DBMormon Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 sometimesaint - ok approach as well except those members who have have very stringent view of doctrine that is incorrect could learn more from Kevin's reply. As you know, I am a big fan of being as open- armed and flexible on what people can believe in Doctrine if it is not the offcial doctrine of the church. In otherwords say 4 members of your class believe the earth is 6,000 years old (now it may be or it may not be, there is no definitive answer from the church). Let's say those four people see that has a standard in the gospel. They think all mormons who know the truth know the earth is 6,000 years old. Anytime someone speaks differently 2 of those 4 look down upon them and think something negative. I personally have seen a sister get upset with a couple of people in a sunday school class becasue she shared the masons were like the gadiaton robbers and evil and should be avoided and these two disagreed with her. She just knew they were wrong. She had gone years with this false belief. I am a fan of fixing those things softly and not forcing people to have to see the church through a standard the church itself never set. The chance of them "discovering" some earth shattering contradiction dissapates. Anyway.... If this false beliefs are done away with as much as can be done (impossible to do completely as new ones arise) the church members see the importance of leaving the gospel hobbies alone and focusing on the actual gospel.
DBMormon Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 I am disturbed by teachers who seem to prioritize teaching their pet theories instead of sticking with the scriptures and the teachings of the Brethren. If someone insists evolution is false - well, the Church agrees that it is false, officially. That anyone called of God to instruct in his Church should presume to undermine that view, is, to say the least, disappointing in the extreme. Your calling is NOT to make yourself feel better about the doctrinal compromises you've made in order to blend in better with the world - your calling is to teach the truth as the Church has presented it, and to do so by the power and authority of God, and NOT to mingle the philosophies of men with scripture for consumption in the Lord's house.I don't get the impression Kevin is advocating one side or the other. Just that he is helping the class not limit their choices either. He allows the church to be true regardless of which side of the argument is true. I don't think we want people placing any percentage of their faith on what side of the coin is right. I simply don't want to advocate either answer. I want to find a way to tell them the church has no offical spelled out answer and each member is free to ponder pray and come to their own conclusion .... until the Lord says otherwise through his appointed servants. 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) reelmormon:There is always a few of that type. We could spend the rest of our limited Sunday School time discussing things we don't believe. But I find that it's a monumental distraction. I was a pretty good Sunday School teacher, so could always redirect the conversation when we went off on tangents. A friendly smile and a promise to talk to them afterwords seems the best approach. Edited June 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Log Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 There is always a few of that type.What type is that, pray tell?I was a pretty good Sunday School teacher...By whose standard, one wonders?
DBMormon Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 that fixes the one who said it but not the thirty who heard it including some who are new enough or young enough in the gospel that they are impressionable
DBMormon Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 by addressing the one and not the multitude, you have furthered the issue not reduced it.
thesometimesaint Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Log:"I am disturbed by teachers who seem to prioritize teaching their pet theories instead of sticking with the scriptures and the teachings of the Brethren. If someone insists evolution is false - well, the Church agrees that it is false, officially". Disturbed, yes. Accurate no.http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mormonfortress.com%2Fevolution.pdf&ei=ZPPhT9zNL8bI2wXjr4HyCw&usg=AFQjCNFCjBd97ltuzDWmG8dLEDKm0-IZmQ&sig2=x4_mOlIXSmU07abSzH58gw
thesometimesaint Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Log:The type that wants to ride their hobby horse during Sunday School.Apparently the Lord as he keeps putting me in those positions.
Log Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Log:"I am disturbed by teachers who seem to prioritize teaching their pet theories instead of sticking with the scriptures and the teachings of the Brethren. If someone insists evolution is false - well, the Church agrees that it is false, officially".Disturbed, yes. Accurate no.http://www.google.co...XSmU07abSzH58gwDoesn't wash - and you have never once addressed the substance of my post, contained in the FIRST paragraph. "Unfortunately, the conflict is irreconcilable; the point at issue is that evolution has been defined in such a way as to preclude intelligent intervention in the creation of biological structures. It is "unguided" versus, at the least, "guided," and being, as they are, jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, therefore it is not a false dichotomy. Intelligent intervention by a creator-God is therefore logically incompatible with evolution."Good try making it appear as though you did. Edited June 20, 2012 by Log
Log Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Log:Apparently the Lord as he keeps putting me in those positions.Well, the Lord called Amasa Lyman to the Apostleship. I take your calling for what it's worth. Edited June 20, 2012 by Log
thesometimesaint Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Log:Apparently the Lord thinks a good deal more of his friends than you do.
thesometimesaint Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Log:Then quit preaching your false doctrine.See http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/EvolutionAuthor: Evenson, William E.The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].
Log Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 TSS - not once in the long years I have had the unfortunate privilege to be interacting with you on this subject have you responded appropriately to this: "Unfortunately, the conflict is irreconcilable; the point at issue is that evolution has been defined in such a way as to preclude intelligent intervention in the creation of biological structures. It is "unguided" versus, at the least, "guided," and being, as they are, jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, therefore it is not a false dichotomy. Intelligent intervention by a creator-God is therefore logically incompatible with evolution."The Church teaches that we have an intervening creator-God. That's not false doctrine. Try again.
Log Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Also - if Adam had parents, those parents would be the "primal parents of the race." That, also, is not false doctrine. Try again. Edited June 20, 2012 by Log
ERayR Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Well. I was only quoting the first presidency. But if you disagree. I'm ok with that...You better consult the dictionary as to the meaning of quote.
ERayR Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Log:The type that wants to ride their hobby horse during Sunday School.Apparently the Lord as he keeps putting me in those positions.The Lord often gives us callings so that we can learn and grow. If you have to keep getting repeat opportunities---. Well
thesometimesaint Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Log:Your first paragraph got all the attention it deserves. You find it irreconcilable, but I and many members of the Church including Apostles have no problem with that reconciliation. The Church does not have any doctrine concerning Evolution, just as it has no doctrine concerning the Pythagorean Theorem. Science by definition can not put the Supernatural into a Natural explanation. Religion, including the LDS, by definition is the imposition of the Supernatural onto the Natural.Your "also" is a non sequitur. My parents were very much my parents, but they were not of my LDS race, as my father never, in this life, held the Priesthood. Edited June 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Log Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Log:Your first paragraph got all the attention it deservesIndeed. Your flawless record of avoiding the fact that "unguided" and "guided" are logically contradictory remains unblemished. Your "also" is a non sequitur. My parents were very much my parents, but they were not of my LDS race, as my father never, in this life, held the Priesthood.Well, at least on this particular point you're (relatively) upfront in your equivocation - but, since LDS is not a race in the sense under discussion, this response of yours is, itself, a non sequitur - and not the innocent, accidentally committed kind, but rather intentional, tendentious obfuscation on your part. Edited June 20, 2012 by Log
thesometimesaint Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Log:Try explaining television to someone in the 18th century.There is no established meaning of the word race.
Log Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) There is no established meaning of the word race.And how is that in any way, shape, or form, relevant to what I said originally, which was this: "If Adam had parents, those parents would be the "primal parents of the race [of mankind, in context]""?The reference is, of course, to the official position of the Church, which says, in part "The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we [meaning the Church] are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race [which is mankind]."A creature is either of the race of man - one of us, the children of God - or it is not. If Adam had temporal parents, then those parents would be the primal parents of the race of mankind, and Adam would not be the primal parent of the race of mankind. You can therefore hold to evolutionary theory or the official doctrine of the Church - but you can't have both, no matter how wide your smile.Because nobody - literally - does not hold to the law of noncontradiction. Edited June 20, 2012 by Log
cinepro Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Evolution, dinosaurs and faith: Navigating the world of discovery
Craig Paxton Posted June 21, 2012 Author Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) And how is that in any way, shape, or form, relevant to what I said originally, which was this: "If Adam had parents, those parents would be the "primal parents of the race [of mankind, in context]""?The reference is, of course, to the official position of the Church, which says, in part "The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we [meaning the Church] are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race [which is mankind]."A creature is either of the race of man - one of us, the children of God - or it is not. If Adam had temporal parents, then those parents would be the primal parents of the race of mankind, and Adam would not be the primal parent of the race of mankind. You can therefore hold to evolutionary theory or the official doctrine of the Church - but you can't have both, no matter how wide your smile.Because nobody - literally - does not hold to the law of noncontradiction.Wow Log...you may not like this...but I actually agree with you...BUT I also believe evolution to be truth...and conflicts with the creation story Mormonism is built on....both can not be true...however I guess I respect those posters who are able to nuance a belief out of these two Seemingly conflicting narratives of mankinds foundations...for me they conflict. But I'm willing perhaps in another thread for y'all to educate meInteresting that even though the first presidency has provided guidance in their 1909 statement it is still being ignored and nuanced by those who accept evolution as fact. Edited June 21, 2012 by Craig Paxton
thesometimesaint Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mormonfortress.com%2Fevolution.pdf&ei=ZPPhT9zNL8bI2wXjr4HyCw&usg=AFQjCNFCjBd97ltuzDWmG8dLEDKm0-IZmQ&sig2=x4_mOlIXSmU07abSzH58gw
KevinG Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Has anyone suggested an inquisition yet? We haven't had one of those in ages!
Craig Paxton Posted June 21, 2012 Author Posted June 21, 2012 Has anyone suggested an inquisition yet? We haven't had one of those in ages!Now we're talking...
Recommended Posts