. |
Anonymous, I'm posting my response this way so I can use colors. Your words are in blue, mine are in red. Links to other information are in green. Anonymous: I have a problem with your entire premises. So does the First Presidency. Gary: Did you notice the masthead on my blog? It says "No Death Before the Fall." That is the underlying premise of my blog. I've published a growing mountain of evidence that the First Presidency has NO problem with ndbf. Please read just one short summary from earlier this year: Anonymous: The First Presidency ... approved the following statement:
"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."
—LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," lds.org (4 May 2007) Gary: On this very thread, I made the following unambiguous statement:
"There are no official Church statements that specifically disallow big bang cosmology."
Please tell me again exactly how this Newsroom excerpt applies to my post. Anonymous: Elder Nelson's statement is exactly of this nature. It may be his opinion but it is not doctrine. Gary: Did you even read my article before posting your comment?
First, I said "maybe Elder Russell M. Nelson was right." Just exactly how is that a claim that his opinion was officially binding for the whole Church? The correct answer is that I made no such claim.
Second, as I quoted him, Elder Nelson's words are "To me, such theories are unbelievable!"
"To me,..."
Not officially to the Mormon Church, but to him. He did not claim his opinion was doctrine. And neither did I. Anonymous: Nor, according the First Presidency, is it due deference.
You constantly push these quotes when the church itself says they are not doctrine nor entitled to the prominence you give them. Gary: Elder Nelson's talk is clearly due, at a minimum, the deference it has already received from the Church. It was published by the Church in the Oct 1987 New Era and the Jan 1988 Ensign. These magazines are the official line of communication from the First Presidency and the Twelve to the members of the Church.
I shall continue to give proper deference to the teachings of the apostles and prophets. Thank you for visiting my blog.
Gary |