Bashing Atheists?

Remove all ads!

As T2Bruno has pointed out, the Mormon Church takes no position on evolution. If what you say is true - that evolution doesn't "mesh with the words of God", there would be a very definitive position taken by the Mormon Church - basically they would say that the theory of evolution is wrong. Granted, the Mormon Church hasn't endorsed evolution either, but they would outright condemn it if it was against the words or God. So as I see it, there are two possibilities - either evolution is not a discipline that "doesn't mesh with the words of God", or the Mormon leaders are taking an action that is tantamount to heresy by leading their flock astray.

What? Are you serious on this one? If everyone took this position you would have no doubts about our primitive ancestry, because we would still be living in caves today.

Here are some examples:

"I don't know Ogg, God hasn't difinitively answered all of the questions about fire. Maybe we shouldn't use this yet - it may be the work of Satan. After all, I hear there's a lot of fire in hell."

"Gee we see plants that bear food growing all over the place. Maybe we could collect the seeds and grow our own food so that there would be a food supply in the winter. Only God hasn't decided to definitively answer anything regarding argriculture, so we better not - it may be the work of Satan. Besides we can just pray for more food if we run out this winter."

God doesn't just divinely and definitively impart knowledge to anyone. As humans we seek such knowledge out. If we stayed away from everything that didn't receive a definitive answer from God, we would not have even a scrap of modern technology that exists today. Use can't use that claim as a shield against scientific thinking (especially because the concept of a "shield" would not exist following that line of thinking).

 

Gnarf, you're digging a deeper and deeper hole. This statement just astounds me:

Someone asks a question and you mock them -- it appears that you've given up at debating and just prefer to attack. You'll no doubt comment that you're the one being attacked -- which is partially true. But you're certainly on the offensive, which seems to be contrary to basic christian beliefs.

 

Gnarff, I went to T2Bruno and LKD because you didn't answer my question. I understand that there's a scriptural basis for your position. What I want to understand is how YOU personally (or perhaps the LDS church, since you don't seem to have any opinions that haven't been officially approved) resolve the conflict that this scriptural requirement to set aside another of God's gifts seems to create.

And stop saying that evolution is being used to show the Bible is BS. No one here is doing that! Zillions of people of all different faiths have been able to reconcile the two, why is it so impossible for you?

No one knows how God works. Is it not possible that God is using the very scientists you scoff at to reveal the answers you seek? This reminds me of a joke:

Think about it.

[ July 28, 2005, 16:49: Message edited by: Rallymama ]

 

Perfect, Rallymama. God does provide but a lot of people miss the boat.

And I still say there are many different boats.

 

The way I understand it, the lack of position may stem from the fact that something was observed, but has not been divinely endorsed, therefore the theory is not perfect. Some points may not be entirely correct. They don't Endorse it, but they don't label it complete and total hooey either.

I am serious, but I doubt your assessment on society remaining primitive. Science has, and will continue to have limits until God sets us straight on the final answers to all these questions. My point with Evolution is that those answers are not definitively known, and some seem to be incorrect.

Actually, I do believe that we have living prophets, to whom the Lord does reveal some of his doctrine to. They receive certain revelations for the benefit of the membership. I believe that revelations concerning Science will come during the Millenium, when Satan is bound and powerless. At this time, The Lord is busy guiding the faithful and trying to give them counsel to avoid the traps that Satan lies for them.

My point on that statement is to show them the constrictions that they seem to ask that I be placed under.

The Scriptures chosen were the best I could think of to answer the question. Some of my own experiences were included as well. Further, if I have a hard time separating myself from the teachings, then I must be doing something right.

There's still a few questions that are not satisfactorily answered, so that maintains those chasms. Actually, there are some that have claimed that the Bible is BS, now whether they sought to use Evolution as ammunition or just brought it us otherwise, I am unsure.

The Scientists get parts of the story, but I don't hink they have the full picture, and because they do not acknowledge creation they may have made a few mistakes which have been generally accepted. Therefore, until creation and evolution can be truly and completely reconciled, with the details of creation understood and the theory of Evolution corrected, then and only then can this arguement be settled.

 

Time to jump in again, I guess. Gnarfflinger, you say that you believe in having living prophets. How do you recognize them as such? Rallymama's approach is that one of them prophets could well be a scientist to whom god revealed the truth - evolution in this case. So, really, how do you (or rather your church authorities) decide who's touched by god and who's an imposter? I think this is a serious issue, because as we have seen in Rallymama's story god could perform the most incredible pull-ups to bring the message across - ultimately it would be an arbitrary decision by your church whether to accept this new knowledge or not. Am I right?

The Catholic Church has a very simple and definite way of dealing with this: RCC doesn't recognize any prophet after the arrrival of Christ. It is assumed that god has said everything that he wanted to say to his creations in the fulfillment of the word and the sacrifice of Christ.

Which is the reason, by the way, why the Catholic Church does not recognize your church as a Christian Church. In the Dogmatic Constitution On Devine Revelation "Dei Verbum" it is said "The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13)."

Groovy.

So, what are the new insights you are hoping to obtain through further revelations? What is happening in the center of a black hole? How the earth was created? How cancer comes into being? And why is god attempting to get the message across with the help of spiritually guided laymen instead of taking the advantage of utilizing experts in the respective fields?

 

I heard something on the news today that surprised me. I hope I get this right... Supposedly, the Mormon church had a ban on black people becoming ministers because they believed their skin color was the "Mark of Cain". This was then changed in 1974 or so.

Is this true?! If it is true, I would like to know which spokesman for God reiterated that divine directive. I'm betting Joseph Smith. God told him all the Native Americans were actually a long lost tribe of Jews.

I must admit, it is very tempting to make a joke about how they couldn't have been Jews because they got such a bad bargain on the land for beads thingy...but that would be offensive.


Edit...

Sorry DT, you posted as I did. Now we just seem hostile (well, me in particular).

 

Yow. That's almost as scary a thought as some of the fundamentalist Mormon stuff Gnarff has posted. I can't imagine a world where those who were listening couldn't hear the voice of God.

 

No, Rallymama, that is not what is meant, sorry if I was unclear on this subject. The RCC believes in personal contact and guidance of the lord, of course. A prayer is a dialogue with god, after all, not a monologue.

What is meant is that the road to salvation has been revealed. There will be no more revelations, hence there will be no more prophets until the second coming of Christ. The church will not acknowledge anything that strays from her teachings. Personal contact is allowed and encouraged.

 

Rallymama, could you please tell me what the voice of God "sounds" like. Unless you reply, "a funny little tummy-feeling", I am not setting you up to knock you down.

 

That's not what I was talking about. I thought it was clear that since we were discussing scientific knowledge, when I said that God doesn't simply divinely and definitiely impart knowledge to people, that the knowledge I was talking about was scientific in nature. I could be wrong, but I don't know of any scientific pioneers in any scientific field (sorry for repeated references to "scientific", but I don't want you to think I'm talking about pioneers in covered wagons) that were also Mormon prophets.

I also have a few questions that are similar to Darkthrone's, with a slightly different spin: What is the criteria for becoming a prophet? I imagine there has to be some process, as not everyone who claims to be a prophet is actually one. For example, the RCC has very strict criteria for how one becomes a saint. Unfortuntately, no one gets to enjoy being a saint in this world because one of the requirements is that you have to be dead. I guess my question is this: Assuming someone was a biologist, and also believed that the theory of evolution was true, would that preclude him from being a prophet?

 

Yes, it is true. I believe it was Brigham Young that put out that blacks could not 'hold the priesthood.' They were not banned, just treated like lesser citizens -- kind of they they were treated throughout America at the time (yes, I do feel it was wrong). The reasons given were kind of convoluted:

1. The priesthood is a great responsibility.
2. Some of our brethren in the pre-existence (where the spirits lived before inhabiting bodies) did not want that responsibility.
3. Those spirits who did not want the priesthood were sent down to earth as decendants of Cain (anyone with black ancestors).

It was flat out racist. In 1974, Spencer Kimball came out and said that 'all those spirits that did not want the priesthood had passed through this existence' and there would be no more restrictions from black males holding the priesthood. A lot of Mormons left the church at that point (thousands).

The Book of Mormon details how a hebrew family came to the Americas -- Mormons claim it was from this family all indians decended.

Basically attrition. The senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is elevated to the prophet (and president of the church) when the previous prophet dies. If God does not want a specific apostle to become a prophet, that apostle is 'called home' before the prophet is. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (called The Saints) are a offshoot that believe the calling of prophet followed bloodline -- the eldest son becomes the prophet. Emma Smith (JS's first wife) started The Saints with her oldest son as prophet and leader.

To answer your second question -- if the biologist is the senior apostle and the prophet dies, the biologist is the next prophet. By senior member I mean the man who has been an apostle the longest (apostles are chosen by the prophet).

 

How did Brigham Young know the following?


1. The priesthood is a great responsibility.
2. Some of our brethren in the pre-existence (where the spirits lived before inhabiting bodies) did not want that responsibility.
3. Those spirits who did not want the priesthood were sent down to earth as decendants of Cain (anyone with black ancestors).


Did he claim God told him this? Or was it the spirits?

Does the average Mormon (I realize I'm asking a lot of you) actually believe that Native Americans are the descendents of Jews?

Was this brave band of Jews led by a man called Chief Talks-With-His-Hands?

Ha! OK, I'm done.

 

LNT and everyone else:

The Mormons believe the President of the Mormon Church is a prophet of God. As a prophet, he communicates regularly (if not daily) DIRECTLY with God.

When the President of the Church speaks as the prophet in official assemblies, his words are taken as the Word of God. Period. That's why it's so difficult to argue with a believer -- God spoke DIRECTLY with the leader. So, yes -- to Mormons, God told Brigham Young those things.

The leader was Nephi. His brother was Laman. They had a bit of a falling out. The Nephites (decendants of Nephi) were eventually killed off by the Lamanites (decendants of Laman). According to the Mormons, all indians are Lamanites.

 

For starters, the Currently Recognized prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley would have identified this person as such. Beyond that, what LNT called "a funny little tummy-feeling" would tell us personally that what this person is saying is right (even if this man is not a prophet, seer or revelator).

I don't blame you for leaving the RCC. I wouldn't feel comfortable in a church that teaches that God has abandoned us to our own devices either. I've seen some of our own devices and wish I hadn't...

I've looked at the scriptures in question and see no relevence to them. This, likely, was issued during a time of apostasy, giving them right to torture and murder any who dissent against the church. More on that later, as you have clarified your earlier statement.

Perhaps today, what the Lord is directly concerned with is guiding the faithful safely though the latter day earth which is becoming rapidly more evil and tolerent of evil by the day. The questions regarding Science can wait until after the second coming, when the Lord has time to reveal those secrets to those that seek them. During the Millenial Reign of Jesus Christ, Satan will be bound, so these mysteries can be revealed...

After Cain killed Abel, his skin was blackened, and his seed shared that curse for his abomination. His seed would have been wiped out in the great flood. Official declaration 2, which expressly ordered that all worthy men ought hold the priesthood, no mention of this was made.

The Book of Mormon is the testimony and history of the decendents of Lehi, a prophet in Jerusalem, around 600 years before Christ, who was ordered to call the people to repentence. When this was unsuccessful, Lehi and his family, were ordered to depart from Jerusalem, led to the wilderness to a place where they built a boat and sailed to the American continent. Some of his son's rebelled and their skins were darkened (they were called Lamanites). The last of the Nephites (the decendents of those that did not rebel) died about 420 AD. Chirist came to minister to and teach the people in the americas after his ministry in the new testament ended. He also promised to return, and when the white men came, the decendents believed that Christ had returned until it was too late and they were already in bondage to the whiteman.

No scarier than the that those that don't believe spew out. I find the ideas proposed that God may not exist scariest of all. I do not know what is meant by the term Fundamentalist, but I do know from experience that if you relax on the higher standards that we are expected to live up to, you become more prone to sin, and that's not good.

That also is what we're taught, yet too often, we rush through our prayers, not letting the Spirit of the Lord help us to know the answers we seek...

True, but that's NOT everything. Some of the ordinances of the old church have been lost or changed over the years, and the Lord had returned to prophets to reveal the truth again.

Amos 3:7 clearly states that "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

This tells me that there will be prophets as long as the Lord is active.

Their loss. But the Lord will still mourn for those of his children that do not receive all the ordinances because they are told that they are false.

That "funny little tummy-feeling" as you call it is real. I have experienced it, and know that the religion I follow is true, even though I have a hard time communicating it...

That makes sense according to the church's stance toward Science. I believe that that knowledge will be corrected and revealed over the course of the Millenium. Until then, I'll simply sit back and focus on the more important concerns that I have.

T2Bruno has stated that Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the twelve apostles has a back ground in Science, and I seem to remember a talk from a general Authority (I forget who at the moment) that had to perform an operation on a heart which had a complication and described how the Lord had revealed to him how to deal with the complication. April 2003 General Conference rings a bell for the date, and I may be able to find that ensign with the talk in it if I get to look for it...

For Joseph Smith, it was his first vision in a grove near Palmyra New York. Successors are set up as T2Bruno pointed out.

Henry B. Eyring is an apostle, but not the senior one. Thomas S. Monson currently would succeed President Hinckley when he passes on.

And at the various General Conferences (two per year) we hear from the various general authorities of the church, often on many timely counsels, including Pornography, gambling, word of Wisdom...

You also neglected to mention the Holy Ghost, which not only tells us what we hear from our leaders is true and from God, but also tells us that things contrary from the world may either be slightly wrong or outright false.

 

Honestly, what is SCARY about the concept that God doesn't exist? Is it the fact that without the existence of God are lives have no meaning? Is it that it means there isn't an afterlife, and what we get now is all there is? Or is it because belief in God means everybody lives better lives and society would go down the pan without it?

What the main problem is, is the definition of sin. Where "sins" are also the law of a country (murder, theft etc) then (with notable exceptions with religious laws, predominant example being some Islamic countries) I agree, it's not good. Alternatively, when your perceived "sin" has no harmful effects on anyone (for instance sex in a loving but non-married relationship) then it can't be described as "not-good" without recourse to your religious teachings. Again, a non-sensical circular argument.

There is a very simple maxim to be taught - treat others as you wish to be treated. You don't need recourse to God and punishment in hell.

T2B, you're right, I was being too aggressive but I'd been down that route before and I don't recall an answer from Gnarf. It's just ridiculous to state that Adam named all the animals in the bible as an argument against evolution, while accepting things have changed, differences occured and therefore what we call things today could have any relevance to what it might have been then.

And here's the kicker, want to bet how many, for example, militant islamisicts would claim and believe exactly the same thing? They're even prepared to bet their own lives on it. The mind has great capacity for deceiving itself, or being deceived by others.

 

Gnarff, I've said it before -- learn your own religion before trying to quote it:

"Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the Negro lineage through the flood."
Elder Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527, 1966 edition.

I know you've said you don't have enough time to do your own research, yet you mysterously have enough time to be so verbose in your posts.

Probably because I don't believe in the holy ghosts existence. This is an athiestic thread after all. The 'burning bosom' feeling is not the holy spirit and is felt by anyone anytime they feel good about something. Yet, because Mormons believe the 'burning bosom' is a holy gift everything they feel with that 'gift' is considered sacred and true (kind of explains all the times the spirit moved Brigham Young to pick a young, nubile saint for a bride -- he simply confused lust with the spirit).

 

Does the Mormon church have any protections in place in the event that their spokesman for their god decided to move even further from Sanityville?

Let's say that his tummy told him the end-times were upon us, and his disciples needed to act as the agents of pestilence (I know...he has a verbose tummy). Can the Quorum of Twelve overrule him? Has anything similar ever occured in the Mormon church (you know...besides the "marry 10 thirteen year-old girls" edicts)?

 

I'm agnostic, and I don't think I've ever faced discrimination because of it... although one chick declared that my depression was due to lack of God. I told her that Prozac was my god

 

Actually, the Lord will remove any prophet that ever attempts to lead the church astray. President Wilford Woodruff, on October 6, 1890 stated: "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

This means that whatever is shared at General Conference is from God. When the Prophet releases a statement, it is a directive from the Lord. And since the beginning, the Prophets have been telling us to prepare for the last days, as they are not far off. This doesn't mean that we are to be agents of pestilence, but that we must be prepared because things will get worse.