Only Official Doctrine Can Defend Official Doctrine

[_bcspace]

The actual scripture isn't doctrine now? Interesting. It doesn't back up your claim, though, so I can understand why you want to throw it under the bus.

Well, the doctrine on that verse has been quoted at least three times now including my most recent prior post in this thread. Your unwillingness to address it suggests that it is you who wants to throw something under the bus because it refutes your claims.

Yet the Church saw fit to publish it officially in a manual, which is the Church's standard for official doctrine.

Which means Adam God was official doctrine. :)

If officially published by the Church, it depends on the context in which it was being presented etc. Of course we already know that the JoD was not published by the Church.......

[_Morley]

Not checking my pocket for car keys is not the same as checking my pocket and finding that the car keys are not there (or in the case of Schliemann, checking and finding that they are).

Yet in Schliemann's case, there were prior investigations which turned up nothing. So basically we have a scientific example of going on faith; basically evidence of things not seen.

Validating a hypothesis in science is not an example of 'going on faith.' That is patently ridiculous.

[_Buffalo]

The actual scripture isn't doctrine now? Interesting. It doesn't back up your claim, though, so I can understand why you want to throw it under the bus.

Well, the doctrine on that verse has been quoted at least three times now including my most recent prior post in this thread. Your unwillingness to address it suggests that it is you who wants to throw something under the bus because it refutes your claims.

The actual scripture doesn't come anywhere close to supporting your thesis. Which is why you ignore it.

Yet the Church saw fit to publish it officially in a manual, which is the Church's standard for official doctrine.

Which means Adam God was official doctrine. :)

If officially published by the Church, it depends on the context in which it was being presented etc. of course we already know that the JoD was not published by the Church.......

You know it was officially published by the church. It's been shown to you before. Selective amnesia?

[_Darth J]

Well, the doctrine on that verse has been quoted at least three times now including my most recent prior post in this thread. Your unwillingness to address it suggests that it is you who wants to throw something under the bus because it refutes your claims.

THERE IS NOTHING TO REFUTE. You have never shown anything officially taught by the Church, nor any basis in fact, to believe your Planet of the Apes theories about how evolution and what the LDS Church actually teaches could possibly be compatible.

Until and unless you are ready to provide something other than arguing from ignorance and apologetic necessity to justify finding your ad hoc fables to be persuasive, listening to your prattle as a way to reconcile science with LDS mythology is like listening to a schizophrenic homeless person to understand how the U.S. government works.

Which means Adam God was official doctrine. :)

If officially published by the Church, it depends on the context in which it was being presented etc. Of course we already know that the JoD was not published by the Church.......

The Millenial Star was officially published by the Church for 130 years. The Millenial Star repeatedly taught the Adam-God doctrine. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION, Adam-God is official LDS doctrine.

blog.php?u=7958&b=2865

[_bcspace]

Validating a hypothesis in science is not an example of 'going on faith.'

Sure it is. An hypothesis by definition implies a lack of tangible evidence. It relates well to faith because of the Gospel definition of faith; the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen.

So likewise, an hypothesis is "based.....on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories." The only requirement for a scientific hypothesis is that it can be tested. Matters of faith can also be tested, but usually in a more uniquely personal way.

If one truly understands science and faith, one can see how they are actually two sides of the same coin. But most people think of faith in the blind sense which really isn't faith at all by any Gospel standard.

[_bcspace]

Well, the doctrine on that verse has been quoted at least three times now including my most recent prior post in this thread. Your unwillingness to address it suggests that it is you who wants to throw something under the bus because it refutes your claims.

THERE IS NOTHING TO REFUTE.

Except the notion that there must be actual official doctrine on a subject for one to believe it. If I recall correctly it was you who agreed about the begging of the question.

You have never shown anything officially taught by the Church, nor any basis in fact, to believe your Planet of the Apes theories about how evolution and what the LDS Church actually teaches could possibly be compatible.

As for compatibility, I have shown it numerous times included pages 3 and 4 of this thread. But see now you have switched from outright doctrine to mere compatibility. Make up your mind.

The Millenial Star was officially published by the Church for 130 years. The Millenial Star repeatedly taught the Adam-God doctrine. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION, Adam-God is official LDS doctrine.

Is it really my own definition? You've not been paying attention. Did publication prior to correlation necessarily equate to doctrine? When you go back that far, you have to rely on D&C 107.

[_beefcalf]

And, by your own definition, bcspace, God is a personage of Spirit, contrasted with his son Jesus, who is a personage of flesh.

We can know this of a surety, because the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, canonized scripture, told us this.

Which makes the 1st vision patently obvious fiction, invented by a braggart who couldn't stand to be upstaged by an 11-year-old.

[_Darth J]

THERE IS NOTHING TO REFUTE.

Except the notion that there must be actual official doctrine on a subject for one to believe it. If I recall correctly it was you who agreed about the begging of the question.

Again: You have never shown anything officially taught by the Church, nor any basis in fact, to believe your Planet of the Apes theories about how evolution and what the LDS Church actually teaches could possibly be compatible.

What I agreed is that you are endlessly begging the question by acting as if your unproven assertions resolve questions of fact.

Please feel free to articulate the rationale for why someone should believe your science fiction fantasies.

You have never shown anything officially taught by the Church, nor any basis in fact, to believe your Planet of the Apes theories about how evolution and what the LDS Church actually teaches could possibly be compatible.

As for compatibility, I have shown it numerous times included pages 3 and 4 of this thread. But see now you have switched from outright doctrine to mere compatibility. Make up your mind.

The best thing about bcspace's statement here is that I wanted to see official doctrine showing that evolution is compatible with what the Church teaches, and now he's trying to characterize that as either/or.

Again: Please feel free to articulate the rationale for why someone should believe your science fiction fantasies.

The Millenial Star was officially published by the Church for 130 years. The Millenial Star repeatedly taught the Adam-God doctrine. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION, Adam-God is official LDS doctrine.

Is it really my own definition? You've not been paying attention. Did publication prior to correlation necessarily equate to doctrine? When you go back that far, you have to rely on D&C 107.

Correlation is not relevant to official doctrine. If it is an official publication of the Church, and there is a doctrine in that publication, that doctrine is official. "Official doctrine" is a tautology and nothing more.

Maybe you can pray to Father Adam tonight for a testimony of the great truths of our divine parentage that were taught by the Prophet Brigham Young.

[_schreech]

Again: You have never shown anything officially taught by the Church, nor any basis in fact, to believe your Planet of the Apes theories about how evolution and what the LDS Church actually teaches could possibly be compatible.

Please feel free to articulate the rationale for why someone should believe your science fiction fantasies.

I find it fascinating that he (BC), constantly, harps on what is and isn't "doctrine" (according to his non-"doctrinal" version of what is considered "doctrine") and then bases his faith on a foundation of speculation that has no basis in anything said or taught "officially" by the LDS church or its leaders...I was starting to think stem was the most confused, closed-minded, self-appointed, LDS defender here but i am starting to think that BC doesn't really have any idea what he believes beyond his blind need to defend his made up pseudo-LDS religious beliefs...by the way, good to see you back...

[_bcspace]

I find it fascinating that he (BC), constantly, harps on what is and isn't "doctrine" (according to his non-"doctrinal" version of what is considered "doctrine") and then bases his faith on a foundation of speculation that has no basis in anything said or taught "officially" by the LDS church or its leaders...

How does filling in the gaps with science constitute a basis for faith? I even take great care to identify that my opinion is only an hypothesis in the case of evolution. The fact of the matter is that though is that I've shown using scripture and official doctrine how my hypothesis is compatible. Perhaps you're jealous you didn't think of it before?

What else should I think about you or Darth's or Buffalo's complaints when none of you is willing to address the subject head on?