Backyard Professor Rips Apart Millet And Mcconkie'S Views.

[Senator]

Sorry but its not his place to go public with his disagreement,

Why not?

Are you an advocate of censorship?

[Deborah]

Are you an advocate of censorship?

Saying there is an appropriate time and place to say something is not censorship.

[Senator]

Saying there is an appropriate time and place to say something is not censorship.

I agree.

But there is something wrong with this picture that allows for authorities to advance ideas publicly, but all individual disagreement must be voiced in private.

And how is one to privately address disagreement with someone who is no longer with us?

Edited December 30, 2011 by Senator

[Bill Hamblin]

Personally I think this post hits the heart of the discussion. The person in the video is not a GA yet is trying to correct GA's. Sorry but its not his place to go public with his disagreement, a private conversation disagreeing with the GA in question would be one thing however to go public is a totally different thing.

my 2 cents

Kerry is talking about Joseph McConkie, the son of Bruce R. McConkie. Joseph was not a GA.

[Rivers]

Finally watched it, wasn't very impressed.

I've never seen any of his other videos but have heard good things about them and have no reason to doubt that they are beneficial, but this one just left me uncomfortable. His attitude comes off a little condescending (i think he almost hurt himself a couple of times he rolled his eyes so hard) and i don't really get why he's so upset with McKonkie and Millet for 'disparaging' the scholar when he apparently believes it is completely fine to disparage them. And i don't get the swearing. It certainly doesn't speak well for the scholar if he's putting himself up as an example of one.

He's usually not that over-the-top. I agree with a lot of what he's saying, but I think he could have disagreed with McConkie and and Millet in a much more polite manner.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

He's usually not that over-the-top. I agree with a lot of what he's saying, but I think he could have disagreed with McConkie and and Millet in a much more polite manner.

Well you do have to sell the product, no matter what the product is...in life.

[zerinus]

"I would like to know just what it is that a man must be required to believe to be a member of this Church. Or, what it is that he is not permitted to believe, and remain a member of this Church. I would like to know just what that is. Is it evolution? I hope not, because I believe in evolution.", and "The thing you need to remember about evolution is that the Lord has never revealed anything about the matter. People have their opinions but the Lord has not revealed the details of how He created the earth."- President David O. McKay

According to my research, that appears to be something that David O. McKay is reported to have said in a private conversation, and not a position he has declared publicly.

I believe I, as an eternal undying being, chose to enter a mortal body subject to death, knowing that I would do things counter to God's will. I chose to fall into these circumstances. Jesus Christ provides the way to overcome and overpower those circumstances I chose to enter in order to fully enjoy Eternal Life as part of His Family.. I fell, and I need an Atonement. The methods by which this mortal body were created are distinct from the doctrines of Fall and Atonement themselves.

That is not the point. The point is that if life evolved, and the Fall was something that happened somewhere along the way, then there was death before the Fall, therefore the Fall did not bring about death, hence there would be no need for the Atonement of Jesus Christ to redeem us from that death.

[Rivers]

That is not the point. The point is that if life evolved, and the Fall was something that happened somewhere along the way, then there was death before the Fall, therefore the Fall did not bring about death, hence there would be no need for the Atonement of Jesus Christ to redeem us from that death.

There would still be a need for the atonement. The atonement saves us from spiritual and physical death. Whether or not the Adam and Eve Story is historically accurate, everyone needs salvation from sin and death.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Rivers

[David T]

According to my research, that appears to be something that David O. McKay is reported to have said in a private conversation, and not a position he has declared publicly.

You said, "You claimed that Church officers had supported evolution, " and I gave a quote of a Church officer (President) who supported a belief in evolution.

That is not the point. The point is that if life evolved, and the Fall was something that happened somewhere along the way, then there was death before the Fall, therefore the Fall did not bring about death, hence there would be no need for the Atonement of Jesus Christ to redeem us from that death.

Zerinus, any death that would have theological ramifications would need to involve the separation of a spirit from a mortal body. If there was a time where mortal bodies were breeding without the connection of an intelligent spirit, then death in a theological sense becomes moot.

Death as a disintigration of a living organic body, and the halting and decay of natural processess and organs (including brains) is simple biology. It's mechanics. It's not theology. What is theology concerns any existing intelligent being that both pre-dates and can post-date the organization and disorganization of that biological host.

Theology envolves events in the journey of the eternal spirit. Not necessarily the means and methods of preparation for material organic hosts along the way.

Edited December 30, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mfbukowski]

The way I see it, there was no human concept of "death"- a word which implies an entire linguistic reference, before there were humans who had language.

Adam was the "namer" of all things; All things were created by the Word- Logos; God "called" the worlds into existence (Abraham 4); as Adam and Michael proceeded in their work of "organizing" the universe (according to a Plan- a mental-linguistic ordering of matter unorganized) they periodically "called" (defined) their work as "The First Day", Second Day, etc.

Similarly there was no definition of "death" so death did not exist in a human context- animals simply recycled their elements by eating each other.

A tiger does not "murder" a man by eating him- he has no concept of "murder" and so it does not exist for tigers. Tigers do not sin- they have no concept of what that is

We are different; in our fall from that "innocent" animal state, we learned (from Jehovah- the "Word") that sin exists, that there is a God who loves us and by going against his will for us we "sin".

So by the Fall both "sin" and "death" come into the world- we are taught these concepts by the Word, as well as the words themselves.

This can be seen literally, as Jehovah the person teaching Adam the person, in the garden, not to take of the fruit of "knowledge" of good and evil, or it can be seen as allegorical. I personally think it actually happened.

But note that their transgression was eating the fruit of "knowledge of good and evil"- it was that KNOWLEDGE- the idea that there WAS something called "good" and something called "evil"- which caused the fall from innocence.

In the garden, they knew that God existed, they knew they had a choice a no-win choice as it comes out, but a choice nevertheless.

So there was no "sin" until there was KNOWLEDGE of the linguistic concept of good and evil, right and wrong, and Adam learned these words, if you will, from THE WORD himself.

The way we say that doctrinally is that there was no death before the fall, which in this context is exactly true, and that sin and death also came into the world as a result of the fall from innocence. All are exactly right as stated, but that is the way I understand it.

So what is the atonement then? The atonement is redemption from guilt- from the effects of sin in our lives. We all know we have done wrong; we have violated the "commandments" (also cultural norms necessary for life).

The wages of sin are death- we have lived a lifestyle which leads to death instead of life. Through the atonement, we know we can allow the savior's grace- his forgiveness - to interpenetrate our beings, our bodies and spirits, and we can forgive ourselves because he has conquered death and the death we have merited due to our sins.

We are now able to go about raising our own levels spiritually, practicing to become like the Savior, and spend no time in self-condemnation because he has taken away the need to do that.

And he has given us the hope of resurrection, all through the Word himself. He gave us the concept of guilt, he took away the concept of guilt and freed us, leaving us the knowledge of good and evil, so we could choose the right and become like him.

At least that's the way I see it all.

Edited December 30, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Theology envolves events in the journey of the eternal spirit. Not necessarily the means and methods of preparation for material organic hosts along the way.

I like that phrase "organic hosts".

[zerinus]

You said, "You claimed that Church officers had supported evolution, " and I gave a quote of a Church officer (President) who supported a belief in evolution.

Which is not a very credible one, for the reasons just described.

Zerinus, any death that would have theological ramifications would need to involve the separation of a spirit from a mortal body. If there was a time where mortal bodies were breeding without the connection of an intelligent spirit, then death in a theological sense becomes moot.

Death as a disintigration of a living organic body, and the halting and decay of natural processess and organs (including brains) is simple biology. It's mechanics. It's not theology. What is theology concerns any existing intelligent being that both pre-dates and can post-date the organization and disorganization of that biological host.

Theology envolves events in the journey of the eternal spirit. Not necessarily the means and methods of preparation for material organic hosts along the way.

Maybe that makes sense to you, but it doesn't to me. Paul writes, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15); and again, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; . . . Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" (Romans 5:12, 18). Your attempt to fit Evolution into scripture is admirable, but fails miserably.

[zerinus]

There would still be a need for the atonement. The atonement saves us from spiritual and physical death. Whether or not the Adam and Eve Story is historically accurate, everyone needs salvation from sin and death.

The Atonement restores mankind to the immortal condition that they were in before the Fall had taken place. If there had been no Fall, there would have been no immortality before the Fall to which mankind could be restored.

[David T]

The Atonement restores mankind to the immortal condition that they were in before the Fall had taken place. If there had been no Fall, there would have been no immortality before the Fall to which mankind could be restored.

Before I was born into a mortal body, I believe I was in an immortal condition, as a spirit. I had not yet been connected and begun to rely on an organic body. There was nothing to separate from, or to 'lose'. When we're born into mortality, we do have a dual nature we're struggling to reconcile and to make as One. Separation from spirit to body will lead to something feeling 'missing'. Prior to the connection with a body (a fall), there was nothing of the sort to lose. No unity or oneness needed to be regained.

Before the first spirit/human combos, (we'll call them Adam and Eve), organic death would have had no meaning to spirits. Organic life is a well-oiled machine that does as programmed. There is no morality. There is no sin without a spirit.

Self-aware and self-existing spirits are what are truly unique in this world. It is this combo - a functional organic body linked with a self-aware self-existing spirit is the glimpse of the Image of God. That is life. Separation from this union is death in a meaningful, theological sense.

Organic death without that connection is just a machine breaking down.

Edited December 30, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mfbukowski]

Before I was born into a mortal body, I believe I was in an immortal condition, as a spirit. I had not yet been connected and begun to rely on an organic body. There was nothing to separate from, or to 'lose'. When we're born into mortality, we do have a dual nature we're struggling to reconcile and to make as One. Separation from spirit to body will lead to something feeling 'missing'. Prior to the connection with a body (a fall), there was nothing of the sort to lose. No unity or oneness needed to be regained.

Before the first spirit/human combos, (we'll call them Adam and Eve), organic death would have had no meaning to spirits. Organic life is a well-oiled machine that does as programmed. There is no sin without a spirit.

Self-aware and self-existing spirits are what are truly unique in this world. It is this combo - a functional organic body linked with a self-aware self-existing spirit is the glimpse of the Image of God. That is life. Separation from this union is death in a meaningful, theological sense.

Organic death without that connection is just a machine breaking down.

So it appears that this view is incompatible with the idea that animals have spirits.

[David T]

So it appears that this view is incompatible with the idea that animals have spirits.

If we're viewing spirits as God's co-eternal and intelligent (adopted) children, then you'd be correct. As I see it, at least.

[mfbukowski]

If we're viewing spirits as God's co-eternal and intelligent (adopted) children, then you'd be correct. As I see it, at least.

Not quite sure if I see it that way then. I'm a bit more of a pantheist about living things.

Edit: And then we have the Gaia thing- the idea that the earth itself has a spirit.

Edited December 30, 2011 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

Before I was born into a mortal body, I believe I was in an immortal condition, as a spirit. I had not yet been connected and begun to rely on an organic body. There was nothing to separate from, or to 'lose'. When we're born into mortality, we do have a dual nature we're struggling to reconcile and to make as One. Separation from spirit to body will lead to something feeling 'missing'. Prior to the connection with a body (a fall), there was nothing of the sort to lose. No unity or oneness needed to be regained.

Before the first spirit/human combos, (we'll call them Adam and Eve), organic death would have had no meaning to spirits. Organic life is a well-oiled machine that does as programmed. There is no morality. There is no sin without a spirit.

Self-aware and self-existing spirits are what are truly unique in this world. It is this combo - a functional organic body linked with a self-aware self-existing spirit is the glimpse of the Image of God. That is life. Separation from this union is death in a meaningful, theological sense.

Organic death without that connection is just a machine breaking down.

That is a good invention, but it is not the doctrine of the Fall, Atonement, and resurrection that anybody else recognizes except you.

[David T]

That is a good invention, but it is not the doctrine of the Fall, Atonement, and resurrection that anybody else recognizes except you.

You'd be surprised.

[volgadon]

I believe I, as an eternal undying being, chose to enter a mortal body subject to death, knowing that I would do things counter to God's will. I chose to fall into these circumstances. Jesus Christ provides the way to overcome and overpower those circumstances I chose to enter in order to fully enjoy Eternal Life as part of His Family..

I fell, and I need an Atonement. The methods by which this mortal body were created are distinct from the doctrines of Fall and Atonement themselves.

Somewhat similar in sentiment is the following Jewish folk song collected S. Ansky in the Pale of Settlement prior to WWI.

"Why, oh why did the soul plunge

From the utmost heights (igra rama- lit. towering mountain)

To the lowest depths (bira amikta- lit. deep pit)?

The seed of redemption

Is contained within the fall."

[Cobalt-70]

Personally I think this post hits the heart of the discussion. The person in the video is not a GA yet is trying to correct GA's. Sorry but its not his place to go public with his disagreement, a private conversation disagreeing with the GA in question would be one thing however to go public is a totally different thing.

Even if Joseph Fielding McConkie were a general authority, there is no doctrinal reason why one's title within the church hierarchy entitles one to be immune from Mormon peer review. Unless you claim to have a revelation from God, what you say, even over the pulpit, is your own opinion. Even if it is an inspired opinion for you, it is not necessarily the One True Opinion for everybody, unless that opinion is added to the Mormon canon.

[cinepro]

The Atonement restores mankind to the immortal condition that they were in before the Fall had taken place. If there had been no Fall, there would have been no immortality before the Fall to which mankind could be restored.

One of the critical problems for the "death before Adam during the creation" theory is that it theorizes a world created by God that already has birth/death process going on, even among humanoids. We can still believe in the story about immortal Adam and his fall to mortality, but it's ultimately irrelevant. God already had a world of mortal creatures procreating, living and dying, and He wouldn't need a Fall to get the whole thing going.

We could still have "sin" and the need for "atonement", but there wouldn't be a "fall" because things were created in a telestial state to begin with. Christ's atonement wouldn't be restoring the perfect creation, it would be overcoming the evolutionary dead-end brought about by sin.

Edited December 31, 2011 by cinepro

[zerinus]

One of the critical problems for the "death before Adam during the creation" theory is that it theorizes a world created by God that already has birth/death process going on, even among humanoids.

Agreed.

We can still believe in the story about immortal Adam and his fall to mortality, . . .

How can that be, if the whole creation starts off being mortal?

. . . but it's ultimately irrelevant. God already had a world of mortal creatures procreating, living and dying, and He wouldn't need a Fall to get the whole thing going.

See above.

We could still have "sin" and the need for "atonement", but there wouldn't be a "fall" because things were created in a telestial state to begin with. Christ's atonement wouldn't be restoring the perfect creation, it would be overcoming the evolutionary dead-end brought about by sin.

That would also not be possible because then you would have a problem of defining what sin is. According to scripture, sin is a “transgression of the law”. Where there is no law, there is also no sin:

1 John 3:

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

2 Nephi 2:

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. . . .

Alma 42:

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? . . .

If you are going to adopt the “evolutionary” process of creation within the gospel program, then you would have to explain at what point mankind became a “sinners,” and why? What “law” did they break, and who gave them that law?

You would also have to explain what is the connection between sin and death. According to scripture, death came about as a consequence of sin. It is not a natural condition of the world as it should be:

Romans 5:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; . . .

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, . . .

Romans 6:

23 For the wages of sin is death; . . .

Moses 6:

59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, . . .

According to Evolution, however, death is the natural order of things as they should be, not an extra-ordinary situation caused by sin. So an evolutionary concept of creation causes a lot of serious theological problems for a gospel centered view of creation, not just one or two.

Edited December 31, 2011 by zerinus

[Smith]

Zerinus, any death that would have theological ramifications would need to involve the separation of a spirit from a mortal body. If there was a time where mortal bodies were breeding without the connection of an intelligent spirit, then death in a theological sense becomes moot.

Hi Nackhadlow,

Are you saying, or do you think, it is possible for beings, be they animal or human to live, breathe, breed without them having been imbued with a spirit to animate it? If so what gives you this idea? (Just trying to understand what you are saying and not kick up a fight)

Otherwise I think your idea is very interesting.

[Smith]

The way I see it, there was no human concept of "death"- a word which implies an entire linguistic reference, before there were humans who had language.

Hi mfbukowski,

The way I understand you is as an extension of what Nackhadlow was saying before this quoted post of yours above, in that there were humans before Adam but they didnt have a spirit occupying them as Adam had, is this correct?

I havent heard of such a thing before and I find it hard to understand how a human could live without a spirit. But still a very interesting post and point of view, thanks for sharing!