What The Church Dna Essay Teaches Us

[MormonFreeThinker]

We can learn from the new church essay that 

 

1. God did not change the Native American DNA 

2. We should embrace science, even if it contradicts our assumptions. 

3. God is not a God who makes the world appear to be something else. 

4. God does not magically hide all the evidence. 

5. Science buried Hemispheric Geography Theory. 

6. It is okay to change our interpretations to reconcile  science and religion.  

7. Not all church publications are 100% correct. In church publications, only the scriptures and official statements are official doctrine. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

In my opinion, the Hemispheric Geography Theory is just as bad as the Global Flood Theory, the No Death before the Fall Theory, and the No animal evolution theory. 

 

There is room for reasonable faith because we now have better theories like the limited geography theory and local Flood theory. There are still some problems, but at least not that many. 

 

It is true that non-mormon archaeologists don't believe in the Book of Mormon, but almost all Mormon scholars believe in a limited geography. 

 

No serious geologist and paleontologist believes in a Global Flood, only extremely few religious fundamentalist scientists believe it. Most religious scientists prefer the local flood theory.  That is the difference. 

 

I think the Global Flood theory is not official church doctrine. 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

Elder Talmage -  "the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church." 

James Edward Talmage, Personal Journal (7 April 1931) 29:42, Archives and Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah

 

Henry Eyring - "The radioactive clocks, together with the orderly way many sediments containing fossils are laid down, prove that the earth is billions of years old.In my judgment, anyone who denies this orderly deposition of sediments with their built in radioactive clocks places himself in a scientifically untenable position. Actually the antiquity of the earth was no problem for one of our greatest Latter-day Saints and leaders and scientists, Brother John A. Widtsoe (see Evidences and Reconciliations, Volume I). It also offers not the slightest difficulty to me and to most of my scientific LDS friends...The concern of most LDS scientists is as to what extent President Smith's interpretations must replace those of Brother Talmage and of Brother Widtsoe where they fail to agree with President Smith"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Evolution/Eyring_Bennion_Letter

 

Edited May 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

We can learn from the new church essay that 

 

1. God did not just magically change the Native American DNA 

2. We should embrace science, even if it contradicts our assumptions. 

3. God is not a God who makes the world appear to be something else. 

4. God does not magically hide all the evidence. 

5. Science buried Hemispheric Geography Theory. 

 

In my opinion, the Hemispheric Geography Theory is just as bad as the Global Flood Theory, the No Death before the Fall Theory, and the No animal evolution theory. 

 

There is room for reasonable faith because we now have better theories like the limited geography theory and local Flood theory. There are still some problems, but at least not that many. 

 

It is true that non-mormon archaeologists don't believe in the Book of Mormon, but almost all Mormon scholars believe in a limited geography. 

 

No serious geologist and paleontologist believes in a Global Flood, only extremely few religious fundamentalist scientists believe it. Most religious scientists prefer the local flood theory.  That is the difference. 

 

I think the Global Flood theory is not official church doctrine. 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

Elder Talmage -  "the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church." 

James Edward Talmage, Personal Journal (7 April 1931) 29:42, Archives and Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah

 

Henry Eyring - "The radioactive clocks, together with the orderly way many sediments containing fossils are laid down, prove that the earth is billions of years old.In my judgment, anyone who denies this orderly deposition of sediments with their built in radioactive clocks places himself in a scientifically untenable position. Actually the antiquity of the earth was no problem for one of our greatest Latter-day Saints and leaders and scientists, Brother John A. Widtsoe (see Evidences and Reconciliations, Volume I). It also offers not the slightest difficulty to me and to most of my scientific LDS friends...The concern of most LDS scientists is as to what extent President Smith's interpretations must replace those of Brother Talmage and of Brother Widtsoe where they fail to agree with President Smith"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Evolution/Eyring_Bennion_Letter

 

Really? Another post about the same thing over and over and over again? Why don't we just agree that you see things different and be done with the same ol arguments over and over and over again. What is there to prove anyway?

[Tiki]

Really? Another post about the same thing over and over and over again? Why don't we just agree that you see things different and be done with the same ol arguments over and over and over again. What is there to prove anyway?[/]

--

Edited May 7, 2014 by Tiki

[SamIam]

Frankly, while I realize this answer will not be popular with a science priority mindset, I will suggest the following. Stating also that in many ways I am willing to consider upon aspects of the scientific paradigm but only to the point that I do not subject my theology to scientific theory.  

 

My perspective comes from the following verse in Ether 2

 

 

 

Ether 2:23 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have ^awindows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.

 

 

There is a symbolic point to be grasped here.  What is the light of fire?  Another way to view it would be to consider that in the Brother of Jared's time it was the light of men that they used to see anything that resided in darkness.  It is an analogy for leaning on the arm of men for light and understanding about things beyond their understanding.  To make it to the promised land the Brother of Jared is being instructed that the light of man is an inadequate light to inform him of the truth of how to reach that destination. 

 

We find though that at the veil, the Brother of Jared receives further light and knowledge and thus is provided the illumination that they lacked for their journey to the promised land. 

 

Such is how I view the theories of men to explain things that also do not have clear answers in scripture such as details of the creation etc... I can choose to go by the light of fire of men's best guess in explaining in rational terms things that in spite of our theoretical understanding are still technically inadequately answered overall or since I also do not have adequate answers from the scriptural / prophetic utterance either I can remain true to what I consider the spiritual light leading to the promised land.  Since neither provides actual complete understandings, as we understand it, then the choice we make simply defines the point of comfort of what light we prefer - the light of fire or the light that shines forth in the darkness pointing the way to the promised land.  This to me is a more revealing choice than is often considered.

Edited May 7, 2014 by SamIam

[thesometimesaint]

Frankly, while I realize this answer will not be popular with a science priority mindset, I will suggest the following. Stating also that in many ways I am willing to consider upon aspects of the scientific paradigm but only to the point that I do not subject my theology to scientific theory.  

 

My perspective comes from the following verse in Ether 2

 

 

 

 

 

There is a symbolic point to be grasped here.  What is the light of fire?  Another way to view it would be to consider that in the Brother of Jared's time it was the light of men that they used to see anything that resided in darkness.  It is an analogy for leaning on the arm of men for light and understanding about things beyond their understanding.  To make it to the promised land the Brother of Jared is being instructed that the light of man is an inadequate light to inform him of the truth of how to reach that destination. 

 

We find though that at the veil, the Brother of Jared receives further light and knowledge and thus is provided the illumination that they lacked for their journey to the promised land. 

 

Such is how I view the theories of men to explain things that also do not have clear answers in scripture such as details of the creation etc... I can choose to go by the light of fire of men's best guess in explaining in rational terms things that in spite of our theoretical understanding are still technically inadequately answered overall or since I also do not have adequate answers from the scriptural / prophetic utterance either I can remain true to what I consider the spiritual light leading to the promised land.  Since neither provides actual complete understandings, as we understand it, then the choice we make simply defines the point of comfort of what light we prefer - the light of fire or the light that shines forth in the darkness pointing the way to the promised land.  This to me is a more revealing choice than is often considered.

 

I'm fine with a metaphorical interpretation. But it still leaves open the question as to how did the Jaredite boats artificial light into them? The only answer that makes sense that I know of is "I don't know, but hope to learn it someday".

[MormonFreeThinker]

Really? Another post about the same thing over and over and over again? Why don't we just agree that you see things different and be done with the same ol arguments over and over and over again. What is there to prove anyway?

 

Nothing is this post is relevant for our salvation, but it is very important for our intellectual progress. 

We are members of the true church, but imagine if some members in gospel doctrine class say that gravity is a myth. 

 

Like I said before, anti-science stops intellectual progress, it causes faith crisis to some members, and it doesn't benefit us. Church leaders have told us to embrace scientific truths.  

Edited May 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

Nothing is this post is relevant for our salvation, but it is very important for our intellectual progress. 

We are members of the true church, but imagine if some members in gospel doctrine class say that gravity is a myth. 

 

Like I said before, anti-science stops intellectual progress, it causes faith crisis to some members, and it doesn't benefit us. Church leaders have told us to embrace scientific truths.

I guess what you call "scientific truths" is highly subjective. You see, I see the global flood as a viable scientific truth. The same with man and all life being here no more than 6,000 years is also a viable scientific truth. The hemispheric theory is also a viable scientific truth. Its all subjective.

[thesometimesaint]

I guess what you call "scientific truths" is highly subjective. You see, I see the global flood as a viable scientific truth. The same with man and all life being here no more than 6,000 years is also a viable scientific truth. The hemispheric theory is also a viable scientific truth. Its all subjective.

 

More of your idiosyncratic definitions of words.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I guess what you call "scientific truths" is highly subjective. You see, I see the global flood as a viable scientific truth. The same with man and all life being here no more than 6,000 years is also a viable scientific truth. The hemispheric theory is also a viable scientific truth. Its all subjective.

 

"I see the global flood as a viable scientific truth"

According to who? According to the same people who say the earth and the universe are only thousands of years old? According to the same people that say we are a cult?

 

Is Elder Talmage wrong? Elder Widtsoe? or Henry Eyring?

[thesometimesaint]

"I see the global flood as a viable scientific truth"

According to who? According to the same people who say the earth and the universe are only thousands of years old? According to the same people that say we are a cult?

 

Is Elder Talmage wrong? Elder Widtsoe? or Henry Eyring?

 

According to these people http://gawker.com/watch-creationists-talking-about-creationism-1520841986

 

We are a cult, so is any religious group. But these people tend to think that all cults are the Jim Jones type.

[Opinion Slayer]

"I think the Global Flood theory is not official church doctrine." 

http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

 

You think wrong. There is no partial baptism in this church, only full immersion. The earth was baptized by water and before the Lord returns it will be baptized by fire and it wont be partial either, this whole earth will burn in preparation for it's celestial transformation. The church and it's prophets have repeatedly used the term "Universal" flood over and over again. I repeat in this church if someone is not fully immersed they do it again until they are.  Gen 7:19-20 Explicitly states that all was covered, in January of 1998 the Ensign published The Flood and the Tower of Babel which teaches that the flood was indeed universal by ancient and latter-day prophets (It's pure doctrine).

 

It's depressing that so many members of this church have such a hard time understanding the simple principle of the flood, baptism and it's mechanics. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

"I think the Global Flood theory is not official church doctrine." 

http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

 

You think wrong. There is no partial baptism in this church, only full immersion. The earth was baptized by water and before the Lord returns it will be baptized by fire and it wont be partial either, this whole earth will burn in preparation for it's celestial transformation. The church and it's prophets have repeatedly used the term "Universal" flood over and over again. I repeat in this church if someone is not fully immersed they do it again until they are.  Gen 7:19-20 Explicitly states that all was covered, in January of 1998 the Ensign published The Flood and the Tower of Babel which teaches that the flood was indeed universal by ancient and latter-day prophets (It's pure doctrine).

 

It's depressing that so many members of this church have such a hard time understanding the simple principle of the flood, baptism and it's mechanics. 

 

 

Was Noah Jesus? No, Noah was a symbol. So who (space giant?) grabbed the Earth and submerged it in a baptismal font or a huge space lake? 

 

See the Noah article  

https://www.lds.org/topics/noah?lang=eng

What is the symbolism of Noah and the flood?

God uses symbols to teach gospel truths. In the New Testament, Peter explained that the flood was a “like figure” or symbol of baptism (1 Peter 3:20–21). Just as the earth was immersed in water, so we must be baptized by water and by the Spirit before we can enter the celestial kingdom. Also, Noah himself was a symbol of Christ. It was necessary for any living creature who wished to be saved to come “unto Noah into the ark” (Genesis 7:9, 15). 

 

"Ensign published The Flood and the Tower of Babel"

Waste of time, you did not see the link I posted. Please read this before responding again. 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Edited May 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Opinion Slayer]

Was Noah Jesus? No, Noah was a symbol. So who (space giant?) grabbed the Earth and submerged it in a baptismal font or a huge space lake? 

 

See the Noah article  

https://www.lds.org/topics/noah?lang=eng

What is the symbolism of Noah and the flood?

God uses symbols to teach gospel truths. In the New Testament, Peter explained that the flood was a “like figure” or symbol of baptism (1 Peter 3:20–21). Just as the earth was immersed in water, so we must be baptized by water and by the Spirit before we can enter the celestial kingdom. Also, Noah himself was a symbol of Christ. It was necessary for any living creature who wished to be saved to come “unto Noah into the ark” (Genesis 7:9, 15). 

 

"Ensign published The Flood and the Tower of Babel"

Waste of time, you did not see the link I posted. Please read this before responding again. 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

 "So who (space giant?) grabbed the Earth and submerged it in a baptismal font or a huge space lake?" Who grabbed Adam and emerged him? I guess by your understanding he wasn't baptized either huh.

 

"Waste of time, you did not see the link I posted. Please read this before responding again. " I did read it and it doesn't change the fact that the flood was universal and covered all the land as the scriptures state. It doesn't change that the earth was indeed baptized in preparation for its Celestial form either. 

 

If you wan to believe in a partial flood go right ahead but your wrong. Have a nice day!

[thesometimesaint]

 "So who (space giant?) grabbed the Earth and submerged it in a baptismal font or a huge space lake?" Who grabbed Adam and emerged him? I guess by your understanding he wasn't baptized either huh.

 

"Waste of time, you did not see the link I posted. Please read this before responding again. " I did read it and it doesn't change the fact that the flood was universal and covered all the land as the scriptures state. It doesn't change that the earth was indeed baptized in preparation for its Celestial form either. 

 

If you wan to believe in a partial flood go right ahead but your wrong. Have a nice day!

 

The earth was never baptized at any time during which man has been on it. Theologically we don't baptize inanimate or nonhuman objects. There is no need and doing so makes a mockery of repentance.

 

Church law requires that all doctrine be confirmed by Common Consent. Ensign articles(Universal Flood) do not meet that law.

 

You, like everyone else, are free to believe anything you want. When you teach your ideas as Church doctrine you do error.

 

Whether I or anyone else has a nice day is irrelevant to this discussion.

[Rob Osborn]

More of your idiosyncratic definitions of words.

Don't even get started with the whole atheism agenda.

[halconero]

Really? Another post about the same thing over and over and over again? Why don't we just agree that you see things different and be done with the same ol arguments over and over and over again. What is there to prove anyway?

 

I agree with Rob for once when it comes to an evolution thread.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I agree with Rob for once when it comes to an evolution thread.

 

It's a different topic, and you don't have to read it.

You can go read about how bad Dehlin is or women priesthood stuff.

 

I do realize I am wasting my time.  

[The Nehor]

Really? Another post about the same thing over and over and over again? Why don't we just agree that you see things different and be done with the same ol arguments over and over and over again. What is there to prove anyway?

Well, I can prove you wrong again but that seems to have no real effect. I begin to feel like this guy:

What do you want me to do? Stop? Then he'll keep being wrong!

[thesometimesaint]

Don't even get started with the whole atheism agenda.

 

It was in reference to your claim to your own scientific truths. But now that you do bring it up you do have an idiosyncratic definition of the words Atheist/Atheism.  

[ERayR]

"I see the global flood as a viable scientific truth"

According to who? According to the same people who say the earth and the universe are only thousands of years old? According to the same people that say we are a cult?

 

Is Elder Talmage wrong? Elder Widtsoe? or Henry Eyring?

 

That is the problem.  With what we now have and without hanging on to the extremes at either end the very best we can say is I don't know.

[ERayR]

Nothing is this post is relevant for our salvation, but it is very important for our intellectual progress. 

We are members of the true church, but imagine if some members in gospel doctrine class say that gravity is a myth. 

 

Like I said before, anti-science stops intellectual progress, it causes faith crisis to some members, and it doesn't benefit us. Church leaders have told us to embrace scientific truths.  

 

Being dogmatically unmovable at either end is what is detrimental to ones intellectual progress. 

 

Just because one has a different view does not make one anti-science.  Your habit of labeling anyone who disagrees with your version as anti-science is detrimental to rational discussion. 

[ERayR]

"I see the global flood as a viable scientific truth"

According to who? According to the same people who say the earth and the universe are only thousands of years old? According to the same people that say we are a cult?

 

Is Elder Talmage wrong? Elder Widtsoe? or Henry Eyring?

 

Read for comprehension.  He said "I".  This means himself. 

 

The above mentioned trio are as subject to error as anyone else.

[thesometimesaint]

That is the problem.  With what we now have and without hanging on to the extremes at either end the very best we can say is I don't know.

 

Facts are not extreme. They are just facts. It is entirely fair to say you don't know. Heck there is plenty I don't know. However science is more than just a list of things we don't know. It is the accumulated things we do know from the evidence presented so far. Religious stories whether true or not, can not be considered evidence in science.                        

[ERayR]

It's a different topic, and you don't have to read it.

You can go read about how bad Dehlin is or women priesthood stuff.

 

I do realize I am wasting my time.  

 

Go ahead waste it.  It is yours to waste however, if you don't want to waste go to another thread of log off.

[The Nehor]

Being dogmatically unmovable at either end is what is detrimental to ones intellectual progress. 

One person told me arsenic is poison and can kill you. Another said it is a good addition to a healthy diet.

The truth must lie somewhere in the middle.