Stone holm Posted November 3, 2014 Author Posted November 3, 2014 3DOP , the "magic wand" reference was solely to creation and the big bang -- don't think there was any reference to the sacraments. I believe he was suggesting that God worked through natural and scientific laws, as opposed to some kind of "poof" and there it was sort of thing. Not good at posting links to the articles about his statements, or I would -- but I think it was pretty clear he was suggesting that neither evolution nor the big bang theories negated the involvement of God. That would bring his position in closer harmony with Mormonism, as the early prophets have more or less suggested that something like what sci-fi enthusiasts would call "terra-forming" was how things were done, not necessarily with special words. Although, God can and most likely did command the elements in the process, which is consistent with our belief that the elements (matter) were already there. As to the Big Bang, I am not sure that it really explains anything ultimately because no one has been able to explain what happened before the Big Bang. My personal, probably completely unwarranted belief is that the Big Bang or whatever you want to call it happened prior to Heavenly Father becoming Heavenly Father because Kolob obviously already existed.
ERayR Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 I'm of the feeling lately that evolution is so well established that we need to adjust our understanding or interpretation of theology to gibe with that. The other way around doesn't work, unless we can accept that the best of observable science is somehow a lie or fabrication. I think resistance to evolution, at least for me as I used to think of it, is based on a lot of faulty assumptions, or taking some scriptures literally that are meant to be poetic. But I think our theology in particular is well-suited to embrace evolution and gain further insight about creation and existence based on that model. Did you factor in the concept of the fall? Fall indicates a decent, macro-evolution teaches a constant ascent. Once you have negated the fall you have also negated the atonement.
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) . Edited November 3, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Grudunza Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 Did you factor in the concept of the fall? Fall indicates a decent, macro-evolution teaches a constant ascent. Once you have negated the fall you have also negated the atonement. You're ascribing something spiritual onto something physical. A person (or species) can grow physically stronger while growing spiritually weaker. And if the creation story is poetic/allegorical and not to be taken literally, then it doesn't matter, regardless... We are all Adams and Eves (though there still could have been a literal one of each to begin the human family), and spiritually we all fall and need the atonement. The process by which we arrived to be humans, physically, does not preclude that need. 1
Stone holm Posted November 3, 2014 Author Posted November 3, 2014 I didn't get the impression that Brigham Young was all in to the metaphorical bit when he took on the Creation Myth. 1
Rob Osborn Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 Its kind of funny that the Pope states God isnt waving a magic wand and thats why we should believe in evolution but in so doing, he forces God to use a magic wand!
why me Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 The pope is attempting to move the church into the 21st century by attempting to make it more appealing to the secular world. It was my impression that the pope was very conservative when he was a young priest but he changed course later in life because of a spirtual crisis. What is clear now is that Bergoglio emerged from that spiritual crisis an utterly different man. He had had a profound conversion that reconfigured his understanding of the way God wanted him to behave. He developed a new model of leadership, one which involved listening, participation and collegiality. When he arrived at his next job, as an assistant bishop in Buenos Aires, the old Bergoglio had vanished. He had transmuted from an authoritarian reactionary into the figure of radical humility who is today turning the Vatican upside down. http://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/31/crisis-changed-pope-francis-279303.html The pope has a definite agenda and it seems that his PR team knew that in order to get his program to succeed he would need the media on his side. He has done a wonderful job in getting the media to see him in a positive way. As the pope begins to change the catholic church from within the conservatives in the church will find it very difficult to oppose him. The secular world is on his side.
Stone holm Posted November 4, 2014 Author Posted November 4, 2014 There is this really odd thing that I have never understood, why is it when you actually teach the teachings of Christ the secular world stands, listens and applauds; but if you go off on a reactionary conservative rant the "religious" world stands, absorbs, and applauds. So strange.
why me Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 (edited) There is this really odd thing that I have never understood, why is it when you actually teach the teachings of Christ the secular world stands, listens and applauds; but if you go off on a reactionary conservative rant the "religious" world stands, absorbs, and applauds. So strange.The secular world applauds when the catholic church seems to be in line with secular values and understandings as pope francis seems to advocate. It does't applaud when it attempts to uphold conservative moral values. Pope Benedict did not get much applause in the media when he was pope. Pope Francis has been very smart in getting the media on his side. He has had wonderful photo moments in the media. I don't think that it was all accidental that it was so. Edited November 4, 2014 by why me
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 The secular world applauds when the catholic church seems to be in line with secular values and understandings What secular moral values? The Pope is still against same sex marriage, abortion, and other sins. Science is not philosophy.
Teancum Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 You didn't address this question to me, but try me anyway. I believe I have made a good case for Evolution within an LDS doctrinal context on the Creation in my previous post above. Is there anything you think I've missed? Over the decades, I believe I've nailed it down, but I am always looking for my hypothesis to be tested; perhaps I'll be confident enough to publish it one day. First man? First flesh? 1909 statement? I believe I can address those doctrinally as well.What about say the aboriginal population of Australian who have been there for at least 50,000 years? Whose descendants are they! Do they not have spirits thqt are children if God? Is it your position that not alll humans living today descended from Adam and Eve? Mid yes how does that fold into LDS doctrine!
thesometimesaint Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 We don't know the mechanisms involved.
thesometimesaint Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Its kind of funny that the Pope states God isnt waving a magic wand and thats why we should believe in evolution but in so doing, he forces God to use a magic wand! Neither the Big Bang nor Evolution involves a magic wand.
BCSpace Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) What about say the aboriginal population of Australian who have been there for at least 50,000 years? Whose descendants are they! Mitochondrial Eve. Same as everyone else. Do they not have spirits that are children if God? Yes they do. In this case, it's just a matter of detail. Did the Fall trigger children of God being born to everyone? Was it interbreeding after the Fall that caused that. Local Garden/Global Garden state? There are plenty of options to choose from. Is it your position that not all humans living today descended from Adam and Eve? That can work in the context of LDS doctrine and my hypothesis; an MCRA (most recent common ancestor) or an Identical Ancestors Point type of answer will work as both are or can be after a traditional Fall date of 4000 B.C. My own Fall date assumption (circa 8000 B.C.) of course would fit even better. Aborigines fit in this time frame as well. The answer could also be more spiritual/metaphorical as Adam and Eve were the first children of God to Fall and become mortal, the adopted (at the very least if not literal) heads of the human family of God. Edited November 5, 2014 by BCSpace
Rob Osborn Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Neither the Big Bang nor Evolution involves a magic wand. It does when you throw God in there. Did you miss the entire point I made? Obviously you did.
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 It does when you throw God in there. Did you miss the entire point I made? Obviously you did. Yes, so you now believe that God used Evolution to create humans and animals?
why me Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) What secular moral values? The Pope is still against same sex marriage, abortion, and other sins. Science is not philosophy. The way the media has interpreted his comments puts him in line with secular values. The media sees him as being friendly with various gay issues within the church. He seems to come across with more understanding toward divorced catholics, and with contraception. Also, how the media interpreted his comments about hell etc. At this moment there is a division within the church between the liberal and conservative wing. The liberal wing seems to wish the church to be closer to the secular world. The conservatives, however, still seem to believe in catholic exceptionalism, for example, not being of the world and yet, in the world. His comments about the big bang seem to reflect the ideas of Richard Dawkins and other scientific atheists, regardless if the pope uses god's love to describe it. Edited November 5, 2014 by why me
katherine the great Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 They were more like our 2nd cousins 3 times removed. Closely related but not descendent. But recent nuclear DNA studies show that non Africans are descendants. 1
ERayR Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 2 Timothy 3:7King James Version (KJV)7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Rob Osborn Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Yes, so you now believe that God used Evolution to create humans and animals? No, I dont believe God waved his magic wand over the earth and suddenly life sprang up and evolved as some here tend to think.
thesometimesaint Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) It does when you throw God in there. Did you miss the entire point I made? Obviously you did. I have no problem with God using Evolution in the Creation of us and our world/universe. Evolution works.SEE http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/invasive-species-trigger-rapid-evolution-for-lizards-in-florida/ Edited November 5, 2014 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 No, I dont believe God waved his magic wand over the earth and suddenly life sprang up and evolved as some here tend to think. Exactly what processes did he use then?
thesometimesaint Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 But recent nuclear DNA studies show that non Africans are descendants. I don't understand that statement, please clarify.
Stone holm Posted November 5, 2014 Author Posted November 5, 2014 Why Me , are you using secular and humanist values as synonymous? When using the word "secular" it is better, I believe to use secular reasons. Many humanist values and religious values overlap, and there are conservative religious moral values and other religious moral values. I have a hard time view Christ as a conservative -- at least in the time when he ministered in mortality, he was definitely not a conservative as he went against the conservative religious establishment at just about every turn whether it was attacking privileges, attacking over accumulation of wealth, attacking snobbery, attacking overly rigid interpretation of the Sabbath which was the most frequent violation He was accused of, and taking a whip to those who would commercialize religion, and establishing separation of Church and State.
Calm Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 (edited) I don't understand that statement, please clarify.https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/When our ancestors first migrated out of Africa around 60,000 years ago, they were not alone. At that time, at least two other species of hominid cousins walked the Eurasian landmass—Neanderthals and Denisovans. As our modern human ancestors migrated through Eurasia, they encountered the Neanderthals and interbred. Because of this, a small amount of Neanderthal DNA was introduced into the modern human gene pool.Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia. Edited November 6, 2014 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts