Mormon view of Creation?

[Swart]

That surprises me. I guess I'll have to look into that. Don't be upset if I don't take your word for it.


Would be nice it that were true. I've seen evolution looked at as religious dogma by those who believe it.

Official LDS Church Statements regarding evolution:

http://www.tungate.com/Official_statements.htm

 

[arizona_sunshine]

You don't know your own churches doctrine?

Define doctrine.

 

[fatboys]

FB: Evolution goes on today. Lower life forms are changeing. Bacteria evolves and becomes resistant to anti biotics. Plants which were suseptable to smut or bacteria become resistant to these infections. Humans live longer than they did 20 years ago. Humans lived longer 20 years ago than they did 40 years ago. This earth is billions of years old. Man has been on the earth about 6000 years.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

FB: Evolution goes on today. Lower life forms are changeing. Bacteria evolves and becomes resistant to anti biotics. Plants which were suseptable to smut or bacteria become resistant to these infections. Humans live longer than they did 20 years ago. Humans lived longer 20 years ago than they did 40 years ago. This earth is billions of years old. Man has been on the earth about 6000 years.

I always understood the things you listed above to be mutation, not evolution. also, one question here....why do you think that man living longer today would be considered evolution? This particular thing seems to me to be nothing more than a by product of a healthier life-style than that existed years and years ago.

Grace

 

[Acolyte]

Geee. You mean we need to go to an anti-mormon website so we can find out what we *really* believe.

This is such a mantra with COTMC. Straw-man syndrome.

Oh, so three Mormon pastors (or whatever they are called) that explained this to me mis-represented it?

You mean she went through HER ENTIRE LIFE, without KNOWING WHAT SHE BELIEVED?

Or perhaps her beliefs were misrepresented to her?

I don't know. Maybe the three people that explained this to me were wrong. But then again, maybe you are just naive?

 

[Acolyte]

Define doctrine.

Doctrine (As given by the American Heritage Dictionary)

1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
Archaic. Something taught; a teaching.

 

[Acolyte]

next time you feel the need to do that, go to the bathroom. Helps if you understand LDS doctrine before you start trying to be an expert on it.

I am not trying to be an expert. What I am trying to do is point you to someone who is, Pat Zukeran. Also, I don't need to be an "expert" to know that the creation doctrine of the LDS is incorrect. Spiritual babies on a distant planet? Then the babies come here in human bodies and return and become gods? I am sorry, but that sounds a little bit like paganism. Also, the creation "theory" of the LDS is a wideley known and highly condemned by most if not all Mainstream Christian Denominations. So if you would like to deny it then you could just become a schismatic.

Now about this thread in general. Maybe they should have called it "hey, why don't we talk about something that probably most mormons and main streams Christians actually think alike about."

Why should it be called that? Christians do not agree with mormons on how we were created.

I've gone to college till it hurts, but beyond some adaptation and mixing of breeds, evolution as I understand it seems like a pretty foolish notion which has nil evidence for its proof on the other hand I have not met anyone who completely understands all of the processes used in creation.

That I agree with you on. Evolution is a crock. It is really a fools baby. Darwin, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], how foolish was he?

 

[funguy]

You don't know your own churches doctrine?



This is just a small tid bit. Here is the whole big ship.

My grandmother on my father's side is a Mormon, when she found out from her pastor that the LDS taught this she nearly had a heart attack.

true to the patern of anti literature, you start out kind close and then (deviate from there adding their own spin on their perception of LDS teachings as they go along.

(F:first off, I bet you would find very few people who completely know and understand all of the teachings of their church whatever it might be.)

(F:next, in this allegory are claims made about doctrines as presented in the bible that are based on perceptions of the meanings put forth in the bible and not necessarily based on fact.)

The Bible teaches that Jesus is not the spirit brother of Lucifer or of human beings.
(F:bible doesn't address specifics regarding this)
Lucifer is an angel and part of the created
(F:what is created)
order. Ezekiel 28:13-19 reveals that Lucifer, in contrast
(F:no contrast made)
to Jesus, is a created cherub angel. Colossians 1:16 tells us that Christ is the Creator of all things
(F:things not specifically defined),
including the angelic realm
(F:never says that)
. The words "thrones", "dominions", "principalities" and "powers" were used by rabbinical Jews to describe different orders of angels. In Colossae, there was a problem of worshipping angels. Christ had been degraded to their level. Paul's argument here is that Christ is superior to the angels for Christ created them
(F:where does the bible say that). Lucifer falls into this category of a created angel, thus making him a created being. Hebrews 1:4 also reinforces the fact that Jesus, being God the Son, is superior in nature to the angels
(F:who would deny that Christ was superior). Christ is Creator, while Lucifer is creature, two totally different classes and they cannot be spirit brothers as Mormonism teaches
(F:this whole line of reasoning is intended to demonize the LDS church via a twisting of the pre-existence. Very satanic strategy, if you ask me, as it is intended to separate us from God and limit our eternal perspective putting more focus on the world).

The Incarnation of Christ
The Mormon doctrine of Jesus deviates from biblical teaching regarding the preincarnate life of Christ. It also deviates in its teaching on the incarnation of Jesus. Mormonism teaches that Jesus' incarnation was the result of sexual relations between the flesh and bone Heavenly Father and Mary.
(F:this is only a supposition on someones part. not the teaching of the LDS church. We are not given such specifics.)

Jesus is the only earthly offspring so conceived. Mormon theologian Bruce McConkie states, "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers."{12}

(F: once again jumping to conclusions. this does not say that Heavenly Father had sex with Mary. why doesn't this person tell what McConkie has to say about the virgin birth. Also what McConkie says does not equal official doctrine.)

He also writes, "God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; He was born in the same personal, real and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about this paternity; He was begotten, conceived, and born in the normal and natural course of events, for He is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says."{13}
(F:same thing)

James Talmage wrote, "Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh."{14}
(F: once again this only says that Jesus was the literal son of Heavenly Father, but does not say Mary had sex with God)

Mormon theology teaches that the Father was the main person involved in Mary's conception, not the Holy Spirit. Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father."{15} Mormon Historian Stephen Robinson states, "Mary was in some unspecified manner made pregnant by God the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit."{16} Dr. Robinson attempts to remain faithful to Mormon theology and the Bible, but his attempt falls short.
(F:Hello...did you somehow miss this. falls short?)

The Bible makes it clear: Jesus was conceived as the result of a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit, not a physical union with the Father. John 4:24 says that God is spirit.
(F:Guess what...you are also a spirit)
He is not a resurrected man.
(F:It doesn't say that)

Luke 1:35 states, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." The Holy Spirit's supernatural work in Mary's body enabled Christ--eternal God--to take on human nature. Jesus thus had a dual nature. He was fully God and fully man.
(F:that's right)
Mormons reject this teaching.
(F:huh? famous anti trick; all you need is two Mormons who thnk this way to make the statement true)

Stephen Robinson writes, the "unbiblical doctrine of the two natures in Christ was added to historic Christianity by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D."{17}
(F:I don't know what SR is refering to here;I suspect his comment is being taken out of context, but it doesn't matter...SR doesn't get to decide official church doctrine)

This might be a consistent conclusion for Mormonism, but it is contrary to the Bible. Throughout the Gospels Jesus showed His humanity: He was hungry, He got tired, and His human body experienced death. However, He also revealed His divinity, demonstrating omnipotence (Colossians 1:17), omniscience (John 2:25), eternity (John 1:1), and omnipresence (Matthew 28:20)
(F:last reference..big stretch).

There is a wide separation between the Mormon doctrine of the incarnation of Christ and what the Bible teaches.

(F:Bible sure makes a lot more sense to me now than before I became LDS)

 

[fatboys]

I always understood the things you listed above to be mutation, not evolution. also, one question here....why do you think that man living longer today would be considered evolution? This particular thing seems to me to be nothing more than a by product of a healthier life-style than that existed years and years ago.

Grace

What do you think mutation is? There is a need and the species addapts to survive.

 

[Ran77]

(F:Bible sure makes a lot more sense to me now than before I became LDS)

Me too.

 

[Swart]

I am not trying to be an expert. What I am trying to do is point you to someone who is, Pat Zukeran.

Who is Pat Zukeran? What qualifies him(her?) as an expert?

 

[happyinhisgrace]

What do you think mutation is? There is a need and the species addapts to survive.

Mutation
(n.) Change; alteration, either in form or qualities.
(n.) Gradual definitely tending variation, such as may be observed in a group of organisms in the fossils of successive geological levels.
(n.) As now employed (first by de Vries), a sudden variation (the offspring differing from its parents in some well-marked character or characters) as distinguished from a gradual variations in which the new characters become fully developed only in the course of many generations. The occurrence of mutations, and the hereditary transmission, under some conditions, of the characters so appearing, are well-established facts; whether the process has played an important part in the evolution of the existing species and other groups of organisms is a disputed question.
(n.) The result of the above process; a suddenly produced variation.

Evolution
(n.) The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.
(n.) A series of things unrolled or unfolded.
(n.) The formation of an involute by unwrapping a thread from a curve as an evolute.
(n.) The extraction of roots; -- the reverse of involution.
(n.) A prescribed movement of a body of troops, or a vessel or fleet; any movement designed to effect a new arrangement or disposition; a maneuver.
(n.) A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.
(n.) That theory of generation which supposes the germ to preexist in the parent, and its parts to be developed, but not actually formed, by the procreative act; -- opposed to epigenesis.
(n.) That series of changes under natural law which involves continuous progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single and simple to the diverse and manifold in quality or function. The pocess is by some limited to organic beings; by others it is applied to the inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain the existence and growth of institutions, manners, language, civilization, and every product of human activity. The agencies and laws of the process are variously explained by different philosophrs.

ev·o·lu·tion ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (

v

-l

sh

n,

v

-)
n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2. 1. <LI type=a>The process of developing.
   2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
   1. <LI type=a>Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
   2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

mu·ta·tion ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (my

-t

sh

n)
n.

1. The act or process of being altered or changed.
2. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
3. Genetics.
   1. <LI type=a>A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type. <LI type=a>The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
   2. A mutant.
4. Linguistics. The change that is caused in a sound by its assimilation to another sound, such as umlaut.

Well, from the above definitions it would seem that while the two are similar, they are not the same. Evolution is a gradual process where something evolves over time into a better form and mutation is is change in dna that results in a different trait from that of other species in the same catagory.

Grace

 

[fatboys]

Mutation
(n.) Change; alteration, either in form or qualities.
(n.) Gradual definitely tending variation, such as may be observed in a group of organisms in the fossils of successive geological levels.
(n.) As now employed (first by de Vries), a sudden variation (the offspring differing from its parents in some well-marked character or characters) as distinguished from a gradual variations in which the new characters become fully developed only in the course of many generations. The occurrence of mutations, and the hereditary transmission, under some conditions, of the characters so appearing, are well-established facts; whether the process has played an important part in the evolution of the existing species and other groups of organisms is a disputed question.
(n.) The result of the above process; a suddenly produced variation.

Evolution
(n.) The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.
(n.) A series of things unrolled or unfolded.
(n.) The formation of an involute by unwrapping a thread from a curve as an evolute.
(n.) The extraction of roots; -- the reverse of involution.
(n.) A prescribed movement of a body of troops, or a vessel or fleet; any movement designed to effect a new arrangement or disposition; a maneuver.
(n.) A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.
(n.) That theory of generation which supposes the germ to preexist in the parent, and its parts to be developed, but not actually formed, by the procreative act; -- opposed to epigenesis.
(n.) That series of changes under natural law which involves continuous progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single and simple to the diverse and manifold in quality or function. The pocess is by some limited to organic beings; by others it is applied to the inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain the existence and growth of institutions, manners, language, civilization, and every product of human activity. The agencies and laws of the process are variously explained by different philosophrs.

ev·o·lu·tion ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (

v

-l

sh

n,

v

-)
n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2. 1. <LI type=a>The process of developing.
   2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
   1. <LI type=a>Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
   2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

mu·ta·tion ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (my

-t

sh

n)
n.

1. The act or process of being altered or changed.
2. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
3. Genetics.
   1. <LI type=a>A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type. <LI type=a>The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
   2. A mutant.
4. Linguistics. The change that is caused in a sound by its assimilation to another sound, such as umlaut.

Well, from the above definitions it would seem that while the two are similar, they are not the same. Evolution is a gradual process where something evolves over time into a better form and mutation is is change in dna that results in a different trait from that of other species in the same catagory.

Grace

FB: All this information just to find out they are the same thing.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

FB: All this information just to find out they are the same thing.

similar but not the same as is obvious from the definitions of the words. Sorry that information bothers you.

Grace

 

[funguy]

due to my experience on another thread which was the last straw, I have decide to leave your company. here is a copy of my final post.

This has degenerated into a complete mass of immaturity. Probably my primary purpose for being here was to disallow free pot shots at the church that arise out of the anti's inconsistencies, innacuracies, imprecision and faulty logic. So I guess when they decide they can't fight you any more by doing things like quoting scriptures from the bible as if we were unaware of them implying they are really applicable, then they can poke fun. The problem is I don't think the normal people who I would be protecting are here at all so all I'm really accomplishing is provideing the antis an opportunity to spew more of their poison. I could be doing a lot more useful and productive things with my time. Hasta la Vista.

funguy

 

[evolisamyth]

Most unfortunate that funguy feels this way.
Hopefully, he returns.
Might I suggest one posts a specific belief followed by specific information/refrences which support such a belief. Then another posts contrary information of the same vein followed by a discussion.
I've read through the posts and I can see where one might feel bashed. However...thick skin (though not a pre-requisite) is not a bad thing to have.

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear

Best to you!
Evo