So it's crap if the intro to the BD itself says it's not doctrinal?
Of course. This is pure and simple trying to have it both ways. The church teaches something, but then disclaims it as "not doctrinal"?
It is not having it both ways when the BD has always been presented as nondoctrinal.
I use the Bible Dictionary entry just because it's the most accessible to me and I remember that it's in there.
No, you use it because it is your best argument. If only it were doctrine.....lol
You and I both know that the doctrine of nothing having died on Earth until Adam fell has definitely been taught a lot in the LDS church.
It has and that because the Church comes out of a time when creationism affects the way we read scripture when there is no official doctrine. However, I notice that even early in the last century, the Church avoided any pronouncement for or against evolution and it has always been that way.
So, when you latch onto the BD's disclaimer, which part do you think is not doctrinal?
Those parts not found in doctrinal works.
What about the line near the end of the entry where it says that these things being literally true are confirmed through modern revelation?
You have two things to worry about.
1. Is such repeated in a doctrinal work?
2. What is the context of 'forms of life'? Finished and placed in the garden or pre-garden?
Are you saying that the claim that these things are verified through modern revelation is one of the statements that might be wrong?
Not at all.
You are. You seem to be afflicted with the same delusion that haunts many older generation LDS who inccorectly assumed that the statement of any Apostle (contrary to D&C 107) is doctrine.
Ah, you mean, things taught by the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators? But I'm not even saying that any little word ever uttered by a given apostle must be church doctrine. I'm talking about widely taught, and widely accepted doctrines,
Such does not define what the official doctrine of the Church is.
and the "no death before the Fall" doctrine falls into that category. You can't now just disclaim this as one of Bruce R. McConkie's delusions; this doctrine precedes him by many decades in the church.
Not the standard of doctrine.
What haunts the younger generation then?
Nothing.
BCSpace, you are a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about when I say there are members, and there are some on this board, who wish to believe in their own, personalized form of Mormonism.
You are the perfect example of a raving antiMormon who has been stymied in his favorite arguments because he did not know what the doctrine is. Lazy research......
You don't believe the same things that our grandparents and parents in the church believed.
Once again, not the standard for doctrine.
You've chosen to jettison, as you should, the false teachings of our past prophets as you've seen them become no longer viable,
The only thing I've jettisoned are opinions. Some of them very strong and very well reasoned, until now.
but you are missing the whole point, which is that this religion was, is, and always will be manmade in the first place!
I would agree that all religion except for the LDS Church is manmade.
You still want to believe that the church is somehow "true", but you don't want to deal with having to believe the kinds of things that the church has traditionally believed.
That only works against other christians. Tradition does not official doctrine make.
And you don't want to deal with the fact that LDS prophets have a long history of making statements of fact that turn out to be false, and have thereby shot their credibility all to hell.
You sound like one of those BAC's who believe that all the words spoken by the prophets are found in the Bible and that they never had any opinions nor expressed anything that turned out to be false. I understand that mortal men, even the prophets are fallible, you do not and hold us to a standard that is either higher than you hold others or to a standard that does not exist in rationality.
Somehow the church can be true, at the same time as the words of the prophets are meaningless,
Opinions are opinions.
and when the teachings of the church can be disclaimed at will.
Here you confuse teachings of the Church with opinions.