The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

[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!!

 

[PearlWatson]

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!!

Since I don't buy the Darwiniac doctrine I think of evolution as the concept of going from simple to complex. So Devolution is going from complex to simple. But really this is about progressing to certain point (peak) and then entropy (deterioration) taking over. Hill climbing comes to mind.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Kenneth Miller who is a very very famous biologist who happens to be Roman Catholic said it best. Theists who believe in creation believe in a god that uses a cue ball for each pool ball. Theists who believe in evolution believe god hit the cue ball once and caused every ball to go into the holes.

 

[PearlWatson]

Yes, I didn't mention any about Christ's Second Coming in my plan of salvation post. As I think many Christian groups do, LDS believe the millennium will begin at the Second Coming of Christ. He will come in glory to reign personally on the earth. This will be a 1000 year period of peace and righteousness. The time period occurs more or less congruently with the resurrection... some people will be resurrected at the start of the millennium whereas others will be resurrected later on. The millennium will conclude with the final casting out of Satan, and the final resurrections/judgments. Or at least, that's the typical LDS view of things.

How can there be 1000 years of peace if Satan is still around?

 

[CONAN]

It's funny the things that trip up people about the LDS faith. Some people get all bent over trivial things and there are these huge elephants in the room (literally with dinosaurs). Stuff like the whole 3 levels of salvation and making your own worlds. That stuff is out there and haters focus on small things.

And it always surprises me how interested non-LDS are in the Mormon faith (like people that have no plans to join). I don't understand the attention. But I'm sure LDS doesn't have a monopoly on critical attention.

Just some general observations there not necessarily directed at anyone here.