Age Of The Earth And Age Of The Human Race

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Naive me.... who is Kevin Graham?

He used to be a believing member but lost faith over the BoA probably about 8 or so years ago. So there is a lost of history with him. I have only been aware of him since 2006.

[Doctor Ninja]

He runs around here wearing the "Xander" logo on his forehead.

Lehi

Correction: "Xanadu" logo.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://needcoffee.cachefly.net/needcoffee/uploads/2008/01/xanadu-starlight.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.needcoffee.com/2008/01/22/xanadu-on-broadway-contest/&usg=__XEWtXDR-UpyWFrsUzweMLJ1UgGo=&h=302&w=300&sz=42&hl=en&start=105&zoom=1&tbnid=OlisXVQdn2BceM:&tbnh=157&tbnw=166&ei=5vkNTuGmGsGIsALhrJmACg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dxanadu%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1212%26bih%3D851%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=522&page=6&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:105&tx=101&ty=19

[Jeff K.]

I realize what you were trying to do, but I disagree. My point was about correlation. The manuals teach direct opposition to evolution, so yes, it's an official position of the church. I don't need FAIR to try to spin what the Institute manuals are teaching to the youth. If I have to choose, there is no question which side I will choose.

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/old-testament-institute-student-manual-1/ot-in1-02-gen-a-2.asp

(the summary paragraph at the end of the chapter is very informative if you don't want to read the whole thing.)

I see a critique of certain precepts of evolution, an acknowledgement of change, and a warning that only one theory being studied creates dogma. I can agree with these things since they tend to be true.

It is hardly an endorsement of creationism in the classic sense.

The conclusion of the lesson:

“Constant exposure to one theory of origins, and only one, has convinced many that no alternative exists and that evolution must be the full and complete answer. How unfortunate that most of the millions who pass through the educational process have little opportunity to weigh the evidences on both sides!

“Examinations of the fossils, stony records of the past, tell us that complicated living things suddenly (without warning, so to speak) began to exist on the earth. Furthermore, time has not modified them enough to change their basic relationships to each other. Modern living organisms tell us that change is a feature of life and time, but they also tell us that there are limits beyond which they do not pass naturally and beyond which man has been unable to force them. In consideration of past or present living things, man must never forget that he is dealing with life, a profoundly unique force which he has not been able to create and which he is trying desperately to understand.

“Here are the facts; here are the evidences; here, then, are the sound reasons for believing life originated through a creative act. It is time that each individual has the opportunity to know the facts and to make an intelligent choice.” (Coffin, Creation, p. [15].)

I am interested in the boldened portion. Has man been a level to which man has been able to "change" animals?

I don't see it as a repudiation of evolution though.

So your attempt to create an official policy where none exists would more precisely be showing a critique without repudiation of evolution. I see nothing wrong with the stance in particular. One could argue its good science to question science.

[thesometimesaint]

Sevenbak:

From your comments it is apparant that you don't know what I'm trying to do.

If you'd bothered to read the Links that I have provided you'd see that the Church is neutral, it has no position on evolution. We as individual memebers are free to believe or not believe and it has no effect on our standing in the Church.

The Church has also printed articles favorable to evolution. I prefer the Scriptures where our doctrine actually resides to the speculations, ideas, and opinions of individual memebers.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

I think that science has to be questioned. That is how we gain in knowledge, by the testing of scientific ideas. But we must use the methods of science to test science. Otherwise it is just opinions(unsupported beliefs).

[Jeff K.]

I know you think that, as do I.

I was merely pointing out that a lesson that questions an aspect of scientific conclusion does not create policy, and indeed it is good science. I see no issue.

[thesometimesaint]

[BCSpace]

It is hardly an endorsement of creationism in the classic sense.

Since the doctrine is no doctrine, I don't think anyone is arguing that teh Church endorses evolution. Coffin (long discredited iirc) is merely presented as an alternative and what appears to be bashing against evolution only bashes an atheistic conclusion about evolution.

But here is something interesting (and friendly to evolution) from the same section in the manual if it has not been presented before:

(2-16) Genesis 2:7 . Adam Was the “First Flesh” upon the Earth

Moses 3:7 adds a significant phrase to Genesis 2:7 : “And man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also.” President Joseph Fielding Smith explained what was meant by the term flesh.

“So, Adam was the first man upon the earth, according to the Lord’s statement, and the first flesh also. That needs a little explanation.

“Adam did not come to this earth until it was prepared for him. The animals were here. Plants were here. The Lord did not bring him here to a desolate world, and then bring other creatures. It was all prepared for him, just according to the order that is written in our scriptures, and when it was all ready for Adam he was placed upon the earth.

“Then what is meant by the ‘first flesh’? It is simple when you understand it. Adam was the first of all creatures to fall and become flesh, and flesh in this sense means mortality, and all through our scriptures the Lord speaks of this life as flesh, while we are here in the flesh, so Adam became the first flesh. There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it, and the scriptures tell you that. It is here written, and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” ( Seek Ye Earnestly, pp. 280–81.)

Of course this would have to be relative to the Fall in order not to conflict elsewhere. Prior to the garden state, we think we can assume a physical creative state that does not have the property of no death as implied by 2 Nephi 2:22 and the doctrinal statement from the D&C Institute manual I quoted earlier on D&C 77.

Edited July 1, 2011 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

So we see that the Lord's words.....and.....everything.....that.....a.....prophet....says.....is.....doctrine.....strengthens our testimony of the Gospel. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 9, pp. 140-41

Not doctrine according to what the Church says about it's own doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

"So we see that the Lords words .....and.....everything.....that.....a.....prophet....says.....is.....doctrine.....strengthens our testimony of the Gospel. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 9, pp. 140-41".

Which leads us directly to the point I was making that JFS was wrong about men never going to the moon. Doctrine is not determined by the ideas, opinions, and speculationss of a single man, or small group of men no matter their position in the Church. The Church has a long established proceedure for determining its doctrine. It is the unanimous agreement of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

[blackstrap]

Perhaps we should counsel the brethern to begin each sermon with " In my opinion",or "I think" or even "I believe" unless they are presenting doctrine,in which case they will always begin"..thus saith the Lord " Should clear up a lot of speculation.

( maybe JFS was privy to the Apollo sound stages)

[BCSpace]

Perhaps we should counsel the brethern to begin each sermon with " In my opinion",or "I think" or even "I believe" unless they are presenting doctrine,in which case they will always begin"..thus saith the Lord " Should clear up a lot of speculation.

( maybe JFS was privy to the Apollo sound stages)

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church."

Aproaching Mormon Doctrine - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

It takes all 15 apostles and prophets to decide what is doctrine for the Church according to the Church itself.

Edited July 2, 2011 by BCSpace

[Arkholt]

“Constant exposure to one theory of origins, and only one, has convinced many that no alternative exists and that evolution must be the full and complete answer. How unfortunate that most of the millions who pass through the educational process have little opportunity to weigh the evidences on both sides!

“Examinations of the fossils, stony records of the past, tell us that complicated living things suddenly (without warning, so to speak) began to exist on the earth. Furthermore, time has not modified them enough to change their basic relationships to each other. Modern living organisms tell us that change is a feature of life and time, but they also tell us that there are limits beyond which they do not pass naturally and beyond which man has been unable to force them. In consideration of past or present living things, man must never forget that he is dealing with life, a profoundly unique force which he has not been able to create and which he is trying desperately to understand.

“Here are the facts; here are the evidences; here, then, are the sound reasons for believing life originated through a creative act. It is time that each individual has the opportunity to know the facts and to make an intelligent choice.” (Coffin, Creation, p. [15].)

I'm interested in this bolded portion, as it is completely incorrect. We have a number of transitional fossils which do not show that they "suddenly" or "without warning" began to exist. Not good science at all.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Arkholt

[Doctor Ninja]

Aproaching Moron Doctrine

Unless of course, you were a "Moron" then you wouldn't understand what our doctrines were.

Or maybe you meant that is the doctrine that anti-Mormons subscribe to!

[BCSpace]

Unless of course, you were a "Moron" then you wouldn't understand what our doctrines were.

Or maybe you meant that is the doctrine that anti-Mormons subscribe to!

Yes, yes of course. That's what I meant.........

My most common typo of that word is "Momron".

I'm interested in this bolded portion, as it is completely incorrect. We have a number of transitional fossils which do not show that they "suddenly" or "without warning" began to exist. Not good science at all.

Coffin needs to be ommitted from the manual imho. At best, he is a scientist who leaves the realm of science in order to show creationism. But on the other hand, if one is going to show the creationist side, one must perforce leave the realm of science anyway.

[thesometimesaint]

While I do belive that true science and true religion will someday be reconciled. I don't believe it will happen anytime soon.

[Jeff K.]

That is true, for it to occur, our languages will have to be more precise, and slang or jargon for all the diciplines would have to disappear so that understanding is perfect. Oh, and that pesky knowledge factor would have to be ramped up substantially higher than it is today.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

True, I don't believe we even have enough knowledge to even ask the right questions.

"Information travels at the speed of light, but ignorance is instantaneous at all known parts of the universe".

[Loran Blood]

LOL!

I cite Joseph Fielding Smith and all you can think to do is attack me and say it is clear I never studied Evolution in college?

Yes, you might try citing an established, settled point of doctrine, and not the personal perspectives of a single, isolated Church leader. The Tanners can do that (or you can just run to the JOD and pick and choose whatever suits you at the moment).

As someone already mentioned, I didn't provide this citation because I agreed with it, but because it pertained to the topic. I was especially curious to know why anyone in the Church should take bcspace's word over Joseph Fielding Smith's.

bc's or mine are just as legitimate as his, provided we are not in contradiction with Elder Smith on matters of settled, established doctrine, establish new doctrine for the members, or are inconsistent with an overwhelming and consistent body of teachings over time. Elder Smith had the authority to establish doctrine for the Church - but only in unanimous concert with the rest of the Brethren. bc is hypothesizing and theorizing, not attempting to establish new doctrine.

Now, if you have a problem with the ellipses then why don't you go ahead and provide the "missing context" that you believe to be so vital to overthrowing the plain fact that he said Evolution is incompatible with the Gospel? Stop posturing and produce something of substance.

Other Apostles and Church president's didn't so believe, as has already been pointed out sufficiently.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

The only websites I am showing it on are those pesky anti-Mormon sites. You wouldn't be using their same tactics would you?

Kevin acting like Ed Decker?

Never, never I say!

[Loran Blood]

Evolution is a fact, but has itself evolved into a belief system.

Excellent point. There is evolution as the functional mechanics, if you will, of the development of all organic life on earth. Then there is Darwinism, which is the creation myth of secular humanism, and one of the foundations of science as religion (scientism).

[Loran Blood]

You seem to following the same path anti Mormons do who wish to emblazon any word uttered by our prophets as doctrine.

Bingo.

[Loran Blood]

This seems relevant to the discussed.

Anyone here embarrassed?

The question of the origin of human life, and all forms of life, is a very different question from a description of how life developed. Evolution does not speak to the question of ultimate origins of organic life (or mind, consciousness etc.) and its attempt to do so is one of the places in which it has been extended far beyond its epistemic boundaries and gotten in way over its head.

And its is under conditions such as these that it has come into a collision course with the gospel

[thesometimesaint]

Loran Blood:

Evolution as with all science doesn't address God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Darwinism is a set of movements and concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or of evolution, including some ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin

The meaning of "Darwinism" has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term. In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection.

[Loran Blood]

Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.

Keven missed the logical implication of his source even as he reproduced it for our edification. Notice: "The Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrine," but which the First Presidency see's no need to make "official." "This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.

Kevin is attempting to claim that whatever any, single apostle taught, so long as he used an authoritative tone and made his claims in clear, unambiguous language, must be considered "doctrine," And yet, his own source mentions only "the Church," (i.e., the First Presidency and the Twelve unitedly) or "other of the Brethren" in a consistent manner over time.

Nowhere does Kevin's own source allow for the personal doctrinal views of individual apostles, outside the unanimity of united affirmation by the First Presidency and the Twelve, or without substantial confirmation as a body of consistent, coherent teaching over time and free of contradictory perspectives (young earth creationism has been taught by some GAs, and clearly opposed by others, there has never been any unanimity at all)to be taken as official doctrine and binding on the membership of the Church.

This is unwelcome news for anti-Mormons who's agenda requires this big tent definition of doctrine, but, contra Kevin, its been a well understood feature of the Church since its inception. The requirements for determining doctrine, or at least binding doctrine in a collective since upon the entire membership, has been long established and clearly articulated long before the rise of the apologetic movement within the Church.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Loran Blood