Adam and Eve and Evolution

[Traveler]

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Wow, where you getting that information? Thats silly. Under your theory all of my children should look just like me in every exact detail.

 

No - I believe in evolution - without evolution you children would be clones of you and your wife.  It is your theory that there is no evolution that has major problems with reality for the reasons you are suggesting.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

No - I believe in evolution - without evolution you children would be clones of you and your wife.  It is your theory that there is no evolution that has major problems with reality for the reasons you are suggesting.

 

The Traveler

You shoukd know that when I say "evolution" in the context of this forum I am meaning massive changes across species lines, like from a whale to a human. I believe in variances within species over time. Theres no evidence that those varriences are the cause for a whale evolving into a human

[MrShorty]

18 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thats interesting because I have spent a lot of time in Utah looking in awe at the geology and cannot get over the facts and testimony I see everywhere of a catastrophic flood. There is nothing on this earth right now that is duplicating the type and extent of the sedimentary layers we see in geologic column. Its so obvious that there was a global flood and then a massive series of uplifts, earthquakes and volcanic activity that now litters the continents. 

As with revealed scripture, isn't it interesting how differently people can read, understand, and interpret the "Book of Nature"?

[Rob Osborn]

17 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As with revealed scripture, isn't it interesting how differently people can read, understand, and interpret the "Book of Nature"?

Modern science is so blind on so many things its truly unbelievable.

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You shoukd know that when I say "evolution" in the context of this forum I am meaning massive changes across species lines, like from a whale to a human. I believe in variances within species over time. Theres no evidence that those varriences are the cause for a whale evolving into a human

Evolution means change.  When you say you do not believe in evolution - I thought you knew what you were talking about.  It can be difficult when you say one thing and mean something else.  For example, when you say "No Evidence" and someone takes you at your word - but they have encountered evidence that all life has a single design characteristics - They may think you do not know what you are talking about.  As an engineer, I create many designs that are custom for my customers circumstance.  I take a great deal of what I learn from one project and apply it to another – that is also a “kind” of evolution. 

When someone refuses to consider evolution as a possible means of creation – I am left to wonder if they have any idea what they are implying.  Mostly I try to help them understand the principles of evolution better – but there are times I encounter someone with such great prejudice – that it is impossible to have a rational conversation.  Yet I do try – and usually get criticized for being condescending.   But it is my believe that anyone that digs beneath the surface if things will encounter the same “truths” and come to the same conclusions I have.  My efforts are not to argue my points of logic – I am just trying to get people to look a little deeper and consider things they likely have missed.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Evolution means change.  When you say you do not believe in evolution - I thought you knew what you were talking about.  It can be difficult when you say one thing and mean something else.  For example, when you say "No Evidence" and someone takes you at your word - but they have encountered evidence that all life has a single design characteristics - They may think you do not know what you are talking about.  As an engineer, I create many designs that are custom for my customers circumstance.  I take a great deal of what I learn from one project and apply it to another – that is also a “kind” of evolution. 

When someone refuses to consider evolution as a possible means of creation – I am left to wonder if they have any idea what they are implying.  Mostly I try to help them understand the principles of evolution better – but there are times I encounter someone with such great prejudice – that it is impossible to have a rational conversation.  Yet I do try – and usually get criticized for being condescending.   But it is my believe that anyone that digs beneath the surface if things will encounter the same “truths” and come to the same conclusions I have.  My efforts are not to argue my points of logic – I am just trying to get people to look a little deeper and consider things they likely have missed.

 

The Traveler

Ive studied it for twenty years and the more I study the firmer my faith that God absolutely didnt use evolution to create mankind. In fact, the more I study the more I am in bewilderment on how man can be so easily tricked into false beliefs.

[Traveler]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Ive studied it for twenty years and the more I study the firmer my faith that God absolutely didnt use evolution to create mankind. In fact, the more I study the more I am in bewilderment on how man can be so easily tricked into false beliefs.

So G-d was not involved in the creation of your children because you have proved that they are perfect clones of you??? 

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

So G-d was not involved in the creation of your children because you have proved that they are perfect clones of you??? 

 

The Traveler

We are the literal physical descendants of God. Hows that for involvement?

[Guest Godless]

27 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As with revealed scripture, isn't it interesting how differently people can read, understand, and interpret the "Book of Nature"?

Indeed. I look at the natural wonders of the world and am struck in awe of the vast scope and history of our planet's existence, all of the stories it has to tell from millions of years before our ancestors began to stand upright. I can't imagine trying to cram all of that into a 7,000 year span. Heck, anthropologists are in near universal agreement that human civilization is older than that, to say nothing of pre-civilized homids and the species that preceded us. I believe that books of scripture and books of science can coexist peacefully, so long as there's an understanding that one cannot presume to tread upon the other. I wouldn't use a science book to try to explain topics of the spirit, so why some people feel they can use scripture to explain the natural world is beyond me. And like I said, I personally believe that the idea of God is far more enhanced and majestic in the light of our scientific knowledge and disovery. I believe that to take that away from him is to cheapen his role in our world and its creation. 

One last thought, then I'm probably done with this thread (not making any promises though). Mormons believe in the possibility of eventual exaltation. I'm imagining a scenario where celestial beings are learning how to be gods. Students are instructed to turn to chapter 1 in the book of creation, entitled "The Big Bang". I joke, but everything I remember from my days as an active member suggests that Mormons don't believe that learning ends with the Judgement. There are principles, both of nature and of the spirit, that will be taught as you journey into eternity. Entertaining for a moment the idea that Moses did in fact see God, the universe, and the entire scope of creation, I stand with those who say that it was not prudent for him to pass along the vast astrophysicological secrets of the cosmos to the nomadic hoard of Israel. I'd imagine that spiritual lessons given directly from on high are far more important in this life than scientific ones. And maybe, just maybe, your god had knowledge that we would someday start to piece together those great cosmic secrets on our own. And if you're right about the existence of God and what the afterlife has in store for you, then I'd imagine there's a vast wealth of scientific knowledge waiting for you as begin working towards building worlds of your own. Just something to think about. 

[Anddenex]

16 hours ago, Traveler said:

The problem of no death before Adam.  I will only provide half of the argument by describing “Mitosis”.  Mitosis is a process that when a cell divides – it does so by creating two clone cells of the initial parent cell.  But there is a small replication error even in clone cells such that each cell is slightly different from each other and thus the clones are slightly different from the parent.

The Bible tells us that fruit trees produced fruit and grass produced seeds – this means that even before there were any animal species there was death of parent cells in producing clone children cells.  The process of evolution is testified of in scripture.  That there were seeds means that there was evolution.

 

The Traveler

Evolution as pertaining to "change" sure; although, this is over simplifying the reality. Evolution pertaining to a sea void of life, life begins, life then multiplies into many different species by which these species become (change over long periods of time) into something other than their parent (their kind) is not testified of in the Bible.

Adam and Eve were created in an immortal state -- no death -- and according to the Book of Mormon in this state they would not have had any children, "And they would have had no children."

This oversimplified example of "evolution" is similar to what scientists are now doing with "Climate Change" (aka global warming). You (general) must be really naive to deny "climate change" as our climate "changes" everyday. The mere fact we have seasons tells us that our climate changes. One doesn't need to believe in "global warming" to accept climate change. I can fully believe in "climate change" (accepting its evidences in seasons) without accepting a concept within climate change.

The same for "evolution." We can accept the "change" that occurs from parent to offspring within kind. The whole idea of our progression from spirit bodies to glorified immortal bodies is evolution -- change. This does not mean a person must accept the theory of organic evolution that explains life began in the sea, multiple variants of life evolved, and then somehow a fish became something other than a fish, which ultimately became mammals, which ultimately became humans (obviously a condensed version for the pedantics in this thread).

The Bible does not testify of this type of evolution, especially with regard to Adam and Eve. The Bible testifies of the opposite, as Adam was first man, and Eve would have been first woman. So, let's be a little more clear when speaking with a broad brush of how the scriptures testify of evolution. The Bible definitely testifies of "evolution" regarding life creating life after its own "kind." Nothing more.

Edited December 27, 2017 by Anddenex
added (general) to "You"

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

The earth itself has a 7,000 year of its existence as itself relates to time. Not sure where you are getting this billions of years shoved into a 7,000 year period. Its definitely not fitting into the scriptures.

I will ask you to stop with the red herring. It's bad faith and will shut down this conversation quickly, especially in light of your understanding the verse to refer to the "earth's actions", which is definitely not fitting into the scriptures. Is that your goal?

The reckoning of time -- man's time (D&C 130: 4-5) -- of 7,000 years has to do not with earth's reckoning (whatever that might be) but with the years that Adam and his posterity are on the earth to reckon and receive God's will, mysteries, and works, and it proceeds through the seven seals beginning with Adam and the loosening of the first seal. Before that, there was no man with such reckoning, whether from the human perspective or in relation to the 7,000 year economy. Verse D&C 77:6 does not speak to what happened on the earth between the Fall and the opening of the first seal. This is why you cannot use the Flood to counter the idea that evolution ever occurred. You're using the wrong tool for your aims.

Edited December 27, 2017 by CV75

[Rob Osborn]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I will ask you to stop with the red herring. It's bad faith and will shut down this conversation quickly, especially in light of your understanding the verse to refer to the "earth's actions", which is definitely not fitting into the scriptures. Is that your goal?

The reckoning of time -- man's time (D&C 130: 4-5) -- of 7,000 years has to do not with earth's reckoning (whatever that might be) but with the years that Adam and his posterity are on the earth to reckon and receive God's will, mysteries, and works, and it proceeds through the seven seals beginning with Adam and the loosening of the first seal. Before that, there was no man with such reckoning, whether from the human perspective or in relation to the 7,000 year economy. Verse D&C 77:6 does not speak to what happened on the earth between the Fall and the opening of the first seal. This is why you cannot use the Flood to counter the idea that evolution ever occurred. You're using the wrong tool for your aims.

The scriptures are clear that there was no death before the fall. All the creatures God had put forth on the earth were immortal. From that time when Adam fell and introduced death and time to the earth it has been roughly 6,000 years. There just isnt room for billions of years of death and time shoehorned in there somehow.

[Guest Godless]

44 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This oversimplified example of "evolution" is similar to what scientists are now doing with "Climate Change" (aka global warming). You (general) must be really naive to deny "climate change" as our climate "changes" everyday. The mere fact we have seasons tells us that our climate changes. One doesn't need to believe in "global warming" to accept climate change. I can fully believe in "climate change" (accepting its evidences in seasons) without accepting a concept within climate change.

The weather changes every day. Climate change takes much longer. Weather is measured in days and seasons. Climate is measured in years, decades, and even centuries. Not trying to open a new can of worms in an already lively discussion, just trying to clear up a very common and frustrating misconception about climate. 

 

[Traveler]

52 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Evolution as pertaining to "change" sure; although, this is over simplifying the reality. Evolution pertaining to a sea void of life, life begins, life then multiplies into many different species by which these species become (change over long periods of time) into something other than their parent (their kind) is not testified of in the Bible.

Adam and Eve were created in an immortal state -- no death -- and according to the Book of Mormon in this state they would not have had any children, "And they would have had no children."

This oversimplified example of "evolution" is similar to what scientists are now doing with "Climate Change" (aka global warming). You must be really naive to deny "climate change" as our climate "changes" everyday. The mere fact we have seasons tells us that our climate changes. One doesn't need to believe in "global warming" to accept climate change. I can fully believe in "climate change" (accepting its evidences in seasons) without accepting a concept within climate change.

The same for "evolution." We can accept the "change" that occurs from parent to offspring within kind. The whole idea of our progression from spirit bodies to glorified immortal bodies is evolution -- change. This does not mean a person must accept the theory of organic evolution that explains life began in the sea, multiple variants of life evolved, and then somehow a fish became something other than a fish, which ultimately became mammals, which ultimately became humans (obviously a condensed version for the pedantics in this thread).

The Bible does not testify of this type of evolution, especially with regard to Adam and Eve. The Bible testifies of the opposite, as Adam was first man, and Eve would have been first woman. So, let's be a little more clear when speaking with a broad brush of how the scriptures testify of evolution. The Bible definitely testifies of "evolution" regarding life creating life after its own "kind." Nothing more.

 

I believe that the Bible testifies concerning the Plan of Salvation.  Scientifically the Bible does not even count correctly (by modern understanding) Example, as per how long between the death of Jesus and his resurrection.  (Friday evening to early Sunday morning is not even two full days - let alone 3).  The scriptures talk of “kind” but I believe it is improper to think that species is implied by the word kind.  I would point out that in ancient Hebrew the “flesh” of all animals was considered a different “kind” than human flesh (kind).  How do we know what “kind” means – could it mean the entire animal kingdom is a single kind or type?  Are mammals what was meant by kind?  But scientifically homo sapiens are mammals.  The scriptures say Adam was the first man – but in ancient Hebrew “fist” meant the most noble not the oldest.  For example, Nephi would be the “First Born” of Lehi and the keeper of the birth right.

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

11 minutes ago, Godless said:

The weather changes every day. Climate change takes much longer. Weather is measured in days and seasons. Climate is measured in years, decades, and even centuries. Not trying to open a new can of worms in an already lively discussion, just trying to clear up a very common and frustrating misconception about climate. 

 

Or within a year, "Sometimes the climate of a place is described with graphs like this. This graph shows how temperature usually changes over a year for a particular place on Earth." (emphasis added)

So it doesn't change what was specified. We would just change it to say the climate can change within any given year for any particular place on Earth.... Thank you for the clarification though.

Edited December 27, 2017 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I believe that the Bible testifies concerning the Plan of Salvation.  Scientifically the Bible does not even count correctly (by modern understanding) Example, as per how long between the death of Jesus and his resurrection.  (Friday evening to early Sunday morning is not even two full days - let alone 3).  The scriptures talk of “kind” but I believe it is improper to think that species is implied by the word kind.  I would point out that in ancient Hebrew the “flesh” of all animals was considered a different “kind” than human flesh (kind).  How do we know what “kind” means – could it mean the entire animal kingdom is a single kind or type?  Are mammals what was meant by kind?  But scientifically homo sapiens are mammals.  The scriptures say Adam was the first man – but in ancient Hebrew “fist” meant the most noble not the oldest.  For example, Nephi would be the “First Born” of Lehi and the keeper of the birth right.

 

The Traveler

I could not agree more with the first sentence that the Bible testifies of the Plan of Salvation. I understand, in this case, that you believe it is improper to think "species" is implied by the word kind, and if "kind" means more than what it appears to mean then it means more.

However, the implied meaning of kind appears to be given in scripture in these verses from Genesis:

Quote

 

20. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

Emphasis added to make point. The fowl is specifically stating that they multiply after their kind. The waters clearly speak of their own kind. The beast after their kind, and then the kicker, "cattle after their kind."

What do you think is meant by the "cattle after his kind" and the "fowl after his kind"? The cattle is a mammal and we are specifically told that cattle multiplies after its kind. This isn't a general statement of "all" mammals as kind, but specific to a particular mammal - his kind.

I don't see how it is improper to see that "cattle" multiplied and brought forth young after their kind -- cattle is the kind. A horse after his kind. The whales and fish of the sea after their kind. A fish isn't a mammal, and yet, in the theory of evolution some sort of fish is the "grandpa" of the mammals on land, which is not its kind. Take this diagram for example, often something similar to evolution:

 

Notice the "kind" then in this picture produced not just "mammals" (horse as the example) but the "kind" also produced amphibians, reptiles, fish, and others. So, with evolution the "kind" becomes much more broad then simply "mammals" as mammals and reptiles are not the same "kind," but the diagram is saying they all share a common ancestor not of their kind.

[Rob Osborn]

http://josephsmithfoundation.org/faqs/28-young-earth-do-the-revelations-teach-a-7000-year-temporal-existence-of-the-earth-can-the-scriptures-and-writings-of-the-presidents-of-the-church-be-harmonized-with-the-scientific-principle-of-u/

This is a must read.

[zlllch]

6 hours ago, brlenox said:

In my mind they are all correct

I'm going to respond to you in two separate posts, because I see two parts to your argument. One is based on the scriptures and the manner of prophecy among the Jews, and the other is based on the supposed infallibility of prophets and apostles. This post will be focused on prophets and apostles. 

You said you're impossible to offend, so I'm going to be blunt. You are wrong. Prophets and apostles are not all correct. They are not always right. They are not even nearly always right. They are only right when they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. Since you won't accept any of my words, I'll quote their own words to prove it. Argue against them if you will, but remember you are arguing against the very people who you think are always right.

First, let's read this scripture:

Quote

Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. (2 Nephi 28:31)

What are prophets and apostles? Are they not men? They are men, just like you and me. King Benjamin agrees: "And I, even I, whom ye call your king, am no better than ye yourselves are; for I am also of the dust." (Mosiah 2:26) Since prophets are men, the above scripture says we are cursed if we put our trust in their precepts, unless they are given by the power of the Holy Ghost. So unless we want to be cursed, we better make sure their precepts really are inspired by God. Many of them certainly are. But is every word spoken by a prophet or apostle divinely inspired? Harold B. Lee sure doesn't think so:

Quote

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator––please note that one exception––you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea!” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard”––it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it. -- Harold B. Lee

Quote

There have been times when even the President of the Church has not been moved upon by the Holy Ghost. There is, I suppose you’d say, a classic story of Brigham Young in the time when Johnston’s army was on the move. The Saints were all inflamed, and President Young had his feelings whetted to fighting pitch. He stood up in the morning session of general conference and preached a sermon vibrant with defiance at the approaching army, declaring an intention to oppose them and drive them back. In the afternoon he rose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address the tempo of which was the exact opposite of the morning sermon. -- Harold B. Lee

Quote

With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances. Joseph Smith recorded that he “visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet’; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.” (Teachings, p. 278.) Thus the opinions and views even of prophets may contain error unless those opinions and views are inspired by the Spirit. -- Harold B. Lee

So how then can we tell when General Authorities are move upon by the Spirit? Only by listening to that same Spirit which inspired their words.

Quote

We must all learn to depend upon God and upon Him alone. Why, the very man upon whom we think we can rely with unbounded confidence, and trust with all we possess, may disappoint us sometimes, but trust in God and He never fails. The men who hold the Priesthood are but mortal men; they are fallible men. … No human being that ever trod this earth was free from sin, excepting the Son of God. -- George Q. Cannon

When we blindly accept anything and everything a General Authority says, we are putting our trust in the arm of flesh. We should love and support them, but our trust must be placed "upon God and upon Him alone." But how do we trust in God alone? Through the Spirit! When the words of the General Authorities are inspired by the Spirit, the Spirit confirms the truthfulness of those words to us. If their words are not inspired, we receive no such confirmation. 

Quote

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.” (D&C 50:21-22)

By the Spirit, we can "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." By the Spirit, we can also know when their words were not inspired by the Spirit of truth. 

Quote

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; 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” (Ether 12:6)

Why would God make their imperfections known unto us? "That [we] may learn to be more wise than [they] have been." And when we are made aware of their imperfections, we are commanded not to condemn them for it. We are commanded not to judge them for their mistakes. I do not judge or condemn any prophet or apostle who has spoken imperfectly, but I certainly don't try to justify their words. I don't try to convince myself that their words are true, because the Spirit has already made it plain to me that they aren't. They were wrong, and that's ok because they're just men, and men make mistakes. I still love and support them and believe that they are truly called of God. 

6 hours ago, brlenox said:

It is interesting to me that you found yourself a superior judge of scripture interpretation over the individual who is arguable the greatest theologian of this dispensation, second only to Joseph Smith. To claim that Elder McConkie did not “accurately reflect what is contained in the scriptures” is actually enough to render your entire response of limited objective value. That you consider yourself a better judge of scriptural accuracy than Elder McConkie - I can’t even fathom such a comparison.

6 hours ago, brlenox said:

It has become popular in recent decades to undermine apostles and prophets, the modern day “stoning” of those chosen of the Lord.

I think you're making some untrue assumptions about my motives and my character. You assume that I think I'm smarter than the General Authorities. This is untrue. I'm also not trying to undermine their authority, or "stone" them. What I'm trying to do is understand their words through the power of the Holy Ghost. I don't think I'm "a better judge of scriptural accuracy than Elder McConkie," but I do think that the Holy Ghost is. So I'm trying to listen to the Spirit, and trust in God above all else. I trust in the Spirit far more than I trust in Bruce R. McConkie, although I love and support the man in his divine calling. I believe that the Spirit in this rare instance, has made known unto me one of his imperfections, and I cannot deny the Spirit. As I said earlier "above all else, I believe what I believe about the definition of 'the great and abominable church' not because of the statements of church leaders (although my beliefs are based on their statements), but because of the Spirit which confirms and testifies to me that what I believe is true." 

6 hours ago, brlenox said:

To tend to the selection of one that appeals to me means I am simply maintaining the status quo and wasting the opportunity to expand in knowledge.

Allow me to explain the process I follow when I hear something a prophet or apostle has said that doesn't sit right with me. First, I study the history and context of their statement. I try to gain a better understanding of why they said it, and what they meant by it. Often times the process stops here because my initial interpretation of their words was incorrect. It wasn't them that was wrong, it was me. However, if my interpretation was correct, I continue to ponder what was said. I study it out in my mind and judge the statement's compatibility with the rest of the Gospel. Is it in harmony with the scriptures, or the words of other prophets? I study the scriptures related to the statement and seek the words of other prophets and apostles on the subject. I then continue to ponder what I have studied, and I weigh the potentially errant statement against the scriptures and the words of other prophets and apostles. Then I come to a conclusion. And then I pray about it. In general, I follow the process outlined in this scripture:

Quote

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. (D&C 9:8)

When I pray, there is a very important principle I hearken to in order to get my answer. It is this:

Quote

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5)

I approach the Lord humbly in prayer, and tell him the conclusion I have come to. This conclusion is my own understanding. So that I don't "lean unto" it, I humbly admit to God that I could be completely wrong. Only then am I susceptible to the Spirit. If I pridefully assume that I was right, the Spirit can't get through to me and tell me I was wrong. I have learned so much from doing this. I have been wrong many times. Sometimes I pray, and I get no confirmation that my conclusion was right, and none that it was wrong (such is the case with evolution).

Quote

Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. (D&C 8:2)

Sometimes my answer comes in different ways than I expect. Sometimes it's a burning in my bosom, sometimes it's an inspired thought, or a logical impression that just makes sense. Sometimes my answer comes in further research, or in church. Sometimes God directly answers my question through the words of another person who had no way of knowing my question in the first place. Whatever the case, the answer always comes with peace. My mind is no longer troubled with the subject, because the Spirit has answered me and calmed my mind. This is how I approach the prophets and apostles, the scriptures, everything. This is how I learn through the miracle of personal revelation.

The reason I attempted to refute Bruce R. McConkie's statement using only the scriptures, is because I know that they are the precepts of God, and not the precepts of men. In my mind, the scriptures are always right, but the prophets and apostles (at least individually) aren't. In the words of General Authorities there is a sizable margin for error because they are not always "moved upon by the "Holy Ghost," but in the scriptures there is almost no margin for error. (I say almost because of this line from the introduction "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men.") The scriptures I provided in my previous post contradict Bruce R. McConkie's statement, but only if we agree that the definition for "church of the devil" is a static one. You make a good argument as to why the definition could possibly not be static, and I will respond to your argument in my next post.

As we continue this discussion, I would ask that we focus mainly on the scriptures themselves. I'm not going to be able to convince you of anything if you can't accept the possibility that Bruce R. McConkie could have been wrong. I would love for you to explain more about your understanding of the manner of prophecy among the Jews, and why the scriptures I cited could mean the Catholic Church in one instance, and something else in another. But if we keep getting held up on the idea that prophets and apostles can't be wrong, we aren't going to get anywhere.

Thank you for your time and for your civility. I know you're a good intelligent person, and I know you have good intentions regarding your approach towards prophets and apostles. But I think your priorities are misaligned. To me it seems as though you have elevated prophets and apostles to the level of God, in that you assume they are never wrong. You place more trust in them than should be placed in any man. That level of trust should only be placed in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. We must trust in them above all else, and in their servants only as far as they are moved upon by the Spirit. When we trust in God alone, we cannot be led astray. I'll leave you with this:

Quote

Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop; an apostle, or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place, they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him. Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men. Therefore, my brethren and sisters, seek after the Holy Spirit and His unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth. -- George Q. Cannon

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by zlllch

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The scriptures are clear that there was no death before the fall. All the creatures God had put forth on the earth were immortal. From that time when Adam fell and introduced death and time to the earth it has been roughly 6,000 years. There just isnt room for billions of years of death and time shoehorned in there somehow.

You evidently do not / cannot understand what I am explaining. I suggest you re-read my posts more carefully, and show where I am saying that there was no death before the Fall, and where I am saying that the creatures in Eden were not immortal. If you do understand, stop misrepresenting me for the sake of building a false argument.

You err in insisting that Adam’s partaking of the forbidden fruit, the resulting introduction of death and time to God’s creation, his and other life’s exit from Eden and their entrance into the fallen world were instantaneously simultaneous events. You err because D&C 77:6 and no other scripture say that they were. This is why your use of the Flood to disprove evolution is ineffectual, as evidenced by the kind of conversation you resort to.

Every world (spirit, paradisaical, telestial, millennial, celestial, etc.) are each ultimately patterned after the same template. My suggestion is that paradise died and was recreated in a fallen version through physical laws over billions of years, pretty much as science observes. It is similar to the dead and decomposed mortal body being recreated in an immortal version by the resurrection according to the laws of God, some sooner and some later (See Alma 40:8; not only do all not die at once, but not all are born at once, obviously, and likewise not are all resurrected at once—40:19-21… and so not all died in Eden or left Eden at once). Adam took his turn (first or last, "it mattereth not") out of Eden to touch down in this world, commencing the 7,000 year economy, allowing billions of years of nature to take her course beforehand.

[wenglund]

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The scriptures are clear that there was no death before the fall. 

So, prior to the fall there was no hair or finger and toe nails? 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

You evidently do not / cannot understand what I am explaining. I suggest you re-read my posts more carefully, and show where I am saying that there was no death before the Fall, and where I am saying that the creatures in Eden were not immortal. If you do understand, stop misrepresenting me for the sake of building a false argument.

You err in insisting that Adam’s partaking of the forbidden fruit, the resulting introduction of death and time to God’s creation, his and other life’s exit from Eden and their entrance into the fallen world were instantaneously simultaneous events. You err because D&C 77:6 and no other scripture say that they were. This is why your use of the Flood to disprove evolution is ineffectual, as evidenced by the kind of conversation you resort to.

Every world (spirit, paradisaical, telestial, millennial, celestial, etc.) are each ultimately patterned after the same template. My suggestion is that paradise died and was recreated in a fallen version through physical laws over billions of years, pretty much as science observes. It is similar to the dead and decomposed mortal body being recreated in an immortal version by the resurrection according to the laws of God, some sooner and some later (See Alma 40:8; not only do all not die at once, but not all are born at once, obviously, and likewise not are all resurrected at once—40:19-21… and so not all died in Eden or left Eden at once). Adam took his turn (first or last, "it mattereth not") out of Eden to touch down in this world, commencing the 7,000 year economy, allowing billions of years of nature to take her course beforehand.

There was no "billions of years" beforehand. Thats the whole point. Your billions of years would have to fit into the temporal age of the earth as "years" are specifically part of being temporal.

[Rob Osborn]

26 minutes ago, wenglund said:

So, prior to the fall there was no hair or finger and toe nails? 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Even God who is immortal has hair and nails.

[wenglund]

21 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Even God who is immortal has hair and nails.

But, presumably, death predated his immortality.  And, presumably, the death of the cells comprising his hair predated the death of his body,--though not a hair of his head was lost through the death of his body. 

So, I ask again, then, prior to the fall there was no hair or finger and toe nails?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

But, presumably, death predated his immortality.  And, presumably, the death of the cells comprising his hair predated the death of his body,--though not a hair of his head was lost through the death of his body. 

So, I ask again, then, prior to the fall there was no hair or finger and toe nails?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What? You would have to explain how its possible for God, who is immortal, to have hair then. If God is immortal and has hair then its logical that before the fall Adam would be immortal and have hair also.

[zlllch]

12 hours ago, brlenox said:

If this is not the Roman Catholic Church then please explain who it is.

I already did earlier, it's "the wicked." Maybe "the wicked" in this case were members of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean it's referring to the entire Catholic Church, or the church as an organization. I'll replace "that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots" with "the wicked" to illustrate my point. The interpretation makes perfect sense in this context.

Quote

And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel—and this remnant of whom I speak is the seed of thy father—wherefore, after I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles, and after the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by [the wicked], saith the Lamb—I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb. (1 Nephi 13:34)

11 hours ago, brlenox said:

However, your analysis also shows much lacking understanding of the great significance of types and shadows as means of illustrating their points.  It is best to let them be what they are as opposed to whittling them down to a single standard of interpretation.

This is a very interesting argument, and I agree with you about the nature of “types.” But is this really a “type?” Does it really at different times refer to the wicked, the Catholic Church, and non-LDS religions? Every scripture I have studied which uses the terms “great and abominable church,” “church of the devil,” “mother of harlots,” and “whore of all the earth,” seems to be referring to the same thing, and that is the wicked. Different “types” of wicked people, members of different religions, at different times and in different places, but always wicked people. Hence my definition that all these terms are symbols for the wicked. It is the only interpretation that is a suitable answer (at least in my understanding) for all the scriptures I have found. I've "whittled down" each scripture individually, and come to the same conclusion for all of them. Even the ones in 1 Nephi 13. At least to me, this symbol seems to have the same solid definition each time it is used, and that is: the wicked. Again, different wicked people each time, but always the wicked. Sometimes it's wicked members of one specific church, sometimes it's wicked members of all other churches, but I think it is always referring to the members, not to the churches themselves.

Quote

But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center. (D&C 10:56)

The above verse is one of a few that are listed in the Index to the Triple Combination under "Church of the Devil." Notice how God says he will disturb "they who do not fear me," and not the churches they have built up. This verse reinforces my claim that the "church of the devil" refers to people, not to their churches.

The only instances that I can find where another interpretation seems as though it might be suitable, are in 1 Nephi 13. Can you identify any other instances where the Catholic Church is potentially a suitable interpretation for the term’s usage? And can you identify any instances where all non-LDS religions (or any one specific non-LDS religion), might be suitable? Perhaps there are certain specific religions which are suitable, but I don't think it's our place to ascertain which ones, even if they do exist.

Quote

"Some Latter-day Saints have erred in believing that some specific denomination, to the exclusion of all others, has since the beginning of time been the great and abominable church. This is dangerous, for many will then want to know which it is, and an antagonistic relationship with that denomination will inevitably follow." (Stephen E. Robinson, Ensign, January 1988)

This is why I'm so reluctant to label any specific church (or all non-LDS churches) as the "church of the devil." I think this is why God commanded us to "contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil," and why we shouldn't try to identify the "church of the devil" as one specific church. What if we are wrong? Should we really go around contending against other churches because we think they are the "church of the devil?"

My argument hinges on a static definition for the "church of the devil." Solely for the sake of discussion, I will accept your argument that the definition is not static, although I disagree with it. So if you would be so kind as to list all of the specific instances where you think that the “church of the devil” could reasonably be interpreted as one specific church, or all non-LDS churches, we can discuss each of them individually. Thanks.