Can Mormons Believe in Evolution? (Click here for the answer

[_mentalgymnast]

[color=darkred]Can Mormons believe in evolution?

The answer is: YES.

Why do you have to complicate things beyond this simple answer? Is it really worth the time?

Regards,
MG

[_Tarski]

What if they lead to that which is better to decide what is real?

Huh? You will have to rephrase that.

[_bcspace]

What if they lead to that which is better to decide what is real?

Huh? You will have to rephrase that.

For example, Joseph Smith was led by a feeling....

Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. JS-H 1:12

...to the appearance of the Father and the Son.

[_Tal Bachman]

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray"

And who wrote that, Tal? Men. Geez.

---That's an interesting defense strategy, Harmony. Lucky there's no lethal implications there for the rest of Mormonism, right? Whew!

Okay. Can you name one single LDS doctrine, right now, which you would say is absolute, eternal truth? I'd like you to answer that question. Just give me one item of LDS doctrine which qualifies as "eternal truth", and then stand by for the next question.

Certainly. Jesus is the Christ.

---Good. Please answer this follow-up question.

As you probably know, the word "Christ" is a transliteration into English from the average Greek word "christos", meaning "anointed one". Strictly speaking, all that anyone would need to be accurately referred to as "christos" is to have been anointed at some point in their lives. That would include you and me, Pat Robertson, millions of people.

So, presuming you mean more than that, would you mind being more specific?

Talk to you soon,

Tal

[_Tal Bachman]

2.) Doctrine and Covenants contains these canonized words:

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray"

CFR

However, it does seem to be a true principle..

---Well of course, BC - in your world, as you've demonstrated so clearly, it can be true that prophets can lead us astray, and ALSO be true that prophets cannot lead us astray.

I love quantum physics, too!

[_bcspace]

However, it does seem to be a true principle..

---Well of course, BC - in your world, as you've demonstrated so clearly, it can be true that prophets can lead us astray, and ALSO be true that prophets cannot lead us astray.

Selective quotes aren't convincing

I love quantum physics, too!

I love it so much, I have a degree in it (secondary to my major).

[_harmony]

So the unique role of a prophet is to "correct the doctrine", and that may involve "cleaning up the messes from the earlier prophets"?

Can you give me an example of where that has been done? I am essentially looking for a situation where prophet A states something as doctrine and it is accepted as such by the church at the time, and fulfills the conditions demanded today for something to be stated doctrine, but then prophet B later "corrects" that doctrine?

Has that ever happened?

Or is it always just a case of most (or at least many) members of the church being under the mistaken impression that something was doctrine (such as the denial of the priesthood to black men), and later being told by the current prophet that it never really was?

They make corrections all the time, some of which are actually warranted. Often, they get it backwards (such as the time Joseph F Smith moved Relief Society from being a free standing organization on the same level as priesthood quorums to being a mere auxilliary like Primary). Then someone else, more in tune with the way things should be, comes along and has to point out the foolishness of the action. We can only hope this idiocy will eventually be corrected.

The priesthood ban is an example of a correction. We can debate 'til the cows come home whether it was doctrinal or not, but for the vast majority of the church, it was, and when the correction was made, it was considered to also be doctrinal.

Stopping the earthly practice of the Abomination was another correction, albeit at the hands of the government, but then God tends to use whatever is necessary to make the needed corrections.

Taking the penalties out of the endowment was another correction.

It's the job of the prophet to be the leader in making these corrections. Others may call it ongoing revelation. I call it correcting the path of the church. We've had some courageous leaders; we've had some gynormous dunderheads too.

[_harmony]

And who wrote that, Tal? Men. Geez.

---That's an interesting defense strategy, Harmony. Lucky there's no lethal implications there for the rest of Mormonism, right? Whew!

I'm never lethal. And I'm absolutely convinced that all scripture is written by men. I've never personally seen anything that was written by the hand of God, but maybe you have.

Okay. Can you name one single LDS doctrine, right now, which you would say is absolute, eternal truth? I'd like you to answer that question. Just give me one item of LDS doctrine which qualifies as "eternal truth", and then stand by for the next question.

Certainly. Jesus is the Christ.

---Good. Please answer this follow-up question.

As you probably know, the word "Christ" is a transliteration into English from the average Greek word "christos", meaning "anointed one". Strictly speaking, all that anyone would need to be accurately referred to as "christos" is to have been anointed at some point in their lives. That would include you and me, Pat Robertson, millions of people.

So, presuming you mean more than that, would you mind being more specific?

Talk to you soon,

Tal[/size][/color]

You've been anointed? To be the Christ? Not a Christ, but the Christ?

[_malkie]

So the unique role of a prophet is to "correct the doctrine", and that may involve "cleaning up the messes from the earlier prophets"?

Can you give me an example of where that has been done? I am essentially looking for a situation where prophet A states something as doctrine and it is accepted as such by the church at the time, and fulfills the conditions demanded today for something to be stated doctrine, but then prophet B later "corrects" that doctrine?

Has that ever happened?

Or is it always just a case of most (or at least many) members of the church being under the mistaken impression that something was doctrine (such as the denial of the priesthood to black men), and later being told by the current prophet that it never really was?

They make corrections all the time, some of which are actually warranted. Often, they get it backwards (such as the time Joseph F Smith moved Relief Society from being a free standing organization on the same level as priesthood quorums to being a mere auxilliary like Primary). Then someone else, more in tune with the way things should be, comes along and has to point out the foolishness of the action. We can only hope this idiocy will eventually be corrected.

The priesthood ban is an example of a correction. We can debate 'til the cows come home whether it was doctrinal or not, but for the vast majority of the church, it was, and when the correction was made, it was considered to also be doctrinal.

Stopping the earthly practice of the Abomination was another correction, albeit at the hands of the government, but then God tends to use whatever is necessary to make the needed corrections.

Taking the penalties out of the endowment was another correction.

It's the job of the prophet to be the leader in making these corrections. Others may call it ongoing revelation. I call it correcting the path of the church. We've had some courageous leaders; we've had some gynormous dunderheads too.

Harmony, I hope that your "dunderheads" comment is not a criticism of a church leader (;=> - even if it is justified.

Anyway, I'm sorry to say that I cannot accept your view that in making changes the prophet is "correcting the path of the church".

Here's why (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm getting this wrong - please do):

1. You say "They make corrections all the time, some of which are actually warranted."
2. You also say "Often, they get it backwards ..."
3. I say that then they don't seem to know when it's a case of a warranted correction (1.) and when it's backwards (2.), otherwise they would presumably never get it backwards.
4. It's even conceivable, in this scenario, that prophet C (to expand on Chap's example) might later "correct" prophet B's "correction", and re-institute the original doctrine - kinda messy, don't you think?

My thought is, if it's "the job of the prophet to be the leader in making these corrections", and often (or even sometimes) they get it backwards, what is the point in making "corrections" at all, if often/sometimes they are making things worse, not better.

Furthermore (and no disrespect intended at all to you), I wonder how it is that you get to decide when it's a warranted correction and when it's backwards?

All in all, "correcting the path of the church" seems to be a completely worthless activity. A religion whose doctrine is developed in this way is way beyond a joke (IMHO).

[_Sethbag]

I just put a single atom of a radioactive isotope into a sealed box, along with a geiger counter. The isotope has a half life of 10 minutes.

I'm going to set a timer for 10 minutes. If the geiger counter chirps during that time, the LDS church is true. If it doesn't, then the LDS church isn't true.

We'll call this thought experiment Schroedinger's Church.

ps: an alternate version goes like this. If the geiger counter chirps, the LDS church is true. If it doesn't, then obviously the geiger counter was broken, because the LDS Church is still true anyway.