Has Time Been Good To The Teachings Of Bruce R. Mcconkie And Joseph Fielding Smith?

[Duncan]

Did they claim revelation from God backing them up on their "falsehoods", or did they merely argue that such was the logical conclusion of existing doctrine? Perhaps some of both?

What I find interesting is that JSF and BRM at one time were the young upstarts opposing the likes of James E Talmadge and BH Roberts on scientific issues like evolution and preAdamites. Of course that was all settled in the 1931 HeberJ Grant FP statement yet JSF and BRM, after some years of silence, went on to continue to agitate against science with their officially published works and now Russel M. Nelson seems to be following suit even after being corrected by his junior companion and having to backdown during the PEW Research interview.

not to derail but what's this about Elder Nelson being corrected by his juniour comp? and what pew research interview?

[Calm]

http://pewresearch.o...nism-in-america

Forum: The church has said it neither promotes nor opposes capital punishment. It says it "opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience." It does not oppose removing a medical patient from "artificial means of life support." Different denominations deal differently with questions about life's origins and development. Conservative denominations tend to have more trouble with Darwinian evolution. Does the church have an official position on this topic?

Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It's interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.

Forum: Why is that?

Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It's just the way genetics works.

Wickman: The Scripture describing the Lord as the creator of all of these things says very little about how it was done. I don't know of anybody in the ranks of the First Presidency and the Twelve [Apostles] who has ever spent much time worrying about this matter of evolution.

Nelson: We have this doctrine, recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101: "When the Lord shall come again, he shall reveal all things, things which have passed, hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth by which it was made and the purpose and the end thereof, things most precious, things that are above, things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, upon the earth, and in heaven." So as I close that quotation, I realize that there are just some things that we won't know until that day.

Edited July 3, 2012 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Science by definition is always tentative, but proving it wrong takes real work.

http://en.fairmormon...alk_on_the_Moon

Ps.

http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/main-video/how-to-talk-to-an-ostrich

Edited July 3, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[rameumptom]

I think they are both great men. The only thing that would have made them greater is to have stood strong on the actual doctrines of the gospel, and stay away from the edges, where the doctrine is not quite so clear. Others also made wrong statements, but usually did not use the authoritative voice that Pres JFSmith and Elder BRMcConkie used, so their statements seem more pronounced to us today.

Today's GAs also speak authoritatively, but avoid areas that are not concrete doctrine.

[Hamilton Porter]

Time has been very, very good to Talmage, Roberts, Widstoe, and Eyring Sr.

What divinely inspired men these people are!

Soli Deo Gloria!

[SamIam]

Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie were valiant in their defense of Joseph as a prophet seer and revelator.

Perhaps we could look at a few things that came forth in the restoration and see if there are not a few interesting observations:

Here is what came forth from the Pearl of Great Price:

Moses 7:30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea,

millions of

a

earths

like this

, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy

b

creations

; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;

This concept was vehemently ridiculed by science until say the last 10 to twenty years as a possibility and within the past 8 or so as a definite reality. Note:

Kailash Sahu, of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Md., is part of an international team reporting today that our galaxy contains a minimum of one planet for every star on average. This means that there is likely to be a minimum of 1,500 planets within just 50 light-years of Earth. The results are based on observations taken over six years by the PLANET (Probing Lensing Anomalies NETwork) collaboration, which Sahu co-founded in 1995.

The study concludes that there are far more Earth-sized planets than bloated Jupiter-sized worlds. This is based on calibrating a planetary mass function that shows the number of planets increases for lower mass worlds. A rough estimate from this survey would point to the existence of more than 10 billion terrestrial planets across our galaxy. (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/07/full/)

Can we get a round of applause for Joseph and Bruce and Joseph for their clear undeviating wisdom in helping mankind along in such a generous way?

[thesometimesaint]

Non Sequitur.

Religion works on faith, and science works on evidence. There is nothing wrong with either one, but they are two different ways of viewing the cosmos.

Edited July 3, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[CV75]

How are members of the church today supposed to process and reconcile this reality?

Often the teachings from one era serve as springboards for improvement and "adding upon" in the next!

There certainly is an element of spiritual truth in what they taught, though some of it is contradictory to today's sciecne.

Also, black and white thinking is a personal style that applies to people of science as well as people of faith, and prevailing personal styles also change over time.

[SamIam]

Non Sequitur.

Religion works on faith, and science works on evidence. There is nothing wrong with either one, but they are two different ways of viewing the cosmos.

Ahh, perhaps for some, however we have contrary perceptions in the gospel, that you must not be aware of, since I am positive you would have immediately realized the limitations of your observation. All TRUTH can be circumscribed into one great whole. Perhaps when you heard that thought expressed before you mistakenly heard one "grape hole" in which case I can see why you were confused. There are so many types of grapes that it would require at least two different ways of viewing them.

Edited July 3, 2012 by SamIam

[thesometimesaint]

Samlam:

I've long recognized the limitations of my observations. When science makes statements about my religion I'm entitled to present my observations on my religion. When religions makes statements about science I'm entitled to make my observations about science. What I can not do is use science to put a Supernatural explanation on a Natural occurrence.

I eagerly await that someday when All Truth will be circumscribed in one great whole. But that day probably isn't today or anytime in the foreseeable future.

[CV75]

"grape hole"

No, it's a grate hole. And the grand mysetry is this: is the hole the one in the grate, or is the grate the one in the hole?

[SamIam]

No, it's a grate hole. And the grand mysetry is this: is the hole the one in the grate, or is the grate the one in the hole?

I can absolutely see the possibility you present. I just thought that in a case where symptoms of inebriation were evident that perhaps they were going the grape hole route.

[thesometimesaint]

Or how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin?

[SamIam]

Samlam:

I've long recognized the limitations of my observations. When science makes statements about my religion I'm entitled to present my observations on my religion. When religions makes statements about science I'm entitled to make my observations about science. What I can not do is use science to put a Supernatural explanation on a Natural occurrence.

I eagerly await that someday when All Truth will be circumscribed in one great whole. But that day probably isn't today or anytime in the foreseeable future.

With some effort though you can begin the process.

I will illustrate:

Here is a verse from the Doctrine and Covenants that I am sure most think is simply fantasy talk or scriptural imagery:

Doctrine and Covenants 88:45

45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.

Now take a look at the image found at this link

http://www.universetoday.com/91561/earths-magnetic-pole-reversal-dont-flip-out/

It is not that they must remain seperate it is that people have been content to exercise a weaker faith that allows them to believe somewhat in scripture but prefer the tangibility of science,

For instance what I posted earlier concerning millions of earths is of absolutely no worth if you did not believe Joseph was a prophet before science confirmed him. After is nothing. Still there is so much more that he revealed that we can clearly see his prophetic status warrants more resounding support and loyalty than otherwise plaintive missives of passive acknowledgment.

[why me]

Today's GAs also speak authoritatively, but avoid areas that are not concrete doctrine.

Going back to the frontier time of lds history, I think that many of the GAs spoke from the hip. They did not hold back on their words and unfortunately did not really keep copies of their talks since what we do have for JS and BY are notes that were taken from the audience. And BY may have spoke authoritatively about things that were not doctrine. But back then, there were no radio or television, it really did not matter what BY was saying to most members. I think that most members were living the basics that were common to all. And may not have involved themselves in what brigham was saying on a sometimes daily basis. But i could be wrong.

Edited July 3, 2012 by why me

[thesometimesaint]

Samlam:

I've never had any problem with a belief in millions of earth like planets, but I take more personal interest in what is happening here on my earth than what may happen on any speculative other earths. BTW. There are probably many more times millions of earth like planets in the universe. I just can't at this time prove it. That is the difference between science and religion. You and I are entitled to believe anything we want. But proving it in science takes more than just stating a belief.

Truth is truth no matter where you find it. So I have no problem when a prophet makes a true statement, just as I have no problem when science makes a true statement. We should apply the same rigorous tests to determine what is in fact true statements to both. For example if a prophet says that Pi is exactly equal to three. He should be able to prove it. If a prophet says that man will never land on the moon. He should be able to prove it. If a scientist that Jesus wasn't the Son of God. Then he needs to be able to prove it. If a scientist claims Newton laws are the only true laws. Then he needs to be able to prove it.

[SamIam]

Samlam:

I've never had any problem with a belief in millions of earth like planets, but I take more personal interest in what is happening here on my earth than what may happen on any speculative other earths. BTW. There are probably many more times millions of earth like planets in the universe. I just can't at this time prove it. That is the difference between science and religion. You and I are entitled to believe anything we want. But proving it in science takes more than just stating a belief.

Truth is truth no matter where you find it. So I have no problem when a prophet makes a true statement, just as I have no problem when science makes a true statement. We should apply the same rigorous tests to determine what is in fact true statements to both. For example if a prophet says that Pi is exactly equal to three. He should be able to prove it. If a prophet says that man will never land on the moon. He should be able to prove it. If a scientist that Jesus wasn't the Son of God. Then he needs to be able to prove it. If a scientist claims Newton laws are the only true laws. Then he needs to be able to prove it.

You are missing my point. Once you begin a process of marrying the two disciplines of science and theology especially LDS theology and trying to find the means of how to unify them you will be more convinced than ever that scientific fact with evidence always has a home in LDS theology. I am not stating that it is perfect knowledge but the potential exists in all instances of factual material.

You will find that the only place there is a departure is when the theories come into play. When we visit the unknown and begin to hypothesize upon this or that we fail to retain the theological standards and wander off in all sorts of conflicting guesses.

For instance evolutions worst enemy never even makes it to the theological realm - science alone has significant questions that beg against the legitimacy of claiming any degree of comfort of the reality of evolution.

My point is that you can take any truth that is grounded in science and it can be shown the potential for acceptance within LDS theology. I think this is important becuase if one takes sincerely the challenge of challenging all deception on all fronts their faith will be increased and they will not need to equivocate between two silos of thought as the truths will fit and the lies will not.

It is upon this principle that Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith will stand in the end when all TRUTH is revealed.

Edited July 3, 2012 by SamIam

[Craig Paxton]

When were these teachings discredited by a prophet of God? Of course this board is full of detractors. But please show me a quote from a correlated manual or a scriptural reference that contradicts their views? I am sure their teachings are unpopular among many (both in their day and now) especially among those steeped in the traditions of men. I do not believe you have a "proof positive" on any of these teachings.Just because you disagree or even so-called scientists disagree or even those on this board, there is no conclusive proof that they were wrong. (When I first saw the topic I thought you would be rehashing the old Catholic=Mother of Harlots or the priesthood ban.)

The Church still teaches a literal Adam and Eve, and no death before the fall, as well as a global flood. and a 7,000 years of the earth's temporal existance, as for how long it took for the creation I do not think they taught a specific time period.

Some may choose to deny these things but I do not.

And I love yeah for believing in it....BUT...I can tell you that the sky is blue...but if you choose to believe otherwise ...no amount of proof to the contrarry will convince you that the sky IS blue.

I don't have the time nor the inclination to prove to you that there has in fact been death on this earth for billions of years....and much longer than the Adam and Eve timeline. That the earth is billions of years old, that the universal flood is a myth as are Adam and Eve being the first humans and Bruce R. McConkie clearly taught in his Mormon Doctrine that the creation took literally 6 Kolobian days with God reasting for a 1,000 of our years on the 7th day.

Clearly, whether you want to accept the sky being blue or not, McConkie and Smith taught things they believed to be true that have been completely discredited.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[thesometimesaint]

Samlam:

Science and religion(Even the LDS religion) are based on two different modes of understanding. Science is based on what can be measured by disinterested third parties. Religion is based on what believers believe. There will of course be areas of overlap. I can believe in a round earth yet know from science that the earth is slightly pear shaped. There really is no conflict between the two. Potential is one thing. Kinetic is another. Someday science and religion will reconcile that is the potential. The kinetic says that today isn't likely to be that day, and experience says it isn't going to happen any time soon.

Then you don't know what a theory in science is. It is the best explanation we have so far for a event. Thus it is subject to change, but it takes more than just positing a religious belief to change a scientific theory.

Evolution is a fact. No rational person thinks that living organisms don't change with descent. The Theory of Evolution explains how that evolution took place.

Again I have no problem with truth being truth no matter where I find it. Who is being deceptive? Would you really want to try to explain television in Salem, Massachusetts of the 17th Century?

Edited July 3, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Craig Paxton]

You are missing my point. Once you begin a process of marrying the two disciplines of science and theology especially LDS theology and trying to find the means of how to unify them you will be more convinced than ever that scientific fact with evidence always has a home in LDS theology. I am not stating that it is perfect knowledge but the potential exists in all instances of factual material.

You will find that the only place there is a departure is when the theories come into play. When we visit the unknown and begin to hypothesize upon this or that we fail to retain the theological standards and wander off in all sorts of conflicting guesses.

For instance evolutions worst enemy never even makes it to the theological realm - science alone has significant questions that beg against the legitimacy of claiming any degree of comfort of the reality of evolution.

My point is that you can take any truth that is grounded in science and it can be shown the potential for acceptance within LDS theology. I think this is important becuase if one takes sincerely the challenge of challenging all deception on all fronts their faith will be increased and they will not need to equivocate between two silos of thought as the truths will fit and the lies will not.

It is upon this principle that Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith will stand in the end when all TRUTH is revealed.

So let's just talk about one of those so called truths that McConkie and Smith were fond of and help me understand how your premises is supported. McConkie and Smith clearly taught and believed that it was central to LDS doctrine that there was no death prior to the Fall of Adam. In fact the church still teaches this falsehood...and it is one of the central reasons given for a need for an atonement. I believe that McConkie and Smith were completely wrong and have been completely discredited...so how exactly will their false version of truth stand; what color is the sky to you?

Edited July 3, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[David T]

I'm just wondering how selective the Church will be when the eventual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith comes out. I wonder if some of the most controversial uber-conservative anti-science material will be reinforced, or if we'll see it sidelined. That manual in and of itself will be a major indicator of, well, a lot of things.

[Craig Paxton]

I'm just wondering how selective the Church will be when the eventual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith comes out. I wonder if some of the most controversial uber-conservative anti-science material will be reinforced, or if we'll see it sidelined. That manual in and of itself will be a major indicator of, well, a lot of things.

Ummm...I'll predict that it will befall the same fate as Brigham Youngs teachings....and under go a significant editing process...

[David T]

Ummm...I'll predict that it will befall the same fate as Brigham Youngs teachings....and under go a significant editing process...

The difference is, the editing that BY went through removed material that was out of favor and unfamiliar with most Church members. Most of JFS' most familiar doctrinal interpretational material was often quoted and reinforced in the past, such as in Institute manuals, etc. If they go for more aof a practical gospel living manual, this may be avoided. But I'm especially interested in any chapters on Creation or the Fall.

[SamIam]

Samlam:

Evolution is a fact. No rational person thinks that living organisms don't change with descent. The Theory of Evolution explains how that evolution took place.

Again I have no problem with truth being truth no matter where I find it. Who is being deceptive? Would you really want to try to explain television in Salem, Massachusetts of the 17th Century?

However, does any rational person really believe that you can get life from substances that are not possessed of life. Does any rational person believe that if there was by chance a random genetic mutation and a creature actually became a new specie that simultaneously the exact set of genetic mutations that occurred for the first could happen again at exactly the same window of time so that he or she would have a mate.

Does any rational person really believe....I can give you a list that you are already aware of. Perhaps if you could just answer these two. Still though you are missing the key nature of my thoughts.

We can exercise the level of faith that allows these divisive issues to exist in split regions of our rational. Some consider this an eclectic and intellectually mature ability. However, I'm not so sure. To draw the line allows us to maintain two presumably distinctly opposing ( at key levels) lines of thought. The line lets us think we are protecting the existence of the two differing perspectives without requiring a commitment to one over the other. The bottom line is that we dilute faith when we subject theology to science. We dilute faith when we equate the two as both acceptable in their realm. We increase faith when we subject science to theology in a reasonable fashion. I have noted that no one ever returns to stronger faith when they begin to subordinate theology to scientific theories. They may continue forward until they have no confidence in theology whatsoever, but they practically never return to a dominant theology perspective. At least I am aware of none that do so.

So really to protect faith the line has to be drawn in deference to theology in a prudent manner. As an extreme example if such a day comes that you must act as did Enoch and turn rivers from their course and uproot trees with your command to thwart your enemies science refutes and says you can't, while faith expects you will.

Edited July 3, 2012 by SamIam

[thesometimesaint]

I predict it won't be mentioned at all, or if it is, only as a novelty of personal belief. IE; BY personally believed that men were living on the surface of the sun. Something we no longer believe, or even teach.