- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Perhaps, but some of these eg 6000 years are not issues. We generally don’t believe all native Americans are Lamanites, or don’t anymore anyway. A close reading of the Book of Mormon narrative itself shows that there were other peoples besides Nephites and Lamanites around in the New World, and that the geography and distances involved does not involve all of the Americas. The Jaredites alone destroy that argument. That’s from the BoM itself. Oddly enough, there does appear to be some historic evidence of
trans-oceanic contact between the Old and New Worlds besides the Vikings and before Columbus.
I also think Joseph + Hyrum Smith WERE persecuted and assassinated
partly because of their religion, not just because of the printing press business. There was never an excuse for their murder, nor the massacres of Mormons – this is regardless of scandals… Mountain Meadows comes straight out of Haun’s Mill in a direct line.
From the new Church History seminary manual: Quote:“The 7,000 years [in D&C 77:6–7] refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation” (p. 280).
The manual also has been in the works for quite some time.
Curtis wrote:From the new Church History seminary manual:
Quote:“The 7,000 years [in D&C 77:6–7] refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation” (p. 280).
The manual also has been in the works for quite some time.
That is really no different than claiming the earth is only 7000 years old. It is just as inaccurate. Humans have been on the earth much longer than that. That is one of those nuance things I tend to roll my eyes at. Bend what it says a little to fit into the current realm of human knowledge, and make it acceptable.Quote:6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was asealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, bmysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this cearth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven aseals with which it was sealed?
A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the bfirst thousand years, and the csecond also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.
There is nothing there that mentions Adam and Eve. I guarantee 150 years ago they read that literally.
An interesting perspective from the Wheat & Tares discussion on this came from Hedgehog, a female member in the UK:
Quote:deep in JFS and BRM country here in Britain I’m afraid. I try to speak up in lessons, but those things are taught in this country still by local leaders, and often I’m regarded as a maverick. Just a couple of weeks ago our GD teacher (recently released from Stake Presidency) at the end of the lesson bore testimony to the truthfulness of vi and vii, and I was told there was no time to dispute.
(vi and vii were: There was no death on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago and
All humans alive today are descended from just two people who lived approximately 6,000 years ago).
Quote:That is really no different than claiming the earth is only 7000 years old.
No, it is radically different. Seriously, it is radically, explicitly different. Even if it is taken literally, “the fall of Adam and Eve” isn’t described as happening in the scriptures at the beginning of the creation of the earth but at the end. Thus, the verse doesn’t address the age of the earth at all (unless someone believes that the Lord literally created the Earth and everything in it in six days of 24 hours each, which this statement doesn’t come close to teaching and which the PoGP version clearly does not teach). This statement says quite clearly that the earth itself is older than 6,000 years, since there were “periods of creation” prior to the 7,000 years mentioned in the verse.
Also, I’ve said this about lots of things, but I don’t give a large rodent’s hindquarters what people 150 years ago thought about this topic when it comes to how we ought to talk about it now. I really don’t care. We know lots more than they did back then, this statement is not a stretch from the actual wording in the verse and it reflects a much better curricular view of creation than we have had in the past (even though I take the Adam and Eve narrative as a myth and don’t accept the 6,000 year timeline for human existence before the Second Coming, since “1,000 years” was a generic, symbolic number back in ancient times that meant nothing more than “a long time” – much like “one-third part” meant “the minority” and “two-thirds part” meant “the majority” – and like 40 and 7 and 3 also had symbolic meaning). I want a repudiation of young earth creationism, and this statement strongly implies such a rejection, at the very least –
largely so there is a statement that traditionalists in the Church will accept (or reject / ignore consciously) saying the earth isn’t just 6,000 years old, like the leader mentioned by Hegehog in Hawk’s comment. Thus, I’m glad this note is in the manual. Finally, there is no scientific way to prove when the first “man and woman” appeared, if those words are defined like they are in Mormon theology – as the combination of a mortal, physical body and an immortal spirit child of God. There is no way to state empirically when that happened, so I don’t quibble with the Church having a different timeline than scientists would who define the term differently. You can disagree with that definition, and I understand disagreement with it, but, given our theology, I’m fine with picking some arbitrary time frame and running with it.
Curtis so as not to hijack the thread any more I will concede you are very artful in weaving a tapestry of belief that pulls the church and doctrine into your comfort zone. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Curtis wrote:Quote:That is really no different than claiming the earth is only 7000 years old.
No, it is radically different. Seriously, it is radically, explicitly different. Even if it is taken literally, “the fall of Adam and Eve” isn’t described as happening in the scriptures at the beginning of the creation of the earth but at the end. Thus, the verse doesn’t address the age of the earth at all (unless someone believes that the Lord literally created the Earth and everything in it in six days of 24 hours each, which this statement doesn’t come close to teaching and which the PoGP version clearly does not teach). This statement says quite clearly that the earth itself is older than 6,000 years, since there were “periods of creation” prior to the 7,000 years mentioned in the verse.
Also, I’ve said this about lots of things, but I don’t give a large rodent’s hindquarters what people 150 years ago thought about this topic when it comes to how we ought to talk about it now. I really don’t care. We know lots more than they did back then, this statement is not a stretch from the actual wording in the verse and it reflects a much better curricular view of creation than we have had in the past (even though I take the Adam and Eve narrative as a myth and don’t accept the 6,000 year timeline for human existence before the Second Coming, since “1,000 years” was a generic, symbolic number back in ancient times that meant nothing more than “a long time” – much like “one-third part” meant “the minority” and “two-thirds part” meant “the majority” – and like 40 and 7 and 3 also had symbolic meaning). I want a repudiation of young earth creationism, and this statement strongly implies such a rejection, at the very least –
largely so there is a statement that traditionalists in the Church will accept (or reject / ignore consciously) saying the earth isn’t just 6,000 years old, like the leader mentioned by Hegehog in Hawk’s comment. Thus, I’m glad this note is in the manual. Finally, there is no scientific way to prove when the first “man and woman” appeared, if those words are defined like they are in Mormon theology – as the combination of a mortal, physical body and an immortal spirit child of God. There is no way to state empirically when that happened, so I don’t quibble with the Church having a different timeline than scientists would who define the term differently. You can disagree with that definition, and I understand disagreement with it, but, given our theology, I’m fine with picking some arbitrary time frame and running with it.
But this is part of the issue. I’m tired of worshipping with people who don’t think laterally. Who do give “a large rodent’s hindquarters what people 150 years ago thought.” Who continue to reference old prophets as if they are speaking the words dictated to them by the heavens, when really they were just spinning their own opinion like the rest of us.
It’s spiritually wearing me out.
We should all be more comfortable, like you, throwing past manual and perhaps even prophets (
quoted as recently as 2002Quote:we’re way off topic from the OP
.
Yeah.
😳 Thanks!
In regards to the question of assumptions about Tom Phillips being motivated by bitterness/revenge etc. Perhaps the words of his accused are useful: Quote:There is really no way we can know the heart, the intentions, or the circumstances of someone who might say or do something we find reason to criticize. Thus the commandment: “Judge not.”
President Thomas S. Monson
Yes Mackay, good point. There is a thin line between speculation and judging. We are all human and we need to remember to lean the positive way, nobody does it perfectly. . . . . . . . . . .
Cadence wrote:Curtis … I will concede you are very artful in weaving a tapestry of belief that pulls the church and doctrine into your comfort zone.
That to me sounds like a compliment – and a key strategy to staying LDS.
Isn’t it just going to come down to who has the better lawyers? The LDS Church is a multibillion dollar corporation; I’m sure Salt Lake has some of the best and brightest on retainer. As a payer of tithing, I do sort of wish it wasn’t necessary for my tithing to be spent in this manner.
Joni wrote:Isn’t it just going to come down to who has the better lawyers? The LDS Church is a multibillion dollar corporation; I’m sure Salt Lake has some of the best and brightest on retainer.
As a payer of tithing, I do sort of wish it wasn’t necessary for my tithing to be spent in this manner.
Just make “church lawyer” a calling and suddenly it’s free!
😆 :angel: This just got a whole lot more messy. Curtis, don’t read this, it will just get you riled up again. The two people named as plaintiffs in the suit, Stephen Bloor and Chris Ralph put out a joint statement on why they did it. I’ll not link to the site, you’ll have to find it on your own. But here is the real meat of the letter
Quote:
“We are also anxious to see the church offer assurances about the position with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of members and former members who now feel, as we do, that our tithing and other offerings were obtained by the church under false pretenses. For every pound paid to the church by LDS members in the UK who, (following leadership counsel), have availed themselves of Deeds of Covenant and Gift Aid, £0.20 has been added by the British Taxpayer to the church’s bank accounts. The sum paid out by HMRC in this connection must now amount to tens of millions of pounds. It is understood that in most cases the resulting tax rebates made to individuals, were handed over to the church at its request. We seek an assurance from the church therefore, that in the event that at some future time these payments made by HMRC will be deemed to have been fraudulently obtained, the LDS church will offer immunity to those individuals, and ensure that such sums as were rebated will be returned with the due interest to HMRC.”
In the UK members are encouraged to pay via Gift Aid. When they do that, for each pound of tithing they pay the church, the church claims 0.20p from the Government, because it’s a charity.
Basically if you pay £1 the government has pledged to pay the charity £0.20p which it would otherwise have taken as tax from the individual.
So they are claiming that the church has defrauded the British Government out of millions of dollars.
If the London Tabloids go with this angle, it will be a PR nightmare for the church.
Sheldon wrote:This just got a whole lot more messy. Curtis, don’t read this, it will just get you riled up again.
The two people named as plaintiffs in the suit, Stephen Bloor and Chris Ralph put out a joint statement on why they did it. I’ll not link to the site, you’ll have to find it on your own. But here is the real meat of the letter
Quote:
“We are also anxious to see the church offer assurances about the position with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of members and former members who now feel, as we do, that our tithing and other offerings were obtained by the church under false pretenses. For every pound paid to the church by LDS members in the UK who, (following leadership counsel), have availed themselves of Deeds of Covenant and Gift Aid, £0.20 has been added by the British Taxpayer to the church’s bank accounts. The sum paid out by HMRC in this connection must now amount to tens of millions of pounds. It is understood that in most cases the resulting tax rebates made to individuals, were handed over to the church at its request. We seek an assurance from the church therefore, that in the event that at some future time these payments made by HMRC will be deemed to have been fraudulently obtained, the LDS church will offer immunity to those individuals, and ensure that such sums as were rebated will be returned with the due interest to HMRC.”
In the UK members are encouraged to pay via Gift Aid. When they do that, for each pound of tithing they pay the church, the church claims 0.20p from the Government, because it’s a charity.
Basically if you pay £1 the government has pledged to pay the charity £0.20p which it would otherwise have taken as tax from the individual.
So they are claiming that the church has defrauded the British Government out of millions of dollars.
If the London Tabloids go with this angle, it will be a PR nightmare for the church.
Interesting. Thanks for the update. As a registered charity it’s no more than any other charity in the UK is pushing people to do. Basically it’s tax relief, paid straight to the charity instead of back to you.
The church also encourages members to reduce tithing accordingly. So instead of paying £10 per £100, you pay £8 per £100, knowing the £2 will be paid by the government out of your own tax bill.
I’m not sure that will stick either. There are plenty of charities that have overtrumped claims of what they’ll do with your money and end up wasting it on exec salaries.
Yawn. Not riled up in the least. There is nothing illegal happening, and members aren’t paying any more than they would have in the first place. Any smart organization will do it.
Again, I see it as hyperbole intended merely to discredit and hurt the Church. I see nothing that would lead me to believe it has any chance of being taken seriously in court or succeeding.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.