Doctrinal Consensus - Or what is OFFICIAL Doctrine

[_SteelHead]

This is an appeal to all of the Mormon Apologist on our boards such as: ldsfaqs, subgenius, bcspace, Ray, radix, why me. yahoobot, etc. I would like to see if we can create a consensus from those of you who profess that you know, teach and represent official LDS doctrine to the rest of us on this board.

In order for us un-enlightened folks to understand what constitutes official LDS doctrine please answer, and support your answer(s) with official sources, the following questions (we will start "In the beginning"):

• Evolution: Happened or didn't / is allowed in LDS theology or isn't?
• Death: Happened before the fall in some form or during some period (pre-garden etc) or didn't?
• Eve: Created from a rib or not?
• Adam and Eve: Brought from another planet/kingdom or not?
• Adam and Eve: The literal parents of all humanity or not?
• The Fall: When did it happen (looking for a date give or take a few hundred years)?
• Carnivores: Ate grass and herbs until the fall? Until after their release from the ark? Or some other time? (This one is for Hoops who isn't technically a Mormon apologist.)

Again this is so that we who are so often told that what we proffer as doctrine is incorrect, can understand the official doctrine in regards to the above topics.

Sticking with the creation doctrines. I may ask about the flood next.

[_bcspace]

Evolution: Happened or didn't / is allowed in LDS theology or isn't?

Is allowed:

Moses 3:6–7. How Did God Create Bodies for Adam and Eve?

President Spencer W. Kimball said: “Man became a living soul—mankind, male and female. The Creators breathed into their nostrils the breath of life and man and woman became living souls. We don’t know exactly how their coming into this world happened, and when we’re able to understand it the Lord will tell us” (“The Blessing and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 72).
PofGP Student Manual

Death: Happened before the fall in some form or during some period (pre-garden etc) or didn't?

There was indeed no death before the Fall as is taught. However, in 2 Nephi 22 we see that a state of no death is NOT applied to the creative state before all was ready and placed into the garden. So death can exist prior to the garden state because prior to the garden state is undefined:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
2 Nephi 2:22

Also, the 1931 statement regarding pre Adamite races of man:

"The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all."

Eve: Created from a rib or not?

Figurative, not literal:

“And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.
Ensign, Mar. 1976, The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood - SWK

Adam and Eve: Brought from another planet/kingdom or not?

No doctrine. There is no doctrine on the manner of their physical creation or being placed on the earth (see above).

Adam and Eve: The literal parents of all humanity or not?

Depends on local or global garden state which seems to be undefined doctrinally. If local, then it is probably figurative in the sense that they are the first to Fall.

The Fall: When did it happen (looking for a date give or take a few hundred years)?

No specific revelation on the subject which is why I think this is most subject to change, but doctrinally, the Church goes with traditional Christianity which is not unreasonable. Recognizing that the Church has no specific revelation on the subject is key to understanding how the Church is not in conflict with science on this issue.

Carnivores

I think it's figurative. I think many in the Church think it's literal. Haven't been able to find anything doctrinal yet one way or the other.

[_moksha]

Evolution: Happened or didn't / is allowed in LDS theology or isn't?

I doubt the Church will ever get suckered into repudiating evolution again, so it happened.

Death: Happened before the fall in some form or during some period (pre-garden etc) or didn't?

We might get suckered into supporting early speculation on this subject, but eventually this speculation will be renounced.

Eve: Created from a rib or not?

Surely there are better clonal sites than the rib. Best leave these for the barbecue.

Adam and Eve: Brought from another planet/kingdom or not?

Sounds too much like an episode from Outer Limits.

Adam and Eve: The literal parents of all humanity or not?

That adds a heap of speculation to a time long ago on the plains of the Serengeti. But these upright walking hominids would no doubt appreciate the names.

The Fall: When did it happen (looking for a date give or take a few hundred years)?

Most recently from September 21 to December 21 2011.

[_subgenius]

This is an appeal to all of the Mormon Apologist on our boards such as: ldsfaqs, subgenius, bcspace, Ray, radix, why me. yahoobot, etc. I would like to see if we can create a consensus from those of you who profess that you know, teach and represent official LDS doctrine to the rest of us on this board.

In order for us un-enlightened folks to understand what constitutes official LDS doctrine please answer, and support your answer(s) with official sources, the following questions (we will start "In the beginning"):

• Evolution: Happened or didn't / is allowed in LDS theology or isn't?
• Death: Happened before the fall in some form or during some period (pre-garden etc) or didn't?
• Eve: Created from a rib or not?
• Adam and Eve: Brought from another planet/kingdom or not?
• Adam and Eve: The literal parents of all humanity or not?
• The Fall: When did it happen (looking for a date give or take a few hundred years)?
• Carnivores: Ate grass and herbs until the fall? Until after their release from the ark? Or some other time? (This one is for Hoops who isn't technically a Mormon apologist.)

Again this is so that we who are so often told that what we proffer as doctrine is incorrect, can understand the official doctrine in regards to the above topics.

Sticking with the creation doctrines. I may ask about the flood next.

www.LDS.org

[_SteelHead]

http://www.LDS.org

Come on sub you can be more specific than that. Just answer yes or no to the questions. You don't even have to justify your answers. The problem with the LDS.org answer is I provided 20 references from that very site on a topic and you still maintained it was not doctrine.

[_bcspace]

I doubt the Church will ever get suckered into repudiating evolution again, so it happened.

When did the Church repudiate evolution? Not even the 1909 statement does that.

[_Drifting]

1st Nephi 5
11 And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

2nd Nephi 2
19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.
20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.

It is hard to twist these scriptures to mean anything other than the whole of humanity stemming from Adam and Eve in 4,000 bc (and therefore Noah and his family in 2,300 bc).

[_Benjamin McGuire]

I think the set of questions is rather absurd.

Evolution: Happened or didn't / is allowed in LDS theology or isn't?
Death: Happened before the fall in some form or during some period (pre-garden etc) or didn't?
Eve: Created from a rib or not?
Adam and Eve: Brought from another planet/kingdom or not?
Adam and Eve: The literal parents of all humanity or not?
The Fall: When did it happen (looking for a date give or take a few hundred years)?
Carnivores: Ate grass and herbs until the fall? Until after their release from the ark? Or some other time?

What is absurd for me is the general focus on fringe issues - and these are certainly fringe issues. I could come up with another list of questions about theology:

Death: Did the atonement of Jesus Christ remove the eternal effects of death allowing all mankind to be resurrected?
Jesus: Was Jesus the Messiah prophesied about in the Old Testament?
Pre-existence: Did the spirits of mankind exist prior to conception and birth into a physical body?
Free-will: Are we able to make choices that affect our eternal progression, and our destination after mortality?
Creation: Did mankind participate in the creation process - and act which continues into mortality?

You see, here we have questions that are much more fundamentally answered by religion. I love the stuff in this thread about pre-Adamites. During the 19th century, the notion of pre-Adamites was very widely held, and extended to cover (at least among various groups here in the U.S.) those of different ethnicity than the white Caucasians who predominantly spread the theory.

One thing that hasn't come up in this thread either is the issue of policy. Steelhead can ask whether a belief in evolution is allowed in LDS theology or not, but we run into a practical problem and a real world issue with that question. The real world issue is that the church doesn't seem to have any issues (strict doctrinal statement or not) with the teaching of evolution. So:

http://nn.BYU.edu/story.cfm/71097

And then, we have the practical issue of how it would be addressed. I don't think anyone has ever been excommunicated for believing or teaching evolution. So whether or not the church has some sort of official position, there isn't a mechanism of enforcement. The debate over evolution (which has included proponents from a wide range of perspectives) has never resulted in the church formulating some kind of statement of essential belief. Now, probably, if you made pro-evolutionary statements from the pulpit in church, the response might vary from ward to ward. But, apparently, this isn't such a major issue that the church has felt it necessary to address it in a formal way to the church any time in my lifetime. The CHI tends to lay out policy (that often becomes viewed as doctrine) - but we don't find discussions about evolution there. Certainly, any particular belief in evolution doesn't become a barrier to what many see as the apex of worship in the LDS faith - the ceremonies and covenants of temple worship. So on a practical side, a specific belief about evolution does not seem to preclude someone from either participating in the LDS Church or in holding any position in the LDS Church hierarchy. And so we have to assume that any statements we can find notwithstanding, there isn't any evidence that the issue matters one way or the other to the church or to its members as a theological concern.

Of course, evolution is probably much more relevant than the issue of Eve and Adam's rib, Brigham's speculation on the creation of man, and the conditions of the garden before the fall (which tells us, of course, how significant these other issues really are) - as it affects us more in general than referring to some exceptional situation that (no matter how you understand it) doesn't exist any longer. Far more relevant might be the question of conflict in the garden, the necessity of the fall, the free will of mankind, and so on - issues where we agree and disagree with other Christian faiths - but issues that seem to speak more to a theological point of view rather than a poor understanding of our environment and the accuracy of scripture.

Ben M.

[_ludwigm]

I think the set of questions is rather absurd.

Questions...

What is absurd for me is the general focus on fringe issues - and these are certainly fringe issues. I could come up with another list of questions about theology:
Other questions...

Another question for You:
Don't You want to answer that questions, or simply can not?

If I don't want or can not or don't care (or I have nothing to say), then I remain silent.
If I have different question, I open a new thread.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Don't You want to answer that questions, or simply can not?

I choose not to.

If I don't want or can not or don't care (or I have nothing to say), then I remain silent.
If I have different question, I open a new thread.

So? There is this wonderful thing that sometimes happens when people disguise assertions as questions. In a sense, this is exactly what is going on here. The title of your thread is: "Doctrinal Consensus - Or what is Official Doctrine". This thread invites apologists here to answer. (I suspect, at least within the definitions used here that I am considered an apologist - despite the absence of my name from the list). And then it says this:

In order for us un-enlightened folks to understand what constitutes official LDS doctrine please answer, and support your answer(s) with official sources, the following questions (we will start "In the beginning"):

Now, I what I am going to say is that none of the answers to these questions reflect LDS doctrine. That is to say there is no doctrine within the LDS church on evolution, on whether or not Eve was created from Adam's rib, and so on - even if there are comments on these issues within official and unofficial publications, and even if statements about these issues have been made by those in lesser or greater positions of authority within the LDS hierarchy. So when this thread invites me to talk about Official LDS Doctrine, I am more than willing to do so - but I think it is absolutely relevant to point out the obvious here - that these issues that are raised are not LDS doctrine, and that this thread is in some sense asserting that they represent questions on Official LDS doctrine when they do not.

Ben M.