read my posts.  I SPECIFICALLY gave my definition and the reasoning behind it.  And again you ignored it.

Do you even understand the reason why I stopped engaging with you earlier?  It was NOT because I disagreed with your ideas.  Differing ideas are the basis of enlightened discussion.  It was because you simply didn't read.  Then when I went through the extra effort of re-quoting and re-posting, you still didn't read it.

Are you seriously going down the same road?

[wenglund]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

It's a discussion in part about what makes something doctrine and how it's defined. A doctrine is something taught. It may be true or false. For instance, in another thread they were debating if the ban on blacks holding the priesthood due to a racial bias was "doctrine". Yes, technically it was taught and believed by many church leaders in the past. It thus fits the criteria for being a "doctrine". The church however just called it a theory. But, the church was wrong to merely call it theory. It's true there may have been some theories in place to explain the doctrine but it wasn't merely just a theory void of being a doctrine.

 

I have essentially been involved in that  fruitless discussion more times than I care to remember. And, so, I will bow out and wish you well, hoping that this time things will miraculously work out productive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

14 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I refer to the Webster's when interpreting scripture as I have found it's the most correct for that task.

I think we are pretty much in agreement with principle and doctrine. I would add though that we place great hope in the belief our principles are true, a belief that they must be true. We must see the wisdom in having the faith something is true all the while recognizing it may be false. The one failing in our church Gospel learning and teaching is we get trapped thinking because we are the true church all of our principles and doctrines we teach are unchangeably true also. But as history has proven, that is not a wise paradigm.

 

I am skeptical of this particular era – though it was the era of the beginning of the restoration it was also the era of manifest destiny, slavery and genocide of Native Americans.   In essence a best of times and a worst of times.   In general, I am of the mind of Jesus – in that applying the principles in the way one lives and treats others – is the only way, one will come to know the truth of divine principle.   For this reason, I am also skeptical of that one who references scripture exclusively as their means of understanding. 

I believe that the greatest failings of history are those individuals that think themselves “above” those that they (pretend to) serve.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Now I KNOW you simply didn't read my posts.  I SPECIFICALLY gave my definition and the reasoning behind it.  And again you ignored it.

Do you even understand the reason why I stopped engaging with you earlier?  It was NOT because I disagreed with your ideas.  Differing ideas are the basis of enlightened discussion.  It was because you simply didn't read.  Then when I went through the extra effort of re-quoting and re-posting, you still didn't read it.

Are you seriously going down the same road?

You gave some definitions people may agree with. I want your own personal belief. I don't mean to be ignorant or anything. I just would like to hear what your own personal belief is. Give me a good one or two sentences definition of what "you" believe doctrine to mean.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You gave some definitions people may agree with. I want your own personal belief. I don't mean to be ignorant or anything. I just would like to hear what your own personal belief is. Give me a good one or two sentences definition of what "you" believe doctrine to mean.

You really are going down the same road.  Do you not even remember what happened just a couple months ago?  

OK.  Back on the ignore list.  Yeah, that's right.  I literally had you on ignore.  I only read your posts if other people quoted you and made an interesting response.  I was impressed by your apology enough to take you off of that list.  

Back on it again.