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

[cynth]

46 minutes ago, Freedom said:

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. 

No you didn't, if you are now stating that doctrines include official proclamations.  You said this:

Quote

"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. 

That's why I posted the entire quote, so that the part about proclamations is included.  Your single sentence did not include the full definition, so no, not all relevant parts were included.

I think you're on shaky ground if you are excluding things inserted into manuals.  To say that those are things from 'random' GAs and are not doctrine doesn't match the description of 'doctrine consistently proclaimed.'. That's the definition of correlated manuals, isn't it?  'Doctrine consistently proclaimed'?

 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

I haven't seen people put on limited for only one post.  From what I have seen in the past when I paid more attention to such things, limited status is a result of a pattern of behaviour.  Not stating what was yours or it the interpretation of your posts was accurate, just saying you will misunderstand what motivated the mods if you focus all on one post.

[James Tunney]

53 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

I agree. One shouldn't be punished for telling the truth even if it is hard for some to stomach.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I haven't seen people put on limited for only one post.  From what I have seen in the past when I paid more attention to such things, limited status is a result of a pattern of behaviour.  Not stating what was yours or it the interpretation of your posts was accurate, just saying you will misunderstand what motivated the mods if you focus all on one post.

Fair enough... You're aware of both my posts, tone and contribution to this board, small as it is...does my activity warrant restricted status in your opinion?  I respect your opinion so please be honest with me.  

[BCSpace]

On 8/7/2016 at 10:52 PM, 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. 

Perhaps you should take the entire context into account (and perhaps attend a Teacher Prep class)...

"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."

The doctrine merely resides in the Standard works.  It takes prophets to tease it out and interpret it and then they are published in official magazines, manuals, pamphlets etc.  How do you know that water in John 3:5 refers to water baptism and not physical birth?  Why, a prophet quoted in some other official publication of course!

 

 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Fair enough... You're aware of both my posts, tone and contribution to this board, small as it is...does my activity warrant restricted status in your opinion?  I respect your opinion so please be honest with me.  

I am not aware of how others feel about your posts.  I assume the mods pay attention to the number of times a poster gets reported.  And as a mod from another board, how others reacted to posters was a big deal to me because it contributed to the feel of a board (for example,a poster might never break a rule, but might say things in a passive aggressive way that set people off...you are not this type, just explaining my reasoning) so without that input I can't say.

And unfortunately due to drugs these days my memory isn't something I trust, so a fair appraisal would require me to do more rereading than I can manage right now.

So this is primarily a 'gut' response.  I do remember finding some of your posts to cross the line.  I haven't kept track of how often I have done that, I haven't made a habit of reporting certainly (I don't make report much these days, but I don't think I would report more of yours if I did.  Given your positive posts, I assume it is as much my negativity as yours in anything that doesn't obviously (to me of course) violate the written and unwritten rules.  Nothing is associated my mind as something you consistently do, so I generally assume that something just pushed your buttons that time rather than its a fixation or trouble spot as some posters have.  And I haven't put you on ignore either (which generally only happens to one note posters whose negativity has become more boring than troubling).

 I see you putting a lot of effort in trying to avoid offending generally and I remember there being a number of highly complimentary posts.  The mods may not see those posts because of course they won't be reported.  It is unfortunate but few mods have enough time to both read and post extensively enough to get to know posters well and moderate.  It takes someone like me who has a restricted life to be that kind of mod.  It means it is best to avoid temptation rather than assuming a balance of positive and negative will be enough or even heavily positive will balance out a few negative. (not saying you do that, making the comment for anyone who does).

Sorry I can't be more specific.  If you want me to tell you on occasion when I might feel you need to be reported, I can, but I can't think of any other way to be helpful and I would only want to do that if you really wanted as I don't like coming to posts with a mindset of "what's wrong with it, if anything?" as I did as a ZLMD mod for too many years. Sucks the fun out of reading and responding.  And I tend to get too sensitive to minor stuff as well out of concern of missing something that might be helpful to deal withfor a poster or board's sake.

[Freedom]

58 minutes ago, cynth said:

No you didn't, if you are now stating that doctrines include official proclamations.  You said this:

That's why I posted the entire quote, so that the part about proclamations is included.  Your single sentence did not include the full definition, so no, not all relevant parts were included.

I think you're on shaky ground if you are excluding things inserted into manuals.  To say that those are things from 'random' GAs and are not doctrine doesn't match the description of 'doctrine consistently proclaimed.'. That's the definition of correlated manuals, isn't it?  'Doctrine consistently proclaimed'?

 

Because quotes in manuals does not meet the standard of scriptures, official declarations and official proclamations. Church manuals and conference talks are not a source of doctrine. Only the scriptures and official statements. A study of the manuals will produce numerous contractions, just as a study of general conference talks will do. The doctrines as found in the scriptures are proclaimed. But manuals also contain interpretations based on the information at hand that is not doctrine. Unless you consider the use of antiseptic cream or socks to be official doctrine. I do not consider camping to be doctrine, or classical music to be doctrine. These are of great value and their virtues are extolled in the manuals, but they are not found in the scriptures or official proclamations or or declarations of the first presidency. The church has made it very clear that it has no position on evolution or the age of the earth so if you find something in a manual that disputes evolution or suggests the earth is very young than you will know that this is not doctrine. Correlation does not equal revelation. 

[Freedom]

31 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

Perhaps you should take the entire context into account (and perhaps attend a Teacher Prep class)...

"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."

The doctrine merely resides in the Standard works.  It takes prophets to tease it out and interpret it and then they are published in official magazines, manuals, pamphlets etc.  How do you know that water in John 3:5 refers to water baptism and not physical birth?  Why, a prophet quoted in some other official publication of course!

 

 

Milk is found the corner store, but the corner store is not milk. You are suffering from a classic logical fallacy. As I just stated in another response, camping and using antiseptic creme is not doctrine but it is taught in the manuals. The doctrines, as found in the scriptures, are in the manuals, but manuals also contain a lot of concepts that are not doctrine. 

[BCSpace]

17 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Milk is found the corner store, but the corner store is not milk. You are suffering from a classic logical fallacy. As I just stated in another response, camping and using antiseptic creme is not doctrine but it is taught in the manuals. The doctrines, as found in the scriptures, are in the manuals, but manuals also contain a lot of concepts that are not doctrine. 

The Church doesn't publish that which it doesn't agree with without caveat.  For example, it identifies the Bible Dictionary as non doctrinal.  Official publication clearly indicates when you are treading in non doctrinal territory. It might say "not doctrine', it might say "in so and so's opinion", it might say "one alternative view is".  Etc.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Because quotes in manuals does not meet the standard of scriptures, official declarations and official proclamations. Church manuals and conference talks are not a source of doctrine.

 

There is no such standard. In fact, quite the opposite is true...

"Also make sure that you use Church-produced materials when you teach. This will help you keep the doctrine pure. Avoid speculation and private interpretations."

Edited August 9, 2016 by BCSpace
Addendum

[BCSpace]

15 hours 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.

You're actually making the argument for room for Evolution in LDS doctrine.  The doctrine on D&C 77:6-7 is:
 

Quote

 

D&C 77:6–7. Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)

 

And 2 Nephi 2:22 clearly puts the state of no death AFTER the creation was finished.  No word on before or during.

[BCSpace]

9 hours ago, cynth said:

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

The only problem with it is that it's actually very easy to identify LDS doctrine.  The Church itself has been quite clear.

[Johnnie Cake]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not aware of how others feel about your posts.  I assume the mods pay attention to the number of times a poster gets reported.  And as a mod from another board, how others reacted to posters was a big deal to me because it contributed to the feel of a board (for example,a poster might never break a rule, but might say things in a passive aggressive way that set people off...you are not this type, just explaining my reasoning) so without that input I can't say.

And unfortunately due to drugs these days my memory isn't something I trust, so a fair appraisal would require me to do more rereading than I can manage right now.

So this is primarily a 'gut' response.  I do remember finding some of your posts to cross the line.  I haven't kept track of how often I have done that, I haven't made a habit of reporting certainly (I don't make report much these days, but I don't think I would report more of yours if I did.  Given your positive posts, I assume it is as much my negativity as yours in anything that doesn't obviously (to me of course) violate the written and unwritten rules.  Nothing is associated my mind as something you consistently do, so I generally assume that something just pushed your buttons that time rather than its a fixation or trouble spot as some posters have.  And I haven't put you on ignore either (which generally only happens to one note posters whose negativity has become more boring than troubling).

 I see you putting a lot of effort in trying to avoid offending generally and I remember there being a number of highly complimentary posts.  The mods may not see those posts because of course they won't be reported.  It is unfortunate but few mods have enough time to both read and post extensively enough to get to know posters well and moderate.  It takes someone like me who has a restricted life to be that kind of mod.  It means it is best to avoid temptation rather than assuming a balance of positive and negative will be enough or even heavily positive will balance out a few negative. (not saying you do that, making the comment for anyone who does).

Sorry I can't be more specific.  If you want me to tell you on occasion when I might feel you need to be reported, I can, but I can't think of any other way to be helpful and I would only want to do that if you really wanted as I don't like coming to posts with a mindset of "what's wrong with it, if anything?" as I did as a ZLMD mod for too many years. Sucks the fun out of reading and responding.  And I tend to get too sensitive to minor stuff as well out of concern of missing something that might be helpful to deal withfor a poster or board's sake.

Thanks I appreciate your perspective...if my ban holds...despite loving this board....I'll probably just move on.  Being restricted, particularly in light of my best efforts to be respectful and reasonable (according to the mod's, I've obviously missed the mark) runs counter to my personal philosophy.  It is the respectful, free exchange of ideas that brings me here...and if that is gone...then what's the point... 

[jkwilliams]

8 hours ago, BCSpace said:

You're actually making the argument for room for Evolution in LDS doctrine.  The doctrine on D&C 77:6-7 is:
 

And 2 Nephi 2:22 clearly puts the state of no death AFTER the creation was finished.  No word on before or during.

I'm well aware of your position, which I find fascinating. If nothing else, viewing the scriptures literally seems to be more important to you than it ever was for me.

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, BCSpace said:

You're actually making the argument for room for Evolution in LDS doctrine.  The doctrine on D&C 77:6-7 is:
 

And 2 Nephi 2:22 clearly puts the state of no death AFTER the creation was finished.  No word on before or during.

Creation isn't finished.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

Creation isn't finished.

Please don't get him started.

[cinepro]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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. 

Well, if you can't tell the difference between a paper written for school and a talk given in General Conference, I can understand your confusion.

[cynth]

13 hours ago, Freedom said:

Because quotes in manuals does not meet the standard of scriptures, official declarations and official proclamations. Church manuals and conference talks are not a source of doctrine. Only the scriptures and official statements. A study of the manuals will produce numerous contractions, just as a study of general conference talks will do. The doctrines as found in the scriptures are proclaimed. But manuals also contain interpretations based on the information at hand that is not doctrine. Unless you consider the use of antiseptic cream or socks to be official doctrine. I do not consider camping to be doctrine, or classical music to be doctrine. These are of great value and their virtues are extolled in the manuals, but they are not found in the scriptures or official proclamations or or declarations of the first presidency. The church has made it very clear that it has no position on evolution or the age of the earth so if you find something in a manual that disputes evolution or suggests the earth is very young than you will know that this is not doctrine. Correlation does not equal revelation. 

I see.  So the Manuals correlated and distributed by the LDS church, for use in Sunday School, Young Men and Women, Relief Society, Seminary and Institute, and  Melchizedek Priesthood Manuals are not considered doctrine, although the quote below says to use "Church-produced materials.... [to] keep the doctrine pure."

Quote

Teachers must ensure that they keep the doctrine pure by teaching gospel truths as the Lord has revealed them. You can do this by teaching from the scriptures and the words of the latter-day prophets. President Ezra Taft Benson said, “Always remember, there is no satisfactory substitute for the scriptures and the words of the living prophets. These should be your original sources” (The Gospel Teacher and His Message [1976], 6).

Also make sure that you use Church-produced materials when you teach. This will help you keep the doctrine pure. Avoid speculation and private interpretations.

https://www.lds.org/service/teaching-the-gospel/principles-and-methods-of-teaching/teach-the-doctrine?lang=eng

I agree with you that it is vague enough, however, to prevent anyone from definitively saying manuals contain doctrine.  Why would that level of obfuscation be necessary?

Regarding conference talks, I would have to disagree with you.  Aren't some of those the words of current prophets?  Why would what a current prophet says not qualify as an expression of doctrine, since the definition you gave included words of current prophets?  Is there concern the current prophet might get it wrong, or that it might need to be changed in the future so it needs to be presented with plausible deniability? 

Also, what is the definition you are using for 'official?'. Materials from the lds newsroom are considered to be statements of the lds church, so reporters can use them but not consider them 'official,'?  The magazines officially published by the church and produced with the LDS name are not 'official'?   I ask these questions in all seriousness.  Where is the dividing line where statements officially coming from the LDS church go from being official to being unofficial? 

[rongo]

On 8/7/2016 at 4:50 PM, cinepro said:

Does anyone know if he's changed his views on any of these important events?

I don't know what he would say, obviously, but my guess is that his views are pretty much the same.

Elder Nelson has made more recent statements that drive those nuts who want the Church to be more in line with current scientific views in cosmology, geology, evolution, etc. That he is a heart surgeon who has (by definition) an extensive background in at least biology and anatomy is a real embarrassment to these Mormons. I'm pretty sure he agrees with Elder Holland's statements, too.

I'm of a more traditional mindset. I believe in a global flood, for instance, and that Adam and Eve were real people and that the Garden of Eden was on this continent. Elder Holland's statements don't bother me at all . . .

 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

Well, if you can't tell the difference between a paper written for school and a talk given in General Conference, I can understand your confusion.

Ah, I see, cinepro, whenever it is convenient, we should simply declare that something was said by somebody in General Conference, and any title later claimed by the speaker can can be freely retrojected as though he had always possessed that title -- any other style of newspeak being out of order and uncorrelated.  Wow, has the worm turned !!   See cinepro, defending dishonesty when it suits him.  What do they call that?  Situational ethics.

[theplains]

On 07/08/2016 at 11:38 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Good question.  However, at the time he wrote those words, he was not an apostle, but was then the Church Commissioner of Education, having just been President of BYU.

It doesn't matter who said what or when. What matters is if its true or false.

Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, theplains said:

It doesn't matter who said what or when. What matters is if its true or false.

Jim

I agree, but you are missing the point (just as cinepro does) that attributing statements to general authorities when they are not general authorities is dirty pool.  Does that make any sense to you?

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree, but you are missing the point (just as cinepro does) that attributing statements to general authorities when they are not general authorities is dirty pool.  Does that make any sense to you?

We don't claim infallibility for any mortal person, or any product in which any part is produced by any mortal person.

[BCSpace]

12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Creation isn't finished.

I can agree with that.  But the definitive creative period relative to this conversation is finished.

[BCSpace]

12 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm well aware of your position, which I find fascinating. If nothing else, viewing the scriptures literally seems to be more important to you than it ever was for me.

I think the key is parsing what must be literal and what need not be.  The 'secret' is preservation of the doctrine.  It's obvious that Adam and Eve must be literal, but the details surrounding them might not be.