No Death Before The Fall

[cinepro]

In other words, your example falls significantly short, but thank you for expressing McConkie's opinion, but I have always been aware of such.

I didn't expect you, specifically, to be influenced by Elder McConkie's statement; you had just stated that "[The creation] isn't a core doctrine" as if it were a universally accepted axiom, and for the benefit of those reading this thread I thought it might be helpful to point out that the Church had published a statement from an Apostle saying that an understanding of the doctrine of the Creation is "essential to salvation".

So each of us can decide whether you are correct that it "isn't a core doctrine", or the Apostle is correct in saying that it is.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

One can fully accept the Creation account in the Scriptures, and in the Temple ceremony and still not agree with Bruce R. McConkie's ideas of how it happened.

[cinepro]

That's what Temples are for: a school where we study the universe and find our place within it, where we see a simplified, bite-sized-for-easy-comprehension version of the Plan of Salvation, a dramatized, edited version of the true history, an eternal round which had no beginning and will have no end.

I especially like that quote in contrast to Joseph McConkie's statement (referenced above):

The knowledge that we obtain in the temple, knowledge required for us to enter into the presence of the Lord, and the ordinances performed there do not permit the notion that our blood line traces to animals.

I know people hate it when categories like "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon" get thrown around, but seriously, there are some fundamentally different approaches to doctrine and truth at work among different members of the Church.

In this case, we have some people who look at what the Church publishes and say "I will believe that, no matter what science says". And then there are those who look at what science says, and say "How can I mold what the Church teaches to fit?"

Even though the question in the PEW survey was poorly worded, I wonder if further questions would show an 80/20 breakdown between the two different schools of thought.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

The knowledge that we obtain in the temple, knowledge required for us to enter into the presence of the Lord, and the ordinances performed there do not permit the notion that our blood line traces to animals.

I know people hate it when categories like "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon" get thrown around, but seriously, there are some fundamentally different approaches to doctrine and truth at work among different members of the Church.

In this case, we have some people who look at what the Church publishes and say "I will believe that, no matter what science says". And then there are those who look at what science says, and say "How can I mold what the Church teaches to fit?"

Even though the question in the PEW survey was poorly worded, I wonder if further questions would show an 80/20 breakdown between the two different schools of thought.

Has nothing to do with "chapel" and "internet". I have so far only seen people both speaking and posting, that have stated that the church doesn't speak to the matter. They have their opinions but also know their opinions aren't doctrine.

As to the PEW survey question, poorly worded should equate to discarded. Unless further questions were asked it appears to me the question is wholly irrelevant to any kind of judgement, other that judging that PEW researching put very little thought into their questions.

[cdowis]

I know people hate it when categories like "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon" get thrown around, but seriously, there are some fundamentally different approaches to doctrine and truth at work among different members of the Church.

Back in the 70's it was the "Iron Rodders" and the "Liahonas".

I remember a psych class when the professor was telling us that as he listened to General Conference, he was making notes in which group they fell. I stood up and made the comment that they are prophets and inspired by the Lord. He was not happy with my comment, but it shut him up.

[mfbukowski]

I know people hate it when categories like "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon" get thrown around, but seriously, there are some fundamentally different approaches to doctrine and truth at work among different members of the Church.

In this case, we have some people who look at what the Church publishes and say "I will believe that, no matter what science says". And then there are those who look at what science says, and say "How can I mold what the Church teaches to fit?"

And then there are those of us who understand both and see no conflict.

When you live in Flatland everything you see has only two dimensions.

[cinepro]

Has nothing to do with "chapel" and "internet". I have so far only seen people both speaking and posting, that have stated that the church doesn't speak to the matter. They have their opinions but also know their opinions aren't doctrine.

Based on what I've seen on the Church website and this discussion, there seem to be some LDS who believe that "the Church" doesn't speak to the matter of evolution, and those who think it has spoken. One group references non-Church publications (or old, out of date Church publications), and the other references current Church publications including recent conference talks and curriculum.

Go figure.

[mfbukowski]

Back in the 70's it was the "Iron Rodders" and the "Liahonas".

I remember a psych class when the professor was telling us that as he listened to General Conference, he was making notes in which group they fell. I stood up and made the comment that they are prophets and inspired by the Lord. He was not happy with my comment, but it shut him up.

Dang

You definitely did not take Psych where I did. (UCLA)

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

There are many McConkies I disagree with. *grin*

"In this case, we have some people who look at what the Church publishes and say "I will believe that, no matter what science says". And then there are those who look at what science says, and say "How can I mold what the Church teaches to fit?"

I think this is an unnecessary false dichotomy (as is the artificial distinction between "chapel" and "internet" Mormons, an annoyance I'm grateful you acknowledge). Of course there are fundamentally different approaches to doctrine and truth in the Church - D&C 46 is very explicit on this subject: "All have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God. To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby." It's a good thing to have many different approaches; by combining our understanding, we're able to collectively come closer to the truth.

I don't think our current pool of scientific knowledge is complete or infallible (though I respect it more deeply than many people I know), and therefore I don't have to "mold" it to fit what the Church teaches. Neither do I think the Church's teachings are infallible (though, again, I respect it very deeply), so I don't have to disregard any scientific findings. On a more personal note, I'm actually a convert from atheism who became interested in the Church in part because of my exposure to anti-Mormon materials on the Temple ordinances; part of the reason I joined was because our understanding of the Gospel is so very capable of dealing with a Materialist universe in a way that the Post-Augustinian Neoplatonic version of Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, simply isn't (at least in my view).

Even if, frankly, some more conservative members aren't able to reconcile some things quite yet. *grin*

[mfbukowski]

On a more personal note, I'm actually a convert from atheism who became interested in the Church in part because of my exposure to anti-Mormon materials on the Temple ordinances; part of the reason I joined was because our understanding of the Gospel is so very capable of dealing with a Materialist universe in a way that the Post-Augustinian Neoplatonic version of Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, simply isn't (at least in my view).

YES! Welcome aboard dude!

It appears we have quite a contingent of ex-atheists on this board who see things in a similar way.

(That would include moi if that wasn't clear....)

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 July 2011 - 12:02 PM, said:

Has nothing to do with "chapel" and "internet". I have so far only seen people both speaking and posting, that have stated that the church doesn't speak to the matter. They have their opinions but also know their opinions aren't doctrine.

Based on what I've seen on the Church website and this discussion, there seem to be some LDS who believe that "the Church" doesn't speak to the matter of evolution, and those who think it has spoken. One group references non-Church publications (or old, out of date Church publications), and the other references current Church publications including recent conference talks and curriculum.

Go figure.

The struggle to find chaff in a wheat field must be a mighty one for you Cinepro. And then to presume that chaff extends to the whole field is a struggle of imagination I cannot begin to fathom. Quotes have been provided, the church's leadership has been explicit in defining doctrine. None of this is good enough apparently, it cannot trump your perception of the church. What more can be done?

45 Ye are swift‍ to do iniquity but slow to remember the Lord your God. Ye have seen an angel, and he spake unto you; yea, ye have heard his voice from time to time; and he hath spoken unto you in a still small voice, but ye were past‍ feeling, that ye could not feel his words; wherefore, he has spoken unto you like unto the voice of thunder, which did cause the earth to shake as if it were to divide asunder. (1 Nephi 17:45)

[cdowis]

Based on what I've seen on the Church website and this discussion, there seem to be some LDS who believe that "the Church" doesn't speak to the matter of evolution, and those who think it has spoken.

Is it possible that perhaps general authorities also have that same difference of opinion.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I've actually been aboard for a few years now, mfbukowski, but thanks for the welcome. *grin* I've appreciated your posts on this board.

[cinepro]

Is it possible that perhaps general authorities also have that same difference of opinion.

It's "possible" that one of the Apostles is also secretly a woman.

I've seen equal evidence for both propositions.

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

They did and TTBOMK still do.

[cinepro]

The struggle to find chaff in a wheat field must be a mighty one for you Cinepro.

Can you define what you mean by "chaff"?

Nothing I've quoted in this thread has been very hard to find. You just go to LDS.org and search for terms such as "evolution" or "physical death". You then get references published by the Church from conference talks, magazines and curriculum that make disparaging statements about the possibility of "evolution" having been used in the creation process, and the impossibility of there having been physical death anywhere on the planet before Adam's fall. I then cut and paste those quotes here.

Very little struggle is involved.

I don't even have to take anything out of context, or ignore contrary statements, because to the best of my search abilities, there hasn't been a single acknowledgement published by the Church in any talk, magazine or curriculum on the Church website that says there might have been evolution or death before the fall. I can't even find anything saying "we don't know" or that "the Church has not official position". It's all anti-evolution, all the time.

It is more difficult than just making stuff up like saying "The Creation isn't a core doctrine", but it's not as difficult as digging through unpublished memos and books that aren't official church publications looking for anything that can suggest that maybe evolution is compatible with official Church doctrines (including the core doctrine of the Creation) or that there could have been physical death on the planet before Adam's fall.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I would say that while Creation is a core doctrine, the how is not.

[mfbukowski]

I've actually been aboard for a few years now, mfbukowski, but thanks for the welcome. *grin* I've appreciated your posts on this board.

Well welcome to the conversation then anyway! My mouth is too big for me to lurk so I had to jump right in with both feet and start arguing- but I appreciate those with more contemplative temperaments- and thanks!

[cinepro]

cinepro:

I would say that while Creation is a core doctrine, the how is not.

I understand; I was just pointing out that everything currently published by the Church seems to really stress that it's important that the "how" not include physical death before the Fall of Adam (among other things).

Some people agree that this is important, others don't. Hence, the dichotomy.

[Craig Paxton]

*grin*

Is your middle name really Orbe?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I'm hispanic; it's actually part of my last name, "Orbe-Smith".

Also, my middle name is José, so not only do I have a form of "Joseph Smith" in my name, when taken together as Yarimyah Yoseph Orbem-Smei, we get Jehovah Exalts, Jehovah Increases, the Earth-Maker-Carver, which is just about the Mormoniest name I ever saw. *laugh*

[Jeff K.]

cinepro:

I would say that while Creation is a core doctrine, the how is not.

Exactly

[Jeff K.]

Can you define what you mean by "chaff"?

Nothing I've quoted in this thread has been very hard to find. You just go to LDS.org and search for terms such as "evolution" or "physical death". You then get references published by the Church from conference talks, magazines and curriculum that make disparaging statements about the possibility of "evolution" having been used in the creation process, and the impossibility of there having been physical death anywhere on the planet before Adam's fall. I then cut and paste those quotes here.

Very little struggle is involved.

I don't even have to take anything out of context, or ignore contrary statements, because to the best of my search abilities, there hasn't been a single acknowledgement published by the Church in any talk, magazine or curriculum on the Church website that says there might have been evolution or death before the fall. I can't even find anything saying "we don't know" or that "the Church has not official position". It's all anti-evolution, all the time.

It is more difficult than just making stuff up like saying "The Creation isn't a core doctrine", but it's not as difficult as digging through unpublished memos and books that aren't official church publications looking for anything that can suggest that maybe evolution is compatible with official Church doctrines (including the core doctrine of the Creation) or that there could have been physical death on the planet before Adam's fall.

You struggle mightily and fail on two levels....

You try hard to convince everyone that opinion is the same as doctrine. And it is a leitmotif in your repertoire. Unfortunately it is both out of tune and without any substance.

The other level is one in which you presume that the why, and analogy is equivalent of the how, making parables literal when in fact they are not.

Field is white, but not ready to harvest, it is snow and you stare at the winter of your misgivings realizing that there is no depth in your vision, only emptiness.

[mfbukowski]

Field is white, but not ready to harvest, it is snow and you stare at the winter of your misgivings realizing that there is no depth in your vision, only emptiness.

Ouch.

[blarsen]

Craig, because you posed the question, just wondering where you stand on reconciling the idea there was no death before the fall, with the fossil record? Is this a show stopper for you with regard to maintaining your faith in the restored Gospel and that Joseph Smith was God's instrument in restoring it?

It tended to be a stumbling block for me in my earlier days and added to a considerable deflation of faith I underwent in my teen years and early adulthood. In this frame of mind for instance, I remember being overwhelmed with a sense of the meaningless deserts of eternity; specifically on a fishing trip to the rim of Yosemite while contemplating the enormous amounts of time it would take to wear down the granitic rocks we were surrounded with.

Now-a-days, looking at similar vistas with the eye of faith, the idea that what I'm seeing is an actual creation comes through loud and clear; even appearing full of delight and magical promise and enfused with hidden meaning.

But I'm also trained in and have worked in geology most of my life. The fossil record for me is very real and is clearly a record of continuous death going back eons. I"ve read a lot of the attempts to reconcile the idea that the fall of Adam brought the first death into the world, with the fossil record, and with various scrlptural passages, but they all come across as strained and convoluted. Something is missing. But I'm willing to wait for the gaps to be filled in and to do so without wearing blinders to hide scientific facts.