Revised Gospel Principals Manual

[Scott Lloyd]

Hmmm...

I can already see apologists spinning this comment like a top.

How so?

[Jeff K.]

It is one reason the Wentworth letter was simultaneously printed in the Times and Seasons.

[consiglieri]

Maybe not writing it necessarily, but reviewing it certainly, considering that in the Quorum of the Twelve, there are three lawyers I can think of off the top of my head (Dallin H. Oaks, Quentin L. Cook, D. Todd Christofferson). Not such a remarkable observation when the current makeup of the Twelve is considered.

That probably accounts for why General Conference resembles a city council meeting.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mfbukowski]

I can already see apologists spinning this comment like a top.

Like the definition of "inspired"....

Edit: Looks like a "weasel word" to me. If it's in the Ensign but it's not inspired it's not doctrine...

[David T]

Chapter 11: The Life of Christ

Every person who comes to earth depends on Jesus Christ to fulfill the promise He made in heaven to be our Savior. Without him, the plan of salvation would have failed. Because his mission was necessary, all of the prophets from Adam to Christ testified that he would come (see Acts 10:43). All of the prophets since Christ have testified that he did come. All of us need to study the life of the Savior and follow him faithfully throughout our lives. We each need to have a personal relationship with him.

An angel told Adam learned that the Savior

[David T]

Chapter 12: The Atonement

No content changes, apart from capitalization, changing of Elder Packer to President Packer, and revision of the study questions.

For all the nitty-gritty-details, see LifeOnaPlate's blog entry. (thanks!)

[Scott Lloyd]

That probably accounts for why General Conference resembles a city council meeting.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I've been to a fair number of city council meetings. I don't see the resemblance.

But if having legal minds among the Brethren reduces the propensity for publication of imprecise wording, unauthoritative speculation and folk doctrine, I'm in favor.

[BCSpace]

The Church website isn't an official publication? How so?

If you want to hold that a news release from the main arm of the Church's PR department is on par with the Ensign... rock on with your bad self.

You obviously haven't looked at the site closely enough to know what it is.

So everything on the church website is therefore doctrine?

Everything the Church publishes is an official publication and therefore doctrine. Of course it depends on how it's presented. For example, the Bible Dictionary is published by the Church but it's own introduction says it's not doctrine so the doctrine is that the Bible Dictionary is not doctrine. A more interesting example are the JST excerpts which are canon because the Church presents them that way in the intro and by usage in the manuals and other publications.

[David T]

I very much like the many removals of interpretive statements of intent and descriptions in the 'Life of Jesus Christ' chapter. Many of the deletions expanded upon or added nuanced details that simply weren't warranted in the scriptural text. I like action a lot.

[T-Shirt]

Everything the Church publishes is an official publication and therefore doctrine.

BC, while a appreciate much of what you contribute here, I am one of those who thinks you are misreading the Churches statement on doctrine.

All the best,

T-Shirt

[cinepro]

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.

A casual reading of this statement could lead a reader to assume that the words of "living prophets" (i.e. the 15 apostles) are on par with the Standard Works, and anything they've said in conference, published in the Ensign or written to a letter to local leaders is also on par with the Standard Works (and is therefore Doctrine). I know many Church members who already feel this way.

The key word is "inspired".

To some Church members, the word "inspired" would almost be redundant. But to apologists, it is the all important key, where other forms of scrutiny (logic, science, pet theories, alternate interpretations etc.) can be brought to bear to determine whether an apostle was or wasn't "inspired".

But if having legal minds among the Brethren reduces the propensity for publication of imprecise wording, unauthoritative speculation and folk doctrine, I'm in favor.

But wasn't Elder McConkie a lawyer?

[BCSpace]

Regarding the 1931 "statement", can you please provide a link to it on the Church's website? Or some mention of it on the Church's website? Can you show me where it was distributed to Church members, or made public? I'm just trying to figure out how much weight to give it.

The fact that it was given to all the General Authorities is enough to meet the D&C 107 standard.

For example, the Church recently republished the original 1909 statement from the first presidency here, for all Church members to read. If the so-called "1931 Statement" is meant to be an addendum to this statement, or otherwise considered, the Ensign was extremely negligent in not publishing it concurrently.

No need. None of the statements given by the Church, including the 1909, speak as to whether or not there was evolution or creationism. It simply states the doctrine whcih certainly doesn't preclude evolution.

As for which Church teachings you are in conflict with, I will repost the excerpts from the longer quotes from post #143:

LOL! I have already listed that which creationism conflicts with, but go ahead.

If there had been death during "creation", then it would be contradictory to say that creation had, up to that time, "not been subject to death". It's saying the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Actually the context seems to be only prior to the fall and the created state which doesn't preclude death before the finished creation. I'm quite sure HBL meant it the way you want it, but I'm also quite sure the 1931 statement et. al. stay their hand from actually presenting a contrary opinion

You are suggesting that God "created" the paradisiacal planet using a process of death and mortality, then made at least a portion of it immortal after he was done. That is the exact opposite of what this teaching says.

How so? Russel M. Nelson only stated that death came as a result of the fall.

You have suggested that the plants, animals and humans were "created" using a process of birth and death until they were "created", at which point God made them immortal. That is the opposite of what this teaching says.

How so? It simply says that Genesis 2 speaks about the placement of plants and animals.

You have suggested that all forms of life were "created" using a process of birth/death at which point God finished and made them immortal. That would mean all forms of life existed in a paradisiacal condition in the eve of creation, not the "morn".

Is the "eve" of creation defined in this article relative to "morn"? More likely it is the morn of finished creation which is usually the context. By your logic, Adam was in a paradisiacal condition at the moment God said "Let there be light."

If you can't see it, that's fine. We all have to believe what we have to believe. I'm just clarifying this point for others who might be curious about what the Church has published on the subject, and how that fits with you unusual theory.

You're doing them a grave disservice by not expressing all of what the Church teaches regarding this and not in context.

[BCSpace]

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.

The key word is "inspired".

That is correct. How do we know the Church considers such words to be inspired? They are published (officially)!

[BCSpace]

Like the definition of "inspired"....

Edit: Looks like a "weasel word" to me. If it's in the Ensign but it's not inspired it's not doctrine...

Well I think the main problem is that those who disagree with the Church over how doctrine is defined also can't accept the fact that doctrine can change pending new understanding, revelation, inspiration etc. In other words, they're erroneously treating doctrine like scripture which is probably why you have them incorrectly telling others that doctrine is found only in the scriptures.

[BCSpace]

Dulpicate

[Doctor Steuss]

You obviously haven't looked at the site closely enough to know what it is.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

--------------------------------------

Calmoriah,

I will try to find some time either Saturday or Sunday to dust off my copies of GP manuals.

I think (if memory serves

[consiglieri]

But if having legal minds among the Brethren reduces the propensity for publication of imprecise wording, unauthoritative speculation and folk doctrine, I'm in favor.

You may be right.

But I am starting to think that too many lawyers in the upper echelons of the Church have sapped the Spirit and drained the drama right out of meetings and publications.

Just my two cents.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[BCSpace]

You obviously haven't looked at the site closely enough to know what it is.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It certainly doesn't mean it's the opinion of the "PR department".

[mfbukowski]

Well I think the main problem is that those who disagree with the Church over how doctrine is defined also can't accept the fact that doctrine can change pending new understanding, revelation, inspiration etc. In other words, they're erroneously treating doctrine like scripture which is probably why you have them incorrectly telling others that doctrine is found only in the scriptures.

BC I enjoy your posts, but come on now!

Chapter 10: Scriptures

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us

I am definitely not following your point here. So you are saying there is "doctrine" and then there is "scripture"? And I make them erroneously treat doctrine like scripture?

It makes it hard to follow your line of thought when you don't give attributions in your quotes. You can't tell the good guys from the bad guys without a program.

[Scott Lloyd]

You may be right.

But I am starting to think that too many lawyers in the upper echelons of the Church have sapped the Spirit and drained the drama right out of meetings and publications.

Just my two cents.

Absent specifics, I don't know how to respond to that, other than to say it I'm not persuaded a man anointed with the apostolic office is apt to sap the Spirit from a meeting or publication.

One of the speakers at the FAIR Conference (it may have been John Gee) referred to the "wise as serpents and harmless as doves" scriptural phrase, saying we have the "harmless as doves" part down pat, but we need to work on the "wise as serpents" portion. Maybe having attorneys as apostles can help.

[Scott Lloyd]

But wasn't Elder McConkie a lawyer?

I don't remember hearing that. I know that James E. Faust was.

Addendum:

I just checked a Wiki entry on McConkie. It said he did receive a juris doctorate, but I saw no indication he was ever a practicing attorney. One thing it did say was that for a short time he was a Deseret News reporter, just prior to his call as a General Authority. That surprised me.

[mfbukowski]

You may be right.

But I am starting to think that too many lawyers in the upper echelons of the Church have sapped the Spirit and drained the drama right out of meetings and publications.

Just my two cents.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

And of course we need to have lots of drama in our meetings and publications. It gives you that nice peaceful feeling.

[BCSpace]

Well I think the main problem is that those who disagree with the Church over how doctrine is defined also can't accept the fact that doctrine can change pending new understanding, revelation, inspiration etc. In other words, they're erroneously treating doctrine like scripture which is probably why you have them incorrectly telling others that doctrine is found only in the scriptures.

BC I enjoy your posts,

You're welcome!

but come on now!

I'm speaking from long experience on this one. Some apologists, not having figured out how to defend a doctrine, will reteat into the mode of "it's not doctrine because it's not in the scriptures" and they've been doing it for so long they actually have come to believe it.

[consiglieri]

And of course we need to have lots of drama in our meetings and publications. It gives you that nice peaceful feeling.

*Bart Simpson writes on blackboard*

Somnolence is not a gift of the Spirit.

Somnolence is not a gift of the Spirit.

Somnolence is not a gift of the Spirit.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mnn727]

BC, while a appreciate much of what you contribute here, I am one of those who thinks you are misreading the Churches statement on doctrine.

All the best,

T-Shirt

Obviously, I agree and it can be terribly misleading especially to a new member or investigator.