mercyngrace wrote:After reading the news report, seems like much less of an issue to me.
I think it would be a non-issue for me, but the What is Doctrine article on the front page of this website has prompted us to talk about it at different times. The intent of the article appears to distinguish between firm commandments and principles that are inviolate, and those aspects of our religion which are more flexible and policy-based. Presumably, this would help reduce the angst people feel about every aspect of their experience in the Church being scripted.
So, one reason this is a bit of an issue to some of us at this site is the conditioning and discussions we've had on this point. I personally agree with Cadence above, that in the end, it doesn't matter because doctrine and CHI both create culture together, and many members do not distinguish between the two when deciding what to believe or do.
For me, it has a bit of significance on the subject of tithing. For some time, I believed that the description in the scriptures -- 10% of our INCREASE was the guiding principle, and provided a certain amount of flexibility in its definition. We also discussed the 1970-ish FP letter stating that tithing is 10% of our INCOME, and that letter was deemed as non-doctrinable, to be taken under advisement rather than as a firm command. So, there are SOME implications to some of us about the distinction between doctrine and mere policy that hasn't been formally put to the Church as a form of doctrine. At least, on the issue of tithing, that matters to me. The CHI quotes the 1970's FP letter as the definition of tithing, I believe -- at least, the old one did -- so the statement that the CHI is doctrine removes personal judgment from defining the amount on which one pays their 10%.
See how this could be construed as more relevant than we think on this particular issue (tithing). On other issues, I think the distinction is meaningless, but the Church really emphasizes tithing, so, this has me concerned.