Matthew J. Tandy

I love Elder Nelson. I am considered a highly logical thinker and on reading comprehension tests I have always scored in the top percentile. I love and follow the prophets and apostles. With that basis, if I and several other LDS (ignoring non-LDS or non-theist views) view what he said was deriding of both the Big Bang theory and Evolution, not just without God but with God, then it means there is a strong chance it was a poorly worded minor section of a talk of which it was not the focus. I appreciate that others took home a different view. But I view how he said it as a weakness of man (possibly even that he threw it in there at all). I don't condemn him for it in the sense of judging his role as an Apostle of the Lord, nor do I ignore the central message he was inspired to share. That small section simply, linguistically, could have been a little better. And I love Elder Nelson in part because he, like myself, is not perfect.

That's okay MJT... I tend to do some mocking of BB theory when I work in my garden and observe how everything is interconnected, dependent upon each other, the beauty of an iris or pansy or rose when I observe the exquisite patterns of colors and shapes of each separate bloom, the wonder of the crocus whose tiny bulb knows just when to send up its shoots in early spring to bloom once again for the few short weeks... each species meeting the measure of its creation... no, this cannot be random...

Evolution accounts for exactly that. A creature evolving needs food. The food cannot kill it, but must encourage continued life. Thus, a symbiotic relationship exists. Some creatures evolve to eat a broader spectrum (some monkeys), other don't (like koalas). Either way, it's not to say the sparks of life, the important steps along the way, etc weren't initiated and designed by God to ensure a specific outcome (a world ready for us), but evolution would be the natural way for everything else to work so well together, regardless of whether man came from the process or not. It's beautiful either way too.

"Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a "big bang" somewhere. (Pauses and smiles as audience laughs)

Ask yourself, could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? (Pauses again as audience laughs)

Exactly. I do believe that they resulted, at least in part, from a "big bang" somewhere. There was nothing in his statement though that implied the possibility of God using the Big Bang as a tool. Thus, my believe would be erroneous. And for the many followers of young earth philosophy in the church, this is exactly how they will take it. The pauses for laughter were designed to allow others to join in the laughter at such "ridiculous" notions.

There is a saving grace though, which was what he said thereafter:

The likelihood is most remote.

Which, when confronted with the other quotes, is what I will bring up. He said they are most remote, but did not outright say impossible. He then takes on evolution:

But if so it could never heal it's own torn pages or reproduce it's own newer editions."

This is a silly comparison. A book is not an organic being. It would of course not be able to self-replicate. But biological evolution allows for it. His statement could be taken to mean that a species cannot improve upon itself without God. This would mean that the various birds, insects, cows, etc were from God, not natural evolution.

I of course realize that he is trying to convey the point that we are children of God. He is in fact even allowing for the even remote possibility that man could have evolved, but only if guided by God. The way he said it was so broad though it could use refinement. It wasn't even close to the focus of his talk though, so I understand.

Yes, he was saying that it was good for increasing understanding but not the arbiter of doctrine.

He said it was good but not the source of doctrine.

Excellent. Good to hear. Like I said, I couldn't tell. If it had been the other way, it would have seemed incongruous with the rest of the talk.

What I could not quite tell from Elder Christofferson's talk (due to my son running around) is whether he was at one point putting down scholarly analysis and its use, or if he was saying it's good, but not the source of doctrine.

Woot, Elder Christofferson just said that not every statement made in conference or by a leader is doctrine. Useful timing since Elder Nelson had just mocked certain scientific theories. He also mentioned my most cited Brigham Young event about correcting what he said in conference.

I took it to mean that the creation of the world was not an accident, a random event.

We'll get the transcription shortly. But he specifically mentioned the big bang in a mocking manner (I believe it was "some sort of big bang").

Well, Elder Richard G. Scott's talk...

Sorry, Elder Nelson's talk.

Elder Scott and Elder Nelson are twins, then, eh? Who knew?

Lol, yeah, I am still recovering from being sick. I claim temporary insanity. :-D

Sorry, didn't mean to have a new topic on this. Meant it for the Conference thread. Maybe it needs its own topic. We will see.

Well, Elder Richard G. Scott's talk is now destined to become quoted by anti-Mormons for decades to come! He outright mocked the Big Bang, evolution, etc. It's not the point of his talk, but he expanded the scope beyond it.

Well, Elder Richard G. Scott's talk is now destined to become quoted by anti-Mormons for decades to come! He outright mocked the Big Bang, evolution, etc. It's not the point of his talk, but he expanded the scope beyond it.

And were back! So did the website here go down for everyone? I'm not seeing any posts during the time I was out. What a GREAT conference!

It went down for me too.

Elder Holland's talk was, simply put, spectacular. It should become required reading for every member.

"by men" meaning not women ?

or

"by men" meaning not God ?

Both. One leads to the other for them.

I am in recent contact with a less-active member from an Elder's Quorum I used to be president of. He and his wife have apparently "mostly" left the church, but seem to be wavering and considering coming back. The reason they left is they feel the policies of the church are mostly "by men". They are pretty liberal (which is fine, I mention it only for world-view perspective). In a recent conversation he asked:

"what's a good book to read on Mormon polygamy? I'm mostly interested in the 1880-1910 period (to encompass the Edmunds laws, manifestos, Smoot hearings, etc.)."

I realized I hadn't put together any good resources on this. Any suggestions? Book or articles seem fine. Obviously I prefer something that is not leaning towards antagonistic.

If God is a scientist, he will never be master of his domain. He will always be a product of it.

For God to be more than this he must not be bound by physical laws of motion. He must be able to create anything imaginable from his imagination without a chain of events before this thought or after.

I disagree. A "scientist" God is not, but perhaps he once was to get to where he is now. He is an exalted being. That means he has risen above whatever he once was and achieved what can only be described as the existence of a God.

The beleif that God creates things out of his imagination implies there is either a scientific explanation for how he does it (a special "God" organ perhaps that is the size of the cosmos?), or that ther eis none and thus it is impossible for such a being to exist. If there is a scientific explanation, even if it cannot be replicated by anyone other than God (assuming he is the only one who can have such ability), then that means he is bound by certain laws.

There is the Abomination of Desolation, who, like with the Jerusalem Temple, will enter into one of our temples I believe the one in Independence) and declare himself God (whether in mockery or whatever is unclear). I would imagine he is part of the group prevailing against the saints, which we know includes people outside the LDS faith too. It will be interesting times indeed.

Calmoriah,

Thank you for all the leads! It looks like they kept elements around ebfore fully phasing it out with enwer productions. I will take up your advice and contact the Church History Department.

The story was written in England. I've forgotten the name of the book, but the movie version was called Trapped by the Mormons. The book purported to be autobiographical but was, I believe, actually published as a novel.

I own a copy of the classic silent film "Trapped by the Mormons". I've even held a few viewings of it for fun. Sadly, the quality of surviving copies is low, which can make reading the text a bit hard. Maybe one day I will put subtitles on the already subtitled silent film.:-) Anyway, there are references to the crystal temple on the shores of the salt lake in there. However, the part about a girl jumping out is not. I do know that my father, who served in Spain in the 70's, heard the account of the woman jumping to safety from the temple tower from non-members there at the time with some regularity, as it was spread by some group or another.

I also recall a tract from a long time ago that may have been one of the earliest records of the story. It was a "first-hand" account included as part pf the tract. In it, the girl was being forced to marry one of the apostles, and Brigham Young was ordering her to do so. She was held prisoner in one of the temple towers, was I believe supposed to be starved, etc until she submitted. She in the end jumps out to safety and reports it from thence. I beleive the tract was from the late 1800's, but could be wrong. Sadly, I ran across it long before I started meticulously cataloguing these things.

I taught the teacher training class but don't recall if it was this same program.

Wards and stakes put them together from time to time, but I beleive the one in question was the first one specifically put out by the church.

After a little more research, it appears the reason I am not finding it is the film was on 16mm. It probably never made the transition to VHS, and thus never to youtube. I did see a couple of people remembering it was an excellent production. However, I cannot find anything on what it actually was. The collector of information in me desperately wants it now!

I have been undergoing a quest to read every single General Conference talk and take organized notes. I read about one a weekday morning. In today's reading, I read:

- David B. Haight - April 1971 General Conference, Priesthood Session - Teach One Another -

I am looking for material from a program they were introducing around this time. Here are a few quotes from it:

The aim of the teacher development program is to improve teaching wherever teaching is done in priesthood quorums, auxiliary organizations, and in our homes so as to bring about worthwhile changes in the lives of boys and girls, men and women. The First Presidency initiated this program knowing full well the importance of the teaching moments in our classrooms and because of their conviction that all teachers can improve. This program combines the most effective teaching techniques with spiritual principles.

One lady reported her teaching improved after the second lesson. She began to use the “eye to eye” approach. She began to “teach with the spirit and heart rather than with the book.”

I am sure you have been impressed with the advice and encouragement that President Joseph Fielding Smith and President Harold B. Lee give to the entire Church membership in the film You Make the Difference. This film, which every stake has in its library, outlines the need and demonstrates the methods for calling the participants and implementing the program. The proper influencing of the behavior of individuals through enlightened knowledge is our challenge.

We must understand these instructions and our responsibility to “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77), but to teach it effectively so that all of us, our children, our children’s children, and generations yet unborn will be able to perceive and comprehend the true meaning of life as proclaimed by the Master, and then have a desire to live it and eventually gain exaltation in the kingdom of our Heavenly Father,

This seems to be a precursor to "Teaching, No Greater Call", but I don't recall seeing the video mentioned in any of the libraries. In a previous talk during this conference session, the concept of Ward Libraries was being introduced and rolled out, so it's possible if the program was short lived that the disorganization of the library system at the time may have led to it being lost outside of church archives.

I would love to find a copy of the video and any other material from the 11-week class. I tried looking on Google, but without success. Does anyone know if any of this material is online? Also, I know some of our participants here may have been adult members in 1971. Do you remember this program?

Holy cow... I don't get on for the weekend, and it looks like there is a ton to catch up on this single thread! If I missed someting... I willt ry and catch up tomorrow. Hopefully it hasn't moved beyond my reach.

The "doors" of the jaredite barges were opened only once when they got in, and once when they got out. They were sealed during the length of the journey. They could not be opened in transit. The "windows" could not have been made in the same way.

CFR

Do you also question his/their knowledge of the Resurrection of the Lord, the central tenet of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Science can't explain that.

As I said...

...but do put a lot of stock in his knowledge of our salvation.

Witnesses saw the resurrected Christ, both anciently and modernly.

I also read the blog. He wasn't misquoted in the slightest. His blog was more detailed and more offensive.

Nonetheless, he is in the repentance process right now. We all make mistakes, sometimes big ones.

Show me anywhere where Elder Holland was doing that- where he was discussing PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that the Atlantic basin was formed less than 10, 000 years ago.

I'm waiting.

He already conceded the point.

mfbukowski, as interesting and important as the challenge is on the whole truth and science conept (to whcih I side with you), you are flooding this thread. Please consider a new thread and moving these posts over there to keep this one focused on the Jaredite's voyage.