Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
In a recently resurrected thread on Mormonism and creationism,
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,128437
remarks were made to the effect that the church is not officially creationist and that it has been moving away from creationism.
Utter folderol. Balderdash and codswallop. The institutional church most certainly remains as creationist as ever, despite what more enlightened and rational minds would like to believe.
The profit-in-waiting, one R. M. Nelson, has spoken numerous times of the literal nature of the creation as found in Genesis and the PoGP.
October 1994 GC, "The Spirit of Elijah":
"From the days of Adam to the meridian of time, temple ordinances were performed for the living only. Ordinances for the dead had to await the Atonement and postmortal ministry of the Savior."
What's that, you say? Too ancient? That's so last century! Attitudes must have changed since then!
October 2003 GC, "Personal Priesthood Responsibility":
"Priesthood authority has existed in many dispensations, such as those of Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, the meridian of time, the Jaredites, the Nephites, and others. All previous dispensations were limited in time, as each ended in apostasy. They were also limited to small segments of planet Earth. In contrast, our dispensation – the dispensation of the fulness of times – will not be limited in time or place. Globally, it will host a whole, complete, and perfect union, welding together dispensations, keys, powers, and glories from the days of Adam even to the present time."
Okay, maybe they haven't changed all that much… But that's still 14 years ago. Might there be anything more recent, to reflect current, state-of-the-art thinking in these, the most latterest of days ever?
October 2015 GC, "A Plea to My Sisters":
"It would be impossible to measure the influence that such women have, not only on families but also on the Lord’s Church, as wives, mothers, and grandmothers; as sisters and aunts; as teachers and leaders; and especially as exemplars and devout defenders of the faith. This has been true in every gospel dispensation since the days of Adam and Eve."
All these addresses were (naturally) published in the Ensign, the most correlated magazine on earth. In addition, the 2015 talk can be found at
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865638266/President-Russell-M-Nelson-A-Plea-to-My-Sisters.html
where the following statement appears on that same page:
"The LDS Church News is an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The publication's content supports the doctrines, principles and practices of the Church."
An "official publication." So yes, creationism remains to this day an "official" doctrine and position of TSCC. Because it wants deniability, it won't come right out and declare "This is an official position" in those exact words, but that doesn't make it any less so. The faithful know their marching orders, oblivious that their path leads off a cliff.
What? Still can't believe it, you say? You want something recent, but not from Nelson? Fine. Here's something from a renowned taffy-puller named Holland…
April 2015 GC, "Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet":
"In our increasingly secular society, it is as uncommon as it is unfashionable to speak of Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden or of a 'fortunate fall' into mortality. Nevertheless, the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death – in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter – without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it."
And finally, to the evolutionist "active mormon" who resurrected that thread:
You may accept evolution – hooray for you and all – but do you believe in it ENOUGH to talk about it in sac meeting, or testify of it in F&T? Do you advocate it in Gospel Doctrine SS class or in EQ? Or are you silent, realizing that to make your views openly known would inevitably result in a sharp summons into the bishop's office for a PPI?
And if you do keep silent due to the probable consequences to your church standing, what do you think that says about the church to which you belong?
Remember that your acceptance of evolution places you in direct opposition to at least two of the stipend collectors in SLC. That you have posted it in an apostate internet forum (even anonymously) may well be seen as a public "teaching" in the eyes of the church, and thus possible grounds for your very own charge of apostasy if they can find you.
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,128437
remarks were made to the effect that the church is not officially creationist and that it has been moving away from creationism.
Utter folderol. Balderdash and codswallop. The institutional church most certainly remains as creationist as ever, despite what more enlightened and rational minds would like to believe.
The profit-in-waiting, one R. M. Nelson, has spoken numerous times of the literal nature of the creation as found in Genesis and the PoGP.
October 1994 GC, "The Spirit of Elijah":
"From the days of Adam to the meridian of time, temple ordinances were performed for the living only. Ordinances for the dead had to await the Atonement and postmortal ministry of the Savior."
What's that, you say? Too ancient? That's so last century! Attitudes must have changed since then!
October 2003 GC, "Personal Priesthood Responsibility":
"Priesthood authority has existed in many dispensations, such as those of Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, the meridian of time, the Jaredites, the Nephites, and others. All previous dispensations were limited in time, as each ended in apostasy. They were also limited to small segments of planet Earth. In contrast, our dispensation – the dispensation of the fulness of times – will not be limited in time or place. Globally, it will host a whole, complete, and perfect union, welding together dispensations, keys, powers, and glories from the days of Adam even to the present time."
Okay, maybe they haven't changed all that much… But that's still 14 years ago. Might there be anything more recent, to reflect current, state-of-the-art thinking in these, the most latterest of days ever?
October 2015 GC, "A Plea to My Sisters":
"It would be impossible to measure the influence that such women have, not only on families but also on the Lord’s Church, as wives, mothers, and grandmothers; as sisters and aunts; as teachers and leaders; and especially as exemplars and devout defenders of the faith. This has been true in every gospel dispensation since the days of Adam and Eve."
All these addresses were (naturally) published in the Ensign, the most correlated magazine on earth. In addition, the 2015 talk can be found at
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865638266/President-Russell-M-Nelson-A-Plea-to-My-Sisters.html
where the following statement appears on that same page:
"The LDS Church News is an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The publication's content supports the doctrines, principles and practices of the Church."
An "official publication." So yes, creationism remains to this day an "official" doctrine and position of TSCC. Because it wants deniability, it won't come right out and declare "This is an official position" in those exact words, but that doesn't make it any less so. The faithful know their marching orders, oblivious that their path leads off a cliff.
What? Still can't believe it, you say? You want something recent, but not from Nelson? Fine. Here's something from a renowned taffy-puller named Holland…
April 2015 GC, "Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet":
"In our increasingly secular society, it is as uncommon as it is unfashionable to speak of Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden or of a 'fortunate fall' into mortality. Nevertheless, the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death – in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter – without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it."
And finally, to the evolutionist "active mormon" who resurrected that thread:
You may accept evolution – hooray for you and all – but do you believe in it ENOUGH to talk about it in sac meeting, or testify of it in F&T? Do you advocate it in Gospel Doctrine SS class or in EQ? Or are you silent, realizing that to make your views openly known would inevitably result in a sharp summons into the bishop's office for a PPI?
And if you do keep silent due to the probable consequences to your church standing, what do you think that says about the church to which you belong?
Remember that your acceptance of evolution places you in direct opposition to at least two of the stipend collectors in SLC. That you have posted it in an apostate internet forum (even anonymously) may well be seen as a public "teaching" in the eyes of the church, and thus possible grounds for your very own charge of apostasy if they can find you.
Biological evolution requires eons to produce the kind of biological diversity we observe on earth.
From the Book of Mormon Student Manual, (2009), pp. 49–57:
"Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained how all things were connected to the Fall of Adam: 'Then comes the Fall; Adam falls; mortality and procreation and death commence. Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is "the first flesh upon the earth." And the effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord’s great and eternal purposes roll onward' ('Christ and the Creation,' Ensign, June 1982, 14).
“'Mortality and procreation and death all had their beginnings with the Fall. …
“'… An infinite Creator, in the primeval day, made the earth and man and all forms of life in such a state that they could fall. This fall involved a change of status. All things were so created that they could fall or change. …
“'… In the primeval and Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher state than now prevails. … Death and procreation had yet to enter the world' (Ensign, June 1982, 9)."
http://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-7-2-nephi-1-3?lang=eng
According to Mormon teachings, the Fall of Adam took place about 4000 B.C.:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible-chron/old-testament?lang=eng
With reproduction and death only existing on "Mormon Earth" for about six thousand years, the necessary timeline just isn't there.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2017 02:38AM by lurking in.
From the Book of Mormon Student Manual, (2009), pp. 49–57:
"Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained how all things were connected to the Fall of Adam: 'Then comes the Fall; Adam falls; mortality and procreation and death commence. Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is "the first flesh upon the earth." And the effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord’s great and eternal purposes roll onward' ('Christ and the Creation,' Ensign, June 1982, 14).
“'Mortality and procreation and death all had their beginnings with the Fall. …
“'… An infinite Creator, in the primeval day, made the earth and man and all forms of life in such a state that they could fall. This fall involved a change of status. All things were so created that they could fall or change. …
“'… In the primeval and Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher state than now prevails. … Death and procreation had yet to enter the world' (Ensign, June 1982, 9)."
http://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-7-2-nephi-1-3?lang=eng
According to Mormon teachings, the Fall of Adam took place about 4000 B.C.:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible-chron/old-testament?lang=eng
With reproduction and death only existing on "Mormon Earth" for about six thousand years, the necessary timeline just isn't there.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2017 02:38AM by lurking in.
I do lots of astrophotography -- long-exposure shots of stars, galaxies, etc.
A few years ago, when my TBM mother came to visit, she saw a nice big 20x30" print I'd just had done of a shot of the Andromeda Galaxy that I did.
"Oh, that's gorgeous," she said. "It's so wonderful we can see the wonders heavenly father has created."
"Sure," I said. "And what's really cool, is the photons I collected that came from this galaxy left it 2.5 million years aog -- so it's like my camera is a time-machine in a way!"
"Oh, that can't be right," she replied.
"The universe is only about 6,000 years old."
Yeah, they're not just creationists, they're young-earth creationists, no matter how much they try to pretend otherwise. Their theology about "Adam and Eve" and such falls apart completely if they're not.
A few years ago, when my TBM mother came to visit, she saw a nice big 20x30" print I'd just had done of a shot of the Andromeda Galaxy that I did.
"Oh, that's gorgeous," she said. "It's so wonderful we can see the wonders heavenly father has created."
"Sure," I said. "And what's really cool, is the photons I collected that came from this galaxy left it 2.5 million years aog -- so it's like my camera is a time-machine in a way!"
"Oh, that can't be right," she replied.
"The universe is only about 6,000 years old."
Yeah, they're not just creationists, they're young-earth creationists, no matter how much they try to pretend otherwise. Their theology about "Adam and Eve" and such falls apart completely if they're not.
"Creationists keep predicting that evolution is dead, and it keeps not being dead. Perhaps there’s a message in that."