I don't believe in Evolution because No Death before the Fall is in the scriptures

[SamuelTheLamanite]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

1910 Official statement:

Okay, I was starting to worry a lot and didn't know what to think right after reading your quote. I was confused. Thank goodness  I checked the link,  "Note that the editorial is unsigned. The editor of the publication was Joseph F. Smith, president of the Church."

According to lds answers "The Priesthood Quorums’ Table was the method by which the General Priesthood Committee communicated with the local quorums. One thing we know for certain is that the article was not written by Joseph F. Smith or the First Presidency as claimed by Evenson and Jeffery. 1 The first evidence is that, as I mentioned above, there was no signature on the article. Realize that the Improvement Era contained numerous anonymous comments and articles on various religious and secular topics. The articles that were written by the First Presidency, by President Joseph F. Smith or by other leaders such as “The Origin of Man” published in 1909 and “The Father and The Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve” published in 1916 are clearly distinguishable as to who the author or authors are. Some believe that the article cited above was written by someone on the General Priesthood Committee, but we will probably never know in this life as articles were published by many who were not members of the General Committee. It could have been written by any member of the Church. The articles that President Smith or others wrote always bore their names, where this 1910 message was unidentified."

For a second I was getting into a conflict with myself. Are there reasons to believe that LDS leaders weren't receiving inspiration from God when teaching No Death? 

Edited September 1, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I am just speculating why the church doesn't consider JoD as an "authoritative source of Church doctrine". It is not because the JoD contradicts my beliefs. 

We learn in D&C 10:10-13 that it has happened before,  and it had to look original.  You don't believe Satan has the power to change a passage?  

I'm not sure you've thought through this.  Let's explore a bit - by what mechanism do you propose Satan made a change to the JoD?  According to LDS doctrine, he has no body, so couldn't use a pen himself.  Did Satan inspire Brigham Young to say something wrong? The implications of this line of thought are very problematic.  Did Satan inspire some scribe or editor to make a change? Who's to say Satan didn't do the same thing to a General Conference talk or a manual?  The more you go down this path, the more it hurts your hope that GC talks and Church manuals are free from error.

Edited September 1, 2017 by ttribe

[SamuelTheLamanite]

43 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 Did Satan inspire some scribe or editor to make a change?

Yes,  I am not saying it did happen, I am only saying it is possible. We know Satan has a lot of power, he tried to kill Joseph Smith directly just before the First Vision. 

43 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Who's to say Satan didn't do the same thing to a General Conference talk or a manual?

No because they are authoritative sources. There was enough room for Satan to make changes, Gospel Topics says  "Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine." You believe Satan made changes to the 116 pages?

Edited September 1, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[ttribe]

20 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes,  I am not saying it did happen, I am only saying it is possible. We know Satan has a lot of power, he tried to kill Joseph Smith directly just before the First Vision. 

No because they are authoritative sources. There was enough room for Satan to make changes, Gospel Topics says  "Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine." You believe Satan made changes to the 116 pages?

You keep quoting the same things over and over. It's clear you haven't applied any critical analysis to this issue.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 I don't feel the Deseret News and the Instructor are as important as General Conference talks and Gospel Topics. A similar article published on "I have a Question" states "Questions of general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy". I wonder if it is the same for The Earth and Man. 

We don't have "not as official statements" in General Conference or the Gospel Topics. 

Once again, this is the sort of nonsense which we expect from protestant evangelicals, which is what gets them in so much trouble when trying to figure out what the Bible says and what their doctrine should be.

[deli_llama]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

I'm not sure you've thought through this.  Let's explore a bit - by what mechanism do you propose Satan made a change to the JoD?  According to LDS doctrine, he has no body, so couldn't use a pen himself.  Did Satan inspire Brigham Young to say something wrong? The implications of this line of thought are very problematic.  Did Satan inspire some scribe or editor to make a change? Who's to say Satan didn't do the same thing to a General Conference talk or a manual? 

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by deli_llama

[ttribe]

18 minutes ago, deli_llama said:

 

The Expanse!

[deli_llama]

Evolution, proto-molecules, and upset Mormons. Ah, the future. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by deli_llama

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, snowflake said:

It is impossible mathematically. 

Incorrect. Abiogenesis has been demonstrated in the lab.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, this is the sort of nonsense which we expect from protestant evangelicals, which is what gets them in so much trouble when trying to figure out what the Bible says and what their doctrine should be.

Why do we have a church? We are members of an organized religion. Why do we have creation accounts? 

Why would God inspire the prophets to teach "First flesh" "No death in the world" and many other things? Do you believe he is a God of confusion? 

If death and Evolution happened for millions of years I don't see why the creation stories would be necessary. God could have just told us "I created the world" without giving us details.  

Edited September 1, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

18 hours ago, ttribe said:

You keep quoting the same things over and over. It's clear you haven't applied any critical analysis to this issue.

Do you believe Satan made changes to the 116 pages? Is there a reason to believe (or be sure) that Satan didn't make changes to the JofD and other historical documents? What is the difference? 

Edited September 1, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[ttribe]

22 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you believe Satan made changes to the 116 pages? Is there a reason to believe (or be sure) that Satan didn't make changes to the JofD and other historical documents? What is the difference? 

Do you have any documented evidence that the JoD fell into "evil" hands, other than there are some things you don't agree with in them?  Last time I checked, there is at least some evidence of the 116 pages being misplaced.

Edited September 1, 2017 by ttribe

[blueglass]

On 8/31/2017 at 5:02 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

It occurs to me that you might do well to write a letter to Pres Nelson going over some of these matters -- in a nice way, of course, and leaving out the funny part where he could possibly sneeze due to an inherited chocolate reflex.  The latter you should retain for your future gothic horror novel, Thursday Morning at the Temple.

Nelson's talk in April 2016 on the price of priesthood power where he speaks about the pain of not being able to save two girls who died from complications with surgery from congenital heart disease is painful.   I felt emotional pain hearing the talk due to my own limitations and failures over the years.  You see in Nelson a man who pushed himself to the wall to save these girls through his knowledge and the hard work he dedicated to the field of medicine, yet they still died.  This failure lingered with him for years.  Ironically, the keys to reducing the CHD problems may pass through a study of the ancient phylogeny and epigenetics which disrupt normal heart development which will require digging deep on evolution.  We need to love the good science, and the spiritual healing to repair lives when unfortunately the medicine is not ready in time.  

Edited September 1, 2017 by blueglass

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Do you have any documented evidence that the JoD fell into "evil" hands, other than there are some things you don't agree with in them?  Last time I checked, there is at least some evidence of the 116 pages being misplaced.

No, but it is possible. The scriptures teach that Satan even has the power to create serpents. 

Edited September 2, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

No, but it is possible. The scriptures teach that Satan even has the power to create serpents. 

So are you saying that the “flying fiery serpents” (1 Nephi 17:41, Numbers 21:8-9, Deut 8:15) which bit the Israelites were Satanic, and that therefore Moses modeled them as an archetypal brazen serpent for healing and as a “type” of Christ (2 Nephi 25:20, Alma 33:19, Helaman 8:14, 2 Kings 18:4), so that anyone looking upon Christ on the cross could be healed as well?  Is that your Satanic plan in a nutshell?

47 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

So whether or not the devil made changes to the JD it is still true it is not an authorativite source.

One really has to ask, Sam, whether you portraying Satan as divided against himself makes any sense at all (Matt 12:26, Mark 3:26, Luke 11:18).  So, if something doesn't meet with your approval, just declare it Satanic and have done with it?  Sounds like a typical protestant evangelical cop-out.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Why do we have a church? We are members of an organized religion. Why do we have creation accounts? 

Why would God inspire the prophets to teach "First flesh" "No death in the world" and many other things? Do you believe he is a God of confusion? 

If death and Evolution happened for millions of years I don't see why the creation stories would be necessary. God could have just told us "I created the world" without giving us details. 

I am certain that you are confused.  The primary reason for that is your adoption of the standard interpretive methods of protestant evangelical fundamentalists -- whose narrow and superficial reading of texts lacks logic and nuance.  Like the typical fundamentalist, you know nothing of differing genres of literature.  In the case of the Creation & Garden stories, for example, you read them as straight narrative history, while the Brethren read them as figurative and highly symbolic ritual texts (liturgy) -- as do non-Mormon scholars.  See, for example, the interpretation of Anglican Bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk .  You will note that Wright refers to the  Creation & Garden stories as a "temple story."  As long as you miss that point, you will always be confused.

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 while the Brethren read them as figurative and highly symbolic ritual texts (liturgy) -- as do non-Mormon scholars.  See, for example, the interpretation of Anglican Bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright:

Please show me where the apostles believe they are just symbolic.  If I am confused it would be about something that the church is not explaining.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So are you saying that the “flying fiery serpents” (1 Nephi 17:41, Numbers 21:8-9, Deut 8:15) which bit the Israelites were Satanic, and that therefore Moses modeled them as an archetypal brazen serpent for healing and as a “type” of Christ (2 Nephi 25:20, Alma 33:19, Helaman 8:14, 2 Kings 18:4), so that anyone looking upon Christ on the cross could be healed as well?  Is that your Satanic plan in a nutshell?

One really has to ask, Sam, whether you portraying Satan as divided against himself makes any sense at all (Matt 12:26, Mark 3:26, Luke 11:18).  So, if something doesn't meet with your approval, just declare it Satanic and have done with it?  Sounds like a typical protestant evangelical cop-out.

See Exodus 7. Read D&C 10, do you believe Satan made changes to the 116 pages? Satan even tried to directly kill Joseph Smith just before the First Vision. If Satan made changes to the 116 pages, why is it not possible for the Journal of Discourses? 

Edited September 2, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

I will quote again because many keep telling me the church doesn't teach No Death

Quote

 In General Conference Elder Nelson taught, "The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God. Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam" and again in General Conference Elder McConkie taught, "True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death"    Gordon B Hinckley confirmed, " The speakers have been inspired, every one of them"  

"I understand from a statement in the book of Moses, which was made by Enoch, that there was no death in the world before Adam (Moses 6:48; see also 2 Ne. 2:22)." Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, April 1953, pp. 122-126

"The Fall of Adam brought physical death into the world (see Moses 6:48)" Gospel Topics

 

 

[ttribe]

5 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

No, but it is possible. The scriptures teach that Satan even has the power to create serpents. 

Where do the scriptures say such a thing?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Please show me where the apostles believe they are just symbolic.  If I am confused it would be about something that the church is not explaining.

You are confused because you slept through high school English -- where you should have learned how to read carefully, and not to personify an organization.  A church does not explain, people explain.  I did not say that "they are just symbolic" (you need to read with care, instead of carelsssness), and the word "Brethren" does not refer only to apostles (as you seem to believe), but to the Prophet, his counselors, and the Quorum of the Twelve.

Spencer W. Kimball said:

Quote

“And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]”   Kimball, “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, 6/3 (Mar 1976), 70, https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/03/the-blessings-and-responsibilities-of-womanhood?lang=eng .

Brigham Young said:

Quote

“Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation.
    “He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. 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.”      Journal of Discourses, 3:319.

Bruce R. McConkie said:

Quote

For those whose limited spiritual understanding precludes a recitation of all the facts, the revealed account, in figurative language, speaks of Eve being created from Adam's rib. (Moses 3:21-25.) A more express scripture, however, speaks of "Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed." (Moses 6:22. Italics added.) In a formal doctrinal pronouncement, the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) said that "all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner," and that the first of our race began life as the human germ or embryo that becomes a man. (See Improvement Era, November 1909, p. 80.)    (From "Eve and the Fall," in Woman (1988), 60.

Scant knowledge is available to us of Eve (the wife of Adam) and her achievements in pre-existence and in mortality. Without question she was like unto her mighty husband Adam in intelligence and in devotion to righteousness during both her first and second estates of existence. She was placed on earth in the same manner as was Adam, the Mosaic account of the Lord creating her from Adam's rib being merely figurative. (Moses 3:20-25.)  Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. (1966), 242.

John A. Widtsoe said:

Quote

Symbolism. Naturally, the very essence of these fundamental truths is not known to man, nor indeed can be. We know things only so far as our senses permit. Whatever is known, is known through symbols. The letters on the written page are but symbols of mighty thoughts that are easily transferred from mind to mind by these symbols. Man lives under a great system of symbolism. Clearly, the mighty, eternal truths encompassing all that man is or may be, cannot be expressed literally, nor is there in the temple any attempt to do this. On the contrary, the great and wonderful temple service is one of mighty symbolism. By the use of symbols of speech, of action, of color, of form, the great truths connected with the story of man are made evident to the mind.  Widtsoe, Rational Theology, 120.

The earthly ordinances of the Gospel are themselves only reflections of heavenly ordinances.  For instance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and temple work are merely earthly symbols of realities that prevail throughout the universe; but, they are symbols of truths that must be recognized if the Great Plan is to be fulfilled.  The acceptance of these earthly symbols is part and parcel of correct earth life, but being earthly symbols they are distinctly of the earth, and cannot be accepted elsewhere than on earth.  Widtsoe, 1915 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual (“Work for the Dead,” UGHM, 6:33).

David O. McKay said:

Quote

There are two things in every Temple: the mechanics, to set forth certain ideals, and symbolism, what those mechanics symbolize. I saw only the mechanics when I first went through the Temple. I did not see the spiritual. I did not see the symbolism of spirituality. Speaking plainly, I saw men, physical state, which offended me. That is a mechanic of washing....I was blind to the great lesson of purity behind the mechanics. I did not hear the message of the Lord, "Be ye clean who bear the vessels of the Lord." I did not hear that eternal truth, "Cleanliness is next to godliness." The symbolism was lost entirely....And so with the anointing, following the washing. Do you see the symbolism?...How many of us young men saw that? We thought we were big enough and with intelligence sufficient to criticize the mechanics of it and we were blind to the symbolism, the message of the spirit. And then that great ordinance, the endowment. The whole thing simple in the mechanical part of it, but sublime and eternal in its significance.  McKay at the dedicatory services of the additions to the Arizona Temple, December 30, 1956, as cited in David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, 277.

 

Quote

See Exodus 7. Read D&C 10, do you believe Satan made changes to the 116 pages? Satan even tried to directly kill Joseph Smith just before the First Vision. If Satan made changes to the 116 pages, why is it not possible for the Journal of Discourses? 

Satan tempted Jesus during his 40-day fast in the wilderness.  That's what he does as the Father of All Lies, and you merely further this program by suggesting that the Times & Seasons, Journal of Discourses, Improvement Era, Ensign, and lds.org are controlled by him.  That is certainly what the anti-Mormon evangelicals believe.  The question is why do you believe that?  Why don't you accept Moroni 7:11-14?

Quote

For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.  Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.  But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.  Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Why do we have a church? We are members of an organized religion. Why do we have creation accounts? 

Why would God inspire the prophets to teach "First flesh" "No death in the world" and many other things? Do you believe he is a God of confusion? 

If death and Evolution happened for millions of years I don't see why the creation stories would be necessary. God could have just told us "I created the world" without giving us details.  

I don't have a problem with 'God or science. I do have problems with what some mortals claim God said. IE: Pi isn't exactly the whole numeral three. Plus men are in space and have been on our moon despite what some mortal claimed God said.

May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it." "The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

 

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[Geocacher]

Back from a very very long absence.  I like to think that in the book of Genesis, that there was land set aside, from when Adam and Eve, started out in the Garden of Eden. I call it center stage, where there was no death, till the fall, but outside this land, there was death from the beginning of time.   The generations of people where in the lands set aside, while, in other lands, there were primitive peoples, like in Asia, and Australia.  There is no measured time in Heaven(outside of this physical realm).  I am split right down the middle between christian creation theory and full on Evolution.  Developing the Earth was a process long process, of genetic development.  So much has happened on Earth, both on center stage(Biblical lands), and off stage.  The flood may have extended well outside of the biblical lands, also the Ark may have  played a big part of saving animals but, after the flood, many angels quickly regrew the vegetation, and forests, and the animals of the Earth.   You can see now how conflicted I may be but I do know for a fact that time is not measured in Heaven, like in the physical realm. Time is weird in heaven, it is multi-dimensional, but you most likely can not go back in time, in heaven.

So there were, in my book, there lands, that where center stage for the bible, and other lands, never mentioned in the bible.  The ancient history of the non-biblical lands really fascinate me big time. Also the Neanderthals, big time. How they, and the Cro-Magnons, and early Modern Humans. This is why I am so split right down the middle. I treat the Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, and Early Modern Humans, like a genetic experiment, or development.  

Going purely Creationist, or purely Evolutionist, really drives me bananas.

[thesometimesaint]

Adam and Eve were created then placed in the Garden of Eden. I have no problem with Noah's Flood being a massive albeit regional flood. If you want to know why God did something look to the Scriptures, if you want to know how God did something look to science.

[Freedom]

On 8/27/2017 at 1:02 AM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I quoted General Conference teachings. I believe God has the power to change our planet and make it appear old with millions of years of Evolution.  

So you believe in a god that would trick us into believing falsehoods. He would intentionally confuse us. To what end may I ask? Are you of the opinion that everything said at general conference is doctrine or do you only accept those opinions that align with your own dogma?

[Freedom]

On 9/1/2017 at 2:41 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Why do we have a church? We are members of an organized religion. Why do we have creation accounts? 

Why would God inspire the prophets to teach "First flesh" "No death in the world" and many other things? Do you believe he is a God of confusion? 

If death and Evolution happened for millions of years I don't see why the creation stories would be necessary. God could have just told us "I created the world" without giving us details.  

The bible may have been written for us but not to us. The creation stories made perfect sense to the original audience, and they make perfect sense to those who read it in the cultural context of the original audience. If I were to say "I am so hungry I could eat a horse" I am expressing a literal hunger using figurative language. Someone 3000 years from how reading this may think that I was claiming I could actually eat a horse, not being familiar with the figure of speech.