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

[Freedom]

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The key phrase is "consistently proclaimed." When I worked for the church, it was emphasized that Correlation is designed to ensure that church publications are consistent with church doctrine. So, the publication isn't doctrine per se but doesn't conflict with established doctrine. Thus, "printed on acid-free paper" isn't doctrine but doesn't contradict it, either. 

Exactly. The way to test if a quote in the manual is 'doctrine' is to see if it can be found in the scriptures ect. If not, it is perhaps the churches current position on the matter at best. Further, these controversial quotes always concern peripheral matters that have nothing to do with doctrine. The age of the earth, or the magnitude of the flood are not at all relevant to the core doctrines of the church. 

[BCSpace]

49 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Exactly. The way to test if a quote in the manual is 'doctrine' is to see if it can be found in the scriptures ect. If not, it is perhaps the churches current position on the matter at best. Further, these controversial quotes always concern peripheral matters that have nothing to do with doctrine. The age of the earth, or the magnitude of the flood are not at all relevant to the core doctrines of the church. 

 

That is NOT how the Church sees doctrinal determination all at. If the doctrine could simply be found in the scriptures by anyone, there would only be one Bible based church.  The fact of the matter is that neither you or I is authorized to declare doctrine from the scriptures.  Only the prophets can do that.  Where do you get the notion that the water in John 3:5 refers to water baptism?  Why, from an authorized publication of course. The Church itself has said this the method for doctrinal dissemination.

Now that you have the words authorized by the prophets in some officially published work, you can teach that the water in John 3:5 refers to water baptism.

Edited August 15, 2016 by BCSpace
Spelling

[6EQUJ5]

5 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

 

That is NOT how the Church sees doctrinal determination all at. If the doctrine could simply be found in the scriptures by anyone, there would only be one Bible based church.  The fact of the matter is that neither you or I is authorized to declare doctrine from the scriptures.  Only the prophets can do that.  Where do you get the notion that the water in John 3:5 refers to water baptism?  Why, from an authorized publication of course. The Church itself has said this the method for doctrinal dissemination.

Now that you have the words authorized by the prophets in some officially published work, you can teach that the water in John 3:5 refers to water baptism.

How did prophets declare doctrine before the printing press?

Q

[BCSpace]

8 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

How did prophets declare doctrine before the printing press?

Q

Same as they do now, and the words were published even long before there were printing presses.  And there were even debates, early Christianity for example, on what publications were official, but that was when there were no prophets.

You've given me an excellent thought on the hypothetical conditions necessary for placing Adam and Eve into the garden; writing was available.  The Fall could have been as early as 6,000 B.C. where we have the earliest Neolithic writing.

[cinepro]

16 hours ago, Freedom said:

Exactly. The way to test if a quote in the manual is 'doctrine' is to see if it can be found in the scriptures ect. If not, it is perhaps the churches current position on the matter at best. Further, these controversial quotes always concern peripheral matters that have nothing to do with doctrine. The age of the earth, or the magnitude of the flood are not at all relevant to the core doctrines of the church. 

The creation is pretty dang relevant to the core doctrines of the Church (even being classified as one of the "Pillars of God's Plan"), and whether it happened ~6,000 years ago or ~100,000 years ago would affect a whole host of issues regarding the veracity of the scriptures and doctrines about the creation process and Fall of Adam.

Likewise, the scope of Noah's flood is very relevant to the history of the Earth and God's dealings with his children, teaching many lessons about sin, repentance, and covenants.  Not to mention its meaning regarding Earth's baptism.

Go ahead and review what Prophets and Apostles and Church curriculum have taught about the scope of the flood and think about whether or not it is relevant:

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=185

 

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

The creation is pretty dang relevant to the core doctrines of the Church (even being classified as one of the "Pillars of God's Plan"), and whether it happened ~6,000 years ago or ~100,000 years ago would affect a whole host of issues regarding the veracity of the scriptures and doctrines about the creation process and Fall of Adam.

Likewise, the scope of Noah's flood is very relevant to the history of the Earth and God's dealings with his children, teaching many lessons about sin, repentance, and covenants.  Not to mention it's meaning regarding Earth's baptism.

Go ahead and review what Prophets and Apostles and Church curriculum have taught about the scope of the flood and think about whether or not it is relevant:

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=185

 

 

I don't know plenty of members seem to reject the notion of a 6,000 year old earth and a global flood just fine. 

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know plenty of members seem to reject the notion of a 6,000 year old earth and a global flood just fine. 

But they don't do it in class or from the pulpit.  It's okay to reject those things during the week (and online) as long as you pretend that you believe them on Sunday morning.

[Johnnie Cake]

What was that song about the wise man building his house upon the rock and the foolish man building his house upon the sand...and the rains came tumbling down.  Well the rain is coming down in torrents with many LDS truth claims coming up wanting when subjected to real critical examination...and because these claims were built on false premises' and false assumptions the church will pay a price in increased member doubt and disaffection.

So many past prophetic pronouncements are being relegated as just the statements of mere men rather than how they were viewed when given as prophetic utterances by the church itself.  I dare say that pretty much every single dead LDS prophet has some authoritative pronouncement that has fallen to disavowal or is not viewed as authoritative or true today.

But when you build an ideology on false hoods like a 6,000 year old earth timeline and a universal flood you open yourself to this kind of criticism...these things are bound to be exposed for what they are given enough time...

There is wisdom in building a religious claims in time honored truths rather than religious myths like no death prior to 6,000 years ago, a 6,000 existence or a universal flood.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Jeanne]

20 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

How did prophets declare doctrine before the printing press?

Q

On Gold Plates.

[Johnnie Cake]

Deleted

Edited August 16, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[RevTestament]

21 hours ago, BCSpace said:

You've given me an excellent thought on the hypothetical conditions necessary for placing Adam and Eve into the garden; writing was available.  The Fall could have been as early as 6,000 B.C. where we have the earliest Neolithic writing.

CFR  on the Neolithic writing

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

What was that song about the wise man building his house upon the rock and the foolish man building his house upon the sand...and the rains came tumbling down.  Well the rain is coming down in torrents with many LDS truth claims coming up wanting when subjected to real critical examination...and because these claims were built on false premises' and false assumptions the church will pay a price in increased member doubt and disaffection.

So many past prophetic pronouncements are being relegated as just the statements of mere men rather than how they were viewed when given as prophetic utterances by the church itself.  I dare say that pretty much every single dead LDS prophet has some authoritative pronouncement that has fallen to disavowal or is not viewed as authoritative or true today.

But when you build an ideology on false hoods like a 6,000 year old earth timeline and a universal flood you open yourself to this kind of criticism...these things are bound to be exposed for what they are given enough time...

There is wisdom in building a religious claims in time honored truths rather than religious myths like no death prior to 6,000 years ago, a 6,000 existence or a universal flood.

When it comes to religious claims, what do you expect?  Man, if there is a God, we're so left in the dark we have no choice but to stand on shaky ground.  I realize some may then conclude "well then, there is no God".  But to others of us it's just not that simple.

[Johnnie Cake]

You would think that men who claim to have a direct link to the God of the whole universe could get some clarification on these issues...particularly when they come into direct conflict with the reality of scientific evidence.  I like what the Dalai Lama has said on the subject:

Quote

We should pay attention to what modern scientists have actually found through experiment and through measurement the things they have proved to be reality.
 

The church takes a different tack and chooses religious myth even when it flies in the face of scientific reality...

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You would think that men who claim to have a direct link to the God of the whole universe could get some clarification on these issues...particularly when they come into direct conflict with the reality of scientific evidence.  I like what the Dalai Lama has said on the subject:

The church takes a different tack and chooses religious myth even when it flies in the face of scientific reality...

yeah. In some cases.  But, I wouldn't doubt if most Church leaders would agree with the Dalai Lama statement.  They would probably just say something like, well science hasn't proven how the earth was created.  God could still have created, started it all, and made it look different to us. 

[Johnnie Cake]

Actually science has proven/ developed theories on how the earth was formed...and the evidence is overwhelming for a naturally occurring gravitational event that took place billions of years ago

 

For those interested I suggest you watch this introductory video on the subject...

 

[thesometimesaint]

34 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You would think that men who claim to have a direct link to the God of the whole universe could get some clarification on these issues...particularly when they come into direct conflict with the reality of scientific evidence.  I like what the Dalai Lama has said on the subject:

The church takes a different tack and chooses religious myth even when it flies in the face of scientific reality...

What makes the Dalai Lama religion correct?

The Church has a better track record of support of science than Buddhism.

BTW Science by definition has to be agnostic on the subject of God. Individual scientists can believe anything they want. Also as long as I claim that God did it, then I'm good with the Church.

[Johnnie Cake]

The LDS church still clings to false religious myths that support their doctrine despite scientific evidence that undermine their claims...all I'm suggesting is that given enough time clinging to these myths can only undermine faith and belief...better to accept science when it has accumulated enough evidence to make belief no longer tenable.

 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The LDS church still clings to false religious myths that support their doctrine despite scientific evidence that undermine their claims...all I'm suggesting is that given enough time clinging to these myths can only undermine faith and belief...better to accept science when it has accumulated enough evidence to make belief no longer tenable.

 

The age of the earth, how it was formed, and the extent of The Flood are not part of LDS doctrine. Individual members are free to believe anything they want on these subject and still be considered good members of the Church if they agree that God did it.

[Teancum]

On August 15, 2016 at 10:56 AM, stemelbow said:

I don't know plenty of members seem to reject the notion of a 6,000 year old earth and a global flood just fine. 

Well sure.  They read their own interpretations into scripture and do all sorts of mental gyrations to make their religious faith pigeon hole into what science can clearly demonstrate with evidence.    BC Space is a prime example though he does reject the LDS doctrine on the global flood  

 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

What was that song about the wise man building his house upon the rock and the foolish man building his house upon the sand...and the rains came tumbling down.  Well the rain is coming down in torrents with many LDS truth claims coming up wanting when subjected to real critical examination...and because these claims were built on false premises' and false assumptions the church will pay a price in increased member doubt and disaffection.

So many past prophetic pronouncements are being relegated as just the statements of mere men rather than how they were viewed when given as prophetic utterances by the church itself.  I dare say that pretty much every single dead LDS prophet has some authoritative pronouncement that has fallen to disavowal or is not viewed as authoritative or true today.

But when you build an ideology on false hoods like a 6,000 year old earth timeline and a universal flood you open yourself to this kind of criticism...these things are bound to be exposed for what they are given enough time...

There is wisdom in building a religious claims in time honored truths rather than religious myths like no death prior to 6,000 years ago, a 6,000 existence or a universal flood.

If I could I would give you a rep point. 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You would think that men who claim to have a direct link to the God of the whole universe could get some clarification on these issues...particularly when they come into direct conflict with the reality of scientific evidence.  I like what the Dalai Lama has said on the subject:

The church takes a different tack and chooses religious myth even when it flies in the face of scientific reality...

Correct.   The Church just tosses up its hands re science that conflicts with religion and gives a no opinion on the critical issue of evolution and humans being on he earth a lot longer than 6000 to 11,000 years. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well sure.  They read their own interpretations into scripture and do all sorts of mental gyrations to make their religious faith pigeon hole into what science can clearly demonstrate with evidence.    BC Space is a prime example though he does reject the LDS doctrine on the global flood  

 

I don't find that to be a fair evaluation of us.  But ok. 

[Teancum]

22 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The age of the earth, how it was formed, and the extent of The Flood are not part of LDS doctrine. Individual members are free to believe anything they want on these subject and still be considered good members of the Church if they agree that God did it.

Yea. In other words the prophets, seers and revelators have chosen to punt on one of the most critical issues perhaps such seers should be able to answer. 

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't find that to be a fair evaluation of us.  But ok. 

Who is the "us?"

 

 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Who is the "us?"

 

 

Members who reject the 6,000 year old earth and global flood.