Evolving Mormon Doctrine

[Kevin Christensen]

So, a while ago you said I could pick your brain, and now I will. Actually, I am willing to pick anyone's brain that might have some insight.

I appreciate Kevin pointing this out.

I have been trying to wrap my brain around our constant use of the word doctrine in ways that don't seem to reflect the admonition in the scriptures you quoted. Part of me wonders if it is just lazy language usage, or maybe even linguistic evolution. Or do we have some level of ignorance regarding what doctrine is? It is still a concern I have, because if we are being lazy in how we use the word doctrine, and not even noticing that we are, then might we be harming our progress and spiritual evolution? Likewise, if it is linguistic changes that has occurred over time, then don't we still end up watering down the Lord's instruction of what he says is his doctrine? If this mass of what we call "doctrines" aren't really doctrines, then what are they? Lines and precepts? Principles? Is there any other way to express this better, or words we can use that are better? I ask because it is something that has been on my mind often lately. I feel we might (have) become somewhat blasé in observance of what the Lord's doctrine(s) are and the value he places on his doctrine. I just don't know really.

What is interesting is that no matter how often or forcefully someone points this out, the urge to treat everything anyone said in a Big Book of What to Think is somehow either eternal and binding (an excuse for intellectual immobility) or eternally problematic (and therefore a point of leverage from which a person can base their blase skepticism or indignation).

See Midgley here:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1424&index=12

When Jesus comes in 3 Nephi, he calls for the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, which means, if you want to come into my presence, into the Real, into the Holy of Holies at the Temple, you must be willing to let go your desires and be teachable. We must recognize our ignorance and not behave as though God is the one who needs to be taught what is Real.

Some people, by temperament, want to have things all locked down and decided. Read up on the Myers-Briggs Type indicator. There are types that deal with complexity by appealing to tradition and authority figures. Some times the same types can be on the opposite side of a controversy because they appeal to a different tradition and a different set of authority figures. Same method, different starting position.

I work as a technical writer in the computer aided engineering field, in which simulations provide a way to build things spiritually before they are built physically, and in which hierarchy is used as a means for dealing with complexity.

And there are developmental issues. I like the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, a summary of which I have linked on my profile.

Against the claim that evolution somehow stands in an irreconcilable conflict with some static "doctrine" which ignores the formal definition given by the creator of the Earth, consider the possibilities in our own scripture:

"Let the earth be prepared that it might bring forth..." In Before Adam (1980) Nibley points out that the Book of Abraham phrase is "future potential tense." Not "create great whales" on the spot, but initiate a process that takes (until) we have great whales. I notice that the charge for the creations to reproduce after their own kind is described as involving creatures who are "very obedient" which means "variation" is not only possible, but one way in which the variety that gives beauty to creation obviously comes about.

How do you build a world in six days? Barker points out that the erection of the tabernacle follows the same pattern as Genesis (see Temple Theology and Nibley "Abraham's Temple Drama) and that the tabernacle is a temple, and a model of creation as a whole. It's a symbol. It uses abstractions to represent other things, and some things does not address at all, not because they do not exist, but because they are outside of its instructional purpose and design.

Why suppose that the Garden, whatever that is, and where ever it was, was global? What happens outside the garden? What happens before? One of the things that defines a garden is a boundary. If you treat the garden as an unbounded absolute, rather than as dramatic device used to teach some ideas about the human experience, you can create pointless trouble for yourself.

"Creeds" Joseph Smith says, "Set up stakes and bounds to the work of the almighty. I want to come into the presence of God, but creeds say, 'Hitherto thou shalt come and no further." The definition of "doctrine" that Jesus provides encourages us to go as far as we want. Popular misuse tries to set up stakes and create conflict and tension where there ought not to be.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited December 3, 2015 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[ksfisher]

Because women are too limited to be able to spiritually grow in other ways, we are so dim that when one door closes it is impossible for us to find another.

 

Isn't it great we poor deluded women have Zak to defend us.  How lost we would be without him.

Perhaps it's just that, since women are so much more naturally spritual than us men, God realized that if women were to continue giving healing blessings that they would be so far ahead of the men that all the women would be translated, leaving the church populated only by men.

[KevinG]

Regarding evolution, you have to go pretty far back into church records to find any substantial debate on the topic of creationism and evolution.  The first presidency asked the brethren to knock it off in pubic, because the topic was not germane to our salvation.  Elder Oaks has a great quote to the effect of "God supplied is with detailed information on the why of creation, not the how."

 

I don't think evolution creationism is necessarily an either or.  We don't have a complete picture of either process.  I often think of our knowledge of creation and evolution as slowly converging lines, that from our limited perspective may appear as parallel lines that will never meet at the truth.

[Analytics]

I see nothing wrong with inconsistencies, and nothing wrong if they are never reconciled. Neither doctrine (the scientific not the religious) needs to be modified; only our understanding through the accumulation of more facts (for the science) or light and knowledge (for the religion).

 

The different interpretations are any one person's accumulation or dissipation of facts, light and knowledge. Did Doubting Thomas see toenails or vestigial claws?

 

That's a fair point.  The famous inconsistencies between quantum mechanics and general relativity are a great example of the same general thing.

 

But on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with trying to reconcile inconsistencies, either.  If one posits that evolution is the way God did the creation, it leads to huge, fundamental challenges regarding the classical understanding of the relationship between men and God, the creation, the fall, and the atonement.  That's all fine, but it seems that the inconsistencies need to be acknowledged and dealt with.  It's fine if they aren't resolved--I just don't like the idea of sweeping them under the carpet.

[Analytics]

Regarding evolution, you have to go pretty far back into church records to find any substantial debate on the topic of creationism and evolution.  The first presidency asked the brethren to knock it off in pubic, because the topic was not germane to our salvation.  Elder Oaks has a great quote to the effect of "God supplied is with detailed information on the why of creation, not the how."

 

I don't think evolution creationism is necessarily an either or.  We don't have a complete picture of either process.  I often think of our knowledge of creation and evolution as slowly converging lines, that from our limited perspective may appear as parallel lines that will never meet at the truth.

 

I think it is germane to our salvation, because it has a direct bearing on what salvation actually is.  Salvation means being saved from death and sin.  If the church is back peddling on the nature of death and where it came from, can it credibly claim to be able to save us from it?

[Rivers]

Christ showed us that He could save from death when he Himself was resurrected.

[Analytics]

Here's where the fun sci-fi ecopoiesis starts. All organisms on earth are related at a genetic level and come from a common ancestor, right? So 4 billion years ago the oceans are seeded with terraforming archaebacteria (the cyanobacteria becomes symbiotically incorporated into all later plant life), and eventually the Great Oxygenation Event leads the way to a planetwide self-regulating biosphere. What happens is that the planet gives organisms a sort of stage to express a "choice" between symbiosis and parasitism - that is, organisms can decide to base their reproductive success on mutualism or predation. (Obviously I'm simplifying it into a more clearcut dichotomy, here.) The little squigglies in the RNA world join forces to eventually become multicellular life, and we eventually get dinosaurs and (after an extinction event or two) koala bears.

 

The fascinating thing is that it seems that on a planet with the mass/gravity of ours, with these particular elements, this far from the sun, etc., certain forms of life are likely to arise based on evolutionary pressures that select in favor of certain forms of convergent evolution. So, contrary to Gould (but still taking punctuated equilibrium and that sort of thing into account) bipedal creatures with grasping hands and binocular vision aren't particularly unlikely to arise, because many of their component parts have actually arisen many times - the tree-shape arises often in plants, just as the eye arises multiple times in many unrelated organisms. It's not that hominids will inevitably arise (see the chaos/freewill thing above), but it seems that there is a distinct ecological niche in which such organisms can eventually choose/select to inhabit with that archetypal morphology.        

 

But if the seeds of life that grew here are not just local but in fact interstellar (Cosmic Ancestry/Panspermia), then such extremophiles had to have evolved in other environments/worlds. And if so, then we would be (um, very, very distantly) related to creatures on other worlds, whose pathway of chosen convergent evolution might mimic our own. Which is weird and freaky, but totally cool and Star Trek-y, too (though I admit that my geek cred is not up to snuff, as I haven't actually seen a single episode). The point being, if there are any anthropomorphic toenailed Gods out there, their bodies had to have evolved, too - which disproves neither evolution, nor Gods (er, depending on how you define those things, anyway - the monotheistic omni-everything Philosopher's God is out, but He was never really in in the first place, so that shouldn't bother us). 

 

I guess my TLDR point is:

 

Fascinating ideas.  It seems that by far the biggest jump in life is from non-life to the very first archaebacteria.  There are various chemical pathways for how this could have happened, but not very much evidence of how it did in fact happened.  Furthermore, it appears that whatever happened, it only happened once--we are all genetically related.  So if life coming into existence is a natural process, how come it only happened here once?

 

The most common argument against the "Cosmic Ancestry/Panspermia" theory is that it doesn't explain the question of how life came to be--it just posits that it happened somewhere else.  While that's true, the Panspermia hypothesis does explain why there is such a paucity of evidence of specifically how it happened, and would explain why it only happened once--i.e. why all life on earth is directly related to each other.  Is it possible that there is another planet out there with conditions that are more suitable for abiogenesis than Earth?  Is it possible that on that planet there is actual evidence of how, specifically, the first archaebacteria came to be?  And perhaps on that planet, there is direct evidence that fundamental life has begun numerous times?

 

Saying that life originated "out there" is a bit of a cop-out, but if that's what happened, I think there could be a valid "the dog that did not bark" argument to support it.

[mfbukowski]

I had said,

My point is that if we accept evolution, there are either going to be inconsistencies between evolution and the Plan of Salvation, or the Plan of Salvation will need to be modified to something other than what Bruce R. McConkie thought the scriptures said.

To which mfbukowski replied:

Different interpretations of what? All I'm claiming is that the theory of Evolution as understood by scientists, is inconsistent with the Plan of Salvation, as understood by Bruce R. McConkie. Are you claiming there are many interpretations of Evolution, or many interpretations of what Bruce R. McConkie thought the scriptures said about the basic principle's of the gospel?

I would have to ask BRM. I am sure he disagreed with evolution and probably everyone know that. It doesn't require much analysis to figure that out.

He might have changed his mind, he has done it before.

[mfbukowski]

I've always been sorta confused about modern LDS reticence to embrace evolution, 'cause the way I read the King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith seems to say that God evolved. Which solves a lot of problems, but creates a lot, too, that we haven't even begun to explore. Most every supposedly-sophisticated argument in favor of the traditional God (the necessary Prime Mover, the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, the origin of the supposed cosmological 'fine-tuning', etc., etc.) just don't work for LDS theology, so we shouldn't be surprised that the traditional religious response to evolution/death/atonement is simply irrelevant for our purposes. (A "signature in every cell" pointing to the One Absolute Ruler sounds a lot more like concentration camp tattoos to me than evidence of a loving parent.) LDS theology throws out the need for God to create everything from nothing, because spirit cannot be created or destroyed. In which case, God finds Himself in an existential quandary just like man does, because God is a man. He -- we -- have to create our own meaning, and teach each other out of the best books. God isn't an Absolute Ruler, He (and She, and They) are Gardeners, they are parents who aren't in control of every particle whirling around space, but love the coexisting intelligences they find themselves surrounded by.

The way I see it (contrary to many a priest), Adam and Eve were quite explicitly not the first people on the planet. (And if they were immortal until the Fall, then why would they need the magic fruit? The existence of fruit at all implies that death and concurrent sexual reproduction already existed, so I'm guessing Adam and Eve both had belly buttons.) Genesis 1:27 says "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them." This seems to be talking about mankind in general, not two individuals named Adam and Eve in particular. There was a preexisting population long before Adam and Eve show up in chapter two, which is how Cain can find a wife who is not an unnamed sister, etc. The purpose of the Garden story seems to be a sort of Temple Text related to loss of Wisdom and other such arcana, and the Atonement/Reconciliation seems more about becoming reconciled/initiated with the ancestral God(s)/The Council by choosing to be peaceful servants of all fellow intelligences. So now we can start paying attention to deep time and genetics.

I don't even think evolution on this planet is "guided" in the sense of much external fiddling from on high, because that would limit the freedom of organisms. Evolution, randomness, chance - it seems to me that an inherent non-deterministic chaos basic to reality is the only way we could have anything resembling a "free will" at all, and evolution would be a necessity for that.

Here's where the fun sci-fi ecopoiesis starts. All organisms on earth are related at a genetic level and come from a common ancestor, right? So 4 billion years ago the oceans are seeded with terraforming archaebacteria (the cyanobacteria becomes symbiotically incorporated into all later plant life), and eventually the Great Oxygenation Event leads the way to a planetwide self-regulating biosphere. What happens is that the planet gives organisms a sort of stage to express a "choice" between symbiosis and parasitism - that is, organisms can decide to base their reproductive success on mutualism or predation. (Obviously I'm simplifying it into a more clearcut dichotomy, here.) The little squigglies in the RNA world join forces to eventually become multicellular life, and we eventually get dinosaurs and (after an extinction event or two) koala bears.

The fascinating thing is that it seems that on a planet with the mass/gravity of ours, with these particular elements, this far from the sun, etc., certain forms of life are likely to arise based on evolutionary pressures that select in favor of certain forms of convergent evolution. So, contrary to Gould (but still taking punctuated equilibrium and that sort of thing into account) bipedal creatures with grasping hands and binocular vision aren't particularly unlikely to arise, because many of their component parts have actually arisen many times - the tree-shape arises often in plants, just as the eye arises multiple times in many unrelated organisms. It's not that hominids will inevitably arise (see the chaos/freewill thing above), but it seems that there is a distinct ecological niche in which such organisms can eventually choose/select to inhabit with that archetypal morphology.

But if the seeds of life that grew here are not just local but in fact interstellar (Cosmic Ancestry/Panspermia), then such extremophiles had to have evolved in other environments/worlds. And if so, then we would be (um, very, very distantly) related to creatures on other worlds, whose pathway of chosen convergent evolution might mimic our own. Which is weird and freaky, but totally cool and Star Trek-y, too (though I admit that my geek cred is not up to snuff, as I haven't actually seen a single episode). The point being, if there are any anthropomorphic toenailed Gods out there, their bodies had to have evolved, too - which disproves neither evolution, nor Gods (er, depending on how you define those things, anyway - the monotheistic omni-everything Philosopher's God is out, but He was never really in in the first place, so that shouldn't bother us).

I guess my TLDR point is:

Or not.

[mfbukowski]

Disclaimer: contra my deliberately-ironic member title, I do not believe that any of the evidence the Von Danikens and Sitchens of the world have presented is at all convincing. Ezekiel's Vision was not of a spaceship. The pyramids and giant statues and geoglyphs were built by good old-fashioned humans. The petroglyphs do not show space suits. The Greys are not involved in cattle mutilations, crop circles, or Roswell. Funny lights in the sky are generally not actually UFOs. The face on Mars isn't actually a face. The Nazca skulls are just unfortunate fashion victims. The abductees are misinterpreting their memories. The Masonic Reptilian Annunaki Illuminati is not infiltrating the guv'ment. Cthulhu is not calling.

... not that what I believe is any less weird. But still.

Or not.

[CV75]

That's a fair point.  The famous inconsistencies between quantum mechanics and general relativity are a great example of the same general thing.

 

But on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with trying to reconcile inconsistencies, either.  If one posits that evolution is the way God did the creation, it leads to huge, fundamental challenges regarding the classical understanding of the relationship between men and God, the creation, the fall, and the atonement.  That's all fine, but it seems that the inconsistencies need to be acknowledged and dealt with.  It's fine if they aren't resolved--I just don't like the idea of sweeping them under the carpet.

I think this is one way of looking at how and how well we discover and handle facts and truth. Reconciling perceived inconsistencies may be one outcome of that, and correcting perceptions may be another. Reconciliation with facts and truth may involve rejecting or modifying one of both components contributing to the inconsistency, or recognizing and filling in the unknown gap(s) between the components that contribute to the perception of inconsistency or to the inability to reconcile them. Correcting perceptions may help reconcile inconsistencies or may help reveal that there is no inconsistency to reconcile after all.

 

For example, I think the inconsistency between the scientific theory of evolution and the religious doctrines of the creation, fall and atonement is a matter of perception, and that perception is as much an irrational as it is a rational process. I think the trick is to bring those process elements together so that facts and truth can be brought together as one. Of course that balance is determined individually/subjectively, which for some involves more study and effort in seemingly divergent schools of fact- and truth-finding than it might for others. I can’t think of a Christian virtue or scientific ethic that would undermine a legitimate quest or real intent by sweeping anything under the carpet.

[Zakuska]

Because women are too limited to be able to spiritually grow in other ways, we are so dim that when one door closes it is impossible for us to find another.

 

Isn't it great we poor deluded women have Zak to defend us.  How lost we would be without him.

Calm:

With all due respect, If the Daughters of Zion won't stand up and fight for their spiritual birthrights... I will.

Riddle me this... if women arent ordained to an office in the Melqcheidek Priesthood... why does Joseph's Journals of the organization of the Relief Society say that they do/did?

 

[1]One of the least-tapped sources in the ongoing effort to retrieve the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith is the minutes of the Nauvoo Relief Society, or, more properly, “A Record of the Organization, and Proceedings of The Female Relief Society of Nauvoo.”[2] The six sermons the Prophet delivered to the women of the Church between March and August 1842 comprise the heart of this important and long-cherished document.[3] In these foundational sermons, Joseph Smith instructed women regarding “the order of the priesthood.” including the keys, offices, ordinances, gifts, and blessings of the priesthood. He thereby prepared them to participate in the sacred ordinances to be administered in the Nauvoo Temple at its completion. He also encouraged the sisters in their important charitable work and expounded at length upon the broader meaning of charity.

Under Joseph Smith’s direction, the Relief Society was organized midway through the seven years, 1839–46, that the Church located its headquarters and many of its members on a bend of the upper Mississippi River at Nauvoo, Illinois. The Society provided a unique forum for the Prophet Joseph’s teachings, and his 1842 addresses to the women reflect both the sublime principles he taught his followers and the turmoil he experiences throughout that year. As disbelievers’ unrelenting attempts to dismantle his work and impugn his claims conspired to draw the Prophet’s focus to compelling legal and political matters during 1842, he remained undeterred from completing his commission to introduce the saving ordinances of the gospel to Church members, construct a temple wherein they could be administered, enlarge the Saints’ understanding of vicarious work, deliver the keys of discernment between truth and error, and preach the nature of God, heaven, and earth. He organized the women of the Church “according to the law of heaven,” as Elder John Taylor of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles explained,[4] and “in the Order of the Priesthood after the pattern of the Church,” as Relief Society charter member Sarah Kimball recalled.[5]

...

He announced that “the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood.” This, he declared, required “a select Society separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuous and holy.”[15] This was the beginning of the Society’s understanding of his repeated references to the “ancient Priesthood.”

The “ancient Priesthood” to which he alluded is the patriarchal order of the Melchizedek Priesthood and its ordinances, with the covenant of marriage and the family unit at its center. President Ezra Taft Benson explained: “The order of the priesthood spoken of in the scriptures is sometimes referred to as the patriarchal order because it came down from father to son. But his order is otherwise described in modern revelation as an order of family government where a man and a woman enter into a covenant with God—just as did Adam and Eve—to be sealed for eternity, to have posterity, and to do the will and work of God through their mortality.”[16] The ancient priesthood was governed by keys representing God’s authority, which “open God’s greatest blessings, including the ‘privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, . . . [and] the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus’” (D&C 107:19).[17] A revelation to Joseph Smith identified “the mysteries of the kingdom” as “the key to the knowledge of God,” as manifest in the temple ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood (D&C 84:19–20). Thus, when the Prophet declared that Relief Society sisters “should move according to the ancient Priesthood,” he invited them to prepare for the sacred ordinances to be administered in the temple. One by one through the holy endowment, these women would come to understand “the mysteries of the kingdom.” As they were sealed with their husbands in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, they could enter the patriarchal order of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

...

[9]Joseph Smith explained that this was the office to which Emma had already been ordained twelve years earlier when she had received a blessing by revelation at his hands, later canonized as section 25 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Joseph read the revelation to the assembled women and explained that Emma’s election to preside was a manifestation of her calling in the revelation as an “elect lady” (see D&C 25:3). Joseph Smith’s journal, written by his scribe Willard Richards, indicates: “ shewed that Elect meant to by Elected to a certain work &,& and that the revelation was then fulfilled by Sister Emma’s Election to the Presidency of the Socety, having previously been ordained to expound the scriptures. her councillors were ordained by Elder J<ohn> Taylor & Emma <was> Blessed by the same” (Dean C. Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, vol. 2, “Journal, 1832–1842” [salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992], 371).

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-smith-and-doctrinal-restoration/8-something-better-sisters-joseph-smith-and-female#_edn9

Poor Ms. Kelly was fighting for something she already had. I wonder how she came up with the idea that the priesthood was male only? Maybe all the bad doctrine that was taught for years to maintain a lopsided masochistic system?

Edited November 20, 2015 by Zakuska

[ksfisher]

Calm:

With all due respect, If the Daughters of Zion won't stand up and fight for their spiritual birthrights... I will.

Riddle me this... if women arent ordained to an office in the Melqcheidek Priesthood... why does Joseph's Journals of the organization of the Relief Society say that they do/did?

 

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-smith-and-doctrinal-restoration/8-something-better-sisters-joseph-smith-and-female#_edn9

Poor Ms. Kelly was fighting for something she already had. I wonder how she came up with the idea that the priesthood was male only? Maybe all the bad doctrine that was taught for years to maintain a masochistic system.

 

So why didn't Joseph Smith continue with this during his lifetime?  He didn't.

[Gray]

So why didn't Joseph Smith continue with this during his lifetime?  He didn't.

 

Maybe because he died? 

[mfbukowski]

I think it is germane to our salvation, because it has a direct bearing on what salvation actually is.  Salvation means being saved from death and sin.  If the church is back peddling on the nature of death and where it came from, can it credibly claim to be able to save us from it?

Examine your assumptions.

If you are wrong in your interpretation of what "salvation actually is" you could be wrong.  What does it mean to be "saved from death and sin" and what does that have to do with evolution?

 

What does the way God chose to make creatures have to do with death and sin?

 

What if salvation means "returning to God" and allowing us to fogrive ourselves from the guilt associated with sin and therefore spiritual death?

 

What if, what if what if?  There are innumerable ways to intepret those words which have nothing to do with evolution.

 

Do not restrict yourself to one way of seeing it.  We all have natural "blind spots" both literally and figuratively- don't let them get in the way.

[ksfisher]

Maybe because he died? 

 

Not until several years later than the quotes Zak has given.  So if he started ordaining females to the priesthood, why didn't he continue with it?

[HappyJackWagon]

Not until several years later than the quotes Zak has given.  So if he started ordaining females to the priesthood, why didn't he continue with it?

There seems to be quite a bit in Joseph's behavior that is unexplainable.

 

-If he was commanded to take Fanny as a plural wife why did he stop the practice for nearly 10 years

-Why was he sealed to multiple women before Emma?

-Why did he take a hiatus from translating the bible?

-Why did he take a long hiatus from translating the B of A?

-Why did he think the Kinder Hook plates were legitimate and start translating them?

 

My only point is, it's hard to explain Joseph's behavior so simply suggesting that something can't be right because it doesn't make logical sense, is in itself a logical fallacy.

[Deborah]

Zakusa, I don't see where Joseph Smith indicated that women would be ordained to the Priesthood, only that they would operate in the same manner as and receive the blessings of the Priesthood.

[cinepro]

I would have to ask BRM. I am sure he disagreed with evolution and probably everyone know that. It doesn't require much analysis to figure that out.

He might have changed his mind, he has done it before.

 

Unless he changed his mind in the last two weeks of his life, then no, he never changed his mind, as indicated by these statements in his final testimony given in Conference:

 

 

May I invite you to join with me in gaining a sound and sure knowledge of the Atonement.

We must cast aside the philosophies of men and the wisdom of the wise and hearken to that Spirit which is given to us to guide us into all truth.

We must search the scriptures, accepting them as the mind and will and voice of the Lord and the very power of God unto salvation.

 

As we read, ponder, and pray, there will come into our minds a view of the three gardens of God—the Garden of Eden, the Garden of Gethsemane, and the Garden of the Empty Tomb where Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.

 

In Eden we will see all things created in a paradisiacal state—without death, without procreation, without probationary experiences.

 

We will come to know that such a creation, now unknown to man, was the only way to provide for the Fall.

 

We will then see Adam and Eve, the first man and the first woman, step down from their state of immortal and paradisiacal glory to become the first mortal flesh on earth.

Mortality, including as it does procreation and death, will enter the world. And because of transgression a probationary estate of trial and testing will begin.

 

The Purifying Power of Gethsemane

(emphasis added)

Edited November 20, 2015 by cinepro

[Calm]

Calm:With all due respect, If the Daughters of Zion won't stand up and fight for their spiritual birthrights... I will.

As usual when someone has to explain they are being respectful, they aren't.

How is insisting that you know better doing anything but treating grown adult women as children who aren't old enough to think for themselves?

 

Edited November 21, 2015 by Calm

[Gray]

Not until several years later than the quotes Zak has given.  So if he started ordaining females to the priesthood, why didn't he continue with it?

 

1-2 years later, I think

[JAHS]

So if Mormon doctrine can evolve enough to make room for organic evolution, why can’t it evolve in a way that makes room for same-sex families?  The change to the core doctrine to make room for evolution is by far the more drastic.

 

I am a scientist and when it comes to the topic of evolution I like to refer to something Henry Eyring (professor of chemistry and father of the Apostle) said which I tend to agree with:

 

" I think it is perfectly appropriate for us to study and learn as much as we can about this wonderful place God has prepared for us.

We should keep in mind that scientists are as diligent and truthful as anyone else. Organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability. Form my limited study of the subject I would say that the physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable from a scientific viewpoint.

I' be just as content to find out that God stirred up some dirt and water and out stepped Adam, ready to occupy the Garden of Eden. The only important thing is that God did it. I might say in that regard that the theory of evolution has to include a notion that the dice have been loaded from the beginning in favor of more complex life forms. I can't see randomly generated natural laws producing remarkable results. So in my mind God is behind it all whether we evolved or not"  (Reflections of a Scientist)

 

One big difference however between evolution and same-sex families is that it really doesn't matter to us how life came about. Understanding how it happened is not that important for our eternal life and salvation. And therefore people can have their own ideas and pet theories about it.

But the doctrines surrounding the eternal family are extremely important to us for our salvation. The requirement of the union of husband and wife sealed for eternity is set in stone, through what prophets and scriptures have said and can not and will not be changed to accommodate the secular desires of the world.

Edited November 20, 2015 by JAHS

[cinepro]

 

One big difference however between evolution and same-sex families is that it really doesn't matter to us how life came about. Understanding how it happened is not that important for our eternal life and salvation. And therefore people can have their own ideas and pet theories about it.

But the doctrines surrounding the eternal family are extremely important to us for our salvation. The requirement of the union of husband and wife sealed for eternity is set in stone, through what prophets and scriptures have said and can not and will not be changed to accommodate the secular desires of the world.

 

Well, some might argue that if Adam and Eve weren't actual immortal beings that "fell" and brought sin and physical death into the world, and the LDS leaders (and scriptures) have been wrong about this for the last 185 years, then while it might not have implications for our eternal salvation, it would definitely have implications towards how much stock we should put in the other things they have taught for the last 185 years.

[JAHS]

Well, some might argue that if Adam and Eve weren't actual immortal beings that "fell" and brought sin and physical death into the world, and the LDS leaders (and scriptures) have been wrong about this for the last 185 years, then while it might not have implications for our eternal salvation, it would definitely have implications towards how much stock we should put in the other things they have taught for the last 185 years.

I think that's why a lot of people tend to try and find a balance between the two. God created Adm and Eve "somehow" and placed them in the Garden.

[Zakuska]

So why didn't Joseph Smith continue with this during his lifetime? He didn't.

He did. The sisters in the church just celebrated its 173rd Aniversary. Once a sister goes through the temple and takes out her endowments she has been inititated INTO the Melqchezidek Priesthood.

 

Zakusa, I don't see where Joseph Smith indicated that women would be ordained to the Priesthood, only that they would operate in the same manner as and receive the blessings of the Priesthood.

Relief Society wasn't just patterned after the priesthood. It was an order of Priesthood in and of itself.

 

He organized the women of the Church “according to the law of heaven,” as Elder John Taylor of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles explained,[4] and “in the Order of the Priesthood after the pattern of the Church,” as Relief Society charter member Sarah Kimball recalled.[5]

What does it mean to "organize the women of the church" ... “in the Order of the Priesthood" ... "after the pattern of the Church"?

The Relief Society is to Women as "Elders and High Priest Quroum" is to men.

Releif Society IS an order of the Priesthood. Its the Female side of the Church.

The Releif Society wasn't just a country club where women got together and threw tupper ware parties and made crafts. It was an order of Priesthood in and of itself.

Yes is was setup "similarly" to the Patriarchal order of the Priesthood. It was the Matriarchal Priesthood mirror of the Patriarchy.

Maybe You'll listen to Hugh Nibley... Since I can't seem to get through to you.

Patriarchy and Matriarchy

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1065&index=1

I'll shut up now so the Evolution discussion can continue.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Zakuska