Pope Benedict rids the doctrine of Limbo

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

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.

Doctrine is comprised of leadership, organization and ceremonies? That's news to me.

When we can pray to Mary for forgiveness of our sins or something like that, then let's talk about doctrinal changes.

[RockyBalboa]

Well it's good to know that once again in a religious thread, weaving my way through the thorns of the apostates, that RockyBalboa is once again the conscience of Cougarguard.

You know something funny is going on when even some of the staunchest board liberals on here have their bullshit meter on high.

[Cali Coug]

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.

Sophistry? Let's drop the hyperbole for a moment here.

Your position is self-contradictory. On the one hand, you blast the church for not having any announced doctrine. On the other hand, you blast the members for making up distinctions between doctrine and policy. If the church hasn't made its doctrine clear, as you argue, then what is the sophistry in the membership trying to determine what is doctrine and what isn't? Aren't they, in fact, informally doing EXACTLY what you are asking the church to do?

The reason the Catholic church is viewed as a Western moral authority has nothing to do with your argument. It has everything to do with the fact that they have about 1.1 billion members, and the reason the LDS church is not viewed by the general Western public as a moral authority is because they have about 13 million.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sophistry? Let's drop the hyperbole for a moment here.

Your position is self-contradictory. On the one hand, you blast the church for not having any announced doctrine. On the other hand, you blast the members for making up distinctions between doctrine and policy. If the church hasn't made its doctrine clear, as you argue, then what is the sophistry in the membership trying to determine what is doctrine and what isn't? Aren't they, in fact, informally doing EXACTLY what you are asking the church to do?

The reason the Catholic church is viewed as a Western moral authority has nothing to do with your argument. It has everything to do with the fact that they have about 1.1 billion members, and the reason the LDS church is not viewed by the general Western public as a moral authority is because they have about 13 million.

The last paragraph should be your first.

Yes, a religion claiming one sixth of the world's population will be taken seriously. A religion claiming one sixth hundredth will not.

Seattle claims he is not trolling, but when he resorts to loaded terminology such as "sophistry", then it sure sounds as if he's loading the post to get a rise. That term is heavy-handed and inaccurate.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The last paragraph should be your first.

Yes, a religion claiming one sixth of the world's population will be taken seriously. A religion claiming one sixth hundredth will not.

Seattle claims he is not trolling, but when he resorts to loaded terminology such as "sophistry", then it sure sounds as if he's loading the post to get a rise. That term is heavy-handed and inaccurate.

Slipping terms like sophistry is why using terms like "anti-Mormon" and "apostate" may not be that far off the mark when describing Seattle.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sophistry? Let's drop the hyperbole for a moment here.

Your position is self-contradictory. On the one hand, you blast the church for not having any announced doctrine. On the other hand, you blast the members for making up distinctions between doctrine and policy. If the church hasn't made its doctrine clear, as you argue, then what is the sophistry in the membership trying to determine what is doctrine and what isn't? Aren't they, in fact, informally doing EXACTLY what you are asking the church to do?

The reason the Catholic church is viewed as a Western moral authority has nothing to do with your argument. It has everything to do with the fact that they have about 1.1 billion members, and the reason the LDS church is not viewed by the general Western public as a moral authority is because they have about 13 million.

McConkie, and others, articulated rationales for denying blacks the priesthood that can only be categorized as doctrine--that they were fence sitters in the pre-existence, etc. Is this not doctrine? Webster's defines "doctrine" in relevant part as, "something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA"

But, okay, let's assume it's policy. Here's the unacknowledged implication of what those that espouse policy are saying: There was no divine source for the practice, no nexus to the plan of salvation. The Church's leaders were simply racist. They were like the practitioners of Jim Crow, or apartheid in South Africa. A further implicaton is that doctrinal justifications proffered by McConkie and others were false creeds offered to explain what was just a policy akin to Jim Crow.

Again, the problem with this whole discussion is that--ironically, for a religion that claims to have a direct pipline to God--we don't know where any of this comes from, not McConke's nonsese, not the "policy," not even the policy-doctrine distinction itself as applied to the priesthood ban.

I propose that we should do is just talk about "beliefs" and dispense with the distinction altogether because it's meaningless and has been proffered in bad faith. Of course I criticize members who assert the policy-doctrine distinction to absolve the Church of wrongdoing, even if what they are really doing is condemning the church of deliberate racism pure and simple; I think that is a worse condemnation than erroneously teaching a false doctrine that men of distincton allowed to creep into the fold. I have the same expecation of members as I do of the Chuch--to articulate that the doctrine, policy, pratice, whatever it was, was wrong, and thoroughly regrettable, rather than engaging the smoke screen that is the policy-doctrine debate.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

McConkie, and others, articulated rationales for denying blacks the priesthood that can only be categorized as doctrine--that they were fence sitters in the pre-existence, etc. Is this not doctrine? Webster's defines "doctrine" in relevant part as, "something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA"

But, okay, let's assume it's policy. Here's the unacknowledged implication of what those that espouse policy are saying: There was no divine source for the practice, no nexus to the plan of salvation. The Church's leaders were simply racist. They were like the practitioners of Jim Crow, or apartheid in South Africa. A further implicaton is that doctrinal justifications proffered by McConkie and others were false creeds offered to explain what was just a policy akin to Jim Crow.

Again, the problem with this whole discussion is that--ironically, for a religion that claims to have a direct pipline to God--we don't know where any of this comes from, not McConke's nonsese, not the "policy," not even the policy-doctrine distinction itself as applied to the priesthood ban.

I propose that we should do is just talk about "beliefs" and dispense with the distinction altogether because it's meaningless and has been proffered in bad faith. Of course I criticize members who assert the policy-doctrine distinction to absolve the Church of wrongdoing, even if what they are really doing is condemning the church of deliberate racism pure and simple; I think that is a worse condemnation than erroneously teaching a false doctrine that men of distincton allowed to creep into the fold. I have the same expecation of members as I do of the Chuch--to articulate that the doctrine, policy, pratice, whatever it was, was wrong, and thoroughly regrettable, rather than engaging the smoke screen that is the policy-doctrine debate.

There is some appeal to your notion, that leadership acknowledge a wrong teaching as wrong. That would be a good thing. Given the history of isolation and persecution, I believe your approach is unsophisticated and naive, to expect it.

Now, for you as a disbeliever, it is easy for you to ascribe nefarious purposes to leadership, when in fact well-meaning people are capable of making honest mistakes. You fail to acknowledge that possibility. That shows a lack of intellectual and cultural sophistication on your part.

The problem the mistakes pose for believers is a glimpse into the nature of how God works. He does not dictate word for word the operations of the Church. For me, the "mistake" is valuable as an insight into how God works with his people. He is more Deistic than interventionistic.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

McConkie, and others, articulated rationales for denying blacks the priesthood that can only be categorized as doctrine--that they were fence sitters in the pre-existence, etc. Is this not doctrine? Webster's defines "doctrine" in relevant part as, "something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA"

But, okay, let's assume it's policy. Here's the unacknowledged implication of what those that espouse policy are saying: There was no divine source for the practice, no nexus to the plan of salvation. The Church's leaders were simply racist. They were like the practitioners of Jim Crow, or apartheid in South Africa. A further implicaton is that doctrinal justifications proffered by McConkie and others were false creeds offered to explain what was just a policy akin to Jim Crow.

Again, the problem with this whole discussion is that--ironically, for a religion that claims to have a direct pipline to God--we don't know where any of this comes from, not McConke's nonsese, not the "policy," not even the policy-doctrine distinction itself as applied to the priesthood ban.

I propose that we should do is just talk about "beliefs" and dispense with the distinction altogether because it's meaningless and has been proffered in bad faith. Of course I criticize members who assert the policy-doctrine distinction to absolve the Church of wrongdoing, even if what they are really doing is condemning the church of deliberate racism pure and simple; I think that is a worse condemnation than erroneously teaching a false doctrine that men of distincton allowed to creep into the fold. I have the same expecation of members as I do of the Chuch--to articulate that the doctrine, policy, pratice, whatever it was, was wrong, and thoroughly regrettable, rather than engaging the smoke screen that is the policy-doctrine debate.

Who says the distinction absovles the leadership of anything? Certainly I have never said that. In fact, as you noted, the policy/doctrine issue only opens the leadership up to criticism for propogating poor policy. Go back and read my posts on blacks and the priesthood. I think you will find it pretty clear that I have been critical of the leadership for that stance.

If you want accountability, it comes easier with a policy/doctrine position. If everything is doctrine, who is "accountable?" There wouldn't have been an error to begin with because it would have come from God, presumably. If it was policy, it came from man and is subject to criticism. You are arguing for accountability while arguing against a method that brings further accountability.

And please, please don't pretend that you think everything BRM ever said was doctrine.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And please, please don't pretend that you think everything BRM ever said was doctrine.

I don't know. Do you? Who knows?

I do know this. When I was a kid and through my mission McConkie had cult hero status, more than anything else for his perceived knowledge and wisdom and articulation as to docutrinal matters.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you want accountability, it comes easier with a policy/doctrine position. If everything is doctrine, who is "accountable?" There wouldn't have been an error to begin with because it would have come from God, presumably. If it was policy, it came from man and is subject to criticism. You are arguing for accountability while arguing against a method that brings further accountability.

And please, please don't pretend that you think everything BRM ever said was doctrine.

Very salient. Methinks that Seattle is becoming grapevine by his frequent references to BRM, who is the most misquoted and inaccurate of leaders on issues of doctrine and policy. Next time, Seattle makes a reference to BRM, we'll not TROLL ALERT. It's about the same as believing one of Paul Dunn's "comrade died in my arms" stories.