Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Anijen

First Humans Adam And Eve?

Recommended Posts

That's another assumption, and a very bad one.

I am in perfect agreement with all of God's prophets.

Why aren't you?

I suppose because I'm not the pillar of righteousness that you are.

Share this post


Link to post

I do not understand this insistence on interpreting things exactly the same way.

I'm not suggesting that we interpret everything the exact same way.

I'm suggesting that truth should agree with others truths and that what God has revealed are truths.

Why reject what God says, either personally or through his prophets, in favor or conjecture and assumptions from scientists?

Who is smarter or more intelligent?

God, or scientists?

I have no problems with scientists who are in agreement with God.

Share this post


Link to post

I suppose because I'm not the pillar of righteousness that you are.

Please refrain from flirting with me, katherine.

I am a happily married man.

I think you're cute, but I won't cheat on my wife.

:P

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not suggesting that we interpret everything the exact same way.

I'm suggesting that truth should agree with others truths and that what God has revealed are truths.

Why reject what God says, either personally or through his prophets, in favor or conjecture and assumptions from scientists?

Who is smarter or more intelligent?

God, or scientists?

I have no problems with scientists who are in agreement with God.

My problem is that you insist that you alone know what is in agreement with God and what is not. How do you know that KtG is not in agreement with God and his prophets and simply is expressing a different take that is still in line with that?

Share this post


Link to post

I have no problems with the Word of God, nor of the Facts of Scientists. Just some peoples' interpretations of them. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I have no problems with the Word of God, nor of the Facts of Scientists. Just some peoples' interpretations of them. :P

Agreed. Why do some people insist on restricting things to very narrow interpretations?

Share this post


Link to post

John W:

It is just one of the pesky facts of the social scientists that if you get two people together. You will surely get three different opinions :P

Share this post


Link to post

John W:

It is just one of the pesky facts of the social scientists that if you get two people together. You will surely get three different opinions :P

Especially if one of us has multiple personalities. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

My problem is that you insist that you alone know what is in agreement with God and what is not.

I have never said, much less insisted, that I am alone in agreement with God. I have said more than once that I am in agreement with all of God's prophets and what God has said to all of us through them.

How do you know that KtG is not in agreement with God and his prophets and simply is expressing a different take that is still in line with that?

A different take that is still in line with what God has said through all of God's prophets would not reject what God has said through any of God's prophets.

I'm particularly thinking of katherine's rejection of God's teachings that Adam and Eve are the actual, literal, parents of our race here on this Earth.

I think it's fine to add other thoughts about our parent/child relationship, but to reject what God says, either personally or through any of God's prophets, makes absolutely no sense to me.

Why do that?

Share this post


Link to post

I have never said, much less insisted, that I am alone in agreement with God. I have said more than once that I am in agreement with all of God's prophets and what God has said to all of us through them.

A different take that is still in line with what God has said through all of God's prophets would not reject what God has said through any of God's prophets.

I'm particularly thinking of katherine's rejection of God's teachings that Adam and Eve are our actual, literal, parents.

I think it's fine to add other thoughts about our parent/child relationship, but to reject what God says, either personally or through any of God's prophets, makes absolutely no sense to me.

Why do that?

You seem to have a very narrow interpretation of God's teachings. And then you pass judgment on those who don't interpret the teachings the same way and insist they are rejecting God's teachings. I just find that completely unjustified. Personally, I think the church needs people like katherine who think things through and manage to have deep and abiding faith.

Share this post


Link to post

John W:

One out of one of us is neurotic, two out of one of us is schizophrenic. :P<_<

Well, I'm the one who takes an 'antipsychotic' every night before bed. Or wait, maybe it's me who takes it. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

You seem to have a very narrow interpretation of God's teachings.

I think that's true. I only interpret God's teachings within the strict confines of truth.

And then you pass judgment on those who don't interpret the teachings the same way and insist they are rejecting God's teachings.

By "passing judgment" are you simply talking about discerning whether or not they are in agreement with God about what God has said is in fact true?

I think I must also plead guilty to that charge.

People who don't interpret God's teachings as true are wrong. They are true.

... but I will acknowledge they have the right to be wrong, if they choose to reject what God says.

I just find that completely unjustified.

How do you figure?

What is unjust about pointing out an error when you see an error?

What is unjust about pointing out a truth when you see a truth?

Personally, I think the church needs people like katherine who think things through and manage to have deep and abiding faith.

Yes, I also think that is a nice quality, but I think our end goal should be to be in agreement with God.

Share this post


Link to post

John W:

More serious. I'm an old retired Psychiatric Social Worker. If you need the medical help the meds give, Stay on the Meds.

I agree that Katherine the great is a very serious thinker and Saint.

Share this post


Link to post

Paul Ray:

Do you not see the disconnect between your non Scriptural interpretations and of what various Prophets have said?

It is very simple, at least to me. The Church has NO OFFICIAL position on Evolution. You, and every other member of the human race, is entitled to any opinion on Evolution they want. The Church also takes NO OFFICIAL position on the Pythagorean Theorem, any other Theory of how the world works That does not mean that they are not true. Please learn how science really works, before positing that science is wrong and that your interpretation is the only one in agreement with God.

Share this post


Link to post

I am in perfect agreement with all of God's prophets.

Isn't that a rather grand assumption?

Edit: That sentence really deserves a period, not a question mark.

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't that a rather grand assumption?

Edit: That sentence really deserves a period, not a question mark.

Perhaps it would help if I clarified?

I am in perfect agreement with all revelations from all of God's prophets that I have had the privilege of hearing and/or reading.

There are undoubtedly some other prophets of God that I have never even heard of, and those I have heard of haven't revealed all their revelations of God to me.

OIOW, there isn't any revelation from God or any prophet of God that I now or ever would disagree with.

... with the understanding that a prophet of God is a prophet of God only when God is speaking through that person.

You can choose to disagree if you wish.

Share this post


Link to post

Paul Ray:

Do you not see the disconnect between your non Scriptural interpretations and of what various Prophets have said?

What are you talking about?

I am simply stating what has been stated by God through God's prophets in the scriptures.

... at least as it pertains to the issue of this particular thread.

Please clarify what you are talking about.

It is very simple, at least to me. The Church has NO OFFICIAL position on Evolution.

That is a false statement. The Church does have officials who have official positions on evolution.

Perhaps you just need some clarification concerning who the officials are in our Church.

You, and every other member of the human race, is entitled to any opinion on Evolution they want.

That is true, but God has said what God has said through his prophets.

The Church also takes NO OFFICIAL position on the Pythagorean Theorem, any other Theory of how the world works.

That is another false statement, and again you are entitled to your opinion.

That does not mean that they are not true.

That is true.

Please learn how science really works, before positing that science is wrong and that your interpretation is the only one in agreement with God.

If you're referring to the scientific method, I already know how that works.

Any opinion that doesn't agree with what God has to say is wrong and will always be wrong.

I'm simply repeating what God has said through his prophets.

I hope you'll forgive my disdain for political correctness.

Share this post


Link to post

For believers I think there are three choices when science appears to contradict scripture:

1. Our understanding of scripture is incorrect.

2. Our understanding of the scientific evidence is incorrect.

3. Some combination of 1 and 2.

I think most of us go with 1 or 3, whereas Paul seems to go with 2.

I think I would probably phrase the three options in the following way:

1. Our conclusions based on our understanding of scripture are incorrect.

2. Our conclusions based on our understanding of scientific evidence are incorrect.

3. Some combination of 1 and 2.

As stated by John W, most people would choose options 1 or 3 because they feel that our understanding of scientific evidence is more reliable than our understanding of scripture (I agree with this). The difference in wording I propose emphasizes the fact that it is not our understanding of the scientific evidence that is at odds with scripture, but our conclusions based on the understanding of the evidence.

Incomplete evidence about any physical process leads to multiple possible conclusions based on that evidence. The evidence is incomplete for all scientific studies, and will never be complete in the foreseeable future. Many theories such as Evolution and the Big Bang are extremely far from being even remotely classified as a complete body of evidence. This is just because of the nature of the respective phenomena being studied. Science has agreed to merely accept the most simple conclusion based on the previous body of scientific work (this decision is circular in nature, but is the only option we have).

The way I have listed the options puts options 1 and 2 on a more level playing field which is how I think they should be.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's also possible that our understanding of true scripture and good science can only appear to be incorrect... when in fact they are both in harmony.

Yes, I think that's possible.

I think we're simply missing some link(s) preventing us from seeing the true connection(s).

I don't think that is the case, certainly the basis of your difficulty is not simple at all.

How can we possibly know what we don't know now?

By learning. Have you thought much on how we know what we know? What's knowledge, and what's just guesswork? As I mentioned in a thread earlier, there are essentially two types of knowledge. In the Greek, they are "episteme" and "gnosis". Multiple (thousands, I'm sure) books have been written on these subjects over many hundreds of years. In my own idiosycratic way, I see the first as scientific learning, and the latter as spiritual learning. Gross simplifications, but useful, IMO.

Here are some comments relating to this that I posted some time ago: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=27998

Why rely on assumptions and hypotheses and conjecture?

Because for most things, that's the best we can do. AND WE DO IT ALL DAY. Thus the value of the Socratic method. Think you know something? Go ahead and try explaining why you believe, why you know. And where *you* draw the line between the two.

What puzzles me is why people believe scientists and reject the words of God.

That's a good one. I think it goes to personal experience, mostly. People are surrounded every day with the successes of science. Airflight. Electric lights. Ipods. Cars. Watches. Computers. Medical procedures. These things are known, and deliver the goods day-in and day-out.

God, on the other hand, lets us work out our own salvation, in a very hands-off way. We don't see Him*. We don't hear Him*. Think about the evidence on that one, Paul. 99% of the people we hear saying they heard God are nut jobs. So the things of God are not as reliable on the face of it. Yes, appearances do matter in life. Flip the switch/say a prayer. Not much of a comparison when you look at solid, verifiable, workable results. Which BTW, is science's strong suit.

This is the uncomfortable, stark reality of it. It happens that I know God lives, and that He is intimately involved in our lives. I know this because of my own personal experience, which I CANNOT DEMONSTRATE to others, except indirectly when I try to be nice and loving. This is why I am so saddened when on this Board the 'good guys' insult, demean and accuse the 'bad guys'. There is so little proof that God has an influence - we need those who CLAIM the 'good' to BE the 'good'. <sigh>

So, there is this dichotomy. Science is built on DEMONSTRATING things to be as we thing them. If we can't demonstrate it in a objectively, externally verifiable, repeatable way, then it's not science. Period. Well, if its right there in our faces, then how easy is that? Religion and the spirit of God, OTOH, is HIDDEN. Only appears to some folks, for HIDDEN reasons. You say not? You know exactly how to do it, get it? OK, I'm not denying that, because that is the case for me too. But what about those folks who don't know it? How can you ever make your case if they lack faith from the get-go? You can't, and if you've been on a mission, or understand the scriptures, you know that. But science CAN. And does.

I know several people who say that they followed the plan. They read, they believed, they prayed, they obeyed. And..... ...nothing. We say, on the strength of our own experiences, that they've messed up somewhere. And to make our point, we whip out the scriptures and prove it. Moroni 10:4-5. A + B + C = testimony. Now, which are you missing, A, B or C? But here's the thing. They can't prove their LACK of intent, just like you can't prove that you actually HAVE intent. These things don't carry over to other people, except by the spirit. But if they don't have that spirit, then understanding CANNOT come.

Science doesn't require that. Not even close. Because every claim can be proven, or its not science. If you don't believe it, Paul, then you simply lack experience in the ways of science. Science does debunk itself regularly, which requires a spirit of scepticism, of doubt. Look at the current infighting in the realm of theoretical quantum physics. Religion requires a spirit of faith, of belief. SOOOooo opposite!! But yet I value both, I see the results in positive terms in both. Those who see only one side, EITHER SIDE, are really, really missing something!! From my POV, of course, which I can't really convey to you, except in these inadequate words. Unfortunately.

So it's easier for those who don't feel the spirit, to ignore it. Period. And I understand their skepticism and doubt and denials. I am limited in what I can do about it. I often wonder how God handles this, for He does sometimes interfere. Sometimes, but again the reasons, the conditions, are HIDDEN. Christ taught in HIDDEN lessons we call parables. FOR A REASON, sure. Even so, we cannot deny it is HIDDEN.

To add insult to injury, we are by default members of a priveleged group, a 'chosen' group. It's in the scriptures. We 'get it', and the others can't/don't/won't/whatever. We say they can, but the conditions are antethetical to how they already are. This doesn't help the situation.

*Of course there are those who really DO, but they are overwhelmed in number by those who falsly claim to, but who actually deceive the rest of us. So much so that the search for the few who honestly DO, seems impossible to many (most?) people. By experience.

It almost seems as if some people think scientists are the best prophets of God when they reject what God has said to God's other prophets... as if the words of all of God's prophets are not in harmony with God.

I'm still pondering on this, though. It is very perplexing to me.

Why would any really smart person do that?

Because you can't argue with results. And in the cold, cruel, faithless, physical world, science gets results. AND CAN SHOW IT, OVER AND OVER, TO ANYONE THAT WILL LOOK. For me, Mormonism and faith gets results, too. But I can't show it the way it is shown to me, because I AM NOT GOD, and only God can show it. These two things are both ways to truth, but come from absolutely differing premises, and accordingly, show differing truths. Combined, they are unbeatable, unsurpassable. Separate, ...I don't even have the words for it. Maybe it's like men and women. That's my view.

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post

HiJolly,

You shared some nice thoughts, and some good thoughts. I thank you for all those.

I do see some thoughts in your post that I disagree with, though.

I'll share them with you so you can consider these thoughts:

I don't see science offering anything better or in any better way than religion can and does offer people.

Are all scientists in agreement about everything? No, they are not

... just as all people of religion aren't in agreement about everything.

I believe the scientific method can also apply to making "religious" discoveries, as well as making "technological" and/or "cultural" discoveries. Those who have done that have proclaimed their results to others, just as I am sharing some of my discoveries with you now.

The main point I was trying to make can be stated in some questions:

Why reject what God has to say as evidence?

Why do some people accept the claims of scientists which disagree with testimonies from some other scientists and what God has told us through his prophets?

That makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

And btw, I believe "religious" issues comprise every real and true issue.

Share this post


Link to post

HiJolly,

You shared some nice thoughts, and some good thoughts. I thank you for all those.

Thanks.

I don't see science offering anything better or in any better way than religion can and does offer people.

That depends on what you want to be 'better', doesn't it? I think if you want to be saved in the Kingdom of God, science can't to a darn thing for you. Except maybe give you a leg up on the rules of creation... :P

Are all scientists in agreement about everything? No, they are not

... just as all people of religion aren't in agreement about everything.

True, but the way scientists resolve disagreement is far different from how religionists do it. To say the least. ROFL. I just read that over, and you know, I can't ignore the weaknesses of men. Everyone, in both camps, should resolve disagreement better than they do, I know...

I believe the scientific method can also apply to making "religious" discoveries, as well as making "technological" and/or "cultural" discoveries. Those who have done that have proclaimed their results to others, just as I am sharing some of my discoveries with you now.

It's not that I mind making an experiment upon the word, it's just that you are not believing me when I tell you that it's not science. Science CANNOT address god, the spirit, or gnosis in any way. Some scientists will give this the 'sour grapes' spin and tell you they didn't want to anyway, or even that there's no point since there is no God anyway, but that's THEIR problem.

The main point I was trying to make can be stated in some questions:

Why reject what God has to say as evidence?

you're backing me into a corner, I see. Well, I've gone this far....

Evidence, or Truth? Are you trying to be nice? Regardless, I don't reject what God has to say. I just don't seem to accept as much as you do, in terms of what you think God really said.

Why do some people accept the claims of scientists which disagree with testimonies from some other scientists and what God has told us through his prophets?

That makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

Whether in science or religion, we all have to weigh the evidence and come to conclusions. When I hear something that sounds incorrect but I have multitudes saying it is 'true', I cannot simply ignore them, make a summary conclusion, and think I am right. It doesn't work that way. And believe it or not, I learned this principle in debating with people who think Mormonism is a lie, a fraud, a deception.

The best anti-mormon weapon out there is the truth, believe it or not. That's why there's such a dust-up about Church history. All they have to do is give a truth ("Joseph Smith practiced folk-magic") and then follow it up with a personal opinion ("So his revelations were Satanic!"). The typical LDS person doesn't believe it. But if they ever look it up, they find out that Joseph really DID do magic. Then next thought is, and pyschologically it was set up this way on purpose, the next thought is "maybe he did get revelations from Satan". That can be devistating for some folks, particularly if they haven't received any gnosis experiences. I differentiate 'gnosis' from 'gnostic' for a very good reason, BTW. <cough>

Nothing trumps personal investigation and research. I was about to say "except revelation", but don't you see that revelation comes best when we have first researched it out, and pondered it in our minds FIRST? HONESTLY? Revelation always, bar nothing, ALWAYS comes more easily when we know what we're talking about, or are trying to know what we're talking about.

And btw, I believe "religious" issues comprise every real and true issue.

Sure, but science doesn't. Depending on what you think 'real' and 'true' means...

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to know how you define the word 'true'. Somehow, I doubt we would agree.

HiJolly

I actually don't doubt we'd agree. It's simple. In this context, "the church is true" means that God actually exists, is like what the LDS say he is, and he really did grant Joseph Smith some kind of divine mandate to found and lead his Kingdom on Earth, and that Brigham Young rightfully inherited this mandate, and through him the successors until GBH today.

So, how far off are we in this?

ps: I think the LDS church fails that definition of "truth" right from the start, since I don't believe that God even exists, if he does exist, I don't believe he's likely to be anything like what the LDS imagine him to be, and if he does exist, I don't believe he empowered Joseph Smith to do anything at all, nor did he recognize Joseph Smith as his right-hand man on Earth and leader of his Earthly Kingdom, and after that Brigham Young and the others until GBH, and probably fairly soon someone else after GBH.

Share this post


Link to post
What puzzles me is why people believe scientists and reject the words of God.

...

Why would any really smart person do that?

We keep telling you, and you keep either not noticing, or not understanding. I'm beginning to think it's willful.

The answer is that God isn't telling us anything. Other human beings are standing up and telling the rest of us that they talked with God, and God told them to tell us certain things, and we don't believe that this actually happened. It comes down to credibility. In order to believe the "words of God" one has to believe that the people claiming to be speaking for God, actually do. If they lack credibility, then naturally one will not regard their words as likely actually to be the words of God.

Share this post


Link to post

That's another assumption, and a very bad one.

I am in perfect agreement with all of God's prophets.

Why aren't you?

Actually, I am. I am in perfect agreement with all of those who really are true prophets of a God who actually exists. Which is to say, nobody.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...