Church ExCommunication


SLCTOPHILLY
 Share

Recommended Posts

SO the church doesn't have a stand on evolution??

 

Origin of Man, issued by the First Presidency:

 

"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 declared 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; 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.

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."

 

Yes, the Church has no stand on organic evolution, nor has it ever. The First Presidency statement you quote is exactly right: Organic evolution, like heliocentricity or germ theory or Mendelian genetics or Newtonian mechanics, is a theory of men. That does not make it false; it makes it irrelevant to eternal truth. And Adam, the primal parent of our race, was fully, 100% human. That does not answer the question of Adam's creation, which is basically, "Did Adam have a belly button?" (Answer: Of course he did.) That question remains unanswered, because it, too, is irrelevant.

 

God does not tell us how he accomplished the creation, or exactly what was involved in the fall, or how the atonement works. These are all questions of mechanics, and God doesn't normally bother teaching us mechanics. He seems much more concerned that we learn the important elements, such as faith and love. But again, that does not make the "theories of men" uniformly wrong or false, only of minor importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO the church doesn't have a stand on evolution??

 

Origin of Man, issued by the First Presidency:

 

"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 declared 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; 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.

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."

 

So the first physical being to host one of God's spirit children was a human and not a frog....  how does this dispute evolution?  (Don't mean to be rude, but I'm not following you)

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to look it up, but I think the case law (and Church practice) is just the opposite--resignations are effective immediately and the entity must accept it on receipt and stop any pending proceedings; the most they can do is note that proceedings were pending in case the ex-member seeks readmission at a later time. IIRC our courts see it primarily as a freedom of association issue, not a religious freedom issue.

 

This from the "Mormon Church Handbook of Instructions" (on Wikileaks - I won't post a link because I suspect it would be against the board rules):

 

Name Removal and Church Discipline

 

If a member requests name removal and a bishop or stake president has evidence of transgression that warrants convening a disciplinary council, he should not act on the request until Church discipline has been imposed or he has concluded that no disciplinary council will be held. Name removal should not be used as a substitute for or alternative to Church discipline.

 

(Strange that it's an either/or between "discipline imposed" or "no disciplinary council held". Is there never a disciplinary council in which the accused member is acquitted?)

 

However this was from 1999, so it may since have been ruled unconstitutional. Either way it goes on to say this:

 

If a member requests name removal and a bishop or stake president suspects transgression but lacks sufficient evidence to convene a disciplinary council, the request for name removal may be approved. Any evidence of unresolved transgressions should be noted on the Report of Administrative Action form so priesthood leaders may resolve such matters if the individual applies for readmission into the Church
Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Strange that it's an either/or between "discipline imposed" or "no disciplinary council held". Is there never a disciplinary council in which the accused member is acquitted?)

 

Yes, there is, or so I have been told. I suspect "discipline imposed" is meant to include the case where it is determined that no action will be taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This from the "Mormon Church Handbook of Instructions" (on Wikileaks - I won't post a link because I suspect it would be against the board rules):

 

 

(Strange that it's an either/or between "discipline imposed" or "no disciplinary council held". Is there never a disciplinary council in which the accused member is acquitted?)

 

However this was from 1999, so it may since have been ruled unconstitutional. Either way it goes on to say this:

 

I don't see parallel policies in the 2006 version.  Can you provide a cite?  Thanks.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see parallel policies in the 2006 version.  Can you provide a cite?  Thanks.   :)

 

I didn't post a link before because in the past I've been given "warning points" for posting links to websites that include anti-mormon propaganda. (And who knows what's to be found on WikiLeaks?)

 

On the other hand... (does impression of Tevye from "Fiddler on the Roof")... plenty of people post links to YouTube, which has a lot of antimormonism on it. 

 

On the other hand... When have rules ever been fully consistent in their formulation or application? (I'm not just talking about this message board... I'm talking about rules in general.)

 

On the other hand... You are a board moderator, so if I get into trouble I can always blame you! :D

 

So here is the link: https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Mormon_Church_Handbook_of_Instructions_(1999)

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the first physical being to host one of God's spirit children was a human and not a frog....  how does this dispute evolution?

 

I wanna make this bigger and more prominent because this is where most people who are arguing about LDS' stance on evolution keeps on getting tripped up on.  When the Church says MAN - they don't mean simply a homo sapien body.  They mean a SPIRITUAL man... Body and Spirit.  For anybody outside the LDS Church, this gets missed because Christianity outside of the LDS Church believes that the Spirit and the Body are created at the same time from nothing.  In LDS teaching - the Spirit is eternal - it existed long before the Earth was created.  The Spirit joins the Body sometime after the earth was prepared for its habitation.  Now, the Church teaching is very clear on this.  Adam was the first Man - that means, the SPIRIT known as Adam was the first Spirit to have joined a body.  The body he joined is Homo Sapiens human... not a frog or anything else.  Therefore, the Plan of Salvation and the Atonement of Christ applies to all Human Beings born of Adam and Eve... not anything else like dinosaurs or frogs or pre-Adamites.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't post a link before because in the past I've been given "warning points" for posting links to websites that include anti-mormon propaganda. (And who knows what's to be found on WikiLeaks?)

 

On the other hand... (does impression of Tevye from "Fiddler on the Roof")... plenty of people post links to YouTube, which has a lot of antimormonism on it. 

 

On the other hand... When have rules ever been fully consistent in their formulation or application? (I'm not just talking about this message board... I'm talking about rules in general.)

 

On the other hand... You are a board moderator, so if I get into trouble I can always blame you! :D

 

So here is the link . . .

 

I should have been more clear with what I meant by "cite"--I meant, could you say what section numbers you were referring to within the 1999 version (and, if possible, identify the corresponding sections in the 2006 version).  As for the link . . . I'll defer to the other mods on that one.  :)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, the Plan of Salvation and the Atonement of Christ applies to all Human Beings born of Adam and Eve... not anything else like dinosaurs or frogs or pre-Adamites.

 

 

 
 I don't think this is correct....at least pertaining to frogs. All things were created spiritually before they were created physically and all things are subject to the fall...frogs too and all things fell so they could be resurrected...frogs, plants, etc. (Personally I think dinosaurs and pre-adamites as well)
Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the first physical being to host one of God's spirit children was a human and not a frog....  how does this dispute evolution?  (Don't mean to be rude, but I'm not following you)

 

I guess I was just disputing evolution on the ground that ADAM, the first man, spiritually and physically was born from GOD. As a fully functional human. Did not come from a monkey or pre-adamite. Evolution in general, acting upon animals can be/probably is true. I was just saying humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I was just disputing evolution on the ground that ADAM, the first man, spiritually and physically was born from GOD. As a fully functional human. Did not come from a monkey or pre-adamite. Evolution in general, acting upon animals can be/probably is true. I was just saying humans.

 

Ok that makes a little more sense.

 

Personally, I have not problem with God using evolution as a tool to create the human body-- it's still His creation and we are all spiritually literally His children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok that makes a little more sense.

 

Personally, I have not problem with God using evolution as a tool to create the human body-- it's still His creation and we are all spiritually literally His children.

 

 

I suppose an analogy would be--

 

A carpenter creates a beautiful statue.  The fact that he used a knife in sculpting the statue does make him any less of a creator.

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 “Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373).

 

According to Benjamin F. Johnson, a close friend of the Prophet, the Prophet taught, "that God was the great head of human procreation, was really and truly the father of both our spirits and our bodies" (Dahl & Cannon, ed., Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith's Teachings, p. 297).

 

 In this connection, after quoting Genesis 1:26-27, which says “so God created man in his own image,” Brigham Young stated, “I believe that the declaration made in these two scriptures is literally true…[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process ofcreation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be” (JD 11:123, emphasis added). Brigham Young furthered commented on this when he said:

 

The world may in vain ask the question, “Who are we?” But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, “We are the children of Adam and Eve.” So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of (JD 13:312, emphasis added).

 

 

 Man was born of woman; Christ the Savior, was born of woman and God, the Father, was born of woman.Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I. 
(Joseph F. Smith as quoted in Hyrum L. Andrus,Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, 179.)

 

There can be no doubt that the Father that President Smith had in mind for Adam was none other than Almighty God, since an official Church manual used in his lifetime for “Course Study For Priests” stated:

 

Man has descended from God: In fact, he is of the same race as the Gods. His descent has not been from a lower form of life, but from the Highest Form of Life; in other words, man is, in the most literal sense, a child of God. This is not only true of the spirit of man, but of his body also. There never was a time, probably, in all the eternities of the past, when there was not men or children of God. This world is only one of many worlds which have been created by the Father through His Only Begotten.

(As quoted in Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, 179.)

 

Anywho I personally believe Adam is direct offspring from God, both physically and spiritually.

 

"Maybe" not official church doctrine, but seems to be taught in abundance. Currently today too, in one of my BYU religion classes the teacher taught it as a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we turn to the scriptures for answers......it would seem that there was no death before the fall and no procreation. The theory of evolution would seem to be at odds with scripture I would think, since it doesn't sound plausible that various forms of life would seek to evolve if their was not procreation or death.

 

What would be the need to evolve if their was not death?

 

As Lehi said,

 

"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.

 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

 

These scriptures would apply to all things....plant, animal, etc. 

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we turn to the scriptures for answers......it would seem that there was no death before the fall and no procreation. The theory of evolution would seem to be at odds with scripture I would think, since it doesn't sound plausible that various forms of life would seek to evolve if their was not procreation or death.

 

What would be the need to evolve if their was not death?

 

As Lehi said,

 

"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.

 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

 

These scriptures would apply to all things....plant, animal, etc. 

 

What!? The scriptures? Bah! We have science!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share