No Death Before the Fall?

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am tired of this 

CFR

 

IMO. 

[Ouagadougou]

45 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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? 

You see no problem with this?  Prophets and apostles of the Lord (for the only true church on he face of the earth) are teaching people doctrine, policies, teachings, etc.--and just one or two years later it turns out they they were, in fact, completely wrong.  Why then listen to anything they have to say in the present if, by what you have indicated, they might just be wrong two years later?  Is following the prophet's heed a matter of rolling the dice based on faith?  In other words, the prophet's guidance might be correct two years from now, so just have faith -- but if not -- he was just speaking with limited knowledge.  What guidance are church leaders giving to us know that will turn out to be false and/or limited guidance one or two years from now?   

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

You see no problem with this?  Prophets and apostles of the Lord (for the only true church on he face of the earth) are teaching people doctrine, policies, teachings, etc.--and just one or two years later it turns out they they were, in fact, completely wrong.  Why then listen to anything they have to say in the present if, by what you have indicated, they might just be wrong two years later?

My background is science. That happens all the time. You go where the evidence leads. Sometimes you're very confident based upon the evidence you have. Suddenly it changes. The wise man follows the evidence.

Again, let me once again turn the question around again. You've not answered the prior times I asked. Why is absolute infallibility needed for trust? And do you act that way in the rest of your life? I bet not.

Clearly this is an issue for you and clearly it's not an issue for me in the least. You seem to think the burden rests upon me for explaining how I can trust independence of certainty. To which I can only reply nothing in life is certain, yet we trust. To me the question is much more why you think church is so different from all the other places we trust. That is, it seems like your beliefs are the odd ones in need of explanation not mine. Or, put an other way, can you trust anything in a consistent way if infallibility or certainty is required?

Edited May 31, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Ouagadougou]

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

My background is science. That happens all the time. You go where the evidence leads. Sometimes you're very confident based upon the evidence you have. Suddenly it changes. The wise man follows the evidence.

Again, let me once again turn the question around again. You've not answered the prior times I asked. Why is absolute infallibility needed for trust? And do you act that way in the rest of your life? I bet not.

Clearly this is an issue for you and clearly it's not an issue for me in the least. You seem to think the burden rests upon me for explaining how I can trust independence of certainty. To which I can only reply nothing in life is certain, yet we trust. To me the question is much more why you think church is so different from all the other places we trust. That is, it seems like your beliefs are the odd ones in need of explanation not mine. Or, put an other way, can you trust anything in a consistent way if infallibility or certainty is required?

And look at the lack of evidence to support many of the church's truth claims, IMO.  Do the wise men in the church follow this scientific evidence?  Nope.  They actually do the contrary -- they ignore this evidence and ask members to rely on faith.  For example, they say the Book of Mormon can only but understood spiritually and NOT by science/physical evidence.  Why is that?  Because IMO there is NO actual evidence to support the BoM narrative as a non-fiction.  So, as you pointed out, the church leaders do NOT go where the evidence leads -- they rely on faith and ignore science.   

I don't expect church leaders to be infallible...of course certain mistakes will be made.  However, what I do expect is credibility:  if you look at the numerous errors/mistakes in different areas many church leaders have made since JS, IMO, it greatly diminishes their overall credibility.  In other words, how many times have church leaders not only missed the mark, but completely missed the target?   Numerous times IMO.  

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And look at the lack of evidence to support many of the church's truth claims, IMO.  Do the wise men in the church follow this scientific evidence?  Nope.  They actually do the contrary -- they ignore this evidence and ask members to rely on faith.  For example, they say the Book of Mormon can only but understood spiritually and NOT by science/physical evidence.  Why is that?  Because IMO there is NO actual evidence to support the BoM narrative as a non-fiction.  So, as you pointed out, the church leaders do NOT go where the evidence leads -- they rely on faith and ignore science.   

I don't expect church leaders to be infallible...of course certain mistakes will be made.  However, what I do expect is credibility:  if you look at the numerous errors/mistakes in different areas many church leaders have made since JS, IMO, it greatly diminishes their overall credibility.  In other words, how many times have church leaders not only missed the mark, but completely missed the target?   Numerous times IMO.  

It's fine of course to not view revelation as evidence. But that seems to not be where your problem is. 

Now you talk about credibility, which honestly is a pretty big change of position. Further credibility is going to vary by topic and how we judge it. For instance on some things I find McConkie incredibly credible and on certain things not as credible. In the same way on quantum mechanics I find Richard Feynman to be ridiculously credible and on interpersonal ethics horribly lacking in credibility. So credibility seems very tied to topics. 

To the point at hand you look at errors whereas I am constantly staggered by how much they get right. Again I suspect the question is the criteria for credibility as well as perhaps the place we find credibility. But I am glad you've rejected your earlier hard to defend position of certainty.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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. 

As I said, these were university debates between qualified opponents, not the silly stuff you have in mind.  No tricks.

Quote

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. 

Of course.  I didn't say otherwise.  It isn't just catastrophe, although that has been a major component in several major extinction events.  I specified also rapid environmental change, which is what Eldredge & Gould posited.  I recall that one our texts in paleontology was Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape, in which the major change was the necessity for theretofore mainly tree-dwelling simians to come down out of the trees and forage in the savannah.  He suggested that this spurred major evolutionary change in hominids.  Another text was Louis Leakey's Man Makes Himself, which laid out the additional need for pre-humans to invent things for survival -- much as chimps have done, but moreso.  See my paper comparing human and chimp behavior at  http://www.scribd.com/doc/154253285/Chimpanzee-Human-Behavior .

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

You see no problem with this?  Prophets and apostles of the Lord (for the only true church on he face of the earth) are teaching people doctrine, policies, teachings, etc.--and just one or two years later it turns out they they were, in fact, completely wrong.  Why then listen to anything they have to say in the present if, by what you have indicated, they might just be wrong two years later?  Is following the prophet's heed a matter of rolling the dice based on faith?  In other words, the prophet's guidance might be correct two years from now, so just have faith -- but if not -- he was just speaking with limited knowledge.  What guidance are church leaders giving to us know that will turn out to be false and/or limited guidance one or two years from now?   

You are aware that the First Presidency asked Mc C not to publish Mormon Doctrine and he did anyway, right?

 

Quote

 

Main article: Mormon Doctrine (book)

In 1958, McConkie published a book, Mormon Doctrine: A Compendium of the Gospel, which he described as "the first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the kingdom" and "the first extensive compendium of the whole gospel—the first attempt to publish an encyclopedic commentary covering the whole field of revealed religion." He included a disclaimer that he alone was responsible for the doctrinal and scriptural interpretations, a practice then unusual.^[5]

In writing the book, McConkie relied heavily upon the church's standard works and recognized doctrinal authorities.^[5] Church leaders were surprised by its publication since he had not asked permission and was not asked to develop such a work, and they responded that while they applauded the attempt of the book to fill a need, it used a harsh tone. Apostle Mark E. Petersen called it "full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation."^[6] Church president David O. McKay asked McConkie not to reprint it, but later, McConkie was asked to revise it with the editorial help of Spencer W. Kimball. The 1966 second edition incorporated many changes, such as a softening of the tone.

While almost all of the Bible Dictionary included with the LDS Church's publication of the Bible in 1979 borrows from the Cambridge University Press bible dictionary,^[7] modifications were made to some entries to reflect Mormon beliefs better, and Mormon Doctrine heavily influenced those changes.^[5] Mormon Doctrine remained in print until 2010, when Deseret Book ceased publication, citing poor sales.^[8]

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_R._McConkie#Mormon_Doctrine}

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

You see no problem with this?  Prophets and apostles of the Lord (for the only true church on he face of the earth) are teaching people doctrine, policies, teachings, etc.--and just one or two years later it turns out they they were, in fact, completely wrong.  Why then listen to anything they have to say in the present if, by what you have indicated, they might just be wrong two years later?  Is following the prophet's heed a matter of rolling the dice based on faith?  In other words, the prophet's guidance might be correct two years from now, so just have faith -- but if not -- he was just speaking with limited knowledge.  What guidance are church leaders giving to us know that will turn out to be false and/or limited guidance one or two years from now?   

I think the safe approach is to treat them like anyone else. If they say something useful, I will listen. However, I won't automatically revere what they say any more than what anyone else says. I'll look at all with some healthy skepticism.

[Kevin Christensen]

19 hours 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.  

Notice that D&C 1 includes a formal statement of "mine authority" and "the authority of my servants " (verse 6).  Notice how verses 24-28 bluntly set realistic expectations for us:

Quote

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

And there is the matter of what is, and what is not doctrine.

Quote

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this [that is, faith, repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost] is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

According this particular authority, what should I expect to happen if I build my house of faith on the foundation of "blacks and the priesthood"?  And who should I blame if I ignore the blunt statement of the "authority of my servants" and assume that they should display no weakness, no err, should never have to seek wisdom since they should have it already on the shelf in a Big Book of What to Think, never sin, and not have conditions to to meet in order to receive knowledge?

If I remove the beams from my own eye before attempting to discern what goes on elsewhere, does that not help me see clearly?  One thing I see clearly is that the leaders of the LDS church are inspired, but not sock puppets.  And it is enough for me to understand that the guarantee on them amounts to expedience.  Expedient is enough.

Just saying.  Again.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I said, these were university debates between qualified opponents, not the silly stuff you have in mind.  No tricks.

Not seeing them I can't say much. I can but say in my lifetime I've never seen a Creationist make an even somewhat coherent case.

Quote

Of course.  I didn't say otherwise.  It isn't just catastrophe, although that has been a major component in several major extinction events.  I specified also rapid environmental change, which is what Eldredge & Gould posited.

Right. And my point is that claim seems false. There's no doubt rapid evolution can happen during such times but those aren't the only times.

Edited May 31, 2017 by clarkgoble

[thesometimesaint]

Creationist believe in Super Evolution.

SEE

 

[thesometimesaint]

Ouagadougou:

If we admit to mistakes we can't be right in anything. If we don't admit to mistakes we are lying. Great Catch 22 you've got going there.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Notice that D&C 1 includes a formal statement of "mine authority" and "the authority of my servants " (verse 6).  Notice how verses 24-28 bluntly set realistic expectations for us:

And there is the matter of what is, and what is not doctrine.

According this particular authority, what should I expect to happen if I build my house of faith on the foundation of "blacks and the priesthood"?  And who should I blame if I ignore the blunt statement of the "authority of my servants" and assume that they should display no weakness, no err, should never have to seek wisdom since they should have it already on the shelf in a Big Book of What to Think, never sin, and not have conditions to to meet in order to receive knowledge?

If I remove the beams from my own eye before attempting to discern what goes on elsewhere, does that not help me see clearly?  One thing I see clearly is that the leaders of the LDS church are inspired, but not sock puppets.  And it is enough for me to understand that the guarantee on them amounts to expedience.  Expedient is enough.

Just saying.  Again.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Kevin, thanks.

Yet again.

I always forget that scripture and it is definitive.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Creationist believe in Super Evolution.

SEE

 

I hope this is not actually your opinion of creationists.   The guys who made this video, whatever their beliefs don't even know how to spell or speak grammatically.

Regardless of your POV, not exactly impressive.

[thesometimesaint]

As I already said if defined broadly enough LDS are Creationists. We believe God did it. I leave it up to scientists of whatever faith to explain how God did it.

[Ouagadougou]

On 30.05.2017 at 11:21 PM, mfbukowski said:

You are aware that the First Presidency asked Mc C not to publish Mormon Doctrine and he did anyway, right?

And you just proved my point that an apostle of the Lord can say/publish nonsense for members to listen/read for many years -- but then when it turns out he was, in fact, wrong, the church doubles down.  Was McC just a rogue apostle with his own agenda?  What about the JFS' book "Doctrines of Salvation?"  What about the Journal of Discourses and conference talks, all filled with ridiculous statements?  

 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

And you just proved my point that an apostle of the Lord can say/publish nonsense for members to listen/read for many years -- but then when it turns out he was, in fact, wrong, the church doubles down.  Was McC just a rogue apostle with his own agenda?  What about the JFS' book "Doctrines of Salvation?"  What about the Journal of Discourses and conference talks, all filled with ridiculous statements?  

OH

my 

gosh.

He publishes a book the first presidency did not want him to publish which is in print for years during which he remains an apostle in good standing and that proves that the "church doubles down" on a "rogue apostle"?

All you are proving is your total inability to think clearly, your mind is so fogged over with hate.

What it proves is that 1- even apostles can make mistakes and 2- the church does NOT censure them for doing so in cases of doctrine.  Morality, yes, doctrine no.

Then you take your point further by citing other examples of errors to prove that we are supposed to believe that apostles and prophets are supposed to be infallible?

It is like you are seeing the opposite everywhere- freedom is tyranny and claims of fallibility are claims of infallibility.

Members who believe nonsense, like it is a Satanic to play cards with "face cards" regardless of the game, or that apostles are supposed to be infallible, are the foolish ones to believe blindly.

You don't even recognize that the fact that some general authorities and prophets have published "nonsense" and the church has allowed it, is PROOF that we have a great deal of freedom and latitude in what we believe, as long as we can pass a temple recommend interview being fully honest in heart before the Lord.

With you it is always "through the looking glass" in Backwards Land.

It should be blatantly clear, for precisely the reasons you have mentioned, that apostles and prophets are FALLIBLE and cite their own personal opinions all the time, and if they can do so, so can we.

Your own evidence disproves everything you are asserting if you could only see it.

So keep it up!  Your absurd citations make your opponents stronger!   Got some more??  I can use that stuff later for the next guy coming along with your arguments!?

Edited June 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

And you just proved my point that an apostle of the Lord can say/publish nonsense for members to listen/read for many years -- but then when it turns out he was, in fact, wrong, the church doubles down.

Or most saw it was wrong all along and didn't think it particularly affected his ability to function as an apostle.

[Ouagadougou]

On 02.06.2017 at 4:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

OH

my 

gosh.

He publishes a book the first presidency did not want him to publish which is in print for years during which he remains an apostle in good standing and that proves that the "church doubles down" on a "rogue apostle"?

All you are proving is your total inability to think clearly, your mind is so fogged over with hate.

What it proves is that 1- even apostles can make mistakes and 2- the church does NOT censure them for doing so in cases of doctrine.  Morality, yes, doctrine no.

Then you take your point further by citing other examples of errors to prove that we are supposed to believe that apostles and prophets are supposed to be infallible?

It is like you are seeing the opposite everywhere- freedom is tyranny and claims of fallibility are claims of infallibility.

Members who believe nonsense, like it is a Satanic to play cards with "face cards" regardless of the game, or that apostles are supposed to be infallible, are the foolish ones to believe blindly.

You don't even recognize that the fact that some general authorities and prophets have published "nonsense" and the church has allowed it, is PROOF that we have a great deal of freedom and latitude in what we believe, as long as we can pass a temple recommend interview being fully honest in heart before the Lord.

With you it is always "through the looking glass" in Backwards Land.

It should be blatantly clear, for precisely the reasons you have mentioned, that apostles and prophets are FALLIBLE and cite their own personal opinions all the time, and if they can do so, so can we.

Your own evidence disproves everything you are asserting if you could only see it.

So keep it up!  Your absurd citations make your opponents stronger!   Got some more??  I can use that stuff later for the next guy coming along with your arguments!?

From what you just said, why then pay attention to anything they have to say and/or write next general conference or during other meetings?  Because who knows, 10 years from now it could just be nonsense.  

And there really is only "freedom and latitude" in what one can believe in the church as long as he/she keeps opinions to themselves.  If your public opinion doesn't align with what the brethren on certain issues, then there can be repercussions.  

[Ouagadougou]

On 02.06.2017 at 6:09 PM, clarkgoble said:

Or most saw it was wrong all along and didn't think it particularly affected his ability to function as an apostle.

An apostle spreading nonsense doesn't affect his ability to function as an apostle?  Isn't an apostle's role to be a "special witness of Christ?"  A mouthpiece?  If he is spreading rubbish, then that, in turn, affects his primary role as a representative of Christ IMO. 

[thesometimesaint]

We have no expectation of infallibility in the Church leadership. We're happy that God chooses to talk to them/us on occasion. 

Edited June 4, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

From what you just said, why then pay attention to anything they have to say and/or write next general conference or during other meetings?  Because who knows, 10 years from now it could just be nonsense.  

And there really is only "freedom and latitude" in what one can believe in the church as long as he/she keeps opinions to themselves.  If your public opinion doesn't align with what the brethren on certain issues, then there can be repercussions.  

 

You know what is right or wrong by following the spirit.   Have you ever heard that before?  Or like read ANY scripture in you LIFE??  You pay attention to them because they are wise and inspired men who are close to the Lord but NOT INFALLIBLE.  YOU MUST CONFIRM IT ALL FOR YOURSELF

MUST you be told when to put on your socks and how to tie your shoes?   DO THINGS FOR YOURSELF and use your own mind.   I know it's a revolutionary concept I guess.

TRUST YOURSELF and what God tells YOU- 

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

An apostle spreading nonsense doesn't affect his ability to function as an apostle?  Isn't an apostle's role to be a "special witness of Christ?"  A mouthpiece?  If he is spreading rubbish, then that, in turn, affects his primary role as a representative of Christ IMO. 

Being a witness for Christ doesn't necessarily mean they're a good witness for anything. Saying he ought understand evolutionary science is like saying he ought be a good accountant. Don't get me wrong, sometimes an apostle who understands accounting and finance is necessary. Thus N. Eldon Tanner. But I don't expect everyone to have the same skills. I just appreciate them for the skills they do bring to bear.

Edited June 4, 2017 by clarkgoble

[BCSpace]

On 5/24/2017 at 11:59 PM, Ouagadougou said:

The LDS church states that:

"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/death.html?lang=eng&letter=D

So, Adam and Eve lived in Missouri; the fall occurred ~ 4,000 B.C.; and before that time there was no death on Earth?  

IMO, this is absolutely ridiculous to believe that death only occurred after the fall.  For example, scientific evidence shows that humans and animals died well before 4,000 B.C. 

"Archaeologists say they have unearthed the earliest evidence of warfare between hunter-gatherers to be scientifically dated, at a remote site in northern Kenya.

The 10,000-year-old remains of 27 people found west of Lake Turkana show that they met violent deaths."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35370374

 

Nephi 2:22 applies the state of no death begins after the creation in finished; it is not applied to the creative state.  Also, thinking of a timeline:

Creation/Evolution/Death---> Garden state of no death ---> The Fall ----> Evolution and Death continues

....claiming that there was no death before the Fall is still a true statement.

It's a bit more complex to try and tidy up all the details, but one can also have a localized garden state of no death, with death and evolution occurring all around it.

 

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace. Long time no see my old friend. How the heck are you doing?