Pope Benedict rids the doctrine of Limbo

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Seattle I think you understand the difference between policy and doctrine, but are just trolling. And yes there have been more LDS changes than those I mentioned, hence my use of "such as."

But you cannot put teaching that unbaptized infants are put in limbo on the same plane as establishing a perpetual education fund or raising a missionary bar.

Today's change to Catholic doctrine is the equivalent of Mormons saying there no longer a division in the spirit world.

Policy and doctrine are distinguishable and you know it.

Yes, but doesn't Adam God Theology raise to about the same level as a "limbo doctrine." I know most LDS today will argue that it was never doctrine, but I doubt Orson Pratt felt that way when he almost got kicked out of the Quorum for publicly disagreeing with Brigham Young over it.

Now clearly it was not doctrine from an "eternal truth" as doctrine perspective, but it is hard to argue that at a certain point it wasn't an authoritative teaching.

[ewth8tr]

sorry, meant to direct it at seattle.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Archaea

These are stated as beliefs, not as immutable truths. Note that.

Those are our core doctrines... they won't change...

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Yes, but doesn't Adam God Theology raise to about the same level as a "limbo doctrine." I know most LDS today will argue that it was never doctrine, but I doubt Orson Pratt felt this way when he almost got kicked out of the Quorum for publicly disagreeing with Brigham You over it.

Now clearly it was not doctrine from a "eternal truth" as doctrine perspective, but it is hard to argue that at a certain point it wasn't an authoritative teaching.

Nice, 20 posts later someone finally answered my question. Thanks Pg.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by ewth8tr

sorry, meant to direct it at seattle.

SU's been trolling over here since I discovered this site. Is he ever not trolling? He's always got his lawyer hat on, using whatever resources he has at his disposal: intellect and reason sometimes, but also lies, manipulation, exaggeration, and other tactics to bring down everything that is LDS or BYU.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Seattle I think you understand the difference between policy and doctrine, but are just trolling. And yes there have been more LDS changes than those I mentioned, hence my use of "such as."

But you cannot put teaching that unbaptized infants are put in limbo on the same plane as establishing a perpetual education fund or raising a missionary bar.

Today's change to Catholic doctrine is the equivalent of Mormons saying there no longer a division in the spirit world.

Policy and doctrine are distinguishable and you know it.

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.

[creekster]

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.

DId I miss something? Where did he say it was a DEFINITIVE (e.g. complete and total) statement of doctrines?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

DId I miss something? Where did he say it was a DEFINITIVE (e.g. complete and total) statement of doctrines?

I said there wasn't any such thing and he gave me the Articles of Faith, which, as Archea notes, don't even claim to be doctrine.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by creekster

DId I miss something? Where did he say it was a DEFINITIVE (e.g. complete and total) statement of doctrines?

I didn't ... All I said was that the AofF are the LDS core doctrine

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I said there wasn't any such thing and he gave me the Articles of Faith, which, as Archea notes, don't even claim to be doctrine.

You deceiver of men! You said there was no such thing (meaning nothing written). He said there was something written that shows core doctrines. Arch says they are not immutable. No one claimed they were comprehensive, and they may or may not be doctrines or immutable.