Page 3 of 4
Re: Officially no official position on natural selection
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:35 pm
by Moksha
KevinSim wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:16 pm
Moksha wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:16 pm
What about all the denials of evolution and the claim of a 7000-year-old earth?
All the denials of evolution and the claims of a 7000-year-old Earth are not official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I know what you're talking about. My parents, teachers, and peers raised me to believe that Darwin's theory was completely wrong, so when, as an undergraduate at the University of Washington I went to a Young Adult fireside on the topic of evolution, I expected to hear all that was wrong with Darwin's theory. Instead the speaker, the second counselor in the Seattle North Stake presidency, said the LDS Church didn't have an official position on that theory; and he went on to state that no serious scientist doubts that that theory is true; he himself clearly did not doubt it himself. That fireside was a critical point in my own personal evolution as a Latter-day Saint.
Okay, I believe you that the Church wishes to straddle the position from old-time believers at Salem to those entering the 20th Century and wishing to have BYU hold its head up high in the Rocky Mountain Conference. If no position at all is the closest we will ever get to the truth, then so be it.
Re: Officially no official position on natural selection
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:46 pm
by KevinSim
drumdude wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:04 pm
Temple changes. Doctrinal changes. Policies that are implemented in 2015 and reversed in 2018.
Rapid changes means it's built on sand? And being built on a rock means it never changes? If so, I'd rather be built on sand than be built on rock any day.
Re: Officially no official position on natural selection
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:48 pm
by KevinSim
Moksha wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:35 pm
Okay, I believe you that the Church wishes to straddle the position from old-time believers at Salem to those entering the 20th Century and wishing to have BYU hold its head up high in the Rocky Mountain Conference. If no position at all is the closest we will ever get to the truth, then so be it.
Well said, Moksha. That may very possibly be true.
Re: Officially no official position on natural selection
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:59 pm
by KevinSim
Moksha wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:24 pm
Some things we covet not to discuss in detail. Think sacred, not secret!
Why bring it up in the first place then, Moksha? I remember in high-school my Language Arts teacher asking what I thought of a tape she had. It said that Latter-day Saint bishops had sex in LDS temples with new brides as part of the ceremony. At the time I'd never been through the endowment ceremony so there was a certain amount of shock there. But since then I've realized that anyone can claim that
anything happens in the endowment and sealing ceremonies, and the claims will have a certain amount of traction because devout Latter-day Saints don't talk about what actually happens there. Is that what nude clogging is, Moksha? A claim that you're confident my temple covenants won't let me refute?
Re: Officially no official position on natural selection
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:14 pm
by drumdude
KevinSim wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:46 pm
drumdude wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:04 pm
Temple changes. Doctrinal changes. Policies that are implemented in 2015 and reversed in 2018.
Rapid changes means it's built on sand? And being built on a rock means it never changes? If so, I'd rather be built on sand than be built on rock any day.
There's no distinguishable difference between this church being led by God and one led by fraudsters. Other churches don't claim to have prophets, seers, and revelators at the helm. What does prophesy mean? What does seeing mean? What revelation guided the mistaken 2015 policy?
Re: Officially no official position on natural selection
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:21 pm
by KevinSim
drumdude wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:14 pm
What revelation guided the mistaken 2015 policy?
There's an expression that I think is appropriate as a response to your question. God knows.
Re: Officially no official position on natural selection
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:32 pm
by Moksha
KevinSim wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:59 pm
Why bring it up in the first place then, Moksha?
The secret of the clogging shall remain inviolate. Just reflect on why learning to clog and clogging remains such a popular activity at BYU. Each jiggle brings us closer to ownership of a planet and a chance to create our own rituals, but for now, mums the word. Pretend we don't teach it anymore.
Re: Officially no official position on natural selection
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:49 pm
by drumdude
KevinSim wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:21 pm
drumdude wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:14 pm
What revelation guided the mistaken 2015 policy?
There's an expression that I think is appropriate as a response to your question. God knows.
Again, indistinguishable from a fraud. What use are your powers of prophesy and seeing if you don't use them?
We should probably be worried Rusty is masturbating and not worthy to have them.
Re: Officially no official position on natural selection
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:16 am
by Rivendale
Moksha wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:32 pm
KevinSim wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:59 pm
Why bring it up in the first place then, Moksha?
The secret of the clogging shall remain inviolate. Just reflect on why learning to clog and clogging remains such a popular activity at BYU. Each jiggle brings us closer to ownership of a planet and a chance to create our own rituals, but for now, mums the word. Pretend we don't teach it anymore.
That secret is so secret that the secret book refused to publish that secret.
Re: Officially no official position on natural selection
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:10 am
by Doctor CamNC4Me
KevinSim wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:16 pm
Moksha wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:16 pm
What about all the denials of evolution and the claim of a 7000-year-old earth?
All the denials of evolution and the claims of a 7000-year-old Earth are not official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I know what you're talking about. My parents, teachers, and peers raised me to believe that Darwin's theory was completely wrong, so when, as an undergraduate at the University of Washington I went to a Young Adult fireside on the topic of evolution, I expected to hear all that was wrong with Darwin's theory. Instead the speaker, the second counselor in the Seattle North Stake presidency, said the LDS Church didn't have an official position on that theory; and he went on to state that no serious scientist doubts that that theory is true; he himself clearly did not doubt it himself. That fireside was a critical point in my own personal evolution as a Latter-day Saint.
1909 official statement First Presidency.
- Doc