NOM

“If evolution is true, the church is false.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:143)

"Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud." (Gordon B. Hinkley, General Conference, 2002)

Did these men really mean what they said? There is ample evidence for most people to come to the opposite conclusions. If you could convincingly demonstrate to President Smith that evolution is real, or to President Hinkley that the First Vision did not happen as Joseph Smith's Testimony in the PoGP describes, would they have concluded with equal conviction that the church is false?

Under Point #3 of "The Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet":

Ezra Taft Benson wrote:“Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

This is originally from Ezra Taft Benson, no supporter of organic evolution by natural selection. Luckily, the very live prophet Gordon B. Hinckley stated in 2002:

Gordon B. Hinckley wrote:What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest.

This was cited in Elaine Jarvik, "Beliefs on Darwin's evolution vary from religion to religion," Deseret Morning News (19 January 2006). This reference was helpfully provided from our friends at FairMormon and I cannot find any direct quote of the JFS quote on their site that Hagoth started with. Perhaps it's there, but I would rather catch up watching Season 2 of "Stranger Things" rather than spend more time with "Mormon Things."

All church leaders say things then forget them when they no longer are relevant to the argument. We want to think by logic we can show them by their own words they are wrong. They do not believe by logic but warm fuzzies. That is very difficult to argue against

These arguments will however plant the seeds in those who are not so committed. But leaders are just to biased for the most part.

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:17 pm They do not believe by logic but warm fuzzies. That is very difficult to argue against

This is not a mock 1smartdodog. But, I remember getting a warm fuzzie when Rey took her light-saber and started dueling with Kye Lo Ren. Can I claim, by that "witness" that "I Know the FORCE is true"?

Interesting question. And it is also one that is conveniently and STRICTLY avoided. If that warm fuzzie happens with the church--must be from God. If it happens with the FORCE?---just emotions talking. Ad nauseum....

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:27 pm This is not a mock 1smartdodog. But, I remember getting a warm fuzzie when Rey took her light-saber and started dueling with Kye Lo Ren. Can I claim, by that "witness" that "I Know the FORCE is true"?

Interesting question. And it is also one that is conveniently and STRICTLY avoided. If that warm fuzzie happens with the church--must be from God. If it happens with the FORCE?---just emotions talking. Ad nauseum....

This is a regular problem that remains unsolved in correlated church lessons. It's like the old joke, "Is the Pope Catholic?" More pointedly, "Does the Pope have a testimony of Jesus Christ?" Surely he does. But, is that testimony different than what Thomas Monson posesses? Does Pope Francis have a somewhat "invalid" or "incorrect" testimony of the truth of the Roman Catholic church? Does Pope Francis feel some lesser form of "inspiration" when he prays to God?

Corsair wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:01 am

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:27 pm This is not a mock 1smartdodog. But, I remember getting a warm fuzzie when Rey took her light-saber and started dueling with Kye Lo Ren. Can I claim, by that "witness" that "I Know the FORCE is true"?

Interesting question. And it is also one that is conveniently and STRICTLY avoided. If that warm fuzzie happens with the church--must be from God. If it happens with the FORCE?---just emotions talking. Ad nauseum....

This is a regular problem that remains unsolved in correlated church lessons. It's like the old joke, "Is the Pope Catholic?" More pointedly, "Does the Pope have a testimony of Jesus Christ?" Surely he does. But, is that testimony different than what Thomas Monson posesses? Does Pope Francis have a somewhat "invalid" or "incorrect" testimony of the truth of the Roman Catholic church? Does Pope Francis feel some lesser form of "inspiration" when he prays to God?

I've posted in other threads about disunity at the top level. These guys do NOT agree. But if that is the case, and if JC is "leading HIS church", then how is it possible these guys argue? The typical response is "Jesus allows them to work through it." BULL!

The reason they argue and probably consult with all kinds of attorneys and such is because they are NOT receiving divine guidance from God...or at least not as they claim.

This whole thing is a BIG pile of smoke and mirrors. Its all about image management, and ultimately deception.

Hagoth you shouldn't forget the extreme high esteem in which Hugh Nibley is held in the church. Maybe he isn't a "prophet" but I'm sure most members would see him as approaching a spiritual demi-god.

From Nibley regarding Joseph's arrest record and conviction of being a fraudulent con man:

"...if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith.....the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered."

Oh how he wished he could take those words back when it was all proven to be true.

Palerider wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:34 am Hagoth you shouldn't forget the extreme high esteem in which Hugh Nibley is held in the church. Maybe he isn't a "prophet" but I'm sure most members would see him as approaching a spiritual demi-god.

From Nibley regarding Joseph's arrest record and conviction of being a fraudulent con man:

"...if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith.....the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered."

Oh how he wished he could take those words back when it was all proven to be true.

I've listened to several pod-casts, from SEVERAL different angles, that show the Nauvoo Expositor is FACTUALLY ACCURATE. I wonder what demi-god [s]Nibley would say about that!?

Palerider wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:34 am Hagoth you shouldn't forget the extreme high esteem in which Hugh Nibley is held in the church. Maybe he isn't a "prophet" but I'm sure most members would see him as approaching a spiritual demi-god.

From Nibley regarding Joseph's arrest record and conviction of being a fraudulent con man:

"...if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith.....the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered."

Oh how he wished he could take those words back when it was all proven to be true.

That is what pretty much knocked Nibley off my shelf of trustworthy observers. In Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass he goes so low on the ad-hominem that he really turned me off. SLC Catholic Bishop Tuttle claimed that the court documents had been found by a woman named Pearsall who did research for him. Nibley tried to deflect readers from considering the possibility of such evidence by calling Miss Pearsall a "zealous old maid," and a "gossipy old housewife." He pretty much did the same kind of character attack on Fawn Brodie. After that I started noticing a nasty undercurrent in Nibley's attitude toward pretty much anybody who wasn't Joseph Smith, Abraham or Hugh Nibley.

Nibley also gave us the missing scroll theory based on his remembrance of a long-after-the-fact retelling of his uncle's remembrance of a 60-plus year old memory of George A. Smith (already a highly untrustworthy source) from when he was 5 years old. Given my shift in attitude toward Nibley I would not be shocked if he spruced up his retelling a little, in addition to the ridiculous game of telephone that was already going on. Nibley was truly the author of the current apologetic methodology. He tried on a number of hypotheses for the Book of Abraham but never held out one as the final answer. None really held water but, given enough options to choose from, people will feel like there is a good answer among the various possibilities.

Gordon B. Hinckley wrote:What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest.

And that's the evolution of Mormon doctrine in a nutshell. Just keep softening and softening the jello until it won't stick to anything.

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:31 am Under Point #3 of "The Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet":

Ezra Taft Benson wrote:“Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

This is originally from Ezra Taft Benson, no supporter of organic evolution by natural selection. Luckily, the very live prophet Gordon B. Hinckley stated in 2002:

Gordon B. Hinckley wrote:What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest.

This was cited in Elaine Jarvik, "Beliefs on Darwin's evolution vary from religion to religion," Deseret Morning News (19 January 2006). This reference was helpfully provided from our friends at FairMormon and I cannot find any direct quote of the JFS quote on their site that Hagoth started with. Perhaps it's there, but I would rather catch up watching Season 2 of "Stranger Things" rather than spend more time with "Mormon Things."

I know there was a prophet who said A&E absolutely could not have been the first humans born of a lesser species, implying that's a disgusting outrage to suggest. JFS seems plausible but I can't remember who it was.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:52 am “If evolution is true, the church is false.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:143)

The tag team of Fielding Smith and McConkie took on Charles Darwin and Evolution in a cage match. They put the validity of the Church up against this biological theory. Since that time evidence has mounted for the theory of evolution and evidence for the truth of the LDS Church continues to erode in the minds of many.

It would be best if Mormon leaders refrained from letting hubris dictate pronouncements regarding matters of science.

Smith's quote BTW comes from his three-volume Doctrines of Salvation.