Elder Nelson on Evolution "incomprehensible"?

[Guest]

Amen. Much could be allegorical, but I do believe they have to also be historical though.

Please elaborate.

AE must be real people who made the described decision. Most, if not all, of everything else can be allegorical or metaphorical without upsetting the doctrine.

Apparently, when Joseph F. Smith had his vision of the spirit world he saw an allegory:

Doesn't seem to be apparent.

Interesting, by the way, that JFS has Adam as the father of all, not the father of some.

JFS said many things that aren't published by the Church, the standard for doctrine. However, I do accept that Adam and Eve being our original parents on earth is official published doctrine. I have no problem with this being either literal or figurative. My own hypothesis prepares for either case on one sense. In another sense, it doesn't matter.

[_Morley]

Interesting, by the way, that JFS has Adam as the father of all, not the father of some.

It does complicate the quest for a completed family tree.

[_Morley]

AE must be real people who made the described decision. Most, if not all, of everything else can be allegorical or metaphorical without upsetting the doctrine.

Doesn't making it allegorical, by definition, upset the doctrine?

[_Runtu]

Doesn't seem to be apparent.

If you believe that Adam isn't literal, then JFS could not have seen him.

JFS said many things that aren't published by the Church, the standard for doctrine.

So, you reject D&C 138? I had no idea.

However, I do accept that Adam and Eve being our original parents on earth is official published doctrine. I have no problem with this being either literal or figurative. My own hypothesis prepares for either case on one sense. In another sense, it doesn't matter.

None of it matters because it's all just a game for you. I get it.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

I just had a thread about the doctrine red herring! stop it, all of you!

[_Runtu]

I just had a thread about the doctrine red herring! stop it, all of you!

I'm not quibbling about doctrine. I just find it interesting to see bcspace's mind at work.

[_bcspace]

AE must be real people who made the described decision. Most, if not all, of everything else can be allegorical or metaphorical without upsetting the doctrine.

Doesn't making it allegorical, by definition, upset the doctrine?

I don't think so. But it certainly might upset the doctrine one had in mind.

Doesn't seem to be apparent.

If you believe that Adam isn't literal, then JFS could not have seen him.

Never said that. I said AE must be historical persons; they must have existed, literally, for doctrine not to be upset. Most everything else about the story can be figurative (or literal).

So, you reject D&C 138? I had no idea.

I accept D&C 138 completely. I don't see where you are getting this.

I just had a thread about the doctrine red herring! stop it, all of you!

I saw the thread. It was indeed a red herring.

[_Runtu]

I accept D&C 138 completely. I don't see where you are getting this.

Well, what else was I supposed to think when I cited D&C 138 and you responded that Joseph F. Smith said a lot of things that weren't official? It didn't seem to follow at all, so I figured you must be discounting that section of the D&C.

I saw the thread. It was indeed a red herring.

What's great about the whole "doctrine" thing is that absolutely nothing, except possibly the scriptures, published by the church before 1971 is doctrine (and I'd say the church would reject all scriptures that were published before the 1979 and 1981 editions to be not-authoritative because they have been superseded by the updated editions). That's why the church magazines go back only to 1971, as do the conference reports published on the church's web site. No pre-1971 manuals are available from the church's web site, either.

Thus, "doctrine" is restricted to post-1970 publications and the scriptures. Everything else can be tossed aside as personal opinion, unless of course it is cited in a post-1970 publication.

It's a brilliant way to deal with a lot of troubling past teachings. And, as bcspace has shown repeatedly, even that which was doctrine in 1971 may not be today.

[_bcspace]

Well, what else was I supposed to think when I cited D&C 138 and you responded that Joseph F. Smith said a lot of things that weren't official?

You should have continued to read the qualification. It's not like you to skip phrases like that.

What's great about the whole "doctrine" thing is that absolutely nothing, except possibly the scriptures, published by the church before 1971 is doctrine (and I'd say the church would reject all scriptures that were published before the 1979 and 1981 editions to be not-authoritative because they have been superseded by the updated editions).

There are a whole host of official publications published after 2000 extant in the Church so you're completely wrong there.

[_Runtu]

There are a whole host of official publications published after 2000 extant in the Church so you're completely wrong there.

Hmmm. Nothing I said conflicts with that. Last I checked, everything from 1971 and forward is post-1970, so things published in 2000 would also be official and doctrine. I'm not sure where your disagreement is.