Is evolution Compatible with the Bible?

[california boy]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You know, I have been moved by this conference to say this to you.

I want to publicly and conspicuously and genuinely apologize for any comments which I have made which have offended you in any way- and I know I have made a considerable number of them.

I am truly sorry.   I know you find these to be "homophobic" and therefore highly offensive.  On the other hand I must say I admire your tolerance with me, in not responding in kind.

Yes you are a critic of the church, but I have made this personal, which is totally inappropriate, and does not represent the behavior of a disciple of Jesus Christ.

I promise I will not do this again.  I will continue to repent of this behavior especially to those who are proponents of same sex marriage.

Thank you so much for your post.  That was really kind of you.  I know I can be a very harsh critic of some of the actions the church has taken towards those of us who are gay.  While I always point out that the church can do whatever it wants, I try and point out what the effect on the gay community and those gay members in the church can be.  Sometimes that is a bitter pill to swallow.  But I want you and everyone else to know, I do not do this out of malice towards the church.  Rather it comes actually from a place of love and respect for the church.  I want and expect better from the church and its leaders. 

I will resolve to try and be less passionate on these issues.  I have already decided to post less often on this board, and try to reserve my questions and opinions only to times when I really feel I have something worthwhile to say.  Your post reminds me to try harder to see both sides of these sensitive issues.

[danielwoods]

On 9/29/2016 at 3:43 PM, JLHPROF said:

Brigham Young -
When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world.
Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.

So yes, bellybuttons.
 

The question of the Bible being compatible with Evolution was the topic of this thread. Clearly the question is more about *interpretation* of the Bible and is that interpretation compatible with any number of available interpretations of the Evolution. Some say yes, some no. 

The statement of BY above directly contradicts the common historical interpretation of Genesis, where Adam was made from the dust of the ground (on this Earth and became a living being at that moment and not before) and Eve was constructed using just a rib bone from Adam. Which brings up the question of compatibility between the teachings of BY or LDS by extension and the common historical interpretation of the Biblical text. Seems to me there's a clear incompatibility between the two. 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

The question of the Bible being compatible with Evolution was the topic of this thread. Clearly the question is more about *interpretation* of the Bible and is that interpretation compatible with any number of available interpretations of the Evolution. Some say yes, some no. 

The statement of BY above directly contradicts the common historical interpretation of Genesis, where Adam was made from the dust of the ground (on this Earth and became a living being at that moment and not before) and Eve was constructed using just a rib bone from Adam. Which brings up the question of compatibility between the teachings of BY or LDS by extension and the common historical interpretation of the Biblical text. Seems to me there's a clear incompatibility between the two. 

 

Of course.

I think you must be aware that we teach that the common interpretation by Christianity as a whole is considered "apostate", right?

Did you know that Joseph came up with his own translation of the Bible changing meanings all the way through the bible?  I would think you would be aware of that and not find your conclusion surprising or even worth posting?

Of course the bible, on even its most literal reading does NOT say from the dust "of this earth", AND we have official teachings saying that the rib story is "figurative" and intended only to represent that Eve and Adam are equals and "one flesh".

[danielwoods]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course.

I think you must be aware that we teach that the common interpretation by Christianity as a whole is considered "apostate", right?

Did you know that Joseph came up with his own translation of the Bible changing meanings all the way through the bible?  I would think you would be aware of that and not find your conclusion surprising or even worth posting?

Of course the bible, on even its most literal reading does NOT say from the dust "of this earth", AND we have official teachings saying that the rib story is "figurative" and intended only to represent that Eve and Adam are equals and "one flesh".

Of course. So the question is why reference the Bible at all? If it's all just based on revelation, why not just teach revelation and not make any claim about what the bible says or doesn't? 

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Of course. So the question is why reference the Bible at all? If it's all just based on revelation, why not just teach revelation and not make any claim about what the bible says or doesn't? 

Good question

That's why Joseph re-wrote it.  Now you are beginning to get it.  We believe the bible insofar as it has been "translated" (meaning transmitted and written) correctly.

Think about it.  How do you know the bible is true at all?  Why SHOULD YOU follow it? 

How do you know that you are saved???   Because some old book says so, or because Jesus has testified of it to you?   

I know it is the latter.   THAT is personal revelation.  You believe the bible because of personal revelation too.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not a fan of Golem Spells.

[danielwoods]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Good question

That's why Joseph re-wrote it.  Now you are beginning to get it.  We believe the bible insofar as it has been "translated" (meaning transmitted and written) correctly.

Think about it.  How do you know the bible is true at all?  Why SHOULD YOU follow it? 

How do you know that you are saved???   Because some old book says so, or because Jesus has testified of it to you?   

I know it is the latter.   THAT is personal revelation.  You believe the bible because of personal revelation too.

Personal revelation yes. Contradictory personal revelation no. That is personal revelation that contradicts previously known revelation (such as Genesis).  That's the major difference.

Splinter groups from the LDS are said to be "false" or "contradictory" to known revelation all the time. That's all I'm saying with reference to mainstream LDS and the Bible. 

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

Contradictions in the Bible.

SEE http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Personal revelation yes. Contradictory personal revelation no. That is personal revelation that contradicts previously known revelation (such as Genesis).  That's the major difference.

Splinter groups from the LDS are said to be "false" or "contradictory" to known revelation all the time. That's all I'm saying with reference to mainstream LDS and the Bible. 

 

 

Contradictory to what?  

Previously known to whom?   Why should I believe THEM?

How do I know I am supposed to accept Genesis?   

Many do not accept the bible and  may think YOU will be damned. for accepting it. What do you say to them?  Why not the Zoroastrian Avesta?

Evangelicals never have an answer for that- because typically they accept the bible without thinking about it, but then they will argue something about history, proving the bible, and yet that is irrelevant.  If we could go back and be personal witnesses to the crucifixion it would still not prove that Jesus died for YOUR sins and MINE.  That is proven by the number of witnesses there were who were not converted.  So you can have all the historical evidence you like- it still does not prove that your sins are forgiven- just that that is where the (let's pretend they are false) stories happened!  Someone was crucified and some people think he was the savior, and there's a bunch of false stories about Jesus coming back to life-   That's all history can possibly show.

So history doesn't "prove" the bible either.

There are no objective standards so that argument doesn't work.  One man's cult is another's true religion and all we have to go on is following our gut essentially.

I personally think God teaches us the path that will lead us individually to him- just as there is no one way to teach arithmetic there is no one way to teach us to get close to God.

He is a personal tutor leading us to the best path for us individually.

Only the spirit can lead you there- reason doesn't ever work in the final analysis because one person dying for mankind just is not reasonable.

Yes I believe it's true just as you do, but that belief is not based on "reason".  Where are scales of justice that give us objective evidence for that??   How much does a sin weigh?

It's not the bible, it's not reason, its pure revelation.

Edited October 3, 2016 by mfbukowski

[danielwoods]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Contradictory to what?  

Previously known to whom?   Why should I believe THEM?

How do I know I am supposed to accept Genesis?   

Many do not accept the bible and  may think YOU will be damned. for accepting it. What do you say to them?  Why not the Zoroastrian Avesta?

Evangelicals never have an answer for that- because typically they accept the bible without thinking about it, but then they will argue something about history, proving the bible, and yet that is irrelevant.  If we could go back and be personal witnesses to the crucifixion it would still not prove that Jesus died for YOUR sins and MINE.  That is proven by the number of witnesses there were who were not converted.  So you can have all the historical evidence you like- it still does not prove that your sins are forgiven- just that that is where the (let's pretend they are false) stories happened!  Someone was crucified and some people think he was the savior, and there's a bunch of false stories about Jesus coming back to life-   That's all history can possibly show.

So history doesn't "prove" the bible either.

There are no objective standards so that argument doesn't work.  One man's cult is another's true religion and all we have to go on is following our gut essentially.

I personally think God teaches us the path that will lead us individually to him- just as there is no one way to teach arithmetic there is no one way to teach us to get close to God.

He is a personal tutor leading us to the best path for us individually.

Only the spirit can lead you there- reason doesn't ever work in the final analysis because one person dying for mankind just is not reasonable.

Yes I believe it's true just as you do, but that belief is not based on "reason".  Where are scales of justice that give us objective evidence for that??   How much does a sin weigh?

It's not the bible, it's not reason, its pure revelation.

Reason always plays a part. Revelation is always evaluated by our reason, our experience, our understanding. 

When someone comes along and states that Adam wasn't created out of the dust of the earth as Genesis states (as an example). That person is making a new religion. So why reference the bible at all if the source is all just revelation? 

 

Edited October 4, 2016 by danielwoods
typo

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Reason always plays a part. Revelation is always evaluated by our reason, our experience, our understanding. 

When someone comes along and states that Adam wasn't created out of the dust of the earth as Genesis states (as an example). That person is making a new religion. So why reference the bible at all if the source is all just revelation? 

 

There is nothing here for us to talk about.  Have a nice evening.

I have no problem with making a new religion when the old one is apostate.  I think that's what you are missing here.  I am not interested in being an Evangelical or Catholic.  I cannot make sense out of their theology- it is based on Greek paganism.

Edited October 4, 2016 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

On 10/2/2016 at 2:03 PM, california boy said:

..... But I want you and everyone else to know, I do not do this out of malice towards the church.  Rather it comes actually from a place of love and respect for the church.  I want and expect better from the church and its leaders. 

I will resolve to try and be less passionate on these issues.  I have already decided to post less often on this board, and try to reserve my questions and opinions only to times when I really feel I have something worthwhile to say.  Your post reminds me to try harder to see both sides of these sensitive issues.

I know this post was directed a mfbukowski but I would like to comment that I know you approach the Church from your pow and you would wish that your way of life would be accepted and condoned by the Church.  Let us play what if for a moment.  What if the Church is correct in its assessments (they really do get revelation on the subject), would you want them to deny that revelation?

They are willing to let you live life as you want, just not sanctioned by the Church,

[california boy]

3 hours ago, ERayR said:

I know this post was directed a mfbukowski but I would like to comment that I know you approach the Church from your pow and you would wish that your way of life would be accepted and condoned by the Church.  Let us play what if for a moment.  What if the Church is correct in its assessments (they really do get revelation on the subject), would you want them to deny that revelation?

They are willing to let you live life as you want, just not sanctioned by the Church,

Well first off, I have NEVER said that the church should accept or condone my life. I doubt it would make much difference personally to me and my life if they ever did.  I do think it would probably open up many other gay members to stay within the church.  But that is not my decision.

Of course the church can assert that it has received any revelation it want to.  But I think more and more people, including me, have found such declarations untrustworthy.

I also haven't forgotten for one moment that the church was NOT willing to let me live my life as I want.  The church actively campaigned to take away my civil rights to do just that.  They continue to work to take away others civil rights in other countries.  So it is not like they have decided to leave "the gays" alone to live their lives as they see fit.  

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

Well first off, I have NEVER said that the church should accept or condone my life. I doubt it would make much difference personally to me and my life if they ever did.  I do think it would probably open up many other gay members to stay within the church.  But that is not my decision.

Of course the church can assert that it has received any revelation it want to.  But I think more and more people, including me, have found such declarations untrustworthy.

I also haven't forgotten for one moment that the church was NOT willing to let me live my life as I want.  The church actively campaigned to take away my civil rights to do just that.  They continue to work to take away others civil rights in other countries.  So it is not like they have decided to leave "the gays" alone to live their lives as they see fit.  

Prop 8 was deeply divisive, and personally I think the Church shot itself in the foot with it. That being said the Church does have the right to determine its own doctrines, and make public comments on what it considers moral questions.

Edited October 5, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[california boy]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Prop 8 was deeply divisive, and personally I think the Church shot itself in the foot with it. That being said the Church does have the right to determine its own doctrines, and make public comments on what it considers moral questions.

Of course it does.  I support their right to do so.