Doctrine or not doctrine, please help me out

[Hoops22]

Hoops, are you speaking for all true believing Christians or are you just expressing your own opinion here?

They won't even let me join my church, let alone speak for all true believing Christians.

[thesometimesaint]

talisyn:

Hermes is pretty cool.

While anything is "possible" more or less. The first four planets in our solar system made of pretty much the same thing.There is no indications that other planets formed ours. Other earlier stars OTOH...

[BCSpace]

The OP has really good questions, btw. I love the one where the earth is made up of different planets. I think when this idea was thought up it wasn't considered possible, from a scientific standpoint, and yet now we see it's perfectly plausible. Not that I'm saying it's what happened here..just that it's possible....

That we maight be made of matter originated from other systems, that's true. If you're thinking this is where ancient fossils on earth come from, it's absolutely not scientifically plausible or possible.

[Kevin Christensen]

I would like to know what readers think of the following statements. Are they official doctrine, tradition, or individual opinion? Of course, it's possible they may be one, two, or all three. What do you think?

1. The theory of human evolution is irreconcilable with the doctrines of the gospel.

Not irreconcible at all. It is unreconcilable with certain notoriously non-doctrines.

2. There was no death on the earth before the Fall of Adam.

Which earth where? (See Moses 1:29. "I beheld many lands, and each land was called earth." and Moses 1:38, "as one earth shall pass away...") Which Adam? (Moses 1:34, "Adam, which is many"), In the garden or outside of the Garden? And what was the garden and where? Is the garden global? Is is figurative? Those kinds of questions should be asked before coming to any conclusions.

This statement is an example of the approach that Joseph criticized in pointing out that "Creeds say, 'hitherto thou shalt come and no further!'"

3. Adam and Eve began life as immortal beings.

In what sense? We're all uncreated. Which life where?

4. The physical bodies of human beings are the result of special creation, unrelated to the animal kingdom.

We share so much DNA, denying the relation seems silly.

5. Fossils are fragments of other worlds, used in the organization of this one.

Nonsense. Not doctrine. Not scriptural.

6. If a majority of the LDS apostles agree on something, it must be church doctrine.

Not at all. D&C 1:25, speaking of the chuch leaders, says "inasmuch as they have erred, it might be made known." The guarentee on LDS leadership in the LDS scriptures is continually described as limited to what is expedient. That is enough to do the job.

7. The theory of human evolution throws out the necessity of the Fall of Adam and, in turn, destroys the need for the Atonement.

Nonsense. Which theory of human evolution? Where is any evolved human who demonstrates an unfallen nature? Has not the theory of human evolution itself continually undergone change in light of new findings?

8. Man's physical body, as well as his spirit, is the direct offspring of deity.

Way premature to say. He says to call him Father, and recognize him as the father of our spirits. And what sense of Father of the physical body matters here? What is an intelligence? How do we go from intelligence to premortality?

9. The earth is young, measured in thousands of years, rather than in millions and billions, as determined by scientific means.

Nonsense. Never LDS doctrine. Not LDS scripture.

10. The birth of Adam differs from the birth of Jesus Christ (as the only begotten son in the flesh) because Adam was born into immortality rather than "in the flesh," which means in mortality or with a mortal mother.

The temple stated that the Adam story is figurative. And the only ones who really know what happened at the birth of Jesus have not said anything about it.

11. Adam and Eve were transplanted from another sphere.

In what sense? LDS doctrine in premortal life is one thing. Specifics on Adam and Eve belongs to speculation.

12. An understanding of the sealing authority with its binding of the generations into eternal families cannot admit to ancestral bloodlines to beasts.

Why even worry about this?

Should we in church avoid all subjects that are not doctrine? I am sure that we all have heard all of the abovementioned statements in the church.

I've attended meetings in 3 countries at least 17 states. I've variously taught Gospel Doctrine and Sunday school and Priesthood and Institute lessons for over thirty years. I've never taught this stuff, never found it in my materials, nor in the scriptures. I've never heard these taught as official, not have ever heard them expressed by any teacher in an official capacity. It's never occured to me to think that any bozo who uncritically picked up some premature speculation out of anyone's Big Book of What to Think automatically knows what is and what is not authentic doctrine, particularly when the scriptures go out of their way to insist that the Doctrine of Christ does not go beyond faith, repentence, baptism, reciept of the Holy Spirit, and enduring to the end.

The D&C encourages us to learn about everything from the best books. It does not offer an approved list, not does it say "perfect books" or "flawless books" or "corrolated books" or "LDS books" or "Deseret Books" or "CES books." The best books. The process of learning invariably calls for an ongoing process of correction and revision in light of better information. But we all have to start from where we are.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA