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

[semlogo]

A rather dogmatic stance, especially since it depends on the wisdom of men.

It has nothing to do with wisdom. It's knowledge, gained through research and observation.

[Jeff K.]

Hmmm, the prophet Joseph Fielding Smith speaking at General conference vs Jeff K as an anonymous internet poster? I wonder who has more authority to state the church's doctrinal positions? If you don't think it qualifies as doctrine, you had better take it up with the leadership. Unless and until we hear from the leadership directly that it is not doctrine, then we will assume it is until that time.

It is not an argument between Joseph Fielding Smith and I. It is a disagreement between you (anonymous internet poster) and I (anonymous internet poster). In the disagreement I asked you to show me where Joseph Fielding Smith presented as revelation before the membership, that evolution did not occur. You cannot show me this, so therefore you are reduced to stating that "well he said it". I agree with you Joseph Fielding Smith did indeed argue against evolution, but he did so without stating it was revelatory or doctrinal.

Perhaps you can show us all here where Joseph Fielding Smith presented the revelation before the membership so as to define the doctrine? Or are you perhaps obfuscating?

Unlike you I don't have the arrogance to choose the doctrine of the church, I shall wait for the Lord to make that manifest through the process the Lord placed before us. If you wish to subvert that authority and the lines of communication the Lord has set out. Feel free to do so.

[semlogo]

Hmmm, the prophet Joseph Fielding Smith speaking at General conference vs Jeff K as an anonymous internet poster? I wonder who has more authority to state the church's doctrinal positions? If you don't think it qualifies as doctrine, you had better take it up with the leadership. Unless and until we hear from the leadership directly that it is not doctrine, then we will assume it is until that time.

Bruce R. McConkie believed the facts about the creation to be both "doctrine" and "essential to salvation", and I quote his 1983 talk, with the underlined emphasis mine: "The Lord expects us to believe and understand the true doctrine of the Creation—the creation of the earth, of man, and of all forms of life. Indeed, as we shall see, an understanding of the doctrine of creation is essential to salvation. Until we gain a true view of the creation of all things we cannot hope to gain that fulness of eternal reward which otherwise would be ours." Bruce R McConkie talk

edited, Bruce R. McConkie as the speaker and not Boyd K Packer as stated earlier.

Enough already.

Dear Brother Stokes

Your letter of February 11, 1957 has been received.

On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position. The book, “Man, His Origin and Destiny” was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the Church.

The book contains expressions of the author’s views for which he alone is responsible.

Sincerely your brother,

David O. McKay

(President).

[Tchild2]

Enough already.

Well the Bruce R McConkie talk came 26 years after the letter you cited, and the General Conference address by the late prophet ten years after. Oh btw, is that letter doctrine? Was it presented to the membership as doctrine as Jeff K asks and requires that his doctrines be created?

[semlogo]

Well the Bruce R McConkie talk came 26 years after the letter you cited, and the General Conference address by the late prophet ten years after. Oh btw, is that letter doctrine? Was it presented to the membership as doctrine as Jeff K asks and requires that his doctrines be created?

You're just being argumentative. Enough already.

[Tchild2]

It is not an argument between Joseph Fielding Smith and I. It is a disagreement between you (anonymous internet poster) and I (anonymous internet poster). In the disagreement I asked you to show me where Joseph Fielding Smith presented as revelation before the membership, that evolution did not occur. You cannot show me this, so therefore you are reduced to stating that "well he said it". I agree with you Joseph Fielding Smith did indeed argue against evolution, but he did so without stating it was revelatory or doctrinal.

How exactly would J.S.F. have worded his talk to make it doctrinal to your liking?

Perhaps you can show us all here where Joseph Fielding Smith presented the revelation before the membership so as to define the doctrine? Or are you perhaps obfuscating?

Such a process of doctrinal presentation before the membership does not exist. It need not be "defined", because it supports the CORE doctrine of the church; the fall, no death and Adam as the first man, "placed" here by God.

Unlike you I don't have the arrogance to choose the doctrine of the church, I shall wait for the Lord to make that manifest through the process the Lord placed before us. If you wish to subvert that authority and the lines of communication the Lord has set out. Feel free to do so.

You already have your prophets speaking directly to you, but you just aren't listening.

[Tarski]

Logic 101 might be useful before you continue this discourse.

One point to ponder: As is well known to many posters here, I have a Ph.D. in mathematics and have taught basic logic before. I don't think I am making any logical errors here.

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".

Other posters have already made mince meat of this and so I won't bother repeating their points.

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

Criteria? I think it is the LDS that lack a criteria for clearly determining what is doctrine and which points are essential to salvation. I think the lack is strategic--to many embarrassing things from the past (from JS, BY, etc) have taught the lesson. There is always a convenient dodge in the offing and anything can end up being just some GA's opinion or past prophet not speaking as a prophet.

Tell me something; What if all the GA's at a given moment in church history (say "now" for example) believe something to be both doctrinal and essential to salvation but they don't make a joint official declaration with the words "revelation" and "doctrine" in it? Perhaps the idea that God has a body isn't doctrine but just opinion.

One thing seems certain: As soon as an idea now thought to be doctrinal and important to salvation is sufficiently contradicted by science and public consensus, then those things will be declared to have been mere opinion. Whatever it takes to maintain the religion---that's how religions work--they adapt or die.

[Jeff K.]

How exactly would J.S.F. have worded his talk to make it doctrinal to your liking?

Such a process of doctrinal presentation before the membership does not exist. It need not be "defined", because it supports the CORE doctrine of the church; the fall, no death and Adam as the first man, "placed" here by God.

You already have your prophets speaking directly to you, but you just aren't listening.

One presumes that you haven't read the Doctrine and Covenants.

Such a process does exist.

And revelatory doctrine is indeed carried out exactly as I have stated. The same process was used for both declarations and sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. It appears you aren't very familiar with the church.

In either case I believe the letter from McKay also seems to counter your position, if you find any comfort in that.

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

I've thought long and hard about it for many years. There is no discrepancy between true science and true religion. That fact is that evolution like the hammer is just a tool. That God used the tool of evolution as the process of creation is no more controversial to me than any carpenter using a hammer to create a house from mere wood.

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document...=3666&REC=2

[Jeff K.]

One point to ponder: As is well known to many posters here, I have a Ph.D. in mathematics and have taught basic logic before. I don't think I am making any logical errors here.

Based upon your post, one suddenly has evidence that math and logic are not mutually inclusive.

Other posters have already made mince meat of this and so I won't bother repeating their points.

One is tempted to ask what color the sky is in your world. But no, I will have to disagree with your perception, especially given some of the very clear remarks by our past prophets. And the points I have raised that have yet to be countered. Still, when you play chess with yourself, you at least guarantee a win for yourself as an outcome.

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".

I have yet to hear your "PhD in math" counter arguments. It is a poor logician hides behind the work of others without even a citation. If you wish to withdraw from you position I will understand. You may simply be up to the rhetorical rather than citation.

In short it appears that your Phd in math is somewhat ill earned or in the very least the money for it ill spent.

[Tarski]

Tchild2:

I've thought long and hard about it for many years. There is no discrepancy between true science and true religion. That fact is that evolution like the hammer is just a tool.

Unfortunately, the very use of the word tool contradicts what evolutionary theory is all about. The idea is that random mutations are sifted by natural selection resulting in a naturally occuring algorithm that accounts for strucutres that have the appearance of design (all we need is things making copies of themselves with variation and where the success of self copying can be better or worse in a given environment.)

As soon as one postulates that a being is guiding or plotting or manipulating things then one is introducing something that evolution doesn't need. The explanitory power of natural selection is then rendered pointless; The point is that life structures are explained without the need for intellligent design. It's natural selection--not artificial selection or design by gods or people.

[Tchild2]

In either case I believe the letter from McKay also seems to counter your position, if you find any comfort in that.

You offer a letter, a letter which has not been through the very doctrinal process that you do require of a prophet speaking at General Conference? And which talk came after the letter. So, What gives this three sentence letter more doctrinal validity than a prophet standing before the general membership at GC? Whether it is convenient to your argument or not?

You have a glaring double standard in your argumentation, and you need to show how this letter has any more weight to clarify doctrine than a prophet at GC. The irony is that your example of doctrine is so much flimsier than a GC talk.

[Jeff K.]

The use of the word "tool" does not contradict evolution. In fact it is atheists who would like us to think the word "tool" contradicts evolution. Evolution isn't simply about random mutation, but mutation to reflect an environment. There is nothing that states that process cannot be directed.

I think what is not being grasped here is that "some" evolutionists believe in the random. Other evolutionists concede that it is possible that acts which may follow the same path need not be random.

[Jeff K.]

You offer a letter, a letter which has not been through the very doctrinal process that you do require of a prophet speaking at General Conference? So, What gives this three sentence letter more doctrinal validity than a prophet standing before the general membership at GC? Whether it is convenient to your argument or not?

You have a glaring double standard in your argumentation, and you need to show how this letter has any more weight to clarify doctrine than a prophet at GC. The irony is that your example of doctrine is so much flimsier than a GC talk.

Chuckle. If the letter or opinion of one prophet counters another. Then I am fine with that. It doesn't require a revelatory process for me to see differing opinions between prophets. However. If the revelatory process is not required for an opinion or official letter from the prophet to be considered doctrine, then you are left out in the cold with two contradicting prophets which you cannot reconcile.

In essence you destroyed your own position.

Well done.

[Tchild2]

Chuckle. If the letter or opinion of one prophet counters another. Then I am fine with that. It doesn't require a revelatory process for me to see differing opinions between prophets. However. If the revelatory process is not required for an opinion or official letter from the prophet to be considered doctrine, then you are left out in the cold with two contradicting prophets which you cannot reconcile.

OK, on that we agree. We are getting "opinions"? When are we getting bona fide revelations then? When science says otherwise? This is the problem; the inability to recognize supposed revelation and "opinions of men" and it casts doubt on any and everything that is issued from the mouth of a so called prophet.

In essence you destroyed your own position.

Well done.

I am a critic and ex-believer, so I it isn't I that is losing anything, but rather, the credibility of past prophets that may be "destroyed", and in that you are helping, by arguing against them and their teachings, as science, not prophets, better explain our world.

[semlogo]

You offer a letter, a letter which has not been through the very doctrinal process that you do require of a prophet speaking at General Conference? And which talk came after the letter. So, What gives this three sentence letter more doctrinal validity than a prophet standing before the general membership at GC? Whether it is convenient to your argument or not?

You have a glaring double standard in your argumentation, and you need to show how this letter has any more weight to clarify doctrine than a prophet at GC. The irony is that your example of doctrine is so much flimsier than a GC talk.

It's a letter explaining that there is no official position on evolution, not a letter giving an official position on evolution. Can't you see the difference?

[Tarski]

Based upon your post, one suddenly has evidence that math and logic are not mutually inclusive.

One is tempted to ask what color the sky is in your world. But no, I will have to disagree with your perception, especially given some of the very clear remarks by our past prophets. And the points I have raised that have yet to be countered. Still, when you play chess with yourself, you at least guarantee a win for yourself as an outcome.

I have yet to hear your "PhD in math" counter arguments. It is a poor logician hides behind the work of others without even a citation. If you wish to withdraw from you position I will understand. You may simply be up to the rhetorical rather than citation.

In short it appears that your PhD in math is somewhat ill earned or in the very least the money for it ill spent.

It appears that way to you. But fortunately for my 25 year academic career, that's not what counts. Qualified people judge me more favorably than you (and do so with far more information than you have).

Your "points" just aren't good enough or even clear enough to make it worth my time. Take it up with McConkie in the next life - I am sure you are smarter and more inspired than he.

As for my points, I don't even think you know what they are.

Your religion is too fuzzy and flexible. I have spent enough time in the church to know how this game is played. It's not the scriptures but the words of the living prophets that counts...but new prophets can contradict old ones--oh, but the Spirit, the Spirit, has the final say.... but it isn't really the Spirit if it isn't in line with the scriptures...... which are interpreted only by the prophets ...who are inspired by the Spirit etc. etc.

The buck keeps getting passed around among the big three "Prophets, The Holy Ghost, and Scriptures". But the buck doesn't stop anywhere.

[Jeff K.]

I wasn't aware you are an ex believer. But even as an ex believer you must know that anything pertaining to doctrine must be presented to general membership and accepted, at which time it is placed in a book, not surprisingly called the "Doctrine and Covenants". The name itself is telling.

[ttribe]

The buck keeps getting passed around among the big three "Prophets, The Holy Ghost, and Scriptures". But the buck doesn't stop anywhere.

Then it seems you are wasting your time with us silly, deluded, theists. Surely, you must have something better to do...a proof, a theorem, a lemma, something.

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

I've shown you where the belief in evolution is no impediment to God using it as a tool.

I've shown you where the position of the Church is that the process used by God in creation is not a doctrinal issue.

Natural selection is not counter to selection imposed by man or God. It is in fact part and parcel of the same means.

It is time for you to concede the point, rather than quibble about your misunderstanding of what the Church actually teaches.

Time to MOVE ON.

[Tchild2]

It's a letter explaining that there is no official position on evolution, not a letter giving an official position on evolution. Can't you see the difference?

I see clearly. It is a letter dated 1957, and then 10 years later a prophet stands before the general assembly at General Conference and lays out doctrines relating to the fall that make the nuetrality of evolution an impossibility (no death in the world, Adam as first man in a garden of Eden, etc). Then another leader, an apostle continues on to expand on LDS beliefs in 1983 (cited by me on an earlier post).

Evolution directly relates to the church's doctrine of the fall, and the two cannot coexist. You cannot have no physical death, and physical death. You cannot have a first man placed here, and not a first man. Can you not see, or do you refuse to do so?

[Jeff K.]

It appears that way to you. But fortunately for my 25 year academic career, that's not what counts. Qualified people judge me more favorably than you (and do so with far more information than you have).

Your "points" just aren't good enough or even clear enough to make it worth my time. Take it up with McConkie in the next life - I am sure you are smarter and more inspired than he.

As for my points, I don't even think you know what they are.

Your religion is too fuzzy and flexible. I have spent enough time in the church to know how this game is played. It's not the scriptures but the words of the living prophets that counts...but new prophets can contradict old ones--oh, but the Spirit, the Spirit, has the final say.... but it isn't really the Spirit if it isn't in line with the scriptures...... which are interpreted only by the prophets ...who are inspired by the Spirit etc. etc.

The buck keeps getting passed around among the big three "Prophets, The Holy Ghost, and Scriptures". But the buck doesn't stop anywhere.

In my years I have noticed the moment when anonymous people began raising their degrees as flags of protection, and alluding to their many years of outstanding academia in which they changed the world, while simultaneously avoiding the discussion of very clear positions that the "whoosh" I hear is their credibility flying out the window.

Your religion is too fuzzy and flexible.

Dogmatism (the polar opposite of flexibile) is always preferable for some, just as the pharisees.

[John Larsen]

I didn't say that. You would have to define human.

Also among Mormons, all things have spirits.

My definition of humans is found in text books. It is yours that is dicey. It doesn't appear to be in either the bible or the text books. Maybe you could shed some light instead of this cat and mouse game. Take a couple of paragraphs and explain how to reconcile it.

[Tarski]

The use of the word "tool" does not contradict evolution. In fact it is atheists who would like us to think the word "tool" contradicts evolution. Evolution isn't simply about random mutation, but mutation to reflect an environment. There is nothing that states that process cannot be directed.

I think what is not being grasped here is that "some" evolutionists believe in the random. Other evolutionists concede that it is possible that acts which may follow the same path need not be random.

The environment is not an intelligent being. In any case, are you claiming that the environment directs mutation?

I don't think you grasp the role of the environment or understand how the mutations occur.

Mutations are random: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...C1aRandom.shtml

(but the algorithm, though natural, is not):

http://cogprints.org/283/

[Tchild2]

I wasn't aware you are an ex believer. But even as an ex believer you must know that anything pertaining to doctrine must be presented to general membership and accepted, at which time it is placed in a book, not surprisingly called the "Doctrine and Covenants". The name itself is telling.

I do know that? No, that isn't the case. Doctrine is whatever the current prophet speaks in official settings laid out for such purposes for the members. Prophets are not up on the pulpit wasting their or your time blathering on about non-essentials...or are they?