Creation Vs Evolution; Exclusive Of One Another?

[cinepro]

Sorry cinepro, I couldn't understand how you cam to that conclustion. Can you explain?

If other churches and religions can be partially "true" and partially "false", then it should be possible for the same to be true about the LDS Church.

Edited January 19, 2012 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

From their perspective it is much more likely since they do not even have a prophet by which they may be guided. In effect they have no "touchstone" (awesome reference to divining the purity of gold in ancient times) for divine truth. If they claimed a prophet which would augment their reasonings of opinion, they would have a stronger claim to truth.

[zerinus]

If other churches and religions can be partially "true" and partially "false", then it should be possible for the same to be true about the LDS Church.

I reread the exchanges. That was neither the conclusion nor the premise, nor what I agreed with. Please explain.

[cinepro]

As quoted by Mariner, President Hinckley reportedly said:

"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud."

I was merely pointing out that it is possible for a Church or religion to be neither completely "true" nor completely "false". And the LDS Church is no exception. It would be possible for the LDS Church to not be "true", but also not a "fraud".

[zerinus]

As quoted by Mariner, President Hinckley reportedly said:

"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud."

I was merely pointing out that it is possible for a Church or religion to be neither completely "true" nor completely "false". And the LDS Church is no exception. It would be possible for the LDS Church to not be "true", but also not a "fraud".

I don't see how that conclusion follows from the Hinckley quote. That quote comes from an interview President Hinckley gave to the presenter of the PBS documentary about the Mormons. The subject of the conversation is the story of the First Vision, and other miraculous events in the early history of the Church. Hinckley is saying that the truth of the Church hinges on the truth of that vision and other supernatural events, which I would agree with. It doesn't mean that the Church can be "neither completely true nor completely false". He is saying that the truth of it is dependent on the truth or falsehood of that vision and other events. Here is the full quote from the interview:

Q. Our film [features] a very strong statement you made. You are talking about the foundational story of Mormonism and why it must be taken literally, that Joseph Smith had the vision he described and obtained the plates the way he did. You said there is no middle ground. Other churches are approaching their foundational stories and turning them into metaphor at times and going perhaps for the essence of the meaning. But that isn't true for you or for this church. I'm wondering if you can develop that idea: Why can't there be a middle ground in the way those foundational stories are understood?

A. Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.

- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Interview "The Mormons"; PBS Documentary, April 2007

Edited January 20, 2012 by zerinus

[Tepui]

A. Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.

- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Interview "The Mormons"; PBS Documentary, April 2007

"that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently:"

Here's an ancient holder of the priesthood who believed in a literal Creation and used it as an example to his brethren:

"And I said unto them: If God had commanded me to do all things I could do them. If he should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done." (1 Nephi 17:53)

The priesthood can also change water to wine.

[cinepro]

I don't see how that conclusion follows from the Hinckley quote. That quote comes from an interview President Hinckley gave to the presenter of the PBS documentary about the Mormons. The subject of the conversation is the story of the First Vision, and other miraculous events in the early history of the Church. Hinckley is saying that the truth of the Church hinges on the truth of that vision, which I would agree with. It doesn't mean that the Church can be "neither completely true nor completely false". He is saying that the truth of it is dependent on the truth or falsehood of that vision. Here is the full quote from the interview:

The quote was provided without context, but even if it is meant to apply only to the First Vision, I would say that the First Vision isn't an either/or proposition. It is possible for Joseph Smith to have experienced something that wasn't exactly like what is described in the 1838 version of the story without the Church needing to be labeled a "fraud".

[zerinus]

The quote was provided without context, but even if it is meant to apply only to the First Vision, I would say that the First Vision isn't an either/or proposition. It is possible for Joseph Smith to have experienced something that wasn't exactly like what is described in the 1838 version of the story without the Church needing to be labeled a "fraud".

Well Gordon B Hinckley doesn't agree with you; and I agree with him. What could Joseph have been experiencing? Was he hallucinating? Okay, what about the golden plates and the angel Moroni? Was he hallucinating about those too? How about the actual translation of the Book of Mormon? Was that a hallucination as well? How about John the Baptist restoring the Priesthood to Joseph and Oliver? Was that also a hallucination? I think there comes a time when you either have to accept the entire package as true, or the entire package as false. There is no room for a middle ground.

Edited January 20, 2012 by zerinus

[Tepui]

Years ago I read a similar discussion on a newspaper's blog about Evolution, albeit not a LDS-oriented site. (Yes, I did read all 23 pages here. *phew*) Yet, I see a similarity: Those in an attempt to prove evolution to be true attacked/questioned/picked-apart religion. Yet, very few knew of the difficulties of the theory of evolution itself. Basically what was demonstrated was they knew more about religion than evolution - or they knew little of either.

I like what Charles Darwin had to say about his own theory: "Chapter 6: Difficulties on Theory; Origin of Species"

Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory. [snip] But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; [snip] But it may be urged that when several closely-allied species inhabit the same territory we surely ought to find at the present time many transitional forms. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

Obviously there's more to Chapter 6, but Darwin did not find the "innumerable transitional forms" in the geological record that his theory would account for. Darwin supposed that science one day would. But it has not. The late Dr. Stephen J. Gould of Harvard, came up with a solution to this problem. He came up with a theory that didn't need "transitional forms." He called it "punctuated equilibrium".

See wikipedia:

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

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

So what's my point? It is: We can all attack religion, question the scriptures, question statements by prophets and apostles, claim religion cannot explain the creation process.

Yet, the definition of the Theory of Evolution has evolved, making IT the hypocritical farce that it is.

We all demand religion to be static, either true or false, yet we wink at, when the definition of Theory of Evolution can and has been be manipulated to fit the facts, which is the complete opposite of what we expect of religion (and of other scientific principles/discoveries).

We expect less of the diggings and interpretations of the geological record of which Darwin was the founder, but much more of the digging up of and interpretation of the Gold Plates from the ground in New York by a Prophet of God.

[Rob Osborn]

To Me the most miraculous of all is sometimes the interpretation of data. There is a fossil find, partial skeleton which is found scattered over a football field area. The bones are so crumbly that they pulverize when picked up. From this a whole scenario from daily activities to sexual habits is constructed in detail. And I am somehow deficient in rejecting this and believing that God created or transplanted Adam and Eve from somewhere else. Who has the greater faith. My hat is off to those who can place their faith so fully in the hands of the fertile imaginations of the evolutionary advocates. Somehow I can't come up with that much faith.

What you say reminds me of how all the professional scholars have written American Indian history of the which is nothing like what the Book of Mormon portrays about what actually happened in the past. One of them has to be very very wrong. I am betting it is the scholars and not Joseph Smith and the record he translated..

[David T]

I think there comes a time when you either have to accept the entire package as true, or the entire package as false. There is no room for a middle ground.

You'll find that many disagree on what consists of the 'entire package'. There are some things I would consider interesting details that others would consider CORE. There was a time where Polygamy-in-this-life was considered CORE, and if that was removed, then the whole church would have to fall. Not true. We re-adjusted, and the understanding of much of the theology that built strongly around in-mortality Polygamy was strongly re-adjusted, and re-oriented.

There are some who feel that non-evolutionary creationism is CORE, and that if evolution occurred, then dang-it, everything about religion must be a FRAUD! I reject that perspective.

There are some who feel that if a prophet is found to have mis-interpreted or re-interpreted the objective events and significance of a subjective spiritual experience as he (or she) tried to relate, explain, or describe them to others, then the experience must not have actually happened at all. I reject that perspective as well.

I hold that revelation proper, and scripture as an attempt to explain or express understanding of revelation are two different things. Revelation prompts the writing of scripture. And pondering scripture can prompt an encounter with the Revelation.

I can believe that Joseph had an overpowering spiritual experience, in which he encountered divinity, and multiple personages. I believe each time he attempted to explain or describe the event, he was going back to the source material, and 'retranslating' the event based on further understanding and development. I can believe that Joseph had a true spiritual experience and encounter with divinity that was revisited, explored, and understood in different ways that were real and true to Joseph without feeling that if a photographer were present in the grove, that his camera would have materially picked up two glowing bodies of flesh and bone standing over a 14-year-old.

Edited January 20, 2012 by nackhadlow

[cinepro]

I think there comes a time when you either have to accept the entire package as true, or the entire package as false. There is no room for a middle ground.

I totally agree.

But the variation among LDS (and among members of every other religion in the world) isn't so much whether or not they accept the entire package as true, it's what they think is in the package and what isn't.

When it all comes down to it, we're all cafeteria mormons.

Edited January 20, 2012 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

Not sure what the entire package can be defined as...

[Mariner]

What you say reminds me of how all the professional scholars have written American Indian history of the which is nothing like what the Book of Mormon portrays about what actually happened in the past. One of them has to be very very wrong. I am betting it is the scholars and not Joseph Smith and the record he translated..

Just off the top of my head, here are the things the professional scholars say about pre-Columbian Native Americans for which there is genetic evidence as well as archeological evidence, including thousands of dated artifacts from hundreds of sites:

- The founding groups for Native American populations migrated relatively slowly from Siberia starting approximately 30,000 years ago moving first into Beringia with a greatly increase rate of migration moving on into North and South America dating back to approximately 15,000 years before the present.

- Native American populations are descended from several founding groups (at least four different lineages), all of them from Asia.

- Genetic analysis shows that there were pre-Columbian some back-migrations from the New World to Asia.

- The oldest artifacts at the likely jumping off sites in Siberia date back some 30,000 years, while the oldest sites at the southern tip of South America are no older than 15,000 years.

- Thus, both archeological data derived from artifacts (stone tools, spear tips, etc.), and human genetics, show that pre-Columbian populations in the Americas came from Asia starting more than 15,000 years ago.

Just off the top of my head, here are the things that Joseph Smith said about Native American populations that are different from what the scholars say and that are supported by credible physical evidence:

- empty set.

(I would be very interested to find out what Rob Osborn knows, or what he thinks Joseph Smith knew about American Indian history, that professional archeologists, geneticists, historians and ethnologists do not.)

Edited January 21, 2012 by Mariner

[zerinus]

I totally agree.

But the variation among LDS (and among members of every other religion in the world) isn't so much whether or not they accept the entire package as true, it's what they think is in the package and what isn't.

When it all comes down to it, we're all cafeteria mormons.

As I see it, there appears to be a fundamental disconnect between your original statement and your subsequent conversation. You seem to be digressing further and further from the thread of your own argument with each succeeding post. Perhaps you should go back and reread the the thread and make sure that your subsequent replies relate to, and connect with, your earlier ones; because they really aren’t; and I am not sure if my time will be well spent trying to go back and analyse the thread of our previous exchanges. I would rather spend my time engaging in more meaningful discussions.

[cinepro]

As I see it, there appears to be a fundamental disconnect between your original statement and your subsequent conversation. You seem to be digressing further and further from the thread of your own argument with each succeeding post. Perhaps you should go back and reread the the thread and make sure that your subsequent replies relate to, and connect with, your earlier ones; because they really aren’t; and I am not sure if my time will be well spent trying to go back and analyse the thread of our previous exchanges. I would rather spend my time engaging in more meaningful discussions.

The original statement and subsequent conversation have all been in support of a single observation: that religions and Churches are never entirely "true" or "fraudulent". They are unique mixtures of "truth", "fraud", good intentions, misunderstandings and many other things both good and bad, and the CoJCoLdS is no exception.

Religions often frame their positions in either/or dichotomies, and I'm not entirely sure why. But it isn't the way it is. Once you get beyond the most simplistic or abstract approaches to LDS church history or doctrine, you will find such a mixture, and insisting on an either/or approach leaves people less prepared to deal with the gray areas.

[zerinus]

The original statement and subsequent conversation have all been in support of a single observation: that religions and Churches are never entirely "true" or "fraudulent". They are unique mixtures of "truth", "fraud", good intentions, misunderstandings and many other things both good and bad, and the CoJCoLdS is no exception.

Religions often frame their positions in either/or dichotomies, and I'm not entirely sure why. But it isn't the way it is. Once you get beyond the most simplistic or abstract approaches to LDS church history or doctrine, you will find such a mixture, and insisting on an either/or approach leaves people less prepared to deal with the gray areas.

I still don’t see it. Let’s retrace the steps. Mariner posted the following:

President Hinkley put it like this:

"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud."

To which you gave the following reply:

Does that quote apply to other churches and religions, or just the LDS?

Can you explain what you meant by that question? Your question is not very clear, and requires some explanation. How would that quote "apply to other churches and religions"? They obviously don't believe in the First Vision, or in the Book of Mormon for example. So how could Hinckley quote "apply to them"?

[altersteve]

Thus, both archeological data derived from artifacts (stone tools, spear tips, etc.), and human genetics, show that pre-Columbian populations in the Americas came from Asia starting more than 15,000 years ago.

Where does the Book of Mormon deny this?

[cinepro]

I still don’t see it. Let’s retrace the steps. Mariner posted the following:

To which you gave the following reply:

Can you explain what you meant by that question? Your question is not very clear, and requires some explanation. How would that quote "apply to other churches and religions"? They obviously don't believe in the First Vision, or in the Book of Mormon for example. So how could Hinckley quote "apply to them"?

You didn't retrace far enough. Mariner posted the Hinckley quote in response to your comment:

Why? Religious belief is founded on miraculous and extraordinary stuff, such as the resurrection, the virgin birth, the miracles of Moses with the aid of his rod, the ancient prophets foretelling future events etc. If you find the creation of Adam and Even in one piece 7,000 years ago do unbelievable, why should you find anything else in Christianity or Mormonism to be believable?

So the Hinckley quote was being applied to all those: "Well, [the resurrection, the virgin birth, the miracles of Moses, the creation of Adam and Eve in one piece 7,000 years ago are] either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud."

If the Hinckley quote was meant to apply to the First Vision, then it was a non-sequitur and shouldn't have been used since there was no mention of the First Vision in the context of its use. It was being used to state a general principle of something being either true or false in a religious sense, with no shades of gray. But there are shades of gray in every religion, even the CoJCoLdS, and even on "core" issues dealing with the First Vision and the Book of Mormon.

And even in those things which a religion gets wrong (i.e. believes in that is false), it's not logically given that the religion is then a "fraud". There are many different reasons a religion might believe in something that is false. With all due respect to President Hinckley, the principle just doesn't stand.

Edited January 22, 2012 by cinepro

[Mariner]

Where does the Book of Mormon deny this?

Altersteve,

Sometimes, my friend, I get the distinct impression that either you do not know the scriptures that well or you spend too much time reading the works of the apologists and not enough time reading the works of the Apostles and Prophets.

In the Book of Mormon it is made clear in several places that the Western Hemisphere was considered by Lord as a choice land above all others and was to be preserved only for those who would serve the Lord. In the Book of Ether we find this description of why there was no human habitation in the Western Hemisphere at the time of the Book of Mormon migrations to the New World.

Ether 13: 2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had ^areceded from off the face of this ^bland it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should ^cserve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

When you think about it, the Flood of Noah precludes the survival of any humans who migrated to the New World before approximately 4,500 years ago. According to LDS teachings, if any populations from Asia did migrate to the New World from Asia before the Flood of Noah, it would not be possible that their DNA would be in the pre-Columbian human genome of New World populations as determined today.

Yet there it is. In fact, the pre-Columbian human genome of the New World, as determined today, is comprised exclusively of east Asian DNA. Recent analysis shows that there are at least four separate Asian clades or lineages in pre-Columbian New World populations. This and other evidence shows that there were several migrations back and forth from Asia to the New World starting from Siberia as early as 30,000 years ago.

Back to the Book on Mormon scripture you requested that I find for you; the apostle Jeffrey Holland makes the meaning of this scripture absolutely and unmistakably clear, as follows:

Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2.) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune.

To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them.

The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes.

Mormon apologists are very uncomfortable with the idea that the scriptures (and LDS teachings prior to the publication of Simon Southerton's book) preclude the presence of human habitation in the New World prior to the Book of Mormon migrations.

You are obviously uncomfortable with this idea as well. Unfortunately there is just too much in scripture and pre-Southerton teachings by the Prophets and Apostles to allow a change in the Mormon narrative to account for the DNA evidence described above. An apologist's work is never done.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Mariner

[thesometimesaint]

My testimony isn't so brittle that any flaw in any belief will cause that testimony to shatter. I can/do fully accept science with all of its flaws and wrong ideas, and I can/do fully accept the Church even if all of us are flawed, and some in it have wrong ideas.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

It's always pretty weird when critics like Mariner try to claim that their own Fundamentalist understanding of scripture is the Only Valid Reading while actual members of the Church are perfectly accepting of secular findings. O_O

[Mariner]

It's always pretty weird when critics like Mariner try to claim that their own Fundamentalist understanding of scripture is the Only Valid Reading while actual members of the Church are perfectly accepting of secular findings. O_O

Jeremy,

Please do not mistake my quoting of an apostle of the LDS Church with regard to intepretation of scripture as reflecting my own understanding and interpretation. I am a lot of things, but a fundamentalist is not one of them.

You do bring up an important point, though. It seems that many of the members who post here either have the capability simultaneously hold diametrically opposed beliefs, or are comfortable in picking and choosing what they believe from the cafeteria of Mormon offerings.

Post #471 above by thesometimesaint* also shows an ability to admit belief in things for which supporting evidence is lacking and evidence to the contrary is substantial.

______________

*ETA: I have a great deal of respect for the science background of thesometimesaint, as well as his defense of science and overall reputation on this board.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Mariner

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Dude, even a casual read of the Journal of Discourses reveals how many contradictions there are between the opinions of our leaders. Trying to reconcile them all will make your head explode. I don't have a testimony of every single word every single one of them says, and I don't have to. It's the same in every religion or philosophy in the world - people disagree. No one knows everything. We all learn line upon line. No big.

You're trying to catch thesometimesaint and altersteve in a contradiction, as if they're somehow duty-bound to agree with every single sentence Elder Holland has ever said, just because he's in a position of authority. This is just silly. There have been numerous "authoritative" quotes in this thread which say that sometimes opinions are just opinions, regardless of who's speaking. Kinda cancel each other out - the point being, Church authorities are fallible. Like cinepro said, we're all cafeteria Mormons (which, like the false dichotomy between "chapel" and "internet" Mormons presented time after time after time is just another silly term).

This is not a bad thing.

Edited January 22, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

Such is life. I have no hesitation in getting out of bed in the morning even if I know that the atoms that make up this world are mostly nothing. I ain't gonna fall through the floor.