Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[Rob Osborn]

Again the Church takes no position on evolution. Our Spirit certainly is of divine origin. This mortal body not so much.

Again, the Church does take an official position regarding mans origins. That position is that he did not evolve from a lower order of species.

[Rob Osborn]

...the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters...

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...The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity..https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

 

Edited March 11, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[thesometimesaint]

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].

[Rob Osborn]

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].

The church official position is as I posted. It is the most up to date and thus remains the current position.

[The Nehor]

Don't you mean that you dont believe the churches interprtetation of them?

 

No, no I don't.

[The Nehor]

No, I am just trying to show why Darwinian evolution is incompatable with the doctrine of God.

 

fyi, you are failing miserably.

[Brian 2.0]

You are so wrong. Do yourself a little science experiment and get a large glass jar and place a bunch of different things in it along with differnet chalk dust, clay, etc then mix it all up with water and let it naturally settle and then drain the water off. You will not find "one layer".

And in your "strata" in this experiment you'd see things arranging top to bottom by density. Is that what we find in the fossil record? Animals and plants of similar density in the same strata layers?

Still curious on your answer to this. You've used this "stir up and settle" argument a few times now to explain the layered strata we see, but I don't see how it can make sense given what the strata is actually made up from.

[danielwoods]

Still curious on your answer to this. You've used this "stir up and settle" argument a few times now to explain the layered strata we see, but I don't see how it can make sense given what the strata is actually made up from.

 

 

Maybe this will help.

 

[bcuzbcuz]

Maybe this will help.

 

Just because the narrator speaks with an upper class English accent doesn't mean that he's right.

[thesometimesaint]

The church official position is as I posted. It is the most up to date and thus remains the current position.

 

No it is not.

[bcuzbcuz]

No it is not.

But what if Rob is right and the church opinion is that: Adam is the first human and the earth isn't more than 6000 years old? Just "what if?"

[Rob Osborn]

No it is not.

Yes, it is. They clarified this position in the Ensign article. It is the current and official position.

[Rob Osborn]

But what if Rob is right and the church opinion is that: Adam is the first human and the earth isn't more than 6000 years old? Just "what if?"

It would mean nothing new as this already is the case.

[Brian 2.0]

But what if Rob is right and the church opinion is that: Adam is the first human and the earth isn't more than 6000 years old? Just "what if?"

This is close. the scriptures and manuals teach Adam is the first human and THE FALL was 6000 years ago. The age of the earth is not tied down to the 6000 year mark and plenty have said its much much older.

[Tacenda]

No, most people who study evolution have an opinion on whether God exists but they are not a hive-mind. Many do think God is mythical. Some don't. However saying God is mythical is not a scientific statement and has nothing to do with evolution unless you are a moron angry at your parents and read Dawkins.

Again, your post is wrong. Stop being wrong all the time.

You can't fault him. He's going off LDS teachings, is he not?

[The Nehor]

You can't fault him. He's going off LDS teachings, is he not?

If you are responding to what I quoted then no. The Church does not teach that those who believe in Darwinian evolution all believe that God is mythical.

I have no problem with people believing in a global flood. My mother and one of my brothers do (my father and my five other siblings do not) and they are rational spiritual people. I do not object to this. I do object to anyone holding this view who consider those who disagree to be apostates. I REALLY object to them using lies masquerading as science to back their positions because that is dangerous. It is tying your faith to lies and that is spiritually dangerous. Doing it to yourself is bad; doing it to others is diabolic.

[Alan]

Just because the narrator speaks with an upper class English accent doesn't mean that he's right.

 

I say.....it certainly does ole' chap.

[bcuzbcuz]

I say.....it certainly does ole' chap.

I bow to your authoritative opinion.

[danielwoods]

Just because the narrator speaks with an upper class English accent doesn't mean that he's right.

 

My goal was to inform the questioner about the flood model. How experimental evidence helps us understand how it could have happened. 

[Rob Osborn]

One thing is for certain, the geologic timescale of mainstream science concerning a lot of the earths geologic events are not in line with our scriptures and doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

My goal was to inform the questioner about the flood model. How experimental evidence helps us understand how it could have happened. 

 

Except that your model has been debunked many times.

[The Nehor]

One thing is for certain, the geologic timescale of mainstream science concerning a lot of the earths geologic events are not in line with our scriptures and doctrine.

If by scriptures and doctrine you mean your interpretation of them (and it is a common one) then yes. I refer to these barnacles that latch on to the scriptures and doctrine to try to explain them as the "traditions of our fathers". The scriptures are ambiguous about those. Some are right; some are not so right.

Also, you have subject/verb disagreement there.

[danielwoods]

Except that your model has been debunked many times.

 

I understand that is your opinion. Fortunately science isn't a club that only allows certain people to enter. Science is a methodology. And as such even creation models use the exact same data your evolutionary ones do. Not only that, they predict many of the "unconformities" that surprise evolutionary believers. 

[Brian 2.0]

Maybe this will help.

 

My goal was to inform the questioner about the flood model. How experimental evidence helps us understand how it could have happened. 

Except that your model has been debunked many times.

 

Thanks for the video.  I'll admit that as a non-believer of a global flood, this video seems to shows some scientific experiments as evidence against the standard geological argument.  Seems compelling evidence for how strata can form simultaneously, and broken up on angles, without the necessity for each strata layer being older than the next.

 

I would be curious to see the counter arguments, especially if what the video is saying is flat out wrong, or the experiments were flawed, etc.

 

Even if these experiments are correct, I find it hard to believe ALL strata formed in this way because the fossil record in the strata is very strong in support of layers forming slowly over time.

[cinepro]

Hey, guess what everybody!  Meridian Magazine has a new article about the flood.

 

http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/14059

 

As I looked at my four year old granddaughter’s coloring book of Bible activities, a good portion of the book and the most interesting activities were about Noah and the flood. I thought what will happen to our little ones if this most central and beloved of Bible histories is declared blatantly false by their respected teachers in schools.   How will our children and grandchildren’s testimonies be affected by those who see it as their scientific duty to classify Noah and the Great Flood as myth and legend?

 

The Great Flood is a miracle from beginning to end.  I believe that we should openly and happily discuss and proclaim all of the scriptures, revelations and reasons that it was a miracle and did in fact occur. The disbelievers think that these evidences just indicate how ridiculous the scriptures are and that the flood could not possibly be the actions of a God of miracles, in Whom they do not believe.

 

And if we do not defend the miracles of the Bible, what will be left of our churches and our faith? It will all be relegated to myth and legend, from the Creation to the Great Flood to the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea to the Atonement and the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Good stuff!