The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

[colton]

Yeah, that's a little more tricky. Obviously there were other humanoid creatures that existed somewhere along the timeline. I've always assumed these fit into the evolutionary process. I don't think mankind was any different in this respect than the rest of creation. I don't really buy that Adam and Eve were just put there one day, ready to go straight out of the box. The Bible says they were, but again, it was likely a recording of a story that had been passed along for some time, based in legend more than science.

That's my long version of "I really don't know..."

My own opinion on this is kind of close to that--Adam and Eve's bodies were likely created through an evolutionary process. But as I see it the main difference between Adam and Eve and hominids prior to them lies in the plan of salvation description I gave above--humans are literally spirit children of God, and partakers in salvation through Christ. So, to my view, the hominids prior to Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong, could not sin, and had no need of an atonement. So in that sense, Adam and Eve were an abrupt change with what had existed previously.

 

[Beantown]

I just wanna clear my thought on polygamy. I know its a still a Mormon doctrine but I was more concerned with the Church continuing the practice after it was illegal. Especially since Joseph Smith specifically states in the Articles of Faith they believe in obeying the laws and regulations of the Nations we live in.


As for the black thing I just have assume that Brigham Young was a racist and he was a big sinner.


Though I did learn something about African men in college that makes me think something really racist about them. It has to with micro loans. Lets just say the majority of men in Africa are dirt bags.

 

[colton]

And you're right, that's where LDS doctrine is(or at least was when I was around). But for me to believe something there has to be consistency is words and actions. I don't see that out of any organized religion, history of our church, or any other. My options are to not believe in any form of God, or keep my belief's as my own. Since I have experienced both a burning in my bosom, and a "spiritual spanking" for being as prideful as I have in the past, I choose the latter.

No problem, I certainly respect your right to have your own opinions. I didn't realize when you made the "God is like us, not some infallible being out there" comment above that you had intentionally departed from the standard LDS view into your own beliefs.

 

[babe]

Actually, lets read what's written there:

"Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely eI will do it; wherefore give me thine honor."

Most read that as "Yo, I should do it. I'm the man, I will fix it all. I want to do that. Let ME have all the glory"

But forget who said it, and whatever pre-concieved notion we've been handed. Infact, imagine this as the apostle Paul saying it. In that light it could it not be read:

"Dad... bro. I'm here. Let me act as your son. I think I can bring back everyone.. all that we love so dearly. Do me the honor of allowing me to do the heavy lifting for you"

I confess it is this scenario that undermines my respect for progressive governance in the hands of even the very smartest elites I can conjure up in my imagination.

It's like having an Olympic swimmer there to swim the race for your beginning swimming class final test. I think the fundamental goal of the Great Coach is that we develop actual character traits and talents along our way. Everything else is just some kind of incentive program to try to give us a reason to try harder.

So. . . . NO, Coach wouldn't even accept the Apostle Paul if he wanted to take the test on religious understanding in our stead.

There is in my view a corollary discussion about why we need an authoritative lawgiver standing in the place of our own faithful seeking towards God. . . . . but yah know, I can argue both sides of that. . . . on the pro-authority side I end up sounding pretty much like One Brow wanting someone to make sure everybody thinks the right things. . . .who knows which is "right", I think it advisable to hang a bit loose with the things we think we know and be more willing to understand people who may think differently. Might be some value to both perspectives.

We might actually need divine help to know how much weight to put on our logic sometimes.

 

[Harambe]

As for the black thing I just have assume that Brigham Young was a racist and he was a big sinner.

I'm not going to take on the Sinner logic, but the guy who introduced me to the board showed me this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism#Before_1847

During the early years of the LDS movement, black people were admitted to the church, and there was no record of a racial policy on denying priesthood, since at least two black men became priests, Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis.[11] When the Mormons migrated to Missouri they encountered the pro-slavery sentiments of their neighbors. Joseph Smith upheld the laws regarding slaves and slaveholders, but remained abolitionist in his actions and doctrines.[12]

Beginning in 1842, after he had moved to free-state Illinois, Smith made known his increasingly strong anti-slavery position. In 1842 he began studying some abolitionist literature, and stated, "it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule?"[13] In 1844 Joseph Smith wrote his views as a candidate for President of the United States. The anti-slavery plank of his platform called for a gradual end to slavery by the year 1850. His plan called for the government to buy the freedom of slaves using money from the sale of public lands.[12]

Again, I will not judge to if Brigham Young was a sinner. However, it was in his time that the policy of not allowing black men the priesthood started. And it was never revelation or doctrine, just policy. Therefore I would have to throw my hat into the "Brigham was a Racist" ring due to his actions.

 

[Harambe]

I confess it is this scenario that undermines my respect for progressive governance in the hands of even the very smartest elites I can conjure up in my imagination.

It's like having an Olympic swimmer there to swim the race for your beginning swimming class final test. I think the fundamental goal of the Great Coach is that we develop actual character traits and talents along our way. Everything else is just some kind of incentive program to try to give us a reason to try harder.

So. . . . NO, Coach wouldn't even accept the Apostle Paul if he wanted to take the test on religious understanding in our stead.

Please see my response in the new thread made by me. Soon to be named "A difference of opinion; religion hothead hoedown"(I hope)

 

[Bronco70]

...hominids prior to Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong, could not sin, and had no need of an atonement. So in that sense, Adam and Eve were an abrupt change with what had existed previously.

I guess this is basically what I was dancing around, but not too good at clearly stating. I do believe Adam and Eve existed, but not that they just showed up one day as the first hominids.

 

[colton]

Beginning in 1842, after he had moved to free-state Illinois, Smith made known his increasingly strong anti-slavery position. In 1842 he began studying some abolitionist literature, and stated, "it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule?"[13] In 1844 Joseph Smith wrote his views as a candidate for President of the United States. The anti-slavery plank of his platform called for a gradual end to slavery by the year 1850. His plan called for the government to buy the freedom of slaves using money from the sale of public lands.[12]

It's stuff like that that makes me love Joseph Smith. He also is quoted as having said something like (I paraphrase): "If you take a white man and a black man and change their positions, the black man will be every bit as civilized and sophisticated as the white man is today". Must have been a very radical concept for someone living in Illinois in the early 1840s.

 

[One Brow]

Because some dinosaurs were really BIG.

Even today, some of the dinosaurs are taller and heavier than most humans.

 

[Harambe]

It's stuff like that that makes me love Joseph Smith. He also is quoted as having said something like (I paraphrase): "If you take a white man and a black man and change their positions, the black man will be every bit as civilized and sophisticated as the white man is today". Must have been a very radical concept for someone living in Illinois in the early 1840s.

There are two things you don't mess with; religion and slavery.

 

[Zulu]

Even today, some of the dinosaurs are taller and heavier than most humans.

 

[Zulu]

I guess this is basically what I was dancing around, but not too good at clearly stating. I do believe Adam and Eve existed, but not that they just showed up one day as the first hominids.

In genetics there is a gene (VMAT2) that is considered the God gene,

Mainly the gene code for things like receptors for seratonin wich when people have a religious experience they released a lot of seratonin e giving that spiritual feel....

So for me if we find when this gene developed in human evolution this to me is when Adam and Eve came about!!

 

[Stifle Tower]

My own opinion on this is kind of close to that--Adam and Eve's bodies were likely created through an evolutionary process. But as I see it the main difference between Adam and Eve and hominids prior to them lies in the plan of salvation description I gave above--humans are literally spirit children of God, and partakers in salvation through Christ. So, to my view, the hominids prior to Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong, could not sin, and had no need of an atonement. So in that sense, Adam and Eve were an abrupt change with what had existed previously.

That mirrors my thinking on the evolution of the human form.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

That mirrors my thinking on the evolution of the human form.

I see the evolution of your human form in your avatar. A step back possibly?

 

[PearlWatson]

I see the evolution of your human form in your avatar. A step back possibly?

Devolution.

 

[Strutter]

Wow!
I would have counseled her to just go ahead and drink the coffee. She's kind of like those that made Christ so angry, arguing over exactly how many steps you could take on the Sabbath, while commiting far more egregious sins.

The Word of Wisdon does say hot drinks, which were basically coffee and tea when it was given. Further clarification has defined those as the drinks to avoid. It's not breaking the WOW to have a hot chocolate or Ovaltine, for example. Iced tea is out, as is chilled coffee; the temperature doesn't change the content. While not at the level of a commandment, we've been counseled that no caffeinated beverages are good for us. And we've also been counseled that energy drinks, which have become so popular over the course of the past decade are not good for us, either, due to the high levels of sugar and/or caffeine (if it says "guarana"...that's also caffeine!).

Sorry, but I just wanted to clarify a little bit on this one (because it's one that I run into a lot personally). I think using the term "not at the level of a commandment" is disingenuous because it implies that it is "nearly a commandment." The official church stance on the issue is that caffeine has no place in the Word of Wisdom. I haven't seen any counsel in a long time from any general authorities about refraining from caffeine--that counsel seems to come from local leaders and societal pressures, as far as I've seen it.

Anyways, thanks for your insightful replies throughout the thread. I just wanted to clarify this one principle that confuses a lot of people (you can't have a coke??)

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Sorry, but I just wanted to clarify a little bit on this one (because it's one that I run into a lot personally). I think using the term "not at the level of a commandment" is disingenuous because it implies that it is "nearly a commandment." The official church stance on the issue is that caffeine has no place in the Word of Wisdom. I haven't seen any counsel in a long time from any general authorities about refraining from caffeine--that counsel seems to come from local leaders and societal pressures, as far as I've seen it.

Anyways, thanks for your insightful replies throughout the thread. I just wanted to clarify this one principle that confuses a lot of people (you can't have a coke??)

But... and just to confuse things further... we have been told that we should not expect to be commanded in all things. Use your heads and figure things out for yourself in some cases. If there is something that creates an addiction it is not a good idea to eat or drink it. Also if there is something you personally eat that causes you issues, you also should not eat it or drink it. If you are allergic to banana's, don't eat them, but don't expect it to be spelled out for you in the heavens either.

 

[Strutter]

But... and just to confuse things further... we have been told that we should not expect to be commanded in all things. Use your heads and figure things out for yourself in some cases. If there is something that creates an addiction it is not a good idea to eat or drink it. Also if there is something you personally eat that causes you issues, you also should not eat it or drink it. If you are allergic to banana's, don't eat them, but don't expect it to be spelled out for you in the heavens either.

Exactly. I drink caffeine and even energy drinks. I'm aware that they're not the best for my health (or any soda really) and that I need to not drink them as much. I'm working on slowing down (college makes it tough for me) because I already have a lousy stomach as it is.

This doesn't mean I'm sinning or even almost sinning according to the LDS church, though. It just means I should be smart and try and fix it.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[Zulu]

Sorry, but I just wanted to clarify a little bit on this one (because it's one that I run into a lot personally). I think using the term "not at the level of a commandment" is disingenuous because it implies that it is "nearly a commandment." The official church stance on the issue is that caffeine has no place in the Word of Wisdom. I haven't seen any counsel in a long time from any general authorities about refraining from caffeine--that counsel seems to come from local leaders and societal pressures, as far as I've seen it.

Anyways, thanks for your insightful replies throughout the thread. I just wanted to clarify this one principle that confuses a lot of people (you can't have a coke??)

The church recently said that members of the church aren't commanded to refrain from caffeine!!

On Wednesday (Aug. 29), the LDS church posted a statement on its website saying that "the church does not prohibit the use of caffeine" and that the faith's health-code reference to "hot drinks" "does not go beyond (tea and coffee)."

 

[Zulu]

Devolution.

Evolution happens at random, it is not creating the perfect organism it only goes as nature selects..

So Devolution wouldn't be taking steps back it would be Evolving not at all, or being locked in your current phase!!