The Responsibility of Church Leaders....

[_Blixa]

It depends on what you make of the Eden story. I believe in science, and I believe in evolution. I suspect that the Eden story was something quite different from the way fundamentalist Protestants (and many Mormons) understand it.

A topic for an interesting discussion. One that I won't have here.

Sorry to hear that.

I always thought that belief in a God creating humankind and evolution weren't necessarily incompatible, and that Mormonism already had theological elements compatible with this argument (a god bound by natural laws, creating by organizing matter, etc. would seem to fit with a propostion that evolution was the process by which god "created" man, adam being, then, the first "entirely human" being...).

I was rather surprised I didn't encounter this idea or one like it in seminary, sunday school or elsewhere at church. Perhaps it is made now?

[_truth dancer]

I believe that at least 30% of what is said in most Church meetings is true. Most of the remaining 70% is fluff.....mostly harmless. On the whole they are teaching truth. They just don't seem to be teaching the truth you want them to teach.

Hi Nehor...

Actually I do not believe a lot of what is taught in church and truly am not concerned too much. I have no concern as to what is being taught at all (well a little but mostly I do not care... most is harmless). (smile)

My point is not really about what is being taught.

It is that the church leaders clearly know that there are untruths being taught and they do not try to correct the situation.

You seem to think the church has not taught anything concerning the Book of Mormon archaeology and history... not true. The problem is that the church has taught ideas that are incorrect and does not correct their teaching. Yes, I find this deceptive to say the least.

Again, if the church leaders truly believe something, then this is one thing but please tell me why the leaders support such nonsense when they clearly know it is untrue?

It would take about two sentences during General Conference to set things straight.

~dancer~

[_Gazelam]

Gaz, I'm not comparing the two. I'm asking why the apologetics feel they have to defend everything in the Book of Mormon? I don't understand this. I saw things on MAD about DNA and elephants and such... I just sort of ignored it. If LDS don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve (do they?) then why the preoccupation with proving everything in the Book of Mormon to be accurate?

I've been reading the Bible lately.. I had an odd experience when I read the Book of Mormon and I may continue reading it at some point... but if someone told me I would have to believe it (not just look to it for closeness to a deity) I'd question if I could do so.

The Book of Mormon is not presented as a "faith promoting rumor". It is as real a document as anything in the Bible. It is an actual history of actual events that occured with people as real as you or I. It would be similar to you defending American history to a Russian who grew up in the cold war of the soviet union and was presenting to you false american history propoganda that he was taught in school.

As far as Adam and Eve are concerned, try reading 2 Nephi chp.2. Its my personal favorite chapter in the Book of Mormon. Also the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price is somewhat short. Try reading it all the way through in one sitting. Its all about Adam and Eve.

[_Gazelam]

The LDS do not make a claim for the inerrancy of any Scripture.

Then let's get rid of Sec 132 entirely. It's obviously 'way off base.

Are you bitter about this Harmony because your true and faithful husband will undoubtably be given a new and faithful wife (or wives) when he receives his exaltation? All this while you, who preach against the gospel of Christ, receive a lesser portion of salvation?

I can see where that could stick in a bitter anti's craw.

[_Gazelam]

Are most LDS fundamentalists in that they believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve and a garden of Eden?

I think that bothers me... and scares me a bit because the only other people I'm aware of that believe this are Southern Baptists and the Church of Christ. I have many neighbors that believe this. They're good people and I don't think less of them for this belief, but it still startles me. It seems that to believe that you would have to discount much of evolution and science that points to evolution. That bothers me that many people seem to think that science is attacking religion... and if you believe in much of the Bible as literal it makes sense that you would see science as attacking it.

I hope that makes sense.

It is not possible to have a testimony of Christ and not believe in the fall of Adam.

The Three Pillars of Eternity, Bruce R. McConkie: http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6800

[_The Nehor]

Hi Nehor...

Actually I do not believe a lot of what is taught in church and truly am not concerned too much. I have no concern as to what is being taught at all (well a little but mostly I do not care... most is harmless). (smile)

My point is not really about what is being taught.

It is that the church leaders clearly know that there are untruths being taught and they do not try to correct the situation.

You seem to think the church has not taught anything concerning the Book of Mormon archaeology and history... not true. The problem is that the church has taught ideas that are incorrect and does not correct their teaching. Yes, I find this deceptive to say the least.

Again, if the church leaders truly believe something, then this is one thing but please tell me why the leaders support such nonsense when they clearly know it is untrue?

It would take about two sentences during General Conference to set things straight.

~dancer~

I hate to just contradict but I disagree. I don't think leaders who see or know of untruths being taught ignore the situation at all. The Leaders know about as much as the average member, maybe a little more, when it comes to history. The jury isn't back yet on many of the disputes and unless God decides to clarify it to the Church as a whole it's going to stay that way. The 12 year old boy who denied Polygamy....I don't know of any of my leaders who wouldn't suggest an interview and a mild and charitable correction.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

The LDS do not make a claim for the inerrancy of any Scripture.

Then let's get rid of Sec 132 entirely. It's obviously 'way off base.

Are you bitter about this Harmony because your true and faithful husband will undoubtably be given a new and faithful wife (or wives) when he receives his exaltation? All this while you, who preach against the gospel of Christ, receive a lesser portion of salvation?

I can see where that could stick in a bitter anti's craw.

LOL. Yeah, Harmony, why would anyone have a problem with this beautiful plan of happiness? No other religion preaches such a wonderful and marvelous afterlife. It must be true.

[_The Nehor]

Are you bitter about this Harmony because your true and faithful husband will undoubtably be given a new and faithful wife (or wives) when he receives his exaltation? All this while you, who preach against the gospel of Christ, receive a lesser portion of salvation?

I can see where that could stick in a bitter anti's craw.

That was just cruel and unnecessary.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Are you bitter about this Harmony because your true and faithful husband will undoubtably be given a new and faithful wife (or wives) when he receives his exaltation? All this while you, who preach against the gospel of Christ, receive a lesser portion of salvation?

I can see where that could stick in a bitter anti's craw.

That was just cruel and unnecessary.

Not only cruel, it seems like an anti-mormon parody of a fundamentalist Mormon. If it wasn't Gazelam, I would think it was a troll.

[_Gazelam]

Are you bitter about this Harmony because your true and faithful husband will undoubtably be given a new and faithful wife (or wives) when he receives his exaltation? All this while you, who preach against the gospel of Christ, receive a lesser portion of salvation?

I can see where that could stick in a bitter anti's craw.

That was just cruel and unnecessary.

How do you think her husband feels when hes doing his temple work and shes sitting in the lobby or the cafeteria all bitter and surly?