Jump to content

cinepro

Contributor
  • Posts

    10,632
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cinepro

  1. There is, of course, another explanation for why there isn't any "direct proof"... The oddest thing about all this to me is that the debate could easily be resolved with a 20-second revelation. RMN could announce his dozen temples at the next conference, and then add "Oh, and thus saith the Lord, the ancient city of Zarahemla was in the location now known as XYZ." It would be no different than God letting us know that Adam dwelt in the place now known as Spring Hill, Missouri. If the Book of Mormon is describing real people, places and events, then that means Zarahemla (and other Book of Mormon locations) existed in a single location. And even with changes in topography, that location could be approximated against modern geography. This has practical application because, since the Book of Mormon locations could only have existed in one place, every proposed geography (except one at the most) is wrong. So any amount of time and money that someone spends on the wrong geography is wasted, and is spent promoting error and falsehood. It isn't enough to say "we don't know where the geography is", because that still doesn't negate the fact that people are wasting time and money on false geographies when the knowledge could be easily shared (and God has shared similar knowledge, canonically, with past prophets.)
  2. Please explain what you think it means for the Earth to be "paradisiacal", and how this is compatible with the idea of evolutionary creation, which involves countless generations of birth/death in order to work. If there was birth/death and evolution going on, how was it different than the Earth after the fall?
  3. The "paradisiacal creation" is referring to the state of the planet Earth when it was created, before the Fall of Adam. Please explain what you think it means for the Earth to be "paradisiacal", and how this is compatible with the idea of evolutionary creation, which involves countless generations of birth/death in order to work.
  4. I mean, you have a (future and assumed humorless) Prophet who said exactly what Pogi wanted him to say, and was cited by Millett. But then you have a footnote of him saying "Hey, I was just kidding about that. Don't listen to me!" I'm still surprised on several different levels. Wouldn't the logical instinct be to take out the confusing joke in the first place?
  5. Okay, I thought you were making that up because the wording was too perfect (and casual), and honestly, it sounded like something I would have made up. So I bought the ebook because I was too embarrassed to ask. It's legit! (But I did think it was really suspicious that Joseph Fielding Smith would have ever said anything like that. I mean, seriously. It's Joseph Fielding Smith.)
  6. Widstoe's quote still demands a global flood that covered the entire Earth. He only suggests the depth might not have been uniform over the entire planet. Here's is what else he said, right after the part you quoted. Odd that you left it out. And just so I'm clear, you think JFS didn't believe in a literal, global flood, even though he said this: And this...?
  7. Hey, are we still talking about the Church and the Flood? There are a lot of things that impress me about the Church, but if Noah's flood wasn't a planet-wide event that left only eight people alive on the entire planet, then I'm impressed at how consistently wrong about this the Church has been. Here is a collection of teachings from Church leaders, curriculum and official publications that teach a literal global flood. I searched for any quotes that even acknowledge the possibility of a limited or metaphorical flood, but couldn't find a single one. If anyone knows of any, please let me know. Here is what college-age LDS students are taught in the Church published curriculum of the Church Educational System (including Institute and BYU classes): (4-15) Genesis 7:19. How Could the Flood Cover the Entire Earth, Including Mountains? What Was the Significance of This Immersion? “I would like to know by what known law the immersion of the globe could be accomplished. It is explained here in a few words: ‘The windows of heaven were opened’ that is, the waters that exist throughout the space surrounding the earth from whence come these clouds from which the rain descends. That was one cause. Another cause was ‘the fountains of the great deep were broken up’—that is something beyond the oceans, something outside of the seas, some reservoirs of which we have no knowledge, were made to contribute to this event, and the waters were let loose by the hand and by the power of God; for God said He would bring a flood upon the earth and He brought it, but He had to let loose the fountains of the great deep, and pour out the waters from there, and when the flood commenced to subside, we are told ‘that the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained, and the waters returned from off the earth.’ Where did they go to? From whence they came. Now, I will show you something else on the back of that. Some people talk very philosophically about tidal waves coming along. But the question is—How could you get a tidal wave out of the Pacific ocean, say, to cover the Sierra Nevadas? But the Bible does not tell us it was a tidal wave. It simply tells that ‘all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.’ That is, the earth was immersed. It was a period of baptism.” (John Taylor in Journal of Discourses, 26:74–75.) Orson Pratt declared: “The first ordinance instituted for the cleansing of the earth, was that of immersion in water; it was buried in the liquid element, and all things sinful upon the face of the earth were washed away. As it came forth from the ocean floor, like the new-born child, it was innocent; it rose to newness of life. It was its second birth from the womb of mighty waters—a new world issuing from the ruins of the old, clothed with all the innocence of this first creation.” (In Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:20.) “The earth, in its present condition and situation, is not a fit habitation for the sanctified; but it abides the law of its creation, has been baptized with water will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon” (Brigham Young, in Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:20). Here is what is taught to adult members of the Church in their Church Sunday School classes: b. Genesis 7:11–24; 8; 9:8–17. It rains for 40 days and 40 nights (Genesis 7:11–12). All people and creatures that are not on the ark die, and the waters cover the earth for 150 days (Genesis 7:13–24). When the waters recede, Noah, his family, and the animals leave the ark (Genesis 8:1–19), and Noah offers sacrifice to the Lord (Genesis 8:20–22). The Lord establishes his covenant with Noah and sets the rainbow as a token of the covenant (Genesis 9:8–17; note that the Joseph Smith Translation of verse 15 states that the covenant was between God and Noah, not between God and every living creature). More quotes, little ambiguity. There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets. Donald Parry, “The Flood and the Tower of Babel”. Ensign, January 1998 Following the Flood, Noah and his three sons and their wives received a calling much like that given to Adam and Eve. They were commanded to “multiply and replenish the earth,” which would fulfill a prophecy made by Methuselah “that from [Noah’s] loins should spring all the kingdoms of the earth” (Moses 8:3). As the Prophet Joseph Smith explained, “Noah was born to save seed of everything, when the earth was washed of its wickedness by the flood.” 11 Noah fulfilled his specific calling just as Adam and Eve did in opening earth life and as the Savior did in redeeming earth life. • The Flood covered the whole earth (see Gen. 7:19–23). Joseph B. Romney, “Noah, The Great Preacher of Righteousness”. Ensign, February 1998 The worldwide flood of Noah’s time has been accepted as a benchmark historical event by Jews and Christians for thousands of years—and similar traditions appear among the Greeks, Mesopotamians, and some American Indian tribes. Yet the story is regarded skeptically today in our secular world. Most current geology texts ignore the Flood, ridicule it, or use it as an example of prescientific superstition. Consequently, Latter-day Saints and other Christians sometimes find the apparent conflict between their faith in the scriptures and their education puzzling. The account of Noah’s flood is a typical illustration of the differences which occur between scriptural information and modern secular teachings about the history of the world. F. Kent Nielsen, “The Gospel and the Scientific View: How the Earth Came to Be”. Ensign, September 1980 In prayer Noah asked the Lord never to destroy the earth again with flood. Noah’s prayer was answered; the Lord promised Noah that He would never again destroy the entire earth by flood. From that time forth the rainbow would be a symbol of that promise. “Noah and the Ark”. Liahona, September 1984 These people were so wicked that they were no longer allowed to pollute the earth by their presence on it or to bring innocent spirits into its decadent environment. The Lord decreed that all living things would be destroyed by flood, with the exception of a faithful few who would be spared so that God could begin anew his creative work and reestablish his covenant among men. Kent P. Jackson, “An Age of Contrasts: From Adam to Abraham”. Ensign, February 1986. According to the Old Testament, Noah found favor with the Lord and was commanded to build an ark to preserve human and animal life during the Flood (see Gen. 5–9). Rex C. Reeve Jr., “A Latter-day Testament of Biblical Truth”. Ensign, January 2001. The history of the peopling of the earth is really a history of the scattering of the descendants of Noah, who is sometimes referred to as the “second father of mankind.” This general scattering began soon after the Flood when the sons of Noah and their children began to spread forth “in their lands, … after their nations” (see Gen. 10:5, 20, 31) and was greatly accelerated at the time of the Tower of Babel, when the Lord confounded the people’s language and did “scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” (Gen. 11:9.) Lane Johnson, “Who and Where are the Lamanites?”. Ensign, December 1975. Is not today much like Noah’s day, when the population of the earth was wiped out in the Flood and but eight souls were saved? (see Genesis 7; 1 Peter 3:20). Elder David E. Sorensen, “Preisthood, Agency and Black Power”. Ensign, September 2007. *This is a bonus one. Proponents of a “Limited Flood” have to explain what, exactly, God was covenanting with Noah. No more local floods? And what about all the other people living all over the world? The Lord made a covenant with Noah, and the rainbow became the token of that eternal covenant with all mankind. (See Gen. 9:13.) Elder Howard W. Hunter, “Commitment to God”. October 1981 Conference.
  8. But as recently as 2019, this is what the Church was teaching in the Liahona: What do you think they mean by "nothing was mortal or subject to death"?
  9. What do you think it means when RMN says it was a "paradisiacal creation", and that the planet was "paradisiacal"? It's not a very common word; we most usually hear it in Article of Faith 10, where we state that the Earth will be "renewed" and recieve its "paradisiacal glory." Do you believe that in this pardisiacal state, there will continue to be mortal death and evolutionary change? What is the difference between the current state of the planet and a "paradisiacal" state? The "Organic Evolution" essay doesn't actually say anything that resolves the contradiction between basic LDS doctrines of the creation (and fall) and the theory of evolution. It certainly doesn't say "God used evolution to create the different forms of life on this planet" or "there were pre-Adamites and countless generations of birth and death before the Fall". It's reiterating the Church's desperate detante. Church leaders understand many members find rejecting the theory of evolution untenable, but also find rejecting the Church untenable. So they continue to teach things about a "paradisiacal creation" and "death" coming into the "world" via the fall of Adam, but then say "it's okay to believe in evolution". And as long as no one asks too many questions, people come up with extremely creative word redefinitions (and ignore what they can't redefine) to convince themselves that it all works. But it doesn't. Sorry. And as shown by that Liahona article, the Church hasn't really gotten much better about this. If there was no physical death on the planet before Adam's fall, then there was no evolution by natural selection. If there was physical death on the planet, then the world didn't need to "fall." It was already fallen. I'm not suggesting there aren't tons of members of the Church who believe in evolution (especially since I'm a member and absolutely believe in evolution, along with a mythical Adam and Eve), and surveys seem to suggest at least 40% do (with 50% not). I'm just questioning the idea that there is any debate between current leaders and past leaders over the scriptures/teachings/doctrines that totally contradict the theory of evolution.
  10. Don't worry about the form of creation I'm using. Explain to me your theory of creation that involves some form of organic evolution but doesn't directly contradict RMN's statement that: If you are theorizing a period of "creation" in which there was evolution and mortality, and death was a part of that evolutionary process, in what way could it be said that mortality and death hadn't already "come into the world"? Specifically, what do you think it means when RMN teaches that it was a paradisiacal planet when it was created?
  11. Same question as above. Can you explain your theory of creation (and understanding of the word "paradisiacal") in a way that evolution would be possible on a "paradisiacal" planet that had no mortality or death on it?
  12. For those wondering what the Church has published recently on the subject: The Fall and Renewal of Humankind—and the Earth (Liahona, August 2019)
  13. Nelson says this: Explain to me how evolution is possible on a planet that is created in a "paradisiacal" state. Maybe share your understanding of what "paradisiacal" means first.
  14. Uh, okay. Here's another quote. Does this one allow for evolution on the planet outside of Adam and Eve?
  15. You used the word "debate" when describing the "old" prophets and the "new" ones. Nelson being the Prophet, where are you seeing any "debate" with what was said by JFS or other anti-evolution prophets? I'm also curious about your classification of a belief as being a "personal one". What other kind of belief is there? Aren't all of President Nelson's (and everyone else's beliefs) "personal"? Describe what President Nelson would say about evolution if it wasn't "personal" but was some other kind of belief.
  16. What has our new prophet said that would contradict anything said by the "old" prophets? President Nelson has been pretty clear about his thoughts, and I'm not seeing a lot of disagreement. The guy really doesn't believe in any sort of creation by evolution. Nelson also believes that the Eve "rib" story is literal (in contradiction to President Kimball ) Nelson also believes in a physical state for Adam and Eve that negates the possibility of a creation by evolution:
  17. That's an interesting question. I remembered hearing the JS studied Hebrew, but it looks like it went a bit beyond that. If Joseph Smith spent time studying all those languages, he obviously recognized that there was some sort of regular translation to be done.
  18. I have to admit I really feel out of the loop on a lot of this, since I don't live in Utah and I (apparently) don't ever roam the same corners of the internet as "Deznat". It seems to be another one of those things where extremism in the Church is ever-present and prevalent to some people, but it just leaves me scratching my head. Take the Jan 6 insurrection/riot. Some critics have pointed to there being some LDS people in the crowd as being evidence of the Church "breeding" this kind of extremist violence. Certainly, cosplay Moroni guy doesn't help the optics. But from the estimated 2,000 - 2,500 rioters, and the 800 who have been charged, how many were LDS? I have no idea. 20? 50? 100? Then consider how many adult men are in the LDS Church in the United States. There are 12,000 wards, so estimate how many active, adult men are in an average ward. I would guess 40, but insert your own number here. So with my estimate, there would be about 480,000 active adult LDS men in the US, and 100(?) participated in the capitol riot. How many are associated with "DezNat"? I have no idea, but is it more than 100? 1,000? The point being, if it's the Church's purpose to create extremism and violence (or we're going to argue that extremism is simply a bi-product that is concerning enough to warrant a Hulu miniseries), this would have to be chalked up as one of the things at which the Church is massively and totally failing. I mean, if my experience in EQ was any indication, the Church could barely muster enough energy in its men to home teach a couple times a year, or even come to Church regularly. Over-zealousness was not something that seemed to be a big problem.
  19. I agree with that article too. I think the problem is that defenders of the show equate its message and the meaning they get from it (and frankly, what they desperately want it to mean) with the value of the show in general. But when I say the dialogue is terrible, the acting and direction are overdrawn, and from what I can tell, the depictions of 1984 American Fork Mormon culture stilted and off-key, I'm not saying that what happened wasn't a tragedy, and the problems of zealotry and violence in the Church shouldn't be discussed. I'm just saying it isn't a very good show. This reminds me of when Star Wars Episode 1 came out in 1999, and the shock Star Wars fans experienced. We wanted to like it so much. It was supposed to be the greatest movie ever. But I saw it three times in theaters before I finally admitted it was terrible. I haven't been able to sit through it since. Likewise, I expect this show will be discussed and referenced for many years to come in some quarters. But it won't be being re-watched.
  20. Well, historical inaccuracies like that also bug me. But if we're saying that UTBOH is on par with ham-fisted Church propaganda videos in its accuracy, tone, and intent (not to mention the quality of the acting and writing), I guess...I agree?
  21. If you recall, the documentary had lots of recreations, with actors and sets and costumes depicting Hofmann and his associates. Those are the scenes I was referring to. Granted, I don't think there was much dialogue, and it's hard to over-do a couple guys in an MR2 going out to the desert to shoot Uzis.
  22. But from what I'm seeing, that isn't the issue. The issue isn't historical facts and what is being left out or included in the narrative. The problem is the world that is being re-created. "Banner of Heaven" is re-creating a setting of Utah/Mormon culture in American Fork, Utah in the summer of 1984. This is a real place, at a real time, even if some of the specific characters are fictional. The complaints seem to focus on the show going out of its way to make things a lot weirder than they were. The language isn't the language that was used. People aren't relating to each other the way people in American Fork, Utah did in 1984. If you make a based-on-reality show about American Fork in the summer of 1984, and people who lived in American Fork in 1984 (and similar communities in Utah) are mystified at why people are talking to each other oddly and acting weirdly, then that's a failure. The show seems to go out of its way to make the language and culture weirder than it was to appeal to people who wouldn't know better. Like I've said, I didn't live there. So if I watched the show and thought it was weird but people who lived there were saying "Wow, it's like watching home movies of how things were back then!", I would consider it instructional on how weird Utah was in 1984 and salute the filmmakers for a job well done. The Hofmann documentary seems to have really gotten it right with their recreations. So it can be done.
  23. FYI, I tried to send you the article in your private messages but it gave me an error and said you can't receive messages. Maybe it can be read without a subscription? https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-those-dangerous-mormons-under-banner-heaven-dustin-lance-black-latter-day-saints-11651783480?link=TD_fnlondon_home.27995a643976ebba&utm_source=fnlondon_home.27995a643976ebba&utm_campaign=circular&utm_medium=WSJ
  24. I don't think I've seen any LDS complain about the actual historical recreations being inaccurate. The complaints I've seen are more about the culture and experience of early 1980s Utah. Granted, I (thankfully) grew up outside of Utah in the early 1980s, so I can't speak from personal experience. And I've only watched the first episode. But it seemed like some really odd Twilight Zone episode more than a story placed in any real-world setting. I'm surprised there hasn't been more comparison to the Netflix Mark Hofmann documentary. It's obviously a different format (a documentary with dramatizations), but I don't recall a single complaint from any LDS, and the dramatizations depict almost the same time and place. The sets and scenarios all felt like totally authentic mid-1980s Utah as I would imagine it, and people from that place and era seemed to agree. And it dealt with similarly difficult history and issues, but it was almost universally lauded by TBM and exMo alike for its presentation. Heck, I even get weird nostalgia flashbacks from "Stranger Things." I would expect a well produced show to be giving people who were living in Utah in the 1980s similar flashbacks, instead of leaving them scratching their heads about why people are talking so funny and acting so weirdly about their crazy-violent church.
  25. I've only been in four baptismal interviews for kids: my own, and my three kids. So it's a pretty small sample. But I don't recall ever hearing any questions that were unusual for a soon-to-be eight year old. It was more like a conversation about different Church things. The one thing I remember from my interview is that I had recently watched a science show on PBS where they talked about ice, and the segment ended with the hosts putting ice in iced tea and saying "I love it in iced tea. It's delicious!" So when the bishop asked me about drinking coffee, tea etc., I said "nope, except for ice in iced tea. It's delicious!" I can still remember how shocked my mom looked. Somehow I was still able to get baptized.
×
×
  • Create New...