Vort

She asked a question. I answered it. To put upon me the entire conversation that came before and assume that my simple answer to her question therefore means that I support Positions X, Y, and Z seems quite presumptuous.

There's a scripture somewhere that says that the devil rules the chat rooms. I don't remember where it is off the top of my head, but I'm sure lots of others know I'm right. We as Latter-day Saints are taught that "chat" is an acronym for "Children of Hell's Atheistic Timewaster". Some say it actually means "Chat - Heaven's Antipathetic Twin", but such people are apostates and should be shunned. Self-referential acronyms can lead to no good end.

The correct answer, delivered in a hushed and somewhat worried tone: Actually, only one of them's a twin.

Where did you get this idea?

In fact, there is an infinite number of ways of interpreting the scriptures, or for that matter a history text, that do not jive with biology. Interpretations that clearly defy known laws are explained either as a bad interpretation or as an interpretation with insufficient knowledge. The fact that some of your interpretations seem not to make sense may say more about the interpretations than it does about the scriptures themselves. That said, while Adam and Eve are literal persons and the garden of Eden a literal place, the story of the Fall of Adam and Eve seems (to me) clearly a figurative representation of an actual occurrence. For example, Satan was never a talking snake, and I see no compelling reason to believe the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" was an actual tree that bore fruit eaten by Eve and then Adam -- though I also freely admit that I don't know exactly what it does refer to. Does this come from the Bible rendition? I know nothing about the Bible story, or any other rendition of Adam and Eve, that says they "didn't have blood". That said, blood is not the only exchange medium imaginable. I could posit a "more perfect" exchange medium for nutrient and gas transfer that might take the place of blood. This idea of "artificial blood" has been worked on for years, and some progress is being made. So while I am not sure where you got this "no blood" idea, I also don't see that it violates any biological principle per se. As I noted above, no blood != no circulatory system. I can appreciate that, but we cannot address unasked questions. Possibly, but I think you underestimate us. As long as you're not saying, "Anyone who believes <whatever you are talking about> is a raving idiot not worth the air he breathes" -- which, yes, might ruffle a few feathers -- I expect you would find that we're actually quite tolerant of other ideas or even disbelief. We might not agree, and would certainly take pains to try to point out why you are mistaken in such a belief, but the mere fact that you don't believe Doctrine X probably won't threaten us too badly. Possibly true. But I would differentiate between metaphorical interpretations and figurative interpretations. A "metaphorical" interpretation of the garden of Eden story might, for example, discount the very existence of Adam, Eve, and even Satan (and God, for that matter). A "figurative" interpretation might instead admit the real existence of those players and the reality of the Fall, but suggest that the story is being told in a way that we can grasp its underlying important meaning without getting bogged down in details of the mechanics of the drama -- or perhaps avoiding the necessity of explaining something that cannot be explained to us because we lack the experience and knowledge to understand it properly. This objection is philosophical, not biological, and is easily addressed. You do not know the mind of God and are in no possible position to judge cruelty. What looks cruel to you might, in the wisdom of God, be an act of great mercy. When my dog had thorns in his hide, he doubtless thought me terribly cruel for pulling them out and dressing the wounds. But it allowed him to heal. If you imbue your concept of God with any degree of foreknowledge that would reasonably be necessary for him to have, you immediately disallow the possibility that icky bugs could evolve without God knowing about it. Again, this is a philosophical concern, not a biological concern, and cannot survive scrutiny.

Correct. The words "three persons and one substance" mean nothing to us.

The PIN number? Is that what you use with the ATM machine that you drive to in your SUV vehicle?

I only just decided to review this thread from the start. Can you tell me what it is about the mere existence of a literal garden of Eden or a literal Adam and Eve that offends your biologist's sensibilities? I am not understanding how either of those is a biology issue.

This doctrine arises from D&C 131, which begins: In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase. The traditional interpretation of this is that "the celestial glory" refers to the celestial kingdom, so the "three heavens or degrees" mentioned must mean "subdivisions" of some sort in that kingdom. But another way of interpreting the scripture is that "the celestial glory" simply means "heaven", as it is often referred to. (That is, "heaven" is often termed "celestial", which after all just means "heavenly".) If this interpretation is correct, then these opening lines to D&C 131 simply reaffirm the doctrine taught in Section 76 about the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms. It is my opinion that the latter is probably true, and that we misunderstand Section 131 to be subdividing the celestial kingdom when, in fact, it simply reaffirms the "three degrees of glory" doctrine we already know. But as they say, my opinion and two bucks will buy you a cup of hot chocolate at Starbucks.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course. But the scriptures you cite are pure LDS doctrine, and the LDS Church specifically disclaims belief in the widely held traditional Christian concept of "the Trinity". So while you may think that the scriptures you cite are talking about "the Trinity", the Church whose scriptures they are do not so believe.

Agreed on both counts. Which conclusion did you think I drew that you disagree with? The only conclusion I am aware of drawing is that their argument ("Homosexual activity is observed in nature, and is therefore acceptable for human beings") is nonsense. Do you disagree and think their argument is actually sensible? To me, it looks almost exactly the same as the alpha ape argument above that you rejected.

Whatever your political leanings, surely you remember the justifications associated with President Clinton's extramarital escapades fifteen years ago: "He's the alpha male! Of course he's going to 'spread the love' around! That's what he's supposed to do! Any other man in that situation would do the same thing!" The point is not to attack Clinton, but to point out that many of his defenders based their defense on the animalistic origins of the human body -- arguing in effect that people are just another kind of animal, and therefore you should not fault someone for acting like what he is. Again, the point is not to condemn homosexuals, but to point out that many people defend homosexuality based on the idea that, hey, we're all just animals anyway, and homosexual behavior is normative among many animals, so therefore there cannot be anything wrong with it.

Victoria is someone who was beguiled by my wit and charm and now wishes to have a love relationship with me. Poor girl. Please be gentle when you let such fragile souls down.

Indeed I can. And I did not mean to suggest that you were pretending in your concerns; rather, I want to point out that any supposed LDS doctrinal impediments to believing organic evolution are misunderstandings or misinterpretations. To be clear: Many Church leaders, past and present, disbelieved/disbelieve evolution. But personal opinion does not determine Church doctrine, in this or any other area. Consider that BYU, a Church-owned university whose president is appointed from among the First Quorum of Seventy and whose governing board is composed of apostles, has a strong program in microbiological evolutionary research. A rather paradoxical position for the university, if the Church really did teach that evolution was false. The bishop is called to lead his congregation in the truths of the gospel. He does so, to the best of his ability. Maybe he sees evolution as a stand-in for all the ungodly influences of the world; even those who accept evolution must admit that it has often been invoked in unclean, even criminal, activity, and not just to explain but to exculpate. "That's just how my body is evolved!" is not a sufficient explanation to dismiss homosexual behavior, beating up your neighbor because he made you mad, committing adultery with an intern, ravaging yourself with drugs, or many of the other things people seek to excuse themselves over by pinning it all on their animalistic origins. Maybe this is what your bishop is responding to, and why he tries to caution his ward members not to fall into such faulty patterns of thinking. Or not. Maybe he just hates evolutionary theory. I don't know. Whatever the case, he's spending lots of his own time taking care of the ward and its members when he could be ignoring them and doting on his own family. He is making a great sacrifice for the benefit of the ward, and he is doing it because he believes God has required the sacrifice of him. I think that is worthy of letting some of his less enlightened opinions slide. In short: Don't condemn either the bishop or the Church because of the bishop's possibly benighted opinions about some things. If you join the Church, one day you may well find yourself in his shoes; in that day, you will fervently hope and pray that your ward members support you despite all your faults and follies, and that they overlook some of your more egregious personality quirks, choosing instead to focus on the sincere effort you are trying to make in their behalf.

The men who wrote that proclamation had previously voiced their disbelief in and disdain for evolutionary theory. Had they wished to communicate that evolutionary theory is contrary to revealed truth, they would have come right out and said so in a straightforward manner, as clear as that. But they did not. The fact that they did not, especially when you consider how hostile they were toward the idea of organic evolution, is very significant. It means they were speaking to the limits of their authorization, but not beyond. If you want to research this topic more thoroughly, start with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism's article on evolution. The second paragraph is the most important, in my opinion: The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church…. I would suggest you worry less about what you think the implications are of any one person's or statement's wording and instead concentrate on what was said, and more especially on what is now being said. One of the twelve apostles is a well-known and greatly respected heart surgeon who has spent his life in medical science. If he cared to make a statement on evolution, I am sure he would be heard very closely by everyone in the Church who cared about the topic -- and if my understanding is correct, Elder (Doctor) Nelson does not believe in the organic evolution of human beings from previous life forms. Nevertheless, and despite his ability to preach his views from a position of great authority, Elder Nelson has never made a statement about the truth of evolution in a General Conference talk. To my knowledge, he has never mentioned evolution at all in a General Conference talk. The issue simply is not of any importance or relevance to the apostles. I understand that it's an area of concern for you and for many others, but the Church's leadership apparently does not think it is an important enough area to spend much (or any) time talking about or clarifying. Since it would be exceptionally easy for them just to say in an official capacity, "Evolution is false", the fact that they have refused to do so speaks volumes to me. Even Elder Packer, the president of the Quorum of Twelve and a long-time antagonist toward evolutionary theory, says nothing beyond (and I paraphrase), "We are not the children of monkeys. We are children of God through father Adam." I understand and respect that, but you need to understand that the Church is not about vetting biological models. People in the Church, including the men in high leadership positions, still have opinions about things, some of which are wrong or shortsighted. It's the inevitable consequence of living in this mortal realm. That does not make them evil or even particularly ignorant, and it certainly does not make the kingdom of God on earth "false". It means they leave science to the scientists and instead concentrate on bringing people to Christ. As I said before, if you do not honestly believe the teachings of the Church, you should not pretend you do just to join. But by the same token, you should not let pretended and non-existent doctrinal difficulties (such as the Church's non-existent stance against evolution) prevent you from progressing. As a final note: Many people, including scientists, tend to state as "scientific fact" or (worse yet) "scientific truth" things that are neither factual nor truthful. For example, I have often heard how it is scientifically established that homosexuality is "normal" and therefore "good". Obviously, science cannot possibly establish a moral standard, but many people -- especially those predisposed to a scientific bent -- fall for such transparent fables. If you are one of those who tends to be unduly influenced by the claims of science, you should watch out for this potential weakness in yourself.

This is an honest attitude, which I appreciate. However, I think your example is flawed and that the passage you quote does not mean what you think it means. On the contrary, what it says is that all men descend from Adam, the first man. The scriptures talk extensively about God's work with "man", meaning men and women, and how his work and glory is "to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man." The passage you quote functions as a definition for "man". Whatever the fossil record may say, whatever the theories of men may teach, whatever evolutionists may derive as the physical ancestry of humanity, the term "man" in the LDS scriptures and the gospel means "children of Adam". It does not refer to other creatures, hominid or otherwise. At least, that is my take on it. For the record, I have no beef with evolutionary theory and do not see any obvious contradictions between it and the revealed gospel. On the contrary, it explains in my mind many gospel principles that I would otherwise wonder about, such as the carnal nature of the "natural man" spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

Web browsers are allowed only to execute a minimal set of instructions. This is for security purposes, to protect against viruses and such. To extend what a browser can do, functionality was added to browsers that allowed them to run "scripts", which are sets of instructions for the computer to do something or other (like play some content). But since this was a security concern, additions were made that prevented the browser from executing the scripts automatically. Instead, a security alert comes up telling you that the browser wants to execute a script and asking your permission. If you trust the site, you can run scripts from it. If you allow the script, it won't ask you again every time it tries to run. If you don't trust the site, then don't run scripts from it.

How did strippers get into the conversation? I'll stick with Chef Boiardi, thanks.

Seriously? Boiardi? I never knew that. Changes the pronunciation, too, from boy-are-DEE to boy-ARE-dee.

I remember going back to visit in Provo after some years away, probably in the early 90s, and finding a local restaurant chain called Lenito's. Their tacos seemed very authentic.

Carl, have you ever been a bishop? Ever served in a bishopric? Ever observed them closely to get a feel for their calling? You are quick to condemn the bishopric for not being responsive enough to your needs and those of your mother. How do you know they have not tried? For that matter, how do you know that in the crush of things needing to be done, they forgot about noise-cancelling headphones? You could perhaps gently remind them, maybe by asking how things are progressing. You could perhaps take some positive steps yourself to resolve the problem by looking into some noise-cancelling headphones yourself and seeing if you can get them, or at least recommend them to the bishopric. Or you could just complain anonymously on some discussion list about those dumb old bishopric members.

I served my mission in Italy, and I'll have you know I have loved Chef Boyardee from my childhood! Not to suggest there is anything Italian about Chef Boyardee, including his name...

When I ate food in Mexico, it did not taste very much like Del Taco.

Sorry, I'm still confused. What does Del Taco have to do with Mexican food?

I don't understand. How could working at Del Taco affect your taste for Mexican food?