No Death Before The Fall

[cinepro]

the Earth literally falling from near Kolob in complete contradiction to basic physics (neither of which is, in fact, anything resembling "doctrine")

Oh c'mon. Two latter-day Prophets telling us what the Scriptures say and then the modern correlated Church printing those Prophets' words in an official Church publication has to at least resemble "doctrine".

Edited July 26, 2011 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Not even 11 prophets telling us what the Scriptures mean is what the Church demands of itself for determining doctrine.

[cinepro]

And for those keeping track of the anti-macroevolution statements still published by the Church, the Pearl of Great Price Institute Manual (written in 2000) notes:

Abraham 4:12 . “After His Kind”

Compared with the book of Moses, the book of Abraham seems to more forcefully state the idea that all beings could only reproduce after their own kind. Speaking of the Creation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught: “There was no provision for evolvement or change from one species to another” ( “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, June 1982, 12 ).

Edited July 26, 2011 by cinepro

[cinepro]

cinepro:

Not even 11 prophets telling us what the Scriptures mean is what the Church demands of itself for determining doctrine.

I was just throwing that out there in case there were any members of the Church who felt that something in the scriptures, subsequently taught by two Prophets and then published in an official Church publication did constitute "doctrine".

Obviously, I assumed you and most other LDS on this board had moved beyond such notions and meant no offense.

Edited July 26, 2011 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Abraham 4:12 . “After His Kind”

Compared with the book of Moses, the book of Abraham seems to more forcefully state the idea that all beings could only reproduce after their own kind. Speaking of the Creation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught: “There was no provision for evolvement or change from one species to another” ( “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, June 1982, 12 ).

Elder Bruce R. McConkie's basic misunderstanding of what evolution really is. In evolutionary terms. Birds are just modern day dinosaurs.

[Rivers]

And for those keeping track of the anti-evolution statements still published by the Church, the Pearl of Great Price Institute Manual (written in 2000) notes:

As a college student myself, I always have a hard time going to school and learning something only to walk across the street to the institute building and learn contradictory information. The cognitive dissonance is enough to drive a person crazy.

[cinepro]

Elder Bruce R. McConkie's basic misunderstanding of what evolution really is. In evolutionary terms. Birds are just modern day dinosaurs.

Basic misunderstanding indeed.

[Rivers]

cinepro:

Abraham 4:12 . “After His Kind”

Compared with the book of Moses, the book of Abraham seems to more forcefully state the idea that all beings could only reproduce after their own kind. Speaking of the Creation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught: “There was no provision for evolvement or change from one species to another” ( “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, June 1982, 12 ).

Elder Bruce R. McConkie's basic misunderstanding of what evolution really is. In evolutionary terms. Birds are just modern day dinosaurs.

Bruce R. McConkie was a great theologian but a terrible scientist.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

"Obviously, I assumed you and most other LDS on this board had moved beyond such notions and meant no offense".

No offense taken. However like most good LDS I do listen very carefully to when even one(let alone 11) prophet(s) talks to me.

[Jeff K.]

And for those keeping track of the anti-macroevolution statements still published by the Church, the Pearl of Great Price Institute Manual (written in 2000) notes:

Quote

Abraham 4:12 . “After His Kind”

Compared with the book of Moses, the book of Abraham seems to more forcefully state the idea that all beings could only reproduce after their own kind. Speaking of the Creation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught: “There was no provision for evolvement or change from one species to another” ( “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, June 1982, 12 ).

1982? You really must be reaching.... Why not say around 32 years ago I found this in a booklet, so therefore it must be doctrine today.... Doesn't that sound more realistic?

And it is correct when you consider a lateral evolutionay move. We do not become contemporary squids, at least not through a natural process.....

Edited July 26, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

thesometimesaint, on 26 July 2011 - 11:40 AM, said:

cinepro:

Not even 11 prophets telling us what the Scriptures mean is what the Church demands of itself for determining doctrine.

I was just throwing that out there in case there were any members of the Church who felt that something in the scriptures, subsequently taught by two Prophets and then published in an official Church publication did constitute "doctrine".

Obviously, I assumed you and most other LDS on this board had moved beyond such notions and meant no offense.

Really, I thought you were throwing it out there in order to make the church look as if it endorsed anti evolutionary views as doctrine? Something it does not do.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Jeff K.

[blackstrap]

"Birds are just modern day dinosaurs" ..... horsefeathers!!

[Jeff K.]

actually dino feathers

[Craig Paxton]

Indeed. Evolutionary theory is still very much a theory, and open to future emendation on a substantial scale.

Ummm...just like the theory of gravity or the theory of plate tectonics are just theories and open to future emendation on a substantial scale? I think not. The natural world does not work without the theory of evolution. Using “theory" as you are defining it suggests that it is not settled scientific fact...nothing could be further from the truth. While there are certainly areas within the theory of evolution that science has yet to fully explain...as an overall theory that explains what science observes in the natural world...it is fact and it is reality. Evolution exists; it happened and is still happening.

Long before there was any evidence for it, evolution claimed that whales evolved from a land cousin, we now know that to be true since science has discovered ancient whale fossils with legs...we even know that they share a common ancestor with the modern cow thanks to DNA advances.

Science doesn't claim that events can only have natural causes...but that the only causes that we can understand scientifically are natural ones. But science cannot simply cede the unknown in nature to God; if it did there would be no science at all. If the history of science has taught us anything it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance 'God' or by ignoring the reality of evolution just because it is called a theory.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Jeff K.]

Then science is merely mans classification of the perception of nature. In theory of course.

[cinepro]

1982? You really must be reaching.... Why not say around 32 years ago I found this in a booklet, so therefore it must be doctrine today.... Doesn't that sound more realistic?

The Institute Manual was "approved" in 2000 and is in current use, so even though the quote dates from 1982, it is still in heavy rotation. I may have been "reaching", but I didn't have to reach very far.

Keep in mind that BCspace and many pro-evolution LDS rely on an unpublished internal memo from 1932.

Doctrinal or not, every quote or statement that the Church publishes on the subject is explicitly anti-evolution, and as far as I can tell there isn't a single acknowledgement made in any Church publication that evolution (or physical death before Adam's fall) even might have happened.

Whether that's due to ignorance or revelation, I don't know. But if evolution (including countless generations of death and mutation) did happen in the creation process, this is a problem that the Church seems totally incapable of dealing with.

[beckstcw]

I'm not just trolling or anything, but does it seem to anyone else that apologetic websites like this are the only places where the difference between "doctrine" and "what the Church teaches in its official manuals" is made out to be so pronounced?

I mean, obviously somewhere along the line, someone in a position of authority looked at, say, that Elder McConkie quote and said, "Yes, this accurately reflects the official teachings of the Church, we should make sure that it is taught to LDS college students", right?

Given the abundance of similar quotes already cited in this thread, its pretty clear why so many people think that LDS theology inherently presents ITSELF as incompatible with evolution, regardless of the caveats the members and leaders add to it.

On the one hand, you have many citations from official publications that suggest LDS theology has some level of conflict with evolutionary theory, and on the other hand you have people...not ignoring, but downplaying all these teachings and saying that its POSSIBLE to reconcile them. Sure it may be possible, but I think the balance of available statements and still-accepted teachings leans the other way, doesn't it?

[beckstcw]

Of course, if I DID miss that convo and I'm not contributing anything, feel free to ignore me haha

[Jeff K.]

Long before there was any evidence for it, evolution claimed that whales evolved from a land cousin, we now know that to be true since science has discovered ancient whales fossils with legs...we even know that they share a common ancester with the modern cow thanks to DNA advances.

If I might, what was the overarching theory of geology before plate tectonics? The idea that all continents were connected for instance, existed long before the idea of plate tectonics, but the theory as to why was significantly different. And yet, scientist would have said... "just like the theory of gravity .......theories and open to future emendation on a substancial scale?"

Would you have replied then, "Yes, that is correct!" What exactly changes your reservation now, as opposed to then?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 26 July 2011 - 12:05 PM, said:

1982? You really must be reaching.... Why not say around 32 years ago I found this in a booklet, so therefore it must be doctrine today.... Doesn't that sound more realistic?

The Institute Manual was "approved" in 2000 and is in current use, so even though the quote dates from 1982, it is still in heavy rotation. I may have been "reaching", but I didn't have to reach very far.

Keep in mind that BCspace and many pro-evolution LDS rely on an unpublished internal memo from 1932.

Doctrinal or not, every quote or statement that the Church publishes on the subject is explicitly anti-evolution, and as far as I can tell there isn't a single acknowledgement made in any Church publication that evolution (or physical death before Adam's fall) even might have happened.

Whether that's due to ignorance or revelation, I don't know. But if evolution (including countless generations of death and mutation) did happen in the creation process, this is a problem that the Church seems totally incapable of dealing with.

You might enjoy sticking your head in the sand and ignoring things like the church's official statement on doctrine, and you might project your own prejudices claiming that the church is incapable of dealing with the idea of evolution (when plainly it has dealt with it, and has stated clearly that it has no position. I don't quite see it in your stark black and white terms. But I do think you are the otherside of the same coin you seem to be pawning off on the rest of us.

You might want to rethink.

[Kevin Christensen]

And for those keeping track of the anti-macroevolution statements still published by the Church, the Pearl of Great Price Institute Manual (written in 2000) notes:

The Book of Abraham also describes the degree to which creatures obey the command to reproduce after their kind: "They shall be very obedient." By me, "very" permits variation, and elsewhere, we are told that variety gives beauty. In his Before Adam talk in 1980, Nibley pointed out that the Book of Abraham depicts things as taking "until" which means take all the time you need, and that "let the earth be prepared that it might bring forth..." is future potential tense. I see a process that takes a very long time and includes variation in species.

Given that these observations are now 30 years old, printed and distributed by Deseret book, as a comment on the Standard works, it seems fair to bring it up as relevant.

The problem with creeds" Joseph Smith said, is that "creeds set up stakes and bounds to the work of the almighty, saying, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further." But the LDS have no creed, says Joseph, but are willing to believe all true things as they are manifest from time to time.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[beckstcw]

You might enjoy sticking your head in the sand and ignoring things like the church's official statement on doctrine, and you might project your own prejudices claiming that the church is incapable of dealing with the idea of evolution (when plainly it has dealt with it, and has stated clearly that it has no position. I don't quite see it in your stark black and white terms. But I do think you are the otherside of the same coin you seem to be pawning off on the rest of us.

You might want to rethink.

Come on, dude. The most evolution-friendly statement the Church has made is "no comment", and every statement and talk I can find by a prophet since then ranges from "neutral" to "evolution is false and incompatible with our beliefs". I'm not saying that the argument is settled at all, but you're acting like you literally can't understand why someone would think the LDS.church rejects evolution.

[BCSpace]

And for those keeping track of the anti-macroevolution statements still published by the Church, the Pearl of Great Price Institute Manual (written in 2000) notes:

Abraham 4:12 . “After His Kind”

Compared with the book of Moses, the book of Abraham seems to more forcefully state the idea that all beings could only reproduce after their own kind. Speaking of the Creation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught: “There was no provision for evolvement or change from one species to another” ( “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, June 1982, 12 ).

This argument is countered without conflict with LDS doctrine by one of the methods on my list, that is, this one doesn't actually address evolution since evolution already teaches that all species reproduce after their own kind. An excellent illustration of this is found in the evolution primer link in my siggy and starting at about 5:30.

[cinepro]

You might enjoy sticking your head in the sand and ignoring things like the church's official statement on doctrine, and you might project your own prejudices claiming that the church is incapable of dealing with the idea of evolution (when plainly it has dealt with it, and has stated clearly that it has no position.

Ok, I'm typing very slowly to make this extra clear:

The Church has not said that it has "no position" on evolution. The "Church" has "said", by way of a statement from the First Presidency and reiterated in the correlated Ensign, that it does have a "doctrinal position" on the "creation of the Earth" and the "theory of evolution".

In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. A reprinting of this important First Presidency statement will be helpful as members of the Church study the Old Testament this year. (Emphasis added)

The guide for the magazine even offers this helpful suggestion:

Ever wondered about the Church’s official teachings on the creation of mankind and evolution? Find assistance for your study of Genesis 1–3 [Gen. 1–3] on p. 26.

In addition to this, the Church has consistently (and currently) published, in official Church publications and curriculum, numerous statements from Apostles and Prophets contradicting the theory of evolution. This isn't "history"; these are current manuals and publications, with statements from living and recent general authorities.

We can disagree over the meaning of that doctrinal position, but it's not true to say the Church has "no position".

If I am wrong, and there is any current Church publication that states that the Church has "no position", then please show me where.

Also, can you explain which "official statement on doctrine" you are referring to?

Edited July 26, 2011 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

Come on, dude. The most evolution-friendly statement the Church has made is "no comment", and every statement and talk I can find by a prophet since then ranges from "neutral" to "evolution is false and incompatible with our beliefs". I'm not saying that the argument is settled at all, but you're acting like you literally can't understand why someone would think the LDS.church rejects evolution.

This isn't about friendly and unfriendly. It should be neutral. Evolution has nothing to do with the doctrine of salvation.

The underlined aspect merely reflects one of the many many opinions prophets and apostles and members have regarding evolution. You should see the differences of opinion held over many other basis also.

What I can't understand is why someone can read an official statement by the church and still presume the church rejects evolution when in fact it has openly stated, and quite clearly taken no stand regarding evolution.