How literally do you take the creation story?

[SilverKnight]

----

[SilverKnight]

Being rude and insullting my intelligence does not strengthen your position or weaken mine.

No, being ignorant weakens your position.

[zelder]

No, being ignorant weakens your position.

Again....its a matter of who you believe, not a matter of ignorance.

[thesometimesaint]

Zelder:

My point is that none of us mere mortals know all there is to know about science or religion.

But it is a mistake to call either hokey.

[zelder]

Zelder:

My point is that none of us mere mortals know all there is to know about science or religion.

But it is a mistake to call either hokey.

[Senator]

Again....its a matter of who you believe, not a matter of ignorance.

Do you still believe that the sun revolves around the earth?

If not, why?

[zelder]

Do you still believe that the sun revolves around the earth?

If not, why?

There is no controvery surrounding this issue. Your being an ***.

[SilverKnight]

Again....its a matter of who you believe, not a matter of ignorance.

It is ignorant, perhaps even delusional, to place the myths of a thousands year old holy book over the collective understanding of the world's scholars and scientists.

[David T]

There is no controvery surrounding this issue. Your being an ***.

There certainly used to be. And those who claimed otherwise were pronounced heretics who blasphemed Holy Writ.

[zelder]

It is ignorant, perhaps even delusional, to place the myths of a thousands year old holy book over the collective understanding of the world's scholars and scientists.

No, it's strong willed and independent. I think its just as easy to argue that a belief in the virgin mary or the resurrection is delusional. A belief in the Book of Mormon could also very easily be considered delusional.

[thesometimesaint]

Zelder:

No name calling please.

There is no controversy about the mechanisms of Evolution. The controversy is about the fine details of the product. Just like there is no controversy about gravity, just in the theory that explains it.

[Senator]

There is no controvery surrounding this issue. Your being an ***.

Calm down zelder. You're new here. This here message board is like the Sonoran Desert; lots of things that poke and sting. If you wish to traverse it, you'd better don a thicker hide.

[zelder]

I can't help wondering if some of you people are trolls. Where do you hide out? I never meet any of you people at church. Why don't you speak up during church and tell us how delusional it is to believe in the scriptures?

[SilverKnight]

No, it's strong willed and independent.

And unnecessary.

LDS theology does not demand a literal interpretation of genesis.

I think its just as easy to argue that a belief in the virgin mary or the resurrection is delusional.

It is. But the resurrection of one man 2000 years ago is unfalsifiable (can't be proven false).

Adam and Eve being the first humans has been falsified (it has been proven that they weren't).

A belief in the Book of Mormon could also very easily be considered delusional.

Yes it could.

[urroner]

I find it rather interesting when those who believe in the literal creation of Adam and Eve, basically, young earthers, who demand that current science be able to explain the chains of events in evolution that finally led to man and if there is anything lack of data, then that is, to them, solid evidence that it's all a farce and should be totally rejected, yet, when they are asked to do the same for their beliefs about how man came about, they say that it's all a matter of faith.

L = Link in evolution

MD - Missing Data

Current science

MD --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> MD --> L --> L --> L --> MD --> Man

What young earthers demand (no faith required)

L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> Man

What they insist you believe:

MD --> POOF --> Man

I just find it interesting is their feeble attempt to explain the data we have in the current science. Mountains of sandstone caused by a flood 5000 years ago is totally laughable, but I have been urged to accept it without questioning it.

[thesometimesaint]

zelder:

A time and a place for everything.

At Church I am there to learn how to be a better person. How to become like my Heavenly Father. When my role sometimes shifts to that of a teacher of a class or quorum I use the lesson manual and whatever Holy Spirit I can muster to inspire.

Before I retired I was a Psychiatric Social Worker I counseled based on the best knowledge I could obtain from articles and publications by those in my profession, and hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit.

[cinepro]

Individuals should keep in mind that when he wrote his key works condemning evolution, he was a member of the 12, not President of the Church. Not authorized to establish Doctrine on his own. And the President of the Church at the time (David O McKay) was quite unhappy with his unofficial publications on this matter (especially Man His Origin and Destiny), and wished he hadn't done it - and did emphasize clearly that it was not an official text.

Just to be clear, Joseph Fielding Smith became the Prophet in January of 1970. That same year, Deseret Book published a book entitled "Seek Ye Earnestly: Gospel Discourses of Joseph Fielding Smith", in which we read:

[David T]

Why don't you speak up during church and tell us how delusional it is to believe in the scriptures?

Because, if you'd been paying attention, you'd recognize that this is not what we believe. What we don't believe is a specific literalistic reading of certain genre of scriptures. The scriptures are not all of the same literary type. They are not all from the same culture, nor do they all use the same teaching methods.

We believe the scriptures in context with their literary genre, and in context with the principles and doctrines our prayerful and diligent studies have concluded that they are intended to teach us.

[zelder]

Everyone has a right to believe what they want. I'm just a little surprised by some of this. I must say this has been an interesting read.

Cheers!

[Senator]

I can't help wondering if some of you people are trolls.

"You're killing me Smalls!"

Again, you're the one with a staggering twenty-somethin post....

and you're calling others trolls????

[cinepro]

BTW, Joseph Fielding Smith was a prophet, not a scientist.

What does that statement mean to LDS when this is what the Prophets have said about Prophets?

The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Just because someone even a Prophet writes something doesn't automatically make it Church doctrine.

http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

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 (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four

[David T]

Everyone has a right to believe what they want. I'm just a little surprised by some of this. I must say this has been an interesting read.

Cheers!

I'd suggest reading this: The Church and Evolution: A Brief History of Official Statements

Which notes the following:

the First Presidency, in their regular column in the Improvement Era,"Priesthood Quorums' Table," stated the following: "Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God" (pp. 43

[urroner]

[zelder]

I'd suggest reading this: The Church and Evolution: A Brief History of Official Statements

Which notes the following:

the First Presidency, in their regular column in the Improvement Era,"Priesthood Quorums' Table," stated the following: "Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God" (pp. 43