Revised Gospel Principals Manual

[BCSpace]

I'm one to limit it to the standard works. Those are what the church has accepted by common consent...and there's plenty there to learn. I have to really look hard at what the apostles and prophets say and since the church hasn't accepted it by common consent, I'm more apt to look at it critically. I don't think we sign away our principles when we confirm the apostles to their role. We do hold ourselves to those things by common consent as being the mind and will of God. We have a process. We should stick to that.

We sustain the prophets and apostles by common consent and accept their united statements. Therefore, to limit yourself to scriptures only is to deny the prophets and violate 2 Peter 1:21.

You know, I'm not some big player in the apologetics game, but I've watched some of you guys get in serious trouble from time to time and get your feet stuck in your mouths all because you won't accept what the Church itself accepts as doctrine. If you want to win every debate with the antiMormons, you'll stick with the doctrine. There's nothing to be embarrassed about. In fact, some of the antiMormons are now better than some of you at accepting what is and is not doctrine and that's good for the debate. Just sayin'.....

[mnn727]

Let me quote what the link in your signature declares

This doctrine resides in the four standard works of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

So the STD Works. Official Declarations and Proclamations and the AofF -- noting about the GP manual, Magazines, KFD, etc

Here is what it also says

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

So doctrine will be proclaimed in official publicatoon, not declared

Big difference!!

[Rob Osborn]

I think it should be noted that there are two kinds of doctrine-

1. That which is "official" doctrine which may or may not be true and we know about it

2. That which is "officially true" doctrine which we may not know about

Under that premise, it is no wonder that our "official" doctrine may change from time to time- after all, it seems as if we are still looking for that "officially true" doctrine we just don't know about yet. Doesn't make us the wrong church, just makes us human and still subject to error.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

For starters, I'm just glad I won't have to see the old horribly dated cover art any more

[BCSpace]

This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

So the STD Works. Official Declarations and Proclamations and the AofF -- noting about the GP manual, Magazines, KFD, etc

It's talking about the source of doctrine here, not what's established doctrine. The prophets are the ones who establish doctrine from the scriptures (and the scriptures also mention revelation), not you. Neither you nor I can look at the scriptures and establish what doctrine is. The prophets do and that is then published....

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

So doctrine will be proclaimed in official publicatoon, not declared

Big difference!!

It's right before your eyes and you change it anyway. It says that the established doctrine is the one that is consistently published. You are one of the very few I know of (and they all reside on this board or are antiMormons on Shades board) who view the Church's own statments differently than the Church itself. Have you talked to your Bishop yet? Your Stake President? We had a couple of Seventy at our Stake recently for Stake Conference and in the meeting we had with them beforehand, they emphasized this very thing. Hasn't changed in at least 30 years my friend. It's the same as it was in 1980.

Edit: Have you tried listening to the podcast from the Church's site someone else referenced to in this thread. Do you some good I think..... Bottom line; the manuals, handbooks, magazines, and yes, even the KFD quotes found therein are official doctrine.

[Mortal Man]

20 bucks says folks will be whining about it/making fun of it before it even hits the shelves.

Well first of all there's no actual evidence that Jesus draped a towel over his head. Secondly, it's hardly plausible that his robe wouldn't have a single speck of dust on it when he's been walking around in the desert...

[BCSpace]

Well first of all there's no actual evidence that Jesus draped a towel over his head.

But he did strip off his clothes and girt himself with a towel (John 13:4). Now there's a frood who really knows where his towel is!

A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have. Partly it has great practical value. You can wrap it around you for warmth as you bound across the cold moons of Jaglan Beta; you can lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Santraginus V, inhaling the heady sea vapors; you can sleep under it beneath the stars which shine so redly on the desert world of Kakrafoon; use it to sail a miniraft down the slow heavy River Moth; wet it for use in hand-to-hand-combat; wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (such a mind-boggingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you); you can wave your towel in emergencies as a distress signal, and of course dry yourself off with it if it still seems to be clean enough.

More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: nonhitchhiker) discovers that a hitchhiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, washcloth, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet-weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitchhiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitchhiker might accidentally have "lost". What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with.

Secondly, it's hardly plausible that his robe wouldn't have a single speck of dust on it when he's been walking around in the desert...

Depends on whether or not he activated his reverse magnetic dust repelling shield.

[David T]

I've seen the links to where MRM has posted some comparisons of changes in the first two chapters, and the chapter on exaltation. But has anyone here received their own copy? Mine is in the mail on the way... still quite curious.

[mfbukowski]

deleted. I misread the other post.

[mfbukowski]

Sounds like you both reject what the Church itself says about it's own doctrine.

You know, you read that statement differently than I do, so I am still not sure. To me it is saying that only the standard works are doctrinal. It is quite ambiguous imo.

Edit: No I haven't heard the podcast. I guess I should finish reading a thread before I shoot my mouth off.

[mfbukowski]

Not all doctrine is true and not all truth is doctrine.

Can you give me an example of a doctrine which is not true?

[mfbukowski]

Also, for those who still question if it is doctrinal that we can become gods, there is D&C 132

37 Abraham received aconcubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and bJacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their cexaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

Don't know how that can be clearer

[LifeOnaPlate]

Can you give me an example of a doctrine which is not true?

"There was no death before the fall of Adam." Some consider this doctrine. (Folks like BRM and JFeS)

[LifeOnaPlate]

I believe it is a true doctrine that the children of God (us) can become gods, yes.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I've seen the links to where MRM has posted some comparisons of changes in the first two chapters, and the chapter on exaltation. But has anyone here received their own copy? Mine is in the mail on the way... still quite curious.

I have a copy. It is thinner than the old version because of the paper, imo. Things look pretty similar overall.

[BCSpace]

You know, you read that statement differently than I do, so I am still not sure. To me it is saying that only the standard works are doctrinal. It is quite ambiguous imo.

And that is a rejection (by limitation) of what the Church says.

Can you give me an example of a doctrine which is not true?

"There was no death before the fall of Adam." Some consider this doctrine. (Folks like BRM and JFeS)

That statement can be true and the statement, "There was death before the time of Adam." can also be true at the same time according to the 1931 statement et. al.

So I don't think we have to worry when a doctrinal publication such as a manual says that. It's a doctrine that is true even by your own standard (the scriptures) and it doesn't preclude a state of no death before Adam as long as there is a state of death between Adam being placed in the garden and the Fall.

We just have to worry when someone doesn't take everything the Church has said into account or accepts the nondoctrinal works (not published by the LDS Church) of BRM and JFS as doctrinal.

[mfbukowski]

"There was no death before the fall of Adam." Some consider this doctrine. (Folks like BRM and JFeS)

Well I think BC posted a pretty good answer to that, and I also have a different way of reconciling it, so I think that could be both doctrinal and true, but if taken too literally a la BRM I suppose you might have a point. Of course some may not think that is doctrine, so again I suppose you have a (debatable) point.

[cinepro]

"There was no death before the fall of Adam." Some consider this doctrine. (Folks like BRM and JFeS)

Yeah...it's not just "folks like BRM and JFeS"...

Besides the Fall having had to do with Adam and Eve, causing a change to come over them, that change affected all human nature, all of the natural creations, all of the creation of animals, plants—all kinds of life were changed. The earth itself became subject to death. â?¦ How it took place no one can explain, and anyone who would attempt to make an explanation would be going far beyond anything the Lord has told us. But a change was wrought over the whole face of the creation, which up to that time had not been subject to death. From that time henceforth all in nature was in a state of gradual dissolution until mortal death was to come, after which there would be required a restoration in a resurrected state. â?¦

Teachings Of Harold B. Lee

The plan required the Creation, and that in turn required both the Fall and the Atonement. These are the three fundamental components of the plan. The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God. 12 Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam. 13 Immortality and the possibility of eternal life were provided by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. 14 The Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement were planned long before the actual work of the Creation began.

The Creation

Elder Russell M. Nelson

Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Explain that physical death, known also as temporal death, was introduced into the world as a consequence of the Fall. As a result of the Fall, all people and all forms of life upon the earth must suffer a physical death, a separation of spirit and body.

The Fall of Adam

Aaronic Priesthood Manual

For death was the penalty of the law transgressed, which man was powerless to avert, that fiat of God being, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” [Moses 3:17] and this penalty was to follow upon all flesh, all being as helpless and dependent as he was in this matter. 9

Teachings of Joseph F. Smith

We acknowledge that through Adam all have died, that death through the fall must pass upon the whole human family, also upon the beasts of the field, the fishes of the sea and the fowls of the air and all the works of God, as far as this earth is concerned. It is a law that is unchangeable and irrevocable. … The Savior himself tasted of death; He died to redeem the world; His body was laid in the tomb, but it did not see corruption; and after three days it arose from the grave and put on immortality. He was the first fruit of the resurrection. 14

Teachings of Wilford Woodruff

Even before the fall of Adam, which ushered death into this world, our Heavenly Father had prepared a place for the spirits who would eventually depart this mortal life. At the time of Jesus’ death, the spirit world was occupied by hosts of our Father’s children who had died—from Adam’s posterity to the death of Jesus—both the righteous and the wicked.

First Presidency Message

“Because I Live, Ye Shall Live Also”

By President Ezra Taft Benson

Their transgression brought death into the world (see 1 Cor. 15:22).

What Modern Revelation Teaches about Adam

by Arthur Bailey

The literal meaning of the English word Atonement is self-evident: at-one-ment, the bringing together of things that have been separated or estranged. The Atonement of Jesus Christ was indispensable because of the separating transgression, or Fall, of Adam, which brought two kinds of death into the world when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.3

The Atonement of Jesus Christ

By Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

Some facetiously state that nothing is as permanent as death. Not so! The grip of physical death is temporary. It began with the fall of Adam; it ended with the atonement of Jesus the Christ.

Doors of Death

Elder Russell M. Nelson

Note that in 2 Nephi 2 Lehi mentions some of the conditions that were brought about by the Fall. However, the doctrine of the Fall is broader in scope than is presented in this chapter. Class members should understand that the Fall brought physical death and spiritual death into the world, thus bringing the plan of redemption into operation.

“Free to Choose Liberty and Eternal Life”

Book of Mormon Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual

Genesis 1 evidently teaches us about the preparation of the earth for humankind to inhabit and about the creation in heaven of the original plants, animals, and humans—Adam and Eve. Their bodies were physical but not yet subject to death. Genesis 2 evidently teaches us about the placing of these original plants, animals, and humans on the earth in their immortal state.

“In the Beginning”: A Latter-day Perspective

By Robert J. Woodford

In the morn of creation, Adam, Eve, and all forms of life existed in a paradisiacal condition. All things were physical. They were spiritual in the sense that they were not mortal, not subject to death. (See 1 Cor. 15:44; Alma 11:45; D&C 88:27.) 5 In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve walked and talked with God. Adam was made “lord or governor of all things on earth, and at the same time [enjoyed] communion … with his Maker, without a vail to separate between.” 6 Our first parents would have remained in this state indefinitely had not circumstances changed. (See 2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 4:9.) Those circumstances did change as a result of Adam and Eve’s partaking of the forbidden fruit.

The Man Adam

By Robert L. Millet

"Consistently proclaimed in official Church publications" indeed.

[cinepro]

To be fair, I will also list all the statements published on the Church website that acknowledge there may have been death during the creation period, that immortality was limited to the Garden of Eden while death and mortality continued in the "lone and dreary world", or that the Prophets are unsure or don't quite know, and are open to alternate theories:

[mfbukowski]

To be fair, I will also list all the statements published on the Church website that acknowledge there may have been death during the creation period, that immortality was limited to the Garden of Eden while death and mortality continued in the "lone and dreary world", or that the Prophets are unsure or don't quite know, and are open to alternate theories:

Well at this point, I think there are problems with your links, but not to worry because no one is saying that that there was no fall, or that death was not a result of the fall. So your defense of orthodoxy is not necessary, as uncharacteristic as it is!

[BCSpace]

Yeah...it's not just "folks like BRM and JFeS"...

Yeah, but they're not really saying anything about the period prior to the finished creation when Adam was placed into the garden (2 Nephi 2:22). Evolution swims quite well with these statements including the "which up to that time had not been subject to death" one. It's simply a matter of context, the definition of which is quite broad here.

You have to understand that "up to that time" means up to the Fall. When did "up to" start? The most that can be said here is that it began when the earth was finished. When was that? When Adam was placed into the garden. What properties (such as death or no death) are given to describe the physical creation of the earth prior to that? None.

[cinepro]

Well at this point, I think there are problems with your links, but not to worry because no one is saying that that there was no fall, or that death was not a result of the fall. So your defense of orthodoxy is not necessary, as uncharacteristic as it is!

The issue is whether, at any time before the Fall of Adam, there was physical death anywhere on the Earth.

These quotes (from my post above), seem to speak to that issue, as have numerous other statements published by the Church:

But a change was wrought over the whole face of the creation, which up to that time had not been subject to death.

The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God. Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam.

Genesis 2 evidently teaches us about the placing of these original plants, animals, and humans on the earth in their immortal state.

In the morn of creation, Adam, Eve, and all forms of life existed in a paradisiacal condition.

If there had been physical death for plants and animals before the Fall of Adam, then the Fall did not "introduce" death into the world.

The only fault I can find with the Church's clear, repeated statements is that they don't specifically go out of their way to address BCSpace's unusual interpretation of the "creation". But, as my signature shows, even when the Church publications do go out of their way, it isn't enough and they get ignored by those who just want to believe something else.

With that in mind, these quotes are presented for informational purposes, just in case someone reading this is curious about what the Prophets and Apostles and Church curriculum have actually said on the subject.

[cinepro]

You have to understand that "up to that time" means up to the Fall. When did "up to" start? The most that can be said here is that it began when the earth was finished. When was that? When Adam was placed into the garden. What properties (such as death or no death) are given to describe the physical creation of the earth prior to that? None.

Actually, if death existed prior to (and concurrently with) Adam and Eve in the Garden, then it would be totally incorrect to say the Fall "introduced" physical death into the world. You might say it reintroduced death into the world...?

But either way, your theory is the opposite of what the Church teaches.

[Doctor Steuss]

One thing that cracks me up about this whole â??what is doctrineâ? thing is that the LDS statement on doctrine itself doesnâ??t fit any of the categories that it proclaims.

In other words, the doctrine of what is doctrine isnâ??t doctrine.

[mfbukowski]

Actually, if death existed prior to (and concurrently with) Adam and Eve in the Garden, then it would be totally incorrect to say the Fall "introduced" physical death into the world. You might say it reintroduced death into the world...?

But either way, your theory is the opposite of what the Church teaches.

Not so. You will know this quote:

"You have a new world here.

A new world?

Yes, a new world patterned after the old one in which we used to live"

We know that in the millenium there will be a "new heaven and a new earth", when THIS EARTH will be renewed. Here the scriptures talk about this planet in which we live as a new world.

So what was the "Lone and Dreary WORLD?" A new world also, or more precisely, Adam's new world fallen to a different state.

Paul speaks of different types of flesh- the flesh of animals, and then bodies celestial telestial and terestrial. So "animal flesh" is different from telestial flesh.

We have telestial bodies because we live in that lone and dreary world or the telestial kingdom, since the fall. Before the fall, our flesh itself, or the flesh of Adam in the Garden was qualitatively different and unable to die. Terestrial? Perhaps, I am not sure. Perhaps it was similar to what a "translated body" is. But it certainly was not "animal flesh", which was a product of evolution.

So my view as I see it is totally compatible with BC's point, and perhaps amplifies it, or vice versa. His point, as I understand it, is that creation was not over until Adam was in the garden. I have no problem with that. Adam was in a new (terestrial) world which fell to a telestial state, and Adam & Eve's flesh with it, introducing death into the world.

The statements you brought up which actually conflict with this, if any, I think are either ambiguous about this or imo, not correct or non-doctrinal. None of these are scriptural quotes.