Anti-Evolution and the Church

[bu11fr0g]

I also think there is a difference between intentionally lying and being convinced that our pet theories are factual. All men can get caught in this, and I don't think that general authorities are immune to it.

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]

I cannot find a reference that states that all words of a member of the quorum of the 12 are scripture.

And I never stated that every word out of the mouth of a general authority was inspired either so I don't see where you are trying to go here.

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 kinda agree, one must seek spiritual confirmation of the inspired nature of a message, now if we sincerely seek the spirit with a humble heart we will receive confirmation in due time. But to say well I didn't receive confirmation this isn't inspired is the roots of apostasy. We will struggle with accepting the will of the lord at times but to act like because we struggle with it, that the message isn't inspired of the lord is a dangerous place to be. This train of though leaves one wide open for the deceptions of the deceiver, remember that the Lord will never allow his chosen Prophet to lead his Church astray. As we were revealed by President Woodruff in the second manifesto, contained in Official Declaration 1 of the D&C.

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

So if you trust one prophet of god this much, why so little faith in the other 108 prophets that make up the General Authorities of the Church?

[bu11fr0g]

I am very confused with here you come down. I chose my wording poorly, it should be do you believe man was created separately and independently from the animals directly from dust? What does it mean when man is created from the dust of the ground? What is dust?

Now if you believe we are created from dust indirectly from animals (perhaps in the same way that computers are made from sand in the sense that they built from microchips that are built from silica that is derived from sand). If not then we are back to the mental gyrations of why human DNA looks the way it does.

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.

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.

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.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I also think there is a difference between intentionally lying and being convinced that our pet theories are factual. All men can get caught in this, and I don't think that general authorities are immune to it.

This isn't a theory that ETB was stating he was saying that this is the declared will of the lord! This is why some people got mad at him they felt that as President of the Twelve he didn't have the right to make such revelations, but this revelation was accepted by the Church and is still used till this day. To rebuke this revelation for a prophet of god is to declare ETB a intentional liar IMO.

[bu11fr0g]

So if you trust one prophet of god this much, why so little faith in the other 108 prophets that make up the General Authorities of the Church?

Because there never was a statement that said that one of the other 108 members of the General Authorities would lead members of the church astray. And in the history of the church, there are many instances of those in high positions who lead many astray.

[bu11fr0g]

So what do you consider of conference talks that have subsequently been repudiated?

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.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I am very confused with here you come down. I chose my wording poorly, it should be do you believe man was created separately and independently from the animals directly from dust? What does it mean when man is created from the dust of the ground? What is dust?

Now if you believe we are created from dust indirectly from animals (perhaps in the same way that computers are made from sand in the sense that they built from microchips that are built from silica that is derived from sand). If not then we are back to the mental gyrations of why human DNA looks the way it does.

I don't see why you should be confused, but I will explain further to make everything as clear as I can.

I accept and will only accept (unless a Prophet of God declared other wise under the inspiration of God) that man was made after animals, from the dust of the ground as we are told in Genesis 2:7.

This is the eternal truth of God revealed to his Prophet Moses, it is the only truth that I accept.

[BCSpace]

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.

Th scriptures are indeed the source of doctrine. But perhaps you ought to distinguish between scripture and doctrine. For example, there is John 3:5. But Evangelical doctrine says that the water is one's mortal birth and LDS doctrine says it's water baptism. Therefore in this sense, doctrine is more important and authoritative than scripture. So I think it would behoove one to read some of the doctrine I've referred to on this issue as the Church in some ways takes the Creation account literally and sometimes not. For example, the Church clearly states in several places that it does not know what the creative processes were in the Creation.

[LDS Guy 1986]

So what do you consider of conference talks that have subsequently been repudiated?

Well if you read the thread you would know my position on this issue.

My position is that of the Church that the words of the living prophets are to be taken over the words of previous prophets.

Added by edit:

If you are referring to science or men repudiating conference talks, then my answer is men are wrong, prophets are right.

[semlogo]

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?

He's dead wrong. How you chose to interpret that is up to you.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

He's dead wrong. How you chose to interpret that is up to you.

Bold

[LDS Guy 1986]

For example, there is John 3:5. But Evangelical doctrine says that the water is one's mortal birth and LDS doctrine says it's water baptism. Therefore in this sense, doctrine is more important and authoritative than scripture.

Don't confuse interpretation with doctrine, also as a Mormon I only accept the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has having authority so I have no care of Evangelical doctrine is they do not have the Proper Priesthood of God to make offical doctrine in my opinion.

[bu11fr0g]

The President of the Quorum of the 12 does not have the authority to receive separate revelation for the church while there is a President of the Church. ETB was in the 12 when he gave this talk at BYU. To accept all talks given at BYU as infallible scripture is to tremendously trivialize scripture.

Ironically, from the same talk as the 14 principles:

"How closely do our lives harmonize with the words of the Lord's anointed--the living prophet, the President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency?" note that the quorum of the 12 apostles are not included. There was nothing in the talk that it was the talk was the "declared will of the lord." This was a BYU talk, it was not accepted as doctrine of the Church then. The requoting of this talk by two minor general authorities is what caused the re-interest.

This isn't a theory that ETB was stating he was saying that this is the declared will of the lord! This is why some people got mad at him they felt that as President of the Twelve he didn't have the right to make such revelations, but this revelation was accepted by the Church and is still used till this day. To rebuke this revelation for a prophet of god is to declare ETB a intentional liar IMO.

[Sevenbak]

The President of the Quorum of the 12 does not have the authority to receive separate revelation for the church while there is a President of the Church. ETB was in the 12 when he gave this talk at BYU. To accept all talks given at BYU as infallible scripture is to tremendously trivialize scripture.

Ironically, from the same talk as the 14 principles:

"How closely do our lives harmonize with the words of the Lord's anointed--the living prophet, the President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency?" note that the quorum of the 12 apostles are not included. There was nothing in the talk that it was the talk was the "declared will of the lord." This was a BYU talk, it was not accepted as doctrine of the Church then. The requoting of this talk by two minor general authorities is what caused the re-interest.

'

Well, if one can find any accepted scripture that actually disagree's with President' Bensons, Elder Nelson's, or other's talks and Ensign articles, I'm all ears...

[bu11fr0g]

How do you interpret "dust of the ground"? And why is that interpretation better than other interpretations?

I don't see why you should be confused, but I will explain further to make everything as clear as I can.

I accept and will only accept (unless a Prophet of God declared other wise under the inspiration of God) that man was made after animals, from the dust of the ground as we are told in Genesis 2:7.

This is the eternal truth of God revealed to his Prophet Moses, it is the only truth that I accept.

[bu11fr0g]

I think one of the biggest underlying problems here is under which circumstances should a talk should be considered inerrant.

1- when is a statement scripture?

2- if something is scripture, what characteristics does it have?

To some extent, #2 defines #1.

These must account for general authorities writing or giving talks which were subsequently repudiated.

[Luigi]

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?

I am glad that many LDS members have begun embracing evolution and that BYU biology faculty explicitly denounce creationism and teach evolutionary theory essentially as fact. I am glad about this because I think evolution is both the correct explanation of the diversity of life and useful in understanding ourselves and other species. Consequently I think potential researchers of life sciences or behavioral science (whether LDS or not) should both accept and understand it.

However, with that said I believe that the theory of evolution and Mormonism are completely incompatible. I think this is the case because evolution not only explains where we came from but who we are. Evolutionary theory, when fully applied, explains why we feel and experience love, guilt, anger, jealousy, sadness, happiness, and even spirituality. Eventually you can even take this to explain why a concept like God would have evolved and it's role in our evolutionary history. These conclusions directly contradict Mormonism and religion in general.

[LDS Guy 1986]

The President of the Quorum of the 12 does not have the authority to receive separate revelation for the church while there is a President of the Church. ETB was in the 12 when he gave this talk at BYU. To accept all talks given at BYU as infallible scripture is to tremendously trivialize scripture.

Ironically, from the same talk as the 14 principles:

"How closely do our lives harmonize with the words of the Lord's anointed--the living prophet, the President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency?" note that the quorum of the 12 apostles are not included. There was nothing in the talk that it was the talk was the "declared will of the lord." This was a BYU talk, it was not accepted as doctrine of the Church then. The requoting of this talk by two minor general authorities is what caused the re-interest.

First off President Benson at the time was still a prophet of God that it the most important thing to remember all the General Authorities are prophets of God. President Benson here wasn't revealing any new doctrine he was reiterating the doctrine in a talk at BYU all of which were derived from the teachings of Presidents of the Church. He is doing his job as a prophet of God and admonishing us to follow the President of the Church. He is allowed to do this as an Apostle since the Apostles preside over the entire membership of the Church.

Added by Edit:

ROFL, minor General Authorities?!?!?!?

Really! What is a minor Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of God?

I agree if he was making brand new doctrine instead of interpreting established doctrine that he would of been out of line. This was an inspired message from God to us though, a powerful warning to follow the President of the Church as he guides the kingdom of God through the turbulent times ahead.

Also why are you so stuck on the fact this talk was given at BYU? Does it matter where a prophet speaks under the inspiration of the lord?

Also there is no such thing as infallible scripture, to teach that anything from man is infallible is against the core doctrine of the Church.

[LDS Guy 1986]

How do you interpret "dust of the ground"? And why is that interpretation better than other interpretations?

What is there to interpret?

dust of the ground is dust of the ground.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I think one of the biggest underlying problems here is under which circumstances should a talk should be considered inerrant.

1- when is a statement scripture?

2- if something is scripture, what characteristics does it have?

To some extent, #2 defines #1.

These must account for general authorities writing or giving talks which were subsequently repudiated.

LDS do not accept that scriptures are inerrant, there is no such thing as an inerrancy when you are dealing with the works of men.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Evolutionary theory, when fully applied, explains why we feel and experience love, guilt, anger, jealousy, sadness, happiness, and even spirituality. Eventually you can even take this to explain why a concept like God would have evolved and it's role in our evolutionary history. These conclusions directly contradict Mormonism and religion in general.

While I disagree with what Luigi states, he expresses perfectly why you cannot believe in evolution and God the two are polar opposites. You can believe in one or the other, not both, either God made this world and everything in it or not. You can't take two opposite concepts for creation and try and blend them together.

While I disagree with you Luigi, I respect the fact that you are truthful enough to see that you cannot walk down the middle of the road and not expect to get run over.

[BCSpace]

For example, there is John 3:5. But Evangelical doctrine says that the water is one's mortal birth and LDS doctrine says it's water baptism. Therefore in this sense, doctrine is more important and authoritative than scripture.

Don't confuse interpretation with doctrine, also as a Mormon I only accept the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has having authority so I have no care of Evangelical doctrine is they do not have the Proper Priesthood of God to make offical doctrine in my opinion.

I agree. So you seem to have missed the point which is that doctrine is more important than scripture, hence the illustration of John 3:5. Without the interpretation of the prophets of the LDS Church, we would not necessarily know what John 3:5 means and could end up like, heaven forbid, evangelicals. Neither you nor I is qualified to determine for the Church or the world what LDS doctrine is but we can point to the official publications as to what is official doctrine. And speaking of which, you don't seem to be aware of all them when trying to make the ccase for your erroneous antievolution argument.

[bu11fr0g]

I would personally view it as saying that we should not justify misbehavior as a consequence of our biology

[BCSpace]

Also why are you so stuck on the fact this talk was given at BYU? Does it matter where a prophet speaks under the inspiration of the lord?

Actually, if you read the link in my siggy regarding doctrine, the Church thinks it does matter. In this case, if it's doctrine it will be officially published. It wouldn't matter if it were in this case, since evolution does not imply that man (a spirit child of God in combination with a physical body) cannot be a direct descendent of God, Elder Bowen misses the mark.

[Rivers]

While I disagree with what Luigi states, he expresses perfectly why you cannot believe in evolution and God the two are polar opposites. You can believe in one or the other, not both, either God made this world and everything in it or not. You can't take two opposite concepts for creation and try and blend them together.

While I disagree with you Luigi, I respect the fact that you are truthful enough to see that you cannot walk down the middle of the road and not expect to get run over.

I don't think it is as simple as saying, "you must believe one or the other." Brigham Young said we should seek truth wherever it is to be found.