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

[Brian]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

You said you believe in macro evolution. Which I believe at the most macro level would be man evolving from microscopic creatures. Would it not? If you believe man evolved from chimps, or perhaps a fish, please tell me.

I believe that humans evolved from gum drops.
zits are the genetic residue from the sugar sprinkles on the gumdrops.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

I suppose the Priesthood had something to do with it. Beyond that, I couldn't tell you. Why don't you ask Him?

At least I can support my belief with the scriptures, the teachings in the temple, and Church leaders. What can the evolutionists use to support their belief?

Absolutely, the priesthood was involved. It's the governing principle of the universe.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Tex

Don't tell me we're headed for a "what is truth?" or "is truth relative?" discussion.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

??? Another bizarre response.

Sigh. It is NOT the prerogative of each person to decide what is and is not true, based on how he or she perceives the Spirit. As I said in the other thread, that's a recipe for anarchy and a perfect description of fractured modern Christianity. There is one man who carries the heavy weight of deciding when to discard untruths, or to clarify unclear doctrines. Sooner is not that person.

It is the privilege of each person to receive a confirmation of the truth. That is, if you meet Moroni's conditions, the promise is God will tell you THAT it is true. Not "IF" it is true.

This is of course speaking of the doctrine as a whole. I don't think God expects (nor will he reward) the process of going through the entire text verse by verse and praying for confirmation of each passage.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Sigh. It is NOT the prerogative of each person to decide what is and is not true, based on how he or she perceives the Spirit. As I said in the other thread, that's a recipe for anarchy and a perfect description of fractured modern Christianity. There is one man who carries the heavy weight of deciding when to discard untruths, or to clarify unclear doctrines. Sooner is not that person.

It is the privilege of each person to receive a confirmation of the truth. That is, if you meet Moroni's conditions, the promise is God will tell you THAT it is true. Not "IF" it is true.

This is of course speaking of the doctrine as a whole. I don't think God expects (nor will he reward) the process of going through the entire text verse by verse and praying for confirmation of each passage.

I see a paradigm conflict here that probably won't be resolved by discussion here.

Do I understand your position to be this: The prophet is the arbiter of truth. If you pray to ask God whether what the prophet says is true, and you are earnest, God will confirm to you that what the prophet says is true. Anything beyond what the prophet has said is true is not important at this time.

Is that a fair statement of your position?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I see a paradigm conflict here that probably won't be resolved by discussion here.

Do I understand your position to be this: The prophet is the arbiter of truth. If you pray to ask God whether what the prophet says is true, and you are earnest, God will confirm to you that what the prophet says is true. Anything beyond what the prophet has said is true is not important at this time.

Is that a fair statement of your position?

Mmm, mostly, although I'd dicker a little with the choice in words. I'd phrase it roughly this way:

The prophet is the arbiter of doctrine and scripture. If you pray to ask God to confirm that what the prophet says is true, and you are earnest, God will confirm to you that what the prophet says is true. Determining the truth of any doctrine or scripture beyond what the prophet has said is true is not possible via spiritual means.

[SeattleUte]

I've never seen anything like this. Two completely unrelated discussions going on in tandem in a single thread. It's like two choirs singing at once out of harmony.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I've never seen anything like this. Two completely unrelated discussions going on in tandem in a single thread. It's like two choirs singing at once out of harmony.

They are actually realted, in a very braod sense, but I won't bring it up as it would add a third choir and I can barely keep up with the one I am in already.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I've never seen anything like this. Two completely unrelated discussions going on in tandem in a single thread. It's like two choirs singing at once out of harmony.

Try the threaded mode. Much easier to follow that way.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mmm, mostly, although I'd dicker a little with the choice in words. I'd phrase it roughly this way:

The prophet is the arbiter of doctrine and scripture. If you pray to ask God to confirm that what the prophet says is true, and you are earnest, God will confirm to you that what the prophet says is true. Determining the truth of any doctrine or scripture beyond what the prophet has said is true is not possible via spiritual means.

I'll cite a famous example which will undermine this belief.

Do you remember how the famous phrase of "As Man is, God once was, and God is, Man may become"?

Remember it was revealed to Lorenzo Snow before he was prophet, and he was advised to keep it to himself?

We all are entitled to revelations for ourselves, and are not dependent upon the prophet to arbitrate the meaning thereof.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I've got to admit, Tex. This is the most convoluted dodge you have ever attempted. You are so far out on the limb you are defying gravity.

I couldn't possibly disagree more.

We are not talking about deciding what to include in canon here. We are simply talking about a personal belief regarding OT genocide. Sooner is free to do that just as you are free to establish a belief regarding which of the scriptural accounts aren't literal.

If yo don't allow for the possibility of a negative response, you are not asking an honest question. And by the way, here is the scripture:

"each passage" is an exaggeration, Tex. Desiring to know if God sanctions genocide seems to be a perfectly valid search for truth, IMO.

And here is the next verse:

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on this promise. I can't imagine that Moroni intended his promise to be interpreted to mean that God could possibly say "no."

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'll cite a famous example which will undermine this belief.

Do you remember how the famous phrase of "As Man is, God once was, and God is, Man may become"?

Remember it was revealed to Lorenzo Snow before he was prophet, and he was advised to keep it to himself?

We all are entitled to revelations for ourselves, and are not dependent upon the prophet to arbitrate the meaning thereof.

I imagine even SoonerCoug might blanche a little at being compared to Lorenzo Snow. But to this I am comfortable saying: if someone were so far advanced spiritually that God reveals to him such higher truths, the last place that person would go to discuss it would be an Internet message board.