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

[DBMormon]

If the Spirit so impresses you, then I wouldn't argue it with you as your understanding. But since you are not called to determine doctrine for the Church, such an interpretation would only be binding on you if the Spirit revealed it to you.

Got it. I actually struggled to find valid ways to ask this and it became obvious that I was seeing holes in my own questioning as I formulated my question..... By the way, I agree with your viewpoint 100%, just testing theories and thought processes. The more I ask things and test the waters the more I see things for what they are. I know I tick you guys off a little along the way, but this discussion board has been a blessing in helping me deal with faith crisis and helping me to see the Church in a way that strengthens faith and erases the problematic ways I sometimes see things.

Anyway - When I first came on here, I thought I would never agree with the unapoligetic apoligetics on here; and yet I think I am beginning to see it exactly that way. I am still calling for a kinder "dialogue".

In fact I would ask is there anyway to admit shortcomings without reinforcing the critics disbelief?

But that said.... Thanks to many of you for continuing to put me in my place at times

[Calm]

In fact I would ask is there anyway to admit shortcomings without reinforcing the critics disbelief?

What kind of shortcomings did you have in mind?

[DBMormon]

What kind of shortcomings did you have in mind?

When people see flaws or shortcomings in a leader or somethings they say, I see them struggling to find ways to still believe in the truth claims of the church and yet validate their feelings of things being absolutely flawless.

If I listed examples it would be a broken record and kill the spirit I have felt as of late on this board.

[Calm]

Not a problem. I guess I just don't find it that hard to talk about leaders' shortcomings and do see it as reinforcing disbelief, critics or others, so I was thinking there were some specific shortcomings that had a special quality of creating or adding to disbelief.

As I mentioned in some thread, this one?, for example I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that Joseph might have messed up somewhat on the sealings by not going to the Lord for clarification on who we were to be sealed to as Wilford Woodruff did and took plural marriage a bit too far with the polyandrous sealings. I don't see such discussions as automatically reinforcing critics' disbelief, in fact in my experience it is often the opposite reaction...they are more open to belief if they realized they are allowed not to think of the leaders as infallible.

It can be a shock to members who do view leaders as infallible or have created lines they believe must not be crossed by someone who is truly inspired or directed by the Lord, but if it comes up in a conversation I see it as a good time for them to learn because then they can discuss their shock immediately and not just sit on it because they don't have anyone to talk to about it or don't think they do. Because of this perspective, I think it is appropriate to discuss such shortcomings when there is the time to discuss it more or less one on one. I don't think I would bring it up except in a generic way in church unless someone else mentioned it first and I felt it wise to balance something that they had said, unless some event had been arranged to cover controversies such as rongo, I believe, mentioned he did a fireside for awhile back.

Edited July 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Lightbearer]

Soooo...you believe that there was no death prior to Adams fall 4,000ish BCE?...just like McConkie? Then I'll wear your "Anti-Mormon scum" badge with pride...and by slandering an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ is to merely point out where he was wrong warrents being tagged as an anti-mormon scum...I'll accept that one also...because Bruce R. McConkie simply got it wrong...death has always existed on this earth since the beginning of life itself..billions and billions of years ago. But somehow I don't believe that you are interested in this truth ..so enjoy and wallow in your ignorance....I'm glad it reinforces your faith...

Yes I do believe that there was no death prior to the fall of Adam. Because that event caused death to enter the world. That is what the scriptures teach, that is what the Church still teaches. One can "wallow" in their unbelief if that is their desire, but it is not mine. I do not believe the teachings of science has all the answers especially theories that are unprovable (I know there is evidence in the fossil record, but I am not so sure that the interpretations are correct.) It does not keep me up at night worrying that I do not subscribe to the philosopies of men that are beat over our heads in the name of the dogmas of science. I put not my trust in the arm of flesh, but I trust in God and His prophets, seers and revelators. I realize I may seem to be an ignorant fool to you, but I am a fool for Christ's sake and I hope and pray that the TRUTH will be vindicated. But then again for some that day will never come and they would rather perish in the dark than turn to the light. The following is what is currently taught in the Church today:

"When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they were not yet mortal. In this state, “they would have had no children” (2 Nephi 2:23). There was no death. They had physical life because their spirits were housed in physical bodies made from the dust of the earth (see Moses 6:59; Abraham 5:7). They had spiritual life because they were in the presence of God. They had not yet made a choice between good and evil.

God commanded them to have children. He said, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over … every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Moses 2:28). God told them they could freely eat of every tree in the garden except one, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Of that tree God said, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Moses 3:17).

Satan, not knowing the mind of God but seeking to destroy God’s plan, came to Eve in the Garden of Eden. He tempted her to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He assured her that she and Adam would not die, but that they would “be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Moses 4:11). Eve yielded to the temptation and ate the fruit. When Adam learned what had happened, he chose to partake also. The changes that came upon Adam and Eve because they ate the fruit are called the Fall...

Because Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the Lord sent them out of the Garden of Eden into the world. Their physical condition changed as a result of their eating the forbidden fruit. As God had promised, they became mortal. They and their children would experience sickness, pain, and physical death." (Chapter 6: The Fall of Adam and Eve,” Gospel Principles, (2009),26–30)

So I suppose I will have to wear the "badge of ignorance" if that is what it means to believe the foregoing quote. That is what I believe, with regards to Mr. Darwin.

[CASteinman]

It seems that time has been pretty good to the writings of Bruce McConkie. They make up a great deal of the Dictionary found in our award winning Bible, and they are found in Sunday School and institute lessons quite a bit.

That's a pretty good turn around from the 60's when he almost got fired as a GA for some of his writing.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I've been in positions of small authority in the Church. It was a pleasure to serve.

Fortunately or unfortunately I'm a firm believer in the saying that it is to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak thus removing all doubt. Believe me I've made myself appear foolish more times than I like to think about.

[Rivers]

I have recently finished reading The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith by Matthew Bowman. This book has given me a great insight on BRM and JFS's place in Mormon history. I would also recommend this book to anybody who his interested in the church's overall history from Joseph Smith until now.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mormon-People-Making-American/dp/0679644903

Bowman describes three different groups of people in the church's history who attempted to create systematic theology of mormonism. First it was Orson Pratt and Brigham Young who took the scriptures and Joseph Smith's various teachings and created a theology that revolved around polygamy. Next after the ending of polygamy Talmage, Woodsoe, and Roberts created a theology that revolved around progressivism that favored science and scholarship. Later on in the 20th century, BRM and JFS created a theology that was much more conservative. All of these men were simply doing the best they could to make sense of the scriptures and Jospeh Smith's teachings.

I think that it is a mistake to assume that general authorities are supposed to have absolute knowledge of everything. I think that it best to be humble and realize that there is a lot that we just don't know. The church is currently focused on members living the principles of the gospel rather than trying to understand all of the mysteries.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Rivers

[Rivers]

.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Rivers

[SamIam]

Soooo...you believe that there was no death prior to Adams fall 4,000ish BCE?...just like McConkie? Then I'll wear your "Anti-Mormon scum" badge with pride...and by slandering an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ is to merely point out where he was wrong warrents being tagged as an anti-mormon scum...I'll accept that one also...because Bruce R. McConkie simply got it wrong...death has always existed on this earth since the beginning of life itself..billions and billions of years ago. But somehow I don't believe that you are interested in this truth ..so enjoy and wallow in your ignorance....I'm glad it reinforces your faith...

Craig I think that if you would apply a scientist’s perspective to implied conditions that would be intrinsic in an event called "the fall" you would see there is plenty of room even in science to acknowledge the potentials of achieving the dates that science expects within the 6000 years since the fall that theology demands.

IT is within LDS theology to expect that a fall will embrace several factors:

1.) A fall in space ie a literal change in the location of origin to our current location in space.

2.) A fall in Light ie in all of the electromagnetic influences that the scriptures umbrella under the term light.

3.) A fall in quickening ie we fell gradually from an eternal state to a final state of complete mortality.

Each one of these has enough scientific potential to support an interpretation that brings them completely under the banner of God’s creative science. If you think carefully upon these 3 expectations of a fall, clearly what we see in the world in terms of scientific evaluations is potentially resolved. For just one example, for instance, one of the primary facets of dating methods is that we expect constants throughout the history of the earth’s existence. Consider these required assumptions of radiometric dating:

a.) The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same;

b.) The rate of Carbon-14 decay has not altered;

c.) Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14 since its death;

d.) Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed;

f. ) Cosmic ray intensity has not changed.

Each of these assumptions (there are several more, these are just the ones that pertain to what I am writing) is defined within the scientific community. They recognize that if any of these conditions are not met it is going to distort the numbers.

Each of these is required to maintain the standards of interpretation and yet the concept of a fall from a higher state of glory and perfection such as existed in an Edenic state violates every single one of these assumptions. We would expect differing levels of cosmic ray intensity, we would expect, higher levels of c14 contaminations due to fluctuating states of cosmic intensity. We would expect decay rates to be all over the board based on the intensity of the cosmic influences etc etc.

So just for conjectures sake if the decay rate was accelerated because of greater cosmic ray intensity then measured under current laws of physics that we use one would get much exaggerated numbers. However, the numbers are acceptable because to achieve the rate of decay that we detect it might actually require the exact range of time necessary under the conditions we experience in our current state of the laws of physics.

In other words especially during the conditions of the early weeks, months, and first decades, of the falls transitions downward we would expect that the level of decay experienced from higher levels of cosmic exposure to read much higher but they would have occurred in a much shorter range of time.

Now am not positing this is exactly how it all works but what I am saying is that it is a reasonable possibility. If someone believes in God then they can see how God could accomplish the things that we observe in scientific fashion. However, as is the case with you, since you have discounted the existence of a God then there is no amount of reasonable interpretation that might make these differences weigh in the favor of a creational experience. I have researched out every single one of these claims that I point out in this exceptionally brief overview. Science admits to them as possibilities in their own findings. In fact, there is now research debating the exponential factor of the rate of decay formulas that are used to calculate the numbers they are expecting. However, whatever happens to science’s changing perspectives, the closer it moves towards accuracy the more readily it will conform to the standards of the scriptures. However, without a God in your realm of belief there are no arguments to sway you or encourage you to be reasonable enough to properly consider these possibilities.

Edited July 11, 2012 by SamIam

[cinepro]

Each of these is required to maintain the standards of interpretation and yet the concept of a fall from a higher state of glory and perfection such as existed in an Edenic state violates every single one of these assumptions. We would expect differing levels of cosmic ray intensity, we would expect, higher levels of c14 contaminations due to fluctuating states of cosmic intensity. We would expect decay rates to be all over the board based on the intensity of the cosmic influences etc etc.

So just for conjectures sake if the decay rate was accelerated because of greater cosmic ray intensity then measured under current laws of physics that we use one would get much exaggerated numbers. However, the numbers are acceptable because to achieve the rate of decay that we detect it might actually require the exact range of time necessary under the conditions we experience in our current state of the laws of physics.

In other words especially during the conditions of the early weeks, months, and first decades, of the falls transitions downward we would expect that the level of decay experienced from higher levels of cosmic exposure to read much higher but they would have occurred in a much shorter range of time.

I know I've heard that somewhere before...

In sum, the ultimate conditions of uniformity that we observe in the course of nature in our present sphere are severely limited. From the time of the Fall until the end of the Millennium is described as seven thousand years (see D&C 77:6). And while seven thousand years is long in comparison to a human lifetime, from the perspective of eternity (and also from the perspective of modern theories of astronomy or geology), it is extremely short. In seven thousand years, neither stars nor earth nor biological species change enough, according to naturalist principles, to be very significant.

It is therefore helpful to remember, when pondering the millions of years secularists postulate to explain the formation of the earth, that all current geological dating processes are based on the assumption that the present order of nature preceded us and will continue uniformly hereafter. This secularist view also holds that God, if he exists, never has and never will interfere. However, the revelations Latter-day Saints have about the earth and God’s dealings with it simply do not permit us to make those assumptions. As Latter-day Saints we do not throw out the Genesis story—as so many secularists have done—nor do we regard scientists’ honest efforts to learn the truth as the work of the Adversary (though the Adversary does, of course, use those views to fulfill his ends). Instead, we would do better to wait patiently with faith in the scriptures until the Lord fulfills his promise to reveal at the beginning of the Millennium, “things which have passed, … things of the earth, by which it was made,” which, we are assured, will still be part of the “hidden things which no man knew” (D&C 101:32–33). Once the truth is known, all conflicts arising from part truths will vanish. In the meantime, scientists (including many Latter-day Saints) can continue to supply us with helpful knowledge about our present, mortal sphere, or even with ideas about how things might have occurred in the past if the processes under consideration really were uniform over the necessary length of time.

[SamIam]

I know I've heard that somewhere before...

If your implication is that was the origin of my material, you are incorrect. This is strictly the result of my own ponderings. However since all things are established by the mouth of two or three witnesses, then perhaps it takes on greater significance that two individuals completely unaware of the others existance and thoughts upon the matter have arrived at conclusions very similar. I suspect his efforts of scriptural study, pondering and prayer are the principles which unite our common conclusions. Thanks for the link - It has been of concern to me that I wondered if anyone else had observed the possibilities I have observed. Now, I am emboldened to continue to use my material more freely. I think he is nearly spot on with some amazing possibilities - of course how could I think otherwise...

The question is do you see any possibilities along similar lines that you are able to share?

Edited July 11, 2012 by SamIam

[thesometimesaint]

Here's what real scientists say.

[media=]

Edited July 12, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

Here's what real scientists say.

[media=]

"Real" scientists put their clothes on the same as the rest of us. "Real" scientists also have egos and some "Real" scientists over rate the alphabet trailing their name. So pardon me if I only respect their work instead of worshiping at the alter.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

Agreed, and I don't worship them either. However I do agree with Brigham Young "Truth is truth no matter where we find it".

[SamIam]

Here's what real scientists say.

HERE is what more current and accurate REAL scientists say:

In a world of recycled this, and an Inconvenient that, new research has top scientists recanting statements made regarding the Global Warming model and it’s forecasted effects. The new belief: we have no need to worry.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is largely responsible for producing information concerning the grand effects of global warming. But is it information we can trust? Fritz Vahrenholt, a leader on green theory, has concluded much of the IPCC’s reports contain incorrect data. Much of the knowledge circulating from the IPCC headquarters is pulled from previously published articles, not facts on new research performed to test global warming theories.

With no true scientific reports to support the IPCC’s claims that humans are to blame for global warming, where does that leave the public?

In no man’s land. There is officially no scientific data that proves carbon emissions produced by the public are causing harm to the Earth’s climate. Further, Vahrenholt claims that Global Warming models relating to the Earth’s past climate are deeply flawed.

With so much incorrect information remaining inconclusive about the past, it would be foolish to put stock in the IPCC’s model to forecast the future.

http://www.adammesh.com/2012/06/21/global-warming-model-incorrect-leading-scientists-detracts-statements-that-humans-are-to-blame/

Point is they are still working it out. I'm with ErayR - bad rocks to build an alter with.