Went through the Temple last week...

[_The Dude]

It has been established that the main point of the Temple ceremony is to teach spiritual lessons, not biology lessons, so I have been trying to get understand what spiritual lesson is meant by the words each after its own kind in reference to animal species. As a biologist, I certainly prefer the words descent with modification because we know from actual biological science that that is how different species came to be. It only looks like they reproduce "each after its own kind" if you are a child, or a primitive human, or a creationist who thinks short time scales are the only ones that matter.

To recap, Wade inadvertently suggested the following spiritual lesson derived from evolution and descent with modification :

It is only indirectly relevant in the metaphoric sense that it underscores the notion of eternal progression.

So "descent with modification" could be used as a metaphor to teach the notion of eternal progression. Definitely a Temple-worthy lesson. There are problems of mechanism and the fact that evolution isn't really a linear progression... but we can overlook that here. It's just a metaphor.

But now I see that Cinepro has quoted the Apostle Boyd K. Packer arguing for a spiritual lesson following creationism and each after its own kind language that is currently used in the Temple:

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?

Apparently Elder Packer thinks the more important lesson is that we are already the same species as God (I'm 99% sure that Packer means this literally, not metaphorically). Therefore we are not progressing to become like Him (?). This, even though we all know that evolution is the real process underlying the diversity of animal types (I'm 99% sure Packer denys it). Could this be why the Temple prefers creationism over evolution?

What do you think? (Wade... if you're finished with Ray)

[_Who Knows]

Sometimes that can actually be a very nice activity. I think what wade says holds true in that regard.

I actually said that it (the temple ceremony) would be like watching the grass grow if grass were boring.

Well, technically, to see it grow, you'd have to sit there for hours upon hours, even days. Which, i'm sure, most would agree, would be boring.

Much different than observing nature for a little while.

But anyways, the point is, i think, is that what's boring to some, may not be boring to others, and vice versa. I don't think that says anything about the individuals who do find it boring - ie., that they're 'boorish' and 'expect to be spoon fed'. But apparently, Wade seems to think that anyone who finds the temple boring, is such a person.

[_silentkid]

Well, technically, to see it grow, you'd have to sit there for hours upon hours, even days. Which, i'm sure, most would agree, would be boring.

Much different than observing nature for a little while.

Exactly.

But anyways, the point is, i think, is that what's boring to some, may not be boring to others, and vice versa. I don't think that says anything about the individuals who do find it boring - ie., that they're 'boorish' and 'expect to be spoon fed'. But apparently, Wade seems to think that anyone who finds the temple boring, is such a person.

QFT

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Ray has successfully pointed out just how biased and one-track your brand of criticism is, though, LoaP.

The note of bias is duly noted, and certainly ironic.

You responded to his point about hostility on the MAD board by crying "tu quoque"...over and over and over again. The point, to a certain extent, however, is valid.

Not really.

Sure, you might criticize Selek, or some other "lower rung" apologist, but I think we can all rest confident that you will never, ever criticize DCP, or Hamblin, or any other "important" apologist.

Take a look at this, for example:

"I am not a one-note jackass who lacks even the slightest pretense of substance." Joey

Is that helpful? Could DCP "do better"? Would you be brave enough to tell him so? Would you be brave enough to voice criticism of his l-skinny behavior, or his Quinn gossipmongering?

No. Of course not.

I don't know anything about l-skinny, so I certainly wouldn't know what to criticize in that regard. Further, I've disagreed with DCP over things in the past, even recently. Seeing as how you aren't privy to all our communication, however, you are swinging in the dark and never connecting. I realize you think you are, but that's not me you're striking. Additionally, I've never seen Joey do anything but be a jackass [hell, the guy isn't even a real person to me at this point, he's a fake masked internet pretender, as are you], so I'll have to side with Dan on this one rather than saying "shame on you, Dan!"

[_wenglund]

Nonsense, I'm not talking to God or to the so-called chosen leaders, I'm talking to you and other people on this thread who are willing to share their opinions. I'm saying you only pay lip service to truth, preferring to justify the status-quo rather than concede that an apostate might have a good point.

If I read you correctly then it is "truely" disappointing.

But, you didn't read me correctly. While it is true that you are talking to me, your comments were about what phrase should be used in the temple ceremony. Since the phraseology of the temple ceremony is not my purview, but God's and the Church leaders, then in that sense you are telling God and Church leades what to put in the temple ceremony. Got it?

As for your baseless charge of lip service (speaking of "nonsense"), I am more than happy to concede that an apostate might have a good point--that is, when they actually make one and have demonstrated that they know what they are talking about. Such is not the case with you in this instance. Sorry.

But, however you see it, I can live with your being disappointed.

Oh, so you can see how evolution could be a metaphorical teaching tool towards the notion of eternal progression. Maybe that it could be useful to change how the creation is taught in the Temple. Maybe I shouldn't be so quick to express disappointment.

That would make sense were your suggested change to the temple ceremony to be at a place in the narrative where the point being conveyed was about eternal progression. But, its not, and so it doesn't. Sorry.

On the other hand, why persist in teaching the primitive idea that animals reproduce simply after their own kind? Does that have some greater value that you could explain to me? Is it directly or indirectly relevant in any way to the LDS spiritual epistemic?

I already explained the relevance in my previous post. Sorry you missed it.

All I'm saying is, given the two choices (hypothetically), which one is better taught in the Temple? Why?

I answered those questions as well. It has to do with meeting the instructional objectives. I am confident that the Lord (the master teacher), through his chosen leaders, has structured the temple and scriptural lesson materials in the way that best suits his purpose. You are free to think otherwise--not that your single phrase suggestion is of much importance in the whole scheme of things.

Except that mathematics courses don't discuss biology one way or another. The Temple film does. You employ a bad analogy. Get it?

Your missing the point of the analogy--which, if you had gotten it, you would see is quite good. Again, it is about teaching to the subject and best meeting the instructional objectives. The subject of the temple and scriptural narrative isn't biology (though biology does get a very brief and indirect mention). Got it?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I could be wrong

Yes, you are.

, 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.

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.

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?

I was simply pointing out generically a common-sense principle that is demonstrable throughout many walks of life--which point is eloquently captured in the time-honored phrase: "as ye sow, so shall ye reap." Nothing controversial or untoward there.

But, I can't prevent you from tritely looking to make me an offender for a word and mistakely taking it all very personally.

I am beginning detect, though, that the level of sensitivity of certain participants here may be so high as to make even the most innocent of comments vulnerable to being viewed as a personal attack, and thus it may be best were I to disengage from the discussion. The last thing I want is to be a catalyst for a nervous breakdown.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Apparently Elder Packer thinks the more important lesson is that we are already the same species as God (I'm 99% sure that Packer means this literally, not metaphorically). Therefore we are not progressing to become like Him (?). This, even though we all know that evolution is the real process underlying the diversity of animal types (I'm 99% sure Packer denys it). Could this be why the Temple prefers creationism over evolution?

What do you think? (Wade... if you're finished with Ray)

As I understand things (in concert with Elder Packer), that we are of the same species as God does not preclude us from progressing to become like him, any more than a new-born human baby being the same species as a human adult would somehow preclude the baby from progressing (developing) to become a fully functioning human adult.

Clearly, Packer is not talking about progression from one species to the next, but rather progression within a species--from spiritual infancy to godhood.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_silentkid]

But, I can't prevent you from tritely looking to make me an offender for a word and mistakely taking it all very personally.

Good god Wade, do you even read what you type?

I am beginning detect, though, that the level of sensitivity of certain participants here may be so high as to make even the most innocent of comments vulnerable to being viewed as a personal attack, and thus it may be best were I to disengage from the discussion. The last thing I want is to be a catalyst for a nervous breakdown.

I was simply pointing out, in my previous post, that you prefer to attack what you perceive as the poster's intentions, rather than the substance of the post. You've done this for as long as I have followed your posts on this board. It's nothing new. Don't worry Wade...I don't take you seriously and nothing you could say would in any way affect my emotional stability.

[_cinepro]

Clearly, Packer is not talking about progression from one species to the next, but rather progression within a species--from spiritual infancy to godhood.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here is an important statement from Elder Packer:

Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles.

So Wade, do you believe that modern humans (including you) evolved from lesser lifeforms over the millenia?

[_squawkeye]

Talmadge(sp?) and B.H. Roberts believed in pre-Adamites on the earth. Talmage believed there was death in the world before the Garden of Eden. He even stated he believed it because rocks used by Adam at the Altar at Adam-Ondi-Ahman had fossils in them. Don't bother looking for them now as the missionaries have to 'rebuild' the altar 3-5 times every year because the rocks keep getting taken from the site.

Nothing in 'revealed' scripture says there were not others on earth before and during Adams time. Who did Adams sons marry?

As for the Temple, my favorite is sitting and looking at the paintings of the Dinosaurs on the walls. Nice job and interesting having them represented as being there while Adam is in the 'dreary world'.