Creationism vs. Evolution: "...after its own kind"

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Tex

God knew it, the prophets for millennia preceding knew it, and the salvation of worlds hung in the balance.

If you want to live in a fantasy world where Jesus might've sinned or that God might declare the Book of Mormon untrue to an honest seeker, be my guest. But it is a not a world grounded in reality.

This cracks me up. What is your definition of being grounded in reality? You're talking about unseen, supernatural beings and then lecturing people on not being grounded in reality.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

This cracks me up. What is your definition of being grounded in reality? You're talking about unseen, supernatural beings and then lecturing people on not being grounded in reality.

Obviously Tex is directing his comments to people that at least claim to believe. Since you clearly don't fit that description, maybe you should shut the hell up.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Obviously Tex is directing his comments to people that at least claim to believe. Since you clearly don't fit that description, maybe you should shut the hell up.

Even among believers, you must recognize that you're talking about things that are not verifiable and must be taken on faith. Given that, it seems odd when someone calls out another for not being grounded in reality.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Even among believers, you must recognize that you're talking about things that are not verifiable and must be taken on faith. Given that, it seems odd when someone calls out another for not being grounded in reality.

Reality is constant. Perceptions on reality change. I'm making a claim that my perception (or the LDS perception, if you will) mirrors actual reality. There is nothing unusual about this.

If you really want to get technical, I could've more accurately said, "Your perception of the world is not grounded in the LDS perception of reality." But the additional qualifiers are unnecessary because it's assumed.

Now quit dickering with trivialities.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

What happens, Lebowski, when two members lean over to chat with each other in EQ about some passage in scripture, and to one God has said that scripture is true, and to the other God has said it is false? Can it be both?

No, it can't be both. I would argue that either one could be telling the truth. You would argue that only one could be.

Originally Posted by Tex

Adam-God is quickly becoming the LDS equivalent of citing Adolf Hitler.

You dodged the question. The "Hitler" analogy was a nice touch. You think anybody will buy it?

Originally Posted by Tex

It's interesting ... it's almost as if you require an escape hatch, just in case the prophet leads you astray. Tell me, is there an example in your lifetime that you can give me of this quandary presenting itself to you?

Now you are projecting the issue on to me, implying that it is an issue of personal faith or worthiness. It's a philosophical argument Tex. Stay focused.

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't recall making any definitive statement about the figurative or literal nature of the creation story. But as to a general principle: when it comes to doctrine, I follow the statements and council of the brethren. When it comes to personal application, I follow the promptings of the Spirit.

You dodged my simple question again. That's amazing.

Originally Posted by Tex

When it comes to things on which there is no official pronouncement (say, the Amalekite slaughtering), I approach the scriptures with the assumption that they are true as written, but willing to acknowledge that interpretation may change as our leaders give us further light.

I try to approach the scriptures both with an attitude of faith and with an attitude of openness and honesty. I tend to believe both are possible.

Originally Posted by Tex

When Jesus came to the earth, he had one mission to accomplish and we knew he would do it. We are told by no less a figure than James Talmadge that it was possible for him to sin, that he was capable of failure. But he didn't and he wouldn't. God knew it, the prophets for millennia preceding knew it, and the salvation of worlds hung in the balance.

If you want to live in a fantasy world where Jesus might've sinned or that God might declare the Book of Mormon untrue to an honest seeker, be my guest. But it is a not a world grounded in reality.

Not "grounded in reality"? This is truly bizarre.

I also argue that the person who accepts the possibility that there are two possible answers and chooses to believe has a stronger foundation than someone who concedes only one possible outcome.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

When it comes to things on which there is no official pronouncement (say, the Amalekite slaughtering), I approach the scriptures with the assumption that they are true as written, but willing to acknowledge that interpretation may change as our leaders give us further light.

Why would you start with the presumption that the Hebrew Bible is true, especially on odd idiosyncratic points, such as genocide?

It certainly is not the presumption scholars take when dissembling scriptures. I know you don't give a rat's ass what scholars think, but I like to listen what they have to say, when we have no clear picture on a weird event.

If the archaeology does not support a finding of genocide, then listening to scholars is useful.

This approach is perplexing to trust the historicity of scripture on peculiar aspects of its fringes.

Or do you not find the Amalekite genocide a fringe aspect? I hope you don't view it as a core doctrine.

For example, another weird one that never makes sense to me is Jacob and Esau, and selling his birthright for porridge.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't recall making any definitive statement about the figurative or literal nature of the creation story. But as to a general principle: when it comes to doctrine, I follow the statements and council of the brethren. When it comes to personal application, I follow the promptings of the Spirit.

And by the way, if at this point in the debate you are still too chickenshit to take a stance one way or the other regarding Genesis, then I am clearly wasting my time. (pardon my french).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And by the way, if at this point in the debate you are still too chickenshit to take a stance one way or the other regarding Genesis, then I am clearly wasting my time. (pardon my french).

What is Tex's view? Isn't in line with Joseph Fielding Smith and BRM's seven deadly heresy speech?

Tex appears to wait for an interpretation from the GA's he likes. I know I prefer to listen to my favorite GAs.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

No, it can't be both. I would argue that either one could be telling the truth. You would argue that only one could be.

Huh? That's exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You dodged the question. The "Hitler" analogy was a nice touch. You think anybody will buy it?

Now you are projecting the issue on to me, implying that it is an issue of personal faith or worthiness. It's a philosophical argument Tex. Stay focused.

Adam-God is an extremely poor example for a number reasons, not the least of which are (1) the fact that it's an outlier in prophetic pronouncements, (2) the lingering debate over the interpretation of the doctrine, and (3) the stark differences in the nature of church leadership in the 19th century vs. today.

I didn't dodge anything. Your question was, in essence, "What do I do when the prophet teaches false doctrine?" You want some "way out" (ie, "escape hatch") that you can get independent confirmation that what a prophet says is false. That has nothing to do with your personal faith or worthiness, and everything to do with the fact that it flies in the face of all the revealed doctrine of the prophetic office.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You dodged my simple question again. That's amazing.

I try to approach the scriptures both with an attitude of faith and with an attitude of openness and honesty. I tend to believe both are possible.

I most certainly did not. Your question was about how I approach scripture, figuratively, literally, or whatever. And I answered it. Don't get testy with me just because my answer doesn't fit into your pre-conceived box.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Not "grounded in reality"? This is truly bizarre.

I also argue that the person who accepts the possibility that there are two possible answers and chooses to believe has a stronger foundation than someone who concedes only one possible outcome.

Fine. We're at an impasse then. You think it's possible for God to tell someone the Book of Mormon is not true; I don't. Not really anywhere else to go on this one.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And by the way, if at this point in the debate you are still too chickenshit to take a stance one way or the other regarding Genesis, then I am clearly wasting my time. (pardon my french).

Woke up on the wrong side this morning, eh? As I told you before, I don't believe in taking a monolithic approach to the creation story. If you have a specific question about some aspect of the creation, then ask it. I'm not going to write a dissertation on how I view it.

Originally Posted by Archaea

It certainly is not the presumption scholars take when dissembling scriptures.

Which is why I said earlier that it's not an intellectual question. It's a spiritual one.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Or do you not find the Amalekite genocide a fringe aspect? I hope you don't view it as a core doctrine.

For example, another weird one that never makes sense to me is Jacob and Esau, and selling his birthright for porridge.

This has never really been about the Amalekites, for me. It's been about whether or not individual members have authoritative license to receive revelation about doctrine, such that it expands upon (or contradicts) what has been said by the apostles and prophets. To me, that is a core doctrine.

Originally Posted by Archaea

What is Tex's view? Isn't in line with Joseph Fielding Smith and BRM's seven deadly heresy speech?

Tex appears to wait for an interpretation from the GA's he likes. I know I prefer to listen to my favorite GAs.

More personal attacks in lieu of legitimate arguments. You're like Cali Coug-lite.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Which is why I said earlier that it's not an intellectual question. It's a spiritual one.

You lose me on this one. Are you saying one doesn't use one's intellect in understanding the scriptures?

Originally Posted by Tex

This has never really been about the Amalekites, for me. It's been about whether or not individual members have authoritative license to receive revelation about doctrine, such that it expands upon (or contradicts) what has been said by the apostles and prophets. To me, that is a core doctrine.

And here's the crux, we know LDS only accept the Hebrew Bible insofar as it's been correctly translated. The "historical" tradition of the Amalekite account has neither been confirmed nor contradicted by modern apostles or prophets. So how is somebody receving a personal revelation in contradiction?

You make a quantum leap right there. Just because it's in the Hebrew Bible doesn't make it accurate, especially on such a fringe issue.

I also categorically disagree with you that a person is not entitled to personally interpret the scripture through the Spirit. In fact, that is what we are commanded to do.

I have a very strong impression that the Amalekite tradition is NOT accurate.