Pope Benedict rids the doctrine of Limbo

[ute4ever]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070420/...ope_limbo_dc_2

The Catholic church's International Theological Commission felt the teaching of limbo was an "unduly restrictive view of salvation" that warranted dismissal.

So it's gone.

Here is my question, and it is not to bash the Catholics:

The LDS church has made several policy changes over the years, such as abolishing polygamy, altering the dialogue in the temple endowment, and allowing gays to attend BYU.

But have there been many changes to fundamental doctrinal beliefs concerning the plan of salvation?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

[url]The LDS church has made several policy changes over the years, such as abolishing polygamy, altering the dialogue in the temple endowment, and allowing gays to attend BYU.

But have there been many changes to fundamental doctrinal beliefs concerning the plan of salvation?

LOUL (laughing uproarously loud)

There are a few you left out, by the way.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

[url]
But have there been many changes to fundamental doctrinal beliefs concerning the plan of salvation?

I think this depends almost entirely on how you define doctrine. My sense is that many members define doctrine in such as way that the above statement is almost tautological. They basically define doctrine as, “immutable truth of God.” (I Think this is how Elder Packer often uses the term). Thus if anything changes it wasn't really doctrine.

[SeattleUte]

Here's a question for you. Does the LDS church even have doctrine per se, or is it just a mish mash of ever fluid, orally transmitted and contradictory lore? I think the very question you pose answers this question resoundingly as the latter.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I think this depends almost entirely on how you define doctrine. My sense is that many members define doctrine in such as way that the above statement is almost tautological. They basically define doctrine as, “immutable truth of God.” (I Think this is how Elder Packer often uses the term). Thus if anything changes it wasn't really doctrine.

I don't believe we believe in a creed or something immutable, because there may be no such thing as one immutable truth.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Here's a question for you. Does the LDS church even have doctrine per se, or is it just a mish mash of ever fluid, orally transmitted and contradictory lore? I think the very question you pose answers this question resoundingly as the latter.

It has a doctrine, but I think it is best to think about LDS doctrine as a normally distributed random variable with mean = mu and standard deviation equal to sigma. As long as you are within maybe one standard deviation of mu, then your belief is consistent with LDS doctrine. For some topics the sigma is large and for some topics sigma is very close to zero.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't believe we believe in a creed or something immutable, because there may be no such thing as one immutable truth.

I agree with you, but don't you think many members use the word doctrine as “immutable truth of God?”

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I agree with you, but don't you think many members use the word doctrine as “immutable truth of God?”

Absolutely. I've tried to probe on CB with questions about imperfections and incompleteness of language, invoking the typical, God is perfect and so are his prophets type responses.

Because our minds are so limited and because human language is so imprecise, it is impossible in my mind for even a perfect being to articulate an immutable truth in the human tongue. And the cosmos may be such that all truth is temporary and relative.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Thus if anything changes it wasn't really doctrine.

Excellent. Or, as Ute4ever would put it, if the Catholic Church changes it, it was doctrine, but if the Mormon Church changes it, it was policy.

From the article apparently Benedict calls Limbo a "tradition."

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Excellent. Or, as Ute4ever would put it, if the Catholic Church changes it, it was doctrine, but if the Mormon Church changes it, it was policy.

From the article apparently Benedict calls Limbo a "tradition."

Of course, if you define LDS doctrine as authorized or authoritative teachings, then it is clear they do change. I think the classic example of this is the practice of rebaptism in the 19th century. For example, Brigham Young and the apostles were rebaptized when they reached the Salt Lake valley. Ex post, many will argue that it wasn't really a doctrine just a practice since it changed. However, I just don't see how someone gets around the idea that it was an "authoritative teaching" at the time it was practiced.

Another good example is the fact the woman could anoint and lay their hands on the sick to give a blessing until I believe the early 1950s.