Wants2know Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 We started to have this discussion in Sunday School last week. I've been searching for an old thread on here, where I think it was discussed, but as usual, I can't find it. One person said last week that in terms of creation; Mormon Doctrine teaches that God gave the "organization" for the world to be created and that Jesus did the work. I just read an old Ensign article by Bruce McKonkie, June 1982 "Christ and the Creation", which was very good, but really didn't get to this issue. I've always felt like one of the things I like about Mormon Theology is that it didn't seem to make creation and evolution exclusive of one another, but I can't find anything to back me up on that. Anyone with a few resources to point me towards? Or general thoughts? Thanks… W2K.
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) wants2know:The Church takes no position on Evolution. The Church is a religious body and not a scientific one.As a LDS who happens to be scientist I have no problem with God using Evolution to Create everything. Edited January 13, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Jeff K. Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 You can't find anything to back you up because, aside from opinions, there is no official doctrine one way or the other in the matter. Like the weather on Kolob, it is what it is and we aren't privy as to what it is.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Personally, I wonder if perhaps evolution isn't a mechanism of creation. It's worth noting that faculty of the institutions of higher learning of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't populated by young-earth, dogmatic, anti-evolutionists. One is as likely to learn, for example, biology, at BYU-P, BYU-I, and BYU-H in the same way one learns it elsewhere. P.S.: Thought this was interesting.http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635188399/No-definitive-LDS-stance-on-evolution-study-finds.html?pg=1 Edited January 13, 2012 by Kenngo1969
zerinus Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) wants2know:The Church takes no position on Evolution. The Church is a religious body and not a scientific one.That is not correct. In an official statement issued by the First Presidency, Evolution is rejected as an explanation of human life on earth:It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. (Emphasis in the original.) Source.As a LDS who happens to be scientist I have no problem with God using Evolution to Create everything.As an LDS who is not a scientists, I reject the claim that science is a superior source of knowledge to revelation. Edited January 13, 2012 by zerinus
Freedom Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 The doctrines of the church are found in the scriptures and in the official proclamations. I cannot find anything in these documents that reject evolution. So to me, the doctrines are silent on the matter.
zerinus Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 You can't find anything to back you up because, aside from opinions, there is no official doctrine one way or the other in the matter. Like the weather on Kolob, it is what it is and we aren't privy as to what it is. Not correct. See above.
zerinus Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Personally, I wonder if perhaps evolution isn't a mechanism of creation. It's worth noting that faculty of the institutions of higher learning of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't populated by young-earth, dogmatic, anti-evolutionists. One is as likely to learn, for example, biology, at BYU-P, BYU-I, and BYU-H in the same way one learns it elsewhere. P.S.: Thought this was interesting.http://www.deseretne...finds.html?pg=1BYU is an academic institution, and as such it teaches academic subjects according to the prevailing opinions and theories of the day. It does not take a theological position on scientific and academic subjects. The Church, on the other hand, does reserve the right to declare an academic or scientific theory false by revelation if it (or the Lord) chooses to. The Church is not an academic institution, and is not bound by scientific theories and opinions of men.
zerinus Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 The doctrines of the church are found in the scriptures and in the official proclamations. I cannot find anything in these documents that reject evolution. So to me, the doctrines are silent on the matter.See post #5.
MMMillie Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 What's really neat to me is that we're discovering new species all the time, from the rain forests to the depths of the ocean. It's truly incredible what God put down there around the hot sea-floor vents. And to think: just like the sparrows, not one of their deaths will go unnoticed. It's truly amazing. 2
cinepro Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) wants2know:The Church takes no position on Evolution. The Church is a religious body and not a scientific one.Does the Church know this?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."The Origin of Man" Reprint, Ensign 2002Emphasis addedAlso: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.(p.26 is the Origin of Man linked in the first quote). Edited January 13, 2012 by cinepro
cinepro Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 The doctrines of the church are found in the scriptures and in the official proclamations. I cannot find anything in these documents that reject evolution. So to me, the doctrines are silent on the matter.Ignorance of the doctrine does not a lack of doctrine make.
zerinus Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 We started to have this discussion in Sunday School last week. I've been searching for an old thread on here, where I think it was discussed, but as usual, I can't find it. One person said last week that in terms of creation; Mormon Doctrine teaches that God gave the "organization" for the world to be created and that Jesus did the work. I just read an old Ensign article by Bruce McKonkie, June 1982 "Christ and the Creation", which was very good, but really didn't get to this issue.There were several. I think that these two are the main ones:http://www.mormondia...cconkies-views/http://www.mormondia...as-a-visionary/I've always felt like one of the things I like about Mormon Theology is that it didn't seem to make creation and evolution exclusive of one another, but I can't find anything to back me up on that. Anyone with a few resources to point me towards? Or general thoughts? Thanks… W2K.It does. See post #5.
cinepro Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 I also wonder what the heck President Benson meant when he said the following:Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.Who are these "would-be authorities", and why would they want the prophet to not talk about evolution if the Lord used evolution to create the different species as we know them? And if the Church has no position or doctrine on evolution, and the Prophet is out of place talking about evolution, why would the "would-be authorities" have anything to complain about in the first place?
Senator Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 I reject that claim that science is a superior source of knowledge to revelation.Except in instances where revelation is nil. Science is a then a superior source.
zerinus Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Except in instances where revelation is nil. Science is a then a superior source.Except that in this case revelation is not nil, therefore your comment is superfluous.
Freedom Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 See post #5.How does Moses 1:34 disprove evolution? It simply states that Adam was the first man. It does not even provide a clear meaning of the word 'man'. It is man the species or man the race? Humans could have evolved to the point that, when Adam arrived, God accepted them as being man. Joseph F Smith made the following comment:"man was born of woman; Christ, the savior, was born of woman and God, The Father, was born of woman. Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I." Deseret News December 27, 1913, reprinted in Sept 19, 1936. The Heber J Grant, then president of the church, also made the following statement:'The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: 'There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth' is not a doctrine of the Church'. (Heber J. Grant Papers, 25 January, 1931, p.7, LDS Church Archives)So I need a more conclusive passage that establishes that LDS doctrine reject evolution. 1
Senator Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Except that in this case revelation is not nil, therefore your comment is superfluous.I wish apologists would come to consensus. Some say there is no doctrinal position, hence, no revelation on the subject. Others say there is a doctrinal position, hence, revelation.Which is it?
katherine the great Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Wants to know: Just some friendly advice because I like you and I remember the story of your journey: It's probably better to not discuss evolution in church. I spend my weekdays studying human evolution and I consider it an indisputable fact, but, in spite of mountains of evidence, most LDS people don't want to look at it and flatly reject it. 4
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution by Michael R. Ash by Trent D. Stephens No Definitive LDS Stance on Evolution, Study Finds by Carrie A. Moore Evolution is true, and Mormonism is uniquely suited to deal with it. Darwin rejected the Post-Apostasy understanding of God as an incorporeal abstraction, but his version of the Tree of Life has borne immensely beneficial fruit in many fields. To ignore that is to simply deny a great deal of science, which Brigham Young claimed our religion as unique in accepting. 1
zerinus Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 How does Moses 1:34 disprove evolution? It simply states that Adam was the first man. It does not even provide a clear meaning of the word 'man'. It is man the species or man the race? Humans could have evolved to the point that, when Adam arrived, God accepted them as being man. Joseph F Smith made the following comment:"man was born of woman; Christ, the savior, was born of woman and God, The Father, was born of woman. Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I." Deseret News December 27, 1913, reprinted in Sept 19, 1936.The Heber J Grant, then president of the church, also made the following statement:'The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: 'There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth' is not a doctrine of the Church'. (Heber J. Grant Papers, 25 January, 1931, p.7, LDS Church Archives)So I need a more conclusive passage that establishes that LDS doctrine reject evolution.I take a statement by the First Presidency as conclusive evidence. 1
zerinus Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 I wish apologists would come to consensus. Some say there is no doctrinal position, hence, no revelation on the subject. Others say there is a doctrinal position, hence, revelation.Which is it?Did you read my previous posts?
Jeff K. Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Not correct. See above.Not quite sure what you mean, please explain.
Senator Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Did you read my previous posts?Sure did. After having read JO-Smith's links to Mike Ash's paper, I come to the conclusion that the Church's position is indeed nil.Hence, I believe science to be a superior source at this point in time.
Jeff K. Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) That is not correct. In an official statement issued by the First Presidency, Evolution is rejected as an explanation of human life on earth:It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. (Emphasis in the original.) Source.As an LDS who is not a scientists, I reject the claim that science is a superior source of knowledge to revelation.Sure did. After having read JO-Smith's links to Mike Ash's paper, I come to the conclusion that the Church's position is indeed nil.Hence, I believe science to be a superior source at this point in time.Two points, one, the interpretation of what is written is not necessarily revelation.two: Man may be unique but the animals may also still be evolved.If the latter is true, then evolution is still sound, with the exception being man. In a sense that would seem correct given that along those lines the Son of God is unique, as are many other qualities that do not seem to exist in evolution. But such speculaiton neither confirms nor denies evolution.It has nothing to do with science being superior or inferior to revelation. Such is a strawman since science and revelation are parts of the same source. Both, when fully explored and verified are true and reveal truth.False dichotomies serve no interest in the pursuit of truth. Edited January 13, 2012 by Jeff K.
Recommended Posts