Freedom Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I take a statement by the First Presidency as conclusive evidence.So in other words you do not have any doctrinal foundation for your opinion and you are going to ignore the two quotes from presidents of the church I provided that contradicts your opinion, as well as later statements from the first presidency that contradicts your position. There seems to be a pattern here with your approach.
Freedom Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 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.I agree with this. Lack of revelation on the topic + scientific theory = we do not know how we came to be but it is certain we need to be open minded and stop being so dogmatic about issues that have nothing to do with our salvation.
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 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.I adhere to the view that the First Presidency authoritatively declares Church doctrine. They are the final arbiter on any controversy or disagreement on doctrinal issues. Once they have spoken, that is the end of the discussion on the subject. If you don't adhere to that view, then you and I have a more fundamental disagreement than Evolution.
Wants2know Posted January 14, 2012 Author Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) 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.i like you to Katherine the Great. Thanks for the Advice.I will add though Katherine, that our little Branch happens to be full of Doctors and Scientists and it's discussed here and there. The Branch president even did a lecture on why DNA issues are irrelevant to faith… and he used to teach microbiology at BYU Provo. So it's not like its a foreign or non issue topic in our branch anyway. Edited January 14, 2012 by Wants2know
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 So in other words you do not have any doctrinal foundation for your opinion and you are going to ignore the two quotes from presidents of the church I provided that contradicts your opinion, as well as later statements from the first presidency that contradicts your position. There seems to be a pattern here with your approach.See my previous post.
CV75 Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 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.Creation and evolution are not necessarily exclusive of each other, depending on how fine a point you want to put on what particular principle. The workings of the Spirit and the workings of pride, however, are certainly exclusive of each other, so the fruits of either (testimony or contention, respectively) indicate whether that point of view and its application brings the adherent (and his listeners when he teaches them) closer to or further away from Christ.
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Two points, one, the interpretation of what is written is not necessarily revelation.See my reply to Senator in post #28.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. . . .Then that is not Evolution. It is a novel idea that no scientist recognizes.
katherine the great Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 i like you to Katherine the Great. Thanks for the Advice.I will add though Katherine, that our little Branch happens to be full of Doctors and Scientists and it's discussed here and there. The Branch president even did a lecture on why DNA issues are irrelevant to faith… and he used to teach microbiology at BYU Provo. So it's not like its a foreign or non issue topic in our branch anyway.You're a lucky girl! In that case, carry on!
katherine the great Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Once they have spoken, that is the end of the discussion on the subject. .This board is proof that the discussion is never over.
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 This board is proof that the discussion is never over.What I mean is that they have the final say on the subject. Our endless discussions don't alter that established principle in the Church.
Freedom Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 See my previous post.Yes, unfortunately they statements do not agree with you.
Freedom Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 i like you to Katherine the Great. Thanks for the Advice.I will add though Katherine, that our little Branch happens to be full of Doctors and Scientists and it's discussed here and there. The Branch president even did a lecture on why DNA issues are irrelevant to faith… and he used to teach microbiology at BYU Provo. So it's not like its a foreign or non issue topic in our branch anyway.I do not believe discussions about evolution belong in church. We should not be discussing where the Nephites lived, evidence of the flood or other matters. It is all interesting but not relevant. I suspect that when we find out how it all really worked there will not be anybody around to say I told you so. We know so little about our past we could all be in for a surprise. Some think evolution is false, others true. My opinion is that it is not true or false. It is irrelevant. It is no more relevant to our doctrines than is gravity or electricity.
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Yes, unfortunately they statements do not agree with you.Whose statements do not agree with me?
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I do not believe discussions about evolution belong in church. We should not be discussing where the Nephites lived, evidence of the flood or other matters. It is all interesting but not relevant. I suspect that when we find out how it all really worked there will not be anybody around to say I told you so. We know so little about our past we could all be in for a surprise. Some think evolution is false, others true. My opinion is that it is not true or false. It is irrelevant. It is no more relevant to our doctrines than is gravity or electricity.People are free to discuss whatever they want to discuss. If you believe as a matter of principle that a subject should not be discussed, then you should make it good by not participating in the discussion; not participating and objecting at the same time.
Jeff K. Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 It isn't doctrine. It is a strongly held opinion, but not doctrine. I adhere to the view that the First Presidency authoritatively declares Church doctrine. They are the final arbiter on any controversy or disagreement on doctrinal issues. Once they have spoken, that is the end of the discussion on the subject. If you don't adhere to that view, then you and I have a more fundamental disagreement than Evolution. Perhaps if we had the full story of the creation of the earth and man told to us in great detail, it would be more of a mystery than the simple few statements that we have contained in the Bible, because of our lack of ability to comprehend. Therefore, for reasons best known to the Lord, He has kept us in darkness. Wait until the Lord speaks, or wait until that day when He shall come, and when we shall be among the privileged either to come up out of our graves and be caught up into the clouds of heaven or shall be living upon the earth likewise to be so translated before Him. Then we shall know all things pertaining to this earth, how it was made, and all things that now as children we are groping for and trying to understand. Let's reserve judgment as to the facts concerning the Creation until we know these things for sure.[1] The first great scientists were themselves devout Christians, who believed that in their scientific investigations they were but rethinking the thoughts of God. As blind as the atheist—or as the Bible calls him, the fool—is the religious man who makes his faith rest upon the question of how God created the world and how long it took. Man's major concern should not be an understanding of the ground from which he is brought forth, but the discovery of the will and purpose of the Creator. In other words, his major thoughts should not be in geology, but in theology, if he would be saved.[2]Granted, it is only one prophet but the words are wise.http://en.fairmormon.org/Evolution:Primary_sourcesMuch misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful: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. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine
BCSpace Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 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:There is nothing whatsoever in that statement or any other that precludes evolution. The culmination of the debate over the 1909 statement between James E Talmadge and BH Roberts on one side and JFS on the other was the 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement to all GAs that the Church has no doctrine on the existence of preAdamite races of people. So if preAdamites are possible within LDS doctrine, then death before the garden state is possible and hence evolution can swim within the realm of LDS doctrine without conflict. JFS and his protege BRM, held their peace for a while, but after DOM died (who also defended evolution as not in conflict with LDS doctrine), they saw a chance to once again advance their views but that only result in their works not being published or approved by the Church.There are other ways to show that evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine, but this alone should suffice. The bottom line is that the Church has no doctrine on exactly how man was created and so one can frely accept Creationism or Evolution though Evolution has the advantage of being good with LDS doctrine and science; whereas Creationism lacks scientific support. Edited January 14, 2012 by BCSpace
katherine the great Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 People are free to discuss whatever they want to discuss. If you believe as a matter of principle that a subject should not be discussed, then you should make it good by not participating in the discussion; not participating and objecting at the same time.I think he's referring to discussions in church classes and certainly not this messageboard.
altersteve Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I have no problem with believing that God used evolution to create mankind and all other species. The Church, contrary to zerinus's claims, has no official position on this subject.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) "Once they have spoken, that is the end of the discussion on the subject. If you don't adhere to that view, then you and I have a more fundamental disagreement than Evolution."Clearly. On the other hand:"As a means of coming to truth, people in the Church are encouraged by their leaders to think and find out for themselves [...] Searching and inquiring are a means of coming to a knowledge of all truth, whether that truth be spiritual, scientific, or moral." - President James E. Fraust, Ensign Sept. 1998."I want to say to my friends that we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it." - Brigham Young (DBY)"Who is going to listen patiently to correct knowledge if he thinks he has the answers all ready? [As Joseph Smith said:] "There are a great many wise men and women too in our midst who are too wise to be taught; therefore, they must die in their ignorance." "I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them [...] [that] will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all." [...] True knowledge never shuts the door on more knowledge, but zeal often does." - Hugh Nibley, Approaching Zion"How gladly would we understand every principle pertaining to science and art, and become thoroughly acquainted with every intricate operation of nature, and with all the chemical changes that are constantly going on around us! How delightful this would be, and what a boundless field of truth and power is open for us to explore!" - Brigham Young, (JoD)"We should continue to become acquainted with human experience through history and philosophy, science and poetry, art and religion [...] One of the most important things in the world is freedom of the mind; from this all other freedoms spring. Such freedom is necessarily dangerous, for one cannot think right without running the risk of thinking wrong, but generally more thinking is the antidote for the evils that spring from wrong thinking." - President Hugh B. Brown, from his Final Testimony "If we have truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed [...] a (truth seeker, etc.) must get at facts, he must consider motives - he must tear off the mask and lay bare the countenance, however hideous. The frightful skeleton of truth must always be exposed [...] [he] must make every conclusion pass the fiery ordeal of pitiless reason. If their conclusions cannot stand this test, they are false." When applying this test "to his religious convictions [...] what he can himself reason out, according to his standards, he accepts unqualifiedly: whatever cannot stand his tests, he rejects as unfit." - President J. Reuben Clark Jr."Discrepancies that trouble us now will diminish as our knowledge of pertinent facts is extended. The Creator has made record in the rocks for man to decipher; but He has also spoken directly regarding the main stages of progress by which the earth has been brought to be what it is. The accounts cannot be fundamentally opposed; one cannot contradict the other; though man's interpretation of either may be at fault. [...] Let us not try to wrest the scriptures in an attempt to explain away what we cannot explain. The opening chapters of Genesis, and scriptures related thereto, were never intended as a textbook of geology, archeology, earth-science or man-science. Holy Scripture will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries. We do not show reverence for the scriptures when we misapply them through faulty interpretation." - Elder James E. Talmage"Disciples [...] in the world of religious [...] opinion, are of two sorts. There are, first, the disciples pure and simple - people who fall under the spell of a person or a doctrine, and whose whole intellectual life thenceforth consists in their partisanship. They expound, and defend, and ward off foes, and live and die faithful to the one formula. Such disciples may be indispensable at first in helping a new teaching to get a nominal hearing, but in the long run they rather hinder than help the wholesome growth of the very ideas that they defend: for great ideas live by growing, and a doctrine that has merely to be preached, over and over, in the same terms, cannot possibly be the whole truth [...] We live spiritually by outliving our formulas, and by thus enriching our sense of their deeper meaning. Now the disciples of the first sort do not live in this larger and more spiritual sense. They repeat. And true life is never mere repetition.On the other hand, there are disciples of a second sort [...] They [...] bring to the new teaching, from the first, their own personal contribution. The truth that they gain is changed as it enters their souls. The seed that the sower strews upon their fields springs up in their soil, and bears fruit - thirty, sixty, an hundred fold. They return to their master his own with usury. Such men are the disciples that it is worthwhile for a master to have [...] Disciples of the second sort cooperate in the works of the Spirit; and even if they always remain rather disciples than originators, they help to lead the thought that they accept to a truer expression. They force it beyond its earlier and cruder stages of development.I believe Mormonism affords opportunity for disciples of the second sort; nay, that its crying need is for such disciples. It calls for thoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some of its truths, but will develop its truths; and enlarge it by that development. Not half - not one-hundredth part - not a thousandth part of that which Joseph Smith revealed to the Church has yet been unfolded, either to the Church or to the world.The work of the expounder has scarcely begun. The Prophet planted by teaching the germ-truths of the great dispensation of the fullness of times. The watering and the weeding is going on, and God is giving the increase, and will give it more abundantly in the future as more intelligent discipleship shall obtain. The disciples of Mormonism, growing discontented with the necessarily primitive methods which have hitherto prevailed in sustaining the doctrine, will yet take profounder and broader views of the great doctrines committed to the Church; and, departing from mere repetition, will cast them in new formulas; co-operating in the works of the Spirit, until they help to give to the truth received a more forceful expression, and carry it beyond the earlier and cruder stages of its development." - B.H. Roberts, from "A Defense of the Faith and the Saints""... study and learn and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people." (D&C 90:15)There are many good books we can study. One of them which I recommend for the general reader is Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5 Billion Year History of the Human Body. Since, as Christ said, "ye are Gods", and our bodies are the Temples which our Uncreated Intelligences have been entrusted with, I think it's pertinent to explore the architecture and the materials they are made of, as well as the foundation-work necessary before we can enter them.As Joseph Smith said, the "Lord Calls [intelligences] togather in Counsel & agrees to form them tabernicles so that he might [en]Gender the Spirit & the tabernicle together so as to create sympathy for their fellowman.” The "seeding" in the Pearl of Great Price doesn't sound like Aquinas' instantaneous and simultaneous creation. As Brigham Young said: "Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth, When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale." Edited January 14, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith 1
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) It isn't doctrine. It is a strongly held opinion, but not doctrine.Perhaps if we had the full story of the creation of the earth and man told to us in great detail, it would be more of a mystery than the simple few statements that we have contained in the Bible, because of our lack of ability to comprehend. Therefore, for reasons best known to the Lord, He haskept us in darkness. Wait until the Lord speaks, or wait until that day when He shall come, and when we shall be among the privileged either to come up out of our graves and be caught up into the clouds of heaven or shall be living upon the earth likewise to be so translated before Him. Then we shall know all things pertaining to this earth, how it was made, and all things that now as children we are groping for and trying to understand. Let's reserve judgment as to the facts concerning the Creation until we know these things for sure.[1] The first great scientists were themselves devout Christians, who believed that in their scientific investigations they were but rethinking the thoughts of God. As blind as the atheist—or as the Bible calls him, the fool—is the religious man who makes his faith rest upon the question of how God created the world and how long it took. Man's major concern should not be an understanding of the ground from which he is brought forth, but the discovery of the will and purpose of the Creator. In other words, his major thoughts should not be in geology, but in theology, if he would be saved.[2]Granted, it is only one prophet but the words are wise.All that that says is that God has not told us all that can be known about creation. Agreed. But that does not mean that what He has told us is false, or that we cannot use it effectively to reject false doctrines. Even more importantly, it does not mean that the First Presidency cannot make definitive assertions about what is and what is not true doctrine. Not having given us all the details, does not mean that the detail He has given us is useless. Edited January 14, 2012 by zerinus
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 There is nothing whatsoever in that statement or any other that precludes evolution. The culmination of the debate over the 1909 statement between James E Talmadge and BH Roberts on one side and JFS on the other was the 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement to all GAs that the Church has no doctrine on the existence of preAdamite races of people. So if preAdamites are possible within LDS doctrine, then death before the garden state is possible and hence evolution can swim within the realm of LDS doctrine without conflict. JFS and his protege BRM, held their peace for a while, but after DOM died (who also defended evolution as not in conflict with LDS doctrine), they saw a chance to once again advance their views but that only result in their works not being published or approved by the Church.There are other ways to show that evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine, but this alone should suffice. The bottom line is that the Church has no doctrine on exactly how man was created and so one can frely accept Creationism or Evolution though Evolution has the advantage of being good with LDS doctrine and science; whereas Creationism lacks scientific support.To me this statement is quite clear: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.Not sure how anyone can get round that. 1
altersteve Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 All that that says is that God has not told us all that can be known about creation. Agreed. But that does not mean that what He has told us is false, or that we cannot use it effectively to reject false doctrines. Even more importantly, it does not mean that the First Presidency cannot make definitive assertions about what is and what is not true doctrine. Not having given us all the details, does not mean that the detail He has given us is useless.God has not revealed anything that is contradiction to the theory of evolution. The First Presidency's statement "The Origin of Man" contains nothing that precludes evolution, as BCSpace said above, nor does it explicitly "reject" it as you claim.
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I think he's referring to discussions in church classes and certainly not this messageboard. That is not what he said though. The context of his message was the discussions we are having on this message board, not Church classes.
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I have no problem with believing that God used evolution to create mankind and all other species. The Church, contrary to zerinus's claims, has no official position on this subject.I think that this quote contradicts your statement: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.
zerinus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Clearly. On the other hand:There are many good books we can study. One of them which I recommend for the general reader is Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5 Billion Year History of the Human Body. Since, as Christ said, "ye are Gods", and our bodies are the Temples which our Uncreated Intelligences have been entrusted with, I think it's pertinent to explore the architecture and the materials they are made of, as well as the foundation-work necessary before we can enter them.As Joseph Smith said, the "Lord Calls [intelligences] togather in Counsel & agrees to form them tabernicles so that he might [en]Gender the Spirit & the tabernicle together so as to create sympathy for their fellowman.” The "seeding" in the Pearl of Great Price doesn't sound like Aquinas' instantaneous and simultaneous creation. As Brigham Young said: "Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth, When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale."None of the quotes you have given contradict the position I have held in this thread with regard to Evolution. Show me how they contradict what I have said?
Recommended Posts