FYI on LDS Creationism/Evolution history

[Teancum]

21 minutes ago, webbles said:

I'm actually curious.  The only thing that I know that a non-tithe payer can't do is get a temple recommend.  I don't know of anything else that limits it.  You mentioned priesthood so I was wondering if women are affected since they can't be ordained to priesthood offices.

In my experience a non tithe payer cannot advance to another priesthood office, cannot be a bishop, SP, HC, EQ President, etc. Quite simple really.

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

In my experience a non tithe payer cannot advance to another priesthood office, cannot be a bishop, SP, HC, EQ President, etc. Quite simple really.

So it is just priesthood related?  Does there have any impact on women's callings (back to my original question)?  And advancement in the priesthood office is just for Melchezidek Priesthood, correct?  A youth can advanced without being a full tithe-payer (such as from their summer job)?  Can a youth priest be ordained to the Melchezidek priesthood without being a full tithe-payer?  What about a convert?

I also know of a Branch President who was called and wasn't a full tithe-payer.  I've also heard stories of inactive men being called to be Bishops (no personal knowledge) and I assumed they weren't full tithe-payers.  So maybe it isn't a solid rule?

[SteveO]

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Huh?  Another stray man and deflection.

Huh?

[longview]

23 hours ago, marineland said:

Why did you use that expression "speaking only of Earth"?

For several reasons: 1- Robert F. Smith seemed to refer to the creation of the "entire" Universe all at once (I believe that "generations" of creations occur repetitively and continuously); 2- in this "current generation" of our creation there actually are "multiple earths" being created alongside our Earth (Lucifer referenced this in the Endowment).

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ok, but both you and @Robert F. Smithseems to avoid or dance around my questions.  Why?

I thought I answered them, which one?

Oops, I realized I didn’t. I was thinking of exceptions to the default of not calling to bishop and higher if they weren’t paying tithing (assumption being no tithing paid when the person had obvious income would result in no higher calling most likely) which meant in my head that the usual of not to call didn’t need to be stated as it was obviously assumed. My bad. 

Edited January 6, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

how not being a tithe payer impacts a member's ability to attend the temple, hold certain calling and so on

Typically not being a tithe payer if one claims to have money will prevent one from getting a temple recommend, but I think some leaders will make exceptions for cases like I mentioned above with part member families.  
 

However, some leaders are foolishly focused on it, imo.  My mom’s bishop passed her off just fine for her last temple recommend when she was behind in her tithing because I had taken over her daily expenses and completely spaced on paying in SS income (maybe it wasn’t even needed if Dad had paid on it before it went in?) and my brother who was doing her estate didn’t think of it either. She needed the recommend to attend a granddaughter’s wedding. It was insane, she obviously wasn’t competent (why else would I be paying her bills for her and answering the harder questions for her?), so why would her temple recommend be held up because I hadn’t paid it?  It should have been mine, not hers.  And I promised I would get the missing amount as soon as I could, but told him I would pay online or give it to the bishop next week, but he refused to sign until he was told by the bishop the tithing was in.  So we had to run a check back to the bishop, which my husband graciously did (takes a hour form our house and back to where Mom was) because I was maxed out on car time by then.  And the only reason thr SP accepted it without another appointment was I insisted on Mom’s health wasn’t up to it.  Bizarre.

I think if I had appealed to the bishop who knew her history to explain to the SP it would have been different,  but the SP met her for the first time that day, she had been in the stake for a year or two and had never paid tithing so on paper it looked different.  I wasn’t about to say in front of my mother “can’t you see the woman is senile and I blew it because my dad died suddenly dropping a big mess all in my and my brother’s unprepared laps and you are going to stop her from going to her precious granddaughter’s wedding because we forgot…a wedding which will probably be the last she will ever get to attend?” (Which it was).  I have only been angry at one other church leader like I was at him. He was lucky I had to stick with Mom and couldn’t see him by myself…maybe, I think I had nerve to tell him off, lol.  I had never argued with a church leader before and I wasn’t moving until he accepted a compromise.
 

So yea, I think tithing is make or break for some leaders.  Others are more lax.  My guess is they are less lax the higher up the calling is. 

Edited January 7, 2025 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/4/2025 at 5:28 PM, longview said:

The FALL needed to happen. What triggered it? Before the FALL, all of creation (speaking only of Earth) were in a Terrestrial State where animals were reproducing. With one glaring exception: Adam and Eve could NOT have children.

Until they go through puberty, humans are incapable of reproduction.  It's a mammalian thing.  Humans are mammals.

On 1/4/2025 at 5:28 PM, longview said:

They were given a mutually exclusive choice between: 1- avoiding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; 2- reproduction. The only way for them to reproduce was to partake of the Forbidden Fruit. One commandment had to be "transgressed" in order to keep the other commandment. If they obeyed the first commandment, they would have lived forever in an unchanging state but never having children. This is exactly as the prophet Lehi explained.

The Tree of Knowledge and Forbidden Fruit are entirely figurative, and humans in a state of pre-pubescent innocence are indeed incapable of reproduction -- and incapable of being held responsible for their actions.  It is only in that context that we should read Gen 2 - 3, and Moses 5.

On 1/4/2025 at 5:28 PM, longview said:

The Book of Moses makes this clear and unambiguous:

Chapter 5:
10. And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
11. And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

This is temple liturgy.  The Creation & Garden Story must be read and interpreted as liturgy (ritual drama and initiation).  It was not written as historical narrative nor as a science text.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/5/2025 at 2:12 PM, marineland said:

How was Adam, the father of Cain and Abel, created?

 

On 1/5/2025 at 2:18 PM, marineland said:

Why did you use that expression "speaking only of Earth"?

Joseph Smith said:

"Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet, an immortalized Being, and brought his wife Eve with him, and by eating of the fruit of this earth, became subject to death and decay. . . was made mortal and subject to death." - (Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., as recorded by Anson Call and copied by Patriarch John Whitmer)
-------------------------------------    
Brigham Young said:
"Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth. when you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth. You tell me what I deem an idle tale when you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner. You are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities. Where the gods dwell mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet and power was given them to propagate their species and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth." (Journal of Discourses 7:285-286)

    “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.
-------------------------------  

Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, November 1909,

“all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.”
* * * * *
“True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.”  Improvement Era, Nov 1909, 75–81 (emphasis added).  Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley explicitly agreed to this in 1925 as the next First Presidency.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ok, but both you and @Robert F. Smithseems to avoid or dance around my questions.  Why?

Calm provided a very nuanced and down-to-earth reply to a question which assumes what has to be proved.  Which puts the cart before the horse.  It is as though you put the Father and Jesus in the roles of harsh taskmasters and martinets.  The words of Jesus are indicative, and they never remind me of my USMC drill instructor.  There really is a difference, Teancum.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ok. Regardless, when one looks at the church world wide and looks at convert rates, rates of retaining converts, activity rates, child of record baptisms and loss of formerly very active and committed members like myself, the picture is anything but robust.  At least that is my take. I could be wrong. It could turn around.  Who knows. If you think things are quote fine and robust, then ok. We will have to disagree on this,.

When I was born, Heber J. Grant was the Prophet, and there were less than a million Latter-day Saints.  When I was baptized, George Albert Smith was Prophet and the LDS Church had one million members.  Charts of LDS Church long-term growth are readily available online and tend to provide a valid sense of perspective.  A CPA should be able to understand what that means.  Instead, you speak as it the LDS Church is in freefall, dissolving before our very eyes.  There have always been Jack Mormons, and there has been drift both in and out of the LDS community.  A sitting Senator, Marco Rubio, who may be our next Secretary of State, was once LDS, but went back to Catholicism.  I have no problem with religious switching, nor people leaving religion behind entirely.  That is nothing new, and it is not causing the destruction of the LDS Church.

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am well aware of all of this and tossing this in seems like a straw man. I never argued the church was not doing things that you describe above.  But if you want to discuss what the church does on these things as compared to its vast resources we can do so.  I applaud what the church does here.  For a long time after I became disaffected from the church I donated the fast offering and to the humanitarian aid fund.  But when the vast wealth of EPA was revealed and along with the note on the donation slip that the church can use the $ for whatever they want regardless of my designation, I stopped giving to the church.

You definitely lack a sense of perspective on all this, poohpoohing what the LDS Church actually does worldwide on the one hand, and then claiming that it has "vast resources," which should enable it to do far more.  In fact, the LDS Church is a very small religious organization which maximizes it potential in ways uncommon to religious groups.  It's growth is not even close to being adequate to address the population growth of planet Earth -- which far outstrips LDS growth.  The LDS Church can only hope to provide a religious cadre for the end times, which is what the "LDS" in LDS Church is all about.  Why are you so angry at the Brethren for not immediately spending all those extra billions?  You clearly do not trust them to take their orders from God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.  That tithing, after all, belongs to God.  It is not ours to withhold.

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am a bit puzzled as to why you and @Calmseem unable to answer a few simple question I have asked more than once about tithing and how not being a tithe payer impacts a member's ability to attend the temple, hold certain calling and so on.  I am not arguing at all what you describe above.

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

I did not argue that they were not accepted. But a non tithe payer cannot attend the temple cannot hold certain callings and may be restricted in priesthood advancement. Do you dispute this?  This is a simple yes or no question.

Of course, for the umpteenth time, but you miss the main point, which is that a member in good standing need not pay tithing, and will not be audited and will not be punished for it.  I have known members in good standing who did not pay tithing.  Yet years later they were full tithe payers.  What happened to them in the interim?  The covenant path is not a rest-stop or house.  It is a path.  Where each of us is, on that path is up to us, and backbiting is never called for.  For many, hearing the Gospel preached and practicing repentance has the utmost value.  The fallacy of perfection does have a negative impact on some, as though, if everything is not immediately perfect, we must apostatize.  The Gospel instead encourages meekness, patience and long-suffering.

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

The accumulation of vast wealth seems to me to go against what Jesus preached and what all the LDS scriptures teach about such things.

I know of no Scripture which could support such an odd claim, unless of course you are asserting that the Kingdom of God Earth (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is governed by some sort of vow of poverty.

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

Should the Church of Jesus Christ be one of the most wealthy organizations on earth?  Could they not start to use their vast funds to do more of what they already do? 

Of course they could.  That isn't the point.  The Brethren listen to the beat of a different drummer.

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

I have no issue with a large organization having an endowment fund worth 2 or 3 times the organization annual expenditures. The LDS Church has about 25x of its annual operating budget in stocks and other investments and has only used some of that money to build a mall and nail out an insurance company. 

The Mall you speak of was a very wise real-estate investment which is paying big dividends.  Just what Jesus called for in his Parable of the Talents.  However, you insist that the investments have done too well.  And that huge parts of such dividends should be spent now.

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

......................  So because CA botched its efforts to deal with the homeless then that justifies the church accumulating vast wealth?  This is just a deflection.

The wise principle is very clear:  Judicious application of funds is always good, whereas huge sums of tax money expended to no good effect is irresponsible.  The most common mistake is to take care of short-term needs and never to deal with the long-term problem.  That is the failure of the Nanny-state.  Listen to Thomas Sowell sometime and he will explain to you how such failures have become endemic in America.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

Perhaps the term good standing is not appropriate. How about a member that is a non tithe payer is limited on certain things?

Nope.  That ignores the covenant path.  Members may be found anywhere on that path, and it is not our right to condemn them as "bad" members if they have not reached some "proper" point in their understanding and acceptance of the Gospel.

We had a member show up for Sacrament meeting in a T-shirt.  We were all just glad to see him, his wife and baby.  Same for another very talented artist who showed up barefooted and with very long hair.  Those were members in good-standing.  I don't even know if they paid tithing.  I don't think Jesus was at all worried about it.  He has bigger fish to fry.

Some Latter-day Saints may wallow in the mirey call to perfection, which is an impossible burden to bear, and can destroy whole families.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, webbles said:

So it is just priesthood related?  Does there have any impact on women's callings (back to my original question)?  And advancement in the priesthood office is just for Melchezidek Priesthood, correct?  A youth can advanced without being a full tithe-payer (such as from their summer job)?  Can a youth priest be ordained to the Melchezidek priesthood without being a full tithe-payer?  What about a convert?

I also know of a Branch President who was called and wasn't a full tithe-payer.  I've also heard stories of inactive men being called to be Bishops (no personal knowledge) and I assumed they weren't full tithe-payers.  So maybe it isn't a solid rule?

Could be? I do not know. All I can tell you is that in my experience as a bishop and a bishop's councilor for TR interviews and Priesthood advancement interview, we asked about tithing. Obviously for the temple a non tithe payer did not get a recommend and for advancement from the Aaronic to the Melckezidek priesthood they needed to be tithe payers as well. And non tithe payers were typically not options for callings such as bishopric, priesthood leadership. SP etc.  I think this was common.

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Calm provided a very nuanced and down-to-earth reply to a question which assumes what has to be proved.  Which puts the cart before the horse.  It is as though you put the Father and Jesus in the roles of harsh taskmasters and martinets.  The words of Jesus are indicative, and they never remind me of my USMC drill instructor.  There really is a difference, Teancum.

Ummm no. The tithing requirements and a heavy emphasis on complying is from the LDS church leadership. And you still seem not willing to answer the specific questions I ask about tithing. I am not arguing that one gets the boot for not paying nor am I arguing that a non tithe payer cannot participate in much of the things Mormonism offers. But one CANNOT attend temple as a not tithe payer in general. Though some bishops may be flexible. When a bishop I had a sister who had not tithed for sometime. Her husband was not a member.  She desired to go to temple had started paying tithing. I gave her a recommend and did not expect a catch up payment.  And also, once again, priesthood advancement and not being called to some higher positions in the church are restricted from non tithe payers. Do you deny this?

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nope.  That ignores the covenant path.  Members may be found anywhere on that path, and it is not our right to condemn them as "bad" members if they have not reached some "proper" point in their understanding and acceptance of the Gospel.

We had a member show up for Sacrament meeting in a T-shirt.  We were all just glad to see him, his wife and baby.  Same for another very talented artist who showed up barefooted and with very long hair.  Those were members in good-standing.  I don't even know if they paid tithing.  I don't think Jesus was at all worried about it.  He has bigger fish to fry.

Some Latter-day Saints may wallow in the mirey call to perfection, which is an impossible burden to bear, and can destroy whole families.

So a non tithe payer can be a bishop? A SP? Advance in the priesthood?  Attend the temple.  Also I will respond more to another post of yours later.  But I want to say I like you a lot. But you do have a habit of putting words and positions in my mouth that I do not espouse nor have argues.

[longview]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Until they go through puberty, humans are incapable of reproduction.  It's a mammalian thing.  Humans are mammals.

So it is your belief that there was no transition from the Terrestrial State to fallen, corruptible human nature? You seem to think there was NO need for the FALL, that it is was NOT a historical event, that this was NOT a necessary event in the "Great Plan of Redemption" ? Why would simply consuming plants and animals that were "derived" from the dust of the Earth cause their bodies to become corrupted?

What are your thoughts of "intelligences" being invited by Heavenly Parents to become spirit children in the First Estate (so-called pre-existence) ? Is it your opinion that "spirit bodies" were taken from somewhere so that intelligences could take possession and become a "new creature" ? 

There are a few statements by Brigham Young that do NOT always square with the Gospel (such as the Adam-God assertions). BYU scholars have tried to research B.Y's statements but were unable to make sense of it (they say B.Y. has contradicted himself in those few instances). Therefore we would need to be wary of some of brethren's comments and consider them to be casual speculations or ill considered opinions. Even Orson Pratt felt the need to strongly counter B.Y. back in the day.

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Tree of Knowledge and Forbidden Fruit are entirely figurative, and humans in a state of pre-pubescent innocence are indeed incapable of reproduction -- and incapable of being held responsible for their actions. It is only in that context that we should read Gen 2 - 3, and Moses 5 .

In the Endowment Adam and Eve are presented as being fully grown adults. It would NOT be "figurative" for them to be "under age". Their wrestle was real in that they had to commit a "transgression" one way or the other: 1- partake of the fruit; 2- remain "unchangeable" forever in the Garden. They could NOT obey both. Why do you discount Lehi's explanation?

From the Wikipedia:

Lina Marcela Medina de Jurado (born 23 September 1933) is a Peruvian woman who became the youngest confirmed mother in history.^[1] In 1939, she gave birth at the age of five years, seven months and 21 days. Her son, Gerardo, and daughter Akilah was born via a caesarean section. Gerardo grew up healthy, and died of bone disease in 1979, aged 40. Medina never publicly revealed the father of her first child. She was less than five years old when she became pregnant. She is also believed to be the youngest documented case of precocious puberty, which is when puberty happens at a very early age.

Medina was born in Ticrapo, Castrovirreyna Province. She is married to Raúl Jurado, who fathered Medina's second son in 1972. As of 2002, she was living in Lima.^[2]

References

1. ↑ "Peru: Little Mother". Time. 16 December 1957. Retrieved 6 January 2020.
2. ↑ The Daily Telegraph (27 August 2002). "Six decades later, world's youngest mother awaits aid". The Telegraph. Retrieved 6 January 2020.

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is temple liturgy.  The Creation & Garden Story must be read and interpreted as liturgy (ritual drama and initiation).  It was not written as historical narrative nor as a science text.

Are you inclined to agree with Bukowski (member of this board with at least two different avatar names) that the all scriptures are mostly ahistorical? Do you think that Jesus making reference to the story of Jonah and the Whale was being literal or figurative? The Book of Mormon does NOT need to be a college textbook but does contain plenty of historical facts such as names of prophets, kings, struggles of the people, and their warfare.

[marineland]

23 hours ago, longview said:

For several reasons: 1- Robert F. Smith seemed to refer to the creation of the "entire" Universe all at once (I believe that "generations" of creations occur repetitively and continuously); 2- in this "current generation" of our creation there actually are "multiple earths" being created alongside our Earth (Lucifer referenced this in the Endowment).

With multiple Falls?

[marineland]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Joseph Smith said:

"Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet,

Was the Adam from that other planet formed from the soil of that planet or through
a procreative act of the first or subsequent mortal parents from that other planet?

[longview]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

With multiple Falls?

Yes. Within the same "creative generation" per Lucifer's statement. It appears that on all the "concurrent earths" he had been giving the Fruit to respective Adam/Eves without consequence. When he got to "our Earth" he finally was punished for doing this act which surprised him. So "our Earth" probably was the last of the concurrent earths to be subjected to the Fall for this creative generation.

3 hours ago, marineland said:

Was the Adam from that other planet formed from the soil of that planet or through
a procreative act of the first or subsequent mortal parents from that other planet?

I disagree with any of those scenarios. Robert F. Smith's sources have NOT been included in the canons of the Church. I believe God is fully capable of organizing Terrestrial bodies from the "dust of the Terrestrial earth" designed to enter the Fall thru the mechanism of the "figurative fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". Please refer to my previous posts in this thread for my perspective on why God cannot directly organize a corruptible world.

[Calm]

Just now, longview said:

It appears that on all the "concurrent earths" he had been giving the Fruit to respective Adam/Eves without consequence

Why do you think it was Lucifer doing it instead of just him being aware of a similar plan on other earths?  The quote I am remembering him saying just says it’s been done before, iirc, not that he himself had done it.

I don’t remember hearing this interpretation before.

[longview]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why do you think it was Lucifer doing it instead of just him being aware of a similar plan on other earths?  The quote I am remembering him saying just says it’s been done before, iirc, not that he himself had done it.

I don’t remember hearing this interpretation before.

I don't remember if this is in the latest presentation of the Endowment but for sure in the past, Lucifer explicitly stated that he personally had been giving the "fruit to them."

[Calm]

It has been about 20 years iirc since I have been able to sit long enough to trust I can last through an endowment session and I totally get my expectations might have caused me to miss this when I was attending, but my husband who has attended all along, disagrees it’s explicit.  He thinks it is a stretch.

I know we can’t quote language here, but I would be interested in hearing others’ interpretations of that part (hopefully we are thinking of the same part).

Just to be clear, I agree Lucifer mentions other worlds’s Adams and Eves being given fruit and I have seen a lot of discussion on how giving of the fruit at the right time is possibly the original method and if Eve hadn’t been suckered by Lucifer in this world, in time the Father or Christ would have given the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge (whatever that means) to them.

What I am disagreeing on and I haven’t seen discussed iirc or didn’t catch at least if by chance you mentioned it here before is that Lucifer is saying he is the one who gave it on other worlds rather than just the process was there.  

I am going to find it very interesting if I am wrong on this.  Will be fun reshuffling how I connect everything.

Edited January 8, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, longview said:

I don't remember if this is in the latest presentation of the Endowment but for sure in the past, Lucifer explicitly stated that he personally had been giving the "fruit to them."

I've got a print out of the Endowment (the Tanners had published it) from pre-1990 changes.  It doesn't say that then.

[longview]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just to be clear, I agree Lucifer mentions other worlds’s Adams and Eves being given fruit and I have seen a lot of discussion on how giving of the fruit at the right time is possibly the original method and if Eve hadn’t been suckered by Lucifer in this world, in time the Father or Christ would have given the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge (whatever that means) to them.

What I am disagreeing on and I haven’t seen discussed iirc or didn’t catch at least if by chance you mentioned it here before is that Lucifer is saying he is the one who gave it on other worlds rather than just the process was there.

Where is @hlfprof when we need him!     -[can't remember his avatar name, can you find it?]

[longview]

22 minutes ago, webbles said:

I've got a print out of the Endowment (the Tanners had published it) from pre-1990 changes.  It doesn't say that then.

Interesting. But I do have a clear memory of this part.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Where is @hlfprof when we need him!     -[can't remember his avatar name, can you find it?]

https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/18775-jlhprof/