jwhitlock

Members
  • Posts

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

jwhitlock's Achievements

  1. Welcome! In addition to looking here at what's being posted, I would suggest (if you aren't doing it already) that you go back to Church. There you will be able to find some personal fellowship, guidance from your bishop, and will be able to renew your covenants via the sacrament. Those will be very necessary in helping the Spirit come and witness to you about the things you need to understand.
  2. Possibly a better way to approach it would be to ask you what your conceptions about LDS doctrine and the Church are. There are too many misconceptions out there about us to be listed.
  3. I'll give it a shot. We believe that we are the same species as God the Father, that He is our Parent, and that we are commanded to become like Him (Matt 5:48). No. In the same manner that Hebrews 13:8 says that Jesus was unchanging, even though in Luke 2:52, He does change.God is unchanging in relationship to His dealings with us. We believe that salvation only comes through Jesus, and that through His atonement, we can be resurrected and receive eternal life. Do evangelicals believe differently than that?We believe, as is inferred from the New Testament, and confirmed by revelation in our day, that we, along with Satan, existed before this mortal life as children of our Heavenly Father. Satan rebelled and so was cast out and became the devil. Jesus is the Son of God; we are also sons and daughters of God, and so Satan is related to us all, in that respect. Hope this helps.
  4. You're right; DNA technology has incredible potential. And there's always someone who is willing to misapply science for ends of their own.It just keeps getting better. At first, I was only blind. Now I'm a fool in addition to that. The joy just keeps multiplying!
  5. I can't. I am evidently permanently blinded by my faith and can entertain no other rational or intelligent thought beyond what I've been instructed by the great, evil empire emanating from Salt Lake, bent on a course of world domination using the deception started by "Jo" Smith.Just between you and me, I've been cheating for several decades and reading up on things on my own, like this DNA kerfluffle - and gee whiz, it's actually driven me closer into the evil Mormon empire. I'm lost, fer sure. On a less facetious note, one of the videos I looked at that was critical of the Church on this DNA issue was a real work of art in and of itself. It basically consisted of a parade of talking heads, designated as "experts", who lined up to testify that the DNA research has really proven that the claims of the Book of Mormon are fraudulent. The only problem was, they didn't talk about the details of methodology of DNA research, or what specifically proved the BofM wrong, or any of the assumptions that I (and others) have raised. We were just presented with "experts" and since they were "experts", we ignorant lay people were supposed to just accept what they said, without any effort to understand it ourselves. Kind of like our original poster here, who as a "scientist" claims that DNA research has been devastating to the Church - without giving any particulars of why that is so. I don't tend to have much patience with people who claim to be "experts" and that we just have to take them at face value without questioning. Once we are accused of having "blind faith", it quickly becomes evident that the questioner is not particularly sincere at all. The interesting thing about this DNA issue is that it is very much of a surface issue only. Once you start digging down into the methodology and questioning the assumptions, it falls apart quite quickly.
  6. Sounds like you have some preconceived notions about LDS Church members and "blind faith" that you aren't willing to let go. Even if we point out problems with the critics' claims about DNA such as:- We don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like - nor are we likely to, as has been pointed out in this thread. - The markers being tracked come either up the straight maternal or paternal lines - mother to daughter only, or father to son only. There is no way of knowing (and it is statistically very unlikely) that the current individuals being tested for DNA are straight line paternal or maternal descendants from Lehi's party. - We don't know much at this point of how similar current DNA is to Israelite DNA of 600 BCE - let alone, again, knowing what Lehi's DNA consisted of. - We know that the BofM peoples were not the only people who who came to the Americas. We also know that it was not only Israelites, but other peoples as well, who came to the Americas. - And so on. I find it somewhat arrogant for you to presume that someone who doesn't agree with you automatically has "invented" their own science and is only acting on "blind faith". Did it ever occur to you in your rather narrow world view that believing LDS just might have studied quite a bit about this subject? And found that the critics' case is, indeed, weak? Are you trying to find a way to rationalize yourself out of the Church? Your weak, non-specific responses in this thread, along with your claims of authority (I am a scientist) seem to indicate that you've already made up your mind and are not particularly interested in the LDS response to the very, very weak critical DNA claims against the Church.
  7. I'm not aware that that many LDS were shocked by it. In fact, if you go and consider the claims made by critics of the Church that this disproves the Book of Mormon, and then really look at the scientific evidence, along with what the Book of Mormon really claims, the whole DNA "controversy" goes away. The references by QuorumPrez are a good place to start. The critics actual case is very, very weak.
  8. Chat with the stake president about the situation and see what he can do. I believe that approval to switch to another ward has to come from Salt Lake. I hope that you can find resolution to the situation!
  9. Are you thinking of staying in Utah when you're done at the 'Y', or will you head out for some other part of the country?There are different experiential nuances that come to a testimony when it's in a heavily Mormon-populated area, as opposed to some other areas of the country. Having grown up on the east coast, and then spending 7 years in Utah, and then coming back east, I've had the blessing of having both of those perspectives in shaping my testimony of the gospel.
  10. Well, things got pretty stirred up over there. Here it's quite a bit less contentious. We do get the occasional troll (some have been pretty vicious), but the board rules are pretty explicit about this not being the place to take pot shots at the Church. Welcome! I think you'll have a lot to add here.
  11. Very understandable - and wise.Those outside the Church do not understand the depth and significance of spiritual experience that many of us have had. Perhaps that doubt reflects some of the shallowness of their own experience in some cases; I don't know. But the understanding of personal experience can only come when one is prompted by the Spirit - and that's a very hard thing to communicate on a board post such as this. Still, I can say this - I cannot doubt that the restored gospel is what it is. My experiences do not allow me that doubt, nor to doubt that there is a God. I have studied and read and pondered and felt the confirmation of the Spirit, and my experiences have cemented that certainty in me in a way that cannot be easily communicated. It is, simply, true.
  12. I remember reading that article when it came out. Good explanation.
  13. It's not referring to the Catholic church. The Catholic church has never had dominion over all the earth at any time, and as far as I understand it, verse 13 is not a specific reference to the Crusades. In addition, the church referred to in ch. 14 fights against the Church of the Lamb, which can be a specific organization or true believers in Christ. The specific organization has never been actively fought against by the Catholics (though they disagree with us), and there have been true believers who have been members of the Catholic church, as well as they were able, through the centuries when the Church of the Lamb did not exist. Elder Bruce McConkie speculated that it might have been the Catholic church, but later retracted that by instruction of the First Presidency. Nephi's reference is to the competing organization of Lucifer, which is not contained in a specific organization, but is rather made up of organizations and individuals influenced by him. This could include terrorist organizations, crime syndicates, certain churches (Westboro Baptist comes to mind), most American corporations , certain governments, and various other organizations that seek to enslave and control people, and fight against the spread of the restored gospel. Hope this helps a little.
  14. You're correct in that it is the line of the bishops of Rome that exists by name, which the Catholics consider the Papal line. However, even though there is a line of authority by name, there is no documentation to support that line, which was what I was referring to.It appears from the historical record that the bishop of Rome did not gain primacy or authority over the other bishops until the fourth century - and it was contested even after that. After the apostles died, it appears that the various bishops acted somewhat autonomously and not as a unified body or church, for at least a couple of centuries. It was only with Constantine that the process started to "unify" those autonomous congregations under the authority of the Roman Pope. The history is actually quite fascinating and if you have an interest in early Christianity, it would be good to study it. From an LDS viewpoint, Tad Callister wrote a good book entitled "The Inevitable Apostasy" which I enjoyed. Also, Scott Petersen wrote "Where Have All the Prophets Gone?" which was excellent.
  15. Two quick responses to your question. First, there does not appear to be any documentation available that fully outlines the line of authority from Peter to the Catholic Popes. Before the fourth century, support for the line of authority in full does not exist in any manuscripts that we have. The transfer of that authority from Peter on is actually highly speculative in the Catholic Church, and the "official" version of that line by the Catholics has been created based on a number of assumptions about their history that are not verifiable. Second, there is no evidence that the apostles "let" the Church fall into apostasy. The apostasy occurred (and was foretold) in spite of their best efforts. The overriding principle in God's dealings with us in all ages seems to be our agency - and when the people choose not to follow Him, despite efforts by His servants to keep them in the right path, He will not force them down that path. Fortunately, God always has a contingency plan available. In this case, the gospel would be restored prior to Christ's second coming, and those who were righteous and lived during the dark times when the fullness of the gospel was not on the earth would still have the option of salvation in the life after this life. To me, at least, He has the bases fully covered.