[Ciasiab]

Thank you all so much for your thoughtful replies. I read through all of them. I too have never been a Bednar fan, and didn’t think much of the assignment. Talks on talks never seem to go well, what was particularly interesting was that both my wife and I were assigned to speak on the same talk.

I ended up taking a lot of the advice here. I only had a bit more than 10 minutes to speak (thanks honey ), so in the delivered talk I don’t think that I quoted Bednar or referenced his talk at all. I did have about three quotes from Pres Uchtdorf. Everytime I thought of something great I wanted to include from a recent general conference, I looked it up and low and behold it came from Uchtdorf.

I focused my talk around the theme of Seeking Understanding (Proverbs 4:7). On how quick we are to judge one another as lazy, fat, stupid, heretics and sinners and we fail to truly understand them. I shared a couple of stories in that regard. Shared how Christ “[took] upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people” and how we through baptism have committed to do the same – to bear one another’s burdens.

I used gospeltangents suggestion with Lord is it I as well as Roy’s reference to Roman’s 14. I made sure to mention that I didn’t believe nor did I think the brethren think that people leave simply because they were offended (quoting Uchtdorf -“It’s not that simple”). Anyway I have never received more praise after a talk than this one so thanks for all the help everyone (including from the stake president who was in attendance)!

[Ciasiab]

Old-Timer wrote:

Nope, I’m talking about Isaiah – but Hosea is another good example.

Hmm… google is failing me then. I’d love to see a reference if you remember where it is. Thanks!

[Ciasiab]

Old-Timer wrote:

Isaiah fathered a child with a prostitute and claimed it was so he could name it as a sign to Israel.

Seriously?!

Are you sure you aren’t talking about Hosea who married a prostitute?

Quote:

The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.

[Ciasiab]

Old-Timer wrote:

Ciasiab,

There is no misapplication. When you read the entire statement very, very carefully for what it says and how it is phrased, what I have said is the only logical conclusion. I mean that seriously. The sentence I bolded says exactly what it says, and there is no other way to interpret it and be true to the actual words.

Every time “man” is used in the statement, it means “combination of mortal body and immortal spirit child of Heavenly Parents”. Thus, Adam being the first man means absolutely nothing except that he was the first unique creation that was a combination of mortal body and immortal spirit child of Heavenly Parents. He could have had parents of his mortal body and still be the first man. Evolution, therefore, is not inconsistent with that idea.

Ray,

I don’t disagree that it can be read that way. We will have to disagree that Joseph F Smith meant it that way. To me it is pretty clear when he says “It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’ (Moses 1: 34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race.” that he is allowing for evolution. To me it smacks too much as an apologetic attempt to harmonize all statements uttered by prophets to maintain some sense of infallibility (I know that this is not your intent nor your style). To me it’s just easier to say that he got it wrong on that one.

[Ciasiab]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

It might be my English but doesn’t human embryo or germ just refer to the sperm cells/eggs?

Yep – which means the statement says nothing in our theology prohibits the possibility that Adam’s physical body was conceived through sexual intercourse. It doesn’t say it happened that way, but it says our theology doesn’t exclude it.

I think this is a misapplication of this quote. The preceding paragraph in the statement says:

Quote:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was “the first man of all men” (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; and 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.

It is clearly stated that Adam was the first man on this earth and that he was the original human being. Now we can say that Adam’s father was not fully “human”, but I don’t think that is what Pres. Smith meant we he said it. I think it would be misreading Pres Smith greatly to say that he was allowing for the possibility that “Adam’s physical body was conceived through sexual intercourse.”

For an official statement you could try the Encyclopedia of Mormonism which quotes first presidency minutes as follows:

Quote:

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were

right when they said: “Adam is the primal parent of our race” [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

This too is quoted out of context though. During the late 20’s and early 30’s, Talmage, BH Roberts and Elder Joseph Fielding Smith had a row about the age of the earth and “Pre-adamites.” Basically BH Roberts and Elder Talmage proposed that there was a previous creation of “Pre-adamites” and Elder Smith disagreed. Both BH Roberts and Elder Talmage were opposed to organic evolution.

As a staunch evolutionist and as a church member, I have looked for quotes that woulds support the position you are interested in and there are none from official sources. The ensign is still publishing articles on a global flood (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng). Elder Nelson (a medical doctor) is on the record in several places making statements against evolution. Elder Packer has the following to say:

Quote:

When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above.

If you want something to support evolution you have to be a little more subtle. You could point to BYU’s teaching of evolution with the full knowledge of the board of trustees (which includes the first presidency) (see here for a counter point http://ndbf.blogspot.com/2008/05/byu-evolution-courses.html).

David O McKay was the closest thing we have to a supporter of the theory of evolutionary. His statements appear only in unofficial publications venues though:

At a funeral

Quote:

Among the generalizations of science, evolution holds foremost place. It claims: ‘Man is a creature of development; that he has come up through uncounted ages from an origin that is lowly.’ Why this vast expenditure of time and pain and blood? Why should he come so far if he is destined to go no farther? A creature which has traveled such distances, and fought such battles and won such victories deserves, one is compelled to say, to conquer death and rob the grave of its victory. Darwin said…’Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued, slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful.

A little more officially at BYU (emphasis added):

Quote:

There is a perpetual design permeating all purposes of creation. On this thought, science again leads a student up to a certain point and sometimes leaves him with his soul unanchored…For example, evolution’s beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. Inevitably, a teacher who denies divine agency in creation, who insists there is no intelligent purpose in it, will impress the student with the thought that all may be chance. I say, that no youth should be so led without a counterbalancing thought … God is at the helm. God is the Creator of the earth. He is the Father of our souls and spirits. No question about it. You have your testimony—if you haven’t you shouldn’t be on the faculty—that God lives and Jesus is the Christ, and the purpose of creation is theirs.

You might also be interested in the some interplay between Elder Reuben Clark and Elder Joseph Fielding Smith here: http://signaturebooks.com/2010/11/excerpts-elder-statesman/ (search for organic evolution).

[Ciasiab]

Brian Hales also runs a website that has a more apologetic slant:

http://josephsmithspolygamy.com/

http://josephsmithspolygamy.com/JSWives/JSWivesList02.html

[Ciasiab]

Old-Timer wrote:

To me, that is the heart and soul of the post – that instead of blaming God for things like this I need to pick up a shovel and dig.

Honestly, that has been weighing on me a lot lately – and I am thinking a lot about what I can do more in that regard. I think I do some of that here, but I am trying to figure out how to do more of it professionally – at the “career” level. I can’t shake the feeling that there’s something out there for me to do, and this post brought that feeling into focus a little bit more.

I’m not living in the trenches as much as I feel I need to be.

I feel that tug too. I tell myself that I need to wait until the kids are older (4 under age 9), but maybe it’s a cop out. For now I try to serve them and as they grow I will broaden more and more outward. I don’t post here much, but I do read and FWIW, I think you are uniquely talented for this type of ministry Ray.

[Ciasiab]

SamBee wrote:

Bruce in Montana wrote:

Surely not Sam, according to the government…it was the lack of gun control and China has plenty of that.

The guy in China killed a similar number of children, with a knife. 😯 Which is worse than a gun IMHO, since killing with a gun provides a metaphorical as well as physical distance perhaps… (Don’t quote me on that please… could be taken the wrong way.)

I really hate to continue to derail the thread, but I can’t let that go. No one died in the China massacre: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/

Back to thread topic:

Quote:

God rarely offers explanation in scripture for why things occur. Explanations usually come from us, trying to comfort ourselves out of fear for our loved ones and fear to face what we’ve become as a species, the darkness that lies within us. God gets down in the dirt with a shovel and a determination to do what can be done, and he does it forever. Eventually he gets a body that can’t get sick and die. Eventually he lives with his family forever. But the work that they do together and the love that they radiate –trying to persuade us to be better, love a little more deeply, help those in need–is all there is and all there ever will be.

To me all explanations of the depth of grief and sorrow that some (most? all?) experience in this life are unexplainable. All I can try and do is love a little more deeply, reach out a little more to those in need, and look a little harder for opportunities to serve my fellow man.

[Ciasiab]

Nephite wrote:

Brian Johnston wrote:

Josh Weed and Eldon Kartchner both have/had successful heterosexual relationships as gay men in the LDS Church. Both of them said they would not recommend it to anyone else as a solution. They both expressed strong opinions about not using their personal life examples as a template for everyone else with the same issues.

They are examples, nevertheless.

I believe that it is fine to quote examples, and as Josh has pointed out, being in a homosexual relationship currently prevents you from having biological children together. I think if you do this pointing out then you must also point out all the spectacular failures of people who tried to be something they were not and all the suffering that resulted – including suicide. In my opinion Josh says it best. After explaining himself, he answers the question of “Should all gay people who are LDS or Christian choose to marry people of the opposite gender?” In part he says:

Quote:

If you know and love somebody who is gay and LDS (or Christian), your job is to love and nothing more. Let go of your impulse to correct them or control them or propel them down the path you think is right for them. Do what you need to do to move past that impulse. Do not condemn the choices your loved one makes. Love. Only love. Show your love in word and deed. Embrace them, both literally and figuratively. I promise they need it—and they need to feel like they can figure out this part of themselves in a safe way without ridicule and judgment. It’s what Christ would do. It’s what your loved one needs. Accept them. Love them. Genuinely and totally.

I think this is true on so many levels and I think it is this love that allowed Josh to come out to his parents as a teenager, plot his own course and be responsible for his own destiny.

[Ciasiab]

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I would love a source for the limited garment wearing practices of the early saints.

[Ciasiab]

I don’t know what the answer is. On the one hand I see so much good come the church – its expansive and inclusive view of the heavens, it’s strong emphasis on helping your neighbor and many many positives. On the other hand I see so many man made “doctrines” – many of which you have outlined. How can God let so many incorrect teachings exist in a divinely led church. Many of these teachings do real harm to our brothers and sisters. For me, I find some solace from the parable of the Olive tree:

 

Quote:

65 And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof; and ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard.

66 For it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard; wherefore ye shall clear away the bad according as the good shall grow, that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until the good shall overcome the bad, and the bad be hewn down and cast into the fire, that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard; and thus will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard.

The implication seems to be that the Lord will allow bitter fruit in the church that will be cleared away only as fast as the tree can bear. God appears to accept us and work with us where we are, and while we attempt to improve ourselves, we can only go so fast. I don’t know that this will help you, but it helped me come to terms with some of this. 

[Ciasiab]

DBMormon wrote:

I would ask us to name something Science proves that Mormonism takes a firm opposite stand on in which there is no way to accept science and to also still have faith in the church? I can think of none. As Ray pointed out Church Leaders even disagree on the tough issues and church doctrine doesn’t encompass them.

There are many many things the church teaches that Science disproves. That said, I think you can still have “faith in the church” despite not believing many things that Mormonism takes a firm opposition to, so maybe we have no disagreement?

One easy example is the global flood of Noah (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/flood-at-noahs-time?lang=eng). From lds.org:

Quote:

During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing (1 Pet. 3:20–21).

I don’t think you could find any official publication of the church that does not teach a global flood. FAIR concedes:

Quote:

Without a doubt, the flood is always treated as a global event as it is taught by Church leaders. This is not likely to ever change, since it is based directly upon a straightforward reading of the scriptures. The challenge comes to those who examine scientific data showing the diversity of plant and animal life, and the millennia required to achieve such diversity. The story of a global deluge then appears to be at complete odds with scientific data, which may encourage some not only to doubt the scriptures, but to even question the existence of God. Therefore, can one believe that the Flood of Noah may have been of limited scope, yet still accept what is taught in Church? This article examines the scriptures from the point of view of the prophets who wrote the story of the Flood in order to answer this question.

At the same time, I am sure that well over 99% of the geologists and geneticists (including those that teach at BYU) reject a global flood. FAIR summarizes the scientific data well:

Quote:

Modern scientific knowledge regarding the diversity of species, language and evidence of continuous human habitation does not support the Biblical story that a global flood wiped out most life as recently as 4,400 years ago.

While one can remain a member in good standing and believe in evolution, an old earth, a non global flood, it would be wrong to say that the church supports or is even neutral on these things.

[Ciasiab]

You can also watch the segment (its segment 3) here: http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/22/13400307-mormons-stash-away-for-social-safety-net?lite” class=”bbcode_url”>http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/22/13400307-mormons-stash-away-for-social-safety-net?lite

[Ciasiab]

DBMormon wrote:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng&media=video

good example of how to handle these.

That was awesome. It was almost as if Elder McKonkie knew they were coming.

[Ciasiab]

One of the things that helped me most was Terryl Given’s interview on Mormon Stories. His testimony on mormon scholars testify http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1904/terryl-l-givens” class=”bbcode_url”>http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1904/terryl-l-givens really speaks to my soul. In part he says:

Quote:

In the course of my spiritual pilgrimage, my innate capacity for doubt led me to the insight that faith is a choice. That the call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, for only in these conditions of equilibrium and balance, equally “enticed by the one or the other,” is my heart truly free to choose belief or cynicism, faith or faithlessness. Under these conditions, what I choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who I am and what I love. I choose to affirm that truthfulness of the Restored Gospel for five principal reasons.

1. Joseph Smith revealed the God I am most irresistibly drawn to worship.

2. He gave the only account of moral agency that to my mind can justify the horrific costs of our mortal probation.

3. He provided a story of the soul’s origin and destiny that resonates with the truth and the appeal of cosmic poetry.

4. The fruits of the gospel are real and discernible.

5. The restoration is generous in its embrace.

I’ve come to appreciate that faith really is a choice. I don’t know that Gospel is true, but I do know that having lived the precepts of the gospel has blessed my life. I don’t know that the book of Mormon is an accurate representation of real people, but I find meaning in it’s pages. Like Givens I am drawn to a God who allows us to become as he is, weeps with us, and is waiting to give us all that we are willing to receive. My favorite hymn is Our Savior’s Love, in which the second verse states:

Quote:

The Spirit, voice

Of goodness, whispers to our hearts

A better choice

Than evil’s anguished cries.

Loud may the sound

Of hope ring till all doubt departs,

And we are bound

To him by loving ties.

I cling to that sound of hope and I don’t think that doubt will leave me in this life. So yes I “choose to live in a world where God speaks to man.”

Quote:

How do you determine the correct course in which to put your faith when the evidence points that it may not be true

For me it doesn’t matter. I reject many things the church teaches that are probably not true (young earth, global flood, tea and coffee are bad, committed homosexual partnerships pose a threat to marriage etc.). Other things are harder – Joseph’s Smith’s behavior at times and the truthfulness of the book of Mormon. If you stare long enough, you’ll find pious fraud likely makes up most of the bible. To me it doesn’t matter. Maybe it’s not true, but it provides joy and meaning in my life so I live as if it was. If I come across something that does not pass the “men are that they might have joy” test I reject that thing.

Just my two cents and sorry if it makes no sense.

[Author]

Posts