In an October 1996 Conference talk, Mormon Apostle Russell M. Nelson again reiterated a fundamental Mormon doctrine concerning the historicity of The Fall of Adam and the introduction of physical death (November 1996 Ensign beginning on page 33) by stating:
"The Creation required the Fall. The Fall required the Atonement. The Atonement enabled the purpose of the Creation to be accomplished. Eternal life, made possible by the Atonement, is the supreme purpose of the Creation. To phrase that statement in its negative form, if families were not sealed in holy temples, the whole earth would be utterly wasted.The purposes of the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement all converge on the sacred work done in temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The earth was created and the Church was restored to make possible the sealing of wife to husband, children to parents, families to progenitors, worlds without end.This is the great latter-day work of which we are a part. That is why we have missionaries; that is why we have temples-to bring the fullest blessings of the Atonement to faithful children of God."
Section 77 of the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants as well as the official Mormon Church website set in concrete the chronology of Adam's Fall as occurring in the year 4000 BCE, http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/chrono , So again we have a FIXED historical date for the introduction of death according to Mormon doctrine.
But any elementary school aged student (unless they were educated in Utah) can tell you that death has existed on the earth as long as life as existed...literally millions of years. Fortunately we have a fossil record to confirm this reality.
So how does the church explain away this huge problem in its foundational doctrine?
Chirp...chirp...chirp....
Complete and utter silence on this obvious (to any thinking person) conflict.
The mere fact that death has existed for millennia, illiminates the Mormon claim for the need of atonement. For if death has existed for literally millions of years...then there was NO Fall of Adam...if there was No Fall of Adam...then according to Mormon doctrine there is no need for an atonement....if no need for an atonement...there is no need for a Christ...
The FACT, that there was never a FALL ,as Mormon's claim, some 6,000 years ago, completely collapses Mormonism's House of Cards.
Maybe Bruce R. McConkie said it better than I...
"If death has always prevailed in the world, there was no fall of Adam which brought death to all forms of life. If Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement. If there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, no eternal life, nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. If there is no salvation, there is no God. The fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself". - Bruce R. McConkie
Hmmm maybe Bruce and I agree on something…
10 comments:
Awesome post. I never thought about this stuff before. I don't totally agree with McConkie's line of reasoning, but if for sure doesn't look good for any Christian-based religion.
This topic seems to be on the minds of a lot of people lately. I think we can safely say that humans have been around longer than 6,000 years. The city Jericho in the Bible was founded in 9,000 B.C. Silly really.
My observation is that as more and more people are moving away from a literal view of scripture stories and more towards a non-literal view. That is my observation with LDS groups online.
Knowing how the members think, I'm sure they would just try to discredit science or that maybe that is not "earth" time but "heavenly" time, which would be a lot longer.
I was talking to some Christian friends a few weeks ago about this same thing and they seemed to also not believe that the science of dating these fossils was accurate and that the earth was not as old as they think.
Mormonism is dependent on a literal FALL of Adam. Mormonism literally hinges on the actual historicity of this fictional event. And because Mormonism literally interprets it's scriptures it has left itself no wiggle room.
Mormonism is like a jig saw puzzle who's pieces must all fit snuggly together for it to be what it claims to be and if even one piece does not fit...the whole religion crumbles.
Funny but even as a believing member of the church I struggled to make the pieces fit together...I rationalized my inability to make them fit as ME having the problem rather than Mormonism's dogma. Once I allowed myself to think freely, rationally and with a skeptical eye...it became obvious to me that the pieces never did fit and never would. Te problem lay with the message and not my inability to make them fit together.
For starters, it might help if you actually try to distinguish between 'doctrines' and 'teachings', instead of lumping everything ever said by a church leader into the former category. And then there's the debate about what's literal, and what's metaphoric, in scripture. It IS possible to mount a legitimate, reasoned criticism against Mormonism - perhaps you should give it a try?
Cr@ig,
I really like your example of the puzzle pieces. The pieces don't seem to fit, but of course the problem is you. You just have to have faith that the pieces fit, or that one day, maybe not in this life, but the next life, we will understand how all the puzzle pieces fit together since we have such a limited knowledge on earth.
Now, it is all on you. The problem is that you don't have enough faith. The puzzle pieces don't fit. The problem isn't about lacking faith, the problem is with the puzzle. Very good analogy.
On a side note, on the topic of the first humans, it is evident that the first humans came from Africa. I doubt that the white bread people we see in the temple video would survive the African Sahara. The first humans probably looked like Africans today. Just shows the level of racism to automatically assume that the first parents were white.
Second, there is one thing I like to point out to people, particularly Evangelicals, that point to DNA as evidence that the NA's are not Lamanites. I ask them if DNA evidence is reliable, and they say yes. (this is very important to set them up) So I ask them then why does the DNA that proves that Native Americans are from Asia also prove that their Asiatic ancestors came to the Americas over 11,000 years ago? The same "proof" that the BoM is not true also disproves the 6,000 year old earth by calculating the mutation rates in the DNA of the NA's. This time period happens to coincide with what we already knew through archeology. So either DNA is reliable or it isn't.
What is most frustrating to me is when I see someone using archeology or DNA to disprove the authenticity of the BoM, that is until that the same sciences disproves the literalness of the Bible.
Anonymous... Here's my suggestion. choose an internet identity to seperate your from all your fellow anonymous's.
Now having said that. Trying to pin Mormonism and its so-called prophets down on it's doctrine is equivilent to trying to nail Jell-o to the wall. Not going to happen.
Everytime you point out a lie, whitewash, misspeak, unfulfilled prophacy, discrepancy etc....Mormon's apologist merely jiggle and wiggle Mormonisms teachings and doctrines or imbarrassing beliefs by saying...Oh they were only speaking as a man not a prophet...or as GB Hinckley so famously stated on "Larry King Live" when asked directly if Mormon's believe that they can become God's. Hinckley said "Oh Larry I don't know that we teach that, its more of an old couplet"... WTF? My jaw literally fell to the ground when I heard my then so-called prophet LIE on national TV with my own ears.
So trying to get a Mormon to admit to it's bizaar doctrines...I'd have better luck licking that Jell-o off the floor...
Hi Craig. I'll take up your suggestion, for the sake of identification.
Your answer seems to defeat your own argument - you can't blog about all the extraordinary things that Mormons must believe in, but then say that it's very difficult to get a true idea on what is, and what isn't doctrine.
The question then raised is what truly is Mormonism? I think that's a very good question, and one I continue to think about. But to list a bunch of strange things which Mormons supposedly must believe in is not convincing.
As for Hinckley's supposed quote, you've got a crucial point wrong. He was not asked about men becoming Gods, but on whether God was once a man like us. When asked about men becoming like Gods, he actually answered in the affirmative!!! (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1997/04/13/SC36289.DTL&hw=hinckley&sn=001&sc=1000).
I do thank you for pointing out the interview - I hadn't been aware of it. But I'm surprised (though I guess I shouldn't be) once again to find angry exmos misquoting and misconstruing the truth. As I said earlier, there are plenty of respectable arguments against Mormonism, but these ones are just plain weak. They seem to be a product of frustration and anger, rather than reasoned analysis.
Could you respond to these issues without resorting to humour? That seems to be your usual modus operandi when backed into a tight corner.
Tom…welcome to my blog…I appreciate your participation.
Tom asked: Your answer seems to defeat your own argument - you can't blog about all the extraordinary things that Mormons must believe in, but then say that it's very difficult to get a true idea on what is, and what isn't doctrine.
Cr@ig: Mormonism, as is common with religion, is interpreted by each adherent based on their personal experience with the church. Just like a group of people, looking at light refracted through a prism, everyone sees different colors and shapes depending on where they are standing in the room and the level of light pouring through the prism. When I was an uber-active member of the church, I chose to follow my church leaders and ignore some of those colorful light refractions, place more importance on others and gave the greatest attention to those “colors” that supported the claims of the church even though I was aware that there were “other” colors in the room. I chose to ignore alternative voices that encouraged me to move about the room and see all of the many colors being refracted by the prism because my Mormon leaders told me to stand firm.
Then something happened…I became aware that my LDS leaders hadn’t been fully honest with me. I had given them my complete trust…yet they deceived me and used lies and manipulation of information to maintain their control over me and other members of the church.
Upon discovering their lies I decided to “move” about the room, change my perspective. I am still aware of the colors that I once thought supported Mormonism…but by moving, I can also see all of the other colors that are cast about by the prism. Surprisingly, most of these other colors shed doubt on Mormonism’s claims.
My blog reflects “MY” experience as an insider in Mormonism and my experience looking back at the Mormon Church from the outside.
When I say it is almost impossible to pin down Mormon doctrine…I am only speaking from my experience. Take the Noahanic flood as an example. Throughout my life as an active Mormon I was taught the absolute reality of a Universal Flood. I trusted the words of Mormon Prophets and Apostles who proudly proclaimed the necessity of a universal flood to literally baptize the earth in preparation for its future celestial glory. The literal nature of a universal flood is almost laughable now but is still taught in church…but room is now given within the church for alternative views. So was there or was there NOT a universal flood?
Can’t pin down a church apologist or authority on that one any more…because there is NO supporting evidences for it…Seems like truth can eventually set us free. As for the flood…it has been proven an absurdity and is unsupportable in a rational world.
So you tell me Tom, is a universal flood a doctrine of the Mormon Church or NOT? And that is only one example of an ever changing wishy washy volume of supposed doctrines that can’t be nailed to a wall.
Another example can be illustrated by the different ways one views the setting for the Book of Mormon based on which generation one happens to be from. My dear Mormon mother believes in a hemispheric BoM model…as did I, we had been taught so from our prophets. My still believing son has a limited geography view for the setting of the BoM… two conflicting views, both within one family and my active family is quite typical within the Mormon church. Trying to get a GA to set the record straight is NOT going to happen…yeah…you can’t nail Mormon doctrine to the wall…it squishes off.
Tom Asked: As for Hinckley's supposed quote, you've got a crucial point wrong. He was not asked about men becoming Gods, but on whether God was once a man like us. When asked about men becoming like Gods, he actually answered in the affirmative!!!
Cr@ig: It wasn’t a “supposed” quote…it was an actual event. Here is the actual quote:
Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?
A: I wouldn't say that. [NOTE This is the Mormon prophet lying his ass off] There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. [What the F***??? More of a couplet??? The entire Temple ceremony is grounded in this supposed doctrine….and Hinckley has the balls to say it’s a couplet???]
Did he lie or was he just being "less than specific"? I think it was the former.
Tom Says: I do thank you for pointing out the interview - I hadn't been aware of it. But I'm surprised (though I guess I shouldn't be) once again to find angry exmos misquoting and misconstruing the truth.
Cr@ig: Come on Tom, that’s a copout…claiming that I misquoted this event becasue I am angry, may make you feel better about dismissing my argument but it doesn’t change the fact that Hinckley lied. I am sorry for not accurately recalling the “EXACT” words used in the interview…BUT I didn’t misconstrue the truth. The implication remains the same… and bottom line Hinckley Lied!
Tom Says: As I said earlier, there are plenty of respectable arguments against Mormonism, but these ones are just plain weak. They seem to be a product of frustration and anger, rather than reasoned analysis.
Cr@ig: Anger?? Frustration?? … Those are just pigeon holing techniques, a way for you to attempt to divert attention away from my arguments…sorry I reject your assessments of me. I am really tired of being pigeoned holed. I find great humor in Mormonism [but you’ve asked me to refrain from humor]
Tom Asked: Could you respond to these issues without resorting to humour? That seems to be your usual modus operandi when backed into a tight corner.
Cr@ig: Humor gets me through my discovery that Mormonism is a fraud… Yes I’m a Happy Apostate. Oh and I’ve yet to be backed into a tight corner, at least involving Mormonism.
Love the blog! Love your humor and keep kicking that mormon ass! I think to keep me from being so angry and bitter for the 20 years the church brainwashed me and stole my life...we need humor.
Post a Comment