Anti-Evolution and the Church

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

We actually closer to ancient sea water, and Pi doesn't equal exactly 3. The Scriptures were never meant to be a science book. They are books of faith.

If you have to include the supernatural in your science it is no longer science but religion.

Something you might like.

http://cpms.byu.edu/ESM/tour.html

[Senator]

Our do you seek to just derail the merits of the argument instead of address them?

....looking for the merits of the arguement...........

Can't find any.

Therefore, I cannot address or derail them.

[BCSpace]

You can ignore it (or heed it if you feel so inclined) as a BYU devotional is not official doctrine. I would certainly take issue with Elder Bowen as evolution does not preclude man from being created in the image of God or descended directly from Him. Whether Elder Bowen knows it or not, agrees or not, he is actually responding to the atheist assumption that evolution shows that God is not the source of life or involved in the creation.

But the Ensign is official doctrine and the Ensign says the Evolution is wrong: http://lds.org/ensig...of-man?lang=eng

Where does it say that? All it does is communicate LDS doctrine on the subject of creation and does not say that evolution is wrong or incompatible. Evolution is indeed a theory of man. So?

Some history for you: The 1909 statement didn't seem to affect evolution vis a vis the opinions of James E Talmadge and BH Roberts in their debates with the young Joseph Fielding Smith. Those finally came to head in 1931 when the First Presidency of Heber J Grant issued a statement of neutrality on the issue (preAdamites specifically) and so we can know from that alone that the 1909 statement does not speak against evolution before we know it from reading it.

After a couple of decades, JSF and BRM began to make some noise on the issue again and David O McKay pretty much shut them down by not recognizing their independently published works under Church auspices. Of course today we have some people, not knowing what comprises official LDS doctrine (Church publication) who grew up with those nonofficial works and erroneously consider everything in them to be official doctrine.

[LDS Guy 1986]

The Ensign is very much NOT official doctrine.

So the scriptures are not the source of doctrine anymore?

When did that happen?

Cause according to the Church (as published in the 2009 edition of the Gospel Principals Manual) we have 5 sources of scriptures, The Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the inspired words of the living Prophets. In here is a direct quote from the manual on page 48 " In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazines, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.

The First Presidency message is the inspired words of the living prophets it is scripture and doctrine to us, we need to have faith in out prophets and seek confirmation that they are revealing the will of the Lord, but lack of faith in the prophet doesn't mean there inspired words are not our scriptures and doctrine.

You are completely wrong on this, in fact we are told in almost every General Conference that the words of the Living prophet is more important than the words of a dead prophet. That we are to take the words of the living prophet over the recorded words of the previous prophets (aka the scriptures).

If you have never heard this message it comes from President Erza Taft Benson, at the time he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve and later became President of the Church. His message is called "The Prophet - 14 Fundamentals" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvTYMv1SsfY

[thesometimesaint]

Something to interesting to read:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Pre-Adamites

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

ETB was called to task for his 14 fundamentals.

[LDS Guy 1986]

....looking for the merits of the arguement...........

Can't find any.

Therefore, I cannot address or derail them.

LOL, well at least you consistently troll! I give you a for consistency!

[BCSpace]

The Ensign is very much NOT official doctrine.

It is official doctrine, being published by the Church. However, my previous post handles the publication and republication of the 1909 statement.

That is not to say there aren't any doctrinal errors, conflicting statements, and opinions in the official publications of the Church, but they do tend to be quite minor. And yes, there are some antievolution statements in the Ensign. But the 1909 statement and re-publication thereof is actually quite positive for evolution since it is a neutral statement. At worst according to the 1909 statement, evolution may or may not be true. The atheist-like conclusions some people jump to with evolution certainly are wrong though, just as the conclusions by some anti-evolutionists about evolution are also wrong.

[LDS Guy 1986]

To say that mankind was created independently of the animals requires heroic mental twistings to accommodate findings.

First off don't lie about what I said, I never said we were made independent of animals. I said that man was created after God finished creating the Beasts of the earth, air, and sea on the last day of creation. Making something after something else doesn't mean you make is independent.

Please find my heroic twisting of the story of Creation here it is:

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:24-27)

So not only did I not mention anything about independent creation, but the scriptures I referenced also clearly state that first God made beasts, and after making beasts he made man in his image.

Where is this "heroic twisting" you accuse me of I can't find it?

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=universal-common-ancestor

[LDS Guy 1986]

It is official doctrine, being published by the Church. However, my previous post handles the publication and republication of the 1909 statement.

That is not to say there aren't any doctrinal errors, conflicting statements, and opinions in the official publications of the Church, but they do tend to be quite minor. And yes, there are some antievolution statements in the Ensign. But the 1909 statement and re-publication thereof is actually quite positive for evolution since it is a neutral statement. At worst according to the 1909 statement, evolution may or may not be true. The atheist-like conclusions some people jump to with evolution certainly are wrong though, just as the conclusions by some anti-evolutionists about evolution are also wrong.

You obviously didn't read the article if you believe that it is neutral towards evolution. It clearly states that evolution is a theory of men and the creation story is the revelations of God, they clearly support creationism and dispute evolution.

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDS Guy 1986:

ETB was called to task for his 14 fundamentals.

I have no clue what you mean about called to task, but if you are implying that this talk is frowned upon then why is it still being referenced and even repeated multiple times in the most recent General conference last October?

[BCSpace]

You obviously didn't read the article if you believe that it is neutral towards evolution. It clearly states that evolution is a theory of men and the creation story is the revelations of God, they clearly support creationism and dispute evolution.

I've read it many times having debated the issue since I was a young whipper-snapper in the Teacher's Quorum. Some have made this same claim of yours, but no one has been able to specifically point out where the 1909 says or even implies that evolution conflicts with LDS doctrine. I'm quite confident you won't be able to do the same.

[bu11fr0g]

the 14 fundamentals warranted several discussions here when they were reproduced in two separate recent conference talks. as has been pointed out, ETB was heavily criticized when he gave the talk.

church doctrine comes from the first presidency, not from the quorum of the 12 apostles. this has been clearly articulated. in the past, i have pointed out several instances of subsequently-refudiated doctrine from the quorum of the 12 given in general conference and printed in the ensign. maybe we should reopen a thread on when teachings become doctrine? these issues were much more prominent before the talks were examined as closely as they are now.

that being said, the ensign's discussions, particularly from conference talks, are the exact place to go to look at what we should do when considering our own behavior, in my opinion. but to go there looking for iron-clad church doctrine is a mistake.

So the scriptures are not the source of doctrine anymore?

When did that happen?

Cause according to the Church (as published in the 2009 edition of the Gospel Principals Manual) we have 5 sources of scriptures, The Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the inspired words of the living Prophets. In here is a direct quote from the manual on page 48 " In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazines, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.

The First Presidency message is the inspired words of the living prophets it is scripture and doctrine to us, we need to have faith in out prophets and seek confirmation that they are revealing the will of the Lord, but lack of faith in the prophet doesn't mean there inspired words are not our scriptures and doctrine.

You are completely wrong on this, in fact we are told in almost every General Conference that the words of the Living prophet is more important than the words of a dead prophet. That we are to take the words of the living prophet over the recorded words of the previous prophets (aka the scriptures).

If you have never heard this message it comes from President Erza Taft Benson, at the time he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve and later became President of the Church. His message is called "The Prophet - 14 Fundamentals" http://www.youtube.c...h?v=lvTYMv1SsfY

[bu11fr0g]

fully agree and have had heard the same claims.

I've read it many times having debated the issue since I was a young whipper-snapper in the Teacher's Quorum. Some have made this same claim of yours, but no one has been able to specifically point out where the 1909 says or even implies that evolution conflicts with LDS doctrine. I'm quite confident you won't be able to do the same.

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

Conference talks are not considered Scripture.

[LDS Guy 1986]

The Scriptures were never meant to be a science book.

I disagree completely and whole heartedly and no professor at BYU will change that. Heavenly Father made this world and most likely this universe (this depends on theology) he is a scientist and has all the knowledge of science, his revealed will is scientific since Heavenly Father is the source of all knowledge. The Bible consistently goes against common and popular ideas of the times it was written and correctly follows the truth of science. When people thought the Earth was flat God told his prophet that the people were wrong, the Earth was a circle (See Isaiah 40:22) it also refutes the commonly held belief of ancient times that the earth was built on a foundation or held up on pillars in Job 26:7 " He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

While so called "learned" men of science proclaimed such things back then God refuted them through is scriptures, God has revealed scientific truths not only in ancient times but in modern times as well. Look at Doctrine and Covenants over 100 years before science found the dangers of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, and excessive consumption of meats; the Lord revealed the eternal scientific truths of theses things to his prophet. It wasn't until many years later that the "learned" men figured out what the Latter-day Saints have known for years, because of this LDS enjoy better health and freedom from addiction to addictive drugs, if they faithfully follow the revelations of God.

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDS Guy 1986:

Conference talks are not considered Scripture.

Ignoring the doctrine of the Church doesn't change the doctrine of the church, as I previously quoted from the Gospel Principals manual page 42 I believe the conference talks as well as the messages from the Apostles and the First Presidency in the Liahona and Ensign are scriptures.

You are wrong here, you can reference the Gospel Principals manual if you wish to confirm what it says but I quoted it directly.

[LDS Guy 1986]

the 14 fundamentals warranted several discussions here when they were reproduced in two separate recent conference talks. as has been pointed out, ETB was heavily criticized when he gave the talk.

church doctrine comes from the first presidency, not from the quorum of the 12 apostles. this has been clearly articulated. in the past, i have pointed out several instances of subsequently-refudiated doctrine from the quorum of the 12 given in general conference and printed in the ensign. maybe we should reopen a thread on when teachings become doctrine? these issues were much more prominent before the talks were examined as closely as they are now.

that being said, the ensign's discussions, particularly from conference talks, are the exact place to go to look at what we should do when considering our own behavior, in my opinion. but to go there looking for iron-clad church doctrine is a mistake.

So you accuse the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of lying in the Gospel Principals manual then, when it states that the inspired words of the Prophet are scripture?

You also call a prophet of God a liar when he declared (and many more prophets have reiterated this declaration) that the words of the living prophet are the most important source for doctrine in our time?

[bu11fr0g]

i take issue only with independent creation of man ex nihilo. if God's creation involved use of animals, I am fine with that. I think that the Church would uniformly condemn atheistic evolution based solely upon natural selection as the origin of man. but if God used divine selection, or in some other way used animals to create man, or created the environment where the bodies would evolve as a proper house for His spiritual children -- all these seem to me to be possibilities consistent with church doctrine and evidence.

I do think Rob Osborn does feel that an independent and separate creation is church doctrine, but maybe I misunderstand.

First off don't lie about what I said, I never said we were made independent of animals. I said that man was created after God finished creating the Beasts of the earth, air, and sea on the last day of creation. Making something after something else doesn't mean you make is independent.

Please find my heroic twisting of the story of Creation here it is:

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:24-27)

So not only did I not mention anything about independent creation, but the scriptures I referenced also clearly state that first God made beasts, and after making beasts he made man in his image.

Where is this "heroic twisting" you accuse me of I can't find it?

[bu11fr0g]

to accept this seems to force an acceptance that scriptures may be false. is this where you end up coming down?

Ignoring the doctrine of the Church doesn't change the doctrine of the church, as I previously quoted from the Gospel Principals manual page 42 I believe the conference talks as well as the messages from the Apostles and the First Presidency in the Liahona and Ensign are scriptures.

You are wrong here, you can reference the Gospel Principals manual if you wish to confirm what it says but I quoted it directly.

[SilverKnight]

Two weeks ago tomorrow, Elder Shayne M. Bowen of the First Quorum of the Seventy made a devotional address at BYU-Idaho that took a decidedly "anti-Evolution" worldview. Among other things, Elder Bowen noted:

Should I simply ignore this and dismiss it as an opinion of one of hundreds of fallible GA's in the past, or should I seriously reconsider my position that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life?...or perhaps another option I'm not aware of?

For me human evolution, including sharing a common ancestor with apes, is an indisputable fact - so I must view this Seventies comments as simply sermonizing from a position of ignorance. This man probably has not read a biology textbook in 30 years and is expressing an opinion rooted in his religious beliefs, not reality.

When faithful LDS, including a few general authorities and even apostles, learn more about the realities of evolution, they tend not to make such sweeping statements.

Alternatively, the general authorities most ignorant to science and biology seem to be the ones adopting the most anti-evolution language.

[LDS Guy 1986]

i take issue only with independent creation of man ex nihilo.

As a Mormon I reject all claims of any creation ex nihilo, but you can't claim man was created ex nihilo because Genesis 2 clearly say man was formed of dust. So the Bible doesn't claim man was made ex nihlio.

if God's creation involved use of animals, I am fine with that. I think that the Church would uniformly condemn atheistic evolution based solely upon natural selection as the origin of man. but if God used divine selection, or in some other way used animals to create man, or created the environment where the bodies would evolve as a proper house for His spiritual children -- all these seem to me to be possibilities consistent with church doctrine and evidence.

I disagree, the scriptures say that God made man from "the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7) so there is not way man evolved, we were taken from the Earth (animals were, I assume also made of the dust of the Earth but they were created before Man) If the scriptures allowed such theories I would gladly consider them and discuss them but they simply and plainly reject such theories. God made man after making all the other animals of the Earth, he made man from the dust of the Earth in the image of God and gave him dominion and stewardship over all the animals in the world.

I do think Rob Osborn does feel that an independent and separate creation is church doctrine, but maybe I misunderstand.

That is fine, if Rob Osborn feels that way then bring it up with Rob Osborn, I do not feel this way even though you tried to say I do.

[bu11fr0g]

I cannot find a reference that states that all words of a member of the quorum of the 12 are scripture. Is it up to us personally to decide whether particular words are inspired or not, or is there a framework within which there is an assumption of inspiration?

I do not disagree that the words of the President of the Church are the most important source for doctrine in our time.

So you accuse the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of lying in the Gospel Principals manual then, when it states that the inspired words of the Prophet are scripture?

You also call a prophet of God a liar when he declared (and many more prophets have reiterated this declaration) that the words of the living prophet are the most important source for doctrine in our time?

[LDS Guy 1986]

to accept this seems to force an acceptance that scriptures may be false. is this where you end up coming down?

Nothing is forced you can accept the doctrine of the Church as taught in the Gospel Principals manual or not. There is no force and no I disagree the manual is the correct interpretation of the scriptures, if it wasn't then the church leadership would have the manual corrected.