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

[Tchild2]

again sarcasm goes through the cracks of another friend of the MormonsWait, I just came up with a word: unhappy

I am curious Lostindc. Why do you (or anybody here) feel it is necessary to defend any portion of creationism, and not fully embrace evolution, given that active LDS posters here (ttribe and sometimessaint to name a few) state that evolution is perfectly compatible with Mormonism? Why are those posters saying one thing (evolution is compatible in every way), but other posters are defending something else, like, supporting creationism, while fully or partially opposed to evolution? If evolution is compatible with Mormonism, creationism shouldn't even enter the picture...or should it?

Just curious.

[lostindc]

I am curious Lostindc. Why do you (or anybody here) feel it is necessary to defend any portion of creationism, and not fully embrace evolution, given that active LDS posters here (ttribe and sometimessaint to name a few) state that evolution is perfectly compatible with Mormonism? Why are those posters saying one thing (evolution is compatible in every way), but other posters are defending something else, like, supporting creationism, while fully or partially opposed to evolution? If evolution is compatible with Mormonism, creationism shouldn't even enter the picture...or should it?

Just curious.

That is a fair question, and I can answer it this way, until further evidence arises that man came from some type of preman creature then I will have to reject, because it requires way too much faith with no manifestation to support the conclusions.

[John Larsen]

I am curious Lostindc. Why do you (or anybody here) feel it is necessary to defend any portion of creationism, and not fully embrace evolution, given that active LDS posters here (ttribe and sometimessaint to name a few) state that evolution is perfectly compatible with Mormonism? Why are those posters saying one thing (evolution is compatible in every way), but other posters are defending something else, like, supporting creationism, while fully or partially opposed to evolution? If evolution is compatible with Mormonism, creationism shouldn't even enter the picture...or should it?

Just curious.

Indeed. It was stated, a few pages ago, that the Church need not take a stand because the issue wasn't important enough to be bothered with. If anything, this thread should manifest why the Lords spokesmen, if he is indeed what he claims, should be interested in weighing in on possibly the most important question of our time.

[Tchild2]

Indeed. It was stated, a few pages ago, that the Church need not take a stand because the issue wasn't important enough to be bothered with. If anything, this thread should manifest why the Lords spokesmen, if he is indeed what he claims, should be interested in weighing in on possibly the most important question of our time.

Bruce R. McConkie agrees with you john:

"The Lord expects us to believe and understand the true doctrine of the Creationâ??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.

I hope ttribe and sometimes saint don't miss out on that "fullness of eternal reward".

[spinner]

again sarcasm goes through the cracks of another friend of the Mormons

I guess I'm just too dense to detect your sarcasm. Was it just the going to hell comment, because I was really having a lot of fun with that.

(Reminds me of a game some buddies from Oklahoma once played. They would get points every time they got told they were going to hell, with the number of points varying depending on the source. For instance, a simple going to hell from a middle aged man was only 1 point, from a member of the clergy was 10 points, and being condemned to hell over public airwaves would have been 100 points. Alas neither of them reached such rarified heights in their pursuit.)

[Jeff K.]

QUOTE

God had to do a number of things beside the lineage. Did you pray about each single item, or were you simply cherry picking?

Have you generated an approved list upon which I should pray?

Irrelevant. I just find it amusing that you pray about the truth of small details. I like to ask whether or not he is the savior, not if he had the right lineage. But hey, to each his own. You know the pharisees were that way too.

QUOTE

And if so, then why should God bless you with such an incessant and oftimes inane questions

Questions are often more than a plea for information. They often communicate something else entirely.

See above.

QUOTE

rather than the key point "Is He the savior".

While this is true, there are subterranean caverns beneath this seemingly flat ground upon which you trod. And it's doctrinally unsound to boot.

It is doctrinally unsound to pray to know of Jesus Christ was the savior? I find that hard to believe.

QUOTE

if you use that type of reasnoning in your search for salvation.

Fortunately, I don't search for it. It has been given to me.

Like the Pharisees eh?

[ttribe]

I am curious Lostindc. Why do you (or anybody here) feel it is necessary to defend any portion of creationism, and not fully embrace evolution, given that active LDS posters here (ttribe and sometimessaint to name a few) state that evolution is perfectly compatible with Mormonism? Why are those posters saying one thing (evolution is compatible in every way), but other posters are defending something else, like, supporting creationism, while fully or partially opposed to evolution? If evolution is compatible with Mormonism, creationism shouldn't even enter the picture...or should it?

Just curious.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said "evolution was perfectly compatible with Mormonism". Not once. I never even implied it. I said I don't know what the mechanism was for the creation, but that evolutionary processes may have been involved. It is you and Tarski and Larsen who insist on this all or nothing approach to either position. I do not. Now knock it off with misstating what I've said.

[Jeff K.]

Wrong. What you describe is Lamarckism which idea has been thoroughly discredited. Organisms do not evolve in response to their environment.

There may be one or two lunatic Lamarckists out there (of people who know what they are talking about), but you would have a hard time finding them.

Your assumption is incorrect. I subsribe to changed brought on by environment, be they man made or not, not the single species theory.

[ttribe]

Bruce R. McConkie agrees with you john:

"The Lord expects us to believe and understand the true doctrine of the Creationâ??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.

I hope ttribe and sometimes saint don't miss out on that "fullness of eternal reward".

I've had about enough. I've already explained to you my position on Elder McConkie's statements and nothing I believe is out of harmony with his statement.

You want to discuss? Fine. You want to mock and ridicule? I'm done and I am very disappointed in you.

[Jeff K.]

Avoiding discussion?

Jeff,

Do a search in this forum with keyword "evolution" and filter by member name "Tarski". You will find pages of stuff and I don't think it goes back nearly as far as when I first started posting here.

You might also do the same search but filter with member name "The Dude" (his PhD is in a biological science)

No you have indeed avoided discussion. You made an overbroad generalization regarding my position and now you are avoiding honest discourse as to how you feel they are too general.

I suggest you bring yourself to heel and attempt to answer the question. Though I suspect you would rather retire than make you hole you are in deeper.

Specifically you stated

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.

My points being the following:

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".

Since you have made the claim, the onus remains upon you to answer how you have come to your "chuckle" sweeping judgement. Please feel free to respond upon your convenience as I will continue to remind you that you have not answered key questions.

Perhaps they make you uncomfortable?

I mean it was at that point you retreated to some mumbling about a Phd and then using that as a crutch claimed you didn't need to answer the question. I think most here would find that a less than clever ruse. Harldy worthy of a "Phd".

[Jason]

Well, the web site was interesting. The thread kind of went downhill from there.

[Jeff K.]

I am reading talks posted on LDS.org by Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie and Russell M. Nelson and the content of the Gospel principals to get my church teachings concerning the fall. What are you reading?

The gulf between what you read and what you understand is larger than ten Valles Marinerii.

[Jeff K.]

Bruce R. McConkie agrees with you john:

"The Lord expects us to believe and understand the true doctrine of the Creationâ??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.

I hope ttribe and sometimes saint don't miss out on that "fullness of eternal reward".

Sigh, again opinion not doctrine. I think even you can understand that faith comes before understanding. Well, maybe you don't.

[Tchild2]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said "evolution was perfectly compatible with Mormonism". Not once. I never even implied it.

My apologies then. I lumped you in with Sometimessaint based on this statement:

"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.

I said I don't know what the mechanism was for the creation, but that evolutionary processes may have been involved. It is you and Tarski and Larsen who insist on this all or nothing approach to either position. I do not. Now knock it off with misstating what I've said.

Your position is duly noted, thanks for the clarification.

[Tchild2]

The gulf between what you read and what you understand is larger than ten Valles Marinerii.

That is pretty wide. Why don't you give an example or two of my misunderstanding and we will see whose gulf is the widest.

[Tarski]

No you have indeed avoided discussion. You made an overbroad generalization regarding my position and now you are avoiding honest discourse as to how you feel they are too general.

I suggest you bring yourself to heel and attempt to answer the question. Though I suspect you would rather retire than make you hole you are in deeper.

Specifically you stated

My points being the following:

Since you have made the claim, the onus remains upon you to answer how you have come to your "chuckle" sweeping judgement. Please feel free to respond upon your convenience as I will continue to remind you that you have not answered key questions.

What are the key questions again? I only see one question mark above. It is connected to your question : "Or was he also a false prophet?"

That can't be your key question can it? Well, I guess I will answer "yes".

Perhaps they make you uncomfortable?

Hardly

So what is "the question" again?

BTW, did you really read McConkie's address. Where do you fault his "logic"? He directly asserts that it does bear on salvation and explains how and why.

So what are "the key questions" again?

[Tchild2]

Sigh, again opinion not doctrine. I think even you can understand that faith comes before understanding. Well, maybe you don't.

Sigh, the fall is doctrine, Adam as the first man who lived before death existed in the world is doctrine --the most central doctrine after the atonement of Jesus Christ. sigh.

[Jeff K.]

Huh? So what? Who would say such a thing? (and what kind of PhD in any subject would imagine that organic evolution entails anything of the sort?)By the way, when I left UCLA with a PhD there were three highly intelligent young men who had been struggling to prove a relevant PhD worthy mathematical theorem and had been for 8 years. I have never met anyone who got a PhD in a hard science or exact science that said it was anything close to easy--quite the opposite. It's not uncommon for people to simply give and people smarter than me have done so. (Maybe it's different if one gets a PhD in one of the humanities--I couldn't say)I don't know what subject you got your PhD in or what school it was but if it was easy then it doesn't speak highly of the degree, the school, the subject (or all three). So why did I bring up a PhD in math? Simple; because someone decided to assert that I needed to take logic 101. That's annoying since I have quite a bit of both training and skill in logic. You may as well insult Daniel C. Peterson by telling him that he needs to learn a couple words of Arabic.You want me to slink away when some poster who knows nothing about me blurts out something like that? I promise you that a PhD in mathematical physics from a school like UCLA is not easy and it does require original logical thinking of the highest order. By contrast, I would like to hear your notion of a truly deep spiritual insight. Let's hear it.Call me arrogant if you like, but I don't feel the need to endure such misguided insults cheerfully.

I don't think anyone would call you arrogant, arrogance requires an uppitiness combined with ability. You definately miss the latter variable. Though I am curious... You see I happen to know a Drea in the UCLA Math dept, Dir. of Applied Math... It would be interesting if I contacted her and perhaps ask her a few questions. Not that I feel it is that important, but I haven't spoke to her for a bit, and I am just down the road - hop skip and a jump if you will. Someone who really is a Phd generally doesn't pull that out regarding theological questions since they aren't math related and really, we are much too sophisticated to fall for argumentum vericundian. Even a math Phd from UCLA would know that. ;)

What are the key questions again? I only see one question mark above. It is connected to your question : "Or was he also a false prophet?"That can't be your key question can it? Well, I guess I will answer "yes".HardlySo what is "the question" again?BTW, did you really read McConkie's address. Where do you fault his "logic"? He directly asserts that it does bear on salvation and explains how and why.So what are "the key questions" again?

You really aren't that observant are you?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".

[Jeff K.]

That is pretty wide. Why don't you give an example or two of my misunderstanding and we will see whose gulf is the widest.

Difficult to do when you aren't even aware of the methodology used in order for something to be doctrine in the LDS church. We have already established that did not happen and you in effect are left reeling with, well, much opinion and no doctrine.

[Jeff K.]

BTW, did you really read McConkie's address. Where do you fault his "logic"? He directly asserts that it does bear on salvation and explains how and why.

I am forced to once again question your understanding of logic. You presume that somehow opinion cannot be logical or that logic itself may only follow one route. This is your logic?

[Tchild2]

Difficult to do when you aren't even aware of the methodology used in order for something to be doctrine in the LDS church. We have already established that did not happen and you in effect are left reeling with, well, much opinion and no doctrine.

Yet you foisted on us a nondescript three page letter as if meant something definitive about the church's position on evolution. You aren't even sticking to your nonsensical rules of doctrinal determination.

My argument Jeff K isn't about forcing the church to accept or deny evolution, but how evolution relates to the inflexible and fixed doctrines of "the fall", that have been spelled out to you, by me, using your own church's website and your leaders and prophets own talks. The literal interpretation of the Bible has lead to a cosmological framework that cannot be undone by the leaders. This framework includes "the fall", which necessitated the atonement (the most central doctrine of Christianity and Mormonism) and is a topic that church leaders keep addressing precisely because of its perceived importance to one's understanding of that religious cosmology.

Now, show me something by the church that shows "the fall" as non-literal, and that meshes nicely with evolution. Can you do it?

[Jeff K.]

Already explained to you. It need not because it is non important to salvation. You wish to make it important. But you do not control God or the plan of salvation.

Indeed nothing you have stated need counter the idea of evolution, especially if Adam is outside the evolutionary scope.

[Tchild2]

Already explained to you. It need not because it is non important to salvation. You wish to make it important. But you do not control God or the plan of salvation.

The plan of salvation exists because of "the fall". Also, apparently this subject is important enough that apostles and prophets take the time to discuss it and expound upon it. Perhaps now that we are all "fallen" we can forget about it and just work on being atoned? However, if you want to know if your particular religion and leaders are capable of revelation that isn't contradicted later by science, then evolution as it relates to the doctrines of "the fall" may be relevant.

Indeed nothing you have stated need counter the idea of evolution, especially if Adam is outside the evolutionary scope.

Please, if you will, provide a scripture or quote from an LDS leader that might expound upon this "outside of the evolutionary scope" idea. I promise to provide some quotes that show otherwise.

[Tarski]

You see I happen to know a Drea in the UCLA Math dept, Dir. of Applied Math... It would be interesting if I contacted her and perhaps ask her a few questions.

What in the world are you talking about? LOL

What questions would you ask her? Math questions? McConkie questions?

Are you attempting to violate my anonymity? I don't think you know how things work around here.

Are you doubting the PhD thing? Really? We have several PhD's that post here both on the Mormon side and on the critic side. I am not even the only math PhD here. Zeta Flux is also. Dr. Peterson is also a PhD of course. None of these guys have given any indication they doubted me or thought me unintelligent and so on. Perhaps you know better right away. LOL

Now, I once again point out that you claimed to ask some key questions (where?). If so, then they aren't in this quote which you threw at me yet again. There is only one question mark in there that I can see (I bolded it). Key questions are usually,..well, questions and those usually end with question marks. So what are your key questions?

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".

Maybe I should ask the key questions instead (they will be actual questions). How about this: You said, "Evolution is not a doctrinal issue". My question is "on what authority or on what grounds do you assert this?" Is it doctrine that evolution is not a doctrinal question? Or your opinion? You disagree with Elder McConkie on whether the question of evolution bears on salvation and doctrine. Whom shall we listen to on this? You?

Is it a doctrinal question as to whether all men descended from Adam? Is the reality of the fall doctrinal in nature?

Do you understand what the theory of evolution by natural selection says about human origins?

[katherine the great]

again sarcasm goes through the cracks of another friend of the MormonsWait, I just came up with a word: unhappy

You are way over your head with these guys lost. What is your field of expertise?