Who came first?

[_bcspace]

So god reveled evolution first to his prophet of the restoration, Joseph Smith, right?

Wrong. Read it again.

[_Buffalo]

So god reveled evolution first to his prophet of the restoration, Joseph Smith, right?

Wrong. Read it again.

I read it again. It sounds like you're engaging in a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. I'd try that over and see if you can find an explanation that isn't fallacious on the face of it.

[_ludwigm]

Funny how God didn't seem to know anything about evolution until Darwin came along.

[_gdemetz]

If you read my prior text carefully, it states that Brigham Young (like Joseph Smith) taught that there never was a time when there were no Gods, however, he also talked about a first cause of all things. These, at first, appear to be contradictory statements when one views them as we normally view time. It should be remembered that, like the over simple analogy of the ring, time can be traveled in more than one direction (as around the ring). There is a starting point on the ring, but where is it? It can't be readily noticed because all along the ring no matter which way one goes, or looks, there is the gold (or gods).

[_Drifting]

If you read my prior text carefully, it states that Brigham Young (like Joseph Smith) taught that there never was a time when there were no Gods, however, he also talked about a first cause of all things. These, at first, appear to be contradictory statements when one views them as we normally view time. It should be remembered that, like the over simple analogy of the ring, time can be traveled in more than one direction (as around the ring). There is a starting point on the ring, but where is it? It can't be readily noticed because all along the ring no matter which way one goes, or looks, there is the gold (or gods).

When you say Gods are you meaning that you believe in the existence of multiple Gods all the equivalent of our Heavenly Father?

[_gdemetz]

Yes, that is correct. "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become."

[_ludwigm]

Yes, that is correct. "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become."

"I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it." ©Gordon B. Hinckley

Is this correct, too?

[_gdemetz]

It may not be in any of the current teaching manuals, but it is definately church doctrine.

[_ludwigm]

It may not be in any of the current teaching manuals, but it is definitely church doctrine.

Doctrine which is not taught?

There is a Hungarian saying about absurdity:
Fából vaskarika = An iron ring made of wood.

[_gdemetz]

I teach it. I had a problem with this also. I was allowed to teach an advanced doctrine class, and I also asked my stake president why the church's lessons are so simple. His answer to me was that the church has a philosophy of teaching on an 8th grade level. I was initially upset with that response, however, after I arrived back at my home and thought about it for a while, I agreed with it. There are so many complicated doctrines in the church, and most members are not even aware of some of them. Also, the enemies and apostates are just waiting for any excuse to attack and criticize the church. If all these deeper doctrines were taught, it would just add to the problems and confusion. The general conferences nor are now so bland, and despite this, the enemies are trying to pick apart every word that is said. Could you image what would happen if someone gave a talk on the six types of marriages in the early church?! In helping the Master prune the vineyard, the leaders have been inspired to focus on basic "gardening" methods, and it has worked. The church is growing and flourishing, and one day it will fill the whole earth as Daniel has prophesied!