dieublanc

Members
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dieublanc

  1. It doesn't make sense to me either. One thing for sure is that God will reward the righteous according to the way they lived. No one will be punished for having a spouse that isn't worthy or for not marrying because they didn't have the opportunity. I don't think this blog is from a real stake pres either but I still found the analysis (i.e the quoting from the handbook) interesting and relevant to this discussion.
  2. A person claiming to be a stake president talks of how he dealt with an interesting situation of a sealed woman wanting to re-marry. He discusses what might happen in the afterlife and how the sealings may be handled. [mod note - I'm about 75% sure this blog is a fake]
  3. History deniers (as Richard Dawkins calls them) often use the argument that there are no transitional fossils or living creatures that prove for example that reptiles became mammals or birds evolved from dinosaurs. There is in fact plenty of such evidence. For example Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians (Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) But what if there existed a living animal that was genetically both reptilian and mammalian? An animal that has remained in this 'transitional state' while other animals continued to evolve. Well there is such an animal.......the Platypus. This strange animal looks to have the bill of a duck, the eyes of a mole, the eggs of a lizard and the tail of a beaver!! It comes from an early branch of the mammal family, and like mammals it is covered in fur and the female platypus feeds her newborn with milk. However, it lays eggs like a reptile. The platypus, native to Australia, is so odd that when the first specimens were sent to Europe in the 19th century, scientists thought it was a hoax. And so some may well say "If you don't believe in evolution then I don't believe in Platypuses!!"
  4. I realize it was a bit of a pot stirrer but you have to understand that in our current manuals we say “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". I just want to be clear that if we accuse others of believing in the theories of men we should be held to the same standard (or in other words, we are guilty of the same). It's a serious thing to have false doctrine being taught in our current manuals (if one accepts that this is indeed false doctrine). This is a big issue for many.
  5. Hey I wasn't talking about that origin. Anyway all I'm saying is that I know at least 2 people that have left the church after concluding that evolution proved that our prophets were clueless. If they are clueless in one area then it is likely they may be clueless in others. I had no good argument against that conclusion.
  6. Well what if the Holy Ghost told me that since our prophets haven't got a clue with regards to mans origin they most likely haven't got a clue with regards to his destiny?
  7. I appreciate your comments. So let's say that I agree with you - that our prophets seers and revelators teach the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. how then does one determine when they in fact are telling the truth?
  8. I have studied the arguments for and against evolution. I am willing to admit that one can accept both the scriptures and evolution depending on your interpretation of the scriptures. But what I cannot do is accept the interpretation of those scriptures as given in our church, and evolution. If the interpretation of the scriptures as given in our current manuals and recent Ensigns by prophets, seers and revelators is incorrect then how can I accept those men as prophets? If evolution (of man) is true then we (the Church) are teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.
  9. The scriptures may be unclear but our prophets, seers and revelators are crystal clear. I quote again from Packer in the 2008 Ensign: We are taught in Genesis, in Moses, in Abraham, in the Book of Mormon, and in the endowment that man’s mortal body was made in the image of God in a separate creation. Had the Creation come in a different way, there could have been no Fall.
  10. McKay, Talmage etc all accepted evolution to a certain extent but never admitted to believing that mankind had evolved. Man evolving from lower animal orders is not in harmony with the story of Adam. Even today in our the fairly new gospel principles manual it says: "When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they were not yet mortal. In this state, “they would have had no children” (2 Nephi 2:23). There was no death" The manual also states: "Their physical condition changed as a result of their eating the forbidden fruit. As God had promised, they became mortal. They and their children would experience sickness, pain, and physical death." Science tells us that man evolved over billions of years. Mormonism tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that their bodies were immortal until they ate of the fruit. Thus Adam and Eve being the first humans were made in a separate creation.
  11. So are you saying that the current manuals of the church (that I quoted from earlier) are wrong with regards to the origin of man?
  12. I had a bishop when growing up who would ask people to come up to the pulpit to bear their testimonies. This was because it was a small ward and people were hesitant to come forward during fast & testimony meeting.
  13. why was Adam the happiest man on Earth? Because he had no Mother-in-law
  14. The question of humans evolving from lower life forms is addressed in our current church manuals and recent ensigns. From the current old testament institute manual: Old Testament Student Manual Genesis - 2 Samuel : 2 - Genesis 1 - 2 - The Creation “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’" “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. . . . “ Now let's look at the Ensign. Do you remember that special Ensign from March 2008 all about Jesus? Well this is what Pres. Packer had to say: We are taught in Genesis, in Moses, in Abraham, in the Book of Mormon, and in the endowment that man’s mortal body was made in the image of God in a separate creation. Had the Creation come in a different way, there could have been no Fall. If men were merely animals, then logic favors freedom without accountability. How well I know that among learned men are those who look down at animals and stones to find the origin of man. They do not look inside themselves to find the spirit there. They train themselves to measure things by time, by thousands and by millions, and say these animals called men all came by chance. And this they are free to do, for agency is theirs. But agency is ours as well. We look up, and in the universe we see the handiwork of God and measure things by epochs, by aeons, by dispensations, by eternities. The many things we do not know, we take on faith. But this we know! It was all planned “before the world was” (D&C 38:1; see also D&C 49:17; 76:13, 39; 93:7; Abraham 3:22–25). Events from the Creation to the final, winding-up scene are not based on chance; they are based on choice! It was planned that way. This we know! This simple truth! Had there been no Creation and no Fall, there should have been no need for any Atonement, neither a Redeemer to mediate for us. Then Christ need not have been."
  15. Hi I'm from Canada. I grew up in the church in England. I serve on a high council and have 4 young kids. I hope this will be a good place to discuss the church in a positive way.