No Death Before the Fall?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello mfb...

You're painting with a pretty broad brush here, if I'm reading you correctly... As a lifetime member, I did not grow up in "blind obedience," and absolutely believe that it is just as necessary for me (and other lifers) to receive a testimony of Joseph/the gospel through personal revelation as much as any convert... Fortunately, that testimony for me came as a 17 year-old seminary student while studying the BoM and taking Moroni's challenge of Moroni 10:4 to inquire for myself... to this day, 59 years later, I can remember that experience of the witness by the Spirit as if it was yesterday... a witness so strong that it stayed with me through 34 years of being inactive.  And it is with me today.  I'm sure there are those lifetime members who just went along because of family, etc., but they can't be truly converted IMO without that personal revelation... nor can any convert... 

GG

Yes of course you are right- and I am married to someone just like you who is a "lifer" and of course has her own testimony.

I apologize to anyone who might have been offended by my comment - but we see so many here to believe that we are to follow the prophet in a blind manner- walking into hell almost the way it is portrayed, which is not the case of course

The principle which often gets missed on this board is that it is RIGHT to question all principles and come to our own testimonies on each and every principle of the gospel, and that Joseph himself eschewed creeds and hard definitions of doctrine.

Sorry to paint everyone with a broad brush.

 

[thesometimesaint]

On 5/28/2017 at 1:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

How could anyone possibly have evidence for that proposition?

There could be "causes" perhaps for change, as opposed to reasons, but "causes" are notoriously difficult to define.  And the idea that without a cause for change, that species do not change is impossible to prove.

Environments change, genetics change, changes in mate selection, all effect the changes we see in our natural living world.

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Environments change, genetics change, changes in mate selection, all effect the changes we see in our natural living world.

I think you're missing his point. He's critiquing the semantics and functional role of "change." It's more a traditional argument in philosophy of science and the critique of causation. Even ignoring the philosophical debate, causes are traditionally very difficult to establish. That's for several reasons. For one usually the evidence is statistical and the first thing you learn is stats class is correlation isn't causation. So the trick is establishing it. The usual procedure is controlling dependent variables and see what changes in the outputs. But while that can be done for some things it typically can't be done with many natural phenomena such as in economics or medicine. Even to the degree we can do it, often the problem is uncontrolled confounding variables. While in physics we can control confounding variables reasonably well, in more complex phenomena as found in economics, psychology, sociology and even much of biology confounding variables are hard or even impossible to eliminate. That tends to mean that for any empirical result there are competing explanations undermining establishing causality. 

As a practical matter we often get "good enough" and simply recognize that science isn't about proof but fallibilistic best explanations. 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think you're missing his point. He's critiquing the semantics and functional role of "change." It's more a traditional argument in philosophy of science and the critique of causation. Even ignoring the philosophical debate, causes are traditionally very difficult to establish. That's for several reasons. For one usually the evidence is statistical and the first thing you learn is stats class is correlation isn't causation. So the trick is establishing it. The usual procedure is controlling dependent variables and see what changes in the outputs. But while that can be done for some things it typically can't be done with many natural phenomena such as in economics or medicine. Even to the degree we can do it, often the problem is uncontrolled confounding variables. While in physics we can control confounding variables reasonably well, in more complex phenomena as found in economics, psychology, sociology and even much of biology confounding variables are hard or even impossible to eliminate. That tends to mean that for any empirical result there are competing explanations undermining establishing causality. 

As a practical matter we often get "good enough" and simply recognize that science isn't about proof but fallibilistic best explanations. 

Bingo!

[thesometimesaint]

I think it  is impossible to control for all the variables in evolution in life's long history. So we must explain as many as we can. That being said I believe we have more than enough (scientific) explanations to establish evolution as a fact.

Evolution observed in ability of bacteria to eat nylon.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

We will, of course, continue to gain more knowledge about it.  I have proposed a simple experiment to disprove evolution once and for all. All it takes is a shovel and some means to record what you find. Go dig up some fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt.

Edited May 30, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[Ouagadougou]

On 28.05.2017 at 10:48 AM, thesometimesaint said:

Yes, and men are frequently wrong on any number of issues. All that any member of the Church is required to believe concerning evolution is that God did it.

If they were wrong, then these men/apostles taught and/or spread false doctrine and beliefs.  

[Ouagadougou]

On 28.05.2017 at 10:36 AM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

They were always speaking as men when what they said does not support the current narrative.  This is where science and discovery lead the church.  What is fashionable today and doctrine today will be put under the bus tomorrow once science shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the doctrine was merely mortal speculation.  

Great point!  It's also important to highlight the fact that these apostles (men) are special witnesses of Christ for the only true church on earth.  "Speaking as men" is a great deflection (and a reoccuring theme) to avoiding having to admit that these apostles/prophets taught false doctrine and were completely mistaken.  Speculation is a great word, especially as it relates to some of the many statements church leaders made and continue to make.  If prophets/apostles are not infallible and often just "speak as men," their words should be scrutinized and treated as mere speculation at this point, IMO.  

[Ouagadougou]

On 27.05.2017 at 8:02 PM, mfbukowski said:

Of course. We're they NOT human?

What were they then?

They were wrong and mistaken.  If apostles and prophets can't rise to the occasion and spread truth, why put your trust in them?  If they are just men like the rest of us, then why the hero worship in the church (IMO)?  "Speaking as men" is a reoccuring theme in the church for current and past leaders -- but for many like myself -- it just sounds like a broken record.  

"34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trustin the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm."

[thesometimesaint]

20 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

If they were wrong, then these men/apostles taught and/or spread false doctrine and beliefs.  

So? We don't believe in mortal infallibility.

Edited May 30, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[Ouagadougou]

10 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

So?

You see no problem with this?  It's just "so?"

So...that would mean that apostles/prophets can lead people astray with false doctrine.  For example, just look at blacks and the priesthood.   

Also, how can you fully put your trust in an organization whose leaders have openly taught and spread false doctrine, policies, and/or teachings?  Another example, look at the "revelation" to deny children with gay parents baptism: logic would tell a pragmatic person this clearly goes against Christ's teachings, but it's doctrine today.  Fifty years from now, IMO, this policy will be changed, swept under the rug by the church, and viewed as an absolute mistake by those outside of the church (along with many inside).  Finally, blindly following church leaders on every topic lives no room for individual thought, because your views/beliefs MUST align with what the brethren want.  

Edited May 30, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

You see no problem with this?  It's just "so?"

So...that would mean that apostles/prophets can lead people astray with false doctrine.  For example, just look at blacks and the priesthood.   

Also, how can you fully put your trust in an organization whose leaders have openly taught and spread false doctrine, policies, and/or teachings?  Another example, look at the "revelation" to deny children with gay parents baptism: logic would tell a pragmatic person this clearly goes against Christ's teachings, but it's doctrine today.  Fifty years from now, IMO, this policy will be changed, swept under the rug by the church, and viewed as an absolute mistake by those outside of the church (along with many inside).  Finally, blindly following church leaders on every topic lives no room for individual thought, because your views/beliefs MUST align with what the brethren want.  

Again this seems to require infallibility for trust, which first off just doesn't exist but secondly seems a dubious claim to make. We'd never make that claim about science for instance yet it is very trusted in general. So I'm not sure I buy the premise undergirding your statements.

The problem is that once you let in a thoroughgoing fallibilism as well as a burden of proof towards what prior leadership teaches, I think you end up with something very similar to what we have. Yet I think both those positions are extremely defensible. I recognize that as a practical matter many want a de facto infallibility. I think it significant that God doesn't want to give it.

As to the gay parents issue, I believe that's the exact same policy polygamists have had for 60+ years. So while I understand why it is problematic socially, I'm not sure it's as obviously ethically challenged as you do.

Edited May 30, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

They were wrong and mistaken.  If apostles and prophets can't rise to the occasion and spread truth, why put your trust in them?  If they are just men like the rest of us, then why the hero worship in the church (IMO)?  "Speaking as men" is a reoccuring theme in the church for current and past leaders -- but for many like myself -- it just sounds like a broken record.  

"34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trustin the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm."

I don't know what you are talking about and I have said this repeatedly

Have you even read a single post I have sent you?

I trust no one but the spirit and what the spirit affirms to me personally and I have a testimony that this is God's church on earth today.  If I disagree with an apostle or prophet, I disagree and go my own way, and that is what the church in fact teaches in multiple scriptures including the one you cite above.

To me, YOU sound like a broken record, or more like a parrot actually.  Sorry but I am trying to give you some tough love here.  LISTEN for pete's sake. 

I am beginning to think you have a problem with reading comprehension, I have said this before, again and again.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again this seems to require infallibility for trust, which first off just doesn't exist but secondly seems a dubious claim to make. We'd never make that claim about science for instance yet it is very trusted in general. So I'm not sure I buy the premise undergirding your statements.

As to the gay parents issue, I believe that's the exact same policy polygamists have had for 60+ years. So while I understand why it is problematic socially, I'm not sure it's as obviously ethically challenged as you do.

Agreed!

Maybe with both of us hitting him from both sides he will listen but I doubt it

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello mfb...

You're painting with a pretty broad brush here, if I'm reading you correctly... As a lifetime member, I did not grow up in "blind obedience," and absolutely believe that it is just as necessary for me (and other lifers) to receive a testimony of Joseph/the gospel through personal revelation as much as any convert... Fortunately, that testimony for me came as a 17 year-old seminary student while studying the BoM and taking Moroni's challenge of Moroni 10:4 to inquire for myself... to this day, 59 years later, I can remember that experience of the witness by the Spirit as if it was yesterday... a witness so strong that it stayed with me through 34 years of being inactive.  And it is with me today.  I'm sure there are those lifetime members who just went along because of family, etc., but they can't be truly converted IMO without that personal revelation... nor can any convert... 

GG

Again, broad brush?

This is the kind of garbage I am dealing with here and I see it again and again from many many posters here.

Just one example

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

They were wrong and mistaken.  If apostles and prophets can't rise to the occasion and spread truth, why put your trust in them?  If they are just men like the rest of us, then why the hero worship in the church (IMO)?  "Speaking as men" is a reoccuring theme in the church for current and past leaders -- but for many like myself -- it just sounds like a broken record.  

"34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trustin the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm."

And then we have this from the same poster

Quote

 

You see no problem with this?  It's just "so?"

So...that would mean that apostles/prophets can lead people astray with false doctrine.  For example, just look at blacks and the priesthood.   

Also, how can you fully put your trust in an organization whose leaders have openly taught and spread false doctrine, policies, and/or teachings?  Another example, look at the "revelation" to deny children with gay parents baptism: logic would tell a pragmatic person this clearly goes against Christ's teachings, but it's doctrine today.  Fifty years from now, IMO, this policy will be changed, swept under the rug by the church, and viewed as an absolute mistake by those outside of the church (along with many inside).  Finally, blindly following church leaders on every topic lives no room for individual thought, because your views/beliefs MUST align with what the brethren want.  

 

 

Edited May 30, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Great point!  It's also important to highlight the fact that these apostles (men) are special witnesses of Christ for the only true church on earth.  "Speaking as men" is a great deflection (and a reoccuring theme) to avoiding having to admit that these apostles/prophets taught false doctrine and were completely mistaken.  Speculation is a great word, especially as it relates to some of the many statements church leaders made and continue to make.  If prophets/apostles are not infallible and often just "speak as men," their words should be scrutinized and treated as mere speculation at this point, IMO.  

I think it goes to what the brethren want. They want the air of infallibility and obedience to what they say when looking forward and the excuse of speaking as men when mistakes are made. One never hears them say that their conference talks are from men, but inspired scripture, that is unless one is looking at questionable conference talks of the past. Then it was from fallible men speculating.

[clarkgoble]

58 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it goes to what the brethren want. They want the air of infallibility and obedience to what they say when looking forward and the excuse of speaking as men when mistakes are made. One never hears them say that their conference talks are from men, but inspired scripture, that is unless one is looking at questionable conference talks of the past. Then it was from fallible men speculating.

That's why Elder Christofferson when speaking on recent chastity issues said as part of his discussion, “We don’t claim infallibility for [Stake Presidents and Bishops], as we do not claim it for ourselves. But we know by experience the wisdom and discernment they can exercise. They take their responsibility seriously and rely heavily on divine guidance in fulfilling it.”

Claims of de facto infallibility are nonsense. Although clearly they believe what they say and I personally think those disagreeing with them have a large burden of proof to match. Elder Ballard said at a recent conference:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ has always been led by living prophets and apostles. Though mortal and subject to human imperfection, the Lord’s servants are inspired to help us avoid obstacles that are spiritually life threatening and to help us pass safely through mortality to our final, ultimate, heavenly destination.

During my nearly 40 years of close association, I have been a personal witness as both quiet inspiration and profound revelation have moved to action the prophets and apostles, the other General Authorities, and the auxiliary leaders. While neither perfect nor infallible, these good men and women have been perfectly dedicated to leading the work of the Lord forward as He has directed.

It's true that they think what they are teaching is correct. And it's always possible they might be mistaken. But it's not like they are making their judgments in the dark. That's also true of scripture of course too. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

49 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it goes to what the brethren want. They want the air of infallibility and obedience to what they say when looking forward and the excuse of speaking as men when mistakes are made. One never hears them say that their conference talks are from men, but inspired scripture, that is unless one is looking at questionable conference talks of the past. Then it was from fallible men speculating.

I receive inspiration from conference talks. It is rare that I hear anything I disagree with. It is also a great time to hear stories from other members of the Church - like the man in Denmark who joined the Church after he prayed for a neighbor, and heard a voice tell him to stop the men on the bikes. These types of stories can be just so inspirational. I think sometimes the GAs want the members to have confidence in them rather than leave the Church, but it may be better to build faith other ways - I tend to agree to that extent. However, none of this changes the truths of the gospel. Joseph Smith had faults and the Lord could not always trust him.  Because of him we do not have the Book of Lehi. But also because of him we have the restored gospel and the priesthood.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

.........................................................................................  

No, seriously. What's your point. That has to be a joke. Maybe that was true in the 1860's but hasn't been true for decades and decades. Creationists are usually left doing selective acontextual quote mining.

I witnessed the university debates personally back in the 1970s, in which creationist biochemists with PhDs and lots of lab experience trounced all comers (one of the best was Dr. Duane Gish).  The risk of such debates led many evolutionary biologists to refuse to debate at all.  Much easier to just throw out invective and to claim out of context quotes.  Denounce your opponents as fools, and there is then no need to debate.  However, as I said, I don't believe in creationism, so have no dog in that fight.

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's not evolutionary stasis. Similar fossils usually hide large differences. You're confusing significant morphological change in the fossil record which has periods of stasis with stasis. They aren't the same thing. Certainly Eldridge and others note that for many species there's morphological stasis. But that's not true for all species. The horse family being the obvious example. It all depends upon how well adapted they are to their environment and how much it changes. The main argument for this of course is overlapping species where an original species and newly evolved species from the original can overlap both in time and sometimes geography.

What Gould was important in doing is pointing out that the geological assumption of uniformism was wrong. .........................................

But of course Gould was also just wrong in even how far he pushed the punctuated theory as we can see with the wide variety of human species and subspecies identified merely by bones over a relatively short period (200,000 years). For instance brain size development in hominids also doesn't occur rapidly.A gain I don't think anyone disputes some of Gould's point - especially the idea of major extinction events leading to rapid evolution and speciation. But you're arguing something much stronger than that. (To the degree I understand your argument)

In any case Gould was writing before cheap gene sequencing which revolutionized evolutionary biology leading us to be able to trace recent evolution at the molecular level. I'm still not sure Gould said there were no transitional fossils. ...............................

But overall, just doing a quick JSTOR search I found many, many more papers with evidence of why Gould is wrong in his broad controversial claims and relatively few supporting him. This included undermining his main evidence with mollusks. 

Yes, Gould has been dead a long time, and science constantly moves on.  Yet it is still a fact that most of the truly successful species on Earth did not change for millions of years.  Only catastrophe and major environmental change could do that -- at least theoretically, for believers in biological evolution.  For those who do not believe in that theory, it is just as easy to imagine God using his brilliant genetic code to structure all living things, and to insert variants of living things throughout the Earth.  How?  By divine fiat.  After all, if one believes in miracles and the supernatural, why not go whole hog?

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I witnessed the university debates personally back in the 1970s, in which creationist biochemists with PhDs and lots of lab experience trounced all comers (one of the best was Dr. Duane Gish).  The risk of such debates led many evolutionary biologists to refuse to debate at all.  Much easier to just throw out invective and to claim out of context quotes.  Denounce your opponents as fools, and there is then no need to debate.  However, as I said, I don't believe in creationism, so have no dog in that fight.

There are lots of rhetorical tricks to use in those sorts of debates. I thought you meant debate in a more scholarly sense not in a public debate where the audience typically doesn't know the topic enough to tell what's going on beyond the rhetoric. There bringing up transition works well even though it's frankly a horrible argument. 

Quote

Yes, Gould has been dead a long time, and science constantly moves on.  Yet it is still a fact that most of the truly successful species on Earth did not change for millions of years.  Only catastrophe and major environmental change could do that -- at least theoretically, for believers in biological evolution.

Again, I don't dispute in the least rapid evolutionary change although I'd dispute whether that requires catastrophe and major environmental change. That just seems false, as the link I provided shows with respect to the mollusks. One can accept periods of rapid change without adopting a catastrophe model. 

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, I don't dispute in the least rapid evolutionary change although I'd dispute whether that requires catastrophe and major environmental change. That just seems false, as the link I provided shows with respect to the mollusks. One can accept periods of rapid change without adopting a catastrophe model. 

One never knows when some freak genetic mutation makes one branch of a species able to out-compete the rest of its brethren and quickly take over its habitat! So I agree.

[Ouagadougou]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't know what you are talking about and I have said this repeatedly

Have you even read a single post I have sent you?

I trust no one but the spirit and what the spirit affirms to me personally and I have a testimony that this is God's church on earth today.  If I disagree with an apostle or prophet, I disagree and go my own way, and that is what the church in fact teaches in multiple scriptures including the one you cite above.

To me, YOU sound like a broken record, or more like a parrot actually.  Sorry but I am trying to give you some tough love here.  LISTEN for pete's sake. 

I am beginning to think you have a problem with reading comprehension, I have said this before, again and again.

To me, YOU sound frustrated.  It's ok, dude...all is well!  😀 Nice deflection in the form of a personal attack. If I am just a broken record or parrot to you, then why do you keep responding?  What's worse?  The parrot...or the person who keeps talking to the parrot?

Also, if you disagree with a prophet/apostle, how much can you really disagree in the church?  Not much, IMO.  That's good if you try to form your own opinions, but regardless of what you think, you still must aling to what the brethren want, regardless of how you really feel.  

If the brethren were to tell the church the sky is red, a good portion of its members would automatically believe this blindly without formulating their own opinions.  

 

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it goes to what the brethren want. They want the air of infallibility and obedience to what they say when looking forward and the excuse of speaking as men when mistakes are made. One never hears them say that their conference talks are from men, but inspired scripture, that is unless one is looking at questionable conference talks of the past. Then it was from fallible men speculating.

And instead of ever admitting they were WRONG, the church and apologists cover for them every time with: "they are just men like us and also make mistakes."  Like I said before, if they are just fallible men like the rest of us, why the hero worship in the church?  Are we not all prophets then?

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

To me, YOU sound frustrated.  It's ok, dude...all is well!  😀 Nice deflection in the form of a personal attack. If I am just a broken record or parrot to you, then why do you keep responding?  What's worse?  The parrot...or the person who keeps talking to the parrot?

Also, if you disagree with a prophet/apostle, how much can you really disagree in the church?  Not much, IMO.  That's good if you try to form your own opinions, but regardless of what you think, you still must aling to what the brethren want, regardless of how you really feel.  

If the brethren were to tell the church the sky is red, a good portion of its members would automatically believe this blindly without formulating their own opinions.  

 

I am tired of this 

CFR

 

[RevTestament]

33 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And instead of ever admitting they were WRONG, the church and apologists cover for them every time with: "they are just men like us and also make mistakes."  Like I said before, if they are just fallible men like the rest of us, why the hero worship in the church?  

Some do, and some don't.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

And instead of ever admitting they were WRONG, the church and apologists cover for them every time with: "they are just men like us and also make mistakes."  Like I said before, if they are just fallible men like the rest of us, why the hero worship in the church?  Are we not all prophets then?

How is saying it was a mistake not admitting they were wrong? Honest question. How was McConkie not saying he was wrong with, 

Quote

All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

I earnestly can't quite figure out where you're coming from. When we think we're wrong we say it. How is that bad? I always assumed the big controversy was over things some think are wrong but most (who know about them) don't. But on things like McConkie talks about everyone agrees they were wrong even though a year or two earlier many sincerely believed in them. Where's the problem? 

I also don't quite get the hero bit either. I have several heroes but several of them like Richard Feynman were very, very flawed individuals. I'm very careful to limit in what ways I try and emulate them.

Edited May 31, 2017 by clarkgoble