Early man before Adam
Chester
has the following major historical periods:
Cro-Magnon Paleolithic Period: Cro-Magnon is the name given to all
anatomically modern humans found in Europe and the Middle East,
appearing around 40,000-30,000 years ago. In contrast to the earlier
Neanderthals (Homo sapiens erectus}, who were much more primitive, the
Cro-Magnons, who are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens, possessed such
modern human features as higher, more vertical foreheads--indicating a
modern configuration of the frontal lobes of the brain--reduced brow
ridges, smaller faces and teeth, and a chin.
The Neolithic Era is marked by the transition from roaming and hunting
to an agricultural society and begins around 9,000 B.C. The first
evidence for domestication of plants and animals come from temporary
campsites and are first seen from 9,000 B.C onwards. Village communities
started appearing around 6,000 B.C. and were common by 4,000 B.C. Cities
began to be built in 6th and 5th millennium B.C. and city-states were
just beginning around 3,000 B.C. The Sphinx in Egypt was built around
this time, indicating a highly skilled civilization. It was during the
beginning of the city states and metal working societies that Lucifer
became aware of true nature of God's plan for mankind. It was the
realization of mankind's God potential that caused Lucifer to commit the
sins of rebellion, envy and pride, which led to war in heaven.
TO ACCESS LINKS USED IN MY RESEARCH GOTO:
http://reluctant-messenger.com/early_man.htm
To begin at the beginning go to:
http://reluctant-messenger.com/history.htm
Rebellion of Lucifer
http://reluctant-messenger.com/rebellion.htm
Chester
--
The world's religions and science are pieces to a puzzle
that need one another to achieve a complete picture.
http://www.reluctant-messenger.com/main.htm
Duwayne Anderson
mess...@religions.com wrote:
> The basic history of mankind before Adam and the Rebellion of Lucifer
> has the following major historical periods:
Thank you for posting your opinion. However, this is a forum for
discussing Mormon doctrine, not your doctrine. According to the
Mormon Church, Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, and they
introduced mortality into the world.
Read it at the official LDS Internet site at:
http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
"Here is part of what it says:
God prepared this earth as a home for his children. Adam and Eve were
chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34).
Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world.
They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:5456.)"
Duwayne
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Agkistrodon
mess...@religions.com wrote:
> The basic history of mankind before Adam and the Rebellion of Lucifer
> has the following major historical periods:
>
Chester, do you still believe in Lucifer?
Agkistrodon
--
By the clever and continued use of propaganda, a
people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell
and vice versa, the most miserable life for
Paradise. - Adolf Hitler
George Williams
wrote:
>
>Thank you for posting your opinion. However, this is a forum for
>discussing Mormon doctrine, not your doctrine.
Kindly remember this, next time you decide to pontificate.
Regards,
Raleigh
*This is the age in which having nothing to say and being speechless are no
longer synonymous.
gary0
> In <38E4538D...@religions.com>, mess...@religions.com wrote:
> > The basic history of mankind before Adam and the Rebellion of
> > Lucifer has the following major historical periods:
>
> Thank you for posting your opinion. However, this is a forum for
> Mormon Church, Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, and they
> introduced mortality into the world.
>
> Read it at the official LDS Internet site at:
> http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
>
> "Here is part of what it says:
> God prepared this earth as a home for his children. Adam and Eve were
> chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34).
> Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world.
> They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:5456.)"
> Duwayne
> --
A couple of decades ago, Joseph Fielding Smith authored the "Answers to
Gospel Questions" column in "The Improvement Era," the official LDS
magazine.
A generation earlier, John A. Widsoe (sp?) had a similar column
entitled "Evidences and Reconciliations."
One of the questions he answered was, "Were there Pre-Adamites?"
His answer, which held that pre-Adamites were compatible with the
Gospel, is as official as anything on the Church's website. It was
printed in the Church's official magazine and authored by a general
authority -- unlike the faceless bureaucrats behind lds.org.
I'd quote you year, month, and page, but I've just moved, and my notes
are inaccessible.
Don't bother looking in the book of the same name, which is a
compilation of the columns; for some reason, this was one of the very
few that were left out.
Statements in official Church sources haven't been as one-sided as
you'd like people to believe.
Gary0
Agkistrodon
gary0 <ga...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Snip
>
> A couple of decades ago, Joseph Fielding Smith authored the "Answers
to
> Gospel Questions" column in "The Improvement Era," the official LDS
> magazine.
>
> A generation earlier, John A. Widsoe (sp?) had a similar column
> entitled "Evidences and Reconciliations."
>
> One of the questions he answered was, "Were there Pre-Adamites?"
>
> His answer, which held that pre-Adamites were compatible with the
> Gospel, is as official as anything on the Church's website. It was
> printed in the Church's official magazine and authored by a general
> authority -- unlike the faceless bureaucrats behind lds.org.
>
> I'd quote you year, month, and page, but I've just moved, and my notes
> are inaccessible.
>
> Don't bother looking in the book of the same name, which is a
> compilation of the columns; for some reason, this was one of the very
> few that were left out.
>
> Statements in official Church sources haven't been as one-sided as
> you'd like people to believe.
>
In other words, no one knows what the line on it is. It certainly
seems to change often enough.
Agkistrodon
--
By the clever and continued use of propaganda, a
people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell
and vice versa, the most miserable life for
Paradise. - Adolf Hitler
C&C
> In other words, no one knows what the line on it is. It certainly
> seems to change often enough.
The more evidence mounts for evolution, the more careful church leaders
become in emphatically denying it.
Chuck
Duwayne Anderson
ralei...@aol.comQQQQ (George Williams) wrote:
> >Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Thank you for posting your opinion. However, this is a forum for
> >discussing Mormon doctrine, not your doctrine.
>
I've not "pontificated" at all. Your accusation is false and dishonest.
I've provided quotations from the
official LDS Internet site and dozens upon dozens of other references
showing that the idea of people living on earth before Adam is
contrary to Mormon doctrine.
Here are the references again. You can read it at
http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
"God prepared this earth as a home for his children. Adam and Eve were
chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34).
Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world.
They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:5456.)"
"When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they were not yet
mortal. They were not able to have children. There was no death. They
had physical life because their spirits were housed in physical bodies
made from the dust of the earth (see Abraham 5:7). They had spiritual
life because they were in the presence of God (see Bruce R. McConkie,
Mormon Doctrine, p. 268). They had not yet made a choice between good
and evil."
"Because Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, the Lord sent them out of the Garden of Eden into the
world as we now know it. Their physical condition changed as a result
of their eating the forbidden fruit. As God had promised, they became
mortal. They were able to have children. They and their children would
experience sickness, pain, and physical death."
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
> > In <38E4538D...@religions.com>, mess...@religions.com wrote:
> > > The basic history of mankind before Adam and the Rebellion of
> > > Lucifer has the following major historical periods:
> > <snip>
> >
> > Mormon Church, Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, and they
> > introduced mortality into the world.
> >
> > Read it at the official LDS Internet site at:
> > http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
> >
> > "Here is part of what it says:
were
> > chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34).
> > Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the
world.
> > They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:5456.)"
> > --
>
> A couple of decades ago, Joseph Fielding Smith authored the "Answers
to
> Gospel Questions" column in "The Improvement Era," the official LDS
> magazine.
This is most humorous. When I quote stuff from Mormon periodicals
I'm told it's not official. But when the apologists quote it ....
Tell me, are you willing now to accept quotations from a book
written by an apostle names McConky?
>
> A generation earlier, John A. Widsoe (sp?) had a similar column
> entitled "Evidences and Reconciliations."
I have the book in my personal library. I've read it, and I know
how to spell the author's name.
>
> One of the questions he answered was, "Were there Pre-Adamites?"
And you can find the answer to this question on the official LDS
Internet site. Read it at:
http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
Here is part of what it says:
"God prepared this earth as a home for his children. Adam and Eve were
chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34).
Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world.
They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:5456.)"
>
> His answer, which held that pre-Adamites were compatible with the
> Gospel,
That is what we call an assertion. Please explain how Adam and Eve
could be our "first parents," as it says on the official LDS Internet
site, yet there were people before Adam and Eve. Please explain the
part on the official LDS Internet site about Adam and Eve
introducing mortality "into the world." I don't mean for you do go
on and on with you opinion, but to explain this inconsistency
by using references to official LDS sources.
> is as official as anything on the Church's website.
This statement is false. "Evidences and Reconciliations" is no more
"official" than Mormon doctrine. I notice, though, that you do not
offer to quote Mormon doctrine.
Als, Widstoe did NOT believe in the scientific theory of evolution.
This is how misguided Widstoe defined evolution: "The law of evolution
.... does not require that all things, all life, shall have a common
origin. It merely declares that everything in the universe is
moving onward." [Quoted from "The search for harmony," Edited by
Sessions and Oberg, page xi. See my review of this book on Amazon.com].
Widstoe was way out in left field when he said that the law of evolution
does not say all living things have a common ancestor. That is
EXACTLY what the theory of evolution says.
Widstoe is a good example of the mix of semantic arguments that Mormons
bring to their apolgia. If you had read any of Widstoe's works you
would know that he did not accept evolution -- but that is how the
Mormon apologetic works.
> It was
> printed in the Church's official magazine and authored by a general
> authority -- unlike the faceless bureaucrats behind lds.org.
The material that I quoted, from the official LDS Internet site, is an
on-line version of a book that was prepared by the LDS church for
teaching new converts and investigators. The book is copyrighted by
the church and approved by the first presidency.
>
> I'd quote you year, month, and page, but I've just moved, and my notes
> are inaccessible.
The story of our lives on ARM. You would provide the citation but
bla bla bla.
>
> Don't bother looking in the book of the same name, which is a
> compilation of the columns; for some reason, this was one of the very
> few that were left out.
>
> Statements in official Church sources haven't been as one-sided as
> you'd like people to believe.
On the contrary. They are completely one sided. There has never been
a conference address in which the theory of evolution was treated as
true. There have been many many in which the theory of evolution has
been castigated.
You can read a few of them at:
http://members.aol.com/ldscreatio/
Wade
Agkistrodon wrote in message <8cahu6$b46$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8c8uup$jrn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>In other words, no one knows what the line on it is. It certainly
>seems to change often enough.
This is to be expected on non-doctrinal, highly ambiguous, frivolous
matters.
Thanks, -Wade-
Agkistrodon
there's a problem with it?
Agkistrodon
--
By the clever and continued use of propaganda, a
people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell
and vice versa, the most miserable life for
Paradise. - Adolf Hitler
Duwayne Anderson
"Wade" <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
>
> Agkistrodon wrote in message <8cahu6$b46$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <8c8uup$jrn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >In other words, no one knows what the line on it is. It certainly
> >seems to change often enough.
>
> This is to be expected on non-doctrinal, highly ambiguous, frivolous
> matters.
The origin of man and the creation can hardly be called "non-doctrinal,"
"highly ambiguous," or "frivolous." That's just another way for
Mormon apologists to try and change the subject and/or sweep it under
the rug. It is also very dishonest because Mormonism itself does NOT
treat the origin of man and the creation as "non-doctrinal,"
"ambiguous," or "frivoulous."
Mormon leaders have spoken out forcefully and frequently on the
subject, and they reject the notion of organic evolution. See, for
example, the quotations of Mormon general authorities at
http://members.aol.com/ldscreatio/#STATEMENTS
(Note: this is not an official LDS site, but the quotations are from
high Mormon officials and conference addresses. Mormons believe the
inspired conference talks of their leaders are scripture, as you
can verify at the official LDS Internet site at
http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U03_C10-Scriptures.html)
Mormon doctrines regarding the creation are included in basic
indoctrination of new members. The mythology taught in this
indoctrination can be found at the official LDS at
http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C05-The_Creation.html
and
http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
Among other things, the Mormon Church teaches that
"God prepared this earth as a home for his children. Adam and Eve were
chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34).
Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world.
They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:5456.)"
This doctrine of the Mormon Church is incompatible with the theory of
evolution.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
E. Mark Ping
C&C <camn...@uswestnospam.net> wrote:
>Agkistrodon <eosin...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> In other words, no one knows what the line on it is. It certainly
>> seems to change often enough.
>
>become in emphatically denying it.
Which is how it should be IMO, since AFAIK there has been no
revelation supporting or contradicting it. The only part I've ever
heard any GA (in my lifetime) object to it is the idea that God is not
in the picture--that the origin of man was an outcome of chance.
--
| "If hard data were the filtering criterion
Mark Ping | you could fit the entire contents of the
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU | Internet on a floppy disk."
| - Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope Tells All
Agkistrodon
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
> In article <G25G4.820$iW5....@news.uswest.net>,
> C&C <camn...@uswestnospam.net> wrote:
> >Agkistrodon <eosin...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In other words, no one knows what the line on it is. It certainly
> >> seems to change often enough.
> >
> >The more evidence mounts for evolution, the more careful church
leaders
> >become in emphatically denying it.
>
> Which is how it should be IMO, since AFAIK there has been no
> revelation supporting or contradicting it. The only part I've ever
> heard any GA (in my lifetime) object to it is the idea that God is not
> in the picture--that the origin of man was an outcome of chance.
But they are supposed to know, aren't they? Why would it be alright to
make wild pronouncements on any idea when that idea is nascent but if
evidence in favor of it becomes strong, they have to back off?
Agkistrodon
--
By the clever and continued use of propaganda, a
people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell
and vice versa, the most miserable life for
Paradise. - Adolf Hitler
E. Mark Ping
Agkistrodon <eosin...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <8cauic$fi8$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
>> In article <G25G4.820$iW5....@news.uswest.net>,
>> C&C <camn...@uswestnospam.net> wrote:
>> >Agkistrodon <eosin...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In other words, no one knows what the line on it is. It
>> >> certainly seems to change often enough.
>> >
>> >The more evidence mounts for evolution, the more careful church
>> >leaders become in emphatically denying it.
>>
>> Which is how it should be IMO, since AFAIK there has been no
>> revelation supporting or contradicting it. The only part I've ever
>> heard any GA (in my lifetime) object to it is the idea that God is
>> not in the picture--that the origin of man was an outcome of
>> chance.
>
>But they are supposed to know, aren't they?
Why are they supposed to know? Is any prophet supposed to know
*everything*?
> Why would it be alright [sic]
>to make wild pronouncements on any idea when that idea is nascent but
>if evidence in favor of it becomes strong, they have to back off?
Show me any of the wild pronouncements made by the current general
authorities...(long pause)...oh, you mean comments made by *previous*
general authorities, right?
So what you're really asking is, "why would it be all right if
previous generations of authorities made 'wild pronouncements' on any
idea when that idea is nascent but if evidence in favor of it becomes
strong, they have to back off?"
I have to point out that evolution as the Origin Of Man By Chance is
incorrect. The idea that men have no creator is an enormous error.
It is this which I have seen disagreements with over the pulpit.
When the authorities in the church see people promoting the ideas of
Satan, the will respond. If there is not much known about the idea,
then those parts which have nothing to do with the salvation of man
are irrelevant to the calling of the authorities. If they make their
opinions know, that may be edifying, but I hardly expect it to be
treated as canon.
Duwayne Anderson
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
> In article <G25G4.820$iW5....@news.uswest.net>,
> C&C <camn...@uswestnospam.net> wrote:
> >Agkistrodon <eosin...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In other words, no one knows what the line on it is. It certainly
> >> seems to change often enough.
> >
> >The more evidence mounts for evolution, the more careful church
leaders
> >become in emphatically denying it.
>
> Which is how it should be IMO, since AFAIK there has been no
> revelation supporting or contradicting it.
Where, exactly, have you been? The D&C, Moses, and Abraham all
contain "revelations" that specifically contradict the theory
of evolution. And these Mormon scriptures have been interpreted
as being inconsistent with evolution.
> The only part I've ever
> heard any GA (in my lifetime) object to it is the idea that God is not
> in the picture--that the origin of man was an outcome of chance.
Nothing is so blind as seeing only what you want to.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Wade
>In article <8capf5$2ot8$1...@news.aros.net>,
>"Wade" <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
>>
>> Agkistrodon wrote in message <8cahu6$b46$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >In article <8c8uup$jrn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >seems to change often enough.
>>
>> matters.
>>
>>
>>
>So, it's non-doctrinal now?
It never was.
>That which was doctrine gets demoted when
>there's a problem with it?
No. That which never was doctrine is reiterated as such.
Thanks, -Wade-
E. Mark Ping
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <8cauic$fi8$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
>
>Where, exactly, have you been? The D&C, Moses, and Abraham all
>contain "revelations" that specifically contradict the theory
>of evolution. And these Mormon scriptures have been interpreted
>as being inconsistent with evolution.
Please cite some. I'd be happy to see them. I used to think that was
the case but I have since changed my opinion. I can imagine how
evolution could be part of the plan. I can also see how it might not
be. I don't actively believe that evolution is true, but I no longer
believe that it absolutely has to be entirely false from a doctrinal
POV.
>> The only part I've ever
>> heard any GA (in my lifetime) object to it is the idea that God is not
>> in the picture--that the origin of man was an outcome of chance.
>
>Nothing is so blind as seeing only what you want to.
Sigh. You don't know me and you don't know what I see. How about
producing text that contradicts my statement? Produce them and I'll
happily retract it.
Wade
>The origin of man and the creation can hardly be called "non-doctrinal,"
>"highly ambiguous," or "frivolous."
While you are certainly free to presumptuously impose upon the LDS faith
your own perception of what is their doctrine and what is not, we LDS are
equally free to quickly reject your opinion as being non-authoritative and
in error. The reader is welcome to decide for him or herself what to
believe.
>That's just another way for
>Mormon apologists to try and change the subject and/or sweep it under
>the rug.
That certainly one perspect. But, as one apologists who knows better than
anyone what his own intentions were, I can assure the readers, if not
Duwayne, that my intent was to not allow those outside my faith to dictate
to those of us in my faith, what is doctrine and what is not, what is
ambiguous and what is not, what is frivolous and what is not. That is a
right we reserve to ourselves. My intent was also to put the issue into
proper perspective.
>It is also very dishonest because Mormonism itself does NOT
>treat the origin of man and the creation as "non-doctrinal,"
>"ambiguous," or "frivoulous."
As a general subject matter, I have never denied that the creation and fall
of man are doctrinal, and of great import.
But, my comments were in regards to theories involving specific issues
related thereto. Beyond the various generalized and highly symbolic creation
accounts, little else has been revealed on the matter. So, apart from the
generalized doctrine that God created the heavens and earth, and Adam fell
that men might be, the rest (including the exact means by which the creation
took place, the length of time of the creation, what exactly is purely
symbolic or literal in the accounts, whether or not death and birth existed
prior to the fall, whether the notion that Adam was the first man on earth
should be understood in a universal, infinite, and completely exclusionary
sense) is subject to specualtion and debate, and is thus non-doctrinal,
ambiguous, and in terms of our abiding the basics of the restored gospel of
Christ, frivolous. It is "very dishonest" for Duwayne, after this has been
iterated, and reiterated, to him, to persist in suggesting otherwise.
>Mormon leaders have spoken out forcefully and frequently on the
>subject, and they reject the notion of organic evolution.
As you are also aware, certain General Authorities have forcefully taken an
opposing position.
The fact that each side has spoken forcefully (and, in the minds of some,
"frequently"), is hardly indication that the subjectmatter (dealing with the
specifics of the creation and fall) is not as I suggest (non-doctrinal,
ambiguous, and, in terms of one's eternal salvation, frivolous). In fact, I
see it more as evidence in support of what I have suggested.
>See, for
>example, the quotations of Mormon general authorities at
>http://members.aol.com/ldscreatio/#STATEMENTS
Look carefully to see if there is any mention of the specific issue in
question being referred to directly as doctrine.
Then, you may wish to browse the James Talmage Society web page. (Sorry, I
don't have the URL, but one should be able to locate it through Google or
Yahoo)
>(Note: this is not an official LDS site, but the quotations are from
>high Mormon officials and conference addresses. Mormons believe the
>inspired conference talks of their leaders are scripture, as you
>can verify at the official LDS Internet site at
>http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U03_C10-Scriptures.html)
We "Mormons" tend to understand the distinction between Scripture and
scripture. I am sure, with the possible exception of Duwayne, that the
readers will understand the important distinction as well, and not read more
into what is said than what is intended.
>Mormon doctrines regarding the creation are included in basic
>indoctrination of new members. The mythology taught in this
>indoctrination can be found at the official LDS at
>
>http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C05-The_Creation.html
>and
>http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
>
See if I am right about these so-called "mythologies" not going beyond a
highly generalized and symbolic description of the creation and fall.
>Among other things, the Mormon Church teaches that
>
>"God prepared this earth as a home for his children.
I have no argument with that generalized truth.
>Adam and Eve were
>chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34).
True. But, whether this is to be interpreted in a universal, infinite (time
and space wise) and completely exclusionary sense, is still subject to
speculation, and open for debate. There are LDS who come down on several
sides of this issue.
>Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world.
>They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:5456.)"
True. (Please see my previous remarks)
>This doctrine of the Mormon Church is incompatible with the theory of
>evolution.
Again, the highly generalized doctrine of the creation and fall, and the
highly symbolic nature of the creation accounts, do not preclude a broad
range of viable, though unproveable, theories used to explain the specific
mechanics of the creation, and the scope of the fall--Duwayne's fallacious
assertions not withstanding.
I happen to favor the old-earth creationist position myself. I have a number
of LDS friends (some of whom are scientists) who prefer the contemporary
version of the theory of evolution, and find it completely compatible with
the LDS beliefs. And, I have other LDS friends who ascribe to a young-earth
creationism.
But, while we may disagree and debate within our own ranks on these specific
matters, we are in agreement on the general doctrines of the creation and
fall, and we are quick to concede that our differences are a matter of
speculation on ambiguious and non-doctrinal matters, and, in comparison with
the fundamentals of the gospel, and what knowledge is currently needed to
progress unto salvation and exaltation, the matters are frivolous--again,
Duwaynes non-LDS assertions not withstanding.
Thanks, -Wade-
Duwayne Anderson
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
> In article <8cb5rj$2e5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <8cauic$fi8$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> >ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
> >
> >Where, exactly, have you been? The D&C, Moses, and Abraham all
> >contain "revelations" that specifically contradict the theory
> >of evolution. And these Mormon scriptures have been interpreted
> >as being inconsistent with evolution.
>
> Please cite some. I'd be happy to see them.
I've cited dozens, and I've done it dozens of times. I know you
have seen them, becasue you and I have discussed them in the past.
Now, go to the official LDS Internet site at www.lds.org.
Go to the stuff on basic beliefs and gospel principles. They have
a chapter on the creation (Mormon mythology) and the fall (more
Mormon mythology).
Here is part of what the Mormon Church teaches:
"God prepared this earth as a home for his children. Adam and Eve were
chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34).
Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world.
They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:5456.)"
Read it yourself at
http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
Notice that the official LDS Internet site references Moses 1:34
(Mormon scripture) and D&C 107:54-56 (more Mormon scripture) to
support the Mormon doctrine that Adam and Eve were the first people
on earth and that they introduced mortality into the world.
These doctrines of the Mormon Church are totally inconsistent with
the scientific theory of evolution.
> I used to think that was
> the case but I have since changed my opinion.
I've seen that before. It's tough to admit that the church you
belong to is a fraud. It's much easier to "change [your] opinion"
than it is to face the fact of having been spoofed.
> can imagine how
> evolution could be part of the plan.
You and your imagination are not the issue here. The issue here is
what does the Mormon Church teach. Your ability to rationalize and
ignore certain doctrines is not relevant to the discussion.
> can also see how it might not
> be. I don't actively believe that evolution is true,
No, I didn't think you did.
> but I no longer
> believe that it absolutely has to be entirely false from a doctrinal
> POV.
Again, the issue is not your personal opinion. The issue is what
the Mormon Church teaches.
>
> >> The only part I've ever
> >> heard any GA (in my lifetime) object to it is the idea that God is
not
> >> in the picture--that the origin of man was an outcome of chance.
> >
> >Nothing is so blind as seeing only what you want to.
>
> Sigh. You don't know me and you don't know what I see.
I know what you have written.
> How about
> producing text that contradicts my statement? Produce them and I'll
> happily retract it.
They have been produced, but I'm not holding my breath for your
retraction.
TheJordan6
>That certainly one perspect. But, as one apologists who knows better than
>anyone what his own intentions were, I can assure the readers, if not
>Duwayne, that my intent was to not allow those outside my faith to dictate
>to those of us in my faith, what is doctrine and what is not, what is
>ambiguous and what is not, what is frivolous and what is not. That is a
>right we reserve to ourselves.
You're response assumes that DuWayne is not a Mormon, and that he has not been
indoctrinated in Mormon teachings since birth.
Randy J.
E. Mark Ping
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <8cba5u$hr3$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
>>
>> Please cite some. I'd be happy to see them.
>
>I've cited dozens, and I've done it dozens of times. I know you
>have seen them, becasue you and I have discussed them in the past.
I don't recall any conversation with you about this in the past. My
memory is not perfect, but I don't think I've seen your "dozens" of
citations.
>> I used to think that was
>> the case but I have since changed my opinion.
>
>I've seen that before. It's tough to admit that the church you
>belong to is a fraud. It's much easier to "change [your] opinion"
>than it is to face the fact of having been spoofed.
Whatever. The number of statements directly addressing evolution are
few and far between. The best could find to support your opinion is
from the First Presidency message in 1909:
"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth,
and that the original human being was a development from lower orders
of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The
word of the Lord declares that Adam was "the first man of all men"
(Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the
primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that
all men were created in the _beginning_ after the image of God; and
whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it
commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in
the likeness of our heavenly Father."
This is the strongest statement that I can find against evolution, and
it only condemns the idea that man evolved from a lower creature.
That still says nothing about the rest of creation.
Thanks for making me look for this though. I think I can now safely
cast aside the idea that men evolved from lower creatures.
Patent_Worm
TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000404093531...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
> Wade wrote:
>
> >That certainly one perspect. But, as one apologists who knows better than
> >anyone what his own intentions were, I can assure the readers, if not
> >Duwayne, that my intent was to not allow those outside my faith to
dictate
> >to those of us in my faith, what is doctrine and what is not, what is
> >ambiguous and what is not, what is frivolous and what is not. That is a
> >right we reserve to ourselves.
>
been indoctrinated in Mormon teachings since birth.
>
> Randy J.
We know who you and dwane are. Bitter anti's who live to post, trying to
pull others down to your level. I feel sorry for you guys. Someday perhaps
you will feel secure in your own beliefs that you can be comfortable with
those of others.
Alan Faircloth
gary0 <ga...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In <8c6iqu$60f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Duwayne Anderson wrote:
> > In <38E4538D...@religions.com>, mess...@religions.com wrote:
> > > The basic history of mankind before Adam and the Rebellion of
> > > Lucifer has the following major historical periods:
> > <snip>
> >
> > Thank you for posting your opinion. However, this is a forum for
> > discussing Mormon doctrine, not your doctrine. According to the
> > introduced mortality into the world.
> >
> > http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
> >
> > "Here is part of what it says:
> > God prepared this earth as a home for his children. Adam and Eve were
> > chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34).
> > Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world.
> > They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:5456.)"
> > --
>
> A couple of decades ago, Joseph Fielding Smith authored the "Answers to
> Gospel Questions" column in "The Improvement Era," the official LDS
> magazine.
>
> entitled "Evidences and Reconciliations."
>
>
You mean with the Mormon gospel, which is contrary to the one and only true
gospel;the Bible. If you understand the Bible timeline, you can see that
there were no "pre-Adamites".
It was
> printed in the Church's official magazine and authored by a general
> authority -- unlike the faceless bureaucrats behind lds.org.
>
> I'd quote you year, month, and page, but I've just moved, and my notes
> are inaccessible.
>
> Don't bother looking in the book of the same name, which is a
> compilation of the columns; for some reason, this was one of the very
> few that were left out.
>
> Statements in official Church sources haven't been as one-sided as
> you'd like people to believe.
>
> Gary0
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Myopinion
http://www.angelfire.com/ut/whereareyougod/index.html
Wade
<20000404093531...@ng-cj1.aol.com>...
>You're response assumes that DuWayne is not a Mormon,
My "assumption" is based on what he has stated to me in the past, and what
he has lead me to believe by his clearly anti position. If you doubt that he
is no longer a "Mormon" (whether in spirit of as a matter of record), then
you may want to check with him. I am sure he will be more than happy to
straighten things out.
>and that he has not been
>indoctrinated in Mormon teachings since birth.
My response "assumes" no such thing. As I have pointed out to John Farkas
(another former member turned anti):
"You are in error to think that your eight years in the church, ending over
fourteen years ago, would qualify you as an 'insider.' Would you consider as
'insiders' those who followed after Christ for a season, but later found his
doctrine to be too hard (Jn 6:50-66)? I doubt it. I sure wouldn't. Isn't the
very reason that they left the faith was because they failed to comprehend
the correct meaning of Christ's words? To me, an 'insider' is one who
understand and accepts the doctrines as true, and who remains faithful to
them. Since you, too, 'went back, and walked no more with him,' you cannot
be considered as an 'insider.'
"More to the point, would you consider as 'insiders' those who once followed
after Christ, but who were later found amongst the throng crying 'crucify
him?'(Mk 15:13-14)
"No, Mr. Farkas [(and, by extension, Duwayne, Randy, and any other former
member turned anti)] your eight years [or how many other years] in the
Church does not qualify you as an 'insider.' In fact, your having left the
Church, and having actively fought against it, makes you more an 'outsider'
than those who have never joined, and it puts you in the same deluded and
self-aggrandizing company of traitors to Christ as Judas Iscariot, Korihor,
John C. Bennett, and others like them.
"And, while you may have a greater familiarity with LDS history and doctrine
than the average member of the LDS faith, you have, through your much
learning, failed to get understanding. I agree with Paul when he said, 'But
God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and
God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which
are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised,
hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to naught things
that are'(1 Cor. 1:27-28)--your showing that others share your same errant
perception not withstanding.
Thanks, -Wade-
Duwayne Anderson
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
<snip>
> I don't recall any conversation with you about this in the past. My
> memory is not perfect, but I don't think I've seen your "dozens" of
> citations.
<snip>
Here they are again. And don't forget to visit the official LDS
Internet site at
http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
The official doctrine of the Mormon Church on the origin of the earth
and life is in Moses chapter 2 and Abraham chapter 4 in the Pearl of
Great Price. The Pearl of Great Price is one of Mormonism’s standard
works. It is held by the Mormon Church and its leaders as revelation
from God, and official church doctrine. It is sustained as scripture
by the general church membership (you can read an on-line version of
the Pearl of Great Price at
http://www.deseretbook.com/scriptures/pgp_home.html ).
Chapter 2 is supposedly a revelation from God to Joseph Smith,
describing how God created the earth, and life. Chapter 4 repeats
chapter 2, with some minor modifications. The heading for chapter 2
reads “As revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, in December, 1830. The
first verse reads “And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses
saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning the heaven, and this
earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End,
the Almighty God; by mine only Begotten I created these things; yea, in
the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou
standest.”
Some Mormons claim this creation account described the “spiritual”
creation, and that the order of the “spiritual” creation differed from
the physical creation. Verse 1, however, makes it clear that the
narrative describes the creation of the physical earth upon which Moses
was standing.
Please note that the creation story in the Pearl of Great Price was
supposedly a direct revelation from god to Joseph Smith. It depicts a
tutorial between god and Moses on the creation of the physical earth
upon which Moses was standing. Not surprisingly, Joseph Smith’s
creation story is a modified plagiarism of the Hebrew creation myth
found in the Bible. I have listed some of the claims of this official
version below.
1. According to official Mormon doctrine, god created grass, herb
yielding seeds, and fruit trees on day three (see verses 11-13). Then
he created the sun on the fourth day (see verses 14-19). [Have Mormons
ever wondered how these plants survived without the sun?].
2. According to official Mormon doctrine, god created the earth and
dry land on day three (Moses 2: 9-13) and then created the sun and moon
on day four. [According to the best theories of how the solar system
formed, the sun formed first. The planets formed later in the solar
system’s development through a gradual process of accumulation. Here,
in Joseph Smith’s fanciful fairy tail, we have an earth complete with
grass and fruiting trees before the sun is made. Furthermore, the
implication seems clear enough that god created the stars on the same
day he created the sun and moon (Moses 2:16; 3:1, Abraham 4:16). The
best theories of the creation of the moon have it being formed when a
planetesimal impacted with the early earth. This likely happened
before any life evolved on earth, and most certainly would have killed
any life on earth that had been “created” in the out-of-sequence story
we find in the Pearl of Great Price. The idea that the stars were
created after the earth is, of course ludicrous. The best scientific
evidence has the earth being formed partially from the heavy elements
that can only be created in a super Nova. For a good introductory
explanation of the formation of the solar system, earth, and life, I
highly recommend “The History of Earth” by William K. Hartmann and Ron
Miller.]
3. According to official Mormon doctrine, god created water animals,
whales, and birds on the fifth day (Moses 2:20-22) and then created
land animals such as cattle on the sixth day (Moses 2:24-31).
According to the theory of evolution, birds evolved from land animals,
as did whales. In Joseph Smith’s “revelation”, however, we have god
creating whales and birds before creating land animals.
Joseph repeated his creation myth in Abraham chapter 4. In this
account, he has the “god’s” creating grass and fruiting trees on the
third “time”, and then the sun and moon during the fourth “time” (see
Abraham 4:9-19). Again, Joseph has the “god’s” creating whales and
fishes on the fifth “time”, along with birds (Abraham 4:20-23) and then
cattle and other land animals on the sixth “time”, along with man
(Abraham 4:24-31).
To make clear the young-earth creationist nature of Mormon doctrine,
consider the clarification Joseph Smith gave in the Doctrine and
Covenants, section 77, verse 12, which says:
Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned
in the 8th chapter of Revelation? A. We are to understand that as God
made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his
work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the
earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the
Lord
God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge
all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not
put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end
of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are
the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the
seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his
coming.
The preface to section 77 carries the statement: Revelation to Joseph
Smith, Hiram, Ohio, March 1832. History of the Church 1:253-55.
Members of the Mormon Church sustain, as official scripture, the
Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. You may view an
on-line versions of the Doctrine and Covenants at:
http://www.deseretbook.com/scriptures/dc_home.html ).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
3. Statements on evolution:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
“Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless
we know how to use the book [of Mormon] to expose and combat the
falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, and
so forth.” (Ezra Taft Benson, “A Witness and a Warning, page 6. Ezra
Taft Benson, before he died, was the president, prophet, seer, and
revelator of the Mormon Church.)
“These principles do not change, as represented by evolutionists of the
Darwinian school, but the primitive organism of all living beings exist
in the same form as when they first received their impress from their
Maker. There are, indeed, some very slight exceptions, as for
instance, the ass may mix with the mare and produce the mule; but there
it ends, the violation of the laws of procreation receives a check, and
its operations can go no further.” (John Taylor, “Meditation and the
Atonement”. John Taylor, before he died, was the president, prophet,
seer and revelator of the Mormon church.)
"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth,
and that the original human being was a development from lower orders
of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The
word of the Lord declares that Adam was the first of all men, (Moses
1:34) and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal
parent of our race.” (This statement was issued as an official
declaration regarding the church’s official stance on evolution. It
was written by the highest ruling body in the Mormon Church, the first
presidency consisting (at the time) of Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder,
and Anthon H. Lund. See also “Man: His Origin and Destiny”, pp 354-
355.)
According to official Mormon doctrine there was no death before Adam
(clearly at odds with the theory of evolution). See this doctrine at
the official LDS Webb site at
http://www.lds.org/en/3_Gospel_Principles/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
“I have sought and do now seek that guidance and enlightenment which
comes from the Holy Spirit of God. I desire to speak by the power Of
the Holy Ghost so that my words will be true and wise and proper. ....
The doctrines of salvation are not discovered in the laboratory or on a
geological field trip or by accompanying Darwin around the world. They
come by revelation and no other way.” (Elder Bruce McConkie, “The
Seven Deadly Heresies”, June 1, 1980. Bruce McConkie was an apostle,
prophet, seer and revelator in the Mormon Church. Read this article in
its entirety at http://www.iperform.net/jwr/heresies.html )
“There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the
theories of organic evolution.” (Bruce McConkie, “Mormon Doctrine”, p.
256. Note: Some individuals in the Mormon church view McConkie as a
fallen prophet, but most do not. “Mormon Doctrine” constitutes a
relatively small fraction of the quotes I’m providing here. If you
want to read McConkie’s statements you can probably find a copy of his
book in the library of your local Mormon churches. McConkie was
sustained in general conference, along with other members of the
Mormon “council of twelve apostles” as a prophet, seer, and revelator.)
“Evolutionary theories assume that hundreds of millions of years were
involved, first in the creation of the earth as a habitable globe, and
again in the evolution of spontaneously generated, single celled forms
of life into the complex and multitudinous forms of life now found on
its face. We have rather specific scriptural indications that the
creative period was of relatively short duration.” (Bruce
McConkie, “Mormon Doctrine,” p. 255.)
“There were no pre-Adamites. Any assumption to the contrary runs
counter to the whole plan and scheme of the Almighty in creating and
peopling this earth.” (Bruce McConkie, “Mormon Doctrine,” p. 254.)
“Adam and Eve and all forms of life, both animal and plant, were
created in immortality; that is, when first placed on this earth, all
forms of life were in a state of immortality. There was no death in
the world; death entered after the fall.” (Bruce McConkie, “Mormon
Doctrine,” p. 252.)
“And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have
fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all
things which were created must have remained in the same state in which
they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever,
and had no end.” (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:22. See an on-line
version of the Book of Mormon at (Search the Book of Mormon at
http://www.hti.umich.edu/relig/mormon/simple.html .)
Another reference is the June 1993 issue of the Ensign. The Ensign is
the Mormon church’s official magazine publication, and is used by the
president of the church to convey official church doctrine. It also
has “faith promoting” articles, and articles of general interest.
On page 21 there is an article by George R. Hill III, an emeritus
member of the Quorum of Seventy. Members of the quorum of seventy are
all general authorities. The quorum of seventy has equal authority
with the quorum of the twelve apostles, and with the first presidency
(see Doctrine and Covenants, 107:25-26). According to Hill, evolution
violates the second law of thermodynamics (untrue, by the way, and
probably a lie since Hill, having a Ph.D. in chemistry, almost
certainly knows better). He does not say whether or not evolution
actually occurs, but says if it happens it must be directed by god.
Another good reference is the Old Testament Student Manual for Genesis -
2 Samuel. This is the manual used in some Old Testament studies
classes at BYU and other Mormon schools. The 1980 copy I have (from a
religion class I attended while at BYU) was prepared by the Church
Educational System, and published by the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. On page 34 it says:
“Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come
up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of
years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and
I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to
do it but they are inconsistent - absolutely inconsistent, because that
doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the
revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.”
“ ... I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory [of
evolution] of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan
of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one
and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a
gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no
matter how much one may try to do so....”
“... Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of
sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the
world; for, according to this theory [of evolution], death had always
been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need
of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as
the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are
you prepared to believe such a thing as that?” (Smith, Doctrines of
Salvation, 1:141-42).”
On page 36 the Old Testament Student manual says:
“Here are the facts; here are the evidences; here, then, are the sound
reasons for believing life originated through a creative act. It is
time that each individual has the opportunity to know the facts and to
make an intelligent choice.” (Coffin, Creation, p. [15]).”
The following is from the "Old Testament" Student Manual, Genesis
through 2 Samuel. This manual was prepared by the Church Educational
System and is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. I'm quoting from the second edition,
revised. Copyright 1980, 1981 by corporation of the President of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and
widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally
developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different
ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. In relation
to this theory, the following statements should help you understand
what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man.”
"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth,
and that the original human being was a development from lower orders
of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The
word of the Lord declares that Adam was 'the first man of all men'
(Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the
primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that
all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and
whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it
commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in
the likeness of our heavenly Father." (First Presidency [Joseph F.
Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund], as cited in Clark, Messages of
the First Presidency, 4:205.)”
"Any theory that leaves out God as a personal, purposeful Being, and
accepts chance as a first cause, cannot be accepted by Latter-day
Saints ... That man and the whole of creation came by chance is
unthinkable. It is equally unthinkable that if man came into being by
the will and power of God, the divine creative power is limited to one
process dimly sensed by mortal man." (Widtsoe, Evidences and
Reconciliations, 1:155)”
"I am grateful that in the midst of the confusion of our Father's
children there has been given to the members of this great organization
a sure knowledge of the origin of man, that we came from the spirit
world where our spirits were begotten by our Father in heaven, that he
formed our first parents from the dust of the earth, and that their
spirits were placed in their bodies, and that man came, not as some
have believed, not as some have preferred to believe, from some of the
lower walks of life, but our ancestors were those beings who lived in
the courts of heaven. We came not from some menial order of life, but
our ancestor is God our heavenly Father." (George Albert Smith, in
Conference Report, Oct. 1925, p. 33.)
"Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come
up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of
years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and
I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to
do it but they are inconsistent - absolutely inconsistent, because that
doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the
revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.”
"... I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the
origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set
forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the
other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating
them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much
one may try to do so....”
"... Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of
sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the
world; for according to this theory, death had always been in the
world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an
atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the
Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you
prepared to believe such a thing as that?" (Smith, Doctrines of
Salvation, 1:141-42.)
The following is quoted from “The OLD Testament Student Manual Genesis -
2 Samuel”. This manual was prepared by the Church Educational System
and is Published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The quote is from the second edition, copyright 1980, 1981 by
Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints. The quotations were taken from pages 35 and 36.
(Note: I’ve taken quotes that are sometimes separated by several
paragraphs, partly because quoting the entire lesson would be excessive
and take too much time. I highly recommend that anyone interested in
knowing the Mormon Church’s position on evolution get a copy of the
student manual and read the entire lesson. The quotes below are mostly
secondary quotes in the lesson manual, taken from Coffin’s books on
creation and evolution.)
“In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and
widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally
developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different
ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. In relation
to this theory, the following statements should help you understand
what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man. ....”
“Anyone interested in truth must seriously consider these points. The
challenge they present to the theory of evolution has led many
intelligent and honest men of science now living to reevaluate their
beliefs about the origin of life.” (Coffin, Creation: The Evidence
from Science, p [1].) ....”
“Another scientist, impressed with the odds against the chance
formation of proteins, has expressed his opinion as follows: ‘The
chance that these five elements [carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen,
sulfur] may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter
that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time necessary to
finish the task, can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles
Eugene Guye, has made the computation and finds that the odds against
such an occurrence are 10^160 to 1, or only one chance in 10^160; that
is, 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number far too large to be
expressed in words. The amount of matter to be shaken together to
produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater
than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone
would require many, almost endless billions (10^243) of years.’ [Frank,
Allen, “The Origin of the World - by Chance or Design?” in John Clover
Monsma, ed., The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23.]”
(Coffin, Creation, pp [3-4].) ....”
“What you have read so far is not new. This problem has been known at
least since the time of Charles Darwin. If progressive evolution from
simple to complex is correct, the ancestors to these full-blown living
creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found
and there is little prospect of their every being found. ....”
“On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually in
the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms
of life were established fits best.” (Coffin, Creation, pp [5-6].) ....”
“..‘Here are the facts; here are the evidences; here, then, are the
sound reasons for believing life originated through a creative act. It
is time that each individual has the opportunity to know the facts and
to make an intelligent choice.” (Coffin, Creation, p. [15].)”
“Now in conclusion: It is my conviction that to the degree the theory
of evolution asserts that man is the product of an evolutionary
process, the offspring of animals- it is false! What application the
evolutionary theory has to animals gives me no concern. That is
another question entirely, one to be pursued by science. But
remember, the scriptures speak of the spirit in animals and other
living things, and of each multiplying after its own kind (D&C 77:2; 2
Nephi 2:22; Moses 3:9; Abraham 4:11-12, 24).”
“And I am sorry to say, the so-called theistic evolution, the theory
that God used an
evolutionary process to prepare a physical body for the spirit of man,
is equally false. I say I am sorry because I know it is a view
commonly held by good and thoughtful people who search for an
acceptable resolution to an apparent conflict between the theory of
evolution and the doctrines of the gospel.” [Elder Boyd K. Packer, The
Law and the Light.]
In addition to these quotations I’ve provided, there is a vast infobase
of LDS articles on the evils of evolution. You can search this data
base using the phrase “organic eevolution” at
http://infobase.ldsworld.com/sdbin/sdext.dll?f=[fbrowse-h.htm].
You might also enjoy reading the book “Using the Book of Mormon to
Combat Falsehoods in Organic Evolution,” by Clark A. Peterson. This
book provides some good reference material to statements by Mormon
General Authorities, showing how the theory of evolution is
inconsistent with Mormon doctrine.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> Wade wrote:
>
> >That certainly one perspect. But, as one apologists who knows better
than
> >anyone what his own intentions were, I can assure the readers, if not
> >Duwayne, that my intent was to not allow those outside my faith to
dictate
> >to those of us in my faith, what is doctrine and what is not, what is
> >ambiguous and what is not, what is frivolous and what is not. That
is a
> >right we reserve to ourselves.
>
not been
> indoctrinated in Mormon teachings since birth.
>
Thanks, Randy. Now a few words for Wade and others listening in:
I grew up in the Mormon Church, and was active for more than 36 years.
I went on a two-year mission to British Columbia, graduated from
physics department at BYU, married in the Mormon temple (Manti) and
served (among many callings in the church) as an Elder’s Quorum
President in two wards.
And as for Wade. Nobody is trying to tell YOU what to
believe. You can believe that pink horses will fly out your arss
in the morning for all I care.
The issue, Wade, is that you seem to think that YOU define official
Church Doctrine.
That, however, is false. Wade, Patent_Worm, Russell, and a host of
other apologists do not define Mormon doctrine. The Mormon Church
does that.
Unlike the Mormon apologists who are trying to pass off their personal
beliefs as Mormon doctrine, I'm posting references from the Mormon
Church.
Regards,
Duwayne Anderson
"Patent_Worm" <Paten...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000404093531...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
> > Wade wrote:
> >
better than
> > >anyone what his own intentions were, I can assure the readers, if
not
> > >Duwayne, that my intent was to not allow those outside my faith to
> dictate
> > >to those of us in my faith, what is doctrine and what is not, what
is
> > >ambiguous and what is not, what is frivolous and what is not. That
is a
> > >right we reserve to ourselves.
> >
has not
> been indoctrinated in Mormon teachings since birth.
> >
> > Randy J.
>
That's right. I sign my real name. I see, though, that you
don't.
> Bitter anti's who live to post, trying to
> pull others down to your level.
This, folks, is called an ad hominem argument. It's Patent_Worms's
favorite.
> I feel sorry for you guys.
<snip>
Gee. I feel warm all over. Can we have a group hug?
Duwayne Anderson
"Wade" <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
> TheJordan6 wrote in message
> <20000404093531...@ng-cj1.aol.com>...
>
>
what
> he has lead me to believe by his clearly anti position.
Wade, your response is based on a deep-seated need to strike out at
anyone who questions the authenticity of the Mormon Church.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
> If you doubt that he
> is no longer a "Mormon" (whether in spirit of as a matter of record),
> then
> you may want to check with him. I am sure he will be more than happy
to
> straighten things out.
I don't know where you have been, Wade, but my past history with the
LDS Church is well known on ARM.
>
> >and that he has not been
> >indoctrinated in Mormon teachings since birth.
>
> My response "assumes" no such thing. As I have pointed out to John
Farkas
> (another former member turned anti):
Oh, and you do love to focus on the "anti's", don't you? It's far
easier than dealing with the substance of what we say.
>
> "You are in error to think that your eight years in the church,
ending over
> fourteen years ago, would qualify you as an 'insider.'
Well, personally I was active well into my 30's. Went on a mission,
graduated from BYU, married in the temple, and was an Elder's Quorum
President in two wards (along with lots of other callings).
I've read all the standard works many times (17 times cover to cover
for the Book of Mormon).
But you would much rather debate who is or is not an "insider" than
deal with the quotations I've provided from official Church sources.
> Would you consider as
> 'insiders' those who followed after Christ for a season, but later
found his
> doctrine to be too hard (Jn 6:50-66)? I doubt it. I sure wouldn't.
It's so important to Wade to categorize people instead of dealing with
the issues.
> Isn't the
> very reason that they left the faith was because they failed to
comprehend
> the correct meaning of Christ's words?
The reason I left the Mormon Church is because I figured out it is
a fraud.
Isn't the only reason people like you remain in the Church is because
leaving it would be too hard to do?
>To me, an 'insider' is one who
> understand and accepts the doctrines as true,
Sure. That makes you feel comfortable, right? Don't listen to anyone
unless they 'understand and accept the doctrines as TRUE."
> and who remains faithful to
> them.
I'm faithfull to the truth.
You are faithfull to a man-made church.
> Since you, too, 'went back, and walked no more with him,' you cannot
> be considered as an 'insider.'
Once again, Wade just can't seem to get it through his head.
Categorizing people isn't the issue -- the issues are the issues.
>
> "More to the point, would you consider as 'insiders' those who once
followed
> after Christ, but who were later found amongst the throng
crying 'crucify
> him?'(Mk 15:13-14)
I listen to what peoplw say, and when it makes sense I listen more.
All you have done, Wade, is show that you will stop at nothing to
defend your church.
>
> "No, Mr. Farkas [(and, by extension, Duwayne, Randy, and any other
former
> member turned anti)] your eight years [or how many other years] in the
> Church does not qualify you as an 'insider.'
Nor does your self-proclaimed membership give you the right to dictate
Mormon doctrine.
I've quoted Mormon doctrine from official sources. That is relevant.
> In fact, your having left the
> Church, and having actively fought against it, makes you more
an 'outsider'
> than those who have never joined, and it puts you in the same deluded
and
> self-aggrandizing company of traitors to Christ as Judas Iscariot,
Korihor,
> John C. Bennett, and others like them.
The issue isn't insider or outsider. Mormon's who have run out of
steam inevitably make personal issues the issue. The real issue, though
is what the Mormon Church teaches.
And for that, everyone -- including Wade and all the other people
who SAY they are Mormons -- must put up references.
My opinion is not worth squat, and Wade's isn't either.
>
> "And, while you may have a greater familiarity with LDS history and
doctrine
> than the average member of the LDS faith,
An understatement.
> you have, through your much
> learning, failed to get understanding.
No. We have, through our understanding, figured it out.
> I agree with Paul when he said,
<snip>
Wade, for once, why not do your own thinking?
Wade
>In article <8ce7ka$2e2d$1...@news.aros.net>,
> "Wade" <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
>> TheJordan6 wrote in message
>> <20000404093531...@ng-cj1.aol.com>...
>>
>> >You're response assumes that DuWayne is not a Mormon,
>>
>> My "assumption" is based on what he has stated to me in the past, and
>what
>> he has lead me to believe by his clearly anti position.
>
>Wade, your response is based on a deep-seated need to strike out at
>anyone who questions the authenticity of the Mormon Church.
>
>Nothing more. Nothing less.
>
As one who knows myself better than anyone, I can tell you that you have
grossly misjudged my motives--particularly in this instance.
My only reason for responding to Randy was to correct his claim that I had
assumed that you were not Mormon. Nothing More. Nothing less. It was not an
assumption on my part, but a know fact, as you confirm below. He was wrong
about me, just as you are now wrong about me.
But, one can't help but wonder about your motive for clearly misjudging me.
>> If you doubt that he
>> is no longer a "Mormon" (whether in spirit of as a matter of record),
>> then
>> you may want to check with him. I am sure he will be more than happy
>to
>> straighten things out.
>
>I don't know where you have been, Wade, but my past history with the
>LDS Church is well known on ARM.
I don't know where you have been, but I already knew you were no longer a
Mormon, as you confirm below. You made that clear to me over a year ago.
>> >and that he has not been
>> >indoctrinated in Mormon teachings since birth.
>>
>> My response "assumes" no such thing. As I have pointed out to John
>Farkas
>> (another former member turned anti):
>
>Oh, and you do love to focus on the "anti's", don't you?
Let see. I am an apologist. Apologists defend their faith against attacks.
Those who attack are, by definition, anti. So, with these obvious facts in
mind, it would not be difficult to comprehend why I love to focus on the
antis. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
>It's far
>easier than dealing with the substance of what we say.
What substance? I wish you and your fellow detractors had some "substance"
for me. All I have seen is a seemingly endless stream of illogic and
inanity. If you doubt the veracity of what I say, I suggest you read the
article by Moser and Owens (two non-LDS scholars, one of who is a former
member of the Church) called, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and
Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" You may access
it by going here:
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/cpoint10-2.html#mosserowen
>> "You are in error to think that your eight years in the church,
>ending over
>> fourteen years ago, would qualify you as an 'insider.'
>
>Well, personally I was active well into my 30's. Went on a mission,
>graduated from BYU, married in the temple, and was an Elder's Quorum
>President in two wards (along with lots of other callings).
So? Judas Iscariot was an Apostle. John Bennett was a member of the First
Presidency. Should I go on, or do you get the point? (Hint: the number of
years in the Church, and the number of Church callings, or even the level of
Church callings, no the school you attended, or the covenant you entered
into, is no gaurantee of comprehension of doctrines, and what is doctrine
and what is not. As I indicate below, that fact that you left the church,
and think it is a fraud, is evidence that you lacked comprehension.)
>I've read all the standard works many times (17 times cover to cover
>for the Book of Mormon).
So? (Hint: as I point out below, you have been ever learning, but unable to
come to a knowledge of the truth)
>But you would much rather debate who is or is not an "insider" than
>deal with the quotations I've provided from official Church sources.
The only reason I am debating who is an "insider" or who is not, is because
a certain "outsider" has fallaciously presumes to dictate to the "insiders"
what is their doctrine and what is not, what is official for them and what
is not. In other words, the "outsider" forced the issue regarding
"insider"/"outsider" onto the discussion. Had the "outsider" not done this,
and had "outsider" rightly let the "insiders" put the "insider" sources into
proper perspective and correct interpretation, and the "ousider" rightly
accepting that perspective and interpretation as authoritative and correct,
the discussion could have proceed like any normal debate.
>> Would you consider as
>> 'insiders' those who followed after Christ for a season, but later
>found his
>> doctrine to be too hard (Jn 6:50-66)? I doubt it. I sure wouldn't.
>
>It's so important to Wade to categorize people instead of dealing with
>the issues.
It becomes important, and the issue, when questions arise as to who has the
right to determine what is doctrine and what is not; what is the correct
interpretation, and what is not; for a given belief system. It becomes a
factor when someone fallaciously appeals to authority. Categorizing then
becomes unavoidible. If Duwayne would stop derailing the discussion with his
fallacious dictations, then the discussion would then have a chance of
proceeding as normal.
Now, were Duwayne to allow the LDS to speak for themselves, rather than
dictating to them; and were he to seek for understanding of the LDS
perspective, rather than imposing his own beliefs onto them; there would be
no need for categorizing, and the discussion could then return to rationally
addressing the issue at hand.
>> Isn't the
>> very reason that they left the faith was because they failed to
>comprehend
>> the correct meaning of Christ's words?
>
>The reason I left the Mormon Church is because I figured out it is
>a fraud.
To me, that is the same as saying you failed to correctly comprehend the
retored gospel of Christ.
>Isn't the only reason people like you remain in the Church is because
>leaving it would be too hard to do?
In a manner of speaking, yes. I would find it very difficult to ignore the
splender of enveloping light, the piercing and undeniable spiritual truths,
the beauty and majesty of God's love, the profound depths and strength in
faith, that come from abiding and comprehending the precepts of Christ's
restored gospel. But, I can't expect you to understand--though you may wish
to claim that you do.
>>To me, an 'insider' is one who
>> understand and accepts the doctrines as true,
>
>Sure. That makes you feel comfortable, right?
Yes, and it is also makes common sense.
>Don't listen to anyone
>unless they 'understand and accept the doctrines as TRUE."
It is not a matter of not listening. It is a matter of who would best know,
and who wouldn't; who thinks they know, and but who really doesn't.
>> and who remains faithful to
>> them.
>
>I'm faithfull to the truth.
That is a matter of perspective. I happen to disagree. To each their own.
>You are faithfull to a man-made church.
Again, that is a matter of perspective. I happen to disagree. To each their
own.
>> Since you, too, 'went back, and walked no more with him,' you cannot
>> be considered as an 'insider.'
>
>Once again, Wade just can't seem to get it through his head.
>Categorizing people isn't the issue -- the issues are the issues.
Once again, Duwayne fails to see how his fallacious attempt to dictate to
the LDS what is their doctrine, and what is not; what is their correct
interpretation, and what is not; forced the issue of categorizing onto the
discussion. If he would allow the LDS to speak for themselves, even as they
allow him to speak for himself, the discussion may then return to the issue
at hand.
>> "More to the point, would you consider as 'insiders' those who once
>followed
>> after Christ, but who were later found amongst the throng
>crying 'crucify
>> him?'(Mk 15:13-14)
>
>I listen to what peoplw say, and when it makes sense I listen more.
Not from what I have seen. But, I suppose that is a matter of differing
perspective of what is "sense" and what is not.
>All you have done, Wade, is show that you will stop at nothing to
>defend your church.
All I have needed to do in defending my faith with you, is to point out your
obvious errors in reasoning. No need to stop at nothing--except, perhaps, in
the sense that I stop once I see that you have offered nothing, which
doesn't take long.
>> "No, Mr. Farkas [(and, by extension, Duwayne, Randy, and any other
>former
>> member turned anti)] your eight years [or how many other years] in the
>> Church does not qualify you as an 'insider.'
>
>Nor does your self-proclaimed membership give you the right to dictate
>Mormon doctrine.
I will let this profoundly stupid remark collapse under its own ponderous,
though fragil, weight.
>I've quoted Mormon doctrine from official sources.
Again, that is not for you to decide (what is doctrine and what is
official). As a self-professed non-Mormon (see below), you are not in a
position to dictate to the Mormons what is their doctrine, and what is
official to them, just as they are not in a position to dictate to you what
is your doctrine, and what is official to you. Why you are having such a
difficult time comprehending this simple principle is anyone's guess.
But, since cognition seems to be alluding you, I suppose we can anticipate
your forcing the issue of "categorizing" onto the discussion innumerable
time in the future.
>> In fact, your having left the
>> Church, and having actively fought against it, makes you more
>an 'outsider'
>> than those who have never joined, and it puts you in the same deluded
>and
>> self-aggrandizing company of traitors to Christ as Judas Iscariot,
>Korihor,
>> John C. Bennett, and others like them.
>
>The issue isn't insider or outsider.
By your fallious attempts to dictate to the Mormons, you have forced it as
an issue.
>Mormon's who have run out of
>steam inevitably make personal issues the issue.
Anti-Mormons, who had no steam to begin with, inevitably attempt to create
an illusion of steam through constructing a straw man which they
fallaciously attempt to impose on the Mormons. Then, they will errantly
turn around and claim the Mormons have run out of steam. This is a
transparent diversionary tactic that fools only those, such as Duwayne, who
attempt to use it.
>The real issue, though
>is what the Mormon Church teaches.
And who would better know what the Mormons "teach"? The Mormons, or the
non-Mormons?
>And for that, everyone -- including Wade and all the other people
>who SAY they are Mormons -- must put up references.
And everyone must correctly understand the breadth, scope, and meaning of
those references. And for that -- including Duwayne and all other
detractors -- must accept the word of the LDS, who would better know.
>My opinion is not worth squat,
We finally agree on something. I will have to remember this honest and
accurate admission.
>and Wade's isn't either.
On matters conscerning myself, and matters conscerning my faith, my opinion
is certainly more authoritative than someone who is not me, and someone who
is not LDS--Duwayne's fallacious assertion notwithstanding.
>> "And, while you may have a greater familiarity with LDS history and
>doctrine
>> than the average member of the LDS faith,
>
>An understatement.
Only in your mind. But, according to your own admission, your opinion is not
worth squat!
>> you have, through your much
>> learning, failed to get understanding.
>
>No. We have, through our understanding, figured it out.
So have we. But, according to your own admission, your opinion is not worth
squat!
>Wade, for once, why not do your own thinking?
Another fallacious comment (the fallacy of interrogative presupposition) to
add to your ever increasing list. But, no matter. According to your own
admission, your opinion is not worth squat!
Thanks, -Wade-
E. Mark Ping
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Here they are again. And don't forget to visit the official LDS
>Internet site at
>
>http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
Except that "Gospel Principles" is not official doctrine of the
church. It is an excellent introductory text, but it by no means
definitive or comprehensive.
>Some Mormons claim this creation account described the spiritual
>creation, and that the order of the spiritual creation differed from
>the physical creation. Verse 1, however, makes it clear that the
>narrative describes the creation of the physical earth upon which Moses
>was standing.
Wrong. It refers to the earth on which Moses was standing. It is you
who insert "physical." Moses had a body and a spirit, and (surprise!)
since all things were created spiritually first, the earth has a body
and a spirit.
[snip conclusions based on erroneous assumption]
>Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless
>we know how to use the book [of Mormon] to expose and combat the
>falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, and
>so forth. (Ezra Taft Benson, A Witness and a Warning, page 6. Ezra
>Taft Benson, before he died, was the president, prophet, seer, and
>revelator of the Mormon Church.)
Note that nowhere does Ezra T. Benson condemn evolution or socialism
as a whole. He speaks of the falshooods IN those theories. Socialism
has many things in common with the Law of Consecration--but the
differences are significant, and those errors should be exposed and
combatted. Same for evolution.
>These principles do not change, as represented by evolutionists of the
>Darwinian school, but the primitive organism of all living beings exist
>in the same form as when they first received their impress from their
>Maker. There are, indeed, some very slight exceptions, as for
>instance, the ass may mix with the mare and produce the mule; but there
>it ends, the violation of the laws of procreation receives a check, and
>its operations can go no further. (John Taylor, Meditation and the
>Atonement. John Taylor, before he died, was the president, prophet,
>seer and revelator of the Mormon church.)
I wasn't familiar with this quote, thanks for presenting it. When and
how was it delivered? It makes little sense to point out that John
Taylor was president of the church unless he was president when he
made the statement.
>"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth,
>and that the original human being was a development from lower orders
>of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men.
This is the quote I gave in my post. It sounds like a rebuke only of
the evolution of human beings. As I responded, I'm quite willing to
accept that.
>According to official Mormon doctrine there was no death before Adam
>(clearly at odds with the theory of evolution). See this doctrine at
>the official LDS Webb site at
>http://www.lds.org/en/3_Gospel_Principles/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
Again, Gospel Principles is not doctrine. Furthermore, this
particular tidbit refers to the quote from Joseph F. Smith that you
later cite (which is non-doctrinal).
>There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the
>theories of organic evolution. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.
>256. Note: Some individuals in the Mormon church view McConkie as a
>fallen prophet, but most do not. Mormon Doctrine constitutes a
>relatively small fraction of the quotes I'm providing here. If you
>want to read McConkie's statements you can probably find a copy of his
>book in the library of your local Mormon churches. McConkie was
>sustained in general conference, along with other members of the
>Mormon council of twelve apostles as a prophet, seer, and revelator.)
Any individuals who might think of Bruce R. McConkie as a fallen
prophet never heard him bear his testimony. Furthermore, you would do
well to read the author's note/preface of Mormon Doctrine.
>And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have
>fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all
>things which were created must have remained in the same state in which
>they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever,
>and had no end. (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:22. See an on-line
>version of the Book of Mormon at (Search the Book of Mormon at
>http://www.hti.umich.edu/relig/mormon/simple.html .)
This is a highly allegorical reference. At best you can say this
means that this suggests that man didn't evolve from lower creatures
(which, as I said above is something I readily accept).
>Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come
>up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of
>years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and
>I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to
Again this only speaks to the evolution of man.
>"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth,
>and that the original human being was a development from lower orders
>of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The
Any reason you include this twice?
>"Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come
>up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of
>years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and
It seems your cut and paste skills need work.
>And I am sorry to say, the so-called theistic evolution, the theory
>that God used an
>evolutionary process to prepare a physical body for the spirit of man,
>is equally false. I say I am sorry because I know it is a view
>commonly held by good and thoughtful people who search for an
>acceptable resolution to an apparent conflict between the theory of
>evolution and the doctrines of the gospel. [Elder Boyd K. Packer, The
>Law and the Light.]
Once again this only speaks of the origin of Man.
So this adds absolutely nothing to what I had to say. Thank you for
showing me this so succinctly.
cdo...@my-deja.com
Not particularly clear to me. The spiritual creation was the
"beginning" of the creation of the world upon which Moses resided.
>
> Please note that the creation story in the Pearl of Great Price was
> supposedly a direct revelation from god to Joseph Smith. It depicts a
> tutorial between god and Moses on the creation of the physical earth
> upon which Moses was standing. Not surprisingly, Joseph Smith’s
> creation story is a modified plagiarism of the Hebrew creation myth
> found in the Bible. I have listed some of the claims of this official
> version below.
>
> 1. According to official Mormon doctrine, god created grass, herb
> yielding seeds, and fruit trees on day three (see verses 11-13). Then
> he created the sun on the fourth day (see verses 14-19). [Have
Mormons
> ever wondered how these plants survived without the sun?].
Have you considered that this is additional evidence, telling evidence,
that this is an account of the spiritual creation?
>
> 2. According to official Mormon doctrine, god created the earth and
> dry land on day three (Moses 2: 9-13) and then created the sun and
moon
> on day four.
Depends on what narrative you are considering. Other narratives put
this into a different order.
[According to the best theories of how the solar system
> formed, the sun formed first. The planets formed later in the solar
> system’s development through a gradual process of accumulation.
And where in the narratives does it say that the "sun was created"? It
specifically talks abt the placement of the different lights. For
example, the "lesser lights" -- the stars -- existed for an eternity
before the creation of the earth.
Your problem here is that you are confusing historic Christian doctrine
for LDS doctrine. You are viewing our teachings thru your own lens of
understanding, and astigmatism is quite evident.
And "it is clear" is only clear to you alone thru that lens.
Here,
> in Joseph Smith’s fanciful fairy tail,
Since you seem intent to insult us, why bother to continue reading.
If you can talk to us without your trademark insults, perhaps we will
listen.
snip
Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
Timothy I. McCrory
>
>
> The official doctrine of the Mormon Church on the origin of the earth
> and life is in Moses chapter 2 and Abraham chapter 4 in the Pearl of
> Great Price. The Pearl of Great Price is one of Mormonism’s standard
> works. It is held by the Mormon Church and its leaders as revelation
> from God, and official church doctrine. It is sustained as scripture
> by the general church membership (you can read an on-line version of
> the Pearl of Great Price at
> http://www.deseretbook.com/scriptures/pgp_home.html ).
>
> Chapter 2 is supposedly a revelation from God to Joseph Smith,
> describing how God created the earth, and life. Chapter 4 repeats
> chapter 2, with some minor modifications. The heading for chapter 2
> reads “As revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, in December, 1830. The
> first verse reads “And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses
> saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning the heaven, and this
> earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End,
> the Almighty God; by mine only Begotten I created these things; yea, in
> the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou
> standest.”
>
> Some Mormons claim this creation account described the “spiritual”
> creation, and that the order of the “spiritual” creation differed from
> the physical creation. Verse 1, however, makes it clear that the
> narrative describes the creation of the physical earth upon which Moses
> was standing.
Why did you skip over chapter 3 of Moses? It pretty much refutes
everything you stated here.
Moses 3:1
1 THUS the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of
them.
Moses 3:2
2 And on the seventh day I, God, ended my work, and all things which I
had made; and I rested on the seventh day from all my work, and all
things which I had made were finished, and I, God, saw that they were
good;
Moses 3:3
3 And I, God, blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that
in it I had rested from all my work which I, God, had created and made.
Moses 3:4
4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of
the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I,
the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,
Moses 3:5
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every
herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all
things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally
upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to
rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all
the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven
created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in
the water, neither in the air;
Moses 3:6
6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth,
and watered the whole face of the ground.
>
> Please note that the creation story in the Pearl of Great Price was
> supposedly a direct revelation from god to Joseph Smith. It depicts a
> tutorial between god and Moses on the creation of the physical earth
> upon which Moses was standing. Not surprisingly, Joseph Smith’s
> creation story is a modified plagiarism of the Hebrew creation myth
> found in the Bible. I have listed some of the claims of this official
> version below.
I am not aware that Joseph Smith claimed he wrote any of the Book of
Moses. He pretty much credited Moses with having received this vision
and recording it and our Heavenly Father for passing it along to him. I
don't see how anyone can claim this to be plagiarism. The Book of Moses
is an uncorrupted account by the same person of the same event detailed
in Genesis. Is that too hard for your truly feeble mind to grasp?
>
> 1. According to official Mormon doctrine, god created grass, herb
> yielding seeds, and fruit trees on day three (see verses 11-13). Then
> he created the sun on the fourth day (see verses 14-19). [Have Mormons
> ever wondered how these plants survived without the sun?].
If you knew anything about LDS theology you would know that God didn't
create the grass, seeds, etc., as they were brought here from a
different earth(s). As for your questioning the presence of the sun if
you will read the accounts of the creation in both Book of Moses and
Genesis you will find that after the first account of the creation the
Lord says He hadn't yet caused it to rain. Now we're pretty much back to
the first account of the creation being the spiritual creation now
aren't we? It appears as though the rest of your post relies upon your
incorrect premise, which has so many holes that were it a bucket it
could neither hold the rain, nor keep out the light, so will be ignored.
--
/s/ Timothy I. McCrory
Web Site - Kay County Patriots
http://www.bigfoot.com/~tim_mccrory/
mailto:tim_m...@bigfoot.com
Law Research & Registry
http://www.LawResearch-Registry.org
"Tyranny has no enemy so formidable as the pen."
William Cobbett
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely
believe they are free."
Goethe
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose
its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or
money that it values more, it will lose that too."
Somerset Maugham
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
Duwayne Anderson
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
<snip>
> Except that "Gospel Principles" is not official doctrine of the
> church.
What's not official, Mark, is your opinion, or your assertion that
this or that is not official.
The quotation I provided is taken from "the official Internet site
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Now, since you claim there is such a thing as official Mormon
doctrine, you need to do two things:
1) Provide references from official sources that define --
unambiguously -- what is official Mormon doctrine.
2) Tell us why a church should only be held accountable and judged
by what they officially teach instead of what they publicly teach.
> It is an excellent introductory text, but it by no means
> definitive or comprehensive.
<snip rest of special pleading>
Well, that's just your unofficial opinion -- and it does not count.
Duwayne Anderson
cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
> Since you seem intent to insult us, why bother to continue reading.
<snip>
Translation: Mormons are insulted when other people do not believe
them, and when they have no effective argument they feign insult and
leave the debate.
Duwayne
Duwayne Anderson
Don't try to make this look like I'm hiding something. I told people
where to go to read the ENTIRE text, and encouraged them to do it.
I cannot post everything, and I posted FAR FAR more references than
you have. Your insinuation is totally uncalled for.
> It pretty much refutes
> everything you stated here.
So you say the scriptures say different things in different places?
And this helps you how?
Okay. You quoted a bunch of stuff. Care to tell us how what you
quoted "pretty much refutes everything you stated here."?
>
> >
> > Please note that the creation story in the Pearl of Great Price was
> > supposedly a direct revelation from god to Joseph Smith. It
depicts a
> > tutorial between god and Moses on the creation of the physical earth
> > upon which Moses was standing. Not surprisingly, Joseph Smith’s
> > creation story is a modified plagiarism of the Hebrew creation myth
> > found in the Bible. I have listed some of the claims of this
official
> > version below.
>
> I am not aware that Joseph Smith claimed he wrote any of the Book of
> Moses. He pretty much credited Moses with having received this vision
> and recording it and our Heavenly Father for passing it along to him.
That is what he claimed, all right.
> I
> don't see how anyone can claim this to be plagiarism.
Suppose you wrote a book. Suppose I came along several years later
and claimed a vision -- and holy smokes, my vision reads almost
exactly like your book.
Was it revelation, or plagiarism?
Oh, never mind.
<snip>
Duwayne Anderson
"Wade" <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Let see. I am an apologist. Apologists defend their faith against
attacks.
<snip>
No, apologists defend their faith against reason.
<snip>
> What substance?
The references I posted from the official LDS Internet site, for one.
The quotations from Mormon prophets, apostles, seers, and revelators
for another.
> I wish you and your fellow detractors had some "substance"
> for me.
<snip>
Then you just need to start reading what I post, and stop making
personalities your issue.
The issues are the issues here, Wade. Stop focusing on the people
you hate and deal with the issues.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> The only reason I am debating who is an "insider" or who is not, is
because
> a certain "outsider" has fallaciously presumes to dictate to
the "insiders"
> what is their doctrine and what is not, what is official for them and
what
> is not.
<snip>
Wade, if you were really a Mormon you would know that individual
members do NOT have the right to speak for the Church.
The issue is not "insiders" or "outsiders."
The issue is not what you personally want to believe.
The issue is what does the Mormon Church teach about people before
Adam. The Mormon Church teaches that there were none. The
Mormon Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth
and that they introduced mortality into the World.
That is what the Mormon Church teaches, and you can read it on their
official LDS Internet site. I've posted the words many many times.
Your opinion does not count -- neither does mine. The difference is
that I'm posting references from official Mormon sources and you are
posting your opinion.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Once again, Duwayne fails to see how his fallacious attempt to
dictate to
> the LDS what is their doctrine,
<snip>
No, Wade, you seem to think that what you believe and what the Mormon
Church teaches are the same.
You can believe whatever you want, but you are NOT an official
spokesperson for the LDS Church. You do NOT define official Mormon
doctrine.
I've posted references from the official LDS Internet site, and those
references are relevant to the issue.
<snip>
> >Nor does your self-proclaimed membership give you the right to
> > dictate Mormon doctrine.
>
> I will let this profoundly stupid remark collapse under its own
> ponderous, though fragil, weight.
<snip>
Wade, how do we know you are really a Mormon? Does everyone who
comes on ARM and claims to be a Mormon -- as you have -- then get the
right to dictate Mormon doctrine?
You seem to think so. After all, I said that a persons "self-
proclaimed membership [does not give them] the right to dictate Mormon
doctrine," and you called that a "profoundly stupid remark."
Are you an official spokesperson of the LDS Church, Wade?
Are you a Mormon missionary?
Have you been set apart and ordained to "dictate Mormon doctrine?"
I hate to disappoint you, Wade, but you are just a bunch of words and
rotten logic coming across my video screen. An anonymous writer who
claims to know all about Mormon doctrine, but has an unsettling habit
of disagreeing with what the Mormon Church teaches on it's official
Internet site.
Why should anyone take your word for anything over what the LDS Church
publicly teaches on their official Internet site and in their
conference proceedings?
Patent_Worm
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ce8p0$ft0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8cdipo$1tt7$1...@news.aros.net>,
> "Patent_Worm" <Paten...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000404093531...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
> > > Wade wrote:
> > >
> better than
> > > >anyone what his own intentions were, I can assure the readers, if
> not
> > > >Duwayne, that my intent was to not allow those outside my faith to
> > dictate
> > > >to those of us in my faith, what is doctrine and what is not, what
> is
> > > >ambiguous and what is not, what is frivolous and what is not. That
> is a
> > > >right we reserve to ourselves.
> > >
> has not
> > been indoctrinated in Mormon teachings since birth.
> > >
> >
> > We know who you and dwane are.
>
> That's right. I sign my real name. I see, though, that you
> don't.
>
> > Bitter anti's who live to post, trying to
> > pull others down to your level.
>
> This, folks, is called an ad hominem argument. It's Patent_Worms's
> favorite.
>
> > I feel sorry for you guys.
> <snip>
>
>
Actually, I don't want to join your mutual intellectual circle-jerk.
E. Mark Ping
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <8cftp8$9rp$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>> church.
>
>this or that is not official.
Okay, so what makes your comments official?
>The quotation I provided is taken from "the official Internet site
>of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Oh, I thought you were talking about the official Internet site of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--my mistake (look
carefully for the difference). :)
Since when does the site say that "this is official doctrine of the
LDS church?" Or since when is it normal to consider ANY website as
definitive or authoritative of any large organization?
>Now, since you claim there is such a thing as official Mormon
>doctrine, you need to do two things:
Sorry, it is *you* who are making the claim of what is official. You
haven't stated any reason to back up that claim.
>Well, that's just your unofficial opinion -- and it does not count.
:) Amazing. Like the proud parent who exclaims about her son in the
infantry, "They're all out of step except my Jonny!" you just can't
see, can you?
TheJordan6
>Since when does the site say that "this is official doctrine of the
>LDS church?" Or since when is it normal to consider ANY website as
>definitive or authoritative of any large organization?
DuWayne is merely referring to the on-line version of an official LDS
publication. My 1995 paperback copy of "Gospel Principles" states the exact
words that DuWayne has quoted. The lesson manual, published by the LDS Church,
states in its preface:
"Gospel Principles was written both as a personal study guide and as a
teacher's manual. It can help you...answer questions about the
gospel.....Through your study of this text and its related scriptures, you can
find answers to life's questions....."
Sounds awfully official to me. But if you don't think it is, maybe you're an
'apostate.'
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Are you an official spokesperson of the LDS Church, Wade?
>Are you a Mormon missionary?
>Have you been set apart and ordained to "dictate Mormon doctrine?"
>
>I hate to disappoint you, Wade, but you are just a bunch of words and
>rotten logic coming across my video screen. An anonymous writer who
>claims to know all about Mormon doctrine, but has an unsettling habit
>of disagreeing with what the Mormon Church teaches on its official
>Internet site.
Wade reminds me of former ARM poster David F. Bowie. When I quoted verbatim
material from an LDS Institute lesson manual, from which I had taken a course
in 1978, David's retort was "That manual is highly speculative." Apparently,
Mormons who post on the internet, such as David Bowie, Wade, etc., believe that
they are the people who dictate what are or are not official LDS teachings,
rather than the curriculum writers, who are allegedly supervised by General
Authorities, and who approve the works before publication. I wonder what would
happen if David Bowie, Wade, etc., stated their opinions of material in
official LDS lesson manuals to some of the General Authorities. Do you suppose
the GA's would change the material in the manuals to suit them?
Randy J.
E. Mark Ping
TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote:
>Mark Ping wrote:
>
>>Since when does the site say that "this is official doctrine of the
>>LDS church?" Or since when is it normal to consider ANY website as
>>definitive or authoritative of any large organization?
>
>DuWayne is merely referring to the on-line version of an official LDS
>publication.
Yes I know. I actually teach the Gospel Essentials class in my ward
(and the text is "Gospel Principles"). DuWayne however is attempting
to validate his claim by appealing to the "Official Website" which is
not definitive nor comprehensive in intent nor design.
>My 1995 paperback copy of "Gospel Principles" states the exact words
>that DuWayne has quoted. The lesson manual, published by the LDS
>Church, states in its preface:
>
>"Gospel Principles was written both as a personal study guide and as
>a teacher's manual. It can help you...answer questions about the
>gospel.....Through your study of this text and its related
>scriptures, you can find answers to life's questions....."
>
>Sounds awfully official to me. But if you don't think it is, maybe
>you're an 'apostate.'
Yes, it's officially published by the church, but the scriptures it
points to are ultimately the real source of doctrine. This doesn't
mean that the book has to be perfect to be "helpful." It just has to
be helpful. Keep in mind it often simplifies issues for new members
and investigators. Oversimplification can be a problem but it does
not constitute a donctrinal point of the church.
Patent_Worm
> dictate to> the LDS what is their doctrine,
>
> No, Wade, you seem to think that what you believe and what the Mormon
> Church teaches are the same.
>
> You can believe whatever you want, but you are NOT an official
> spokesperson for the LDS Church. You do NOT define official Mormon
> doctrine.>
No, but apparently you do Duane!
E. Mark Ping
TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote:
>When I quoted verbatim
>material from an LDS Institute lesson manual, from which I had taken a course
>in 1978, David's retort was "That manual is highly speculative." Apparently,
>Mormons who post on the internet, such as David Bowie, Wade, etc., believe that
>they are the people who dictate what are or are not official LDS teachings,
>rather than the curriculum writers, who are allegedly supervised by General
>Authorities, and who approve the works before publication.
Being supervised by General Authorities does not mean it is official
teaching of the church. Please show us LDS anything that states
otherwise.
Wade
>attacks.
>
>No, apologists defend their faith against reason.
Well you are certainly free to render your self-serving and ad hominem
opinion, but, in your own words, your opinion isn't worth "squat."
>> What substance?
>
>The references I posted from the official LDS Internet site, for one.
>The quotations from Mormon prophets, apostles, seers, and revelators
>for another.
Yes, I know, these are quotes you errantly assumed supported your own
twisted notion of what is LDS doctrine. But, as was demonstrated to you time
and again, the correlation you attempted to drawn (between the quotes and
your errant perception of LDS doctrine) was incorrect, and thus without
substance--your opinion to the contrary, by your own words, being not worth
squat.
>> I wish you and your fellow detractors had some "substance"
>> for me.
><snip>
>
>Then you just need to start reading what I post, and stop making
>personalities your issue.
Having read your posts, I have found them as fallacy ridden and error prone
as this last comment. You have mistake my pointing out your personal errors
in reasoning as "making personalities [my] issue." And, while you are
certainly entitled to your opinion, it is, by your own words, "not worth
squat."
>The issues are the issues here, Wade. Stop focusing on the people
>you hate and deal with the issues.
I find it fiting that you would end this post with a hypocritical ad homenim
attack proped up along with the straw man claim that I am not dealing with
the issues. Add two more fallacies to your highly prolific list.
Since you yet lack comprehension the last several times, let me try and
explain things to you again. The "issue" in most any debate is to determine
the soundness and verity of a given assertion (in this case, your claim that
LDS doctrine is diametrically opposed to the belief in evolution).
Evidence and reasoning is then introduced in support or controvention
thereof (in this case you produced a number of quotes from Church leaders,
published on Church sites and in Church related publications, which you
labeled as "LDS doctrine", and went on to interpret these quotes to be
diametrically opposed to evolution).
The evidence and reasoning is then tested for accuracy and logical soundness
(in this case, a number of LDS, including myself, have challenged the
accuracy of your labeling the LDS quotes as "LDS doctrine," and we have
challenged your interpretation of the quotes as being diametrically opposed
to the belief in evolution. We have also rightly challenged your "authority"
to dictate to the LDS what is doctrine and what is not, what is the correct
interpretation of the quotes and what is not).
Testing the accuracy and logical soundness of the evidence and reasoning is,
by its very nature, directly tied to the issue, and it may even be consider,
in a way, the issue.
Furthermore, such test should not necessarily be interpreted as "personal
attacks" or "dealing with personalities," nor should the findings of the
test (in this case, that you were in error and fallacious in your evidence
and reasoning, and thus in error in what you asserted) be considered as
"personal attacks", "dealing with personalities," and issue avoidance. In
fact, your having made such baseless claim about "personal attacks", was,
itself issue avoidance, and fallacious.
I hope this has been of help. If not, please feel free to ask questions and
seek for further understanding.
Thanks, -Wade-
Wade
>because
>> a certain "outsider" has fallaciously presumes to dictate to
>the "insiders"
>> what is their doctrine and what is not, what is official for them and
>what
>> is not.
>
>Wade, if you were really a Mormon you would know that individual
>members do NOT have the right to speak for the Church.
Ah, the fallacy of no-true-scottsman raises its ugly head, and may be added
to Duwaynes ever proliferating list.
But, in a manner of speaking, you are correct--just as it is true that
individual non-members do NOT have the right to speak for the LDS Church.
However, the only one who has attempted to dictate doctrine to the LDS as a
Church (i.e. speak for the LDS Church), has been a non-LDS (you).
One the other hand, one DOES have the right to speak, individually, as a
member of the Church, and even "on behalf of" the Church--a subtle, but
important distiction to be sure. This is what we LDS have attempted to do
with Duwayne.
And, what we have objected to, is you, individually, and as a non-member,
speaking for the Church, and speaking on behalf of the Church, in
controvention to what the members have consistently stated to you otherwise.
>The issue is not "insiders" or "outsiders."
As much as I know you would like to believe that it isn't, and aside from
your admission that your opinion isn't worth squat, you have made it an
issue by usurping authority reserved to LDS, and have errantly attempted to
dictate to them what is their doctrine and what is not, how the quotes of
their leaders should be interpreted and how they should not.
Since you still seem to be struggling with this simple and straightforward
concept, perhaps I can try and put it in plain terms for you.
The "categories", as you call them, are inherent and self evident in the
diversity of the paradigms (systems of belief) represented on both sides of
the debate. There are the "categories" of pro and con, for and against,
scientist and non-scientist, evolutionists, old-earth creationists,
young-earth creationist, LDS and non-LDS, etc.. Typically, these
"categories" are understood, and need not be stated. To do so, without
necessity, would be tautological.
Not only are these "categories" recognized as such, and even often taken for
granted because of their self-evident nature, but their respective natures
are pretty much understood as well. One may know that a person taking the
"pro" side, would, by definition, be arguing "for" the issue in question,
whereas a person taking the "con" side would be arguing "against" the issue
in question.
Similarly, and on balance (making room for certain exceptions), one may know
that an LDS is a person who understands, accepts, and abides the LDS belief
system (with its various doctrines, beliefs, and opinions), and is thus an
"insider", and is best able to speak authoritatively "on behalf of" the LDS
belief system (not to be confused with speaking "for" the LDS belief
system); whereas, a non-LDS is a person who does not understand, accept, and
abide the LDS belief system, and is thus an "outsider", an is not best able
to speak authoritatively on behalf of the LDS belief system--though they may
well be able to speak on behalf of their own belief systems.
The same may be said, in general terms, of the scientist and the
non-scientist, or the scientist of one paradigm and the scientist of another
paradigm.
It is only when someone ignores the obvious categorical bounderies, and
violates common sense implications related thereto (as pointed out above),
that the "categories" become an issue. This occured, Duwayne, when you, as a
non-LDS ("outsider"), attempted to dictate to the LDS ("insiders"), what is
their doctrine, and how the quotes of their leaders should be
interpreted--in terms of both meaning and scope, and what conclusions they
should draw therefrom. This necessitated (forced the issue) our pointing out
the obvious illogic and irrationale of your position. The fact that you
persisted in this ridiculous position, necessitate our persistently bringing
the illogic and irrationale to your attention, thus causing it to
predominate in our discussion. Had you accepted the otherwise unspoken,
common sense categorical boundries and implications related thereto, the
discussion could have proceeded as normal, and your assertion demonstrated
to be without bases and in error.
I hope this is now clear to you. But if not, feel free to ask questions and
seek for understanding.
>The issue is not what you personally want to believe.
I have never attempted to make it such--your "squatless" opinion
notwithstanding.
>The issue is what does the Mormon Church teach about people before
>Adam.
Nice try, Duwayne. This is an excellent example of the fallacy of
idiosynctratic language, and/or equivocation. You have gone from using the
word "doctrine" to now using the word "teach". You have changed the scope
from evolution as a whole, to the origin of man. When you finally determine
what position you want to take, and stick with it, then we LDS will be in a
better position to test the soundness and verity of your claim. You can't
expect us to continually shoot down your ever moving target.
>The Mormon Church teaches that there were none.
While no LDS will deny the belief in Adam as the "first man", they will be
quick to point out, again, that there is enough ambiguity regarding the
scope and literal/symbolic meaning of this notion, as to provide latitude
for a belief in pre-adamic man. And, even were one to take this notion in a
literal, all encompasing way, it would only counter the "origin of man"
segment of the theory of evolution, and not the entire theory as you
suggest.
>The
>Mormon Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth
>and that they introduced mortality into the World.
>
>That is what the Mormon Church teaches, and you can read it on their
>official LDS Internet site. I've posted the words many many times.
There was no need for you to post them since I have read what has been
taught many time.
But, what you continually fail to understand is that we LDS are not obliged
to accept your self-serving, counter-authoritative, rigid, interpretation
(scope and meaning) of these quotes; nor are we obliged to accept your
personal interpretation of these quotes as being LDS doctrine.
>Your opinion does not count -- neither does mine.
Again, at least we agree on part of what you just said.
>The difference is
>that I'm posting references from official Mormon sources and you are
>posting your opinion.
That is where you are wrong, and continue to be wrong. We have both been
expressing our "opinions" about the references you have set forth. The issue
has been: Is Duwayne's interpretation (opinion) regarding the LDS quotes,
and his assertion (opinion) that the quotes are LDS doctrine, to be
considered as sound and correct.
You have also forced the following issue: Can Duwayne's opinion, as a
non-LDS, that he can rightly dictate to LDS what is their doctrine and what
should be their interpretation of the LDS quotes, be considered as sound and
correct.
Fortunately, with both of these issues, we have Duwayne's own
self-undermining and reiterated declaration, that his opinion is not worth
squat, and counts for nothing.
End of discussion!
Thanks, -Wade-
Wade
Rather than just expressing your opinion (an opinion which, by your own
reiteration, is not worth squat, and counting for nothing) as to whether or
not I can speak on behalf of my own faith or not--as contrasted with you, a
non-LDS, speaking on behalf of my faith, I am open to whatever arguments you
may wish to present in your defense. But, please be aware that your opinion
is already, by its nature, a fallacy of appeal to authority.
Also, I would be interested to hear what ever arguments you may wish to
present in getting around the fact that words and phrases (such as those you
quote from the LDS leaders) are subject to interpretation (LDS or
otherwise), and thus, your having provided words and phrases as references,
is not always sufficient unto itself--as has been born out in this
discussion.
Good luck!
Thanks, -Wade-
Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <8cgt6q$ebt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Wade
Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <8cgnrk$8k0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8cg2er$g7a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
><snip>
>> Since you seem intent to insult us, why bother to continue reading.
><snip>
>
>Translation: Mormons are insulted when other people do not believe
>them, and when they have no effective argument they feign insult and
>leave the debate.
>
>Duwayne
Translation: In lieu of any substance, or even a clever comeback, Duwayne
errantly, and sweepingly, accuses "Mormons" of that which he is most guilty.
Thanks, -Wade-
Wade
I noticed in this post that you discovered that providing a reference,
alone, does not suffice in making one's point, and that one need also set
forth one's interpretation, and draw a correlation to one's point.
This insight should serve us well in examining your claim about your having
provided only references, absent opinion (which you declare as "not worth
squat", "counting as nothing"), that settle the matter.
Thanks, -Wade-
Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <8cgo82$90j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
cdo...@my-deja.com
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8cg2er$g7a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Since you seem intent to insult us, why bother to continue reading.
> <snip>
>
> Translation: Mormons are insulted when other people do not believe
> them, and when they have no effective argument they feign insult and
> leave the debate.
"I insult their religion and gross them out so much that they refuse to
engage in conversation with me."
Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
Doug Weller
> The Book of Moses
> is an uncorrupted account by the same person of the same event detailed
> in Genesis. Is that too hard for your truly feeble mind to grasp?
>
>
you've nothing better.
But you're wrong. The entire world, including your Book of Moses, was created by
the Invisible Pink Unicorn [tm]. Prove me wrong.
I wonder how many Mormons, at least educated ones, really take the bit about god
bringing stuff here from other planets literally.
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Doug Weller
> The evidence and reasoning is then tested for accuracy and logical soundness
> (in this case, a number of LDS, including myself, have challenged the
> accuracy of your labeling the LDS quotes as "LDS doctrine," and we have
> challenged your interpretation of the quotes as being diametrically opposed
> to the belief in evolution. We have also rightly challenged your "authority"
> to dictate to the LDS what is doctrine and what is not, what is the correct
> interpretation of the quotes and what is not).
>
can point to posts here from LDS, and web sites written by LDS, which clearly
reject evolution. It's hard to find the opposite (I think I remember one).
Wade
Doug Weller wrote in message ...
>Do you know what the official opinion of the church is on evolution?
There is not one. The only "official" statement is in regards to the origin
of man, not evolution as a whole.
>Because I
>can point to posts here from LDS, and web sites written by LDS, which
clearly
>reject evolution.
Each LDS has a right to his or her opinion--which vary greatly except on the
general doctrine that God created the earth, and Adam fell that men might
be.
>It's hard to find the opposite (I think I remember one).
I happen to favor old-earth creationism, which does not preclude evolution
as a viable theory (except in relation to the origin of man). I happen to be
acquainted with a few LDS evolutionists. But, I would agree that most LDS
would reject the theory of evolution.
Thanks, -Wade-
Wade
says...
>> The Book of Moses
>> is an uncorrupted account by the same person of the same event detailed
>> in Genesis. Is that too hard for your truly feeble mind to grasp?
>>
>>
when
>you've nothing better.
>
>But you're wrong. The entire world, including your Book of Moses, was
created by
>the Invisible Pink Unicorn [tm]. Prove me wrong.
What was that you said about "insults are the best way to argue? You have
just proved yourself a hypocrite. Since hypocrisy is considered by most
people to be wrong, I think it safe to say you have proven yourself wrong.
As for proving you wrong about the Invisible Pink Unicorn creator, I am
perfectly comfortible leaving you to believe it in peace.
>
>I wonder how many Mormons, at least educated ones, really take the bit
about god
>bringing stuff here from other planets literally.
I wonder how many Mormons, or people in general, at least the educated ones,
can really take you seriously.
Thanks, -Wade-
Timothy I. McCrory
> > is an uncorrupted account by the same person of the same event detailed
> > in Genesis. Is that too hard for your truly feeble mind to grasp?
> >
> >
> you've nothing better.
I could have called him a liar but chose not to. He used chapter 2 and 4
from the Book of Moses to support his position but conveniently
discarded chapter 3 which chapter, by the way, trashed his whole
position. Are we to suppose that he read chs. 2 & 4 to form his argument
and skipped over 3? It was quite apparent to me that he sought to
obfuscate the truth.
>
> But you're wrong. The entire world, including your Book of Moses, was created by
> the Invisible Pink Unicorn [tm]. Prove me wrong.
I have no need to prove you wrong as future events will do that -- much
to your dismay.
>
> I wonder how many Mormons, at least educated ones, really take the bit about god
> bringing stuff here from other planets literally.
>
> Doug
> --
I am a human being who lives here on Earth. I have a nice little plot of
ground outside of my house where I plant a nice little garden. For some
seeds that I desire to plant I have to go to the store to purchase. I
look at the Gods and other Celestial beings as being creators and
gardeners on a planetary scale. If they need seeds or plants to start a
new world where else would they go but to their greenhouse(s), i.e.,
other planet(s).
I think a person has to be crazy to believe that the incredible
diversity of life, both flora and fauna, on this planet formed from
primordial ooze. Both my reasoning and my heart tell me that evolution
cannot answer the question of life on this planet.
Doug Weller
> I think a person has to be crazy to believe that the incredible
> diversity of life, both flora and fauna, on this planet formed from
> primordial ooze. Both my reasoning and my heart tell me that evolution
> cannot answer the question of life on this planet.
>
Doug Weller
> Doug Weller wrote in message ...
> says...
> >> The Book of Moses
> >> is an uncorrupted account by the same person of the same event detailed
> >> in Genesis. Is that too hard for your truly feeble mind to grasp?
> >>
> >>
> >Oh, very very good. Insults are really the best way to argue, especially
> when
> >you've nothing better.
> >
> created by
> >the Invisible Pink Unicorn [tm]. Prove me wrong.
>
> just proved yourself a hypocrite. Since hypocrisy is considered by most
> people to be wrong, I think it safe to say you have proven yourself wrong.
>
>
sentence which clearly includes humour, isn't an insult.
Timothy I. McCrory
>
> In article <38EEAC14...@bigfoot.com>, tim_m...@bigfoot.com says...
> > I think a person has to be crazy to believe that the incredible
> > diversity of life, both flora and fauna, on this planet formed from
> > primordial ooze. Both my reasoning and my heart tell me that evolution
> > cannot answer the question of life on this planet.
> >
> Another insult. I haven't called you names, despite your claiming I have.
>
> Doug
> --
I don't see that I have insulted you nor claim that you insulted me.
C&C
snip
> Weird. I haven't insulted you. Being told you are wrong, especially in a
> sentence which clearly includes humour, isn't an insult.
Don't expect Wade to catch humor, Doug.
Chuck
Clovis Lark
Don't expect him to read citations either.
> Chuck
Doug Weller
> Doug Weller wrote:
> >
> > In article <38EEAC14...@bigfoot.com>, tim_m...@bigfoot.com says...
> > > I think a person has to be crazy to believe that the incredible
> > > diversity of life, both flora and fauna, on this planet formed from
> > > primordial ooze. Both my reasoning and my heart tell me that evolution
> > > cannot answer the question of life on this planet.
> > >
> > Another insult. I haven't called you names, despite your claiming I have.
> >
>
> I don't see that I have insulted you nor claim that you insulted me.
>
I might have gotten confused over who claimed I insulted them, but I caclearly
read above that you are calling me crazy.
Doug Weller
> Doug Weller wrote:
> >
> > In article <38EEAC14...@bigfoot.com>, tim_m...@bigfoot.com says...
> > > I think a person has to be crazy to believe that the incredible
> > > diversity of life, both flora and fauna, on this planet formed from
> > > primordial ooze. Both my reasoning and my heart tell me that evolution
> > > cannot answer the question of life on this planet.
> > >
> > Another insult. I haven't called you names, despite your claiming I have.
> >
>
> I don't see that I have insulted you nor claim that you insulted me.
>
I might have gotten confused over who claimed I insulted them, but I it is clear
from that you wrote above that you are calling me (and others) crazy.
TheJordan6
>Date: Thu, Apr 6, 2000 19:25 EDT
>Message-id: <8cj6ch$qoq$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>
>In article <20000406183118...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
>TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>When I quoted verbatim
>>material from an LDS Institute lesson manual, from which I had taken a
>course
>>in 1978, David's retort was "That manual is highly speculative."
>Apparently,
>>Mormons who post on the internet, such as David Bowie, Wade, etc., believe
>that
>>they are the people who dictate what are or are not official LDS teachings,
>>rather than the curriculum writers, who are allegedly supervised by General
>>Authorities, and who approve the works before publication.
>Being supervised by General Authorities does not mean it is official
>teaching of the church.
Well now, that gets us back into the question of what is "official teachings"
or not. I submit that any rational person of average intelligence will
recognize that a lesson manual written, published, disseminated, and utilized,
under the auspices of the LDS church, is the official teaching of that church.
If you concede that officially-produced lesson manuals do NOT contain the
official teachings of the LDS church, then Mormon like yourself have no
business complaining that 'anti-Mormons' twist or misrepresent Mormon
teachings. If you assert that the supervision of curriculum compilations by
GAs do not guarantee that the manuals are "official teachings," then those GAs
who are responsible for the supervision of those materials are "leading the
church astray," by introducing speculative material into official publications.
If officially-produced lesson manuals contain material that is not official LDS
teachings, then that obviously means that the LDS church is officially engaged
in producing and disseminating works for widespread use, that contain material
of a false or speculative nature.
One of the claims of the LDS church is that all other religions teach "the
philosophies of men, mingled with scripture." If you concede that official LDS
lesson manuals contain material that is "not official teachings," then you are
conceding that the LDS church also teaches "the philosophies of men, mingled
with scripture," and that the LDS church is no more qualified to dispense
"truth" than any of the "apostate" sects it claims to be in a superior position
to.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Thu, Apr 6, 2000 19:00 EDT
>Message-id: <8cj4tq$qh7$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>
>In article <20000406182039...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
>TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Mark Ping wrote:
>>
>>>Since when does the site say that "this is official doctrine of the
>>>LDS church?" Or since when is it normal to consider ANY website as
>>>definitive or authoritative of any large organization?
>>DuWayne is merely referring to the on-line version of an official LDS
>>publication.
>Yes I know. I actually teach the Gospel Essentials class in my ward
>(and the text is "Gospel Principles").
If you're asserting that the manual under discussion is not "official
teachings," then wouldn't a more appropriate title for your class be "Gospel
Opinions" or "Gospel Speculations?" Do you begin your classes with a
disclaimer, such as "The material we will be discussing today, although taken
from the official lesson maunal, is not official teachings?"
>DuWayne however is attempting
>to validate his claim by appealing to the "Official Website" which is
>not definitive nor comprehensive in intent nor design.
DuWayne is merely providing a public service to those who may not have a copy
of the actual book under discussion, by pointing to the church's official
website which contains an electronic copy of the book.
And your assertion about the LDS church's website is merely your opinion. If
someone produces a website, and calls it their "official website," then that is
exactly what it is.
>>My 1995 paperback copy of "Gospel Principles" states the exact words
>>that DuWayne has quoted. The lesson manual, published by the LDS
>>Church, states in its preface:
>>
>>"Gospel Principles was written both as a personal study guide and as
>>a teacher's manual. It can help you...answer questions about the
>>gospel.....Through your study of this text and its related
>>scriptures, you can find answers to life's questions....."
>>
>>Sounds awfully official to me. But if you don't think it is, maybe
>>you're an 'apostate.'
>Yes, it's officially published by the church, but the scriptures it
>points to are ultimately the real source of doctrine.
The manual directs the reader to the scriptures which support the statements in
the manual. LDS leaders claim to have the 'prophetic' ability to interpret and
dispense correct teachings via their officially-published lesson manuals.
>This doesn't
>mean that the book has to be perfect to be "helpful."
Then share with us the material in the manual that you believe to be untrue, or
less than "perfect."
It just has to
>be helpful. Keep in mind it often simplifies issues for new members
>and investigators. Oversimplification can be a problem but it does
>not constitute a doctrinal point of the church.
Then tell us which material in the manual, oversimplified or otherwise, that
you consider to not be correct doctrine of the church.
>Mark Ping
Randy J.
Timothy I. McCrory
>
> In article <38EF3889...@bigfoot.com>, tim_m...@bigfoot.com says...
> > Doug Weller wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <38EEAC14...@bigfoot.com>, tim_m...@bigfoot.com says...
> > > > I think a person has to be crazy to believe that the incredible
> > > > diversity of life, both flora and fauna, on this planet formed from
> > > > primordial ooze. Both my reasoning and my heart tell me that evolution
> > > > cannot answer the question of life on this planet.
> > > >
> > > Another insult. I haven't called you names, despite your claiming I have.
> > >
>
> >
> > I don't see that I have insulted you nor claim that you insulted me.
> >
> read above that you are calling me crazy.
>
> Doug
>
I believe the way I was using the term crazy here was rather a figure of
speech and was not to be taken literally. I do not know for sure whether
you believe in evolution or not.
Doug Weller
> I believe the way I was using the term crazy here was rather a figure of
> speech and was not to be taken literally. I do not know for sure whether
> you believe in evolution or not.
>
unfortunate.
Duwayne Anderson
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
> In article <8cgnmr$8c7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <8cftp8$9rp$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> > ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> Except that "Gospel Principles" is not official doctrine of the
> >> church.
> >
> >What's not official, Mark, is your opinion, or your assertion that
> >this or that is not official.
>
> Okay, so what makes your comments official?
Two points, Mark.
1) You ignored the question. YOU raised the issue of official. YOU
made that claim, yet YOU failed to answer a very simple and direct
question.
2) I'm not offering my "comments" as official. I'm posting references
from the official LDS Internet site.
>
> >The quotation I provided is taken from "the official Internet site
> >of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
>
> Oh, I thought you were talking about the official Internet site of The
> Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--my mistake (look
> carefully for the difference). :)
Stopt trying to play games, Mark, and stop trying to be cute. Say
what is on your mind.
Why should anyone take what YOU say over what is said on the official
LDS Internet site?
>
> Since when does the site say that "this is official doctrine of the
> LDS church?"
It says it is "The official Internet site of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Why should anyone take what is said on that site as being LESS official
than YOUR unsupported assertions and opinion?
> Or since when is it normal to consider ANY website as
> definitive or authoritative of any large organization?
It isn't ANY website. It is "the official Internet site for the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
>
> >Now, since you claim there is such a thing as official Mormon
> >doctrine, you need to do two things:
>
> Sorry, it is *you* who are making the claim of what is official.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
I've been through this debate many times with Mormon apologists who
argue that this or that is "not official" only to find that they
cannot even begin to give an official definition of official doctrine.
Stop trying to slink away from the debate -- YOU made the claim that
what I posted was not official. All I did was say that it came from
the official LDS Internet site -- a verifiable fact.
> You
> haven't stated any reason to back up that claim.
Mark, before stating falsehoods like this, perhaps you should actually
go to www.lds.org and see what it says for yourself.
It says "Welcome to the official Internet site of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints."
>
> >Well, that's just your unofficial opinion -- and it does not count.
>
> :) Amazing.
<snip>
What isn't amazing is that you responded without addressing ANY of the
issues I raised.
You did not give an official definition of official doctrine.
You did not say why a Church should only be held responsible for what
it officially teaches, and not for what it teaches in public.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
<snip>
> Yes I know. I actually teach the Gospel Essentials class in my ward
> (and the text is "Gospel Principles"). DuWayne however is attempting
> to validate his claim by appealing to the "Official Website" which is
> not definitive nor comprehensive in intent nor design.
<snip>
Plenty of people have voiced their opinion and offered speculation
regarding Mormon teachings regarding people on earth prior to Adam.
These have come from an assortment of pseudo-intellectuals within the
Mormon Church who find their personal opinions at odds with Church
doctrine and who have misrepresented Church doctrine in an attempt to
make their membership in the Church reflect less negatively on their
intellect.
To see what the Mormon Church teaches on the subject, however, read
what the Church teaches through their official sources.
One such source is the official Internet site of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. To read the Church’s position on pre-
Adamites, go to www.lds.org. Notice the picture of Jesus, with the
little button at the bottom labeled “Enter Here.” Click on it.
You now come to a page that says “Welcome to the official Internet site
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” This site is
owned, operated, and maintained by the Church. Look for the button in
the upper left-hand corner that says “Basic Beliefs.’ Click on it.
Scroll down to the bottom where it says “Gospel Principles” (it’s just
above the offer at the bottom of the page for a free Book of Mormon).
Click on it.
Scroll down to “Chapter 6 “ which is titled “The Fall of Adam and
Eve.” Click on it.
You should now be at
http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
Read the entire chapter. Notice, especially what is said in the very
first paragraph:
“God prepared this earth as a home for his children. Adam and Eve were
chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34).
Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world.
They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:5456.)”
Notice the very clear language, especially the statements: “Adam and
Eve were chosen to be the first people to live on the earth.”
Note also the statement: “Their part in our Father's plan was to bring
mortality into the world.”
Further, notice that these statements are based on official Mormon
scriptures found in Moses 1:34 and in D&C 107:54-56.
Now, continue to read through chapter 6. Focus your attention on a
paragraph about halfway down which reads:
“When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they were not yet
mortal. They were not able to
have children. There was no death. They had physical life because their
spirits were housed in physical bodies made from the dust of the earth
(see Abraham 5:7). They had spiritual life because they were in the
presence of God (see Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 268). They
had not yet made a choice between good and evil.”
Notice especially the statement that Adam and Eve – our “first
parents” -- were not mortal when they first came to the Garden of Eden,
that they could have no children, and that there was no death.
Continue reading. A little further along you will find the following
paragraph:
“Because Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, the Lord sent them out of the Garden of Eden into the
world as we now know it. Their physical condition changed as a result
of their eating the forbidden fruit. As God had promised, they became
mortal. They were able to have children. They and their children would
experience sickness, pain, and physical death.”
The consistent message throughout this chapter:
1) Adam and Eve were the first people on earth.
2) Adam and Eve were immortal before the “fall.”
3) Adam and Eve, through their fall, introduced mortality into the world
4) The introduction of mortality involved a change in their physical
condition that resulted in sickness, pain and death.
Read this chapter carefully to fully understand Mormon doctrine
regarding the fall of Adam and Eve, and the non-existence (within
Mormonism) of any sort of pre-Adamites.
If you are scientifically literate, you will observe that these
doctrines of the Mormon Church are contradicted by an enormous amount
of evidence. For example, the physical remains of thousands of ancient
humans have been dated by many different but convergent techniques and
found to be thousands of years older than Adam. This proves beyond
doubt that there were people on earth before the mythical Mormon Adam
and Eve, and proves beyond doubt that the clearly articulated Mormon
doctrine of no pre-Adamites is false.
There are literally mountains of evidence that also show that death and
dying have been part of earth’s history for billions of years. Here
again the scientific evidence soundly disproves the clearly articulated
Mormon doctrine that Adam and Eve “introduced mortality into the
world.”
There can be no mistake regarding the particulars of Mormon doctrine
regarding the fall of Adam and mortality. There can also be no doubt
that these doctrines are fully inconsistent with scientific evidence.
This is the real source of the misrepresentations fostered by Mormon
apologists. Leaving the Mormon Church is difficult – there are
enormous familial pressures to not turn “apostate.” Furthermore, as
one Mormon intellectual stated, Mormonism is often considered to be the
best fraternity on earth.
Because it is so hard to leave Mormonism, some apologists try to
mitigate their intellectual embarrassment over association with the
Church by lying about what the church teaches. They speculate about
the existence of pre-Adamites, and misrepresent Mormon doctrine as
allowing such things. Hopefully, after reading the material on the
official LDS Internet site you are better prepared to understand Mormon
doctrine as taught by the Mormon Church, and you are better prepared to
understand what motivates a small number of embarrassed Mormons to
pretend that their church does not really teach some of the things it
does.
Duwayne Anderson
"Wade" <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
>
> Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <8cgnrk$8k0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <8cg2er$g7a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >
> ><snip>
> >> Since you seem intent to insult us, why bother to continue reading.
> ><snip>
> >
> >Translation: Mormons are insulted when other people do not believe
> >them, and when they have no effective argument they feign insult and
> >leave the debate.
> >
>
> Translation: In lieu of any substance, or even a clever comeback,
Duwayne
> errantly, and sweepingly, accuses "Mormons" of that which he is most
guilty.
Wade, which debate did I leave?
Duwayne
>
> Thanks, -Wade-
Duwayne Anderson
cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8cgnrk$8k0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8cg2er$g7a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Since you seem intent to insult us, why bother to continue
reading.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Translation: Mormons are insulted when other people do not believe
> > them, and when they have no effective argument they feign insult and
> > leave the debate.
>
to
> engage in conversation with me."
Charles, when did I refuse to engage in conversation with you?
Duwayne
>
> Best regards,
> Charles dowis
> "Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
>
Duwayne Anderson
"Wade" <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
<snip>
> I noticed in this post that you discovered that providing a reference,
> alone, does not suffice in making one's point, and that one need also
> set forth one's interpretation, and draw a correlation to one's point.
<snip>
My position is that the idea of people on earth before Adam and Eve
is inconsistent with Mormon doctrine.
The official Internet site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints says:
“God prepared this earth as a home for his children. Adam and Eve were
chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34).
Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world.
They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:5456.)”
Read it yourself at
http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
It is sufficiently clear that I feel no need to offer any opinion as
to its meaning.
Can you say the same?
Duwayne Anderson
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8cm1hl$2gjc$1...@news.aros.net>, weng...@aros.net says...
> > Doug Weller wrote in message ...
> > >In article <38EBC1BE...@bigfoot.com>,
tim_m...@bigfoot.com
> > says...
> > >> The Book of Moses
> > >> is an uncorrupted account by the same person of the same event
detailed
> > >> in Genesis. Is that too hard for your truly feeble mind to grasp?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Oh, very very good. Insults are really the best way to argue,
especially
> > when
> > >you've nothing better.
> > >
> > >But you're wrong. The entire world, including your Book of Moses,
was
> > created by
> > >the Invisible Pink Unicorn [tm]. Prove me wrong.
> >
> > What was that you said about "insults are the best way to argue?
You have
> > just proved yourself a hypocrite. Since hypocrisy is considered by
most
> > people to be wrong, I think it safe to say you have proven yourself
wrong.
> >
> >
in a
> sentence which clearly includes humour, isn't an insult.
>
Mormons feel insulted when told they are wrong (but they don't feel
they are being insulting by telling others they are wrong).
Duwayne
> --
> Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
> Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
> Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
>
--
Duwayne Anderson
What possible reason could any thinking individual have for taking
your opinion about Mormon doctrine over that which is so clearly
taught on the official LDS Internet site?
Duwayne
Duwayne Anderson
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
<snip>
> Being supervised by General Authorities does not mean it is official
> teaching of the church. Please show us LDS anything that states
> otherwise.
<snip>
Mark, you still have not given us an official definition of official
Mormon doctrine. Neither have you explained why the Mormon Church
should only be judeged by what it "officially" teaches and not by
what it teaches in public.
You have initiated an argument in which you claim that what is taught
on the official LDS Internet site is not official -- yet you won't
define your terms, and you offer us nothing more than your opinon.
What is official about your opinion, Mark?
Duwayne Anderson
“God prepared this earth as a home for his children. Adam and Eve were
chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34).
Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world.
They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:5456.)”
Notice the very clear language, especially the statements: “Adam and
Duwayne Anderson
--
Duwayne Anderson
Timothy I. McCrory
>
snipped a lot of good stuff
>
> The consistent message throughout this chapter:
> 1) Adam and Eve were the first people on earth.
> 2) Adam and Eve were immortal before the “fall.”
> 3) Adam and Eve, through their fall, introduced mortality into the world
> 4) The introduction of mortality involved a change in their physical
> condition that resulted in sickness, pain and death.
Yes, this correct and you might ought to add that the Earth also fell at
this time from its orbit during its previous celestial existence to
where it orbits now. When the Messiah returns the Earth will then be
moved back to it previous place in the heavens.
Revelation 6:12
12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a
great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the
moon became as blood;
Revelation 6:13
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree
casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
Revelation 6:14
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and
every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
>
> Read this chapter carefully to fully understand Mormon doctrine
> regarding the fall of Adam and Eve, and the non-existence (within
> Mormonism) of any sort of pre-Adamites.
>
> If you are scientifically literate, you will observe that these
> doctrines of the Mormon Church are contradicted by an enormous amount
> of evidence. For example, the physical remains of thousands of ancient
> humans have been dated by many different but convergent techniques and
> found to be thousands of years older than Adam. This proves beyond
> doubt that there were people on earth before the mythical Mormon Adam
> and Eve, and proves beyond doubt that the clearly articulated Mormon
> doctrine of no pre-Adamites is false.
>
> There are literally mountains of evidence that also show that death and
> dying have been part of earth’s history for billions of years. Here
> again the scientific evidence soundly disproves the clearly articulated
> Mormon doctrine that Adam and Eve “introduced mortality into the
> world.”
Journal of Discourses, Vol.15, p.125 - p.126 - p.127, Brigham Young,
August 11, 1872
...
Geologists will tell us the earth has stood so many millions of years.
Why? Because the Valley of Western Colorado, here, could not have washed
out without taking such a length of time. What do they know about it?
Nothing in comparison. They also reason about the age of the world by
the marvelous specimens of petrification that are sometimes discovered.
Now we can show them plenty of places where there are trees, perfect
stone, running into the solid rock, and perhaps the rock is forty,
fifty, or a hundred feet above the tree. Yet it is a perfect tree. There
is the bark, there is the heart, and there is the outer-coating between
the heart and the bark, all perfect rock. How long did it take to make
this tree into rock? We do not know. I can tell them, simply this--when
the Lord Almighty brings forth the power of his chemistry he can combine
the elements and make a tree into rock in one night or one day, if he
chooses, or he can let it lie until it pulverises and blows to the four
winds, without petrifying, just as he pleases. He brings together these
elements as he sees proper, for he is the greatest chemist there is. He
knows more about chemistry and about the formation of the earth and
about dividing the earth, and more about the mountains, valleys, rocks,
hills, plains, and the sands than all the scientific men that we have.
This we can say of a truth. Well, if it takes a million years to make a
perfect rock of one kind of a tree, say a cedar tree, how long would it
take to make a perfect rock of a cottonwood tree? Let the chemists tell
this, if they can, but they can not tell it.
>
> There can be no mistake regarding the particulars of Mormon doctrine
> regarding the fall of Adam and mortality. There can also be no doubt
> that these doctrines are fully inconsistent with scientific evidence.
more snips
>
> Because it is so hard to leave Mormonism, some apologists try to
> mitigate their intellectual embarrassment over association with the
> Church by lying about what the church teaches. They speculate about
> the existence of pre-Adamites, and misrepresent Mormon doctrine as
> allowing such things. Hopefully, after reading the material on the
> official LDS Internet site you are better prepared to understand Mormon
> doctrine as taught by the Mormon Church, and you are better prepared to
> understand what motivates a small number of embarrassed Mormons to
> pretend that their church does not really teach some of the things it
> does.
>
> Duwayne Anderson
>
> --
There are no doubt Latter-day Saints who are caught between two worlds
where they wish to believe in scriptural teachings concerning Adam and
Eve, along with the beginning of the Earth, and yet subscribe to at
least parts of theories of evolution which are incompatible with the
Creation story. They will not be able to serve two masters forever
though. Our Heavenly Father has put us here to be tested, to see if we
will follow Him and "walk by faith" or whether we will "trust in the arm
of flesh" and end up following Lucifer. Part of this test is no doubt
giving us the choice between either what He has told us within the
scriptures or man's information and supposed knowledge arrived at
through man's limited reasoning and intellect. The scriptures tell us
that Satan has great power to deceive and that he could deceive the
"very elect" if the Lord would permit it. It stands to reason if we are
to be tested to see if we will trust in the arm of flesh that "evidence"
for the opposition will have to exist and would have to have been
"planted" in such a manner that many could be deceived by it. So -- who
knows when and how your "mountains of evidence" came into being? I know
that question will someday be answered to everyone's satisfaction.
I have read the Book of Mormon numerous times. Somewhere between my
first and subsequent latest reading I started to see and understand at
least some of its many messages meant for us and our day and gained a
testimony of its truthfulness. I know that it is the word of God to us
and, ipso facto, know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. All your
"mountains of evidence" to the contrary notwithstanding, I will continue
to walk by faith rather than trusting in the arm of flesh. You can
peddle your naysaying all you want but I for one am not buying any of
it.
2 Nephi 4:34
34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I
will not put my trust in 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.
The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, p.7 - p.8
The Holy Ghost, as was justly presented this morning, is different from
the common Spirit of God, which we are told lighteth every man that
cometh into the world. The Holy Ghost is only given to men through their
obedience to the gospel of Christ; and every man who receives that
Spirit has a comforter within—a leader to dictate and guide him. This
Spirit reveals, day by day, to every man who has faith, those things
which are for his benefit. As Job says, "There is a spirit in man and
the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." It is this
inspiration of God to his children in every age of the world that is one
of the necessary gifts to sustain man and enable him to walk by faith,
and to go forth and obey all the dictations and commandments and
revelations which God has given to His children to guide and direct them
in life.—JD 13:156-157, December 12, 1869.
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.320
TESTING TRUTH OF ALL TEACHINGS
FAULT OF PRESENT DAY EDUCATION. The education of the present day is
very largely knowledge without the accompanying intelligence, or light
and truth. It is bound to be so, and much of the knowledge will be mixed
with error, where faith in God and in his revelations is eliminated, and
only the cold and many times barren conclusions of mind and reason are
the guide. Such learning leads to spiritual death, not to spiritual
life.
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.320
I regret exceedingly that courses in study in the public schools, in the
colleges and places of learning throughout the land, are in conflict
with fundamental truths of the Christian faith; and, for one, I desire
to express my feelings, and to declare that I consider it an outrage
against the liberties of the people, when we are denied the privilege of
teaching principles of eternal truth in the realm of religion; when we
are denied the privilege of praying to our Heavenly Father in the
schools, or referring to the Supreme Being for fear that we will offend
someone; and at the same time instructors are permitted to advocate
that, in the schools, which the teachers themselves profess and declare
to be in conflict with the fundamentals of the faith which I believe,
and which thousands of others accept throughout this nation and other
nations of the world as divine truth.
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.320 - p.321
MODERN SCIENTIFIC FICTION. The world is full of philosophy. One
prominent and intelligent writer has called these theories "scientific
fiction." I think he is right. We have the theories of evolution, of
higher criticism, the ideas that prevail in the schools throughout our
land that are dangerous, that are striking at the fundamentals of the
gospel of Jesus Christ, trying to destroy the faith in the minds of the
students who attend the schools. We are troubled with it to some extent
even in our own state, and the colleges throughout the country are full
of it, and the professors teach it; they believe in it, at least they
profess to believe in it; and it seems to me that the sole purpose of it
is to undermine and destroy the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.321
I want to say to the Latter-day Saints that it is our duty to put our
faith in the revealed word of God, to accept that which has come through
inspiration, through revelation unto his servants the prophets, both
ancient and modern. And whenever you find any doctrine, any idea, any
expression from any source whatsoever, that is in conflict with that
which the Lord has revealed and which is found in the holy scriptures,
you may be assured that it is false; and you should put it aside and
stand firmly grounded in the truth in prayer and in faith, relying upon
the Spirit of the Lord for knowledge, for wisdom, concerning these
principles of truth.
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.321
SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE PARAMOUNT TO ALL OTHER. If you will walk in the
light, and will receive the doctrines of our Redeemer, he will grant
unto you, through the inspiration that will come from the Spirit of the
Lord, a testimony of the truth. You need not walk in darkness nor in
doubt, but may have a clear and a distinct comprehension and
understanding of the truth which will make you free. It is our duty to
seek the Lord, to obey his laws, to keep his commandments, to put away
from us light-mindedness, foolishness, and the false theories, notions,
and philosophies of the world, and to accept with fulness of heart and
in humility these solemn, God-given principles which will bring unto us
eternal life in the celestial kingdom.
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.321 - p.322
There is no knowledge, no learning that can compensate the individual
for the loss of his belief in heaven and in the saving principles of the
gospel of Jesus Christ. An education that leads a man from these central
truths cannot compensate him for the great loss of spiritual things.
Efialtis
In article <8cr01k$4bl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Duwayne has a preconceived idea of what the LDS believe based on his
limited understanding of Mormon Doctrine.
The key is in the paragraph that Duwayne quotes below...if you cannot
see the key, I will pull it out after the quote for you to view...
> “Because Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
> good and evil, the Lord sent them out of the Garden of Eden into the
> world as we now know it. Their physical condition changed as a result
> of their eating the forbidden fruit. As God had promised, they became
> mortal. They were able to have children. They and their children would
> experience sickness, pain, and physical death.”
"the Lord sent them out of the Garden of Eden into the world as we now
know it."
This is the key. The specific place know as the Garden of Eden is
unknown...at least actual detail, scope and size.
Since no one has bothered to ask how I see the issues...I will try and
sumarize here.
God created life on this planet. Life was allowed to
continue "normally" or "naturally" until such time that "man" or a "man
like animal" shows up. The chance of "man" ever coming into existance,
even with the presence of other life should be a good indicator that
God directed and guided things here in that respect.
God set aside the Garden of Eden, where he stops the "normal"
or "natural" way of things. He takes this "man like creature" and
refines the "dna" since all it needs is a little push at this time, and
creates Man (Homo sapien sapiens) (because, as someone already
mentioned, Homo sapien sapiens did not come from Homo sapien
neanderthalis, but is a "parallel" to him...) life outside the GoE was
allowed to continue.
Inside the GoE, we now have Adam and Eve. They fall, and are sent into
the "world as we now know it", and the GoE was changed or altered or
whatever...and is no longer around...
This would also explain the missing fosil record of the connection to
Homo erectus.
> The consistent message throughout this chapter:
> 1) Adam and Eve were the first people on earth.
Define "people"...Homo sapien sapiens?
> 2) Adam and Eve were immortal before the “fall.”
Correct.
> 3) Adam and Eve, through their fall, introduced mortality into the
> world
To the GoE as their world, yes. To Homo sapien sapiens, sure. To
other "modern creatures" that we have no fosil record of, why not?
> 4) The introduction of mortality involved a change in their physical
> condition that resulted in sickness, pain and death.
Ok.
<snip>
See, Duwayne has the same problem many others do...they have an idea
they believe to be what someone else believes, or that their idea is
the only possible conclusion for the data given.
My above scenario takes into account that "day" as used in the OT
during the creation is an unspecified perios of time, as indicated by
the Hebrew.
7 creative periods in which all things could have happened, as the
bible says in an over simplified manner. Planet, light and darkness,
water, land, plants, animals, man.
Some in the Church say that there are only 6 thousand years...but
others might argue that these 7 "dispensations" might be undefined or
indeterminite periods of time...and this is why the prophets are still
calling out "the end is near" as they have been from the beginning of
time...
Just think of the possibilities.
--
--Efialtis
BoM:
Alma Chapter 5, Verses 59 through 60
Also see:
Alma Chapter 5, Verses 56 through 62
Wade
>Wade:
>
>What possible reason could any thinking individual have for taking
>your opinion about Mormon doctrine over that which is so clearly
>
>Duwayne
We obviously have a difference of opinion about the meaning and scope of
what is clearly stated on the LDS web site. What possible reason could any
thinking individual have for taking your non-LDS opinion over my LDS opinion
on LDS matters?
Thanks, -Wade-
>
>--
>American quarter horse - the ultimate
>all-terrain vehicle.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
.
Wade
Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <8cr14e$59p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Now that you have favored us with one of your redundant posts, will you be
getting around to addressing my request that you provide "what ever
arguments you may wish to present in getting around the fact that words and
phrases (such as those you quote from the LDS leaders) are subject to
interpretation (LDS or otherwise), and thus, your having provided words and
phrases as references, is not always sufficient unto itself--as has been
born out in this discussion."
Please also justify your argument with what you said to Timothy:
"Okay. You quoted a bunch of stuff. Care to tell us how what you
quoted "pretty much refutes everything you stated here."?
Thanks, -Wade-
Wade
Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <8cr05e$4ca$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...>> Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <8cgnrk$8k0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >In article <8cg2er$g7a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >> Since you seem intent to insult us, why bother to continue reading.
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >Translation: Mormons are insulted when other people do not believe
>> >them, and when they have no effective argument they feign insult and
>> >leave the debate.
>> >
>>
>> Translation: In lieu of any substance, or even a clever comeback,
>Duwayne
>> errantly, and sweepingly, accuses "Mormons" of that which he is most
>guilty.
>
>Wade, which debate did I leave?
>
>Duwayne
It was not the "leaving the debate" part that was applicable. Let it not be
said (by me or anyone else) that you would leave a debate regardless of how
irrational your arguments are clearly demonstrated to be.
Thanks, -Wade-
Wade
To use your own words, "Okay. You quoted a bunch of stuff. Care to tell us
how what you quoted pretty much refutes everything [we] stated here."?
Thanks, -Wade-
>In article <8cjn2j$k7a$1...@news.aros.net>,
> "Wade" <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> I noticed in this post that you discovered that providing a reference,
>> alone, does not suffice in making one's point, and that one need also
>> set forth one's interpretation, and draw a correlation to one's point.
><snip>
>
>My position is that the idea of people on earth before Adam and Eve
>is inconsistent with Mormon doctrine.
>
>The official Internet site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
>Saints says:
>
>“God prepared this earth as a home for his children. Adam and Eve were
>chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34).
>Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world.
>They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:5456.)”
>
>Read it yourself at
>http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/U02_C06-Fall_of_Adam.html
>
>It is sufficiently clear that I feel no need to offer any opinion as
>to its meaning.
>
>Can you say the same?
>
Wade
>In article <8cm1hl$2gjc$1...@news.aros.net>, weng...@aros.net says...
>> Doug Weller wrote in message ...
>> >In article <38EBC1BE...@bigfoot.com>, tim_m...@bigfoot.com
>> says...
>> >> The Book of Moses
>> >> is an uncorrupted account by the same person of the same event
detailed
>> >> in Genesis. Is that too hard for your truly feeble mind to grasp?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Oh, very very good. Insults are really the best way to argue, especially
>> when
>> >you've nothing better.
>> >
>> >But you're wrong. The entire world, including your Book of Moses, was
>> created by
>> >the Invisible Pink Unicorn [tm]. Prove me wrong.
>>
>> What was that you said about "insults are the best way to argue? You have
>> just proved yourself a hypocrite. Since hypocrisy is considered by most
>> people to be wrong, I think it safe to say you have proven yourself
wrong.
>>
>>
>Weird. I haven't insulted you.
When you insult my faith, or aspects thereof, you insult me.
>Being told you are wrong, especially in a
>sentence which clearly includes humour, isn't an insult.
A rather pathetic attempt at rationalization. But, I can understand your
wish to cover your hypocrisy.
Thanks, -Wade-
>
>Doug
Wade
>> sentence which clearly includes humour, isn't an insult.
>
>
Don't expect Chuck to admit to Wade's humor. He has been caught bad by it,
Doug.
Thanks, -Wade-
Wade
>> Don't expect Wade to catch humor, Doug.
>
Please do expect Clovis to jump to false conclusions about what Wade has or
hasn't read (as Wade would best know).
Thanks, -Wade-
E. Mark Ping
>>>When I quoted verbatim material from an LDS Institute lesson
>>>manual, from which I had taken a course in 1978, David's retort was
>>>"That manual is highly speculative." Apparently, Mormons who post
>>>on the internet, such as David Bowie, Wade, etc., believe that they
>>>are the people who dictate what are or are not official LDS
>>>teachings, rather than the curriculum writers, who are allegedly
>>>supervised by General Authorities, and who approve the works before
>>>publication.
>
>>teaching of the church.
>
>teachings" or not. I submit that any rational person of average
>intelligence will recognize that a lesson manual written, published,
>disseminated, and utilized, under the auspices of the LDS church, is
>the official teaching of that church.
You've been busy over the weekend. I'll try to answer the "official
teachings" bit here, instead of repeating myself several times.
When I looked back over the thread, I noticed that the discussion
started when I stated that I knew of no revelation that took any stand
on evolution. Others changed moved that over to "official teachings"
instead of revelation. I didn't notice the change and while writing
"official teachings" I was really thinking "revelation."
Now, is there any difference between the two?
I think so. I consider binding doctrine of the church to be contained
in the Standard Works and statements issued from the First Presidency
and Quorum of the Twelve (I think many people would only consider the
Standard Works).
Other statments made from the pulpit are guidance, testimony, and
interpretation. And I have no problem with the idea of that
interpretation changing (to some extent). As I have learned by the
Spirit over time, I've felt it necessary to change certain aspects of
what I believe--but none of those changes affect the doctrine of the
Atonement of Christ, His nature, and the fact that the LDS church was
placed here by Him. As my understanding has increased, my
appreciation of His sacrifice has grown, and I have found it less
necessary to pen God up in a safe little intellectual box. Once that
happened, I believe I have come to understand Him better.
I fully expect that the prophets and apostles learn the same way, but
are more receptive and more experienced than I am. I accept their
counsel, but I also allow them (both individually and as a body) to be
taught by the Lord and add to the counsel they have given.
I haven't seen, nor do I expect to see, serious contradictions between
the Standard Words and what is over the pulpit. However, I expect to
see "Gospel Principles" and other manuals change over time as the Lord
reveals more to us.
--
| "If hard data were the filtering criterion
Mark Ping | you could fit the entire contents of the
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU | Internet on a floppy disk."
| - Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope Tells All
C&C
> Don't expect Chuck to admit to Wade's humor. He has been caught bad by it,
> Doug.
Now *that* is humorous.
Chuck
Clovis Lark
Is "don't expect" a conclusion?
Remember, Wade, you have just caused a schism in the one true church.
> Thanks, -Wade-
Doug Weller
> Doug Weller wrote in message ...
[snip]
> >>
> >Weird. I haven't insulted you.
>
> When you insult my faith, or aspects thereof, you insult me.
And you've been insulting my beliefs and those of others, so...
> >Being told you are wrong, especially in a
> >sentence which clearly includes humour, isn't an insult.
>
> A rather pathetic attempt at rationalization. But, I can understand your
> wish to cover your hypocrisy.
>
> Thanks, -Wade-
>
I love that bit -- calls me a hypocrite (over my Pink Unicorn comments and
daring to suggest they might be humorous) and then says 'Thanks, -Wade'.
There's a poster in another newsgroup who does this -- roundly insults you
and then concludes with a cordial 'Thanks'.
Clovis Lark
> In article <8ctb8n$2jka$1...@news.aros.net>, weng...@aros.net says...
>> Doug Weller wrote in message ...
> [snip]
>> >>
>> >Weird. I haven't insulted you.
>>
>> When you insult my faith, or aspects thereof, you insult me.
> And you've been insulting my beliefs and those of others, so...
>> >Being told you are wrong, especially in a
>> >sentence which clearly includes humour, isn't an insult.
>>
>> A rather pathetic attempt at rationalization. But, I can understand your
>> wish to cover your hypocrisy.
>>
>> Thanks, -Wade-
>>
> I love that bit -- calls me a hypocrite (over my Pink Unicorn comments and
> daring to suggest they might be humorous) and then says 'Thanks, -Wade'.
> There's a poster in another newsgroup who does this -- roundly insults you
> and then concludes with a cordial 'Thanks'.
And where do you stand on the new schism in the one true church? I don't
like raspberry jello, but that 4% deal sounds like it's nearer to my
budget...
Wade
>In article <8ctb8n$2jka$1...@news.aros.net>, weng...@aros.net says...
>> Doug Weller wrote in message ...
>
>[snip]
>> >>
>> >Weird. I haven't insulted you.
>>
>> When you insult my faith, or aspects thereof, you insult me.
>
>And you've been insulting my beliefs and those of others, so...
Documentation please.
>> >Being told you are wrong, especially in a
>> >sentence which clearly includes humour, isn't an insult.
>>
>> A rather pathetic attempt at rationalization. But, I can understand your
>> wish to cover your hypocrisy.
>>
>> Thanks, -Wade-
>>
>
>I love that bit -- calls me a hypocrite (over my Pink Unicorn comments and
>daring to suggest they might be humorous) and then says 'Thanks, -Wade'.
I love the bit where the attacker suddenly claims victim status.
It would help you to know (and ask before jumping to the wrong conclusion),
that I wasn't thanking you for being a hypocrite. I was thanking you for
taking the time to read my post and respond, and thanking you for providing
me with examples of your hypocracy to your own detriment, and to the
advantage of those of us defending our faith against your baseless attacks.
And, it was the least I could do in response to your own charming and
graceful bit "humor."
>There's a poster in another newsgroup who does this -- roundly insults you
>and then concludes with a cordial 'Thanks'.
You are confusing accurate, and demonstrable, observations with insults.
But, "thanks" for febbly trying anyway. -Wade-
Wade
Now *that* was a great comeback!
Thanks, -Wade-
>
>Chuck
>
>
Wade
Clovis Lark wrote in message <8cvh9l$u02$5...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>Wade <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
>> Clovis Lark wrote in message <8cno9a$u3n$6...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>>>> Don't expect Wade to catch humor, Doug.
>>>
>>>Don't expect him to read citations either.
>
>> Please do expect Clovis to jump to false conclusions about what Wade has
or
>> hasn't read (as Wade would best know).
>
>Is "don't expect" a conclusion?
Yes. It implies your having concluded, and expect, that I have not read
citations.
>
>Remember, Wade, you have just caused a schism in the one true church.
You must be referring to the Church of What's Wrong with the Mormons. It is
my avocation to cause schism there--though I don't really cause them. I just
point them out.
Thanks, -Wade-
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark wrote in message <8cvh9l$u02$5...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>>Wade <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
>>> Clovis Lark wrote in message <8cno9a$u3n$6...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>>>>> Don't expect Wade to catch humor, Doug.
>>>>
>>>>Don't expect him to read citations either.
>>
>>> Please do expect Clovis to jump to false conclusions about what Wade has
> or
>>> hasn't read (as Wade would best know).
>>
>>Is "don't expect" a conclusion?
> Yes. It implies your having concluded, and expect, that I have not read
> citations.
>>
>>Remember, Wade, you have just caused a schism in the one true church.
> You must be referring to the Church of What's Wrong with the Mormons. It is
> my avocation to cause schism there--though I don't really cause them. I just
> point them out.
Nope, 'twas the Ldzion vs Wade schism. Are you going to match his rumored
4% cutrate tithe and free raspberry jello?
> Thanks, -Wade-
Duwayne Anderson
"Wade" <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
<snip>
> It was not the "leaving the debate" part that was applicable. Let it
not be
> said (by me or anyone else) that you would leave a debate regardless
of how
> irrational your arguments are clearly demonstrated to be.
>
> Thanks, -Wade-
<snip>
Wade, it's easy to make assertions and accusations. It's easy, for
example, to simply accuse someone of being irrational, as you have
done above.
It's far more difficult to actually prove your case with something
more than your opinion.
Now, in the present case my position is that Mormon doctrine is
inconsistent with the notion that there were people on earth before
Adam. I've backed that case up with quotations from the official
LDS Internet site stating in clear and concise language that Adam and
Eve were the first people on earth, and that they introduced mortality
into the world.
Now, it's clear that you do not believe that is true, but it is
abundantly clear and verifiable by all that the Mormon Church does
teach this doctrine.
So, it is you who is being irrational. Not I. You are being irrational
by continually confusing your personal beliefs with those of the Mormon
Church, and refusing -- in the light of very clear and verifiable
evidence available to anyone able to access the LDS Internet site -- to
admit what the Mormon Church teaches.
This denial on your part of what the Mormon Church teaches is simply
irrational. The question everyone should be asking now, is why Mormons
so often feel compelled to deny what the Church teaches. What is it
about Mormonism that provokes such behavior?
Duwayne Anderson
"Wade" <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
> Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <8cr0oo$4vb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Wade:
> >
> >What possible reason could any thinking individual have for taking
> >your opinion about Mormon doctrine over that which is so clearly
> >taught on the official LDS Internet site?
> >
> >Duwayne
>
> We obviously have a difference of opinion about the meaning and scope
of
> what is clearly stated on the LDS web site.
Yes. I accept what the Mormon Church publishes on their official
Internet site as Mormon doctrine. You, apparently, do not.
> What possible reason could any
> thinking individual have for taking your non-LDS opinion over my LDS
opinion
> on LDS matters?
<snip>
I'm not offering my opinion. I'm offering quotations from official
Mormon sources.
YOU are the one offering your opinon -- and precious little else.
Unfortunately for you, though, you are not an official spokesperson
for the LDS Church, and your opinion does not count.
Copperhead
>In article <8ctapk$2j37$1...@news.aros.net>,
> "Wade" <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
>> Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <8cr0oo$4vb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >Wade:
>> >
>> >What possible reason could any thinking individual have for taking
>> >your opinion about Mormon doctrine over that which is so clearly
>> >taught on the official LDS Internet site?
>> >
>> >Duwayne
>>
>> We obviously have a difference of opinion about the meaning and scope
>of
>> what is clearly stated on the LDS web site.
>
>Yes. I accept what the Mormon Church publishes on their official
>Internet site as Mormon doctrine. You, apparently, do not.
>
Where could we go to find "true" doctrine if not to the preColumbian
horse's mouth?
Agkistrodon
The Church says that the world is flat but I know that it is round for I have seen its shadow on the
moon and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church.
-Ferdinand Magellan
Wade
>In article <8ctb15$2jgc$1...@news.aros.net>,
> "Wade" <weng...@aros.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> It was not the "leaving the debate" part that was applicable. Let it
>not be
>> said (by me or anyone else) that you would leave a debate regardless
>of how
>> irrational your arguments are clearly demonstrated to be.
>>
>> Thanks, -Wade-
><snip>
>
>Wade, it's easy to make assertions and accusations. It's easy, for
>example, to simply accuse someone of being irrational, as you have
>done above.
For those who have been following this thread, or who would like to review
the thread via deja.com, I am more than confident in letting the case that I
have presented stand as is. Duwayne, of course is equally welcome to
mischaracterize what has gone on between us--as he is often want to do. I do
not believe it necassary to say anything more on the matter.
Thanks, -Wade-
>
>It's far more difficult to actually prove your case with something
>more than your opinion.
>
>Now, in the present case my position is that Mormon doctrine is
>inconsistent with the notion that there were people on earth before
>Adam. I've backed that case up with quotations from the official
>LDS Internet site stating in clear and concise language that Adam and
>Eve were the first people on earth, and that they introduced mortality
>into the world.
>
>Now, it's clear that you do not believe that is true, but it is
>abundantly clear and verifiable by all that the Mormon Church does
>teach this doctrine.
>
>So, it is you who is being irrational. Not I. You are being irrational
>by continually confusing your personal beliefs with those of the Mormon
>Church, and refusing -- in the light of very clear and verifiable
>evidence available to anyone able to access the LDS Internet site -- to
>admit what the Mormon Church teaches.
>
>This denial on your part of what the Mormon Church teaches is simply
>irrational. The question everyone should be asking now, is why Mormons
>so often feel compelled to deny what the Church teaches. What is it
>about Mormonism that provokes such behavior?
>