Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Age Of The Earth And Age Of The Human Race


Recommended Posts

Yes, I'm aware that they do now.

I guess all that other stuff coming straight from the President, was mere opinion. It almost makes you wonder why he bothered speaking as a man in a statement directed to the whole Church, especially with such emphasis added.

Almost.

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?

Link to comment

I don't think anyone is embarrassed. I like the theory of evolution myself, seems to be a good explanation. Should we somehow need to be embarrassed?

As to best explanation, that is an unclear question. Wouldn't the best explanation be the one coming from God? Or should someone state that a person can have a better explanation than God's? For someone who is so wrapped up on the precision of words, one is forced to ask why you aren't all over the idea of poor questions that can be misinterpreted for polls. Or is it only those polls that disagree with you?

The question as presented in your post is poorly worded wouldn't you agree?

Link to comment

How does Mormon doctrine view this:

Jesus said, "“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] " (Matt. 19:4)

Jesus is supporting the reliability of the written history, as written.

Link to comment

Funny, I don't recall the doctrine that states everything a prophet says is doctrine.

Anyone want to help me on that one?

Yes. I will show you anti-Mormon/apostate style.

So we see that the Lord's words.....and.....everything.....that.....a.....prophet....says.....is.....doctrine.....strengthens our testimony of the Gospel. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 9, pp. 140-41
Link to comment

Doctor Ninja:

I believe that some will be perfectly happy in the lesser Kingdoms. I believe that to a extent that until I do arrive at knowing all, there will be an amount of divine discontent.

So what you meant was that you want to know everything God knows in the after-life right? After-all it is impossible to know all in this life and therefore being discontent will not serve us in any way.

Link to comment

So you're going to continue with your false accusation that context has been intentionally left out, simply because you are unable to verify it yourself?

I'm shocked I tell ya.

SHOCKED!

Here is another citation that will be sure to enrage you further:

What accusation? You copied the non doctrinal quote from where again?

And speaking of shocker, you found another quote with parts left out. Embarrassing Xander.

Link to comment

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.

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.

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:

To my knowledge there has been no “official” pronouncement by the First Presidency declaring that President Snow’s couplet is to be accepted as doctrine. But that is not a valid criteria for determining whether or not it is doctrine.

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:

Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.

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

Numerous sources could be cited, but one should suffice to show that this doctrine is accepted and taught by the Brethren. In an address in 1971, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said:

“I think I can pay no greater tribute to [President Lorenzo Snow and Elder Erastus Snow] than to preach again that glorious doctrine which they taught and which was one of the favorite themes, particularly of President Lorenzo Snow. …

“We have been promised by the Lord that if we know how to worship, and know what we worship, we may come unto the Father in his name, and in due time receive of his fulness. We have the promise that if we keep his commandments, we shall receive of his fulness and be glorified in him as he is in the Father.

“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us.Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’

“After this doctrine had been taught by the Prophet, President Snow felt free to teach it also, and he summarized it in one of the best known couplets in the Church. …

“This same doctrine has of course been known to the prophets of all the ages, and President Snow wrote an excellent poetic summary of it.”(Address on Snow Day, given at Snow College, 14 May 1971, pp. 1, 3–4; italics added.)

It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today.

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

Link to comment

What accusation? You copied the non doctrinal quote from where again?

And speaking of shocker, you found another quote with parts left out. Embarrassing Xander.

I copied it from another forum where a similar debate took place with other faithful LDS. The second citation comes from the wikipedia article entitled Mormonism and Evolution. Now that we have this silliness out of the way, does this mean you're prepared to offer substantive commentary to the discussion?

What is so "embarrassing" about copying and pasting citations?

References aren't "out of context" just because you don't like what they say. You actually have to demonstrate how they are out of context. Thus far, you've shown no ability to do that. All you've done is complain because those dastardly "anti-Mormons" have access to more data than you. As if this is my fault.

Link to comment

Xander:

What you seem to be missing is that for any statement by a Prophet to make it to the level of Doctrine it must be agreed to unanimously. There were arguments for and against evolution in the highest counsels of the Church. NO agreement was met. Thus we have no doctrine either way on evolution.

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

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.

Edited by thesometimesaint
Link to comment

Growing up in the church, I was taught that the creation story, as taught in the books of Genesis, Moses, and Abraham, was true.

I was taught that the doctrines of the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement were intimately related: the world was Created in a perfect, deathless state—the Fall is what caused death to enter the world, and the Atonement is what redeems the world from the Fall. In the words of one apostate, “There is no evolving from one species to another in any of this.”

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. If that’s the case, it raises the question, why would there need to be a literal atonement to redeem mankind from a symbolic Fall?

Here is a link to an anti-Mormon site which insists that what I just said is in fact doctrine that Latter-day Saints are duty-bound to accept.

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment

I copied it from another forum where a similar debate took place with other faithful LDS. The second citation comes from the wikipedia article entitled Mormonism and Evolution. Now that we have this silliness out of the way, does this mean you're prepared to offer substantive commentary to the discussion?

What is so "embarrassing" about copying and pasting citations?

References aren't "out of context" just because you don't like what they say. You actually have to demonstrate how they are out of context. Thus far, you've shown no ability to do that. All you've done is complain because those dastardly "anti-Mormons" have access to more data than you. As if this is my fault.

"Substantive commentary" as in agreeing with you? No thanks.

I am still waiting for you to show me the entire quote. A good starting place would be to link the sources wouldn't you agree? Of course not.

So we will be left wondering why the likes of anti-Mormons/apostates leave out entire quotes to prove their points. Unfortunately for you, we know why, but I will digress from embarrassing you any further.

Link to comment

Xander:

What you seem to be missing is that for any statement by a Prophet to make it to the level of Doctrine it must be agreed to unanimously. There were arguments for and against evolution in the highest counsels of the Church. NO agreement was met. Thus we have no doctrine either way on evolution.

http://newsroom.lds....mormon-doctrine

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.

I notice your article is only a few years old. As I said, this is a recent phenomenon.

By definition, a teaching by the Church is a doctrine. When the Prophet of the Church stands up in Conference and teaches something, we have every reason to accept it as doctrine. Why wouldn't we? The Church doesn't make distinctions between conference talks that got an affirmative vote by fifteen men, and other talks that didn't. In fact there is no indication that anything in conference was voted upon, ever. As Lund explained in 1982, the First Presidency generally only decided to make public declarations on specific controversies or over matters where there seems to be confusion. In the meantime, what they teach publicly is considered "acceptable and accepted doctrine."

And this is what I was taught when I joined the Church in 1989. The Mormon family that was instrumental in my conversion, was very strict about obeying every word of the Lord's anointed. When I disagreed at the dinner table, they had the missionaries (official representatives of the church) confirm that what they said was true. We were discussing whether or not 16 year old Mormon girls should be allowed to date Gentiles. I was new to the Church so I wasn't well versed in all the teachings they were referencing, but I couldn't believe that was actually a commandment. But the family, the missionaries, and eventually the entire ward supported their contention that it was a commandment because the Prophet had made some remark about it in conference.

But nowadays, I guess people could just blow it off as him speaking as a man.

Link to comment

Since I can't make a poll as of yet.

Wouldn't it be revealing to find out what anti-Mormons/apostates really know what evolution is all about? Find out what education they have had on the matter, not what they copy and paste from wikipedia. Also it would be relevant to find out if they even knew what micro and macro evolution was all about and what Darwin actually taught on the subject, not what was made up about it.

It really is hard to have a serious discussion with those who really have no background on the matter. How can we can take those seriously on this subject when they can't even describe our own doctrines correctly? Armchair academia with a brilliant copy and paste ability is definitely impressive on the internet, but is it suppose to magically change what our doctrines are and ever will be?

Link to comment

Since I can't make a poll as of yet.

Wouldn't it be revealing to find out what anti-Mormons/apostates really know what evolution is all about? Find out what education they have had on the matter, not what they copy and paste from wikipedia. Also it would be relevant to find out if they even knew what micro and macro evolution was all about and what Darwin actually taught on the subject, not what was made up about it.

It really is hard to have a serious discussion with those who really have no background on the matter. How can we can take those seriously on this subject when they can't even describe our own doctrines correctly? Armchair academia with a brilliant copy and paste ability is definitely impressive on the internet, but is it suppose to magically change what our doctrines are and ever will be?

Why on earth are you under the false impression that I'm ignorant of Evolution when we haven't even discussed it?

The meaning and significance of evolution has never been the issue, at least not in this thread. One doesn't need to have a "background" in Evolution in order to see that Church leaders have spoken out against it in the past.

Having said that, it is my experience that the most educated folks on this topic tend to be atheists. EAllusion, John Stewart Mill, The Dude, Tarski, are a few I have in mind.

Link to comment
"Substantive commentary" as in agreeing with you? No thanks.

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

I am still waiting for you to show me the entire quote.

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

A good starting place would be to link the sources wouldn't you agree? Of course not.

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.

So we will be left wondering why the likes of anti-Mormons/apostates leave out entire quotes to prove their points.

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

Unfortunately for you, we know why, but I will digress from embarrassing you any further.

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.

Edited by Xander
Link to comment

Growing up in the church, I was taught that the creation story, as taught in the books of Genesis, Moses, and Abraham, was true.

I was taught that the doctrines of the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement were intimately related: the world was Created in a perfect, deathless state—the Fall is what caused death to enter the world, and the Atonement is what redeems the world from the Fall. In the words of one apostate, “There is no evolving from one species to another in any of this.”

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. If that’s the case, it raises the question, why would there need to be a literal atonement to redeem mankind from a symbolic Fall?

Here is a link to an anti-Mormon site which insists that what I just said is in fact doctrine that Latter-day Saints are duty-bound to accept.

SIgh!

Typical anti-Mormons ignoring context as usual.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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