Elder Holland Declares GoE in Missouri, Noah's Flood Covered the Whole Planet, Pangea separated after Noah's flood, Jaredites first to Populate the New World

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

What's interesting to me is that, as bcspace pointed out, this article was approved by Correlation, since it postdates 1971, the year when all church materials became subject to Correlation review. LDS scriptures are clear that the earth has a "temporal existence" of 7,000 years (D&C 77:6-7), so Elder Holland's article is certainly consistent with scriptural doctrine. What came before the "temporal existence" isn't clear, but scripture and church leaders have consistently taught that there was no death on the earth before the Fall of Adam, so a literal reading would exclude the possibility of evolution, human or otherwise. We read in 2 Nephi 2: 22:

When I was a believer, I just figured the physical evidence is pretty conclusive in favor of a very old world and speciation through evolutionary processes, so the scriptures as given weren't meant to be taken literally. Again, I find it absolutely fascinating how some people try to reconcile a literal reading of the scriptures with an old earth and evolution.

Both you and Pres McKay shared the view that evolution was correct and did not take every symbolic claim literally -- a very reasonable approach.  As to the absolute nature of Correlatlon, maybe it wasn't as absolute as you now assume.  Never has been to this day.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Storm Rider said:

It appears that you have done that already.  Maybe you should explain how or why you are a unbeliever.

I'm pretty sure that is against the rules. But I absolutely reject any suggestion that I have "disproven God" (or Mormonism, for that matter) in any way. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Both you and Pres McKay shared the view that evolution was correct and did not take every symbolic claim literally -- a very reasonable approach.  As to the absolute nature of Correlatlon, maybe it wasn't as absolute as you now assume.  Never has been to this day.

I'm just going by my own experience with Correlation. They aren't infallible, but they do represent the public position of the church.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Not sure who this is addressed to, but I agree with you that belief in God is a matter of subjective experience, not "proof" or evidence. It would be quite odd to try to "disprove God" based on anything. How do you think that would work?

Atheists "disprove God" all the time, on this and other boards.  Not that they should be taken seriously, but they do make their claims, John.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Atheists "disprove God" all the time, on this and other boards.  Not that they should be taken seriously, but they do make their claims, John.

I still think it's silly to try to disprove God. I guess I don't pay much attention to people who attempt that.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I still think it's silly to try to disprove God. I guess I don't pay much attention to people who attempt that.

It's not even possible to disprove that Eric Clapton is God, and he has a fixed address. 

[cynth]

11 hours ago, Freedom said:

"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."

 

Perhaps you should read your own references. 

Quote

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. 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. 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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

It also helps in reading references if references are fully quoted and a source given so as to avoid inadvertently creating a misperception.  Above are the sentences surrounding the one pulled out.  

[cynth]

The tricky thing, of course, is trying to conclude whether a press release, ostensibly approved by the FP and Q12 but unsigned in its current form, constitutes doctrine. 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You keep saying "Elder Holland," cinepro, as though to give his speculative comments prophetic legs of some sort, but your citation is to a man who was the LDS Commissioner of Education.  He did not become a general authority until years later.  However, it is very interesting that general authorities who are scientists often disagree on fundamental issues such as the age of the Earth and whether evolution is correct or not.  I have cited and quoted some of that.  They are as entitled to speculation as the rest of us.  Instead of making it appear that there is only one version of reality on such issues, you would do well to provide the correct picture -- which is one of wide diversity of views among the Brethren and in Scripture.

It is a conundrum.  When referring to the teachings of a current Apostle that he made before becoming an Apostle (but were still made over the pulpit in General Conference, subject to correlation, and published in the Conference Report), do you refer to him by his current title (by which he would be most well known by current members of the Church), or do you precisely identify him by his position at the time?

While there are probably good arguments either way, I chose to go with the practice of the Church itself, in which they compiled teaching manuals titled "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church" and referred to the men as "President" so and so even when relating events and teachings that ocurred before they were President of the Church or Q12.

For example, in the Howard W. Hunter manual, this story is told:

Quote

In late 1975 a doctor recommended brain surgery for President Hunter’s wife, Claire. President Hunter agonized over whether the surgery was in Claire’s best interest, since it would strain her fragile body and might not improve her condition. He went to the temple, counseled with family members, and soon felt that the surgery offered the best hope for giving Claire some relief. 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-howard-w-hunter/chapter-2-my-peace-i-give-unto-you?lang=eng

 

 

The problem is, Howard W. Hunter wasn't "president" of anything until 1985.

So by your logic, this story (and all teachings) pre-dating 1985 should refer to him as "Elder Hunter", to reflect and clarify his position at the time.  But this isn't the case, and so if it's good enough for the Church, it's good enough for me.

Edited August 8, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, cynth said:

The tricky thing, of course, is trying to conclude whether a press release, ostensibly approved by the FP and Q12 but unsigned in its current form, constitutes doctrine. 

The real "tricky thing" is that it only becomes a "tricky thing" when people want it to be (see my sig).

[cynth]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

The real "tricky thing" is that it only becomes a "tricky thing" when people want it to be (see my sig).

Ah, point taken!  I like your sig very much.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I still think it's silly to try to disprove God. I guess I don't pay much attention to people who attempt that.

Of course it's silly, but that doesn't seem to stop them making the attempt.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

It is a conundrum.  When referring to the teachings of a current Apostle that he made before becoming an Apostle (but were still made over the pulpit in General Conference, subject to correlation, and published in the Conference Report), do you refer to him by his current title (by which he would be most well known by current members of the Church), or do you precisely identify him by his position at the time?

While there are probably good arguments either way, I chose to go with the practice of the Church itself, in which they compiled teaching manuals titled "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church" and referred to the men as "President" so and so even when relating events and teachings that ocurred before they were President of the Church or Q12.

For example, in the Howard W. Hunter manual, this story is told:

The problem is, Howard W. Hunter wasn't "president" of anything until 1985.

So by your logic, this story (and all teachings) pre-dating 1985 should refer to him as "Elder Hunter", to reflect and clarify his position at the time.  But this isn't the case, and so if it's good enough for the Church, it's good enough for me.

I recently referred to research product from Jeff Holland, BYU student, precisely because he was just a grad student then.  It would have been totally inappropriate and even dishonest to portray that research as having been done by a general authority -- by referring to him as Elder Holland.  I have also referred to little Tommy Monson when he was just a kid.  The publications you cited should not depict anyone as something more than he was when a particular piece of work was done by him.  I don't know why you would think that the mistaken approach of some manual writers should receive your support.  Wny would you say that, cinepro?  I thought you were a died in the wool iconoclast.

[jkwilliams]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course it's silly, but that doesn't seem to stop them making the attempt.

I'm pretty sure I've been accused of it twice in the last few days. Oh, well. 

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm pretty sure I've been accused of it twice in the last few days. Oh, well. 

CFR.  I don't recall any such accusation, but then I'm getting on in years and may not be sharp enough to catch it.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

CFR.  I don't recall any such accusation, but then I'm getting on in years and may not be sharp enough to catch it.

My statement that "it would be quite odd to try to 'disprove God' based on anything" was greeted with this response.

Quote

It appears that you have done that already.  Maybe you should explain how or why you are a unbeliever.

As for the second, I'll retract that because I'd rather not stir the embers of that fire again.

[Guest]

On August 7, 2016 at 8:11 PM, rodheadlee said:

What is this, beat up on Elder Holland week? You had to go back 40 years for a quote.

Elder Holland is what we call a "Fire & brimstone" speaker, teacher and Apostle. Just like others who speak forcefully and are not afraid to stand his ground, he like all others becomes a large target. I look forward to his talks...no boring monotone speaking there. I love the guy, and since I do not feel threatened by him and grew up to that kind of delivery in sermons, I will continue to be a fan of the man. 

[JLHPROF]

On 8/7/2016 at 7:43 PM, BCSpace said:

It's official doctrine if found in an official LDS publication no matter how old.  For it not to be doctrine, one would have to find a differing statement in an official publication of a later date (continuing revelation principle).

It would be great if this were true but I don't think the Church follows this policy.
Think of all the one-off doctrines that have never been revised but are generally dismissed.

[Johnnie Cake]

I'm already in trouble...so I better not comment...but papa the op is your CFR on the now closed thread

Edited August 9, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Freedom]

10 hours ago, cynth said:

It also helps in reading references if references are fully quoted and a source given so as to avoid inadvertently creating a misperception.  Above are the sentences surrounding the one pulled out.  

I did quote the entire portion that is relevant. The doctrines that are published are taken from the scriptures and official proclamations. These sources are then quotes in official publications. Quotes from random general authorities and inserted into manuals are not doctrine. It may be how the doctrine is being interpreted, but it is not the doctrine. 

[James Tunney]

25 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm already in trouble...so I better not comment...but papa the op is your CFR on the now closed thread

Is it a sin to disagree with the point of view of our beloved monitors?

[Johnnie Cake]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

That's an odd reaction to a simple post that highlights some teachings made by Elder Holland (teachings which are well supported and reinforced by the scriptures and Church publications, I would point out).  In the other thread, people seemed really upset that JC had not provided any references for a supposed claim by Elder Holland, so I thought I could make everyone happy by providing some claims that were referenced.  But I suspect some LDS prefer anything that is taught by leaders that contradicts their worldview to be unreferenced, so as to make it easier to ignore them.

As for the timing of the quotes, I wasn't aware that talks in General Conference came with an expiration date.  Certainly, the recent courses of study in Church that have highlighted teachings that were decades or even 100+ years old would seem to indicate that aged talks can still have some value. 

Obviously, if there are subsequent Church curriculum or teachings by Church leaders published by the Church that contradict Elder Holland's teachings, then he would stand corrected.  If you are aware of any such thing, do share.

And it appears that my failure to provide a CFR on a quote in that now closed thread, a quote I admitted was hearsay and only supported by my credibility and reputation here, although I was just about to reference this very article, caused the mods to place me in a restrictive status...and thus I can not give you an up reputation vote

[Freedom]

10 hours ago, cynth said:

The tricky thing, of course, is trying to conclude whether a press release, ostensibly approved by the FP and Q12 but unsigned in its current form, constitutes doctrine. 

It is not. Only the scriptures, official proclamations, and the articles of faith contain doctrine. There is a difference between saying "doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications" and saying "church publications consistently proclaim doctrine". Just as there is a difference between saying all cats are mammals and all mammals are cats. The statement that is quoted on the church website is very clear. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

My statement that "it would be quite odd to try to 'disprove God' based on anything" was greeted with this response.

As for the second, I'll retract that because I'd rather not stir the embers of that fire again.

Yeh, you did not indicate that you are an atheist.

[Johnnie Cake]

7 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Is it a sin to disagree with the point of view of our beloved monitors?

I think it's a sin to post a quote attributed to an LDS GA without providing some credible support...particularly when the quote while in line with LDS scripture is considered controversial.  And in light of the Internet age spin, I don't think that's an unreasonable requirement.  I just wish I hadn't been punished for telling the truth...I find that frustrating