Adam and Eve and Evolution


zlllch
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Just my thoughts for what it is worth.  I wish it was all so easy as this makes it look. I believe it could be if it were not for an electronic age where sometimes we share private understandings when we might better be restrained. 

I often reflect on Joseph Smith sitting in a conference and remarking that he would love to teach the saints of the greater mysteries and other truths but he knew that they could not abide what he could teach.  It becomes obvious to me that there is within the realm of our attainment information that one my grasp and another may not.  Over the years, I have sought specifically to be taught some of the things that I think Joseph understood but could not speak to.  In certain areas, such as understanding the atonement, I believe that has taken place.  I have seen how people respond to simple clarifications of more precise understanding which one would think are simply benign insight adjustments and they go through the roof.  Try to explain that paying the price for our sins was not a price exacted by our sinful behavior but was something way beyond that and people get all guishy faced on saying over and over that the scriptures say he paid the price for our sins.  Yes, yes they do but how that was accomplished they can't get to because their fear of learning gets in the way.

What is important to me is that usually when we get private interpretations, what reveals them more than anything is not always the actual doctrine under discussion but can it be circumscribed into the one great whole.  The checks and balances of adjacent gospel principles ofttimes is all that has to be explored to excise an errant thought.  D&C 19 is very instructive in this principle.  Now again I realize I am commenting on some material that I do not have experience with.  You folks do and perhaps it has been vetted and a consensus reached of error.  Perhaps in time I will run into this material but I suspect it will not be so shocking if I can track through valid witnesses of God, and scripture how the individual reached their conclusions.

There is a difference between personal and public revelations.  Public (aka for the church as a whole) revelations are vetted using the method found in the scripture.  This is the bench mark, the standard.  This is what God wants his church as a whole living and doing.

Personal revelation is just that personal the moment you try to get others you have overstepped your bounds (unless you have a stewardship over them and the Lord prompts you to share under that stewardship)   Note that this is not really a different standard.  The Leaders of the Church have the appointed stewardship over whom they share.  Thus the Lord maintains order in his house with each person acting within the bounds the Lord has set.

So people can have great mysteries revealed to them, but anyone claiming such is to be rejected as Not of God unless they follow the pattern and method God has ordained

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Like I said, I offer up an opinion. Its different. Im done discussing it, I wish not to have contention. Have a Merry Christmas.

There is a difference between having an opinion and sharing an opinion.  As an agent unto yourself you have the right to any opinion you want.

Sharing your opinion is a different matter.  While it is possible to share with out sliding into teaching it is not very likely. 

Declaring that your opinion is the TRUE position and that the Church leaders are wrong unless they agree with you.  Means that your opinion needs to be vetted as the Lord's command in Section 43.

You asked why people were all over you because of what you teach about the 3 degrees of Glory, but not those that disagree with your understanding of the 1909 statement.  Section 43 is exactly why.  The method established in Section 43 means that your opinion on the Three Degree of Glory is wrong and any attempts by you to teach it needs to be soundly rejected by the members in question.  As for the 1909 statement the link I provided shows clearly that the Church leaders consider it a supporting statement to the Current practices.  Not something they would do if it is a counter claim (as you proclaim that it is).  While many people have declared their opinion on the matter of evolution.  Only those that declare that the Statement given by the Church that it has "No Official Position" is wrong (no matter what side they come down on) are equally in need of being soundly rejected

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, brlenox said:

This is tragic...I had a response well underway and then lost the whole of it in a cyber blink...very frustrating.  Anyway I have some things I have to get to so will not try to recreate at this time.  One thing Is, If you do not mind I would appreciate if you copied the exact two quotes that you want to analyze in to a post as I did not provide two Mormon Doctrine quotes in my list and I presume you must be referencing something from the link I provided or elsewhere.

As far as over stepping bounds...I have none. That's part of my problem with some folks is I am hoping they can be as candid with me as I am with them and maintain decorum in genuine and thoughtful conversation.  If you can handle me saying something is completely wrong and illustrating why I think so with legitimate sources  then I can handle twice that.  I am impossible to offend. 

We do have some fundamental differences in how we view apostles and prophets and how we evaluate their positions on things which completely alters our learning styles.  That's what I was writing up when my PC betrayed me.  I can't get back to it at the moment but later when I get your quotes I will work it in as it is very germane to our process of evaluation.

Thanks much...

Dang that's too bad you lost your response. And sorry, I thought I was more clear about the quotes I was referring to. I was talking about the quotes I cited in my earlier post, not any of the ones you included.

Here's the one from the first edition of "Mormon Doctrine":

"It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization."

And here's the one it was replaced with in the second edition:

"The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature — whether political, philosophical, educational, economic social, fraternal, civic, or religious — which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God."

You're definitely right that we approach the teachings of prophets and apostles very differently. I want to explain my approach more in depth so you can better understand where I'm coming from

I believe that prophets have the keys to receive revelation from God on behalf of the entire church. But I don't think every word they speak is from God, or even anything close to that. Even when they're discussing church matters, they are often left to their own devices. It is only when they are moved upon by the Spirit that they are speaking for God, and when they aren't moved upon by the Spirit, they are just speaking for themselves. Their words may be well thought out and well intentioned, but they aren't the Lord's words. And sometimes, when prophets are influenced by the culture of their time, they are very far from the Lord's words.

D&C 21

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

D&C 42

14 And the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith; and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach.

"At the head of this Church stands a man who is a Prophet . . . we respect and venerate him; but we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God." -- Charles W. Penrose 

"When in the revelations it is said concerning the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator that the Church shall “give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them—for his word ye shall receive as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith”—(Doc & Cov., Sec. 21)—it is understood, of course, that his has reference to the word of God received through revelation, and officially announced to the Church, and not to every chance word spoken." -- B. H. Roberts

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church." -- Approaching Mormon Doctrine

"Revelations from God . . . are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality. Fortunately, we are never out of our Savior's sight, and if our judgment leads us to actions beyond the limits of what is permissible and if we are listening, . . . the Lord will restrain us by the promptings of his Spirit." -- Dallin H. Oaks

So it is my understanding that Prophets and Apostles speak for God, but only at times when they are moved upon by the Spirit of Revelation. But how can we tell when they are speaking for God or merely speaking for themselves? Only through that same power by which they receive their revelation, the power of the Holy Ghost. 

This is a long quote, but it describes very well what I'm trying to express here.

“Doctrine and Covenants 68:3-4 sets the narrow instances when scripture can be considered as having been given:
    And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.
    Note that what comprises 'scripture,' 'the will of the Lord,' 'the mind of the Lord,' 'the word of the Lord,' and 'the voice of the Lord' is whether or not something is spoken 'when moved upon by the Holy Ghost.' This makes it clear that there are instances when things are not said 'when moved upon by the Holy Ghost.'
    Commenting on this, Elder B. H. Roberts explained:
    'Is there anything in the Mormon doctrine that makes it necessary to believe [infallibility] of men, even of high officials in the Church? No, there is not. We know that they do not always speak under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit . . . When you come to think of human weaknesses and imperfections, and how difficult it is for men living under the effects of the Fall, and borne down with inherited tendencies also—when you think how extremely difficult it is for even the best of men to rise above these things and walk in the sunlight of God’s inspiration, in the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, I think it is expecting too much to claim that every utterance is a divine inspiration.'
    He further explained: 'Sometimes, the servants of God stand on planes infinitely lower than the one here described. Sometimes they speak merely from their human knowledge, influenced by passions; influenced by the interests of men, and by anger, and vexation, and all those things that surge in upon the minds of even servants of God. When they so speak, then that is not Scripture, that is not the word of God, nor the power of God unto salvation; but when they speak as moved upon by the Holy Ghost, their voice then becomes the voice of God. So that men, even some of high station in the Church, sometimes speak from merely human wisdom; or from prejudice or passion; and when they do so, that is not likely to be the word of God . . . In any event it must be allowed by us that many unwise things were said in times past, even by prominent elders of the Church; things that were not in harmony with the doctrines of the Church; and that did not possess the value of Scripture, or anything like it; and it was not revelation.'
    This also means that people cannot simply rely on who made a statement or the setting the statement was made in (like General Conference, for instance) as a way of being reassured that everything said was spoken 'when moved upon by the Holy Ghost.' Since the key to the whole matter is the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, revelation is very individualized. The responsibility for discerning and determining that what was said was said 'when moved upon by the Holy Ghost' is shared by the speaker and the hearer. That the working of the Holy Ghost in revealing truth is a two-way process that requires effort, not a passive one-way transmission from God, is evident from Doctrine and Covenants 50:21-22
    'Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth? Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.' ” -- McKay V. Jones 

This is the process I was trying to describe in my previous post, and this is the process I use when considering the validity of statements made by church leaders. I also research the history surrounding those statement so I can fully understand their original context and the intentions of the speaker. It is also through the power of the Holy Ghost that I discovered the truth of the Book of Mormon for myself. I didn't rely on anyone other than God for that confirmation, and it is in this same way that I discover the truth or the error in statements made by church leaders. If by chance I do find a fault in their words, I find it wise to hearken to these principles found in Mormon 9:31:

"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

I don't think I'm smarter than the prophets, and I don't regard myself as better than them in any way. But I also don't blindly believe in everything they say. I listen to the Spirit as best I can for confirmation that their words are true, because I trust in the Spirit above all else. I know that this Spirit is God's Spirit, and I am so grateful that he has provided us with a living Prophet on the earth to lead us and guide us towards Christ. 

Hopefully this gave you a better idea of how I approach the teachings of prophets and apostles. Thanks for reading. 

Edited by zlllch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, estradling75 said:

There is a difference between having an opinion and sharing an opinion.  As an agent unto yourself you have the right to any opinion you want.

Sharing your opinion is a different matter.  While it is possible to share with out sliding into teaching it is not very likely. 

Declaring that your opinion is the TRUE position and that the Church leaders are wrong unless they agree with you.  Means that your opinion needs to be vetted as the Lord's command in Section 43.

You asked why people were all over you because of what you teach about the 3 degrees of Glory, but not those that disagree with your understanding of the 1909 statement.  Section 43 is exactly why.  The method established in Section 43 means that your opinion on the Three Degree of Glory is wrong and any attempts by you to teach it needs to be soundly rejected by the members in question.  As for the 1909 statement the link I provided shows clearly that the Church leaders consider it a supporting statement to the Current practices.  Not something they would do if it is a counter claim (as you proclaim that it is).  While many people have declared their opinion on the matter of evolution.  Only those that declare that the Statement given by the Church that it has "No Official Position" is wrong (no matter what side they come down on) are equally in need of being soundly rejected

O have every right, without any church discipline, to say its my opinion on a certain gospel topic that it has some issues. Thats precisely what we are all doing on these threads- offering up our opinions, ideas, etc. As long as I dont outright start teaching with authority to follow me, that the prophets are wrong I am perfectly fine offering up opinion. One of our charges is to teach each other the doctrine, become more perfect in our theory. 

Perhaps it bothers you for me to state rather frankly that our doctrine isnt perfect, it has its issues. I can understand that reality and still, 100% follow the living prophets counsel. Perhaps its hard for you to fathom that maybe something we teach isnt right. Thats fine, its part of being LDS. Its hard for members, especially life long members, to believe anything other than we already have a perfect doctrine.

Speaking of "evolving", our gospel has been evolving ever since Joseph Smith organized the church. It will continue to evolve and eventually certain elements we never considered will be changed and it will change our perception.

Im not necessarily receiving any new revelation, just putting facts and logic together and showing a flaw.

Even in our own church we have dogmatism in our doctrine. Each era of the church has had dogmatic traditions in their teaching. Its just the flaws of men- we make mistakes, its normal, it happens. The blacks and curses and skin color was just one of many dogmatic teachings in our past. Yes, even prophets can and do make mistakes. Its not wrong for someone to say "hey, maybe we got something wrong here". 

This evolution issue is another dogmatic and confusing issue for the church because you have obvious conflicting opinions and even conflicting doctrine on it. One of the problems is with the correlation of official publications and church material that at times contradicts each other. Its obvious that the same prophets, apostles, cant go through and correlate everything and check everything published. Because of that fact you get the opinions of non authoritive writers to publish material that doesnt necessarily reflect the real doctrines as taught by the prophets. The 2016 article is just that. Oh well, it just shows how imperfect our doctrine and principles for establishing correlated doctrine is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

O have every right, without any church discipline, to say its my opinion on a certain gospel topic that it has some issues. Thats precisely what we are all doing on these threads- offering up our opinions, ideas, etc. As long as I dont outright start teaching with authority to follow me, that the prophets are wrong I am perfectly fine offering up opinion. One of our charges is to teach each other the doctrine, become more perfect in our theory. 

Perhaps it bothers you for me to state rather frankly that our doctrine isnt perfect, it has its issues. I can understand that reality and still, 100% follow the living prophets counsel. Perhaps its hard for you to fathom that maybe something we teach isnt right. Thats fine, its part of being LDS. Its hard for members, especially life long members, to believe anything other than we already have a perfect doctrine.

Speaking of "evolving", our gospel has been evolving ever since Joseph Smith organized the church. It will continue to evolve and eventually certain elements we never considered will be changed and it will change our perception.

Im not necessarily receiving any new revelation, just putting facts and logic together and showing a flaw.

Even in our own church we have dogmatism in our doctrine. Each era of the church has had dogmatic traditions in their teaching. Its just the flaws of men- we make mistakes, its normal, it happens. The blacks and curses and skin color was just one of many dogmatic teachings in our past. Yes, even prophets can and do make mistakes. Its not wrong for someone to say "hey, maybe we got something wrong here". 

This evolution issue is another dogmatic and confusing issue for the church because you have obvious conflicting opinions and even conflicting doctrine on it. One of the problems is with the correlation of official publications and church material that at times contradicts each other. Its obvious that the same prophets, apostles, cant go through and correlate everything and check everything published. Because of that fact you get the opinions of non authoritive writers to publish material that doesnt necessarily reflect the real doctrines as taught by the prophets. The 2016 article is just that. Oh well, it just shows how imperfect our doctrine and principles for establishing correlated doctrine is.

 

All of which you are entitled to believe and we are entitled to disagree with you on.  You are the one getting all bent out of shape over that... but it is a simple reality.  You want to hide behind your right to an opinion then you have no ground to complain about other sharing their opinion on how you are wrong.

Even more so when you opinion boils down to.. I know more then God's appointed on the subjects in question

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

All of which you are entitled to believe and we are entitled to disagree with you on.  You are the one getting all bent out of shape over that... but it is a simple reality.  You want to hide behind your right to an opinion then you have no ground to complain about other sharing their opinion on how you are wrong.

Even more so when you opinion boils down to.. I know more then God's appointed on the subjects in question

I for sure dont know more than the prophets! On one small, yet important detail, perhaps I have come across something of merit. 

The main problem is you are mischaractetising me and my aims. You dont know me. You dont know my story nor what I know in regards to the subject. In fact, I will bet you couldnt summarize in one small paragraph why I believe the way I do about heaven and why it matters so much to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I for sure dont know more than the prophets! On one small, yet important detail, perhaps I have come across something of merit. 

The main problem is you are mischaractetising me and my aims. You dont know me. You dont know my story nor what I know in regards to the subject. In fact, I will bet you couldnt summarize in one small paragraph why I believe the way I do about heaven and why it matters so much to me.

You are right I do not know you....  but I know what you have posted here... and I know what the Church teaches and I know what God has outlined as how we are to learn truth... and I know that when you have been asked to clarify what you mean when it appears that your opinion contradict what the Lord's appointed have taught and currently teaches you fail to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You are right I do not know you....  but I know what you have posted here... and I know what the Church teaches and I know what God has outlined as how we are to learn truth... and I know that when you have been asked to clarify what you mean when it appears that your opinion contradict what the Lord's appointed have taught and currently teaches you fail to do so.

You are wrong again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on my understanding of evolution, biology, and the human species, my current belief of what is most probable is that Adam and Eve are, at best, the first humans chosen by God to establish his religion among the human race.  I have no confidence in the belief that they were the literal first humans; nor do I have confidence in the belief that they were the directly placed by God on earth.  I believe there was death long before the humans we identify as Adam and Eve. And I suspect the introduction of Adam and Eve was probably more along the lines of "the human species has evolved enough it is psychologically capable of Accountability, thus, we must establish religion." Adam and Eve were those chosen to begin that process.

As a corollary, I don't believe in the Garden of Eden and the Fall as literal events, but as allegories intended to teach important spiritual principles. 

As for statements by Church leaders and The Origin of ManI have done my best to study and seek knowledge.  Based on the pattern of revelation described in the Doctrine and Covenants, these teaching have inspired nothing in neither mind nor heart, and so I do not worry about it.  Given that a resistance to evolutionary theory was not uncommon in the early 1900s--and given that Joseph F. Smith was known to be aggressively opinionated--it seems plausible that his personal opinions combined with a lack of formal education in the topic may have combined to persuade him to inaccurate convictions.  And no, that doesn't bother me.  I'll allow President Smith the same humanity that plagues me.

With all of this comes the natural caveat that as I gain more knowledge and insight, I may modify my beliefs.  I make no prediction about whether they will move toward or away from the statements in The Origin of Man

Lastly, I recognize that these are conclusions I have reached through my own personal study and prayer.  Others may reach different conclusions. And I'm okay with that.  I refuse to get judgy about people disagreeing with me on this topic.  (although I do get judgy about people being judgy about it.  Yup, I'm flawed)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You are wrong again.

See there was another chance for you to clarify... a chance to explain how I am wrong.. a chance for you to detail how everything you have ever posted is in harmony with current church teachings...  And that is what you say.  You just proved my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

See there was another chance for you to clarify... a chance to explain how I am wrong.. a chance for you to detail how everything you have ever posted is in harmony with current church teachings...  And that is what you say.  You just proved my point.

You are wrong again. I spend a lot of time clarifying. I cant help if you dont listen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I for sure dont know more than the prophets! On one small, yet important detail, perhaps I have come across something of merit. 

The main problem is you are mischaractetising me and my aims. You dont know me. You dont know my story nor what I know in regards to the subject. In fact, I will bet you couldnt summarize in one small paragraph why I believe the way I do about heaven and why it matters so much to me.

I don't know that you've ever posted "why".  But there's no shortage of "what".  In addition to the above post wherein you imply you have "come across" something everyone else seems to have missed, here are threads wherein you:

  • Call the Church's current doctrine flawed, wrong, false, and self-contradictory; that we have a basic misunderstanding of the plan of salvation
  • Claim that Joseph Smith didn't understand the vision we know as D&C 76 (and by implication that none of the prophets and apostles since, let alone members, understand it either - but you do)
  • Claim that one day the Mormons will understand that all the other Christian churches understood heaven correctly and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had it wrong - but don't worry, we'll correct ourselves once we figure that out.
  • That your understanding "works better"
  • That Church teachings disregard the Book of Mormon

And that's just from the first three threads in which you posted your thoughts on this topic.  If one wanted to review more, I'm sure they'd find more, including mention of how eventually you'd have all your ducks lined up and send them off to Church headquarters, where you were sure the Brethren would all review them and say something like, "Oh my, how did we miss this all this time?".

NOTE: I'm posting this strictly for those who weren't here back then and to save @estradling75 time in case he wants to refer back to them.  As far as I'm concerned, engaging in discussion with you about this is no different from banging one's head against a brick wall - it's a waste of time and potentially damaging to one's head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Clarify what?

Who is not listening now...  But I do clarify when asked so here are my last two posts

 

49 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You are right I do not know you....  but I know what you have posted here... and I know what the Church teaches and I know what God has outlined as how we are to learn truth... and I know that when you have been asked to clarify what you mean when it appears that your opinion contradict what the Lord's appointed have taught and currently teaches you fail to do so.

39 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

See there was another chance for you to clarify... a chance to explain how I am wrong.. a chance for you to detail how everything you have ever posted is in harmony with current church teachings...  And that is what you say.  You just proved my point.

In case that is still unclear...  You present and opinion that seems like it is counter to the current teaching of the church... several posters ask you to clarify giving you a chance to show you are in agreement.  You do not... 

Then you get upset that members have the audacity to follow the scriptural commands and receive you not.  Either you are in harmony with the Lord's anointed in which case you should be easily able to clarify.  Or you are not and we are right to label your ideas as not of God.

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, zil said:

I don't know that you've ever posted "why".  But there's no shortage of "what".  In addition to the above post wherein you imply you have "come across" something everyone else seems to have missed, here are threads wherein you:

  • Call the Church's current doctrine flawed, wrong, false, and self-contradictory; that we have a basic misunderstanding of the plan of salvation
  • Claim that Joseph Smith didn't understand the vision we know as D&C 76 (and by implication that none of the prophets and apostles since, let alone members, understand it either - but you do)
  • Claim that one day the Mormons will understand that all the other Christian churches understood heaven correctly and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had it wrong - but don't worry, we'll correct ourselves once we figure that out.
  • That your understanding "works better"
  • That Church teachings disregard the Book of Mormon

And that's just from the first three threads in which you posted your thoughts on this topic.  If one wanted to review more, I'm sure they'd find more, including mention of how eventually you'd have all your ducks lined up and send them off to Church headquarters, where you were sure the Brethren would all review them and say something like, "Oh my, how did we miss this all this time?".

NOTE: I'm posting this strictly for those who weren't here back then and to save @estradling75 time in case he wants to refer back to them.  As far as I'm concerned, engaging in discussion with you about this is no different from banging one's head against a brick wall - it's a waste of time and potentially damaging to one's head.

Well then, dont. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Based on my understanding of evolution, biology, and the human species, my current belief of what is most probable is that Adam and Eve are, at best, the first humans chosen by God to establish his religion among the human race.  I have no confidence in the belief that they were the literal first humans; nor do I have confidence in the belief that they were the directly placed by God on earth.  I believe there was death long before the humans we identify as Adam and Eve. And I suspect the introduction of Adam and Eve was probably more along the lines of "the human species has evolved enough it is psychologically capable of Accountability, thus, we must establish religion." Adam and Eve were those chosen to begin that process.

As a corollary, I don't believe in the Garden of Eden and the Fall as literal events, but as allegories intended to teach important spiritual principles. 

As for statements by Church leaders and The Origin of ManI have done my best to study and seek knowledge.  Based on the pattern of revelation described in the Doctrine and Covenants, these teaching have inspired nothing in neither mind nor heart, and so I do not worry about it.  Given that a resistance to evolutionary theory was not uncommon in the early 1900s--and given that Joseph F. Smith was known to be aggressively opinionated--it seems plausible that his personal opinions combined with a lack of formal education in the topic may have combined to persuade him to inaccurate convictions.  And no, that doesn't bother me.  I'll allow President Smith the same humanity that plagues me.

With all of this comes the natural caveat that as I gain more knowledge and insight, I may modify my beliefs.  I make no prediction about whether they will move toward or away from the statements in The Origin of Man

Lastly, I recognize that these are conclusions I have reached through my own personal study and prayer.  Others may reach different conclusions. And I'm okay with that.  I refuse to get judgy about people disagreeing with me on this topic.  (although I do get judgy about people being judgy about it.  Yup, I'm flawed)

 

Interesting take, seems reasonable to me. @DoctorLemon brought up the fact that the biblical date for the fall of Adam coincides with the estimated date for the beginning of human civilization (within 500 years). Or in other words, around the same time that humans started working together and began to live under moral law. 

A few people have theorized that Adam and Eve were the first of God's spirit children who were placed in the mortal tabernacles that God created through the process of evolution, thus becoming the first parents of what we would call the "human race." Before them, there were no "humans" in the sense that none of God's spirit children had been placed in mortal tabernacles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

The main problem is you are mischaractetising me and my aims.

What mischaracterization? From what I've seen, no one has tried to characterize either you personally or your motivations. The only characterizations I have seen have been of your doctrines and how you promote them.

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

You dont know my story nor what I know in regards to the subject. In fact, I will bet you couldnt summarize in one small paragraph why I believe the way I do about heaven and why it matters so much to me.

What has this to do with ANYTHING? When it comes to what you're proclaiming as correct doctrinal understanding, who cares what "your story" is? It's utterly irrelevant. Whatever heartbreak or trauma or purported revelation you have received does not matter. What matters is what you hold up as doctrine and how you put it forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, zlllch said:

Dang that's too bad you lost your response. And sorry, I thought I was more clear about the quotes I was referring to. I was talking about the quotes I cited in my earlier post, not any of the ones you included.

Here's the one from the first edition of "Mormon Doctrine":

"It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization."

And here's the one it was replaced with in the second edition:

"The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature — whether political, philosophical, educational, economic social, fraternal, civic, or religious — which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God."

 

I'm not sure really how to approach this without coming off as an apologist.  I guess I can only just say that what I am about to say is exactly how I understand these things personally with some insight as to what occurred when Mormon Doctrine was  revised.

This particular quote was the hot button of the first edition.  That alone gives us a point from which to start our consideration.  Elder McConkie is a man after my own heart, looking for precision and being bold enough to think he had the right and ability to interpret scripture. The quote however took a firestorm of abuse from those in the church who reacted to it's incendiary content. 

If you look at the above quotation from the first edition and compare it to the 1 Nephi 13 verse  though, how does it stack up?

 

Quote

 

1 Nephi 13:5-6, 26-28

5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

 

The verse is discussing "A" church amongst "all other churches".  This particular church, while one of many is nonetheless the worst and biggest of them all and at least one reason is addressed in verse 26 for why this one is considered abominable.  That being they were in a position to alter scripture, either in teachings and perhaps later as they decided on what was to be considered scripture.  The issue is they altered the message some how and manipulated the scriptures for the gain of this abominable church.

In Elder McConkies first draft, I only see him naming "A" church among many that qualifies to meet the exact definition of the great and abominable church as defined in the scripture.  He is not trying to be insulting - his priority is to be bold and specific where he can do so and he has nailed it on the head - of all the churches that are not the church of God the Roman Catholic church has to shoulder the burden of being the one who persecuted the saints and who desperately wanted to withhold scripture from the people because they knew that the wealth they were making by the sales of indulgences and a dozen other things where not scripturally supported.

So from my perspective Elder McConkie and his definition are perfectly correct and accurate - a 5 foot level definition.

Next enter the revisionists...as stated earlier this is a hot button which only encourages complete and utter alarm in response from members of the Great and Abominable Church. Missionaries won't even have a chance to spread the Gospel with some nations for how disparaging and blunt is Elder McConkies commentary.  Elder Spencer W. Kimball was assigned by the first presidency to help Elder McConkie soften his tone and rewrite any identified definitions that were lacking in tact.  The goal was to put a better face on it.

They come up with the second quote which, removes the finger pointing to a particular institution and then lumps the ideology which is supported by 1 Nephi 13, into a less alarming and more generic, less accusatory effort.  This reduced most of the potential for friction and perhaps helped the LDS church in it's work of great importance of proselyting catholic and other churches.

So From my perspective the revisionists definition is perfectly correct and accurate. It is what the final product should have been for different reasons other than Elder McConkies requirement of precision in definition which now had to defer to the new 10,000 foot level understanding, which was far more appropriate for public dissemination. Both quotes are sustained in the verses in question but the different perspectives on tactful presentation were appropriate and correct and also match the contents of the verses in question.

I'll try to finish tomorrow..this holiday planning and increased activity of the season is messing with my free time... 

 

Edited by brlenox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Vort said:

I'm pretty sure she just got through saying that she wasn't. You might want to read things a bit more critically, Rob.

Lets see we have three witness that @Rob Osborn teachings appear to be contrary to the teachings of the church.  @zil was so kind as to post links while expressing frustration with ever getting a straight answer from him.  @Vort has done made the same case in his own words and in the very thread Rob has refused to clarify.  And then there was my recent post where he evades so hard that he complains I do not read but then has to pretend to ignore the post I just wrote.

While we can't change Rob's behavior I would hope that all the other posters would seriously consider the warning against him from the mouth of three witness (or more if others add their bits)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Amongst wolves and vultures.

Typical... knowing you can not show that your doctrine is in harmony with the Revealed word of God on the matter... you instead evade questions and attack the character of others.  Let also your own actions stand as a testament against your teachings as a fourth witness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Typical... knowing you can not show that your doctrine is in harmony with the Revealed word of God on the matter... you instead evade questions and attack the character of others.  Let also your own actions stand as a testament against your teachings as a fourth witness.

Attack the character of others eh? Go back and start reading a few pages back where you jump in and attack my character out of the blue. I was kind and you kept hammering me.

Im open to a civil conversation but Im not going to discuss this amongst a pack of wolves.

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