Went through the Temple last week...

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Went through the Temple last week...

Post by _cinepro »

There seems to be some difference of understanding over the scope and meaning of the phrase "after their own kind". It's times like this when I sorely wish God had representatives here on Earth that could clarify the scriptures and let us know exactly what they mean.

Oh wait. He does.

No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce “after their own kind.” (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor “do men gather … figs of thistles.” (Matt. 7:16.)

In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the pattern of the parentage.

This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways, even an ordinary mind should understand it. Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles. (Although one can easily imagine that those who accept the theory of evolution don’t show much enthusiasm for genealogical research!) The theory of evolution, and it is a theory, will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are fully revealed.

Since every living thing follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had some other strange pattern in mind for His offspring? Surely we, His children, are not, in the language of science, a different species than He is?


And that was even in General Conference. :exclaim:
_Dwight Frye
_Emeritus
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Went through the Temple last week...

Post by _Dwight Frye »

Boyd K. Packer wrote:Although one can easily imagine that those who accept the theory of evolution don’t show much enthusiasm for genealogical research!

What an asinine statement. This guy bugs me.
"Christian anti-Mormons are no different than that wonderful old man down the street who turns out to be a child molester." - Obiwan, nutjob Mormon apologist - Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:25 pm
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Went through the Temple last week...

Post by _cinepro »

I've got an idea, BCSpace. Why don't we go back and forth, and I'll share a quote from an official Church publication that says "their own kind" means no evolution, and you share a quote from an official Church publication that says "we aren't sure", or "there might have been evolution", or "this is the close-up view, it might be different from a wider perspective."

I've already given one, but here's another:

The Fifth Day—Next came fish and fowl and “every living creature” whose abode is “the waters.” Their Creators placed them on the newly organized earth, and they were given the command: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the sea; and let fowl multiply in the earth.” This command—as with a similar decree given to man and applicable to all animal life—they could not then keep, but they soon would be able to do so. Appended to this command to multiply was the heaven-sent restriction that the creatures in the waters could only bring forth “after their kind,” and that “every winged fowl” could only bring forth “after his kind.” There was no provision for evolvement or change from one species to another. (See Moses 2:20–23; Abr. 4:20–23.)

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie in the Ensign

Emphasis added
Last edited by Guest on Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Ray A

Re: Went through the Temple last week...

Post by _Ray A »

LifeOnaPlate wrote:If anyone is curious why many LDS folks avoid this message board (who are otherwise aware of it), take a look at the method of discourse by Ray A herein. It will give you a very good idea.


And a further thought about this. Now that Porter isn't posting (I don't know if he'll be back), and the board has considerably tamed down with the new rules, it looks like that's not good enough for you. Now you want all criticism dumbed down. But no, this isn't going to be like MAD, where a person can get banned for life for saying that President Hinckley "checked out".
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Went through the Temple last week...

Post by _cinepro »

This one isn't entirely on-topic, but its current publication in the college-level Institute curriculum warrants a mention:

■ “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.

“True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.

“Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself, or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race— God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows, and every animal that reathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—‘that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.’ He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with Godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its ‘distinct order or sphere,’ and will enjoy ‘eternal felicity.’ That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (Doctrine and Covenants, 77:3).

“Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God” (The First Presidency

[Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund], in James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 4:205–6).

Doctrines of the Gospel p.17



Here's a question: Is the above quote, (a signed statement of the combined First Presidency and currently printed by the Church in a text entitled "Doctrines of the Gospel") actually doctrinal? :question:
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Went through the Temple last week...

Post by _wenglund »

Ray A wrote:
wenglund wrote:There are productive ways to encourage moderation (like what we find with DCP), and there are counterproductive ways (like what we find with you). You can't reasonably expect to encourage moderation in others by behaving extremists and immoderate yourself. It is like trying to promote integration through behaving segregationist. It doesn't work.


DCP is defending a book as "historical" which I consider to be non-historical. It might only be my considered opinion, but it's a strongly considered opinion based on using my rational brain. Have you considered the untold harm this can do to a person who believes all this, then later discovers that it isn't historical? I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about teaching people that there were "literal Nephites" and persuading them to base their whole lives around this belief when the evidence for this is next to nil (unless you look at esoteric internal evidences, which still don't prove it's historical). The Community of Christ, in my opinion, takes a much safer approach, and their scholars have encouraged this approach. They haven't set up a branch of FARMS to defend a non-historical book. Do you see exmos from the CoC blasting them all over the Net? Why is that? Do you hear endless stories of broken lives from ex-CoC members? Why is that?

And speaking of "promot[ing] integration through behaving segregationist", don't you promote "love" through behaving segregationist to gay people? If you retain your "gay church policy" and retain your own restrictions that's your choice. But to influence the wider community to accept your views as coming from the Almighty God himself, is wrong. This certainly isn't the America envisioned by the likes of Thomas Jefferson. While Jefferson encourages private religious beliefs, here's what he said about religious influence:

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814


No truer words were ever spoken if this is applied to what happened with Prop 8. And you supported that! But you'll never see it, Wade, and for you "conversation" is all about you, your beliefs, and your "rights", damned be the rights of others.


wenglund wrote:But, you don't seem to be listening nor interested in engaging me directly, so this will be my last response to you until I detect a favorable change. You have the last word.


Please yourself. I'm probably wasting my time, and your time.


Ray,

Since this is way off topic, but worthy of some response, I will take it to a new thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Re: Went through the Temple last week...

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Ray A wrote:What you mean is that when conversation and debate doesn't go your way you're not happy. I outlined a perfectly reasonable reply to Wade, but both you and he will ignore it, and type an ad hom just like you did above. And that is an ad hom, just like calling me an "arrogant jerk". Then you pondered why I replied as curtly as I did. Don't absolve yourself from this.

No, you are definitely not as reasonable as I once thought. Noted.


If you can't detect the tone in your own posts (religion is blankety blank, etc.) then it furthers my own opinion that dialog with you will not yield much fruit for me. At least at this time.
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_silentkid
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:50 pm

Re: Went through the Temple last week...

Post by _silentkid »

wenglund wrote:I could be wrong


Yes, you are.

wenglund wrote:, but with the evident diversity of perceptions had among infrequent and frequent temple attendees, I suspect that the temple experience may well be a reflection of our inner selves.


Nice try, but it's not.

wenglund wrote:We get back from it according to the effort we put into it. If we, ourselves, are interesting and proactively interested, we will tend to be continually fascinated by the many layers of learning that may be pealed back each time we go.


Even if what we learn has nothing to do with truth or the natural world (see The Dude's comments about descent with modification)? Sorry Wade, this doesn't make sense either.

wenglund wrote:Whereas, if we, ourselves, are borish and tend to sit back expecting to be spoon-feed information or seemingly dare others to entertain us (a malady inflicting not a few young people throughout modern society), then we will likely come away bored.


Are you suggesting that I'm boorish? That I expect to be spoon-fed information or expect others to entertain me because of my assertion that the temple ceremony is boring? Did you turn my discussion of the temple ceremony into an attack on my personality, of which you know nothing? Why are you attacking me, Wade? You did a good job of softening your attack, couching it in plural pronouns and such. Can't you play by the new rules? Is it really that difficult?
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Re: Went through the Temple last week...

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Ray A wrote:
LifeOnaPlate wrote:If anyone is curious why many LDS folks avoid this message board (who are otherwise aware of it), take a look at the method of discourse by Ray A herein. It will give you a very good idea.


And a further thought about this. Now that Porter isn't posting (I don't know if he'll be back), and the board has considerably tamed down with the new rules, it looks like that's not good enough for you. Now you want all criticism dumbed down. But no, this isn't going to be like MAD, where a person can get banned for life for saying that President Hinckley "checked out".


I certainly don't mind criticism, but at times I do mind arrogance and incivility. Other times my skin is thicker. Other times I even employ those attitudes. In the end, though, there are many other sites that have respectful and fun conversations going on without the darkness.
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_Ray A

Re: Went through the Temple last week...

Post by _Ray A »

LifeOnaPlate wrote:I certainly don't mind criticism, but at times I do mind arrogance and incivility.


That's not necesarily a trait unique to posters here. Are you really reading the MAD board? And posts that come from Obiwan, Selek and others. Catch this reply from Selek to Mary:

As usual, Mary your most salient characteristic is your rampant, unbridled, and enthusiastic ignorance.


Only seeing things one way?

Selek on Richard Abanes (in spite of the mods asking posters to be respectful to him as a public figure):

He is the theological equivalent of the persnickerty old woman who insists on repeating the most vile gossip and saying the most hateful things "for your own good."


Only seeing things one way?

Now you tell me, Life, what if someone on MAD said that to Daniel Peterson? Does the word "bias" come to your mind?

And what would happen to a poster on MAD who said that President Hinckley "checked out"?

Look in your own territory before pointing the finger at others, Life.
Post Reply