Backyard Professor Rips Apart Millet And Mcconkie'S Views.

[zerinus]

While I agree with your statement above (and even repped the post), I disagree with the notion that having a testimony is somehow connected with rejection of evolution, or that accepting evolution equates to not having one. Unless and until the Church issues a doctrinal statement putting all forms of evolution out-of-bounds for us to believe, there is nothing any Saint should say in regards to evolution and testimony in the same sentence (aside from this one, of course).

I may have misread your earlier message(s), but that's how it sounded to me.

Lehi

While I agree that belief in Evolution does not necessarily imply a weak testimony or a lack of testimony, my response was geared specifically to Freedom's post #67; and in this case I am making a link between the two.

With regard to the second part of your post, when I talk of Evolution there is only one kind that I am thinking of, and that is the Darwinian one. And my understanding of the case is that the Church firmly reject that theory as the origin of animal or human species on earth.

[Freedom]

Not having a testimony does not make someone an idiot; but it does put them at a disadvantage compared to those who do.

A testimony and an education are not related and I don't think a testimony has anything to do with what I am referring to. There is no relationship between the strength of ones testimony and the amount of knowledge one has. Nor is there a relationship between ones testimony and the acceptance of evolution. There have been apostles who openly accepted evolution and those who opposed it. I have no position on the matter myself. There is an advantage to having a testimony but I do not believe it has any relationship to knowledge other then those that pertain to the principles and ordinances of the gospel. One can not property understand the plan of salvation without a testimony, but one can understand the history of Palestine without a witness of the spirit.

[zerinus]

A testimony and an education are not related . . .

I didn’t say they were.

. . . and I don't think a testimony has anything to do with what I am referring to.

I think it does.

There is no relationship between the strength of ones testimony and the amount of knowledge one has.

That depends on what kind of knowledge you are referring to.

Nor is there a relationship between ones testimony and the acceptance of evolution.

Not sure about that.

There have been apostles who openly accepted evolution . . . .

Which ones?

I have no position on the matter myself.

You come across as if you do.

There is an advantage to having a testimony but I do not believe it has any relationship to knowledge other then those that pertain to the principles and ordinances of the gospel.

I didn't quite make sense of that. A testimony is a knowledge gained by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Church is true.

One can not property understand the plan of salvation without a testimony, but one can understand the history of Palestine without a witness of the spirit.

And that proves what?

[Loran Blood]

Having a testimony does not give you any kind of "advantage." The gospel is not a competition.

I would have to strongly disagree here. Even laying aside the concept of testimony for a moment, the acquisition of knowledge per se provides an "advantage" from an eternal perspective.

Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come (D&C 130:18-19).

"Competition" has nothing to do with it. Each individual ultimately goes before the Lord on his own merits and in his own unique circumstances, irregardless of what others choose to do or not do.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Deborah]

With regard to the second part of your post, when I talk of Evolution there is only one kind that I am thinking of, and that is the Darwinian one.

Which btw is very dated. We have knowledge of things that Darwin didn't and as a result theories of evolution are themselves more evolved. Evolutionists today don't believe man evolved from the ape but rather from a separate line that more resembled man as he is. Evolution is evident in nature and I think that it is very reasonable to believe in some form of evolution and still be a faithful member.

[zerinus]

Which btw is very dated. We have knowledge of things that Darwin didn't and as a result theories of evolution are themselves more evolved. Evolutionists today don't believe man evolved from the ape but rather from a separate line that more resembled man as he is. Evolution is evident in nature and I think that it is very reasonable to believe in some form of evolution and still be a faithful member.

I am aware that the Darwinian theory of Evolution has "evolved"^lol quite a bit since his time; but the essential nature of it (that higher life forms developed from lower ones--i.e. that we didn't start off being human, but evolved into such) remains unchanged; and that is what I was referring to.

Edited December 30, 2011 by zerinus

[volgadon]

Only church culture, not church teaching. I think bc already pointed out why, taking settled church doctrine into consideration, this is not tenable.

I think you underestimate the effect culture has on teaching, or, rather, the way the teaching is understood and the associations attached to it.

For example, an Armenian convert who grew up with the expression "tzavut tanem" (I will take your suffering upon myself) might have a somewhat different appreciation of the Saviour's atonement than a 7th generation member along the Wasatch Front.

[volgadon]

Of course I still don't think a McConkie is going to get any breaks.

I wouldn't say that, I've been favourably impressed with Mark L.

[Duncan]

I don't agree with everything J.F. McConkie has written but his background is nuts, seemingly everyone was an apostle or prophet, all that business!-so I can't imagine what kind of pressure he had in his life to be active. As I say his writings are amazing, I bought his Christ and Covenants one last year and I have read it like three times, it's amazing. Millet also blows my mind and he is a machine when it comes to publications. I wonder how they would respond to Bro. Shirts and Midgley's critique.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Duncan

[volgadon]

At 18:26: "I agree with Midgley, this is just horse s***t."

Did Midgley actually say this?

Edited December 30, 2011 by volgadon

[Freedom]

I didn’t say they were.

I think it does.

That depends on what kind of knowledge you are referring to.

Not sure about that.

Which ones?

You come across as if you do.

I didn't quite make sense of that. A testimony is a knowledge gained by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Church is true.

And that proves what?

Perhaps I misread your post or how it relates to my comment. I have always been of the opinion that evolution has nothing to do with doctrine. The gospel explains the why, evolution attempts to explain the how. I have never claimed an affinity to the theory, only that it has no bearing on the gospel. I like what the first presidency stated on the matter in 1931 "Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church…" (I recognize that I am taking this statement out of context somewhat but I do not think I am distorting the message by quoting it thus)

David Hait and J Ruben Clarke are two that come to mind who had no problem with evolution. I am too lazy too look up other names but quoting dead people usually leads to a stalemate anyway and I don't think the person with the most quotes wins because quotes are not doctrine.

My comment was that there are many intelligent members of the church that do not have a problem with evolution and that, by allowing ourselves to be exposed to non-lds scholarship, we may discover that many of our long held beliefs are not doctrinal. A testimony certainly is advantageous and it is, as you have stated, a type of knowledge. Nevertheless, it does not guarantee that you will know more about any given scholarly subject than one without a testimony. We need to put our testimony into perspective. I was once reprimanded by an individual who, by the authority of his testimony of Joseph Smith, challenged my quoting from Rough Stone Rolling. He mistook his testimony of the prophet for a witness that Joseph was perfect. A testimony of the living prophet can be mistaken for a testimony that evolution is false. Testimony comes of specific gospel principles but, as Joseph McConkie once stated (I hope you can appreciate the irony of me quoting him) just because you receive a revelation that does not mean that you will understand the revelation.

I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I misunderstand your point but as you stated, a testimony is knowledge that the church is true, not that the Nephites lived in southern mexico or that the earth is 6000 years old or 6 billions years old for that matter.

[Duncan]

At 18:26: "I agree with Midgley, this is just horse s***t."

Did Midgley actually say this?

I highly doubt it, if he did it wouldn't have gotten into the article

[bluebell]

Finally watched it, wasn't very impressed.

I've never seen any of his other videos but have heard good things about them and have no reason to doubt that they are beneficial, but this one just left me uncomfortable. His attitude comes off a little condescending (i think he almost hurt himself a couple of times he rolled his eyes so hard) and i don't really get why he's so upset with McKonkie and Millet for 'disparaging' the scholar when he apparently believes it is completely fine to disparage them. And i don't get the swearing. It certainly doesn't speak well for the scholar if he's putting himself up as an example of one.

I think i get his point-and agree with him on some levels. I get Millet and McKonkie's point as well and agree with them on some levels. I think it's a little bit dumb to become contentious about the proper way to study the book of mormon though. Both have their place. There are people who are not capable of a scholarly study of the Book of Mormon and others who would benefit greatly from it. I think that if people could manage to stop thinking that what works best for them should be and is the only way to go about doing something in the gospel, we'd all be better off for it.

[zerinus]

Perhaps I misread your post or how it relates to my comment. I have always been of the opinion that evolution has nothing to do with doctrine.

Of course it has something to do with doctrine. If it impacts on what God has revealed about creation, then it has something to do with doctrine.

The gospel explains the why, . . .

The gospel explains the why and the how, to the extent that God chooses to reveal it.

. . . evolution attempts to explain the how.

Evolution theorises about the how, not “explain” it.

I have never claimed an affinity to the theory, only that it has no bearing on the gospel.

It has every bearing on the gospel, if it impacts on what God has revealed.

I like what the first presidency stated on the matter in 1931 "Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church…" (I recognize that I am taking this statement out of context somewhat but I do not think I am distorting the message by quoting it thus)

That doesn’t mean that if “science” tells us that Jesus was not resurrected, or the virgin birth never happened, or that the story of Exodus is a fairy tale etc., we take no stance against it. In the Church “science” does not override revelatlion.

David Hait and J Ruben Clarke are two that come to mind who had no problem with evolution. I am too lazy too look up other names but quoting dead people usually leads to a stalemate anyway and I don't think the person with the most quotes wins because quotes are not doctrine.

You claimed that Church officers had supported evolution, and I am asking for a reference. You still haven’t given me a verifiable reference.

My comment was that there are many intelligent members of the church that do not have a problem with evolution and that, by allowing ourselves to be exposed to non-lds scholarship, we may discover that many of our long held beliefs are not doctrinal. A testimony certainly is advantageous and it is, as you have stated, a type of knowledge. Nevertheless, it does not guarantee that you will know more about any given scholarly subject than one without a testimony. We need to put our testimony into perspective. I was once reprimanded by an individual who, by the authority of his testimony of Joseph Smith, challenged my quoting from Rough Stone Rolling. He mistook his testimony of the prophet for a witness that Joseph was perfect. A testimony of the living prophet can be mistaken for a testimony that evolution is false. Testimony comes of specific gospel principles but, as Joseph McConkie once stated (I hope you can appreciate the irony of me quoting him) just because you receive a revelation that does not mean that you will understand the revelation.

The bottom line is that where “science,” “scholarship,” you name it, comes into conflict with clear declaration of scripture, scripture always wins—as far as LDS doctrine is concedrned.

I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I misunderstand your point but as you stated, a testimony is knowledge that the church is true, not that the Nephites lived in southern mexico or that the earth is 6000 years old or 6 billions years old for that matter.

A testimony is knowledge that the Church is true, plus a lot of other things, including what God has revealed in scripture is true. That is where the doctrine of the Church is defined. Most of the time "science" is not in conflict with what God has revealed; but on occasion when it does (or some "scientists" think it does), then we stick to what is revealed.

[mfbukowski]

Of course I still don't think a McConkie is going to get any breaks. Bruce R has been so demonized or ostracized (not sure which word is best in this context) that any who bare his name get additional criticism. I for one like Bruce R McConkie...one of the greatest sermons I ever heard was delivered by him in April or Oct 1985 entitled "the Three Gardens".

I disagree with some of the things he wrote, but there is no question that he was a great man. He was a great defender of the faith and you certainly knew exactly where he stood on any issue.

[mfbukowski]

At 18:26: "I agree with Midgley, this is just horse s***t."

Did Midgley actually say this?

[Freedom]

Zerinus,

I am not aware of any explanations given in the scriptures that explains how the earth was created and how man came to be and I do not see that what we do know is in conflict with evolution as far as I understand it. I would agree that there are many aspects of the gospel that appear to be in conflict with science, but the conflicts I am aware of are the theories of what is being observed. This is off the topic however and I don't want to get into a debate over evolution. My point is not about evolution (a theory that I do not embrace) but of getting a different perspective from non-lds sources that will correct misconceptions. We could replace 'evolution' with 'blacks' or 'the role of women' or 'homosexuality'. It was once taught (and the 40 year old quote is still in some manuals) that we should not have interracial marriages. The research, however, is now telling that conflicting values, not cultural background, has an impact on the success of a marriage. There is no evidence that interracial marriages are at any greater risk than any other. This bias has its justification in the scriptures and have been proven to be unfounded through scientific study. It was taught, and backed up by scriptures, that homosexual tenancies were sinful or the result of sexual abuse. We now have openly gay men holding church callings as the policy manuals have been amended. Often what we think is a conflict between the revealed word of God and science is as much the mistaken conclusions of scientists as it is the erroneous interpretations of the scriptures by latter day saints.

All knowledge comes from God and there is no evidence that mormons hold a monopoly.

[altersteve]

I also see nothing in the scriptures that rules out the possibility of evolution. I have no problem believing in evolution, and I don't believe the Church has ever made an official stance about it. The official stance of the Church is that we are children of God made in His image, but this, to me, does not contradict Darwinian evolution.

One of the fundamental principles of the gospel, as Joseph Smith taught, is to gather and receive truth wherever it comes from, and if those truths come from science, then so be it. Let the Spirit guide us there.

[why me]

Not having a testimony does not make someone an idiot; but it does put them at a disadvantage compared to those who do.

This can be true. However, both those with testimonies and those without testimonies can leave the church. In this they are equal. And this is something to consider for those with testimonies. They are not immune.

Edited December 30, 2011 by why me

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I did not say all, but many. Are you suggesting that only the unintelligent posters take this position?

No I would be very lonely at that point.

[zerinus]

I am not aware of any explanations given in the scriptures that explains how the earth was created and how man came to be . . .

It says something about it, but not a lot. It says that creation was made by the word of God. God spake, and it was done. It also says something about how man was made. It says that they were made out of the dust of the ground. It also says that they were created free agents, made rulers over the earth and the rest of animal and vegetable creation, and were given choices that they could obey or disobey; and there was a Fall as a result of disobedience to the commandments given.

. . . and I do not see that what we do know is in conflict with evolution as far as I understand it.

Well, I don’t know how you “understand” it; but the way that “understand” it is that man evolved from lower life forms, which implies that there was no “Fall,” and consequently there would have been no need for an Atonement.

I would agree that there are many aspects of the gospel that appear to be in conflict with science, but the conflicts I am aware of are the theories of what is being observed. This is off the topic however and I don't want to get into a debate over evolution.

You were the one who brought the Evolution bit into it, and so I responded. You keep bringing things up, and when find that you cannot defend them you back away and say that it is not what you really meant. You brought up Evolution, and then backed away from it; then you said that some of the prophets and Apostles of the Church had accepted Evolution, and when I asked for references you backed away from that as well. You sound like somebody who doesn’t really know what they are talking about.

My point is not about evolution (a theory that I do not embrace) but of getting a different perspective from non-lds sources that will correct misconceptions.

I have nothing against “getting a different perspective from non-lds sources that will correct misconceptions;” and neither does the Church. If you think that the Church is falling short in that regard, you need to back up your claim with credible evidence or a good example; and so far you have only mentioned Evolution, which has fallen flat on its face.

We could replace 'evolution' with 'blacks' or 'the role of women' or 'homosexuality'.

Okay, what about those issues?

It was once taught (and the 40 year old quote is still in some manuals) that we should not have interracial marriages. The research, however, is now telling that conflicting values, not cultural background, has an impact on the success of a marriage. There is no evidence that interracial marriages are at any greater risk than any other. This bias has its justification in the scriptures and have been proven to be unfounded through scientific study. It was taught, and backed up by scriptures, that homosexual tenancies were sinful or the result of sexual abuse. We now have openly gay men holding church callings as the policy manuals have been amended. Often what we think is a conflict between the revealed word of God and science is as much the mistaken conclusions of scientists as it is the erroneous interpretations of the scriptures by latter day saints.

Two questions here. Firstly, none of these changes have come as a result of “scientific research”. They have come about as a result of changed circumstances, and in some cases new revelation received by the Church. Secondly, if you think the Church is already adjusting itself to modern research and new discoveries, as witnessed by the examples you have cited, what are you complaining about?

All knowledge comes from God and there is no evidence that mormons hold a monopoly.

And?

[LeSellers]

At 18:26: "I agree with Midgley, this is just horse s***t."

Did Midgley actually say this?

I doubt it. Kerry is a little, eh, well, a little earthy sometimes.

Lehi

[David T]

You claimed that Church officers had supported evolution, and I am asking for a reference. You still haven’t given me a verifiable reference.

"I would like to know just what it is that a man must be required to believe to be a member of this Church. Or, what it is that he is not permitted to believe, and remain a member of this Church. I would like to know just what that is. Is it evolution? I hope not, because I believe in evolution.", and "The thing you need to remember about evolution is that the Lord has never revealed anything about the matter. People have their opinions but the Lord has not revealed the details of how He created the earth."- President David O. McKay

Edited December 30, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

Well, I don’t know how you “understand” it; but the way that “understand” it is that man evolved from lower life forms, which implies that there was no “Fall,” and consequently there would have been no need for an Atonement.

I believe I, as an eternal undying being, chose to enter a mortal body subject to death, knowing that I would do things counter to God's will. I chose to fall into these circumstances. Jesus Christ provides the way to overcome and overpower those circumstances I chose to enter in order to fully enjoy Eternal Life as part of His Family..

I fell, and I need an Atonement. The methods by which this mortal body were created are distinct from the doctrines of Fall and Atonement themselves.

Edited December 30, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mnn727]

A letter of correction to an erring church member from a Mormon General Authority (written to Eugene England by Elder Bruce R. McConkie):

The "backyard professor" is not a General Authority is he?

This is irrelevant to the topic and only meant to derail. You are out of the thread.

Personally I think this post hits the heart of the discussion. The person in the video is not a GA yet is trying to correct GA's. Sorry but its not his place to go public with his disagreement, a private conversation disagreeing with the GA in question would be one thing however to go public is a totally different thing.

my 2 cents