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

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

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.

Darn. You mean I might not get the chance to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

[BCSpace]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Darn. You mean I might not get the chance to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

You never know, it might actually be a plate piled high with roast beef and mashed potatoes and gravy.

[Freedom]

8 hours ago, cynth said:

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."

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? 

This is quite simple. The doctrines are well laid out in the manuals. There are no false doctrines in the manuals. There are a lot of teachings that are not doctrine, but that does not mean they contradict doctrine. The manuals are carefully drafted to ensure that the revealed doctrines are contained in them. There is a huge and patently obvious difference between saying doctrines are contained in the manuals and the manuals are a source of doctrine just there is a difference between saying healthy food is available at the grocery store and grocery stores only contain healthy food. The statement by the church is very clear where we find the doctrines. It does not mention manuals. Let me post it yet again:

 

"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." 

So, doctrine is proclaimed in the church publications, just as healthy food is available at the grocery store, and doctrine resides in the scriptures, official declaration and proclamations and the articles of faith, just as healthy food resides in the fruit and vegetables at the grocery store. The fact that a store has healthy food does not mean it does not contain unhealthy food as well. A simple understanding of grammar makes the statement very clear. If all that is taught in the church publications is doctrine, then it would be included in the list of where doctrine resides but it is not. I assure you, it is not our doctrine to go camping yet this is taught in our manuals, and it is not a suggestion. Doctrines are expressed, and quotes are provided to flesh it out; these quotes changed from time to time as a greater understanding of the underlying doctrine is revealed. The official position of the church is that there is no position on how old the earth is, yet quotes are found in some manuals suggesting that the earth is very young. The location where doctrine resides contradicts the official publication. This compels us to accept that where doctrine resides and where it is proclaimed are not the same thing. Something can proclaim doctrine but still contain non-doctrinal points.

You may also be surprised to know that there are contradictions in the manuals because correlation is improving the manuals, but correlation does not equal doctrinal purity. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

Yet, beyond questions of fallibility or no, we have to wrestle with giving false authority to someone in official publications.  Isn't that the same as lying?

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, cynth said:

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."

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? 

Lots of churches, synagogues, and mosques use religious manuals to educate or edify their members, and even to appeal to those outside their faith. Specific denominations or communions use official manuals for that purpose, but none of them are confused as to the relative merits of their Holy Scripture when compared to the manuals which may quote from or explain Scripture.  Prayer books, hymn books, and catechisms are all useful and strong efforts are expended to make them accurate and pure.  That doesn't mean that they should be given more authority than they in fact have.  Manuals come and go, often changing with the times and with the opinions of the writers.  Why would we want to set them in stone?

[jkwilliams]

8 hours ago, BCSpace said:

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.

I know quite a few members of the church for whom it's not obvious that Adam and Eve must be literal. Like I said, you seem to place a higher premium on taking scriptural stories literally than I ever have.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I know quite a few members of the church for whom it's not obvious that Adam and Eve must be literal. Like I said, you seem to place a higher premium on taking scriptural stories literally than I ever have.

It's pretty obvious to me that the story of Adam and Eve was never intended to be taken literally. Adam and Eve represent humanity. 

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet, beyond questions of fallibility or no, we have to wrestle with giving false authority to someone in official publications.  Isn't that the same as lying?

I wouldn't say it is lying. But it is an over-reliance in the arm of flesh. Which we are all subject to from time to time.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I know quite a few members of the church for whom it's not obvious that Adam and Eve must be literal. Like I said, you seem to place a higher premium on taking scriptural stories literally than I ever have.

I don't have a problem with a literal Adam and Eve. Just some of the claims of what they did.

[jkwilliams]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's pretty obvious to me that the story of Adam and Eve was never intended to be taken literally. Adam and Eve represent humanity. 

That's why I find it so interesting that people have to parse the word "created" and argue for some kind of localized, non-mortal Garden of Eden taking place within a world where mortality and evolutionary processes have been going on for millions of years. The only reason for that kind of contortionism is an insistence that the story of Adam and Eve is meant to be taken literally. True, dogmatic types like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie taught a literal Eden and Fall, where Adam and Eve were the "first mortal flesh on earth":

Quote

 

In Eden we will see all things created in a paradisiacal state—without death, without procreation, without probationary experiences.

We will come to know that such a creation, now unknown to man, was the only way to provide for the Fall.

We will then see Adam and Eve, the first man and the first woman, step down from their state of immortal and paradisiacal glory to become the first mortal flesh on earth.

Mortality, including as it does procreation and death, will enter the world. And because of transgression a probationary estate of trial and testing will begin. (McConkie, "The Purifying Power of Gethsemane," April conference, 1985)

 

But I don't know too many church members who believe that we are all descended from one man and one woman who lived 6,000 years ago, and before whom there were no humans. I don't know, Maybe there are.

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by jkwilliams

[cynth]

10 hours ago, Freedom said:

There is a huge and patently obvious difference between saying doctrines are contained in the manuals and the manuals are a source of doctrine just there is a difference between saying healthy food is available at the grocery store and grocery stores only contain healthy food.

Yes, and the difference is entirely generated by statements like the above and is fully contained in your insertion of the word 'only' in the last line, which no one in this thread was arguing, and which makes this really a non-argument.  No one is disagreeing with you that when words such as 'printed on acid-free paper' are found in a manual, it doesn't mean 'printed on acid-free paper' is considered doctrine.

I have no problem with what you said about manuals, in a 2012 thread here, other than a minor semantic quibble that it's unlikely official interpretations of doctrine would not also state said doctrine:

Quote

The church website is crystal clear in my opinion. It is the scriptures and the official proclamations. The manuals provide what can be called the official interpretation of the doctrine, but not the doctrine itself.

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by cynth

[cynth]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why would we want to set them in stone?

Indeed.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

I wouldn't say it is lying. But it is an over-reliance in the arm of flesh. Which we are all subject to from time to time.

So you don't mind someone being given GA status, even though he didn't have it at the time he was writing or speaking?  Should we retroject authority onto someone after the fact?  To me that seems utterly deceptive and inappropriate.  To me it seems that anyone doing that is being dishonest.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

That's why I find it so interesting that people have to parse the word "created" and argue for some kind of localized, non-mortal Garden of Eden taking place within a world where mortality and evolutionary processes have been going on for millions of years. The only reason for that kind of contortionism is an insistence that the story of Adam and Eve is meant to be taken literally. True, dogmatic types like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie taught a literal Eden and Fall, where Adam and Eve were the "first mortal flesh on earth":

But I don't know too many church members who believe that we are all descended from one man and one woman who lived 6,000 years ago, and before whom there were no humans. I don't know, Maybe there are.

Non-Mormon scholars take the Creation & Garden story in Genesis as a temple text, and they compare it to other ancient temple texts.  For them the text is not history, but symbolic and dramatic ritual.  There may indeed have been a covenant ritual in a specific place and time (6000 years ago) in which a couple with different names took on the symbolic titles of "Man" and "Woman," who founded a sequence of events which is still unfolding in our time, and in which we participate in the same basic ritual covenant ceremonies.  Since Pres McKay and others of the Brethren have frankly declared their acceptance of biological evolutionary theory and of geologic time, one need not reject the notion of many humans before Adam -- all of whom are now united in one covenant.  That may seem like "contortionism" to you, but it is solidly based on good scholarship and science.

[thesometimesaint]

32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you don't mind someone being given GA status, even though he didn't have it at the time he was writing or speaking?  Should we retroject authority onto someone after the fact?  To me that seems utterly deceptive and inappropriate.  To me it seems that anyone doing that is being dishonest.

Not what I said. Of course I don't approve of giving authority to anyone Post Hoc. Also I don't approve of assigning infallibility to any mortal including GA's. All of us, including GA's, speak up to the level of our ignorance. I really can't speak to the motives of others, but must assume good faith until proven otherwise.

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I know quite a few members of the church for whom it's not obvious that Adam and Eve must be literal. Like I said, you seem to place a higher premium on taking scriptural stories literally than I ever have.

As a believer, I felt I was supposed to take them pretty literally.  For me, the big symbolism about the creation was that each "day" of the creation represented a 1,000 year period.  Thus while the Fall happened 6,000 years ago, the earth was actually created 13,000 years ago--possibly from scraps of other worlds that had fossilized dinosaurs.  And maybe Adam and Eve were in the deathless Garden of Eden on a deathless planet for an arbitrary long length of time before they finally fell.  That was as far out there as I could go--it was essential that the stories of the Creation, Fall, and Atonement be taken as literal events.

Bruce. R. McConkie painted an internally coherent view of the plan of Salvation that was entirely consistent with the scriptures and the stated beliefs of just about every prophet of this dispensation.  He said there were three "pillars of eternity."  The Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement.  Everything was created in a perfect, deathless state.  There was then a Fall.  The Fall allowed us to grow through this temporary mortal probation, which is then returned to the perfected state because of the Atonement.

With this comprehensive view of what the gospel is actually about, the Creation and Fall are literal events.  The earth meandering for billions of years where billions of species evolve and then 99% of the time become extinct doesn't fit into the plan.  If death has always existed, then the stories of the Creation and Fall are no longer about about real physical things, and are at best symbolic of esoteric spiritual truths.  But that raises a fundamental question: why would we need a literal Atonement to ransom us from a symbolic Fall? (2 Nephi 9:6)

Of course Mormons are free to interpret their religion any way they want, but the story is less cohesive when you allow for some of the Pillars of Eternity to be merely symbolic.

 

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

 If death has always existed, then the stories of the Creation and Fall are no longer about about real physical things, and are at best symbolic of esoteric spiritual truths.  But that raises a fundamental question: why would we need a literal Atonement to ransom us from a symbolic Fall? (2 Nephi 9:6)

 

IMO - the story of Adam and Eve is partly about the story of how each of us fall. The fall of Adam happens every time I say an unkind thing to someone. That framework does NOT render a literal atonement nonsensical or unnecessary (although I personally don't subscribe to a literal atonement). 

 

ETA: Meant to say "does NOT render a literal atonement nonsensical or unnecessary"

Edited August 10, 2016 by Gray

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, BCSpace said:

You never know, it might actually be a plate piled high with roast beef and mashed potatoes and gravy.

I think that is the WoW tree of the knowledge of good and evil

[cinepro]

15 hours ago, Freedom said:

You may also be surprised to know that there are contradictions in the manuals because correlation is improving the manuals, but correlation does not equal doctrinal purity. 

 

You may be interested to know that the Church specifies that "maintaining purity of doctrine" is actually one of the specific goals of the Correlation Department (and if the list is in order of importance, then it's the most important one).

Quote

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve oversee correlation in the Church. Correlation includes:

    a.   Maintaining purity of doctrine.

    b.   Emphasizing the importance of the family and the home.

    c.   Placing all the work of the Church under priesthood direction.

    d.   Establishing proper relationships among the organizations of the Church.

    e.   Achieving unity and order in the Church.

    f.   Ensuring simplicity of Church programs and materials.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-42-continuing-revelation-to-latter-day-prophets?lang=eng

 

So while you can argue that they aren't perfect in this endeavor, it should be acknowledged that materials that are published under correlation aspire to this standard.

And if you're going to argue that they missed the mark in a specific instance, it would probably be good to have something better than "I don't agree with it" to back up such a suggestion.

Edited August 10, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you don't mind someone being given GA status, even though he didn't have it at the time he was writing or speaking?  Should we retroject authority onto someone after the fact?  To me that seems utterly deceptive and inappropriate.  To me it seems that anyone doing that is being dishonest.

You know, I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here.

Because while it may be annoying to have a "General Authority" stand and say such things, you seem to be saying that it's better if the Church asked the Commissioner of Education to give a talk in his role as the "Commissioner of Education", and he felt that those points were what the Church needed to be "educated" about and the Church never thought to correct him.

Because if what Commissioner Holland said wasn't true, and he was saying it in his role as the Commissioner of Education, then that is some 1984-levels of doublespeak going on there, and it reduces "education" in the Church to the level of irrelevance that even I couldn't have imagined.

No, I'm doing you a favor by referring to him by a spiritual title ("Elder") so you can have plausible deniability for ignoring what he said because a spiritual leader shouldn't be expected to be knowledgeable about such things as geology or anthropology.  But a "Commissioner of Education" and future University President might be expected to know that the continents probably didn't divide sometime in the last 7,000 years.

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

IMO - the story of Adam and Eve is partly about the story of how each of us fall. The fall of Adam happens every time I say an unkind thing to someone. That framework does render a literal atonement nonsensical or unnecessary (although I personally don't subscribe to a literal atonement). 

I'm with you.  The atonement has significant meaning when considered symbolically.  Socrates, Gutenberg, George Washington, Alexander Fleming, my 9th grade math teacher, and countless others have given me gifts I could never repay.  Add to that everyone who has forgiven me for the wrongs I have done and given me a hand when I needed, or were just good people that made the world a better place because of them being here, and I am infinitely indebted to the universe.  So if humanity in general is the god to whom I am literally eternally indebted, then maybe Jesus wasn't being symbolic but was actually telling the literal truth when he said, "inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

[Gray]

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm with you.  The atonement has significant meaning when considered symbolically.  Socrates, Gutenberg, George Washington, Alexander Fleming, my 9th grade math teacher, and countless others have given me gifts I could never repay.  Add to that everyone who has forgiven me for the wrongs I have done and given me a hand when I needed, or were just good people that made the world a better place because of them being here, and I am infinitely indebted to the universe.  So if humanity in general is the god to whom I am literally eternally indebted, then maybe Jesus wasn't being symbolic but was actually telling the literal truth when he said, "inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

I should clarify that I meant to say "That framework does NOT render a literal atonement nonsensical or unnecessary", while myself not holding to a literal interpretation of the atonement. 

I very much enjoyed your thoughts on the atonement, though. 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

................................

....................... If death has always existed, then the stories of the Creation and Fall are no longer about about real physical things, and are at best symbolic of esoteric spiritual truths.  But that raises a fundamental question: why would we need a literal Atonement to ransom us from a symbolic Fall? (2 Nephi 9:6)

Of course Mormons are free to interpret their religion any way they want, but the story is less cohesive when you allow for some of the Pillars of Eternity to be merely symbolic.

Well, you might want to compare the merely symbolic covenants we make and the merely symbolic ordinances we do in temples (past and present).  How might they have real effect, if they are merely symbolic?  The Brethren, including Elder McConkie, have stated their belief, for example, that woman was not made from an actual rib of "man."    How might figurative expressions and metaphors have real effect in eternal law?  Is this life just a simulation?

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

You know, I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here.

Because while it may be annoying to have a "General Authority" stand and say such things, you seem to be saying that it's better if the Church asked the Commissioner of Education to give a talk in his role as the "Commissioner of Education", and he felt that those points were what the Church needed to be "educated" about and the Church never thought to correct him.

Because if what Commissioner Holland said wasn't true, and he was saying it in his role as the Commissioner of Education, then that is some 1984-levels of doublespeak going on there, and it reduces "education" in the Church to the level of irrelevance that even I couldn't have imagined.

No, I'm doing you a favor by referring to him by a spiritual title ("Elder") so you can have plausible deniability for ignoring what he said because a spiritual leader shouldn't be expected to be knowledgeable about such things as geology or anthropology.  But a "Commissioner of Education" and future University President might be expected to know that the continents probably didn't divide sometime in the last 7,000 years.

I'm not debating what Holland may have in fact said, nor am i suggesting that you have taken his words out of context -- even if you have.  Nor am I seeking plausible deniability (as you cynically put it).  What rankles me is the oh so convenient use of an unearned title attached to someone's name so as to give him more authority than he in fact had at that moment in time.  That is blatant dishonesty, and should not be tolerated.

[cinepro]

On 8/9/2016 at 11:00 AM, 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.

I have to apologize.  The talk under consideration wasn't given in General Conference. 

The overall point about then-Commissioner (now-Elder) Holland's teachings stand as they were printed in the Ensign, but I'm not sure where the talk was given.

But it wasn't General Conference.