Went through the Temple last week...

[Gadianton]

Please give me a rational/empirical example what of the "Ceremony" reflected or pertained real world experience.
It is a terribly written allegory with imaginary characters.
The concept of "Creation" runs diametrically opposed to any scientific ways I know of. It is a terrible copy of Genesis, (copied word by word shamelessly from masonic Rituals) teaches supernatural
gifts and rules which we mortal humans absolutely cannot grasp with any of our cognitive faculties.

The Temple Ritual story is more absurd than worse Hollywood movies, "Superbad". American Pie", "Napoleon Dynamite" make more sense.
That is why The Church goes extra lengths to hide this absurdity.
There is nothing rationally palatable in this fiction.
It is embarrassing.

Anybody opposed please signify by raising your right hand.

Unfortunately, your questions and comments inadvertantly betray a jaw-dropping misperception about the intents and purpose of temple ceremonies, and leave little room to wonder why you lost faith.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Ray A]

Depends on the Adamite theory you adhere to and/or the extent of the "state of no death".

I'm not following this, BC. When was Adam born/created? I take it you don't subscribe to the 4004 BC dogma, at ten o'clock in the morning.

[_wenglund]

Doesn't it seem strange, though? The temple and the scriptures, God's bestest and most inspired words, present the "up close" view, where nothing significant can be noted. The "step back over thousands of generations" view instead comes from Darwin and science. God is getting scooped by mortals.

That would make sense if the intents and purpose of the temple/scriptures were the same as modern science. But, they aren't. Sorry.

It may help you and others to realize that the tempel/scriptures are primarily about the spiritual, and intended to positively influence the spiritual growth, understanding, and betterment of mankind; whereas, science is intended to explain the physical, and may be used to positively influence the secular growth, understanding, and betterment of mankind.

So, it should be reasonable to expect that the mortals of science would supposedly "scoop" God in terms of details about certain physical and secular matters, and the same would be expected in reverse regarding the spiritual.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_solomarineris]

understanding, and betterment of mankind.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Excuse me? Betterment of manking, you mean LDS entity?
There is nothing, no rewards for individual in that ritual,
How many times you pledge your talents & gifts to the Church?

I still want to learn of a single "Cognitive Faculty" to perceive this Gift.
Show it to me/.

[_Ray A]

So, it should be reasonable to expect that the mortals of science would supposedly "scoop" God in terms of details about certain physical and secular matters, and the same would be expected in reverse regarding the spiritual.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sounds very much like Gould's NOMA theory. The problem is that literalism still encroaches. I'm not sure you've thought this out, Wade. And I'm positive BC hasn't.

If in the end Mormonism is just a "feel good" (spirtual) religion that encourages charity and doing good to others, that's fine. If it raises your "noble impulses", that's fine. But if in order to accomplish this you have to believe in absurdities, that's not fine.

[_wenglund]

understanding, and betterment of mankind.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Excuse me? Betterment of manking, you mean LDS entity?
There is nothing, no rewards for individual in that ritual,
How many times you pledge your talents & gifts to the Church?

I still want to learn of a single "Cognitive Faculty" to perceive this Gift.
Show it to me/.

Again, your questions and comments evince a stupifying ignorance of the intents and purposes of the temple/scriptures as well as the Church, and thus cannot rationally be addressed as presented. Oh well....

Here's a clue: read Alma 32 with a mind open to understanding, and then get back with me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Dude]

It may help you and others to realize that the tempel/scriptures are primarily about the spiritual, and intended to positively influence the spiritual growth, understanding, and betterment of mankind; whereas, science is intended to explain the physical, and may be used to positively influence the secular growth, understanding, and betterment of mankind.

How does the myopic "each after its own kind" phrase help spiritual growth? Methinks "descent with modification" or something similar could better enhance spiritual growth. You believe truth and spiritual growth go hand in hand, don't you?

[_wenglund]

So, it should be reasonable to expect that the mortals of science would supposedly "scoop" God in terms of details about certain physical and secular matters, and the same would be expected in reverse regarding the spiritual.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sounds very much like Gould's NOMA theory.

That may be true were I suggesting no overlap of the "magistra". I am not. In fact, the LDS notion of the mortal soul (a duality comprised of both a physical and spiritual body) necessitates a belief in an overlap. The very essense of the gospel is intended to shift the natural bias of the soul from the physical to the spiritual, moving from the carnal to culminating in man becoming like Christ. That would not be possible except there be an overlap between the physical and spiritual, and a belief in such.

Rather, my view is more along the lines of the economic notion of interdependancy through trade and specialization or division of labor.

The problem is that literalism still encroaches. I'm not sure you've thought this out, Wade. And I'm positive BC hasn't.

I am not sure I or BC have expressed enough of our thoughts in order for you to reasonably make that judgement. We'll see.

If in the end Mormonism is just a "feel good" (spirtual) religion that encourages charity and doing good to others, that's fine. If it raises your "noble impulses", that's fine. But if in order to accomplish this you have to believe in absurdities, that's not fine.

Who said anything about believing in absurdities? I know I have not advocated such, nor have I seen any indication that BC has done anything of the sort.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_bcspace]

It's all a matter of resolution. If you look up close, one generation after another, you'll detect little significant change (of the type you are looking for, not just some change in size or coloration) and species are born to their own species. If you step back over thousands of generations you'll detect more differential bewteen the first and the last.

Doesn't it seem strange, though?

No.

The temple and the scriptures, God's bestest and most inspired words, present the "up close" view, where nothing significant can be noted. The "step back over thousands of generations" view instead comes from Darwin and science. God is getting scooped by mortals.

I don't percieve God trying to teach us science.

[_Ray A]

Who said anything about believing in absurdities? I know I have not advocated such, nor have I seen any indication that BC has done anything of the sort.

So you believe that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri? Do you believe that homosexuals can be "cured"?