Tal Bachman wrote: Can you name one single Mormon doctrine, right now, which is absolutely, eternally true? Just one; and please be specific
That we should be Christ-like in our behavior..
---That's pretty good, Moksha. I was kind of thinking more along the lines of a theological principle, but that is one.
By way of slight digression, maybe I can say that what "Christ-like behavior" actually should look like seems fairly unclear in the actual text of the New Testament. One minute Jesus is talking about how you should turn the other cheek, the next he's making a scourge of cords, beating people at the temple, and tipping over their tables. One minute he's saying you should make friends with Mammon, the next that the rich young man should give up all his possessions to follow a homeless wanderer. One minute he's rude to his mom, and unbelievably rude to the lady at the well, and then vituperatively sarcastic and judgmental towards the pharisees, and then the next minute, talking about how everyone should be meek like little kids and to "judge not". So what "Christ-like" behaviour, in terms of the actual text of the New Testament rather than the consistently gentle image we have in our minds, actually would mean, is sort of unclear to me.
So back on topic, would you say, Moksha, that the requirement for baptism, or the prohibition on adultery, or that Jesus was sinless, are absolute, eternal truths?
You also wanted further documentation on the Church's stand on evolution. Here is an article from the Deseret News
---What happened to the big "correction from "President David O. McKay" you keep mentioning? Where is it? Seemingly non-existent.
By the way, that you would include a Deseret News article quoting two scientists's conclusion on this, rather than, say, some document as authoritative as an official FP statement, is pretty lame. Even Gazelam would tell you that.
But even leaving that point aside, your own article quotes then Church President Hinckley as saying this:
"What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.'"
---What this requires you to believe, amongst other things, is that every single living person on this planet - all six billion of us, black, white, everyone - all descended from "the first man" "Adam" - who according to every single LDS doctrinal source, was a guy who lived a mere 5700 years ago in the middle of Missouri; and that no "man" of "the human race" existed anywhere on earth before him.
So let me ask you, Moksha: do you really believe that?
But even leaving that point aside, your own article quotes then Church President Hinckley as saying this:
"What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.'"
---What this requires you to believe, amongst other things, is that every single living person on this planet - all six billion of us, black, white, everyone - all descended from "the first man" "Adam" - who according to every single LDS doctrinal source, was a guy who lived a mere 5700 years ago in the middle of Missouri; and that no "man" of "the human race" existed anywhere on earth before him.
Already answered. There is nothing that requires a 5700 years ago date.
As for skin colors, both science and scripture show that this can happen relatively rapidly.
Already answered. There is nothing that requires a 5700 years ago date.
---Is that kind of like how Hugh Nibley "already answered" all those Book of Abraham objections? You win again! (By the way, whatever you do, don't do the math in D&C 107 or in the rest of the Old Testament).
No, you didn't. You went off on some snide side conversation about what Christ means. If you'd really wanted to know what I meant, you'd have asked what I meant, without the side conversation.
---I've been asking you what you meant. Why don't you answer?
Because you were impolite.
Jesus is the Christ means that Jesus is the Savior, who fulfilled all the prophesies.
Pretty elementary stuff, which I'm sure you already knew. Why don't you ask your next question, that you just know is so laden with wisdom we'll all stand around in awe.
Actually, you're about 10 years too late. I found out about Joseph long ago.
---You mean, you already know he made up his stories?
Why do you sound so surprised? Anyone here could tell you how I feel about Joseph... and where I think he ended up.
I'm a 55 year old woman
.
---Uh oh. No wonder we hit the wall here; I was talking Boy Language. Girl Language is a lot different.
No, you were talking Boy language; I was talking Adult Woman language.
I'm not some star struck teeniebopper
---Crap :P
Life is indeed hard.
And for the record, I grew up listening to your dad's music; I'm reserving judgment on yours until you get some more of it.
---It's not that great..
[/quote]
And to which music does the "it" refer? Yours or your dad's?
Harmony, my apologies - I'm not familiar with you or your posts, and because of some of your comments, I mistook you for someone who is a believing Mormon.
I was referring to my music (what there is of it).
Tal Bachman wrote: Can you name one single Mormon doctrine, right now, which is absolutely, eternally true? Just one; and please be specific
That we should be Christ-like in our behavior..
---That's pretty good, Moksha. I was kind of thinking more along the lines of a theological principle, but that is one.
This was an example that is important to me. You are right about Jesus displaying different sides in his behavior, from mystic to commie (rich needing to pass through a needle), cannibal (this is my body - eat it!), adjudicator, and crazy person (zapping a tree for not having fruit out of season). Still, on balance he showed us a merciful and loving way to lead out lives.
So back on topic, would you say, Moksha, that the requirement for baptism, or the prohibition on adultery, or that Jesus was sinless, are absolute, eternal truths?
No, but they do have their place and reason to exist. Baptism is a traditional ceremony that enriches our religious experience, faithfulness to our spouse is a way to help maintain marriages, etc....
What this requires you to believe, among other things, is that every single living person on this planet - all six billion of us, black, white, everyone - all descended from "the first man" "Adam" - who according to every single LDS doctrinal source, was a guy who lived a mere 5700 years ago in the middle of Missouri; and that no "man" of "the human race" existed anywhere on earth before him.
So let me ask you, Moksha: do you really believe that?
I believe that the evolutionary process is an incredible tool utilized by God. I think Modern Man first emerged on the plains of the Serengeti around 200.000 years ago directly from this process that God set in motion. I am content to let these first progenitors be the Adam and Eve. The Garden in Missouri was just a story to help ease the burden of those early Mormons making their way into Missouri.
I believe that the evolutionary process is an incredible tool utilized by God. I think Modern Man first emerged on the plains of the Serengeti around 200.000 years ago directly from this process that God set in motion. I am content to let these first progenitors be the Adam and Eve. The Garden in Missouri was just a story to help ease the burden of those early Mormons making their way into Missouri.
---"Adam"="whatever it needs to mean so that I can just keep believing"
Tal Bachman wrote:Harmony, my apologies - I'm not familiar with you or your posts, and because of some of your comments, I mistook you for someone who is a believing Mormon.
So you took it upon yourself to enlighten me, under the guise of "friend". How sweet.
I am a believing Mormon. I'm just a tad bit more choosey than the norm about what I believe. And I trust my relationship with God far more than I ever trust my relationship with LDS leaders.
I was referring to my music (what there is of it).