Evolution in Sunday School Yesterday

[consiglieri]

Yesterday before I taught my Sunday school class on evolution, I told my wife I expected to be fired shortly thereafter, if not before the class was over.

As it turned out, I received more positive feedback on this class than any I have ever taught in Church in over 30-years. (I will give details if anybody is interested.)

We launched the class by talking about Joseph F. Smith's 1906 First Presidency Statement, "The Origin of Man," which I took to be a riff on Darwin's "Origin of Species," and how its primary focus is on Adam and that Adam is a special creation who was not "evolved into," then went to the very interesting statement about Adam, that Adam either started as a man, or as that germ or embryo into which Adam developed. That caused a bit of a stir, but I said that I did not have authority to go into the last clause any further (class laughter), and let it go at that, suggesting that class members might want to study further.

I also mentioned that an abridged version of the same statement was republished in 1925 over the signature of Heber J. Grant and his counselors; asked what this suggests; a class member at the back shouted, "Truth doesn't change," I laughed and said yes, that was one thing that could be taken from this, but what I take from it is that this subject was an ongoing issue that needed to be addressed again.

I then went to David O. McKay's 1959 letter in response to a question from an LDS doctor at Cornell University regarding the Church's position on the subject of evolution; before I got to the answer, I asked the class what the Church's position is on evolution; a different class member shouted, "It's baloney,"; and another said more softly, "The Church doesn't have a position," which I focused on because that was the right answer; and then read from the letter that the Church has no position on the subject of evolution; I then waffled a bit, not sure if I wanted to read the next sentence, but the class saw me waffle, so I said that I would go ahead and read the next line because it is the truth and it's my job to teach the truth; so then I quoted the next line, which said that Joseph Fielding Smith's, "Man: His Origin and Destiny," and Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" are not authorized Church publications; then said by way of explanation that both JSF and BRM had made rather pedantic statements in those books regarding evolution being a bunch of hooey, and that doubtless this Cornell doctor had read those statements and referenced them in his letter to President McKay, asking if those books represented the official position of the Church on the issue.

From there, I went back to Darwin and mentioned how he really shook up the world by explaining our presence by the process of natural selection without any God necessary in the equation, and how many churches took (and continue to take) umbrage at that, and respond to it as if it is a direct assault on their faith. I mentioned that I think the LDS Church does not get involved in that so much as some other Christian churches; that I don't recall ever hearing a talk about evolution in conference, and can't recall ever hearing a talk in sacrament meeting, even; all present agreed with my perceptions in this regard; I mentioned President McKay's wisdom in taking this position, because it leaves us in the advantageous position of not having to take sides and being able to sit on the sidelines and watch the combat between certain Christians and Evolutionists.

I then went to Galileo and we talked about the stir he made when he built a telescope and saw that Jupiter had moons of its own; and how that led to a real problem between him and the Catholic Church; that the Catholic Church saw this as a direct threat to its belief system because it had for whatever reason posited the earth as being the center of the universe as part and parcel of its doctrines of salvation and to challenge that was to challenge the entire edifice of their religion; how eventually they got past that and were able to incorporate the new information into its belief system, but it took a while for that to happen; and not all Christians have been able to do so, even to this day.

We then talked about the Book of Abraham; how certain fundamentalist Christians insist that the word "day" as used in the Genesis creation account must be a 24-hour day; how we define a day as the period of time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis relative to the sun; how this is a bit odd as in Genesis the sun doesn't even get created until the fourth day, so how would the first three days be 24-hour periods without the sun?; then we got into Abraham 4 and 5.

I said that Abraham pretty much never gets mentioned except for 1:2; and 3:23-25; and we never hear about any of the rest, but now we are going to look into chapters 4 and 5, the creation account; how Mormons seem to put a lot of importance on the creation account as we have four of them (Genesis, Moses, Abraham and the Temple); and that the Abraham account gives us some interesting perspectives.

How the period of creation periods in Abraham starts by saying evening and morning were the first "day"; but then on the second day, it says, "day or time," and thereafter it segues to simply using "time," without reference to any other measurement; it is simply a creative period of indeterminate length.

Then mentioned that Abraham has a very strange order of creation; how in Genesis God simply speaks, and things are created; I asked what we speak, what I am speaking right then, and somebody said "words," and I said that's right, God spoke "words" to create; and that is why John says that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, and that all things were created by the Word; but that was getting too mystical, and we wanted to stick with science.

How Abraham has the Gods commanding things to happen in the creation; and then "waiting until they were obeyed"; also how when the Gods created life in the waters, first the Gods "prepared the waters" to bring forth life; and how they did the same thing in the earth, preparing the earth to bring forth life before commanding things to happen.

Here a class member said that the same thing is not said before God creates Adam, and that this perhaps ties in with the 1909 First Presidency Statement that seems to want to be explicit only as it regards the creation of Adam as being a special creation; and I pointed out that the statement limits itself to "Adam's race," without mentioning any other potential races that might be back there.

I concluded by affirming that I was not teaching that God created life on earth through the process of evolution, but that there is a big tent in Mormonism on this issue, and members have wide latitude to believe what they want about creation and still be Mormons in good standing.

Class concluded.

Mischief managed.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Hamba Tuhan]

I have no complaints....

[firepatch36]

These would be the kind of classes I'd like to be in.

[Zakuska]

Thats what I love about... Line upon Line... precept upon precept. Once we advance to the next level of learning the tinker toys we played with as kids to get certian concepts down can be put back in the can so we can start chewing the stake.

Fundamentalist Evangelical Christains on the other hand are continously chained down by the letters on the page that Killeth and are never able to sore with the eagles.

But what is funny is what they chose to overlook in the God breathed Innerrant Idol they set up fro themselves.

1. Rev. 7: 1 1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

The earth is Square?

Really?

[littlechild]

The Church has a position: no death before the Fall. It's in the curriculum.

http://ndbf.blogspot.com

It's true that Church members have been browbeaten into acquiescence to an authoritative sounding scientific misrepresentation of the facts - but that doesn't mean in any way that evolution has been demonstrated at any time. It hasn't. What has been demonstrated unequivocally in quite recent times is that it is mathematically impossible for 150 folding proteins to have assembled themselves in the available time the universe is purported to have been around - by scientific estimation.

The theory of evolution is weak - very weak, but is propped up by propagandists who have a vested interest in denying the plausibility of a higher intelligence.

Some may think this sounds overbearing and unfounded. I think not. It is the truth at long last.

Here is a review of Stephen Meyer's work, briefly

Perhaps the most persuasive of these comes from philosopher Stephen Meyer who in his most recent book Signature In The Cell supplied a mathematical treatise on the synthesis of bio-molecules (10). Following in the footsteps of fellow ID advocate William Dembski, Meyer has done us all a great service by showing how the chance assembly of a 150 amino-acid protein (1 in 10exp164) pales in front of the available probabilistic resources of our universe (10exp139 is the maximum number of events that could have occurred since the big bang) (10). In other words, we are stopped dead in our tracks by a probabilistic impasse of the highest order before we have even begun assessing the geological plausibility of competing origin of life scenarios.

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/12/11/the_odds_that_end_stephen_meyera_s_rebut

Mathematician William Dembski tells us a similar thing in "No Free Lunch, Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence"

The Church allows that people of reasonable intelligence can differ on this topic and that ultimately we don't get sidetracked into issues non-essential to salvation. That is a far cry however from a statement of approval of theory.

Science today is just as primitive in its way as medieval alchemy was 1000 years ago. We have many many centuries to go before we will really grasp the fundamentals of the origins of life.

[handys003]

You didn't really try to explain the concept of God's time to a fundalmentalist did you? Geez the looks and remarks I get when I explain that concept defies belief.

[Judd]

Yesterday before I taught my Sunday school class on evolution, I told my wife I expected to be fired shortly thereafter, if not before the class was over.

As it turned out, I received more positive feedback on this class than any I have ever taught in Church in over 30-years. (I will give details if anybody is interested.)

We launched the class by talking about Joseph F. Smith's 1906 First Presidency Statement, "The Origin of Man," which I took to be a riff on Darwin's "Origin of Species," and how its primary focus is on Adam and that Adam is a special creation who was not "evolved into," then went to the very interesting statement about Adam, that Adam either started as a man, or as that germ or embryo into which Adam developed. That caused a bit of a stir, but I said that I did not have authority to go into the last clause any further (class laughter), and let it go at that, suggesting that class members might want to study further.

I also mentioned that an abridged version of the same statement was republished in 1925 over the signature of Heber J. Grant and his counselors; asked what this suggests; a class member at the back shouted, "Truth doesn't change," I laughed and said yes, that was one thing that could be taken from this, but what I take from it is that this subject was an ongoing issue that needed to be addressed again.

I then went to David O. McKay's 1959 letter in response to a question from an LDS doctor at Cornell University regarding the Church's position on the subject of evolution; before I got to the answer, I asked the class what the Church's position is on evolution; a different class member shouted, "It's baloney,"; and another said more softly, "The Church doesn't have a position," which I focused on because that was the right answer;

...

I mentioned that I think the LDS Church does not get involved in that so much as some other Christian churches; that I don't recall ever hearing a talk about evolution in conference, and can't recall ever hearing a talk in sacrament meeting, even; all present agreed with my perceptions in this regard; I mentioned President McKay's wisdom in taking this position, because it leaves us in the advantageous position of not having to take sides and being able to sit on the sidelines and watch the combat between certain Christians and Evolutionists.

Ok, so David O. McKay displayed wisdom by his stand affirming that the church has no stand on human evolution. I fail to see how this translates into an implication of the truthfulness of human evolution, as that seems to be what's being implied by this big focus on feeling your class needs to be educated on the issue. If President McKay was right in not affirming one over the other, why do we champion ourselves in subtly alluding to human evolution as the Creator's plan? Aren't these two dichotomous, or are we just believing President McKay was 'making the transition' and 'opening the door'?

[Eldwynn]

The Church has a position: no death before the Fall. It's in the curriculum.

http://ndbf.blogspot.com

It's true that Church members have been browbeaten into acquiescence to an authoritative sounding scientific misrepresentation of the facts - but that doesn't mean in any way that evolution has been demonstrated at any time. It hasn't. What has been demonstrated unequivocally in quite recent times is that it is mathematically impossible for 150 folding proteins to have assembled themselves in the available time the universe is purported to have been around - by scientific estimation.

The theory of evolution is weak - very weak, but is propped up by propagandists who have a vested interest in denying the plausibility of a higher intelligence.

Some may think this sounds overbearing and unfounded. I think not. It is the truth at long last.

Here is a review of Stephen Meyer's work, briefly

Perhaps the most persuasive of these comes from philosopher Stephen Meyer who in his most recent book Signature In The Cell supplied a mathematical treatise on the synthesis of bio-molecules (10). Following in the footsteps of fellow ID advocate William Dembski, Meyer has done us all a great service by showing how the chance assembly of a 150 amino-acid protein (1 in 10exp164) pales in front of the available probabilistic resources of our universe (10exp139 is the maximum number of events that could have occurred since the big bang) (10). In other words, we are stopped dead in our tracks by a probabilistic impasse of the highest order before we have even begun assessing the geological plausibility of competing origin of life scenarios.

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/12/11/the_odds_that_end_stephen_meyera_s_rebut

Mathematician William Dembski tells us a similar thing in "No Free Lunch, Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence"

The Church allows that people of reasonable intelligence can differ on this topic and that ultimately we don't get sidetracked into issues non-essential to salvation. That is a far cry however from a statement of approval of theory.

Science today is just as primitive in its way as medieval alchemy was 1000 years ago. We have many many centuries to go before we will really grasp the fundamentals of the origins of life.

lol sadly none of them have an advanced degree in biology. Why trust a critique on the subject, if they never fully understood it in the first place?

His math is flawed because he is using assuming a random selection process. Evolution relies on cumulative selection.

This totally changes everything. Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker" deals with chance quite nicely. I will fully admit that I have only read Dembski's work, and not Meyers.

[Judd]

lol sadly none of them have an advanced degree in biology.

What would be an 'advanced degree in biology' that would give one proper credentials?

[Jeff K.]

It really doesn't imply anything, unless you want it to. But when you "want" to imply something, you cease to teach and become an advocate for an idea.

I am not a big fan of advocacy within gospel doctrine classes, unless that advocacy is about how we can implement doctrine in our lives to bring us closer to Heavenly Father. Does the implication of evolution somehow impact how we approach the temple? One might as well ask what the number of angels dancing on a pin head has to do with the temple? Or perhaps how dark matter would change our ordinances? After all such things will change how we implement the gospel in our lives....chuckle, ok not really, not if we have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel.

Of course some trust in the gospel more than others. Some prefer the mendacity of the world to the spirituality of existence. Evolution is not bad, I am an advocate of it as a viable theory. But in the end, for Sunday School it is irrelevant. It neither enhances nor detracts from the gospel or how it impacts our lives, or how it becomes a part of who we are. We should not feel bad, guilty, or worried about our position in regard to evolution, what we should worry about is making gospel doctrine class irrelevant by discussing the irrelevant.

[Judd]

what we should worry about is making gospel doctrine class irrelevant by discussing the irrelevant.

Which is my point. Why spend an hour focusing on something that, as admitted by the OP, the church has "no opinion" on, rather than something that the church does have an opinion on -- pointing our hearts toward Christ.

[Eldwynn]

What would be an 'advanced degree in biology' that would give one proper credentials?

If I were to propose a theory that contradicted Einsteins theory of relativity, but I didn't understand physics... would you take me seriously?

While one does not need a degree to understand something, the proponents of ID typically recycle the same arguments that Darwin was dealing with (in fact irreducible complexity was Darwin's term) back then. A degree would be the easiest evidence that they actually have some sort of understanding of the theory in the first place.

Statements like "it's a theory of improbably chance" are tossed around still, in the form of the Boeing 747 argument and the like, and they just show a fundamental misunderstanding of the very thing they are disagreeing with.

To directly answer your question though, a PhD in Zoology or Biology, and plenty of research would at least be a nice change of pace from the usual. And quite frankly, to take us to our previous example, I would be a little confused if an English major were arguing with Einstein about Physics.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Evolution is not bad, I am an advocate of it as a viable theory. But in the end, for Sunday School it is irrelevant.

Clearly Church leaders don't feel that way, Jeff, or they wouldn't have included an entire lesson on evolution in this year's Gospel Doctrine manual....

[frankenstein]

Mischief managed

nice...excellent quote

Genesis 1:20-21

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and ^cfowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Moses 2: 20 - 21

20 And I, God, said: Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl which may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And I, God, created great ^awhales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and I, God, saw that all things which I had created were good.

Do these verses mean that winged fowl came from the waters?

[Rob Osborn]

I don't know why this keeps getting hashed out. The official position of the church regarding "human evolution" is that it never happened. Man did not come from a lower order of species- that much is official LDS doctrine.

[BCSpace]

The Church has a position: no death before the Fall. It's in the curriculum.

The Church also has a scripture, 2 Nephi 2:22. The Garden state came after the creation was complete. No word on a state of no death prior to the Garden.

I don't know why this keeps getting hashed out. The official position of the church regarding "human evolution" is that it never happened.

CFR

Man did not come from a lower order of species- that much is official LDS doctrine.

There is no such position on how the physical body came about.

Ok, so David O. McKay displayed wisdom by his stand affirming that the church has no stand on human evolution. I fail to see how this translates into an implication of the truthfulness of human evolution, as that seems to be what's being implied by this big focus on feeling your class needs to be educated on the issue. If President McKay was right in not affirming one over the other, why do we champion ourselves in subtly alluding to human evolution as the Creator's plan? Aren't these two dichotomous, or are we just believing President McKay was 'making the transition' and 'opening the door'?

I did not see anywhere in the OP a claim of truthfulness for human evolution. I did see a tent though, and that would be the only thing I claim; that evolution swims well within LDS doctrine and does not contradict it at all, mainly because the Church has no doctrine on most of the details of the creation.

[BCSpace]

Do these verses mean that winged fowl came from the waters?

The Hebrew "waters" has various deeper meanings. "Waters" existed before the oceans were made and may refer to space and the material therein. See Genesis 1:1-8. In addition, it is "water from the loins"; urine or possibly semen. And thus there may be a connection between this account and the Greek creation account involving Uranus and Gaia. Imho, these possibilities are an argument for a more figurative creation account.

[Mordecai]

If I were to propose a theory that contradicted Einsteins theory of relativity, but I didn't understand physics... would you take me seriously?

While one does not need a degree to understand something, the proponents of ID typically recycle the same arguments that Darwin was dealing with (in fact irreducible complexity was Darwin's term) back then. A degree would be the easiest evidence that they actually have some sort of understanding of the theory in the first place.

Statements like "it's a theory of improbably chance" are tossed around still, in the form of the Boeing 747 argument and the like, and they just show a fundamental misunderstanding of the very thing they are disagreeing with.

To directly answer your question though, a PhD in Zoology or Biology, and plenty of research would at least be a nice change of pace from the usual. And quite frankly, to take us to our previous example, I would be a little confused if an English major were arguing with Einstein about Physics.

Michael Behe, Robert Shapiro, Cornelius Hunter and Richard Sternberg all think Darwinian processes as an explanation for macroevolution is hogwash. They most definitely have the credentials.

English majors have good reading comprehension, so when scientists put things in layman's terms, they can comprehend it and essentially channel the scientists (assuming the scientists have communicated effectively; of course, I'm not really a genius... still, I'm no slouch).

Also, as a side-note, you claimed that Darwinism isn't random, it's cumulative. ha ha ha ha. What is there to accumulate without random mutations? You can't say it's not random. Of course it's random. Even selection has random elements to it, as bad luck can easily result in a good mutation not being preserved. Furthermore, things that are not useful in themselves will be completely and utterly random (other than not being harmful). So a code would never develop through Darwinian processes, because what use is a code in itself? No use whatsoever.

[Mark Stone]

There is evolution fossils tell you changer's were happerning long before the bible was thought of

[Bsix]

Just out of curiosity...what class was this, which lesson, and from which manual were you teaching?

Thanks,

Six

[sethpayne]

Yesterday before I taught my Sunday school class on evolution, I told my wife I expected to be fired shortly thereafter, if not before the class was over.

As it turned out, I received more positive feedback on this class than any I have ever taught in Church in over 30-years. (I will give details if anybody is interested.)

We launched the class by talking about Joseph F. Smith's 1906 First Presidency Statement, "The Origin of Man," which I took to be a riff on Darwin's "Origin of Species," and how its primary focus is on Adam and that Adam is a special creation who was not "evolved into," then went to the very interesting statement about Adam, that Adam either started as a man, or as that germ or embryo into which Adam developed. That caused a bit of a stir, but I said that I did not have authority to go into the last clause any further (class laughter), and let it go at that, suggesting that class members might want to study further.

I also mentioned that an abridged version of the same statement was republished in 1925 over the signature of Heber J. Grant and his counselors; asked what this suggests; a class member at the back shouted, "Truth doesn't change," I laughed and said yes, that was one thing that could be taken from this, but what I take from it is that this subject was an ongoing issue that needed to be addressed again.

I then went to David O. McKay's 1959 letter in response to a question from an LDS doctor at Cornell University regarding the Church's position on the subject of evolution; before I got to the answer, I asked the class what the Church's position is on evolution; a different class member shouted, "It's baloney,"; and another said more softly, "The Church doesn't have a position," which I focused on because that was the right answer; and then read from the letter that the Church has no position on the subject of evolution; I then waffled a bit, not sure if I wanted to read the next sentence, but the class saw me waffle, so I said that I would go ahead and read the next line because it is the truth and it's my job to teach the truth; so then I quoted the next line, which said that Joseph Fielding Smith's, "Man: His Origin and Destiny," and Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" are not authorized Church publications; then said by way of explanation that both JSF and BRM had made rather pedantic statements in those books regarding evolution being a bunch of hooey, and that doubtless this Cornell doctor had read those statements and referenced them in his letter to President McKay, asking if those books represented the official position of the Church on the issue.

From there, I went back to Darwin and mentioned how he really shook up the world by explaining our presence by the process of natural selection without any God necessary in the equation, and how many churches took (and continue to take) umbrage at that, and respond to it as if it is a direct assault on their faith. I mentioned that I think the LDS Church does not get involved in that so much as some other Christian churches; that I don't recall ever hearing a talk about evolution in conference, and can't recall ever hearing a talk in sacrament meeting, even; all present agreed with my perceptions in this regard; I mentioned President McKay's wisdom in taking this position, because it leaves us in the advantageous position of not having to take sides and being able to sit on the sidelines and watch the combat between certain Christians and Evolutionists.

I then went to Galileo and we talked about the stir he made when he built a telescope and saw that Jupiter had moons of its own; and how that led to a real problem between him and the Catholic Church; that the Catholic Church saw this as a direct threat to its belief system because it had for whatever reason posited the earth as being the center of the universe as part and parcel of its doctrines of salvation and to challenge that was to challenge the entire edifice of their religion; how eventually they got past that and were able to incorporate the new information into its belief system, but it took a while for that to happen; and not all Christians have been able to do so, even to this day.

We then talked about the Book of Abraham; how certain fundamentalist Christians insist that the word "day" as used in the Genesis creation account must be a 24-hour day; how we define a day as the period of time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis relative to the sun; how this is a bit odd as in Genesis the sun doesn't even get created until the fourth day, so how would the first three days be 24-hour periods without the sun?; then we got into Abraham 4 and 5.

I said that Abraham pretty much never gets mentioned except for 1:2; and 3:23-25; and we never hear about any of the rest, but now we are going to look into chapters 4 and 5, the creation account; how Mormons seem to put a lot of importance on the creation account as we have four of them (Genesis, Moses, Abraham and the Temple); and that the Abraham account gives us some interesting perspectives.

How the period of creation periods in Abraham starts by saying evening and morning were the first "day"; but then on the second day, it says, "day or time," and thereafter it segues to simply using "time," without reference to any other measurement; it is simply a creative period of indeterminate length.

Then mentioned that Abraham has a very strange order of creation; how in Genesis God simply speaks, and things are created; I asked what we speak, what I am speaking right then, and somebody said "words," and I said that's right, God spoke "words" to create; and that is why John says that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, and that all things were created by the Word; but that was getting too mystical, and we wanted to stick with science.

How Abraham has the Gods commanding things to happen in the creation; and then "waiting until they were obeyed"; also how when the Gods created life in the waters, first the Gods "prepared the waters" to bring forth life; and how they did the same thing in the earth, preparing the earth to bring forth life before commanding things to happen.

Here a class member said that the same thing is not said before God creates Adam, and that this perhaps ties in with the 1909 First Presidency Statement that seems to want to be explicit only as it regards the creation of Adam as being a special creation; and I pointed out that the statement limits itself to "Adam's race," without mentioning any other potential races that might be back there.

I concluded by affirming that I was not teaching that God created life on earth through the process of evolution, but that there is a big tent in Mormonism on this issue, and members have wide latitude to believe what they want about creation and still be Mormons in good standing.

Class concluded.

Mischief managed.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig,

You need to start a blog. This is great stuff.

"Confessions of a Gospel Doctrine Teacher"

Seth

[Flyonthewall]

Just out of curiosity...what class was this, which lesson, and from which manual were you teaching?

Thanks,

Six

Our lesson was #45 "The Family is Ordained of God". #44 is "Being Good Citizens", and #46, the last lesson, is "Zion--The Pure in Heart". I was wondering how evolution fit in with any of those lessons.

[consiglieri]

I don't know why this keeps getting hashed out. The official position of the church regarding "human evolution" is that it never happened. Man did not come from a lower order of species- that much is official LDS doctrine.

And I tried to make it clear in class that this was the main thrust of the 1909 First Presidency Statement, which by its own terms seems to limit itself to "the family of Adam," or "the Addams Family," or something like that.

Whereas I cannot speak for others, it is my persistent feeling that my ancestors came down from the trees not so long ago.

Which might explain my prehensile toes.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Just out of curiosity...what class was this, which lesson, and from which manual were you teaching?

Thanks,

Six

It was the class in Church History dealing with Joseph F. Smith's administration, the manual I was teaching from was the First Presidency Statements in my Encyclopedia of Mormonism, coupled with the scriptures, as represented by Abraham 4 and 5.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

We should not feel bad, guilty, or worried about our position in regard to evolution, what we should worry about is making gospel doctrine class irrelevant by discussing the irrelevant.

Okay, Jeff, it's time for your theory to meet the facts. Explain this for me:

Why is it that this particular class was greeted with overwhelming positive reaction from the class members?

The way they acted, I would have thought they were starving street urchins who just got a bowl of warm soup. "May I have more please?"

One fellow who was until recently in the bishopric of a student ward told me he wanted me to be the teacher for the next ten years.

A sister told me she always goes home after my lessons and reads the scriptures I talk about, so it is my fault that her house is not clean.

Another older class member actually e-mailed me yesterday with his thanks for the class.

It seems obvious my class members do not see their gospel doctrine class as irrelevant; quite the opposite.

I want you to explain to me why that is, Jeff.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri