Evolving Mormon Doctrine

[Analytics]

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.

 

I'm not assuming anything about "what it actually means to be saved from sin and death."  I'm merely doing my best to describe the clear, well-defined teachings of classic Mormon doctrine.  Bruce R. McConkie wasn't going off in his own direction when he talked about the Three Pillars of Eternity--he was summarizing 2 Nephi 9.  Of course Jacob might have been off of his rocker telling his own theories, which might be worse than Bruce R. McConkie's.  Or maybe Joseph Smith made it all up.  What if, what if, what if.

 

If salvation simply means us forgiving ourselves from the guilt associated with sin, then there was no reason for Jesus to have to "literally" take upon himself the sins of everybody, sweat blood, and "pay the price of sin."  Of course that might be symbolic too, and that "the Savior" is really symbolic for humanity as a whole, and the sacrifices we all do for others is the infinite gift that we all receive and cannot pay back.  What if, what if, what if.

 

I'm simply asking the question, "what do Mormons actually believe these days?  Is it internally consistent the way classical Mormonism was?"  Your answers to those questions seem to be, "Mormonism doesn't actually teach anything other than some very abstract words that people are free to interpret in any way they want."

[mfbukowski]

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:

I know you don't understand Mormonism. I think we can progress after death.

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

 

Nah.  Our scientific understanding is just flawed.  One day the faulty premise that led to the faulty conclusions will be made visible and everyone will say "Oh!  THAT'S how God did it without evolution".

[JLHPROF]

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/...nd-female#_edn9

 

 

Oh for goodness sake...ordain here meant set apart.  It's crystal clear.  No order of priesthood was conferred, no priesthood office named in scripture was called.  It says the "office to which she was previously ordained"  - President.  So which priesthood office is "President"?

 

You are making unfounded assumptions not evident in the historical record.

 

 

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.

 

Yes and no.  She is given the tokens of the priesthood and wears the robes of the priesthood it is true.  But as far as holding any office goes, she is only promised she will be ordained one day.  She is part of the order of the priesthood but holds no office in that priesthood.

 

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

 

Nonsense.  It was a charitable organization (hence Relief Society) that Joseph wanted to pattern after the priesthood (with Presidents and Councilors and Secretaries etc).  His reference to making these women priests/priestesses was a reference to the higher ordinances of the temple, not the Relief Society.  And it would be another year before Emma received that priesthood office.  THAT is the Matriarchal priesthood, not the Relief Society.  That is the office used to provide mothers blessings to expecting women.  That is the temple order, something the Relief Society was not.

[CV75]

This same question can be looked at by reconciling 1) the fact that a dead man cannot resurrect himself with 2) the truth that Jesus did just that, and also did just that in the dead man’s behalf.

 

So let’s reconcile 1) the proposal that human beings came to exist by evolution with 2) the truth that Jesus did not (considering who His Father was), and that He assumed the “burden” of a non-evolutionary path into mortality and immortality in their behalf.

 

Could it be that any that are proposed to have come into mortality through the path of evolution (the dead man Adam) and that are redeemed through the Christ (who did not) are truly His heirs and His creations, not evolution’s? Is this kind of dynamic what the scriptures mean, when “speaking of things to come as though they had already come” and “to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was?”

 

Perhaps not, but for those predisposed to credit evolution for Adam’s origin, and feel the need to reconcile this with the truth of His spiritual and paradisaical creation and our subsequent origin as children of God in the mortal flesh can do so by crediting the truth of Christ’s involvement with Adam.

 

Maybe toenails work the other way around: claws are vestigial toenails, and all life forms are simply intelligences that opted to serve as lesser expressions of the Father’s glory by devolving into the most primitive chemoautotrophs after the Fall (Extinction Event), only to  de-devolve (devolve n reverse) ultimately into humans later, hence Adam “naming” (dictating the genetic codes and progress of) them all in the Garden. Maybe all life is just an extension of Adam, just as all existence is an extension of God.

Edited November 21, 2015 by CV75

[Tony Frank]

Several people have noticed a pattern—when the tension between mainstream society and the Church becomes too large, the Church modifies to ease the tension.  The two most obvious examples are polygamy and the racial priesthood ban.  Many people think that society will continue to become more and more accepting of same-sex families as a normal, healthy variation of families, leading to more and more tension between mainstream society and the Church.  Several predict this tension will be resolved by the Church updating its position on same-sex families.  Others say this will never happen and anybody who thinks in might doesn’t understand the clear doctrine behind the Church’s current position.

 

I’d like to discuss a counter-argument to this: the theory of evolution.  Apparently, a BYU professor and 84.26% of the participants on this message board think that faithful members of the Church can believe in evolution.  On the one hand, I agree—faithful Mormons can believe anything they want—as long as they pay their tithing, don’t smoke or drink, attend church, and don’t make waves, they can believe pretty-much anything they want about anything and still get a temple recommend.  But on the other hand, that doesn’t mean their beliefs are consistent with doctrine.

 

The doctrinal point in question has been called by Bruce R. McConkie "The Three Pillars of Eternity."  In his own words:

 

The three pillars of eternity, the three events, preeminent and transcendent above all others, are the creation, the fall, and the atonement. These three are the foundations upon which all things rest. Without any one of them all things would lose their purpose and meaning, and the plans and designs of Deity would come to naught.

 

If there had been no creation, we would not be, neither the earth, nor any form of life upon its face. All things, all the primal elements, would be without form and void. God would have no spirit children; there would be no mortal probation; and none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.

 

If there had been no fall of man, there would not be a mortal probation. Mortal man would not be, nor would there be animals or fowls or fishes or life of any sort upon the earth. And, we repeat, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.

 

If there had been no atonement of Christ, all things would be lost. The purposes of creation would vanish away. Lucifer would triumph over men and become the captain of their souls. And, we say it again, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.

 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_three-pillars-eternity/

 

That’s classic Mormon doctrine and is absolutely central.

 

Here is a quote from the book Straight Answers to Tough Gospel Questions by Joseph Fielding McConkie:

 

Q: Is the theory of evolution compatible with the doctrine of the Fall?

A: No. We can tug, twist, contort, and sell our birthright, but we cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the theory of organic evolution and the doctrine of the Fall.

 

This is of course true, and is supported by multiple books of scripture, the temple ceremony, and multiple generations of latter-day Prophets.  Despite all of that, thanks to our modern sensibilities 84.26% agree that Mormons can believe in evolution.

 

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.

 

1st à Jesus Christ restored polygamy during the Prophet Joseph Smith’s days in fulfillment of the prophecy in Acts concerning the “restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” Having restored it, Jesus Christ brought it to an end during the days of Presidents Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith.

 

Hence, nothing “evolved” with regards to polygamy, and the Church did not “modify” anything. Those who believe otherwise will see things differently when they appear before the judgment bar of Jesus Christ.

 

Regarding the priesthood ban, Jesus Christ had His reasons for instituting the ban. His ways are not man’s ways. Christ allowed blacks to receive the priesthood when He saw fit.

 

2nd àThe doctrine of Jesus Christ has not changed and the theory of evolution has no place in it.

 

Sexual sin will never stop being an abomination in the sight of God.

 

I hope that helps.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Tony Frank

[Zakuska]

Oh for goodness sake...ordain here meant set apart. It's crystal clear. No order of priesthood was conferred, no priesthood office named in scripture was called. It says the "office to which she was previously ordained" - President. So which priesthood office is "President"?

What's crystal clear is if one reads and understands D&C 25 correctly along with its historical background. (And Leaving behind ones prejudices and preconcieved dogmas that must be preserved at all costs) One will be able to understand the mind of the prophet when it comes to what he envisioned for the "Relief Society".

Its true the women wanted a benevolent charitable society which was all the rage at the time. But Joseph Smith had a much grander plan.

In D&C 25:3 we read this...

3 Behold, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou art an elect lady, whom I have called.

When one searchs the original manuscripts of the D&C in the Joseph Smith papers one will find out that our current D&Cs have a typo. In the originals... "elect lady" is capitalized in verse 3.

This typo transforms what appears to have originally been a title into something a little more mundain and docile. Its uncertian if this typo was intentional to conceal something or just an editor or type setter doing their job.

And now for a little history lesson...

"hold onto your slippers toto because stuff is about to get real."

"Elect Lady" is actually an office held by women in the freemasonic order known as the Order of the Eastern star.

Google it if you don't believe me.

We all know how much freemasonry influenced the building of the Nauvoo temple and the early church.

So as you can see Joseph Smiths vision of what the RELIEF SOCIETY was going to be was much more than a mere benevolent Society. It was basicly a masonic priesthood order for women.

Emma had been ordained under his had to an office of ELECT LADY in a female order of priesthood.

Now go back and read D&C 25 with that bit of history and background story and let the Prophet Josephs vision of what the Relief Society realy is expand your mind.

Or you can choose to take the blue pill and go merily on your way.

Your choice.

This footnote should make more sense now.

[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).

The office emma had been ordained to 12 years earlier was to be an ELECT LADY she wad ordained to this office under Josephs hand and given the job description of an aronic priesthood deacon. Elect Lady was the priesthood office in the female priesthood order JS originally envisioned so you cant say a priesthood title or office in the priesthood is not contained in scripture.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[CV75]

2nd àThe doctrine of Jesus Christ has not changed and the theory of evolution has no place in it.

I think this has to do with His saying, “…my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways… For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

 

I think it gets back to the fact that a man cannot raise himself from the dead, and to the truth that Christ does. Evolution is the evidence that man cannot raise himself from the dead; God’s ways of creation are the evidence that His is the perfect, immortal way.

 

It is possible to think of evolution as man’s way, or the post-Fall way, or the godless way, to bring the children of God into a state to receive the Word (“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”)

 

The story could go that after their paradisiacal creation and transgression, the earth and her telestial life died (became extinct) and dissolved into the “primordial soup” for nature to take its course without God’s intervention and for Adam to eventually, some 6,000 years ago, be reconstituted the hard way, and only in a mortal form at that, but advanced enough to resume his disrupted stewardship in the Gospel. Thus evolution and death is the godless process of bringing to pass the mortal life and spirituality of man over billions of years, and the Gospel is the Lord’s process of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man over the 7,000 years following Adam’s “second coming.”

 

Could nature, which includes man’s mortal intelligence, eventually grant him immortality and eternal life? The builders of the tower of Babel seemed to think so. But given how long it took to get this far (4 billion years!), and seeing where we are headed as humanity and as a planet over the next billion, it seems that nature certainly requires supernatural (true) assistance from above.

[Deborah]

 

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

 

 

Which dosen't mean women were ordained to the Priesthood.

[JLHPROF]

What's crystal clear is if one reads and understands D&C 25 correctly along with its historical background. (And Leaving behind ones prejudices and preconcieved dogmas that must be preserved at all costs) One will be able to understand the mind of the prophet when it comes to what he envisioned for the "Relief Society".

Its true the women wanted a benevolent charitable society which was all the rage at the time. But Joseph Smith had a much grander plan.

In D&C 25:3 we read this...

3 Behold, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou art an elect lady, whom I have called.

When one searchs the original manuscripts of the D&C in the Joseph Smith papers one will find out that our current D&Cs have a typo. In the originals... "elect lady" is capitalized in verse 3.

This typo transforms what appears to have originally been a title into something a little more mundain and docile. Its uncertian if this typo was intentional to conceal something or just an editor or type setter doing their job.

And now for a little history lesson...

"hold onto your slippers toto because stuff is about to get real."

"Elect Lady" is actually an office held by women in the freemasonic order known as the Order of the Eastern star.

Google it if you don't believe me.

We all know how much freemasonry influenced the building of the Nauvoo temple and the early church.

So as you can see Joseph Smiths vision of what the RELIEF SOCIETY was going to be was much more than a mere benevolent Society. It was basicly a masonic priesthood order for women.

Emma had been ordained under his had to an office of ELECT LADY in a female order of priesthood.

Now go back and read D&C 25 with that bit of history and background story and let the Prophet Josephs vision of what the Relief Society realy is expand your mind.

Or you can choose to take the blue pill and go merily on your way.

Your choice.

This footnote should make more sense now.

[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).

The office emma had been ordained to 12 years earlier was to be an ELECT LADY she wad ordained to this office under Josephs hand and given the job description of an aronic priesthood deacon. Elect Lady was the priesthood office in the female priesthood order JS originally envisioned so you cant say a priesthood title or office in the priesthood is not contained in scripture.

 

That's an awful lot of words to be wrong with.

- D&C 25 was given in 1830, long before Joseph became a mason or received the doctrines of the temple.  It may have preshadowed Emma's calling to lead the Relief Society over a decade later, but still had no relation to priesthoood.

- "Elect lady" is NOT a priesthood office in any way.  You can't keep making up priesthood offices.  (You are starting to sound like James J. Strang - how's that Halcyon Order coming along).

- The historical events you describe are accurate and in NO way refer to priesthood ordination.  A perfect example of twisting history to fit your notions.

 

You know, I am one of the biggest supporters of proper recognition of the priesthood authority received in the temple by both men and women.  It bothers me when people treat the temple as purely symbolic.  But recognizing the difference between the temple order and the ecclesiastical order and their usage is very important.

[JLHPROF]

Having restored it (polygamy), Jesus Christ brought it to an end during the days of Presidents Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith.

Hence, nothing “evolved” with regards to polygamy, and the Church did not “modify” anything.

 

Regarding the priesthood ban, Jesus Christ had His reasons for instituting the ban. His ways are not man’s ways. Christ allowed blacks to receive the priesthood when He saw fit.

 

The doctrine of Jesus Christ has not changed

 

You don't see a contradiction here?  You list two changes and then say nothing has changed.  Whether they were the will of God and authorized is a different issue, but we need to understand the difference between revoking a law and changing a law.

 

Polygamy was revoked but it remains a law.  Anything that reaches into eternity is by its nature eternal.  If people were eternally sealed in plural marriages and those sealings are binding then plural marriage is an eternal law. 

(The priesthood ban is an entirely different subject.

 

Ecclesiastes 3:14 - I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

 

D&C 58 32  - I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

 

Ordinances instituted in heaven before the foundation of this world in the Priesthood for the salvation of man, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved upon the same principles. - Joseph Smith

 

THIS is why doctrines cannot evolve.

Edited November 21, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Zakuska]

That's an awful lot of words to be wrong with.

- D&C 25 was given in 1830, long before Joseph became a mason or received the doctrines of the temple. It may have preshadowed Emma's calling to lead the Relief Society over a decade later, but still had no relation to priesthoood.

You forget... Do his geneology. He comes from a very long line of freemasons so even though he himself wasn't initiated into the order yet, He would have been very well versed and familiar and steeped in Masonry. This is born out by the fact that upon his initiation to the order he was raised to the 33rd level (the highest order of masonry) the very first day. Where do you suppose he got all that "secret" freemason knowledge to pull off something so unprecidented? It wasn't from a revelation from God.

He had been taught all about masonry by his father and brothers who were also free masons before him. I seem to remember reading some where that his brother had several freemason books in his personal library. If I'm also not mistaken Emmas father was a freemason too.

- "Elect lady" is NOT a priesthood office in any way. You can't keep making up priesthood offices. (You are starting to sound like James J. Strang - how's that Halcyon Order coming along).

I'm not making up anything. JS made it a "Restored" female priesthood office in the church equivalent to the office of Elder the moment he penned the title into the D&C. And what's more it has Biblical precidence to boot. John the Apostle writing a letter to his wife (or at least a sister in the ward) addresses her by the same title.

2 John 1

The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

Now I seem to remember You saying something about twisted notions and being wrong?

Edited November 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[Tony Frank]

You don't see a contradiction here?  You list two changes and then say nothing has changed.  Whether they were the will of God and authorized is a different issue, but we need to understand the difference between revoking a law and changing a law.

 

Polygamy was revoked but it remains a law.  Anything that reaches into eternity is by its nature eternal.  If people were eternally sealed in plural marriages and those sealings are binding then plural marriage is an eternal law. 

(The priesthood ban is an entirely different subject.

 

Ecclesiastes 3:14 - I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

 

D&C 58 32  - I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

 

Ordinances instituted in heaven before the foundation of this world in the Priesthood for the salvation of man, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved upon the same principles. - Joseph Smith

 

THIS is why doctrines cannot evolve.

 

Jesus Christ did not allow the gospel to be preached to the gentiles until He saw fit to allow it. The same principle applies to blacks and the priesthood. The doctrine is contained in the gospel, and blacks receiving the priesthood was not a doctrinal change.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Tony Frank

[carbon dioxide]

Which dosen't mean women were ordained to the Priesthood.

Even if we grant the idea under its best light that women were ordained to the priesthood, they never baptized, did confirmation nor blessed the sacrament.  Those are some pretty clear bread and butter actions of the priesthood.  So even IF women were ordained, their ordination did not rise to the level to do those basic ordinances. 

[Zakuska]

Even if we grant the idea under its best light that women were ordained to the priesthood, they never baptized, did confirmation nor blessed the sacrament.  Those are some pretty clear bread and butter actions of the priesthood.  So even IF women were ordained, their ordination did not rise to the level to do those basic ordinances.

Women used to set the sacrament table and bake the bread for the Sacrament too. (Hey I suggested that on another thread!). That all changed in 1950 when the "policy" was changed. Notice all the letters and news paper clippings from the time announcing the change.

 

Preference that Women Not Prepare the Sacrament (1950)

In 1950, the edict went out that it was “preferred that [preparing the sacrament] not be delegated either to LDS girls or their mothers.” Clearly, up until 1950 women had been preparing the sacrament again showing no priesthood is requiring and it is only a custom and policy that women not participate.I find this interesting information in the article “Teachers to Prepare Sacrament Table,” Church News (April 2, 1950) page 11.

“It is recommended that ordained Teachers be given the responsibility of preparing the sacrament table. This would include filling the cups in the water trays and the placing of the unbroken bread in the bread trays, placing these on the sacrament table after clean linens have been placed, seeing that the trays are also covered after they have been placed on the table.

It is preferred that this particular responsibility not be delegated either to LDS girls or their mothers. Custodians should not be required to perform this service. Bearers of the Aaronic Priesthood should be assigned to look after this detail of the administration of the sacrament in both Sunday School and sacrament meeting.

When the trays have been placed on the table and properly covered before the meeting begins, only Priests, or those with higher authority, are authorized to perform at the sacrament table when once the meeting is under way.”

http://www.nearingkolob.com/women-allowed-participate-sacrament/

In fact the Janitor used to clean up the sacrament table and get the water for the sacrament before hand.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[Five Solas]

I'm not assuming anything about "what it actually means to be saved from sin and death."  I'm merely doing my best to describe the clear, well-defined teachings of classic Mormon doctrine.  Bruce R. McConkie wasn't going off in his own direction when he talked about the Three Pillars of Eternity--he was summarizing 2 Nephi 9.  Of course Jacob might have been off of his rocker telling his own theories, which might be worse than Bruce R. McConkie's.  Or maybe Joseph Smith made it all up.  What if, what if, what if.

 

If salvation simply means us forgiving ourselves from the guilt associated with sin, then there was no reason for Jesus to have to "literally" take upon himself the sins of everybody, sweat blood, and "pay the price of sin."  Of course that might be symbolic too, and that "the Savior" is really symbolic for humanity as a whole, and the sacrifices we all do for others is the infinite gift that we all receive and cannot pay back.  What if, what if, what if.

 

I'm simply asking the question, "what do Mormons actually believe these days?  Is it internally consistent the way classical Mormonism was?"  Your answers to those questions seem to be, "Mormonism doesn't actually teach anything other than some very abstract words that people are free to interpret in any way they want."

I'm not worthy to quote your posts, Analytics (but I'm doing it anyway).  You have a real gift for getting to the root of things. 

 

mfbukowski--there's an enormous irony each time you apply your paradigm ("There is nothing but symbolically true" "Literally true is never literally true") against critics of the LDS Church.  You get tons of rep points on this board from pleased LDS.  And you've proven yourself effective time & again, particularly against Christian critics who believe the Bible is not only understandable (e.g., that it really does teach what later theologians would call the Triune God or Trinity)--it's applicable.  And your LDS fans are grateful.  But each time they overlook how your paradigm makes them and their leaders look every bit as foolish as their critics. 

 

Don't believe me?  Then have a go at reconciling LDS Elder Jeffry R. Holland's statement, "Jesus Christ is the literal, living Son of our literal, living God" with "Literally true is never literally true."  You can't.  Vis-a-vis your yardstick, Holland comes off no better than any LDS critic. 

 

Of course, I submit it's your paradigm that's the problem, burying any & all useful distinction. 

 

One last thing:  When Analytics astutely observed LDS could use your model to pay their tithes with "Monopoly money" (post #46), rather than address this obvious problem--you changed the subject ("My tithing has nothing to do with the bishop- it is between God and me" post #48).  In case you were wondering whether that escaped everyone's notice... No, it didn't. 

;0)

 

--Erik

[carbon dioxide]

Women used to set the sacrament table and bake the bread for the Sacrament too. (Hey I suggested that on another thread!). That all changed in 1950 when the "policy" was changed. Notice all the letters and news paper clippings from the time announcing the change.

 

http://www.nearingkolob.com/women-allowed-participate-sacrament/

In fact the Janitor used to clean up the sacrament table and get the water for the sacrament before hand.

Baking bread and setting up the table is not a priesthood duty.  I do think the young women can be asked to do a lot more than they are.  One can be an usher, set up the sacrament, buy the bread, clean up, and do a host of other things without needing to be ordained.  I would suggest that asking to be more involved without ordination is a better way to get things done.

[JLHPROF]

You forget... Do his geneology. He comes from a very long line of freemasons so even though he himself wasn't initiated into the order yet, He would have been very well versed and familiar and steeped in Masonry. This is born out by the fact that upon his initiation to the order he was raised to the 33rd level (the highest order of masonry) the very first day. Where do you suppose he got all that "secret" freemason knowledge to pull off something so unprecidented? It wasn't from a revelation from God.

He had been taught all about masonry by his father and brothers who were also free masons before him. I seem to remember reading some where that his brother had several freemason books in his personal library. If I'm also not mistaken Emmas father was a freemason too.

I'm not making up anything. JS made it a "Restored" female priesthood office in the church equivalent to the office of Elder the moment he penned the title into the D&C. And what's more it has Biblical precidence to boot. John the Apostle writing a letter to his wife (or at least a sister in the ward) addresses her by the same title.

2 John 1

The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

Now I seem to remember You saying something about twisted notions and being wrong?

 

Again, NO reference to ANY priesthood.  At all.  In any of it.  Talk about wresting the scriptures for your own purposes.

Show me that ANY priesthood of any order was conferred. 

Consider that a CFR (I do those so rarely) or withdraw the claim.  Show anywhere where any order of priesthood was conferred upon Emma prior to her receiving her higher temple ordinances in 1843.

And remember - "All Priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it."  Joseph Smith

Edited November 22, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Bobbieaware]

Again, NO reference to ANY priesthood.  At all.  In any of it.  Talk about wresting the scriptures for your own purposes.

Show me that ANY priesthood of any order was conferred. 

Consider that a CFR (I do those so rarely) or withdraw the claim.  Show anywhere where any order of priesthood was conferred upon Emma prior to her receiving her higher temple ordinances in 1843.

And remember - "All Priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it."  Joseph Smith

Yesterday, on another thread, there was an astonishing attempt to prove through scripture that homosexual relations are not sinful. It's interesting encountering a mind that's capable of finding ways to rationalize and justify just about anything.

[JAHS]

Baking bread and setting up the table is not a priesthood duty.  I do think the young women can be asked to do a lot more than they are.  One can be an usher, set up the sacrament, buy the bread, clean up, and do a host of other things without needing to be ordained.  I would suggest that asking to be more involved without ordination is a better way to get things done.

 Please don't bake or buy any whole wheat bread though. I think I'm allergic to it. 

[BCSpace]

That statement said called evolution "the theories of men."

 

No it didn't.  It called conclusions some have about Evolution "the theories of men".

[BCSpace]

I'm not talking about any official declarations regarding evolution. I'm talking about the basic, central doctrine of the Three Pillars of Eternity and what they imply about evolution.

 

There is nothing in LDS doctrine on the creation (or anything doctrinal you might think of regarding 'Eternity') that precludes Evolution.

Edited November 22, 2015 by BCSpace

[JLHPROF]

There is nothing in LDS doctrine on the creation (or anything doctrinal you might think of regarding 'Eternity') that precludes Evolution.

 

Nothing "official".  Plenty of teachings around against it.

[BCSpace]

Nothing "official".  Plenty of teachings around against it.

 

If these 'teachings' are not doctrinal (aka official), then an Evolutionist has nothing to worry about in terms of the Church's doctrine on the Creation.  However, I think it likely some of these teachings you are thinking of are actually doctrinal but will turn out not to conflict with Evolution anyway.

 

Edited November 22, 2015 by BCSpace

[CV75]

Nothing "official".  Plenty of teachings around against it.

If these 'teachings' are not doctrinal (aka official), then an Evolutionist has nothing to worry about in terms of the Church's doctrine on the Creation.  However, I think it likely some of these teachings you are thinking of are actually doctrinal but will turn out not to conflict with Evolution anyway.

 

I agree with both of you in a sense. "Evolution" is godless when used to substitute the Gospel, and I think this is the context in which the prophets have condemned it. Otherwise it is no more godless than the science theories of decomposition, decay, etc. It is godless in the sense that it is one of the natural processes ruling a fallen, and not a saved world. But this is why we have the condescension of God: to undo what Adam did, which was to undo what his Creator did.

 

I think it is possible that when the paradisaical Creation fell and everything died, evolution was the means left to put things back together in an environment conducive to death, waiting for the Lord to put things back together in an environment conducive to life eternal. This latter environment was the return of Adam -- not a reincarnation but a restoration such as Lazarus', only on a much longer timeline -- a human life with the ability to receive the things of God and pick up where they left off at the Fall.