Pope Benedict rids the doctrine of Limbo

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't think that does justice to what they believe. On the other hand, they don't claim the pope regularly talks to Christ or angels. Do Mormons claim that about their leaders? (Cite, please.)

They do believe in miracles because that's how they decide who should be a saint, as I understand it.

The Apostles are 'Special' witnesses of Christ. They, as told to me by Richard G. Scott, Jeffrey R. Holland, do not have testimonies of Christ, they know that Christ is real, resurrected, and the God of this Earth.

Anyone else hear something similar during a Mission Conference?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

The Apostles are 'Special' witnesses of Christ. They, as told to me by Richard G. Scott, Jeffrey R. Holland, do not have testimonies of Christ, they know that Christ is real, resurrected, and the God of this Earth.

Anyone else hear something similar during a Mission Conference?

Soon after Elder Nelson was ordained to the Quorum, he spoke to us serving in my mission. One thing he said that I'll never forget was:

"When an Apostle of the Lord says he knows that the Savior lives, he knows he is telling the truth."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't see anything about the division of the spirit world in what MRD tells me is the definitive statement of LDS doctrine. I have no doubt that if for some reason the First Presidency announced there was no division after all that folks like you would say that was policy after all. I am most emphatically not trolling. I do not understand the distinction made between policy and doctrine made by LDS. I think the policy-doctrine dicotomy is just what Pelagius said it was. It's a tautology; circular logic.

As I've stated, this whole debate is impossible precisely because there is no clear, definitive, comprehensive statement of LDS doctrine out there. Grace is a good example. Another good example, is denying priesthood to blacks. Someone could say that was "tradition." Well, my resposne is, why so? Becuase it isn't spelled out anywhere? Assuming it's not so are a lot of other LDS beliefs and sacraments or ordinances people today would tell you are doctrine, i.e., God's imutable words.

I find it ironic that LDS call the denial of priesthood to blacks for all those years "policy" not doctrine, when calling it doctrine would be more mitigating of this apartheid than calling it policy.

I still don't see why it is such an issue for you. Clearly you don't accept the LDS church as being the true church. As a result, of what difference is it to you if members view something as policy versus doctrine?

It could be said that the church was built on revelation. As a result, is it surprising in the least that the church is constantly growing/metamorphosing? The policy/doctrine issue is, certainly, a tautology from an external perspective. So? Does that mean the church can't be true anymore? Of course not. It simply means you don't like that aspect of the church.

Are we as humans ever capable of fully understanding God or His will? If you believe in God, then I would presume the answer to be no, unless He makes it possible. He teaches us line upon line, precept upon precept. Doesn't the very nature of that teaching method require that every single aspect of current "doctrine" is subject to revision in the future?

Are we as humans ever capable of perfectly conveying the word of God, or are we ever capable of completely separating our own human perceptions and experiences from what God would want us to know? I would suggest the answer to that question is also no. As a result, is it surprising that, from time to time, church leaders state something that later turns out to be revised or even incorrect? I would argue it is inevitable, and the church would appear to agree by stating that its leaders are not infallible.

So, to summarize:

1. God reveals things to mankind one piece at a time as a practice. This will result in mankind never fully understanding God or His plan, but doing the best they can with what they have, always growing nearer to God without fully "reaching" God.

2. God reveals things to imperfect humans who can get things wrong as imperfect humans.

Doesn't seem all that shocking to me that there would be a policy/doctrine difference, or that things viewed as doctrine can later be altered.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I still don't see why it is such an issue for you. Clearly you don't accept the LDS church as being the true church. As a result, of what difference is it to you if members view something as policy versus doctrine?

It could be said that the church was built on revelation. As a result, is it surprising in the least that the church is constantly growing/metamorphosing? The policy/doctrine issue is, certainly, a tautology from an external perspective. So? Does that mean the church can't be true anymore? Of course not. It simply means you don't like that aspect of the church.

Are we as humans ever capable of fully understanding God or His will? If you believe in God, then I would presume the answer to be no, unless He makes it possible. He teaches us line upon line, precept upon precept. Doesn't the very nature of that teaching method require that every single aspect of current "doctrine" is subject to revision in the future?

Are we as humans ever capable of perfectly conveying the word of God, or are we ever capable of completely separating our own human perceptions and experiences from what God would want us to know? I would suggest the answer to that question is also no. As a result, is it surprising that, from time to time, church leaders state something that later turns out to be revised or even incorrect? I would argue it is inevitable, and the church would appear to agree by stating that its leaders are not infallible.

So, to summarize:

1. God reveals things to mankind one piece at a time as a practice. This will result in mankind never fully understanding God or His plan, but doing the best they can with what they have, always growing nearer to God without fully "reaching" God.

2. God reveals things to imperfect humans who can get things wrong as imperfect humans.

Doesn't seem all that shocking to me that there would be a policy/doctrine difference, or that things viewed as doctrine can later be altered.

The distinction is sophistry in the way LDS deploy it and and you know it. It is used to rationalize evolving beliefs and explain away some sordid aspects of the past. I think it's great that the beliefs have evolved, invariably for the better. But the proof this disntinction is sophistry is the Church doesn't use it and there isn't even a consensus or articulation as to what the Church's doctrine even is.

Part of the reason these debates arise is the Church leadership's lack of candor about the fact the Church's beliefs have evolved. I lose no respect for a religion whose beliefs change; that has been the norm through history. Your explanation probably works for a believer. What does cause a loss of respect for the institution is the lack of candor, and the consequent dissembling by folks like FARMS.

Why doesn't the Church just say, "We used to believe and teach X about blacks and the priesthood, now we believe and teach Y. The old belief was wrong, and we apologize for the damage it may have caused"? The Catholic Church does that. I submit that doing so would put the LDS Church on a higher moral footing. This is a primary reason a lot of people don't respect the LDS Church as a moral authority as they do the Catholic Church. One telling thing is that 99.99% of the world doesn't give a damn about this issue, but if it were the Catholic Church there would be a constant drum beat that some kind of recognition and atonement is in order.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Why doesn't the Church just say, "We used to believe and teach X about blacks and the priesthood, now we believe and teach Y. The old belief was wrong, and we apologize for the damage it may have caused"? The Catholic Church does that. I submit that doing so would put the LDS Church on a higher moral footing. This is a primary reason a lot of people don't respect the LDS Church as a moral authority as they do the Catholic Church. One telling thing is that 99.99% of the world doesn't give a damn about this issue, but if it were the Catholic Church there would be a constant drum beat that some kind of recognition and atonement is in order.

That's an easy question to answer....

If the church were to admit major error, ie, priesthood and blacks, Adam-God teachings, polygamy, grace, etc, (major points of doctrine for the young church) it would be admitting that prophets, in fact, lead people astray. And you know, from being a member, that that is one thing the Lord will never allow His apostles to do.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The distinction is sophistry in the way LDS deploy it and and you know it. It is used to rationalize evolving beliefs and explain away some sordid aspects of the past. I think it's great that the beliefs have evolved, invariably for the better. But the proof this disntinction is sophistry is the Church doesn't use it and there isn't even a consensus or articulation as to what the Church's doctrine even is.

Part of the reason these debates arise is the Church leadership's lack of candor about the fact the Church's beliefs have evolved. I lose no respect for a religion whose beliefs change; that has been the norm through history. Your explanation probably works for a believer. What does cause a loss of respect for the institution is the lack of candor, and the consequent dissembling by folks like FARMS.

Why doesn't the Church just say, "We used to believe and teach X about blacks and the priesthood, now we believe and teach Y. The old belief was wrong, and we apologize for the damage it may have caused"? The Catholic Church does that. I submit that doing so would put the LDS Church on a higher moral footing. This is a primary reason a lot of people don't respect the LDS Church as a moral authority as they do the Catholic Church. One telling thing is that 99.99% of the world doesn't give a damn about this issue, but if it were the Catholic Church there would be a constant drum beat that some kind of recognition and atonement is in order.

Again, why do you care? If you're not a believer, wouldn't you say that it is irrational to care about what goes on?

Besides, sophistry is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

That's an easy question to answer....

If the church were to admit major error, ie, priesthood and blacks, Adam-God teachings, polygamy, grace, etc, (major points of doctrine for the young church) it would be admitting that prophets, in fact, lead people astray. And you know, from being a member, that that is one thing the Lord will never allow His apostles to do.

But Cali Coug just said that can happen. Whatever. Here's what I do know. If the Church did admit major error and wrongdiong regaring these issues, few if any would apostatize because of such acknowledgement. If they can withstand what they have already, they can get over the trial of an admission of wrong beliefs and practices by the Church. Piece of cake. And the Church would in fact emerge stronger.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

But Cali Coug just said that can happen. Whatever. Here's what I do know. If the Church did admit major error and wrongdiong regaring these issues, few if any would apostatize because of such acknowledgement. If they can withstand what they have already, they can get over the trial of an admission of wrong beliefs and practices by the Church. Piece of cake. And the Church would in fact emerge stronger.

I agree. The church is an extremely ambiguous organization. As I thought during church today, the only real firm doctrinal stance the church takes is that it's the only true church. The leadership and organization has changed. The ceremonies have changed.

In reality an extreme majority people are a part of, and stay in their religion because of where they were born not spiritual experience. So if you believe in God, I think it's probably more prudent to figure out why God put you in a Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim family instead of figuring out why the flesh of men foul things up so much, and what that means.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I agree. The church is an extremely ambiguous organization. As I thought during church today, the only real firm doctrinal stance the church takes is that it's the only true church. The leadership and organization has changed. The ceremonies have changed.

In reality an extreme majority people are a part of, and stay in their religion because of where they were born not spiritual experience. So if you believe in God, I think it's probably more prudent to figure out why God put you in a Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim family instead of figuring out why the flesh of men foul things up so much, and what that means.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7772

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I agree. The church is an extremely ambiguous organization. As I thought during church today, the only real firm doctrinal stance the church takes is that it's the only true church. The leadership and organization has changed. The ceremonies have changed.

The "only real firm doctrinal stance"? Oh brother.

Your hyperbole is as sharp as ever, Fus. Bravo.