Age Of The Earth And Age Of The Human Race

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't need to hide my online persona behind a pseudonym. How about you?

This is funny. No one knew Xander = Kevin Graham until the mods confirmed it.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Doctor Ninja]

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 ----------->

Don't drink it!

It has been poisoned and giardi thrives in this type of water. Let him drink it first and when you see him have explosive diarrhea then you can thank me later.

[Doctor Ninja]

This is funny. No one knew Xander = Kevin Graham until the mods confirmed it.

And is Kevin Graham someone important we were suppose to know about?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And is Kevin Graham someone important we were suppose to know about?

He is no more important than you or I. He is a member turned critic with a long history. Not a big deal. The Mods extended an olive branch recently to have him back on this board. I give him the benefit of the doubt right now regardless of history.

[Kevin Christensen]

" ... I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory [of evolution] of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so.... Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory [of evolution], death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?"

- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 1, pp. 141-42

I notice that his name is not "Prophet" and he did not have the title at the time he wrote:

Again, Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings, but because "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to."

The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members [of] the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time. (DHC 5:215.)

Prophets are not sock puppets with one input, God's static and unchanging, only correct understanding, and one output, the same. I've occasionally quoted how often Alma distinguished between what he knows by revelation, by study, by opinion, and what he simply does not know.

In trying to establish LDS doctrine as having the static structure and brittle vulnerability of a 1930s glass Christmas ornament, to which they are only too willing to plink at, like William Powell in The Thin Man, such critics only demonstrate that they are shooting down their own selectivity and interpretation. Not the essentials of Mormonism.

D&C 1

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

There are many other ways to account for the JSF statements, and others like them, than to insist they embody the essential definitive essence of Mormonism.

I've occasionally quoted the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth:

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.

Some people operate at this level. Joseph Smith himself did not. As evidence, I offer the quote about creeds, and think about lovely passages about tolerance, and of his accepting truth from all quarters (see my FAIR essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets). He also took the position that God adapts himself to our capacity to understand. All this and more suggest to me that Joseph Smith operated at POSITION 9.

POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.

The Nibley essays I linked earlier (and which have not yet made any impact on the course of this discussion) point out that our Book of Abraham describes a creation in which things take "until" which means, all the time you need. He points out that the creation involves initiating processes, and watching and waiting for an desired end result. "Let the earth be prepared that it might bring forth great whales..." Future potential tense. Not fiat creation from nothing. I've noticed that given the command for creatures to reproduce after their own kind, the creatures are not said to be "absolutely obedient" but "very obedient", which means that variation (which gives beauty and is desirable) is part of the process. And I've also noticed that "Adam" means "many", that each land is called "earth" and that a garden for two would reasonably be of a size that two could dress and keep it. What goes on outside the garden? What goes on before? What goes on around it?

I also appreciate Joseph Campbell's insight on the Fall in The Power of Myth. Bill Moyers asked why is it that in most mythologies, the woman is the initiator, the one who leads us to our fallen state. His answer, "Because it is through woman that we all enter this world of opposites."

In his later essay, Abraham's creation drama, Nibley read the text as a script for a temple ritual. Nephi had reminded us that no one knows the things of Jews as they did without knowing the proper cultural context. That is what Nibley brings to that essay. What are we supposed to learn from a ritual temple drama? Not geology, or biology, but how to live with an eye to returning to the presence of God.

However gratifying it must be to be able to repeatedly and reliably demonstrate one's intellectual might by plinking away at a few favorite ornamental quotes, chosen solely for their vulnerability, not their truth value, the selections do not represent faith that I hold, and are nothing but a small part of the social history of my people. And not the most interesting or essential or relevant part. Just a kind of humanity that appears not only everywhere, but in every one from time to time.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Doctor Ninja]

He is no more important than you or I. He is a member turned critic with a long history. Not a big deal. The Mods extended an olive branch recently to have him back on this board. I give him the benefit of the doubt right now regardless of history.

Yeah I read about his good deed with Juliann and was then invited over here to antagonize every thread possible. Lots of free passes given to this "important" critic.

And really, I am just not important enough to reveal my real name. Not sure why that is even made an issue for I am not attacking anyone's beliefs. And it gives me great pause when a critic wants real life information about myself. But isn't it interesting that our critics and the likes feel safe and very open to reveal everything about themselves including their real names? They know they will never receive any repercussions from faithful members. They can misrepresent, flat out lie and bear false witness against us and our beliefs, but can go home that night to their families and fall asleep safe and sound.

[LeSellers]

isn't it interesting that our critics and the likes feel safe and very open to reveal everything about themselves including their real names? They know they will never receive any repercussions from faithful members. They can misrepresent, flat out lie and bear false witness against us and our beliefs, but can go home that night to their families and fall asleep safe and sound.

Some of us use our real names.

I don't know if it's because I am stupid, just don't care, or want to be recognized as a defender of the faith. Nonetheless, if ever there was anyone who's just not important enough to take hostile fire, I suppose that would be me.

Lehi

[Sevenbak]

It does take great faith to deny much of the same science that can at the same time produce a heart surgeon, but I'm glad he stated it as opinion. His companion, Elder Wickman, brought him down to earth in a related interview, and Nelson admitted that the Church doesn't know:

Here, Nelson makes the same mistake that those who do not actually know what evolution is often make. Evolution teaches already that man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. Evolution does not teach that one species gives birth to another.

This is not to take away from Elder Nelson, but there is a reason why most of them are very very careful about evolution even when communicating their own negative views about it.

Elder Wickman didn't bring Elder Nelson down to earth. I don't see how you can read that into what he said.

In the discussion, Elder Nelson confirmed that evolution is a theory of man and not consistent with the gospel.

I'm adding some more from Elder Nelson's Ensign talk:

"I believe all of those scriptures that pertain to the creation of man. But the decision to believe is a spiritual one, not made solely by an understanding of things physical, for we read that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14.)

It is incumbent upon each informed and spiritually attuned person to help overcome such foolishness of men who would deny divine creation or think that man simply evolved. By the Spirit, we perceive the truer and more believable wisdom of God.

With great conviction, I add my testimony to that of my fellow Apostle Paul, who said, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?Though we cannot fully comprehend the magnificence of man, when we understand more about our nature, we may join with Jacob in this marvelous declaration:

“Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways.

“For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. …

“Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand.” (Jacob 4:8–10.)

For years I have attended scientific meetings of learned societies. Thousands of medical scientists and practitioners from all over the world participate in such assemblies annually, to learn about the latest scientific discoveries and procedures in the field of medicine.

The quest for knowledge is endless. It seems that the more we know, the more there is yet to learn. It is impossible that man may learn all the ways of God. But if we are faithful and are deeply rooted in the scriptural accounts of God’s magnificent creations, we will be better able to understand future scientific discoveries. All truth is compatible because it all emanates from God."

Russell M. Nelson, “The Magnificence of Man,” Ensign, Jan. 1988, 64

Edited July 1, 2011 by Sevenbak

[Jeff K.]

Some of us use our real names.

I don't know if it's because I am stupid, just don't care, or want to be recognized as a defender of the faith. Nonetheless, if ever there was anyone who's just not important enough to take hostile fire, I suppose that would be me.

Lehi

You guys actually use your real names.

[LeSellers]

You guys actually use your real names.

Some of us do.

Why, as I explained earlier, is a mystery, sometimes even to ourselves.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Xander:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070402104402AAdzysL

Mormons: Was Joseph Fielding Smith's prophecy that man would never walk on the moon Divinely Inspired?

May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:

"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."

Smith, the Twelve's president and next in succession as LDS President, adds:

"The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

This discourse was given while he was the "prophet".

The funny part is that after Apollo 15's journey to the moon, the astronaut team brought JFS a Utah State Flag that they had taken with them to the moon. They gave him the flag in 1971 as a token of his "failed prophecy".

[Doctor Ninja]

Some of us use our real names.

I don't know if it's because I am stupid, just don't care, or want to be recognized as a defender of the faith. Nonetheless, if ever there was anyone who's just not important enough to take hostile fire, I suppose that would be me.

Lehi

If my name was Lehi, I would reconsider using my real name.

For us ordinary members, we leave the defending to the experts such as yourself.

[Jeff K.]

Xander:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070402104402AAdzysL

Mormons: Was Joseph Fielding Smith's prophecy that man would never walk on the moon Divinely Inspired?

May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:

"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."

Smith, the Twelve's president and next in succession as LDS President, adds:

"The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

This discourse was given while he was the "prophet".

The funny part is that after Apollo 15's journey to the moon, the astronaut team brought JFS a Utah State Flag that they had taken with them to the moon. They gave him the flag in 1971 as a token of his "failed prophecy".

Well, it was at least a superior flag.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Sevenbak]

Xander:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070402104402AAdzysL

Mormons: Was Joseph Fielding Smith's prophecy that man would never walk on the moon Divinely Inspired?

May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:

"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."

Smith, the Twelve's president and next in succession as LDS President, adds:

"The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

This discourse was given while he was the "prophet".

The funny part is that after Apollo 15's journey to the moon, the astronaut team brought JFS a Utah State Flag that they had taken with them to the moon. They gave him the flag in 1971 as a token of his "failed prophecy".

I've often wondered why anti Mormons and some Mormons use this talk in a Stake Conference to represent prophecy or doctrine. It's contrary to how truth is given in the church. It never appeared in any Church publications, wasn't touched by correlation, never made it into a Conference address, etc. I have a great deal of respect for Joseph Fielding Smith, and most of his teachings are indeed correlated as truth. This theory of his never was, nor should it be viewed as prophecy. Joseph Smith himself said that a prophet does not always speak as a prophet. It's wise council.

The opposition to the modern theory of evolution, on the other hand, it tackled directly in the manuals and correlation. It's a teaching of the church.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

I'm kinda partial to the state flag of California myself.

[Rivers]

B.H. Roberts (a Seventy)

James E Talmadge

David O McKay

Spencer W Kimball

Gordon B Hinckey

All accepted or were neutral on the matter of evolution. There is evidence of others as well.

An interesting blurb on Roberts:

Has Henry B. Eyring ever said anything on the subject? He's the science guy in the twelve.

[Rivers]

FYI: There's only one K in "M^cConkie".

Lehi

Thanks

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

I'm kinda partial to the state flag of California myself.

I can bear with it.

[thesometimesaint]

Sevenbak:

My point was not to call into question JFS in his role as a prophet seer and revelator. My point is that everything they say is NOT a prophecy or doctrine of the Church. We have a long established method for what constitutes our doctrine and individual opinions, ideas, and speculations don't qualify.

As to the Theory of Evolution. The Church takes no position on it. We are free to believe or not believe as is our choice.

See http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Evolution/Official_stance

For a more complete history of the discussion see: http://www.mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf

[LeSellers]

For us ordinary members, we leave the defending to the experts such as yourself.

You flatter me. At least I think you do.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

Sevenbak:

My point was not to call into question JFS in his role as a prophet seer and revelator. My point is that everything they say is NOT a prophecy or doctrine of the Church. We have a long established method for what constitutes our doctrine and individual opinions, ideas, and speculations don't qualify.

As to the Theory of Evolution. The Church takes no position on it. We are free to believe or not believe as is our choice.

See http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Evolution/Official_stance

For a more complete history of the discussion see: http://www.mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf

Yes, but people never seem able to accept that. It takes away so much of their pseudo anguish about changed doctrine and exposes their open bitterness towards the church.

[Doctor Ninja]

You flatter me. At least I think you do.

Lehi

I am no Kevin Graham so you can take that compliment to the bank!

[Jeff K.]

Naive me.... who is Kevin Graham?

[Sevenbak]

Sevenbak:

My point was not to call into question JFS in his role as a prophet seer and revelator. My point is that everything they say is NOT a prophecy or doctrine of the Church. We have a long established method for what constitutes our doctrine and individual opinions, ideas, and speculations don't qualify.

As to the Theory of Evolution. The Church takes no position on it. We are free to believe or not believe as is our choice.

See http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Evolution/Official_stance

For a more complete history of the discussion see: http://www.mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf

I realize what you were trying to do, but I disagree. My point was about correlation. The manuals teach direct opposition to evolution, so yes, it's an official position of the church. I don't need FAIR to try to spin what the Institute manuals are teaching to the youth. If I have to choose, there is no question which side I will choose.

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/old-testament-institute-student-manual-1/ot-in1-02-gen-a-2.asp

(the summary paragraph at the end of the chapter is very informative if you don't want to read the whole thing.)

Edited July 1, 2011 by Sevenbak

[LeSellers]

Naive me.... who is Kevin Graham?

He runs around here wearing the "Xander" logo on his forehead.

Lehi