Bored at work so I figured I would post my interesting site of the day regarding evolution

[ttribe]

Either evolution is false or it can be reconciled with the gospel. Either answer would be meaningful in the lives of billions of people today.

How? Why?

[Tanyan]

http://www.reasons.org

In HIs Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Luigi]

Here we go again...does it really matter HOW God created the Earth or humankind? Not to me.

If one believes in God and Christianity he must also believe God apparently thought some details about it, such as the order of creating certain lifeforms, was important enough to include in the scriptures and those details are the very ones creating conflict among members of the LDS Church and other theists about whether evolution is an acceptable theory.

[ttribe]

If one believes in God and Christianity he must also believe God apparently thought some details about it, such as the order of creating certain lifeforms, was important enough to include in the scriptures and those details are the very ones creating conflict among members of the LDS Church and other theists about whether evolution is an acceptable theory.

So, the Church should resolve every source of conflict that could potentially arise amongst its members and the general population?

Regarding inclusion in the Scriptures - it's a general description; nothing more. Why is it more important to anything other than acknowledge God's hand in the process? Why do we need to pick apart the details to be edified and uplifted?

[The Dude]

What evaporation? What "canned answer"?

The canned answer: because it's not an important issue, not relevant to the Gospel. As if the Church's commitment to education only had to do with four subjects: faith, repentance, baptism, holy ghost.

Why should I care whether you believe I am committed to education? It was you who jumped to the conclusion that I wasn't.

Your anti-intellectualism shows that you are not. And if you don't care what I say then you should stop responding to my posts.

And if the Church did do this, what then? What would it really do to enhance people's faith in God or the saving ordinances? Nothing. If individuals have issues with this, there is a mechanism for dealing with those concerns. But there is no specific necessity for the Church to endorse a scientific theory of any kind. It isn't a moral issue; it isn't even a scriptural issue (as has been shown a myriad of times). It's a matter of intellectual curiosity as far as the Gospel is concerned.

Or, as far as you are concerned.

[Luigi]

It's a matter of intellectual curiosity as far as the Gospel is concerned.

For many it is a matter of keeping their testimony or not. Science offers a theory that not only explains how human beings and other life forms came to be but also can explain what purpose our emotions fulfill and how they came from the process of natural selection. This completely eliminates not only the need for a God who forms the creatures of the earth but eliminates any necessary explanation of why we feel guilt, sadness, happiness, love, pleasure, comfort or pain. On top of this it comes into direct confrontation with scriptures and statements of Church leaders about the timing of creation as well as events surrounding it. It is not members sitting around wondering whether God favors quantum mechanics or not-it is members wondering if they can continue to learn about evolution and keep their testimony.

[ttribe]

The canned answer: because it's not an important issue, not relevant to the Gospel. As if the Church's commitment to education only had to do with four subjects: faith, repentance, baptism, holy ghost.

So, the Church's funding of BYU and other institutions of learning are not evidence enough to you of a commitment to education?

BTW, what shall I do when the "canned answer" and the truth intersect? Shall I not give the "canned answer"?

Your anti-intellectualism shows that you are not. And if you don't care what I say then you should stop responding to my posts.

Tell me, pray tell, what is the source of your assertion that I am "anti-intellectual"?

[ttribe]

For many it is a matter of keeping their testimony or not. Science offers a theory that not only explains how human beings and other life forms came to be but also can explain what purpose our emotions fulfill and how they came from the process of natural selection. This completely eliminates not only the need for a God who forms the creatures of the earth but eliminates any necessary explanation of why we feel guilt, sadness, happiness, love, pleasure, comfort or pain. On top of this is comes into direct confrontation with scriptures and statements of Church leaders about the timing of creation as well as events surrounding it. It is not members sitting around wondering whether God favors quantum mechanics or not-it is members wondering if they can continue to learn about evolution and keep their testimony.

And there's no other mechanism for individual Church members to address those issues without an Official Proclamation from the First Presidency?

BTW, I reject your assertion that a belief in God and a belief in the evolutionary process is dichotmous (which is implied by your - "...eliminates...need for a God...." statement).

[Luigi]

So, the Church should resolve every source of conflict that could potentially arise amongst its members and the general population?

This issues isn't some issue popping up in some obscure corner of the Church. I have never discussed the issue with a member who hasn't dealt with some personal conflict about it or worse that has felt the need to come up with some absurd reason of dealing with it (fossils all came from previous planets God created for example and yes I've heard members who personally subscribe to that theory).

Regarding inclusion in the Scriptures - it's a general description; nothing more. Why is it more important to anything other than acknowledge God's hand in the process? Why do we need to pick apart the details to be edified and uplifted?

Because some of us want to not only know if it's edifying and uplifting but if it's true and it's difficult to accept it as true if it so blatantly appears to contradict what truth we've gained from other sources.

[Tarski]

Because it's not an important (or even relevant) doctrinal issue. I should think you would have enough common sense to answer that question yourself.

Bruce R. McConkie sure thought it was:

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6770

[The Dude]

So, the Church's funding of BYU and other institutions of learning are not evidence enough to you of a commitment to education?

Actually I am questioning your commitment, not the Church's.

Tell me, pray tell, what is the source of your assertion that I am "anti-intellectual"?

See:

It's a matter of intellectual curiosity as far as [ttribe] is concerned.

[ttribe]

Actually I am questioning your commitment, not the Church's.

See:

So, because I said it was an "intellectual curiousity" that makes me "anti-intellectual"? That makes no sense.

What is your basis for asserting that I am not committed to education?

[Luigi]

And there's no other mechanism for individual Church members to address those issues without an Official Proclamation from the First Presidency?

No, but what are prophets for if not to resolve spiritual conflicts experienced by a large percentage of it's members?

BTW, I reject your assertion that a belief in God and a belief in the evolutionary process is dichotmous (which is implied by your - "...eliminates...need for a God...." statement).

Yes, it is certainly possible that evolution could still be 'guided' by God, just as it is possible, as Daniel Dennet points out, that despite the apparent explosion of gasoline driving the pistons of one's car there are in fact also invisible goblins pushing each one up and down.

[ttribe]

No, but what are prophets for if not to resolve spiritual conflicts experienced by a large percentage of it's members?

What percentage would that be?

Yes, it is certainly possible that evolution could still be 'guided' by God, just as it is possible, as Daniel Dennet points out, that despite the apparent explosion of gasoline driving the pistons of one's car there are in fact also invisible goblins pushing each one up and down.

Now you're just being rude.

[John Larsen]

How? Why?

Your obvious lack of curiosity on the subject not withstanding, the amount of people who read, study and otherwise pursue the subject shows a great deal of interest by a great number.

And if the Church did do this, what then? What would it really do to enhance people's faith in God or the saving ordinances? Nothing. If individuals have issues with this, there is a mechanism for dealing with those concerns. But there is no specific necessity for the Church to endorse a scientific theory of any kind. It isn't a moral issue; it isn't even a scriptural issue (as has been shown a myriad of times). It's a matter of intellectual curiosity as far as the Gospel is concerned.

Evolution theory and my inability to harmonize it with the gospel caused me many years of stress and was catalyst in my lose of faith. So there is at least one person who would have benefited. I know of others.

[Luigi]

What percentage would that be?

Who knows, but from my own anecdotal experience most, and if you were honest about it I imagine you would say that most members who you've discussed the subject with have expressed feeling some degree of conflict over it.

Now you're just being rude.

No, I'm simply being blunt in pointing out that to suggest that when one has a natural explanation for how an event occurs it is rather absurd to continue attributing that event to unseen beings.

[ttribe]

Your obvious lack of curiosity on the subject not withstanding, the amount of people who read, study and otherwise pursue the subject shows a great deal of interest by a great number.

So, let me get this straight - because I don't think the Church needs to specifically endorse evolution, you've concluded that I'm "obviously" not curious about the topic? How did you reach that conclusion?

Evolution theory and my inability to harmonize it with the gospel caused me many years of stress and was catalyst in my lose of faith. So there is at least one person who would have benefited. I know of others.

And there are existing ways to help individuals deal with individual concerns. That doesn't tell me why the Church has to take an official position on a matter of science.

[ttribe]

Who knows, but from my own anecdotal experience most, and if you were honest about it I imagine you would say that most members who you've discussed the subject with have expressed feeling some degree of conflict over it.

Are you questioning my integrity? I am nothing but honest, Luigi, and have been so with you. Now come down off your high horse and quit acting like you have the intellectual or the moral high ground. My only assertion was that it is UNNECESSARY for the Church to take a position on the theory of evolution because it has no relevance to the Atonement or the saving ordinances. That is not, by the way, a rejection of evolution on my part.

No, I'm simply being blunt in pointing out that to suggest that when one has a natural explanation for how an event occurs it is rather absurd to continue attributing that event to unseen beings.

Thank you for making me your intellectual inferior in the discussion by labeling my belief absurd.

Bruce R. McConkie sure thought it was:http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6770

So...when the First Presidency and Twelve are united in expressing a position on the matter, you might have a point.

[Thama]

That doesn't tell me why the Church has to take an official position on a matter of science.

The fact that multiple members of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency have repeatedly claimed that this particular matter's falsehood is a matter of doctrine would certainly be one reason to seek official clarification. Given that it is the foundational principle of the science most likely to dramatically affect the next century, any misconception (if there is indeed a misconception) that this particular matter of science runs counter to Church doctrine would certainly put Mormon scientists in a difficult place at the very least.

You don't think that perhaps the Catholic Church's rejection of Copernican astronomy set physics and astronomy back significantly in those areas where Catholicism held sway?

The Church certainly doesn't have to say that "evolution was the way by which the world was created". This would be asking a lot, and is probably outside its scope anyway. What the Church does need to do is issue an official statement (and not in some relatively obscure, non-canonical source such as the Encyclopedia of Mormonism) that biological evolution either does or does not contradict the Church's doctrine on the origin of the Earth and life on it.

[Tarski]

Evolutionary theory give answers to questions about human beings and life that are also answered by the tenets of Mormonism The answers often conflict or at least the answers given by the church are rendered unnecessary.

Example:

Why do humans have the physical form that they do?

What is the ultimate source or explanation of this human shape?

Church answer: Our bodies have the form of our spirit bodies which in turn have the form of the anthropomorphic God that beget those spirits (in some way that defies congruence with genetics).

The human formhas always been and is an eternal principle.

(The shape of the so called spirit body is mysterious since it has no bones or flesh --yet how is the shape of a spirit knee, finger or elbow to be explained when there is no bones there? What holds the spirit finger in that bony shape if not bones? What makes the spirit knuckles wrinkle if not flesh? What reddens the lips if not blood? Asking why Capser the Ghost walks through walls but does fall through the floor is only the begining of the kind of absurdities entailed by the notion of a spirit body--don't get me started)

Evolution: The human form is the outcome of myriad bio-historical accidents of evolution. The human form is no more of an eternal principle than is the shape of the Grand Canyon or the shape of Florida. Everything about the human form shouts finitude, limitedness, mortality and most of all contingency. The very shape and structure of our bodies is record that tells the story of a bloody horrific battle for survival of our slimmy ancestors and could not be what it is with out millenia of death, suffering, and extinction.

[ttribe]

The Church certainly doesn't have to say that "evolution was the way by which the world was created". This would be asking a lot, and is probably outside its scope anyway. What the Church does need to do is issue an official statement (and not in some relatively obscure, non-canonical source such as the Encyclopedia of Mormonism) that biological evolution either does or does not contradict the Church's doctrine on the origin of the Earth and life on it.

I still don't see why the Church "needs" to do anything on the matter.

[Tarski]

Are you questioning my integrity? I am nothing but honest, Luigi, and have been so with you. Now come down off your high horse and quit acting like you have the intellectual or the moral high ground. My only assertion was that it is UNNECESSARY for the Church to take a position on the theory of evolution because it has no relevance to the Atonement or the saving ordinances. That is not, by the way, a rejection of evolution on my part.

Thank you for making me your intellectual inferior in the discussion by labeling my belief absurd.

So...when the First Presidency and Twelve are united in expressing a position on the matter, you might have a point.

The talk was read and approved in advance by others including the FP.

What do you want? Singing in literal unison?

[ttribe]

Evolutionary theory give answers to questions about human beings and life that are also answered by the tenets of Mormonism The answers often conflict or at least the answers given by the church are rendered unnecessary.Example:Why do humans have the physical form that they do?What is the ultimate source or explanation of this human shape?Church answer: Our bodies have the form of our spirit bodies which in turn have the form of the anthropomorphic God that beget those spirits (in some way that defies congruence with genetics).The human formhas always been and is an eternal principle. (The shape of the so called spirit body is mysterious since it has no bones or flesh --yet how is the shape of a spirit knee, finger or elbow to be explained when there is no bones there? What holds the spirit finger in that bony shape if not bones? What makes the spirit knuckles wrinkle if not flesh? What reddens the lips if not blood? Asking why Capser the Ghost walks through walls but does fall through the floor is only the begining of the kind of absurdities entailed by the notion of a spirit body--don't get me started) Evolution: The human form is the outcome of myriad bio-historical accidents of evolution. The human form is no more of an eternal principle than is the shape of the Grand Canyon or the shape of Florida. Everything about the human form shouts finitude, limitedness, mortality and most of all contingency. The very shape and structure of our bodies is record that tells the story of a bloody horrific battle for survival of our slimmy ancestors and could not be what it is with out millenia of death, suffering, and extinction.

So, because you (and others) have determined that the Church answer is unnecessary, it must be so? If that is the case, why do you want the Church to take a position if it's meaningless to you?

The talk was read and approved in advance by others including the FP.

How do you know that?

What do you want? Singing in literal unison?

Is there a reason you are resorting to snarkiness? Oh wait...never mind.

[Luigi]

Are you questioning my integrity? I am nothing but honest, Luigi, and have been so with you. Now come down off your high horse and quit acting like you have the intellectual or the moral high ground.

You seemed to hint this is a problem only touching some insignificant number of members in the Church with your questioning whether the Church should issues statements on 'every issue' that comes up or questioning 'what percentage' when I think any member would have seen that this issue comes up among members a lot. If your experience is vastly different than mine or you weren't hinting as I interpreted then sorry I misjudged you.

My only assertion was that it is UNNECESSARY for the Church to take a position on the theory of evolution because it has no relevance to the Atonement or the saving ordinances. That is not, by the way, a rejection of evolution on my part.

I am not accusing you personally of rejecting evolution. I am simply pointing out it would seem one of the most pertinent roles of prophets to clear up this issue. I suppose one of the luxuries of being an organization that insists it speaks for God is that your unwillingness to make statements on a particular issue can be explained away as God's will.

Thank you for making me your intellectual inferior in the discussion by labeling my belief absurd.

But you aren't addressing the argument, which is that if you applied your logic regarding the compatibility of events with natural explanations being controlled as well by unseen beings to any other event outside of your scriptures and beliefs YOU would think it was absurd too.

[ttribe]

You seemed to hint this is a problem only touching some insignificant number of members in the Church with your questioning whether the Church should issues statements on 'every issue' that comes up or questioning 'what percentage' when I think any member would have seen that this issue comes up among members a lot. If your experience is vastly different than mine or you weren't hinting as I interpreted then sorry I misjudged you.

I didn't say it was insignificant; I only questioned how you "knew" it was significant. See the difference?

I am not accusing you personally of rejecting evolution. I am simply pointing out it would seem one of the most pertinent roles of prophets to clear up this issue.

And, really, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I have yet to see a reason why it would be one of the most pertinent roles of a prophet to do so.

I suppose one of the luxuries of being an organization that insists it speaks for God is that your unwillingness to make statements on a particular issue can be explained away as God's will.

That's a rather jaded position.

But you aren't addressing the argument, which is that if you applied your logic regarding the compatibility of events with natural explanations being controlled as well by unseen beings to any other event outside of your scriptures and beliefs YOU would think it was absurd too.

Because I was never trying to argue the validity or invalidity of evolution itself; only commenting on the fact that (IMO) there is no reason for the Church to take an official stand on the matter.