altersteve Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I think that this quote contradicts your statement: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. (Emphasis in the original.) Source.I disagree.
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I disagree.Stating a disagreement is the easy part. Establishing it as a fact is the difficult part.
Calm Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 That is not what he said though. The context of his message was the discussions we are having on this message board, not Church classes.He said it shouldn't be discussed "in church".
altersteve Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Stating a disagreement is the easy part. Establishing it as a fact is the difficult part.I've never seen you treat anyone with respect on this board, so I have no desire to have this discussion. Sorry.
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 He said it shouldn't be discussed "in church".Thank you. I read it again, and you may be right. My mistake. It is getting a bit late, and I should really be in bed!
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I've never seen you treat anyone with respect on this board, so I have no desire to have this discussion. Sorry.There is a name for that. It is called a cop out.
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 God has not revealed anything that is contradiction to the theory of evolution. The First Presidency's statement "The Origin of Man" contains nothing that precludes evolution, as BCSpace said above, nor does it explicitly "reject" it as you claim.I think that the following quotation does: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. (Emphasis in the original.) Source.
Jeff K. Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 All that that says is that God has not told us all that can be known about creation. Agreed. But that does not mean that what He has told us is false, or that we cannot use it effectively to reject false doctrines. Even more importantly, it does not mean that the First Presidency cannot make definitive assertions about what is and what is not true doctrine. Not having given us all the details, does not mean that the detail He has given us is useless.Allow me to correct you on your misperception....He haskept us in darkness. Wait until the Lord speaks, or wait until that day when He shall come, and when we shall be among the privileged either to come up out of our graves and be caught up into the clouds of heaven or shall be living upon the earth likewise to be so translated before Him. Then we shall know all things pertaining to this earth, how it was made, and all things that now as children we are groping for and trying to understand. Let's reserve judgment as to the facts concerning the Creation until we know these things for sure.[QuoteMuch misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.So, this is what we KNOW.That "The Doctrine" resides in four standard works. Nowhere in those standard works is evolution dismissed or embraced. Now if you care to show us in the standard works where evolution is dismissed and how you reconcile it with the fact that Presidents of the church have not rejected it nor made such rejection doctrine. I would be glad to hear it. Otherwise we have your interpretation of opinion as being doctrine. Which does not even rise to the level of tenuous in this case. You should not attempt to create doctrine where non exists, to do so is wrong.The church remains neutral on the matter, you should accept it as such rather than attempting to change the church towards your opinion.
katherine the great Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Thank you. I read it again, and you may be right. My mistake. It is getting a bit late, and I should really be in bed!You must live back east.
Jeff K. Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I think that the following quotation does: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. (Emphasis in the original.) Source.Your source is not in the standard works and therefore does not qualify as doctrine. But it is a well thought out opinion, not your opinion of its doctrine, but the opinion itself.
Nominee Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world, and much of the talk therefore, about the philosophy of Mormonism is altogether misleading. God has revealed to us a simple and effectual way of serving Him, and we should regret very much to see the simplicity of those revelations involved in all sorts of philosophical speculations. ~Joseph F. Smith http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Evolution/JI_Joseph_F._Smith_1911
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Allow me to correct you on your misperception....So, this is what we KNOW.That "The Doctrine" resides in four standard works. Nowhere in those standard works is evolution dismissed or embraced. Now if you care to show us in the standard works where evolution is dismissed and how you reconcile it with the fact that Presidents of the church have not rejected it nor made such rejection doctrine. I would be glad to hear it.Sure; here it is: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. (Emphasis in the original.) Source.Otherwise we have your interpretation of opinion as being doctrine. Which does not even rise to the level of tenuous in this case.Well I didn't write that, the First Presidency did.You should not attempt to create doctrine where non exists, to do so is wrong.Where did I do anything like that?The church remains neutral on the matter, you should accept it as such rather than attempting to change the church towards your opinion.It doesn't you know. See the quote above. Edited January 14, 2012 by zerinus 1
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 You must live back east.I live further away than that!
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Your source is not in the standard works and therefore does not qualify as doctrine. But it is a well thought out opinion, not your opinion of its doctrine, but the opinion itself.The quote is from an official statement by the First Presidency. It is not just a well thought out opinion. Click on the Source link to get to the source of the quote. Edited January 14, 2012 by zerinus
Nominee Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 The quote is from an official statement by the First Presidency....And most certainly does qualify as doctrine.
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world, and much of the talk therefore, about the philosophy of Mormonism is altogether misleading. God has revealed to us a simple and effectual way of serving Him, and we should regret very much to see the simplicity of those revelations involved in all sorts of philosophical speculations. ~Joseph F. Smith http://en.fairmormon...h_F._Smith_1911But when the First Presidency declares Evolution to be false, don't you think that we should take their statement seriously?
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 ...And most certainly does qualify as doctrine.Thank you.
katherine the great Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I personally think that church leaders have consistently used language that is, at the very least extremely unfriendly to the concept of evolution. Because I choose to remain a faithful member, I like to believe that the Lord will set me straight someday if indeed evolution is a heresy. In the mean time, I believe that evolution is a fact and God used it to create this planet and all the life therein. Otherwise, I would believe in a God that would purposely plant a neverending stream of false evidence to fool us. 3
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I personally think that church leaders have consistently used language that is, at the very least extremely unfriendly to the concept of evolution. Because I choose to remain a faithful member, I like to believe that the Lord will set me straight someday if indeed evolution is a heresy. In the mean time, I believe that evolution is a fact and God used it to create this planet and all the life therein. Otherwise, I would believe in a God that would purposely plant a neverending stream of false evidence to fool us.What if you are misreading or misinterpreting the evidence? What makes you so confident that you aren't?
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 What if you are misreading or misinterpreting the evidence? What makes you so confident that you aren't?Evolution is not such a cut and dried case scientifically. Do a Google search for "scientists against Evolution" and see what you will find.
katherine the great Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 What if you are misreading or misinterpreting the evidence? What makes you so confident that you aren't?Do you really want to enter in to that conversation with me? 2
Nominee Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 But when the First Presidency declares Evolution to be false, don't you think that we should take their statement seriously?Yes, as serious as though the Lord himself spoke directly to us saying, "...Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father."
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Do you really want to enter in to that conversation with me?Probably not, especially this time of night! But I recall a few months back there was a thread about Evolution vs. Intelligent design which proved very interesting, and lots of interesting info was presented. I have forgotten what it was called; but if you missed it, it would be worth having a look at.
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Yes, as serious as though the Lord himself spoke directly to us saying, "...Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father."Thank you. That is exactly what they have said, which has been my point throughout this thread; yet people still keep saying that the Church does not have an official position on the subject. Not sure where they are coming from to be honest.
altersteve Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (Genesis 1:20).Sounds a lot like evolution to me. 2
Recommended Posts