What The Church Dna Essay Teaches Us

[Opinion Slayer]

"The age of the earth is a completely different subject than the global flood" 

 

Some church manuals say that there was no death before the fall, but Elder Talmage, Elder Widtsoe, and Henry Eyring disagree. I think that in the near future, some apostles will say that science contradicts the Global Flood, just like some have for the "No death before the Fall" theory. 

 

Church manuals are not official church declarations, read the Mormon Doctrine topic that I created. 

"I think that in the near future, some apostles will say that science contradicts the Global Flood..." I don't care what you think. I care about what the prophets teach and they teach the global flood. 

 

"Church manuals are not official church declarations..." Really? What are they then a suggestion that the first presidency and Quorum came up with? LOL you are one funny individual...  

[Opinion Slayer]

"Church manuals are not official church declarations..." Really? What are they then a suggestion that the first presidency and Quorum came up with? LOL you are one funny individual...  

Let me make a distinguishment for you since you having such a hard time. When I said church manual I specifically meant Institute manual which is directly approved and put together by the first presidency and quorum of the 12 as correctly stated earlier. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

I specifically meant Institute manual which is directly approved and put together by the first presidency and quorum of the 12 as correctly stated earlier. 

 

The institute manual says

 

"There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it,"

 

The manual also quotes President Smith 

“… Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141–42.)

[Opinion Slayer]

The institute manual says

 

"There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it,"

 

The manual also quotes President Smith 

“… Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141–42.)

I don't understand why you keep bringing up this subject when I'm talking about the global flood which you still refuse to accept even though prophet after prophet has testified of it in the scriptures and Latter-Days. And if you are going to use a reference about the institute manual show the reference page, chapter and link like I have so people can see the whole picture instead of just throwing stuff up there.

 

I also find it funny how you and thesometimesaint continue to use references from sources that you don't believe in (Since it's not approved by the first presidency with a certified signature) to make your point like doctrines of salvation when it suits your opinion, LOL. I'll tell you what, why don't you find me how many prophets deny the global flood and earth being baptized by immersion with printed references and lets see how you chips stack up? If you want to have a discussion on the age of the earth or no death before the fall start a new thread! 

[cdowis]

The institute manual says

 

"There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it,"

 

There are those who disagree with this particular understanding or interpretation of the scriptural account of the creation, and goes beyond actual LDS doctrine.  

 

Just curious, what did the manuals say about BOM geography and whether there "others" living there when Lehi landed.

 

The manual also quotes President Smith 

“… Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141–42.)

 

I am prepared to find a nuance in the doctrine that there was no death before Adam, namely that there was death on earth during the five days of the process of creation, and death was then suspended during the Garden of Eden stage of the creation, on the sixth day when Adam was created.  

 

I am willing to concede that this may be in contradiction of official doctrine, and propose this as a working hypotheses.  But I feel, like BOM geography, that this is a matter of factual investigation and research, rather than as doctrine.  It is a factual issue whether or not death was involved in the creation process.

Edited May 11, 2014 by cdowis

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

I also find it funny how you and thesometimesaint continue to use references from sources that you don't believe in (Since it's not approved by the first presidency with a certified signature) to make your point like doctrines of salvation when it suits your opinion, LOL. I'll tell you what, why don't you find me how many prophets deny the global flood and earth being baptized by immersion with printed references and lets see how you chips stack up? If you want to have a discussion on the age of the earth or no death before the fall start a new thread! 

 

"'ll tell you what, why don't you find me how many prophets deny the global flood"

Not yet, not in pubic at least, but I am optimistic that there will be another Talmage soon. That is my point. 

Some church manuals said there was no Death before the Fall, but Elder Talmage said that idea is not church doctrine. 

 

"earth being baptized by immersion"

The Gospel topic article says it was a symbol, was Noah the Christ? No. Noah was a symbol. 

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

[thesometimesaint]

While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77–79), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable.

 

If you don't want to believe in the doctrine in the manuals approved by the first presidency and Quorum of the 12 that's your problem not mine. It doesn't change the fact that the church teaches it and endorses it.

 

It doesn't endorse your interpretation of it.

 

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 soul 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, April 7, 1931].

WILLIAM E. EVENSON

[Rob Osborn]

It doesn't endorse your interpretation of it.

 

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 soul 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, April 7, 1931].

WILLIAM E. EVENSON

But its the 1909 statement that is currently the official position of the church which states that man s not the product of evolution from the animal kingdom. Just as long as we keep that in mind we are all good.

[thesometimesaint]

But its the 1909 statement that is currently the official position of the church which states that man s not the product of evolution from the animal kingdom. Just as long as we keep that in mind we are all good.

 

Then what do we do with the 1931 statement of official position?

[Rob Osborn]

Then what do we do with the 1931 statement of official position?

Doesn't mean a whole lot when in 2002 the Church first presidency established that its the 1909 statement that is our official church doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

Doesn't mean a whole lot when in 2002 the Church first presidency established that its the 1909 statement that is our official church doctrine.

 

Incorrect a repeating of the 1909 statement is just a repeat. Further more to the point we(they) all agree that we are the children of God.

[Rob Osborn]

Incorrect a repeating of the 1909 statement is just a repeat. Further more to the point we(they) all agree that we are the children of God.

If you and I both agree then that Adam and Eve are the literal lineage of God then we have no problem. This is what the 1909 statement says. Thus are we in agreement?

[thesometimesaint]

If you and I both agree then that Adam and Eve are the literal lineage of God then we have no problem. This is what the 1909 statement says. Thus are we in agreement?

 

We are agreed in both statements that Adam and Eve are the literal lineage of God . Where we disagree is the process by which God did it. It is asking what was man before he was a man. The scriptures are of no help because they don't mention it, Science is of no help there either because man has always been man as is each species on this planet. Every living thing has a common ancestor. IE; Chickens have always been chickens thought they are descendents of the dinosaurs. The problem comes when we try to conflate the two. We really don't know enough about either to do that YET. Though someday I hope I know everything about both.

[Rob Osborn]

We are agreed in both statements that Adam and Eve are the literal lineage of God . Where we disagree is the process by which God did it. It is asking what was man before he was a man. The scriptures are of no help because they don't mention it, Science is of no help there either because man has always been man as is each species on this planet. Every living thing has a common ancestor. IE; Chickens have always been chickens thought they are descendents of the dinosaurs. The problem comes when we try to conflate the two. We really don't know enough about either to do that YET. Though someday I hope I know everything about both.

The scriptures trace the lineage of man directly to God with Adam being listed as the son of God. Besides that, Adam is made in God's image and also we are the very "seed" of God in the physical sense. Not sure how the scriptures could be more clear.

[ERayR]

We are agreed in both statements that Adam and Eve are the literal lineage of God . Where we disagree is the process by which God did it. It is asking what was man before he was a man. The scriptures are of no help because they don't mention it, Science is of no help there either because man has always been man as is each species on this planet. Every living thing has a common ancestor. IE; Chickens have always been chickens thought they are descendents of the dinosaurs. The problem comes when we try to conflate the two. We really don't know enough about either to do that YET. Though someday I hope I know everything about both.

 

I agree except the part about common ancestor.  I lean toward some form of Brigham Youngs view that man was transplanted from one of God's other creations.  Timeline, etc is still up for debate.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree except the part about common ancestor.  I lean toward some form of Brigham Youngs view that man was transplanted from one of God's other creations.  Timeline, etc is still up for debate.

 

Genetics disagrees.

 

Not too sure we should accept everything Brigham Young said as binding on the Church. IE; According to Brigham Young man is on the sun.

 

In any event to me, How God did it is less important to my Salvation than Why.

Edited May 12, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

Genetics disagrees.

 

Not too sure we should accept everything Brigham Young said as binding on the Church. IE; According to Brigham Young man is on the sun.

 

In any event to me, How God did it is less important to my Salvation than Why.

 

I am supposed to accept genetics as infallible?  I think I will wait on that one. 

 

Good grief the man had to be right sometimes.

 

Agreed.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I am supposed to accept genetics as infallible?  I think I will wait on that one. 

 

Good grief the man had to be right sometimes.

 

Agreed.

 

The theory that the sun is the center of the solar system is not infallible, but you will not look good if you say the Earth is the center of the solar system in Sunday school. 

 

Or if you say that the theory of gravity is of the devil. 

[ERayR]

The theory that the sun is the center of the solar system is not infallible, but you will not look good if you say the Earth is the center of the solar system in Sunday school. 

 

Or if you say that the theory of gravity is of the devil. 

 

You and a couple of others have a habit of thrusting forth scientific concepts that no one disagrees with as examples and proudly asserting that since no one disagrees with this concept then all scientific assertions must be accurate.  It reminds me of an old adage: Figures don't lie but liars do figure. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

You and a couple of others have a habit of thrusting forth scientific concepts that no one disagrees with as examples and proudly asserting that since no one disagrees with this concept then all scientific assertions must be accurate.  It reminds me of an old adage: Figures don't lie but liars do figure. 

 

Actually, there are people that still believe the Earth is flat.

There are people (even a scientist) that believes smoking does not cause cancer. 

Some people believe the universe is only 10 thousand years old, including a astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle. 

 

Denying Evolution, is like denying that the sun is the center of the solar system, because of the scientific evidence. 

and please see the video. 

[ERayR]

Actually, there are people that still believe the Earth is flat.

There are people (even a scientist) that believes smoking does not cause cancer. 

Some people believe the universe is only 10 thousand years old, including a astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle. 

 

Denying Evolution, is like denying that the sun is the center of the solar system, because of the scientific evidence. 

and please see the video. 

 

You just can't help yourself can you? 

 

OK so hear it is CFR that Denying Evolution, is like denying that the sun is the center of the solar system,

 

You and a couple of others are arrogant enough to think that anybody who does not wholly believe your view are ignorant of the science.  You ridicule and bully by insinuating they are flat earthers, etc. 

 

Come on there is room for others to entertain intelligent views other than your own.  This goes for extremists from both the science club and the Bible club.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

Come on there is room for others to entertain intelligent views other than your own.  This goes for extremists from both the science club and the Bible club.

 

Yes, I am open minded, I used to believe the Earth was young and I used to think that Evolution was a lie. 

I used to be a fan of AnswersinGenesis website. 

There is room for other views, some of my views may be wrong, I am open minded. 

 

But the scientific evidence for Evolution is powerful, just like the scientific evidence that the sun is the center of the solar system is powerful. Maybe Evolution did not happen and the sun is not the center of the solar system. 

 

I am not mocking anyone, flat earthers believe their view is reasonable, just like you believe your views are reasonable. Maybe your both right. 

 

So why are you not open about the idea that our known universe was created about 10,000 years ago? 

Edited May 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

Yes, I am open minded, I used to believe the Earth was young and I used to think that Evolution was a lie. 

There is room for other views, some of my views may be wrong, I am open minded. 

 

But the scientific evidence for Evolution is powerful, just like the scientific evidence that the sun is the center of the solar system is powerful. Maybe Evolution did not happen and the sun is not the center of the solar system. 

 

I am not mocking anyone, flat earthers believe their view is reasonable, just like you believe your views are reasonable. Maybe your both right. 

 

You seem to have the impression that all who disagree with macro-evolution believe in a young earth. 

 

You make ridiculous and rigid comparisons.There is room for macro-evolution to be in error and the sun to still be the center of the solar system.  One has no effect on the other but you seem to think that if macro-evolution is incorrect the sun will some how be displaced as the center of the solar system.  Fear not grasshopper whatever happens in the realm of macro-evolution will not displace the sun. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

You seem to have the impression that all who disagree with macro-evolution believe in a young earth. 

 

No, I am not saying that, I was simply making a comparison.

 

There are a lot of old earth creationist that don't believe in Evolution and there are some young earth creationist that believe in Evolution. 

 

I used to be a young Earth creationist and anti-evolution, but most LDS are old earth creationist. 

 

Why are you not open about the idea that our known universe was created about 10,000 years ago?

Answer that please. 

Edited May 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

No, I am not saying that, I was simply making a comparison.

 

There are a lot of old earth creationist that don't believe in Evolution and there are some young earth creationist that believe in Evolution. 

 

I used to be a young Earth creationist and anti-evolution, but most LDS are old earth creationist. 

 

Why are you not open about the idea that our known universe was created about 10,000 years ago?

Answer that please. 

 

For me it doesn't make any difference but Joseph Smith seemed to think the earth was old.  As reported by WW Phelps:

 

 

Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years…