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

[John Larsen]

Good point, so if my teacher/scientist/guru/whatever, such as the prophet, states that if you do such and such things you will not only have the spirit to be with you and feel it and know of a surety and this happens is reproduced over and over for millions over time, not even including non-Mormon's then it must be science....

The problem is that the experience has failed millions of times also. So the good scientist would look for alternative theories that can explain both the successes and failures of the prophets promise. This is a very similar problem to Virgin Mary sightings, UFO abductions, Big Foot sightings and past life regression. It is likely you don't believe in all of those, even though they pass your witness test.

[Jeff K.]

Let us be clear. Evolution is scientific theory. ID is a faith based philosophy. Evolution theory and the biological sciences have no place for non-demonstrable statements of personal belief not based on the observable world.

You would first need to prove that forethought exists before working on its mechanisms of operation.

All theories exist with different levels of faith. It goes to the very definition of theory, a supposition you believe to be true. So your point is not really very clear. Evolution at its outset was set within a series of observation which over time did correspond with further study (and in some cases refinement and rejection of certain aspects was also employed). Intelligent Design is by any measure, in its infancy and rather than denounce it, I will wait and see how further research is conducted and what the result are.

To do otherwise is to choose dogmatism over science.

[The Dude]

I appreciate the feedback.

You are welcome.

Now, care to elaborate on why my opinions are prima facia evidence of "anti-intellectualism" and an "evaporating" commitment to education?

At first I was not impressed with your reason for thinking the Mormon church should not make an official statement about evolution in relation to the gospel, and it suggested to me that you only pay lip service to the Church's ideals about education. Your stubborn defense of that reason made me think you even have an anti-intellectual streak and so I asked you for another reason, to find out more about the basis of your opposition. Some of your reasons were better than the others. So I'm still not sure.

BTW, regarding your comment on #4, I can understand your perspective as it relates to the population of the Church within the U.S. and developed countries, but I'm not sure the Saints in Ghana are ready for such an idea...does that make sense?

Not really. The Catholic Church made a statement about evolution fairly recently. I think the Mormons in Ghana are just as smart as the Catholics.

[ttribe]

At first I was not impressed with your reason for thinking the Mormon church should not make an official statement about evolution in relation to the gospel, and it suggested to me that you only pay lip service to the Church's ideals about education. Your stubborn defense of that reason made me think you even have an anti-intellectual streak and so I asked you for another reason, to find out more about the basis of your opposition. Some of your reasons were better than the others. So I'm still not sure.

Then perhaps you should click around in my sig line and see if you think I have a commitment to education and learning.

Not really. The Catholic Church made a statement about evolution fairly recently. I think the Mormons in Ghana are just as smart as the Catholics.

It's not a question of "smart"...it's a question of baseline education and preparedness; that's all I was pointing out.

[The Dude]

It's not a question of "smart"...it's a question of baseline education and preparedness; that's all I was pointing out.

I still think it is a poorly thought out reason for why the Mormon church shouldn't make an official statement about evolution. My question for you is: what about the Catholics in Ghana? Does it make sense that their baseline education and preparedness, which you presume to be low, should have kept the Catholic church from making an official statement about evolution?

[ttribe]

I still think it is a poorly thought out reason for why the Mormon church shouldn't make an official statement about evolution. My question for you is: what about the Catholics in Ghana? Does it make sense that their baseline education and preparedness, which you presume to be low, should have kept the Catholic church from making an official statement about evolution?

Like I said, off the top of my head last night...just a thought. BTW, I'm not sure how the CC's comment on evolution is somehow comparable with the assertion that the LDS Church should ENDORSE evolution, but whatever.

[Hoops22]

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.

If this is to tangential please forgive. But....

How can you possibly make this claim? It is foundational.

[ttribe]

If this is to tangential please forgive. But....

How can you possibly make this claim? It is foundational.

Can reasonable minds disagree on what is "foundational"?

[Hoops22]

Can reasonable minds disagree on what is "foundational"?

Well, I don't think I can hold up my end of that bargain - so let's put that aside.

Let's pretend:

I don't think so one this one.

[ttribe]

Well, I don't think I can hold up my end of that bargain - so let's put that aside.

Let's pretend:

I don't think so one this one.

That's fine and that's an acceptable interpretation of the scriptures. My interpretation is that the divinity of Christ, His atoning sacrifice and the principles of salvation are foundational to all of the Gospel and take precedence over the creation.

[Hoops22]

That's fine and that's an acceptable interpretation of the scriptures. My interpretation is that the divinity of Christ, His atoning sacrifice and the principles of salvation are foundational to all of the Gospel and take precedence over the creation.

Gen must be taken literally to preserve Jesus' line from Adam. Therefor, if Gen is not what it claims then Jesus may not be who He claims.

[ttribe]

Gen must be taken literally to preserve Jesus' line from Adam. Therefor, if Gen is not what it claims then Jesus may not be who He claims.

I'm not going to get into that with you, because I don't think it's necessary in this thread...but I will say, again, I disagree with your interpretation.

[Jeff K.]

Gen must be taken literally to preserve Jesus' line from Adam. Therefor, if Gen is not what it claims then Jesus may not be who He claims.

We can only presume that Gen must be taken literally to preserve Jesus' line from Adam if we presume the it is correct. What if generations were missing but the line still accurate? Would the end result still be the same even though Gen itself (one supposes) is flawed?

[ttribe]

We can only presume that Gen must be taken literally to preserve Jesus' line from Adam if we presume the it is correct. What if generations were missing but the line still accurate? Would the end result still be the same even though Gen itself (one supposes) is flawed?

Never mind...derail away...just count me out.

[Hoops22]

We can only presume that Gen must be taken literally to preserve Jesus' line from Adam if we presume the it is correct. What if generations were missing but the line still accurate? Would the end result still be the same even though Gen itself (one supposes) is flawed?

I'm still stinging from the rolled-up newspaper smacking my nose. So I'll whisper:

The Holy Spirit told me Gen is literal. Can He be wrong?

[Tarski]

QUOTE(Tarski @ Jan 14 2009, 03:58 PM)

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

How do you know that?.

This is not a thing I can spend time trying to prove but basically the everyday reason is that Steve Benson asked McConkie about this in McConkie's own home. Steve says that McConkie himself said the Brethren reviewed the address and requested no changes. Since there is not one person who is claiming that this didn't occur and nothing about it seems fantastic, there isn't the slightest material reason to doubt Steve's account.

Do a google search with key words evolution, McConkie, Benson, Brethren.

There is also the fact that under the assumption of the truthfulness of the church and its scriptures, McConkie's reasoning is impeccable. He was, after all, a careful scriptorian and supposedly an inspired seer.

[Jeff K.]

I'm still stinging from the rolled-up newspaper smacking my nose. So I'll whisper:

The Holy Spirit told me Gen is literal. Can He be wrong?

When the Lord relented and allowed Martin Harris to take part of the translations with him. How could he be wrong?

I would say that it would depend on several factors.

Which spirit you listened to.....

What was your state of mind......

Why did you inquire.... (which of course goes to state of mind).

As a side note... Why was it important for you to know the lineage of Adam was unbroken?

I have long since learned the catch all term "The Holy Spirit told me" is fraught with potential error, not from the Holy Spirit, but from men, even good honest men.

[Jeff K.]

How do you know that?.

This is not a thing I can spend time trying to prove but basically the everyday reason is that Steve Benson asked McConkie about this in McConkie's own home. Steve says that McConkie himself said the Brethren reviewed the address and requested no changes. Since there is not one person who is claiming that this didn't occur and nothing about it seems fantastic, there isn't the slightest material reason to doubt Steve's account.

Do a google search with key words evolution, McConkie, Benson, Brethren.

There is also the fact that under the assumption of the truthfulness of the church and its scriptures, McConkie's reasoning is impeccable. He was, after all, a careful scriptorian and supposedly an inspired seer.

I did.

Nonetheless, my grandfather twice noted that "it was understood that the talk represented the views of Elder McConkie."

You know, people have been making excellent logical points regarind various positions that they have held, about science, about God, about everything over the millineaum, and still they were wrong. The fallacy is that someone who is a seer cannot have a wrong opinion regarding something that does not affect anyone's salvation. The assumption of truthfulness and the scriptures remains the same. There interpretation thereof by man is not the same. And since the information was not put before the church as binding doctrine, I find the attempt to make speculation "truth" or "doctrine" to be a generally assumed error by many, usually though by those who don't like Mormons.

[lostindc]

How do you know that?.

This is not a thing I can spend time trying to prove but basically the everyday reason is that Steve Benson asked McConkie about this in McConkie's own home. Steve says that McConkie himself said the Brethren reviewed the address and requested no changes. Since there is not one person who is claiming that this didn't occur and nothing about it seems fantastic, there isn't the slightest material reason to doubt Steve's account.

Do a google search with key words evolution, McConkie, Benson, Brethren.

There is also the fact that under the assumption of the truthfulness of the church and its scriptures, McConkie's reasoning is impeccable. He was, after all, a careful scriptorian and supposedly an inspired seer.

who cares what he said, since a little after Darwin's theory was advanced there were several in the positions of leadership that believed in large portions of Darwin's theory. I just cannot understand why people think prophets are entitled to every nuance of information that pertains little to bringing souls unto Christ. spiritual realm not the physical realm...

[Tarski]

I did.

You know, people have been making excellent logical points regarind various positions that they have held, about science, about God, about everything over the millineaum, and still they were wrong. The fallacy is that someone who is a seer cannot have a wrong opinion regarding something that does not affect anyone's salvation.

But if you then go on to assert that a seer and church leader can be wrong about the question of which things are important enough to affect salvation then the situation is comical. McConkie clearly thinks the whole issue is important for members member's salvation. Heresy is a strong word and if none of it affects salvation then why is he wasting time and strong words on it and giving this biog address? A seer and general authority should at least know what is important and know when he is merely stating insignificant opinions.

For the opinion/doctrine distinction to be relevant in practice, at least those in authority must be able to tell the difference. Don't tell me the spirit answers things. The beliefs members hold on the basis of personal revelation are even more varied than the opinion that GAs boldly assert in thier public adresses and writings.

[Jeff K.]

But if you then go on to assert that a seer and church leader can be wrong about the question of which things are important enough to affect salvation then the situation is comical. McConkie clearly thinks the whole issue is important for members member's salvation. Heresy is a strong word and if none of it affects salvation then why is he wasting time and strong words on it and giving this biog address? A seer and general authority should at least know what is important and know when he is merely stating insignificant opinions.

For the opinion/doctrine distinction to be relevant in practice, at least those in authority must be able to tell the difference. Don't tell me the spirit answers things. The beliefs members hold on the basis of personal revelation are even more varied than the opinion that GAs boldly assert in thier public adresses and writings.

Logic 101 might be useful before you continue this discourse.

Some points to ponder.

1-Evolution is not a doctrinal issue, it neither enhances nor detracts from salvation.

2-The information, as has been mentioned, has never been presented to the general body as revelation. Indeed, from an anti Mormon website it was acknowledged to be the personal opinion of Mr. McConkie.

3-Because someone thinks something is important, whether an apostle or not, does not make it so. Anymore than Jonah thought it was important not to go to Ninevah. Or was he also a false prophet?

4-It is amusing that you presume to make criteria for seers and prophets not being one yourself. If I might state... you should "at least know what is an important opinion and what isn't".

Your other criteria are, shall we say, less than convincing.

[lostindc]

But if you then go on to assert that a seer and church leader can be wrong about the question of which things are important enough to affect salvation then the situation is comical. McConkie clearly thinks the whole issue is important for members member's salvation. Heresy is a strong word and if none of it affects salvation then why is he wasting time and strong words on it and giving this biog address? A seer and general authority should at least know what is important and know when he is merely stating insignificant opinions.

For the opinion/doctrine distinction to be relevant in practice, at least those in authority must be able to tell the difference. Don't tell me the spirit answers things. The beliefs members hold on the basis of personal revelation are even more varied than the opinion that GAs boldly assert in thier public adresses and writings.

I missed the memo on McConkie being a Jesus clone. The Church has had the same articles since its inception and anything that leaders say not regarding these articles really does not matter. We have got numerous quotes which if you just bother to search this site will explain this position 700 times over straight from Joseph Smith's mouth.

For instance, the late Elder Wirthlin thought Utah was and is a great football team, whereas I think he is completely wrong (I have east coast bias). Unfortunately, Elder Wirthlin prophetic.

[Tchild2]

Logic 101 might be useful before you continue this discourse.

Some points to ponder.

1-Evolution is not a doctrinal issue, it neither enhances nor detracts from salvation.

But evolution IS a doctrinal issue, because it relates directly and materially to the Mormon cosmological foundation which indeed and in fact is doctrinal; namely that Adam was the the first man that lived in a paradisicial glory before death existed in the world. You can't have the latter narrative, without evolution gunking up your myth.

Adam introduced death, both physical (here is the direct conflict with evolution) and spiritual into the world which necessitated a savior to redeem man from both. That is the core, the foundation and backdrop of Christianity and Mormonism.

How does evolution work into and mesh with the genesis myth which has been interpreted literally by LDS leaders?

[Hoops22]

I have long since learned the catch all term "The Holy Spirit told me" is fraught with potential error, not from the Holy Spirit, but from men, even good honest men.

Me 2.

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

No evolution is not a doctrinal issue. Creation is. So your premise is faulty.

IOW. We are created by God in His image and likeness is the doctrine of the Church. The process by which He did it is not.