emarkp Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 Gravity is a fact. The explanation of that fact is a theory. No, things falling towards each other are facts. They are observed events. The theory of Gravity is model by which we can predict how things fall with high degree of both accuracy and precision.
thesometimesaint Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 No, things falling towards each other are facts. They are observed events. The theory of Gravity is model by which we can predict how things fall with high degree of both accuracy and precision. All physical objects have gravity, and it has little to nothing to with falling. IE; Pick up two rocks. They both are attracted two each other relative to mass. They are also attracted to the earth also relative to their mass. Because the earth has so much more mass than any two rocks that you can pick up. It is said that they fall well released. When in fact they are attracked to each other. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G72EyOg2HY
cdowis Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 He took a backhanded stab at Evolution in a recent Conference. He also was corrected by his junior companion on the subject during an interview: Notice Nelson's "Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys." argument. It shows he knew very little, if anything, about Evolution at the time. May I suggest he knows exactly what evolution is. One can know and understand evolution, but reject the theory of common ancestry (sometimes called macro-evolution). Apparently you are unable to wrap your mind around the concept that an intelligent, educated person is able to do that. "He is ignorant" is your only recourse.
thesometimesaint Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 May I suggest he knows exactly what evolution is. One can know and understand evolution, but reject the theory of common ancestry (sometimes called macro-evolution). Apparently you are unable to wrap your mind around the concept that an intelligent, educated person is able to do that. "He is ignorant" is your only recourse. May I suggest that if he truly knows and understands evolution he has presented not evidence for such.
cdowis Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 >May I suggest that if he truly knows and understands evolution he has presented not evidence for such. I am sure that he has his weaknesses and failings, but I don't think that is one of them.
thesometimesaint Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 >May I suggest that if he truly knows and understands evolution he has presented not evidence for such. I am sure that he has his weaknesses and failings, but I don't think that is one of them. We all have our weeknesses and failings. I promise that if you don't hold mine against me. I won't hold yours against you. I greatly admire president Nelson. May he live long and prosper. I honestly don't know what if anything he knows about evolution. All I can go on is what he has said. I can see him possibly agreeing with Theistic Evolution, but not Atheistic Evolution.
Lachoneus Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 May I suggest that if he truly knows and understands evolution he has presented not evidence for such. When you use the word "evolution" are you speaking of macroevolution, microevolution or both?
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 Elder Nelsen is not a scientist of evolution, but of the body. Either way I look to him for spiritual guidance as an Apostle of The Lord Jesus Christ. If he is using the Church as a forum for anything else he is not fulfilling his calling to aid me and glorify God.
thesometimesaint Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 When you use the word "evolution" are you speaking of macroevolution, microevolution or both? It is all evolution.
cinepro Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 (edited) Elder Nelsen is not a scientist of evolution, but of the body. Either way I look to him for spiritual guidance as an Apostle of The Lord Jesus Christ. If he is using the Church as a forum for anything else he is not fulfilling his calling to aid me and glorify God. So, do you agree with President Benson's claim regarding the following, and if Elder Nelson became the Prophet one day and said the same things he's said as an apostle, would that change anything? Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject. We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing. http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng Edited September 20, 2013 by cinepro
Rivers Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 What are you supposed to do when there is a conflict between the words of two different prophets?
Bikeemikey Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 What are you supposed to do when there is a conflict between the words of two different prophets? Ask them to fight... First blood would not be an unreasonable expectation. Or are you meaning prophets within the same religion? 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 So, do you agree with President Benson's claim regarding the following, and if Elder Nelson became the Prophet one day and said the same things he's said as an apostle, would that change anything?I think too many are still angry at President Benson and his politics, ( he saw American values as compliant with the majority of Church values) I will accept any of those 15 men as Prophets. Not sure how you comment addresses mine, not need to beat around the bush, I can take whatever you are trying to imply.
Calm Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Ask them to fight... First blood would not be an unreasonable expectation. Or are you meaning prophets within the same religion?Your suggestion could still work....except that some have stated that resurrected bodies don't have blood.
cdowis Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 What are you supposed to do when there is a conflict between the words of two different prophets? Accept the fact that prophets can disagree with each other on such fundamental doctrines as BOM geography.
thesometimesaint Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 So, do you agree with President Benson's claim regarding the following, and if Elder Nelson became the Prophet one day and said the same things he's said as an apostle, would that change anything?I disagree with some of the interpretations of President Benson's claim.
thesometimesaint Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Accept the fact that prophets can disagree with each other on such fundamental doctrines as BOM geography. Unless there is uninimity it isn't doctrine.
Billy the Law Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Unless there is uninimity it isn't doctrine.I don't want to sound smug, but shouldn't doctrine be based on what's true and not what is decided. I understand that counseling can lead to an understanding of truth, but I don't think it's the deciding factor.
thesometimesaint Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) I don't want to sound smug, but shouldn't doctrine be based on what's true and not what is decided. I understand that counseling can lead to an understanding of truth, but I don't think it's the deciding factor. We have a long establish method of determining what is doctrine for the Church. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine 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. Edited September 23, 2013 by thesometimesaint
Questing Beast Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 If that is the method by which "truth" or doctrine is established, shouldn't we go with the organization that has the longest experience doing it that way? Why reinvent the "wheel"? That would be the RCC, if we allow that all offshoots are apostate. Or, we can just allow that all religions are in the same boat where establishing their doctrines are concerned, and go with the one that suits your present mood/mode best....
omni Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 So, do you agree with President Benson's claim regarding the following, and if Elder Nelson became the Prophet one day and said the same things he's said as an apostle, would that change anything? Remember Cinepro, apostles are prophets. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.
omni Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 We have a long establish method of determining what is doctrine for the Church. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine 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. Long established? Didn't the church newsroom just come out with this a few years ago? I wonder if Brigham Young would agree with the newroom's statement. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.-Brigham Young
thesometimesaint Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 If that is the method by which "truth" or doctrine is established, shouldn't we go with the organization that has the longest experience doing it that way? Why reinvent the "wheel"? That would be the RCC, if we allow that all offshoots are apostate. Or, we can just allow that all religions are in the same boat where establishing their doctrines are concerned, and go with the one that suits your present mood/mode best.... Not necessarily. No need to re-invent the wheel as long as there are wheels to take an example from. It also has to fit within the circumstances of the given population. IE; The steam engine was invented in ancient Greece, but they had no readily apparant use for it(They has lots of human slaves). So it disappeared for nearly another 2000 years. From the LDS perspective the Church, of ancient times, disappeared centuries before the RCC came into existence. All religions are in the same boat as to what they consider doctrine. Why else would there be some 40,000 different Christian religions in the US alone. SEE Article of Faith 11 # We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
thesometimesaint Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Long established? Didn't the church newsroom just come out with this a few years ago? I wonder if Brigham Young would agree with the newroom's statement. See Common Consent.http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng Every hear of Cherry Picking?
cinepro Posted September 24, 2013 Posted September 24, 2013 Remember Cinepro, apostles are prophets. President Benson's "14 Fundamentals" only apply to the man who is the Prophet, not all the men who are sustained as "prophets". See: the first fundamental.
Recommended Posts