More bad news for our scripture believing friends

[_bcspace]

I'll just tell them to shut up and obey if they know what is good for them and just go back to teaching them the Adam-God theory...

Which is also non doctrinal.

[_Buffalo]

I'll just tell them to shut up and obey if they know what is good for them and just go back to teaching them the Adam-God theory...

Which is also non doctrinal.

But used to be doctrinal. :)

[_bcspace]

Which is also non doctrinal.

But used to be doctrinal. :)

Doesn't appear to have been.

[_Buffalo]

Doesn't appear to have been.

It's amazing how flexible your definition of official doctrine is. On the one hand, Adam-God was taught in the LDS endowment and published by an official church publication. But it was never official doctrine? On the other hand, a PR release by the church that isn't embarrassing to you now is more official than something taught in the temple. Amazing.

[_bcspace]

The [Adam-God] doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's ‘bare mention’ was ‘without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth.’ Only the scripture, the ‘accepted word of God,’ is the Church's standard.
Joseph F. Smith 1897

[_NeoMorm]

Dang! Adam-God is out too! Ok then I'll just stick to Blood Atonement and Polygamy. I am all sorted out now.

[_Buffalo]

The [Adam-God] doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's ‘bare mention’ was ‘without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth.’ Only the scripture, the ‘accepted word of God,’ is the Church's standard.
Joseph F. Smith 1897

That's not your definition of official doctrine.

Also, was this pronouncement by Joseph F. Smith submitted to the councils of the Priesthood or to the church for approval or ratification?

How about change to the Word of Wisdom from voluntary to compulsory for entrance into the temple?

[_Chap]

Bump for bcspace. I have seen him quit threads entirely in the past when this point has been brought up, so I should not like to miss his considered reaction yet again ...

Bcspace has a problem if he wants to believe simultaneously in these two propositions:

(a) All the living beings we currently call 'members of the human race' are descendants of a single human pair, including the members of the human race we call Australian Aborigines (that is, the descendants of those who live in Australia before Europeans arrived there).

(b) That pair of humans lived about 6,000 years ago.

The reason for that is that there is good evidence that human beings entered Australia about 40,000 years ago, when sea levels were low enough to make the crossing from the mainland of Eurasia practicable. See for instance here.. Those people who migrated into Australia cannot therefore have been descendants of Adam. And when the sea levels rose again with the end of glaciation, they were effectively isolated.

So which of (a) or (b) does bcspace want to dump?

[_bcspace]

That's not your definition of official doctrine.

Neither was yours.

[_jon]

The Church's current position is that Adam is the first man created on earth. I think that's significant in relation to the OP.