Log

Dan,

Is this something the BYU Board of Directors might get involved in?

Just like God, eh? No existence but in tracks of ink across pages?

I cannot help but think this is extraordinarily bad news. Apostasy in high places, even.

LOG - The link with the comparison of the 9 versions was pretty cool. It shows much more harmony then we give credit. I know when I tell one of my best stories of something that happed to me I tell it slightly different each time, though not intentional. And these are events which hold great importance and weight on my memory. It happens. and it isn't about decepion. In memory facts can and do change. Also sometimes you remeber something later that you hadn't thought of in an earlier telling.

As I converse with people about conversion experiences, I emphasize and omit things in mine, and, on the other hand, when I hear others' accounts, I am reminded sometimes of things which I left out - so I add them in. There is a master account, you see.

This board, however, is not the place for it.

I have been praying for this; I am glad you found what you needed. One more to go!

There is no established meaning of the word race.

And how is that in any way, shape, or form, relevant to what I said originally, which was this: "If Adam had parents, those parents would be the "primal parents of the race [of mankind, in context]""?

The reference is, of course, to the official position of the Church, which says, in part "The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we [meaning the Church] are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race [which is mankind]."

A creature is either of the race of man - one of us, the children of God - or it is not. If Adam had temporal parents, then those parents would be the primal parents of the race of mankind, and Adam would not be the primal parent of the race of mankind. You can therefore hold to evolutionary theory or the official doctrine of the Church - but you can't have both, no matter how wide your smile.

Because nobody - literally - does not hold to the law of noncontradiction.

That statement is, far and away, more "presentist" than you can possibly imagine.

Do tell. Better yet, do demonstrate. In the 1800's, if there was no victim, could there be a crime? What kinds of victimless crimes did they prosecute in the 1800's? Inquiring minds want to know.

"As they were white and exceedingly fair and delightsome that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them..."

So, when you get something like that anywhere else in ANE useage, give me a call. No amount of pictures is going to overcome your burden of proof. That *some* authors used colors metaphorically *at some times* is an exceedingly poor argument that any particular mention of color is to be interpreted metaphorically - especially when there is no content behind the metaphor given. Whatever content you choose to insert has to account for the anti-enticing factor. Good luck!

Log:

Your first paragraph got all the attention it deserves

Indeed. Your flawless record of avoiding the fact that "unguided" and "guided" are logically contradictory remains unblemished.

Your "also" is a non sequitur. My parents were very much my parents, but they were not of my LDS race, as my father never, in this life, held the Priesthood.

Well, at least on this particular point you're (relatively) upfront in your equivocation - but, since LDS is not a race in the sense under discussion, this response of yours is, itself, a non sequitur - and not the innocent, accidentally committed kind, but rather intentional, tendentious obfuscation on your part.

Also - if Adam had parents, those parents would be the "primal parents of the race." That, also, is not false doctrine. Try again.

TSS - not once in the long years I have had the unfortunate privilege to be interacting with you on this subject have you responded appropriately to this: "Unfortunately, the conflict is irreconcilable; the point at issue is that evolution has been defined in such a way as to preclude intelligent intervention in the creation of biological structures. It is "unguided" versus, at the least, "guided," and being, as they are, jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, therefore it is not a false dichotomy. Intelligent intervention by a creator-God is therefore logically incompatible with evolution."

The Church teaches that we have an intervening creator-God. That's not false doctrine. Try again.

Log:

Apparently the Lord as he keeps putting me in those positions.

Well, the Lord called Amasa Lyman to the Apostleship. I take your calling for what it's worth.

Log:

"I am disturbed by teachers who seem to prioritize teaching their pet theories instead of sticking with the scriptures and the teachings of the Brethren. If someone insists evolution is false - well, the Church agrees that it is false, officially".

Disturbed, yes. Accurate no.

http://www.google.co...XSmU07abSzH58gw

Doesn't wash - and you have never once addressed the substance of my post, contained in the FIRST paragraph.

"Unfortunately, the conflict is irreconcilable; the point at issue is that evolution has been defined in such a way as to preclude intelligent intervention in the creation of biological structures. It is "unguided" versus, at the least, "guided," and being, as they are, jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, therefore it is not a false dichotomy. Intelligent intervention by a creator-God is therefore logically incompatible with evolution."

Good try making it appear as though you did.

There is always a few of that type.

What type is that, pray tell?

I was a pretty good Sunday School teacher...

By whose standard, one wonders?

I'd point out the language of the Book of Abraham, as Nibley pointed out in "Before Adam." "Let the earth be prepared that it might bring forth..." which is future potential tense. I'd point out the open-ended language for time. "Until..." which means take all the time you want. I'd point out that Abraham also describes the degree to which creatures are obedient to the charge to reproduce after their own kind. "Very obedient..." which of course permits variation. I'd point out that every geology teacher and every biology teacher at BYU teaches evolution. And I'd talk about how our scriptures do not bind us to the Fundamentalst interpretations or agenda. I'd mention that the strongest LDS opinions expressed against the notion of evolution were just that, the opinions of individuals, The social environment in which such ideas were expressed had an impact on the arguments made, simply assuming with Fundamentalists and the Darwinists that there is an irreconcilable conflict, and choosing sides and arguments based on what I see as a false assumption. As Nibley pointed out, we have a different story to tell, and have no obligation to play their silly game, bound by their rules. The official LDS statements are all open ended. For every LDS GA who opposed any reconcilliation, there are others equally prominent who were comfortable with reconcilliation. All or nothing thinking all too often increases the danger of leaving a student with nothing. I'd also point out that the Genesis account is not a history but a ritual text, originally part of a temple drama, and that drama appears to originally describe the erection of the Tabernacle. (See Margaret Barker, Temple Theology: An Introduction.) The way to build a world in six days is to build a model, that is, the desert tabernacle.

I've been doing this for years when I teach, or comment during someone else's comments, and in Wards in California, Kansas, and Pennsylvania have had no trouble getting along.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Unfortunately, the conflict is irreconcilable; the point at issue is that evolution has been defined in such a way as to preclude intelligent intervention in the creation of biological structures. It is "unguided" versus, at the least, "guided," and being, as they are, jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, therefore it is not a false dichotomy. Intelligent intervention by a creator-God is therefore logically incompatible with evolution.

Those who insist otherwise are engaged in transparent equivocation on the word "evolution."

To my knowledge, there has not been a positive statement from any of the Brethren towards evolution since the early 1900's. Exactly zero have spoken out in favor of the actual theory as promulgated by Darwin and his successors, so far as I can tell: no GA has ever taught that the sole causes of Creation were matter in random motion and natural selection. That idea has always been explicitly contradicted each time it has been addressed, as recently as the last General Conference. Interestingly enough, BYU was founded, in part, to counter Darwinism.

I am disturbed by teachers who seem to prioritize teaching their pet theories instead of sticking with the scriptures and the teachings of the Brethren. If someone insists evolution is false - well, the Church agrees that it is false, officially. That anyone called of God to instruct in his Church should presume to undermine that view, is, to say the least, disappointing in the extreme. Your calling is NOT to make yourself feel better about the doctrinal compromises you've made in order to blend in better with the world - your calling is to teach the truth as the Church has presented it, and to do so by the power and authority of God. Do NOT mingle the philosophies of men with scripture for consumption in the Lord's house.

Which community is the arbiter of the truths of reality? Which community is the arbiter of the truths of the historical events that happened in the real past?

Your posts have left no question as to what realms the Church has authority over, in your eyes - the realms of myth, fable, and parable - the stuff that's not even false; the stuff that has the same purchase on reality as lies.

In that context, "If there is ever a conflict (between the claims of the Church and science/archaeology/scholarship/history/any other worldly study), it is usually because one party tries to exercise authority in areas in which it has no authority" means only that where the Church conflicts with any academic or scientific claim, the Church is the loser in your eyes.

Not that you're the only one who apparently believes that. You're simply one of the more consistent posters in that respect, compared to some others who claim to be LDS. However, the truly consistent posters in that respect are those who are outside of the Church. After all, if the Church is falsified at each point it comes into contact with science / psychology / biology / history / archaeology / linguistics / &c. (reality, in other words), then what could possibly motivate one to wish to associate with it?

Yes, I think you've said before, and abundantly, that Joseph made it all up, and that the academic and scientific communities are, in the end, the final arbiters of truth - and, at each point where the doctrines and teachings of the Church conflict with those communities, the Church is universally the loser. I am left wondering why one would claim to be a part of a church whose truth claims one utterly rejects.

...

Agreed - I see that now. So how does one find a format to discuss all their issues and get help with them. Who is willing to have a 4 hour one on one fireside with me?

I would be - but I may not have all the answers you are seeking. You might also consider going to the FAIR conference.

Thinking:

Organic evolution without God would be against LDS thought, with God it fits nicely into it.

Organic evolution with God is not organic evolution at all - but intelligent design.

This thread cannot help but draw forth our modern hostility towards anything inconsistent with scientific naturalism. Our enemies have made issues of these things because presentism does the work for them in driving a wedge between Joseph and us.

Does any good come from this?

I think it's from birth. There is no clear pre-existence teaching in the Book of Mormon. So whoever the writer was, either Mormon or Joseph Smith, he evidently had yet received that "light and knowledge."

That is an interesting claim. The preexistence was not part of the record of the brass plates - say, Job? No clear teaching means it was unknown? Alma 13 only makes sense in the context of the divine council in the preexistence ("from the foundation of the world").

I recognize that Cobalt-70 believes there were no brass plates, neither gold ones.

Just make sure whatever you do, you do it in a big, egregious way. It would be super cool, for example, if you were to produce a working seerstone - otherwise, you're kinda just being a contrarian crank.

Because we do not know the method of creation, do we? We do know Adam and Eve were created by God and that they are our first parents but by what method were they created? We really do not know. Here, even based upon wha we do know: that Adam ws formed from the "dust of the earth" and Eve from one of Adam's ribs, it is very unclear as to the methods of creation. That's why it is quite tengential.

But it is clear that God did the creating.

And there in lies the problem...the manual and the scriptures...contradict the scientific explanation for creation....all I'm asking for is that the church offer us a pathway forward...if that pathway IS the manuals, Ensign, Scripture...then IT is in conflict with reality...I'm merely asking for clarity and feel that it would be beneficial for the church to correct those of US who are in conflict with orthodox thinking.

Choose ye this day your path. You already know what I think. I already know what you think. Just do what it is you want to do anyways. As MFB says, why stay in a church you don't believe in?