Lds Prophets - Official Doctrine Vs. Personal Opinions

[BCSpace]

Where, there is such a thing in Mormonism as speculation becoming doctrine, taught to the members of the LDS church.

Unless it is officially announced as "doctrine", it is not doctrine.

I find it amazing you keep to this notion when no such requirement exists at all. All that needs to happen is for it to be published by the Church

[saemo]

saemo:

We have about 300,000 converts per year. Tracking produces somewhat less than 1 in 10 converts. Member referrals is about 1 in 3. Any more questions?

Nope. Thanks.

[zerinus]

How about, God was once a man? I get the same thing with that one.

Is doctrine.

Is not doctrine.

Believe what you like.

Not in the standard works. Believe what you like!

zerinus

[BCSpace]

This is why I just finally came to the conclusion, don't assume what any one LDS person holds as doctrinal. Everyone seems to have their own individual church.

This seems to be true in all religions. However, most churches have a standard for doctrine and the LDS Church's is plainly delineated in the link in my siggy.

[saemo]

Proof here:http://zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/aposta...estoration.htmlSince this is a question that frequently crops up in LDS discussion, I have written a Blog post to anser it. After you have read that, you can discuss it further with me if you have further questions.zerinus

Seriously, you tell me that personal experience is irrelevant and you point me to your personal blog??

This seems to be true in all religions. However, most churches have a standard for doctrine and the LDS Church's is plainly delineated in the link in my siggy.

But it wasn't always so (what is in your siggy, I mean).

Not in the standard works. Believe what you like!zerinus

Now, who of the active LDS agree with this?

[LDSMusic483]

Not in the standard works. Believe what you like!

zerinus

It is not in the standard works, but it is in official church publications (i.e. gospel principles) The church has published this, and left it in there for quite a long while without changing it in subsequent releases, so it can be considered a doctrine of the church. Now the intrecacies of it, and how it was accomplished and such is unknown to us and is but speculation.

[zerinus]

I have plenty of proof and so do the others like me who have also left. The issue is that Mormons do not accept it as proof and come up with a wide variety of explanations to dismiss the evidence we have. That's the whole point of most of the discussions on this board. One man's proof is another man's dismissal. Just like one man's BOM is another man's made up story.

Ummmm

zerinus

[saemo]

Saemo, et al.

The question is awkward. You may want to consider the following a more thorough question that can draw examination:

'How many people are baptised into the church, excluding child-of-record baptims, each year? In contrast, how many people have their names removed from the records of the Church, each year?'

This does not tell much of a story, as the answer is disingenuous with respect to activity in the church. One would want to consider the number of inactive members that have their names on the records of the church but have fallen out of activity.

However, I'm not certain you can estimate such a number - the statistics behind inactivity are not published publicly.

But, what do you want to figure this out for? Many faiths have similar problems.

H.

I don't really need to know. Somehow it came up in this thread. Took on a life of its own.

I am still on record as a member of the LDS church. But I have not considered myself a mormon for a very long time. Same for several members of my family.

So yeah, I realize that it is impossible to know. And I realize that all churches have the same thing going on.

Guess that one is beat into the ground.

[saemo]

Check post 182 again.

Very well.

[zerinus]

God says to John that him becoming a god is doctrinal.

God says to Juan that him becoming a god is not doctrinal.

God says to Sione that it's ok, he can believe either way.

Either, this is one God that doesn't know what is going on. Or, it is three different gods...one for each person.

That is not a description of what takes place in the LDS Church. It s a distortion, and probably a deliberate one.

zerinus

[zerinus]

go to vatican.va and research

but, I have to add, I have never had this happen. I have questions, certainly, but I can always find the doctrinal answer. If if the doctrinal answer is, we don't know (a Mystery), we don't know is the doctrine.

The same with us. What has not been revealed is a mystery, and speculation about a mystery is possible.

zerinus

[saemo]

That is not a description of what takes place in the LDS Church. It s a distortion, and probably a deliberate one.

zerinus

Well then, explain how three different people receive three different, and contradictory, indications from the Holy Spirit?

[BCSpace]

This seems to be true in all religions. However, most churches have a standard for doctrine and the LDS Church's is plainly delineated in the link in my siggy.

But it wasn't always so (what is in your siggy, I mean).

What's in my siggy has been the case for at least 3 decades (as long as I've been cognizant of the issue). It just hasn't been published outside the internal workings of the Church until then. It's been in the CHI (book 2). It's what's been taught in Teacher Prep class. It's been the instruction to missionaries; and for all that time. If I had to guess, it was standardardized that way back in David O McKay's time. However, the basis for it is far earlier than that and goes back to D&C 107 in which we find that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority. Hence, since at least 1835 (some portions were given in 1831), both those bodies have had to agree on doctrine for something to be doctrine.

To continue to not understand what LDS doctrine is when the LDS Church has so clearly stated what it is means that some outside (or inside) agenda is being promulgated or someone hasn't been paying attention in Church.

[urroner]

Me and the numerous others who have left Mormonism after discovering it was fraudulent.

This is hilarious. I know numerous Evangelical who left Evangelicalism after discovering it was fraudulent. Your point is?Why are you right and why are they wrong?

Well then, explain how three different people receive three different, and contradictory, indications from the Holy Spirit?

Saemo, how does one come to know that the RCC is Christ's Church and the doctrines taught therein are true?

[zerinus]

Discussion and speculation are never doctrinal in Catholicism. And, it isn't done to the extent that Mormons do.

Where, there is such a thing in Mormonism as speculation becoming doctrine, taught to the members of the LDS church. And then later denied as ever being doctrinal at all.

The same thing has happened in the Catholic Church. Once upon a time in the Catholic Church they taught that unbaptized children who die in infance are damed and go to hell. Then in the 12th century Peter Abelard invented Limbo, and said that they go there, which is neither heaven nor hell. That remained Catholic doctrine for several centuries until recent times. Now the doctrine has changed again, and they say that we don't know what happens to children who die in infancy without baptism. That is three changes. LDS doctrine has never changed in this regard. Unbaptized children who die are saved unconditionally, and go to heaven. That is the unchanging position of the LDS Church.

zerinus

[zerinus]

Like I care.

And no, I am not debating. If the answer to my questions is, stop asking the questions. I'm ok with that. As no, I have no interest in "fixing" mormonism.

And to have a discussion without including personal experience is rather disengenuous. And in religion, it is not even possible.

Well, I reckon I have more personal experiences with Mormonism than you do, and my experiences tell me something very different. Who is to say that your experiences are better than mine?

zerinus

[zerinus]

numbers please...how many people do mormon missionaries contact and how many actually join?

On average, it roughly doubles in size every ten years.

zerinus

[LDSMusic483]

The same thing has happened in the Catholic Church. Once upon a time in the Catholic Church they taught that unbaptized children who die in infance are damed and go to hell. Then in the 12th century Peter Abelard invented Limbo, and said that they go there, which is neither heaven nor hell. That remained Catholic doctrine for several centuries until recent times. Now the doctrine has changed again, and they say that we don't know what happens to children who die in infancy without baptism. That is three changes. LDS doctrine has never changed in this regard. Unbaptized children who die are saved unconditionally, and go to heaven. That is the unchanging position of the LDS Church.

zerinus

This in connection with my nephew being baptized by a Catholic Priest who proclaimed my adorable 4 month old nephew (at the time) to be a heathen before he was baptized.

[saemo]

The same thing has happened in the Catholic Church. Once upon a time in the Catholic Church they taught that unbaptized children who die in infance are damed and go to hell. Then in the 12th century Peter Abelard invented Limbo, and said that they go there, which is neither heaven nor hell. That remained Catholic doctrine for several centuries until recent times. Now the doctrine has changed again, and they say that we don't know what happens to children who die in infancy without baptism. That is three changes. LDS doctrine has never changed in this regard. Unbaptized children who die are saved unconditionally, and go to heaven. That is the unchanging position of the LDS Church.

zerinus

Limbo was never doctrine. And has always been defined as not knowing. The old Catholic Encyclopedia describes the fate of an unbaptized infant as not having been revealed.

Further, limbo was never synonymous with the hell of the damned. From the Baltimore Catechism:

The hell into which Christ's soul descended was not the hell of the damned, but a place or state of rest called Limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him.

[zerinus]

In the interests of fairness and accuracy, it is one of the fastest growing, but not the fastest.

Do you have figures about which other church grows faster (by conversion that is; the Catholic Church has been growing fast in the US by immigration)?

zerinus

[LDSMusic483]

Limbo was never doctrine. And has always been defined as not knowing. The old Catholic Encyclopedia describes the fate of an unbaptized infant as not having been revealed.

Further, limbo was never synonymous with the hell of the damned. From the Baltimore Catechism:

The hell into which Christ's soul descended was not the hell of the damned, but a place or state of rest called Limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him.

What happens to heathens? I'm really hoping this Priest was just off his rocker. You can bet that baby is never being taken to a Catholic church again by my SiL.

[saemo]

What happens to heathens? I'm really hoping this Priest was just off his rocker. You can bet that baby is never being taken to a Catholic church again by my SiL.

What priest is that?

[zerinus]

I accept that this is what you believe.

That is more than what I believe. It is the position of the Church. The Church has never stated that the original decision was wrong.

zerinus

[LDSMusic483]

What priest is that?

Post 218

[saemo]

This in connection with my nephew being baptized by a Catholic Priest who proclaimed my adorable 4 month old nephew (at the time) to be a heathen before he was baptized.

Did you ask the priest what he meant? I'm sure he would have explained.

That is more than what I believe. It is the position of the Church. The Church has never stated that the original decision was wrong.zerinus

So says you! I have read threads in this forums where other LDS members disagree with you...not that the original decision was wrong, but that it was not doctrine.