Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Age Of The Earth And Age Of The Human Race


Recommended Posts

If Evolution is true, then the account of the Creation and the Fall, as taught in the Bible, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Temple is not literally true.

I think you are missing the point.

When apologists say that the Church has not position on evolution and Mormons are free to believe or disbelieve in evolution, that doesn't mean they can either believe in evolution or the LDS Creation story.

That means Mormons can (1)believe in the LDS creation story and reject evolution, or (2)believe in BOTH the LDS Creation story and evolution.

Those that choose to believe BOTH in both evolution and creation, are left on their own to figure out how that works. Since the LDS Church has no position on evolution, why should it be expected to explain how to reconcile the two.

Link to comment

No, as in commentary pertaining to something other than your paranoia about me.

I'm still waiting for you to support your false accusation that context changes the meaning of the citations offered.

This forum doesn't allow links to the Mormon Discussions Forum, but I think you knew that. The second citation came from the wiki, as I said before. Since you seem to have difficulties with google, let me help you.

You continue to falsely accuse me instead of proving your point. Typical of the kind of apologist I used to be.

You haven't even begun to embarrass me, but I suspect your own embarrassment is the reason why you're backing out. You know as well as I do that you cannot support your accusation against me. But I am betting this has never been an important issue for someone who thinks he can get away with argument via assertion. Well, not with me you won't. For someone who fancies himself a highly educated person, you sure do seem to struggle with basic concepts like context.

You don't get to say, "Hey, that guy didn't cite every word on that page (or in that book?)" and then declare the person is being intentionally deceptive. In the real world, these kinds of outrageous accusations require evidence, not your anti-Mormon paranoia/intuition.

Your link shows this as the source which is completely different from your source: "Church Educational System (2003, 3d ed.). Old Testament Student Manual Genesis – 2 Samuel (Salt Lake City, Utah: LDS Church). This is not where you copied and pasted from.

I have no respect for dishonesty. I can only recommend different avenues to express your pent up bitterness against those who you see as your "enemy". I understand it is absolutely impossible to leave the Church completely alone. Countless have been down your same road, but there is hope - I promise. Good luck!

Link to comment

Doctor by day, ninja by night. Sometimes I get them mixed up.

And I would never mess with someone who needs no scalpel to take a beating heart out of the chest!

I have another avatar for you.

http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Shen_The_Eye_of_Twilight/SkinsTrivia

Click on the right 3 times. He is a ninja and surgeon.

Link to comment

I think you are missing the point.

When apologists say that the Church has not position on evolution and Mormons are free to believe or disbelieve in evolution, that doesn't mean they can either believe in evolution or the LDS Creation story.

That means Mormons can (1)believe in the LDS creation story and reject evolution, or (2)believe in BOTH the LDS Creation story and evolution.

Those that choose to believe BOTH in both evolution and creation, are left on their own to figure out how that works. Since the LDS Church has no position on evolution, why should it be expected to explain how to reconcile the two.

I agree that people are free to believe anything they want—I have no problem with somebody taking a buffet approach to their religion. The sense I get is that those who want to accept evolution are willing to throw the traditional doctrines of the Creation and Fall under the bus. That’s fine, but the whole package is less compelling when you claim that death has always been an intrinsic part of life: If the scriptural account of the Creation and the Fall aren’t meant to be taken literally, why should the atonement be taken literally? Why would you need a literal atonement to save you from a metaphorical fall?

Link to comment

I agree that people are free to believe anything they want—I have no problem with somebody taking a buffet approach to their religion. The sense I get is that those who want to accept evolution are willing to throw the traditional doctrines of the Creation and Fall under the bus. That’s fine, but the whole package is less compelling when you claim that death has always been an intrinsic part of life: If the scriptural account of the Creation and the Fall aren’t meant to be taken literally, why should the atonement be taken literally? Why would you need a literal atonement to save you from a metaphorical fall?

oh, I like you.

Link to comment
Jeff K., on 30 June 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

Wisdom is often mere opinion when someone disagrees. Are you stating perhaps that prophets should not share their wisdom, only revelation? An interesting premise but not a very sound one. Should someone share their wisdom or not, should someone share their opinions or not?

You seem to following the same path anti Mormons do who wish to emblazon any word uttered by our prophets as doctrine. I would point out to those anti Mormons that we Saints understand doctrine, and we understand the opinions/wisdom of prophets and apostles. But usually one only has to explain it down the rabbit hole of anti Mormon attacks.

Wouldn't you say that is a fair assessment?

Not at all. It doesn't take an anti-Mormon to disagree with you. I know plenty of Mormons who do.

Chuckle, True, there are those LDS who are have lost their testimony and still go to church, or those who think their votes should be the one to "change" things to their way of thinking rather than the prophets and apostles. You are right, I shouldn't leave them out either. ;) It was rude of me to do so.

I believe that what these Prophets taught was in fact doctrine by every definition of the word, and what they taught was understood as doctrine by everyone sitting in conference at the time these words were spoken. You seem to following the same path some apologists do who wish to emblazon every problematic doctrine uttered by the Prophets as mere opinion.

You seem somewhat confused. Of course doctrine that the prophets taught was and is in fact doctrine. But when the prophet asked for eggs in the morning, was that doctrine? And I am sure you took some sort of poll of everyone sitting in conference at the time the words were spoken so you are absolutely sure that they all thought of it as "doctrine". Or do you simply wish it to be so, or rather, you kind of "believe" it to be so. Doctrine is found in some intersting books, specifically in the Doctine and Covenants. A convenient name, which of course obscures and confounds those who read the book, surely the doctrine is not found in there! Can it be that simple? Well, are all the conference talks found in the Doctrine and Covenants?

Otherwise I will respect your belief system when you claim to believe something which just isn't accepted as such. Not even by the church....

The fact is, this notion of official doctrine vs.doctrine is a novelty of late 20th century apologetics. This is well established by the fact that a basic search for the phrase "official doctrine" in an LDS database will result in practically nothing to support the popular apologetic argument. But more directly, when someone wrote the Ensign as recently as 1982, to ask whether Lorenzo Snow's "couplet" was official doctrine, Gerald Lund responded:

This would have been the opportune moment to explain the Church's distinction between doctrine and official doctrine, but Lund appears oblivious to such a thing:

After spending a great deal of referencing examples where Church leaders taught this doctrine, he concludes with:

Suffice it to say, his eloquent response was very different from President Hinckley's response 15 years later.

Hmmm.... aren't you stating that an earlier opinion is more valid than a later opinion when both happen to be opinions?

Link to comment

I agree that people are free to believe anything they want—I have no problem with somebody taking a buffet approach to their religion. The sense I get is that those who want to accept evolution are willing to throw the traditional doctrines of the Creation and Fall under the bus. That’s fine, but the whole package is less compelling when you claim that death has always been an intrinsic part of life: If the scriptural account of the Creation and the Fall aren’t meant to be taken literally, why should the atonement be taken literally? Why would you need a literal atonement to save you from a metaphorical fall?

When the church takes no position as to doctrine, then of course that does indeed leave the buffet open to a myriad of choices, since those choices have no impact upon the church or its doctrine, at least to none except those who imagine themselves arbiters of cause and effect and demand the church position be what they desire it to be. Tradition is not enough to make it doctrine. I turn to that saintly old man named Nick. Tradition has it he comes down the chimney. That does not make it doctrine. Leaving open the possibility of simply ringing the doorbell when he wishes.

When people "want" to take something literally in order to criticize it, they are disengenuously desiring a worst case scenario in order to make it easier to criticize the church (mentally very lazy if you ask me, but typical). It is somewhat transparent, but also humorous, even to me. How inconvenient it must be for some people when the church doesn't toss out a fatwah for every small choice or turn and instead says "judge for yourselves between you and God".

That bitterness must just eat you guys up.

Edited by Jeff K.
Link to comment

Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It's just the way genetics works

Wow, Just Wow...Did Elder Neilson really say this??? Absolutely unbelievable that a man with his sceintific background could hold this belief.

Dogs have not always been dogs...they are so very clearly the product of human selective evolution or selective breeding. It was the involvement of humans that produced the 400 breeds of dogs we see today. Early peoples chose breeding dogs for their size or skills in hunting and sentry duty. Later, appearance and companionable behavior became favored traits. It’s the reason we have both the Chihuahua and the Great Dane who obviously were bread for their respective traits.

And to claim that monkeys have always been monkeys is just as bizarre a statement. All can be traced back to a common link.

As far as humans are concerned…there is a reason that humans and chimpanzees share 98.5% common DNA…enough said.

Link to comment
And to claim that monkeys have always been monkeys is just as bizarre a statement. All can be traced back to a common link.

Actually it is not a common link, but Lancelot Link the secret Chimp, who happens to me incommunicado, or rather we have a missing Link.

Edited by Jeff K.
Link to comment

Dogs have not always been dogs...they are so very clearly the product of human selective evolution or selective breeding. It was the involvement of humans that produced the 400 breeds of dogs we see today. Early peoples chose breeding dogs for their size or skills in hunting and sentry duty. Later, appearance and companionable behavior became favored traits. It’s the reason we have both the Chihuahua and the Great Dane who obviously were bread for their respective traits.

Interesting, so when something evolved into a dog it was already a dog? Oh did you not know that both a Chihuahua and a Great dane are both dogs still? They did not evolve into cats.

And to claim that monkeys have always been monkeys is just as bizarre a statement. All can be traced back to a common link.

As far as humans are concerned…there is a reason that humans and chimpanzees share 98.5% common DNA…enough said.

This seems to go against any conversation I have had with the die hard evolutionists. They tell me that at one point X evolved into a monkey. So you see a Monkey has always been a monkey. It was something else before it was a monkey. How is a monkey defined? It has a certain set of characteristics that make it a monkey, and only a monkey has these characteristics. I think that is what Elder Nelson is saying. So before the monkey evolved it was not a monkey but something else. Do you disagree? I think you read his remarks as saying "Monkeys have always existed". I do not think that is what he is saying.
Link to comment
This is exactly why no one in the LDS community will take you seriously.

Yes, except for those who do. You know, people like Brian Hauglid, David Bokovoy, Don Bradley, etc. It seems I do have credibility among some Mormon scholars, which is probably why I'm not embarrassed and why I don't need to hide my online persona behind a pseudonym. How about you?

Your link shows this as the source which is completely different from your source

My source shows this as the source which is different from my source? Are you actually trying to be incoherent?

"Church Educational System (2003, 3d ed.). Old Testament Student Manual Genesis – 2 Samuel (Salt Lake City, Utah: LDS Church). This is not where you copied and pasted from.

OK, if I were you I'd probably accuse you of dishonesty, but since I'm not you, I'll just chalk this up to academic illiteracy (Hold on to your proverbial crotch, because this will hurt)

The link I provided sends us to the Mormonism and Evolution Wikipedia article. The citation which I said originated there was:

Recently there was some trouble...in one of the leading Church schools—the training college of the Brigham Young University—where three of the professors advanced certain theories on evolution as applied to the origin of man, and certain opinions on "higher criticism," as conclusive and demonstrated truths. This was done although it is well known that evolution and the "higher criticism"...are in conflict on some matters with the scriptures, including some modern revelation...The Church, on the contrary, holds to the definite authority of divine revelation which must be the standard; and that, as so-called "science" has changed from age to age in its deductions, and as divine revelation is truth, and must abide forever, views as to the lesser should conform to the positive statements of the greater...Philosophic theories of life have their place and use, but it is not in the classes of the Church schools, and particularly are they out of place here or anywhere else when they seek to supplant the revelations of God - Improvement Era vol. 14, p. 548, 1911)

Now you're telling me this website says the source for this citation is Old Testament Student Manual when it is clearly the Improvement Era as indicated by the corresponding footnote #38. So not only have I provided you the link to the page, I've now had to take you by the hand and walk you straight to the exact citation. And you think I'm embarrassed?

I have no respect for dishonesty.

Is this why you accuse people of dishonesty based on nothing more than your paranoia/intuition about those you arbitrarily label "anti-Mormon"? I'm still waiting for you to prove I misrepresented Joseph Fielding Smith. The reason you haven't is because you now realize your accusation was nonsense, so you're slowly trying to slink out of this mess. Normally I'd feel bad for you, but this is your mess that you created for yourself.

I can only recommend different avenues to express your pent up bitterness against those who you see as your "enemy".

You're projecting again. I have good friends who are respected Mormons. I get along with folks on both sides and don't need to label anyone an enemy. Can you say the same? Let's find out. How many anti-Mormons call you "friend"?

I understand it is absolutely impossible to leave the Church completely alone.

Can't you at least try to be original, instead of rehearsing outloud this worn out chestnut from Nibley? In my experience on message boards since 1997, it is the die-hard LDS apologist who tends to be obsessed with constant debating. The only difference is that the critics are willing to do it anywhere where the apologists feel their arguments need a home field advantage. Let me guess, this is the only forum you where you post, right?

Countless have been down your same road, but there is hope - I promise. Good luck!

Hope for what? I've never been happier.

But don't leave now, your embarrassment is almost complete. So let's get back on topic. How do you explain your failure to identify a simple paragraph on a page?

Link to comment

Yes, except for those who do. You know, people like Brian Hauglid, David Bokovoy, Don Bradley, etc. It seems I do have credibility among some Mormon scholars, which is probably why I'm not embarrassed and why I don't need to hide my online persona behind a pseudonym. How about you?

My source shows this as the source which is different from my source? Are you actually trying to be incoherent?

OK, if I were you I'd probably accuse you of dishonesty, but since I'm not you, I'll just chalk this up to academic illiteracy (Hold on to your proverbial crotch, because this will hurt)

The link I provided sends us to the Mormonism and Evolution Wikipedia article. The citation which I said originated there was:

Now you're telling me this website says the source for this citation is Old Testament Student Manual when it is clearly the Improvement Era as indicated by the corresponding footnote #38. So not only have I provided you the link to the page, I've now had to take you by the hand and walk you straight to the exact citation. And you think I'm embarrassed?

Is this why you accuse people of dishonesty based on nothing more than your paranoia/intuition about those you arbitrarily label "anti-Mormon"? I'm still waiting for you to prove I misrepresented Joseph Fielding Smith. The reason you haven't is because you now realize your accusation was nonsense, so you're slowly trying to slink out of this mess. Normally I'd feel bad for you, but this is your mess that you created for yourself.

You're projecting again. I have good friends who are respected Mormons. I get along with folks on both sides and don't need to label anyone an enemy. Can you say the same? Let's find out. How many anti-Mormons call you "friend"?

Can't you at least try to be original, instead of rehearsing outloud this worn out chestnut from Nibley? In my experience on message boards since 1997, it is the die-hard LDS apologist who tends to be obsessed with constant debating. The only difference is that the critics are willing to do it anywhere where the apologists feel their arguments need a home field advantage. Let me guess, this is the only forum you where you post, right?

Hope for what? I've never been happier.

But don't leave now, your embarrassment is almost complete. So let's get back on topic. How do you explain your failure to identify a simple paragraph on a page?

My urges are to fully respond, but I will be kind enough not to.

If it makes you feel better for your sake. Yes, you have now "completely embarrassed me", congratulations. Add me to your internet glory.

Edited by Doctor Ninja
Link to comment

Interesting, so when something evolved into a dog it was already a dog? Oh did you not know that both a Chihuahua and a Great dane are both dogs still? They did not evolve into cats.

Mola Ram Suda Ram...I like you...don't care for your name much, but you I like. I'm trying to be real patient. Dogs evolved from Wolves through selective human breeding...but believe what you want to...I can only show you where the water is...I can't force you to drink.

This seems to go against any conversation I have had with the die hard evolutionists. They tell me that at one point X evolved into a monkey. So you see a Monkey has always been a monkey. It was something else before it was a monkey. How is a monkey defined? It has a certain set of characteristics that make it a monkey, and only a monkey has these characteristics. I think that is what Elder Nelson is saying. So before the monkey evolved it was not a monkey but something else. Do you disagree? I think you read his remarks as saying "Monkeys have always existed". I do not think that is what he is saying.

what I interpreted from his remarks was that the monkey species has not evolved from a lower lifeform. The monkey species has NOT always been monkeys...they evolved from a common ancestor. Thats where the water is ----------->

Link to comment

I'm sorry "Ninja" but you accused me several times of lying. Not making an error, just flat out lying.

I have since shown that I didn't lie and I think I did a pretty good job holding my composure.

What more is there to say?

Oh I know, why don't you try to come out of this thing as the victor... again.

EDIT: I see you already have.

;)

Link to comment

cdowis:

I accept evolution as a fact(as if I have much choice in choosing my facts. I'm sure that to some who don't undertand evolution it has become a belief system.

Faith-based belief in evolution has been shown here on this forum -- "I don't know the answer to your question, but I know that evolution will eventually provide an answer."

These are statements from individuals who think they know evolution, so what do you know that they don't. I will be happy to ask you one of those questions on another thread.

Link to comment

That means Mormons can (1)believe in the LDS creation story and reject evolution, or (2)believe in BOTH the LDS Creation story and evolution.

Those that choose to believe BOTH in both evolution and creation, are left on their own to figure out how that works. Since the LDS Church has no position on evolution, why should it be expected to explain how to reconcile the two.

Well, third option is for those who believe in evolution and not LDS doctrines. They are left to answer certain questions which are unanswerable in evolution. They must depend on faith that somebody will figure it out.

Link to comment
OK, if I were you I'd probably accuse you of dishonesty, but since I'm not you, I'll just chalk this up to academic illiteracy (Hold on to your proverbial crotch, because this will hurt)

I don't even know what to say other than to wonder what board you think you are on. Xander has left the building for vulgarity.

Link to comment

I wonder, when Paul and Peter and James had their arguments as to whether or not non Jews could be Christians, and it was finally clarified. Did the Romans say "See! See! because one of them had one opinion and the others had a different opinion obviously Christianity is false!!!".

Are we seeing reflections of the same arguments anti Christians used?

Link to comment
Ok... What is the official doctrinal position on creation?

Jesus Christ created the universe under the direction of the Father. How this was done is beyond our level of understanding.

Link to comment

Mola Ram Suda Ram...I like you...don't care for your name much, but you I like. I'm trying to be real patient. Dogs evolved from Wolves through selective human breeding...but believe what you want to...I can only show you where the water is...I can't force you to drink.

Why? My name is classic. Not much of an Indiana Jones fan?

Don't worry about leading me to the water, I am already there. My only point is that they were wolves at that point, prior and not dogs.

what I interpreted from his remarks was that the monkey species has not evolved from a lower lifeform. The monkey species has NOT always been monkeys...they evolved from a common ancestor. Thats where the water is ----------->

Well I guess 2 rational people can come to different conclusions. Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...