Backyard Professor Rips Apart Millet And Mcconkie'S Views.

[bluebell]

???????

I think she was saying that your post (the one she replied to) might be the equivilant of the pot calling the kettle black.

[zerinus]

I think she was saying that your post (the one she replied to) might be the equivilant of the pot calling the kettle black.

I figured, but can't understand how.

[mfbukowski]

Being open-minded about scientific discoveries is one thing, and smugly accepting a scientific theory just because it bears the title of "science," when it evidently contradicts revealed doctrine, is another. It is sad when it appears that some people can't tell the difference between the two.

Let's try this:

"Being open minded about spiritual interpretations is one thing, and smugly accepting a religious INTERPRETATION just because it bears the title of "religion" when it evidently contradicts other revelations about science, is another. It is sad when it appears that some people can't tell the difference between the two."

Does that help?

[Freedom]

I think that I have in posts #107, #113, and #123.

Read the book being reviewed and you can add Tamlage as one who very publicly agrees with evolution.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=609

You rejected a quote from a church authority because it wasn’t public enough. That is a logical fallacy. The number of people receiving a message does not determine the validity of a message.

You state that the fall did not bring about death if it occurred after other deaths already occurred. This is a good argument but not iron clad. Since the temple ceremony clearly states that the story is figurative, and since the narrative has procreation occurring in the garden where there should not have been any (the fruit on the trees) then it seems clear to me that concept of no-death is also figurative, or at least relative.

You argue that that the atonement restores mankind to the immortal condition before the fall. My Christmas dinner restored me to the full state I was in after my Christmas eve dinner. This does not prove that I was never hungry before this dinner. Yours is a logical fallacy.

You then provide your interpretation to a number of verses of scriptures that many people here disagree with. You have provided your argument but you have far from proven your argument. I see your argument as problematic, just as problematic as the argument for evolution. In the end, the theory of evolution goes contrary to your interpretation of the scriptures, but I find that some of your interpretations of the scriptures go against doctrine.

If your case was as strong as you think it is, the scholars of the caliber of Hugh Nibley and James Talmage and the prophets of the calliber of David O Mckay would have seen it. They did not. Evolution cannot be proven as being contrary or in support of LDS doctrine. It remains a theory to explain how life came to be and the scriptures remain a theory of why we came to be.

[zerinus]

Read the book being reviewed and you can add Tamlage as one who very publicly agrees with evolution.

http://maxwellinstit...18&num=1&id=609

Read Joseph Fielding Smith (and others) who very publicly disagreed.

You rejected a quote from a church authority because it wasn’t public enough. That is a logical fallacy. The number of people receiving a message does not determine the validity of a message.

That simply is not the established procedure by which God communicates His will to the Church. If the Prophet / President of the Church has a message from the Lord to communicate to the Church, he does so (in concert with his counsellors and the Quorum of the Twelve) publicly. He doesn't whisper it secretly in somebody’s ear, and wait for that person to publicise it. That is not the established order of the Church. Any message communicated that way is suspect, and cannot be accepted as counsel or revelation to the Church.

You state that the fall did not bring about death if it occurred after other deaths already occurred. This is a good argument but not iron clad. Since the temple ceremony clearly states that the story is figurative, . . .

It doesn’t say that the entire story is figurative. It only says that one aspect of it is figurative. On the other hand, throughout the Bible and modern revelation Adam is portrayed as a real personage who lived at a certain period in time, and is now resurrected and identified with the archangel Michael.

. . . and since the narrative has procreation occurring in the garden where there should not have been any (the fruit on the trees) then it seems clear to me that concept of no-death is also figurative, or at least relative.

You are misunderstanding that as well; therefore your conclusion is not justified.

You argue that that the atonement restores mankind to the immortal condition before the fall. My Christmas dinner restored me to the full state I was in after my Christmas eve dinner. This does not prove that I was never hungry before this dinner. Yours is a logical fallacy.

The logical fallacy is very much yours. The scriptures make clear what kind of “restoration” it is talking about. The restoration is that it will make mankind immortal just as they used to be in the Garden of Eden, and there will be no more (physical) death. I don’t know how anybody can misconstrue that with your absurd example. Here are the verses explaining the doctrine:

Alma 11:

42 Now, there is a death which is called a temporal death; and the death of Christ shall loose the bands of this temporal death, that all shall be raised from this temporal death.

43 The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt.

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

45 Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.

46 Now, when Amulek had finished these words the people began again to be astonished, and also Zeezrom began to tremble. And thus ended the words of Amulek, or this is all that I have written.

In other words, it ain’t like eating your Christmas dinner.

You then provide your interpretation to a number of verses of scriptures that many people here disagree with. You have provided your argument but you have far from proven your argument.

Nobody has showed me how they are wrong. Declarations are not argumentations.

I see your argument as problematic, just as problematic as the argument for evolution.

In other words, more declarations, not argumentations.

In the end, the theory of evolution goes contrary to your interpretation of the scriptures, but I find that some of your interpretations of the scriptures go against doctrine.

More declarations still.

If your case was as strong as you think it is, the scholars of the caliber of Hugh Nibley and James Talmage and the prophets of the calliber of David O Mckay would have seen it. They did not.

More logical fallacy on your part. I counted 94 Apostles since the Church was organized, and 16 presidents of the Church. 1 out of 16 Prophets and 1 out of 94 Apostles doesn’t seem to be very supportive of your case. LOL!

Evolution cannot be proven as being contrary or in support of LDS doctrine.

I believe it can, as shown above.

It remains a theory to explain how life came to be and the scriptures remain a theory of why we came to be.

It remains a theory which is at odds with what God has revealed.

Edited January 1, 2012 by zerinus

[Freedom]

Read Joseph Fielding Smith (and others) who very publicly disagreed.

That simply is not the established procedure by which God communicates His will to the Church. If the Prophet / President of the Church has a message from the Lord to communicate to the Church, he does so (in concert with his counsellors and the Quorum of the Twelve) publicly. He doesn't whisper it secretly in somebody’s ear, and wait for that person to publicise it. That is not the established order of the Church. Any message communicated that way is suspect, and cannot be accepted as counsel or revelation to the Church.

It remains a theory which is at odds with what God has revealed.

So in other words you are accepting those quotes that fit your opinion and ignoring those that contradict it. Not only does God communicate through his prophets to reveal his word, but he does so through an established process of unanimous approval by the first presidency, the quorum of the 12 and finally acceptance by the general membership. Consequently the doctrine is found in the scriptures and in official proclamations. From my reading, none of these sources state any opinion on evolution. I understand the conclusions you are drawing from the verses you are quoting but I disagree with your narrow view. Statements by any single church leader, no matter their title, is not doctrine and is their own opinion. A point of view expressed by the president of the church over the pulpit at general conference is no more scriptural than the opinion of an lds scholar published in a scientific journal.

So I am unconvinced by your arguments and am still willing to concede that evolution is not in contradiction with our doctrine. This does not mean that I accept evolution as the explanation of how life came to be, only that it is a plausible explanation. I do reject the notion that the earth is 6,000 years old and I also reject the notion that the ancient remains of dinosaurs and more ancient organisms were contemporaries with Adam. God has provided us the data and has reveled his knowledge to us through the sciences and I believe this knowledge was given to us to help us become like him and to better understand the scope of his creation.

Fortunately our salvation is not determined by our understanding of science, nor our correct interpretation of the book of Moses. It is based on principles and ordinances. Also, it is clear that the power of ones testimony does not correlate with their understanding of the scriptures. It this were so, there would be no disagreement among the brethren on concepts such as how life came to be.

[cinepro]

Not only does God communicate through his prophets to reveal his word, but he does so through an established process of unanimous approval by the first presidency, the quorum of the 12 and finally acceptance by the general membership. Consequently the doctrine is found in the scriptures and in official proclamations. From my reading, none of these sources state any opinion on evolution.

Just in case anyone has forgotten, in the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters.

The Origin of Man

When that declaration was reprinted in the Ensign in 2002, the magazine even helpfully noted "Ever wondered about the Church’s official teachings on the creation of mankind and evolution? Find assistance for your study of Genesis 1–3 [Gen. 1–3] on p. 26."

What "The Origin of Man" actually says about evolution, and the degree to which we are willing to change our own opinions to follow the Church's official doctrinal teachings on the matter, each of us will have to figure out for ourselves.

[zerinus]

So in other words you are accepting those quotes that fit your opinion and ignoring those that contradict it.

I did no such thing. I quoted verses from scripture on which I based my reasoning. I know of none that prove the contrary. If you know of any, you can bring them to the table to prove your point. You have a penchant for making declarations with justification. Mere declarations don’t prove anything.

Not only does God communicate through his prophets to reveal his word, but he does so through an established process of unanimous approval by the first presidency, the quorum of the 12 and finally acceptance by the general membership. Consequently the doctrine is found in the scriptures and in official proclamations. From my reading, none of these sources state any opinion on evolution.

They state opinion, or teach doctrine that is at variance with Evolution.

I understand the conclusions you are drawing from the verses you are quoting but I disagree with your narrow view.

Disagreeing is one thing, proving it wrong is another. I don’t make unsubstantiated declarations. I provide evidence. You just make declarations.

Statements by any single church leader, no matter their title, is not doctrine and is their own opinion. A point of view expressed by the president of the church over the pulpit at general conference is no more scriptural than the opinion of an lds scholar published in a scientific journal.

Agreed.

So I am unconvinced by your arguments and am still willing to concede that evolution is not in contradiction with our doctrine.

How does that conclusion follow from the preceding statements?

This does not mean that I accept evolution as the explanation of how life came to be, only that it is a plausible explanation.

I is not even plausible, because it is at variance with what God has revealed.

I do reject the notion that the earth is 6,000 years old and I also reject the notion that the ancient remains of dinosaurs and more ancient organisms were contemporaries with Adam.

That is irrelevant to the subject of the discussion.

God has provided us the data and has reveled his knowledge to us through the sciences and I believe this knowledge was given to us to help us become like him and to better understand the scope of his creation.

Church doctrine is not derived from science. It is obtained by revelation through a prophet.

Fortunately our salvation is not determined by our understanding of science, nor our correct interpretation of the book of Moses. It is based on principles and ordinances.

Salvation is determined by faith, testimony, and obedience to God’s commandments. But that is still irrelevant to the subject of discussion.

Also, it is clear that the power of ones testimony does not correlate with their understanding of the scriptures. It this were so, there would be no disagreement among the brethren on concepts such as how life came to be.

I agree that erring in doctrine doesn’t damn anybody—provided one is faithful to the Lord in other respects. But failure to fully accept what God has revealed can be a reflection of a weak testimony.

[zerinus]

Just in case anyone has forgotten, in the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters.

The Origin of Man

When that declaration was reprinted in the Ensign in 2002, the magazine even helpfully noted "Ever wondered about the Church’s official teachings on the creation of mankind and evolution? Find assistance for your study of Genesis 1–3 [Gen. 1–3] on p. 26."

Thank you cinepro for that timely reminder.

What "The Origin of Man" actually says about evolution, and the degree to which we are willing to change our own opinions to follow the Church's official doctrinal teachings on the matter, each of us will have to figure out for ourselves.

Actually it does more than that. It does categorically state a belief contrary to Evolution:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

It does, however, come across as being reluctant to condemn all forms of Evolution outright, because it apparently sees "eternal progression" as a form of evolution, as obliquely stated in the last paragraph:

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

In other words, they see "eternal progression" as a form of "evolution". That I believe was a serious mistake on their part, for reasons which is beyond the scope of this thread to discuss.

[zerinus]

Let's try this:

"Being open minded about spiritual interpretations is one thing, and smugly accepting a religious INTERPRETATION just because it bears the title of "religion" when it evidently contradicts other revelations about science, is another. It is sad when it appears that some people can't tell the difference between the two."

Does that help?

No.

[Xioneye]

Shirts' thesis bears off shamelessly the honor of scholars over the meekness of saints and is a divergent step further away from the righteousness of the kingdom. That Millet and McConkie cannot show the fruits of the kingdom is their greatest weakness. The overbearing lusts of scholars to obliterate God's power to seat their own power is in fact the kingdom of the devil, or the great and abominable church of the devil, the Beast that oppresses mankind forcing him to bow to its scepter for worldly praise and gain. Those who WOULD be meek and lowly of heart but fail to come successfully unto Christ to obtain the kingdom are at the mercy of the elements of this world. As they should be so that they might be humble and contrite and forsake the world with full purpose of heart that they might obtain the prize in Christ Jesus of a new creature that has power to overcome the great monster that ever seeks to devour whom it may.

We welcome new posters but please read the board guidelines before posting again. Preaching is prohibited and you will be removed from the thread if it continues.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Proselyting or "witnessing" from either side. Preaching doesn't create a discussion. It is one sided.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Minos

[Storm Rider]

It should be remembered that we are talking about real individuals. Too often we speak in broad generalities and condemn others on narrow specifics.

I know Bob Millet and I know him to be a fine man that is filled with a desire to serve Jesus Christ. Before we condemn others, let us look closely in the mirror and remove our own beam.

[David T]

Thank you cinepro for that timely reminder.

Actually it does more than that. It does categorically state a belief contrary to Evolution:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

It does, however, come across as being reluctant to condemn all forms of Evolution outright, because it apparently sees "eternal progression" as a form of evolution, as obliquely stated in the last paragraph:

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

In other words, they see "eternal progression" as a form of "evolution". That I believe was a serious mistake on their part, for reasons which is beyond the scope of this thread to discuss.

You forgot this part:

"True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."

Evolution doesn't state anything contrary to this, in regards to theology. I don't think anyone has posited that Man - an eternal spiritual child of God combined with a mortal body - had its physical origin beginning "as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man". When scripture speaks of Man, this is the only definition that would have any meaning at all. Paraphrasing what Hugh Nibley said, anything before "Adam" (spirit-body combo) comes on Earth's stage isn't part of our eternal story.

The key point of this paper is that man's spirit is eternal and divine, and that spirits of children of God have not transmigrated through or were created by any earthly evolutionary process, IE, spiritual children of God were not inhabitants of primordial mucky-muck, or non-homo-sapiens primate ancestors. The physical body of Man, for theological and eternal purposes, began with nothing less than the conception of a homo-sapiens embryo.

The paper does, indeed, allow for, and advocate certain concepts of evolution (which you have noted, and amusingly declare as being a major flaw from your perspective of the official Church statement). What it argues against is that our Eternal Spirits were dragged through or transmigrated Earth's biological evolutionary process. Something I don't recall anyone here advocating.

Edited January 1, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Duncan]

color me impressed that everyone is up after last night! I can't even see straight for want of sleep but need to get to Church here! now back to regular programming

[volgadon]

Shirts' thesis bears off shamelessly the honor of scholars over the meekness of saints and is a divergent step further away from the righteousness of the kingdom.

I'm afraid that Shirt's thesis is not "evil, conniving scholars contriving to steal honour from meek saints, the righteous of the kingdom." He over-reacted in this unfortunate video, and the tone is somewhat crass and over-bearing, but his concerns are with an anti-intellectual trend in the church, BoM readings conducted mainly through a 20th-21st c. Wasatch Front lens (thus reading into the text rather than reading from it), and the setting forth of one particular strand of thought as the only authoritative interpretation.

[cinepro]

The key point of this paper is that man's spirit is eternal and divine, and that spirits of children of God have not transmigrated through or were created by any earthly evolutionary process, IE, spiritual children of God were not inhabitants of primordial mucky-muck, or non-homo-sapiens primate ancestors. The physical body of Man, for theological and eternal purposes, began with nothing less than the conception of a homo-sapiens embryo.

The paper does, indeed, allow for, and advocate certain concepts of evolution (which you have noted, and amusingly declare as being a major flaw from your perspective of the official Church statement). What it argues against is that our Eternal Spirits were dragged through or transmigrated Earth's biological evolutionary process. Something I don't recall anyone here advocating.

So, do you believe that Adam's body was a development from lower orders of the animal creation?

[zerinus]

You forgot this part:

"True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."

That simply allows for the possibility of Adam's body having been procreated (in the same way as ours is), rather than having been manufactured by God in one piece without the involvement of a progenitor. It makes no endorsement of Evolution whatsoever.

Evolution doesn't state anything contrary to this, in regards to theology. . . .

That is certainly incorrect. Evolution is much more than merely a restatement of procreation. It presupposes the development of higher life forms form lower ones through the process of natural selection. Life began as an amoeba, and then developed into marine life, insects, mammals, primates etc. until it reached man. That is what the First Presidency statement unmistakably rejects.

[David T]

That simply allows for the possibility of Adam's body having been procreated (in the same way as ours is), rather than having been manufactured by God in one piece without the involvement of a progenitor. It makes no endorsement of Evolution whatsoever.

That is certainly incorrect. Evolution is much more than merely a restatement of procreation. It presupposes the development of higher life forms form lower ones through the process of natural selection. Life began as an amoeba, and then developed into marine life, insects, mammals, primates etc. until it reached man. That is what the First Presidency statement unmistakably rejects.

Evolution tells us only about the biological development of organic life on earth. It has nothing at all to say about the creation or origin of the Spirit of Man.

Edited January 1, 2012 by nackhadlow

[zerinus]

Evolution tells us only about the biological development of organic life on earth. It has nothing at all to say about the creation or origin of the Spirit of Man.

Nobody said it did.

[Xioneye]

We welcome new posters but please read the board guidelines before posting again. Preaching is prohibited and you will be removed from the thread if it continues.

http://www.mormondia...tion=boardrules

This forum is limited to the vain and profane only? Leave all gifts of the spirit out? What's the point then? Good luck learning the peaceable things of the kingdom. Forget real spiritual progress. Let's just pretend and accept each others pretense in good faith. Shirts was preaching his shirt off, I'd say. Is it just certain kinds of preaching that is forbidden then? I think it must be preaching with an air of authority that chaffs the board. Is that it? I guess I can hide my certainty. We'll see. Perhaps I cannot abide here.

Also read the board guidelines about mouthing off to mods. You will not be abiding in this thread.

[Xioneye]

I'm afraid that Shirt's thesis is not "evil, conniving scholars contriving to steal honour from meek saints, the righteous of the kingdom." He over-reacted in this unfortunate video, and the tone is somewhat crass and over-bearing, but his concerns are with an anti-intellectual trend in the church, BoM readings conducted mainly through a 20th-21st c. Wasatch Front lens (thus reading into the text rather than reading from it), and the setting forth of one particular strand of thought as the only authoritative interpretation.

I got his point. I disagree that scholars are going to better interpret the REAL meaning of anything in the Book of Mormon. I mean, sure, they will discover why a phrase like, "a polished shaft in the quiver of the Lord' was used. That is quite useless information and at best stuff for the itching ear peanut gallery.

[Bill Hamblin]

I got his point. I disagree that scholars are going to better interpret the REAL meaning of anything in the Book of Mormon. I mean, sure, they will discover why a phrase like, "a polished shaft in the quiver of the Lord' was used. That is quite useless information and at best stuff for the itching ear peanut gallery.

So are scholars inherently worse at interpreting the BOM than non-scholars (2 Ne. 9:29)? Does knowing Hebrew, for example, harm our understanding of of the Book of Mormon (2 Ne. 25:5)?

[bluebell]

This forum is limited to the vain and profane only? Leave all gifts of the spirit out? What's the point then? Good luck learning the peaceable things of the kingdom. Forget real spiritual progress. Let's just pretend and accept each others pretense in good faith. Shirts was preaching his shirt off, I'd say. Is it just certain kinds of preaching that is forbidden then? I think it must be preaching with an air of authority that chaffs the board. Is that it? I guess I can hide my certainty. We'll see. Perhaps I cannot abide here.

You can be as certain as you wish. You just can't write a whole post where the sole purpose is to preach or bear testimony of that certainty. All posts have to focus on discussion (such as discussion someone else's preaching, for example, as this thread is). This isn't a testimony-focused board. It focused on discussion.

[Xioneye]

So are scholars inherently worse at interpreting the BOM than non-scholars (2 Ne. 9:29)? Does knowing Hebrew, for example, harm our understanding of of the Book of Mormon (2 Ne. 25:5)?

Just look at all the good knowing Hebrew did for the Jews who rejected Jesus. Scholars will do what they always do. And that is compound the mystery. Those whose major interest is to publish are not interested in solving anything or getting to the purpose and accomplish the design as to why we were given the Book of Mormon in the first place. "To get closer to God" They want to sell books and get published and earn respect. How shall they do anything but trample it under foot as a stepping stone to the enhancement of their careers?

Did Nibley move one stone closer in approaching Zion? No! What then? He got heard for his much speaking. And now he sleeps with the great.

[Senator]

Just look at all the good knowing Hebrew did for the Jews who rejected Jesus. Scholars will do what they always do. And that is compound the mystery. Those whose major interest is to publish are not interested in solving anything or getting to the purpose and accomplish the design as to why we were given the Book of Mormon in the first place. "To get closer to God" They want to sell books and get published and earn respect. How shall they do anything but trample it under foot as a stepping stone to the enhancement of their careers?

Did Nibley move one stone closer in approaching Zion? No! What then? He got heard for his much speaking. And now he sleeps with the great.

Please tell me you are not LDS!!!!!