Evidence For God Without Intelligint Design?

[Rivers]

I know there have been a lot of evolution vs. intelligent design threads on this board. While I lean towards belief in evolution, I can understand why a lot of religious people have a difficult time accepting it. If evolution can explain the development of life, where does God fit into everything? This is the big question that religious evolutionists are left with. Can the existence of God be argued for without a belief in intelligent design? Or is faith and personal experience the only thing we're left with?

[LeSellers]

His creations exists because He is our Father.

For behold, this is my work and my Glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of ma.

It is different for many religionists because their view of what God is is vague, at best, and self-contradictory. His purpose is wholly unknown. Our purpose is in question.

We Saints see Him as our Father. We exist because He is our Father. He exists, as God, because He is our Father. The entirety of Our spirits, having existed before we came to earth, needed a place to assume what I interpret as the third (or fourth) dimension, upgrading us from our earlier one-dimension-less status. Because His sons, and because He loves us, He provided a method by which this upgrade could happen, all the while holding in mind the need for us to continue that path whereby we will (if qualified) achieve still further dimensions, until we become like Him.

Some other faiths reject premortality. They must account for His existence as well as ours, their theology doesn't give them much to work with.

Whether God used evolution as the tool, a tool, or no tool at all in preparing a means for us to upgrade as I said, is of no consequence at all. The tool is not the subject—the creation, the progression, that is the subject of interest.

I am completely agnostic on the subject of creationism (as propounded by many Christians), evolution (as expounded by others), or Intelligent Design (as explained by still others). It simply does not matter to me, not in the least.

They are angles-dancing-on-a-pin questions. I want to know Who threw the Ball, not who attended it.

Lehi

[Maidservant]

I know there have been a lot of evolution vs. intelligent design threads on this board. While I lean towards belief in evolution, I can understand why a lot of religious people have a difficult time accepting it. If evolution can explain the development of life, where does God fit into everything? This is the big question that religious evolutionists are left with. Can the existence of God be argued for without a belief in intelligent design? Or is faith and personal experience the only thing we're left with?

If you take the cosmology of our (western) tradition, which is that human beings have had generations for hundreds of thousands of years, and during most of that time lived at the band level of society--then you have John Doe Early Human walking through the forest, or over the savannah. Let's call him Jody.

Can Jody invent God conceptually? Does he need to? Is it inevitable? Is it likely? It is too hard to tell because we only have what DID happen and are tracing back from now?

The story of God from Jody goes like this (and PLEASE correct me if the theories run differently nowadays): Jody had a deep need to explain stuff to himself. Like how did the moon get in the sky? Oh, a SUPERNATURAL GUY--a GOD DID THAT!! And voila we have been stuck with religion for the next--well, way too long. Then Jody wants his crops to grow (transitioning from hunter gatherer to more settled) and he wants his women to give him lots of babies. So WOW a FERTILITY GODDESS would do that for us!!!!

I find this cosmology of the invention of religion unconvincing and completely--hm, invented--as a feeble backstory to our present day of religion-ing.

Why does Jody need an explanation? He doesn't. The moon is just the moon. Prey is just prey. Crops are just crops. Who said we need a beginning, or a purpose, or an origin story? Or if we do, how exactly did we get that question into our brains? What is adaptive about that?

If Jody is our human--there is no need to know God, and no WAY to know God, and NO GOD--except as an interesting invention that gives shape to our society, like all the other things we humans invent. Like a living art piece--RELIGION! GOD! Invent fire, invent the wheel, invent God. I think Jody could have gone along forever without needing God or coming up with God. My point is actually that God is NOT invented--not invented as the "explanation" for things nor for the "propitiation" or for "justification" or for anything.

What happened is that God visited Jody. Jody encountered God. This is the only way.

SOME people have SEEN or EXPERIENCED God. Adam. Abraham. Paul on the way to Tarsus. Ezekial. Joseph Smith. Others from other religious heritages (Buddha had a direct spiritual experience of the universe.)

And then these people tell us their experiences. And we believe them or not. And then that encounter with God usually comes with some direction as to what human beings ought to be doing here on this planet, and other interesting and important information. So people either agree with this direction and start trying to do it. Or not. Sometimes we get a bit methodical (religion). Sometimes we, hm, invent some more stuff over the top of it (also religion).

So--to me anyway--it's not about the planet being created or not being created. I really don't think it's that big of a deal to create a planet. How do we know that one of these days we might create a planet just like we create cell phones and we could all own several just for fun and art? How do we know that isn't exactly what happened before? (i.e. planet and its ecology is an advanced technology, so it points to a society or culture which CAN build something like this, which makes the discussion of evolution/creation a BIT irrelevant as a mechanism for anything; and the planet may speak to an advanced culture that built it and still say nothing about God; I mean, just because the Church builds temples doesn't mean that the only buildings that are built are built by the Church; buildings are neutral technologies; so are planets). The fact that the planet is here is not the sign of God. (The Genesis story is not a mechanical manual, it is a text for spiritual and human progression and reconciliation with God and one another--which, funny, turns out to be the same thing mostly.)

God is the sign of God. He showed up. Several times. So we have had to deal with that (as humanity) one way or the other, for better or worse.

[BCSpace]

If evolution can explain the development of life, where does God fit into everything?

How does evolution preclude God or anything the scriptures say He did regarding the creation? God can have set it all in motion without our detection. God can even manipulate evolution without our detection. From the larger environment that affects natural selection and even down to the movements and combinations of atoms; no scienctific method or device can keep track of every particle for all time. Science has not even come close to accounting God out of the equation. It never will.

[Log]

Since the definition of evolution asserts undirected material processes solely are responsible for biological creation, logically precluding intelligent causation, yet the scriptures say (at the least) God directed biological creation, the contradiction follows immediately.

Directed and undirected are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive; this is not a false dilemma.

That much should be agreed upon by all.

Incidentally, should someone wish to advance the position that there exist no specified biological structures, I issue a CFR in advance for the actual, detailed probability calculations which demonstrate that each structure which has been claimed to be specified is more probable than not via a known chance hypothesis. Extraordinary claims, and all that jazz.

[sarcasm]In any event, when Alma said, "All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator," clearly he was speaking as a man, and not by inspiration or revelation, since evolutionary biology has proven that the stuff on the earth doth witness that undirected material processes are the Supreme Creator.[/sarcasm]

Enjoy the thread! I'm out.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Log

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Mormonism is in a really interesting place theologically, because we don't actually assert that a Prime Mover uncaused-cause of a God is "necessary" for other things to exist. At a fundamental level, we're not contingent on Him. We're very much an "eastern" religion in that way -- we assert that there are many eternal things, without beginning. As Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett Discourse, God Himself could not create Himself, nor the Intelligence of any other being, which is why we are eternally Free.

"Where did it [the Intelligence residing in human bodies] come from? All doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning, but it is not so. The very idea lessens the character of man, in my estimation. I don’t believe the doctrine." Of course, this lack of existential contingency looks indistinguishable from Atheism from the perspective of traditional Christianity, which is tragic since we LDS so strongly affirm the historicity of the physical visitations from the Heavens. (That, in turn, looks too suspiciously like Ancient Astronaut science fiction from the perspective of those lucky enough to live in an era saturated with the visuals from awesome movies like

, but it's frankly their loss, so we shouldn't worry about the resemblance. )

D&C 93 is also helpful on this subject:

"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation. For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple. The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth."

The Gods and humanity exist on the same principle. The angels (the "messengers") do not reside on a planet like this earth; their world is different because they are in the presence of the Godhead we all voted to sustain as our spiritual leaders in the Premortal life. But while our bodies and theirs might differ in glory ("brightness, splendor, magnificence, majesty", pertaining to the world we live in), our fundamental Intelligences are not ontologically distinct. God is not a separate "species".

Rather, Intelligences and the garments of less-fine matter they are clothed within are eternal, though they undergo many physical changes and metamorphoses and evolutions (every atom in our body is switched out every five years or so and yet we retain our identity; we develop from embryos to old age; we change our location as we are born into different worlds, etc.) God is not "necessary" in the sense that most of Christianity uses the word, just as my own father is not "necessary" for homo sapiens to exist. But my father was necessary for me to exist here, and I don't think he's less deserving of honor just because he didn't invent the laws of quantum mechanics ex nihilo. Same goes for God. It is the human family, spread out over worlds without number, that is important. Simply put, there is absolutely no contradiction between creation and evolution.

I'll steal a sentiment from mfbukowski and note that if the Gods are Men and Women, then Humanism becomes Theology. The history of the play which humans have enacted on this stage of a world becomes scripture, filled with terrible, evil gods filled with bloodlust like Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao, and gods who are worth giving honor to, those courageous ones who uphold the workings of Justice and who are willing to sacrifice their own mortal bodies for the good of others (cf. Christ). We are invited to take part in the At-one-ment of all Uncreated Intelligences across worlds without number by following the pattern Christ gave to us, ie., by sacrificing for others. His is the Way, the Truth, the Light, if we comprehend what He did for us; there is no other name through which to reach exaltation, and so we are supposed to take that name ("Christ/Khristós", "mashiach/messiah", meaning "anointed one") upon ourselves, making us into little Melchizedeks, little Priests and Priestesses of Righteousness.

I think the most Mormon view of evolution, then, can be found by combining the theory of Panspermia with the historical accounts found in the scriptures and other ancient history, such as that detailed in Nibley's "Sparsiones".

Edited March 24, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Xander]

I think the most Mormon view of evolution, then, can be found by combining the theory of Panspermia with the historical accounts found in the scripturesand other ancient history, such as that detailed in Nibley's "Sparsiones".

I think it is interesting that you didn't think to say, "authoritative statements from the Lord's anointed", but instead chose to refer to Nibley.

On the subject of the "Mormon view," shouldn't LDS leaders carry more weight than Nibley?

[Maidservant]

Directed and undirected are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive; this is not a false dilemma.

That much should be agreed upon by all.

Well, generally speaking without necessity to apply it to God and the existence of the planet and the things on it--directed and undirected are not always mutually exclusive, in fact they almost always exist at the same time. The structure of the human body is one example. I direct all of my body through my leadership centers ("head", "heart"), but I do not micromanage for example, my cells. I couldn't do their job if I tried. I have no idea what to do with RNA, and it's a bit confusing. But my cells do that fine and I leave them to it. Their intelligence is self-directed (according to programming). All I do is provide nourishment (hopefully . . . MY cells are actually rather disappointed in my leadership, ha ha). And I make overall choices as to what the body will be doing, like, hm, swimming, baking, hugging kids, sitting in a pew at church. My cells don't have much choice over those things, they must come along. The only thing they can do is agree or protest to make things easier or harder for me, based on my choices that I have done to treat them. Or sometimes it's not that causal, life just IS for cells, too, struggle and peace both.

Also as a note, I have found for myself that truth is not located in selecting the most right choice of a binary set. Truth is most often a magical, paradoxical smoosh of binaries (trinaries, quadaries, zillionaries)--if it is missing a piece of the paradox, truth is disabled and one's sight is lopsided (outside of the 'narrow way'). But this is what I've come to in my understanding, I don't expect others to see it the same way.

My main point would be that paradigms as to how we receive information and knowledge and truth relating to the existence of the planet and God--and anything at all--are malleable and chooseable and progressive/regressive and point-of-view and experience based. There is no such thing as something everybody can see plainly. And there is very little that is meant to be seen plainly or in just one way. Can't think of a thing right now.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"Truth is not located in selecting the most right choice of a binary set. Truth is most often a magical, paradoxical smoosh of binaries (trinaries, quadaries, zillionaries)"

This is wisdom, people. Leesten.

-o-

Xander: I think there are quite a few authoritative statements by the Lord's anointed found in the standard works I referenced. On the other hand, I don't think either the scriptures or the Lord's anointed are infallible, and I don't think they're particularly called to be geneticists or historians. (Certainly the Journal of Discourses is not a univocal, self-consistent, scientific text.) I weigh statements by how true they seem to me, not who says them. The only authority, ultimately, is truth. This, of course, gets into a forest of theological questions which I am frankly too tired to get into (been up all night, and man it is painful.) (Indeed, the only reason I'm actually replying to this thread is to comment on Maidservant's wisdom, and since you replied right before her, I didn't want to be thought to be ignoring someone's response to me -- I wouldn't have commented if not for that, since, again, I didn't want to get into the whole epistemological quandary that's been raging throughout all of recorded history of when to trust what someone says and how to verify it, etc.)

-o-

Aaaand, goodnight everyone! Or rather, good day. There may come a day when my circadian rhythm normalizes, but it is not this day. /epic Viggo Mortensen impression

[inquiringmind]

Mormonism is in a really interesting place theologically, because we don't actually assert that a Prime Mover uncaused-cause of a God is "necessary" for other things to exist.

But Alma did assert that, didn't he?

[sarcasm]In any event, when Alma said, "All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator," clearly he was speaking as a man, and not by inspiration or revelation, since evolutionary biology has proven that the stuff on the earth doth witness that undirected material processes are the Supreme Creator.[/sarcasm]

Edited March 24, 2012 by inquiringmind

[thesometimesaint]

Xander:

Nope. For whatever reason God has chosen not to tell us how he did it. We are ALL free to speculate all we want.

Evolution

From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Author: Evenson, William E.

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. 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….

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

BTW I have no problem with, just as I have no problem with science.

[TAO]

Maidservent, while I almost completely agree with you, there is one thing I should note. I DO feel like I need God for a sense of purpose. That is actually, my sort of 'justification' to atheists, actually. That... life is rather pointless without him. At least in my opinion.

Of course it doesn't really matter. They could say I invented a world with him in my head. I could say they invented a world without him in their own heads. Ultimately, as you said, it comes down to personal experiences. But there are reasons, like purpose, which... some of us do need... and crave, in a sense. They matter... or at least, for me they do =).

[sbjazzman]

My main point would be that paradigms as to how we receive information and knowledge and truth relating to the existence of the planet and God--and anything at all--are malleable and chooseable and progressive/regressive and point-of-view and experience based. There is no such thing as something everybody can see plainly. And there is very little that is meant to be seen plainly or in just one way. Can't think of a thing right now.

Well I just got banned from another LDS Board by posting this tidbit http://www.oracleofthephoenix.com/forum/5-phoenix-lights/46-isaiah-s-vision.html

I'm really just trying to understand the LDS position concerning Zion being in the U.S. I'm really not trying to undermine the Church. But if you want to ban me for expressing my points of view. So be it.

[blackstrap]

Images of animals around the Phoenix area as outlined has what to do with this thread?

[sbjazzman]

Images of animals around the Phoenix area as outlined has what to do with this thread?

It depicts Isaiah 11:6 which includes the lion laying with the lamb...etc. I would think this might support the Intelligent Design argument as well as support a shift of a spiritual center from the middle east to the desert southwest which particularly interests me. BTW, the rivers that create the Arc/K that surrounds these animals as well as a person holding a scroll, spells out Levi in Hebrew from right ot left which is the Tribe named to guard the "testament." I'm also trying to see if there is a connection between Levi and Lehi.

[Maidservant]

Maidservent, while I almost completely agree with you, there is one thing I should note. I DO feel like I need God for a sense of purpose. That is actually, my sort of 'justification' to atheists, actually. That... life is rather pointless without him. At least in my opinion.

Of course it doesn't really matter. They could say I invented a world with him in my head. I could say they invented a world without him in their own heads. Ultimately, as you said, it comes down to personal experiences. But there are reasons, like purpose, which... some of us do need... and crave, in a sense. They matter... or at least, for me they do =).

I like what you say, Tao, and I think I may have been a bit confusing in some ways. I personally do not think God is invented. God is experienced, and too many people have experienced him, including myself, and including it sounds like you also have experience of God.

My point was replying to the OP who brought up an interesting question, as I understood it, which is that does God's reality hinge on his necessity of being the creator of the planet. That is just one of my personal balloons I like to pop a pin into because I think there is just too much paradigm gunk from both the "religious" and the "scientific" side. We need new ways of thinking and talking about it. So I'm doing it my way, ha ha ha.

Maybe you are trying to say that Jody would eventually come to a point in his evolution that he would need a purpose and invent God in order to feel purposeful and meaningful in life?

Well, the fact is, we are always questioning things, us humans. We bathe in meaning, us humans. So I guess our way of being just IS, by whatever means we can manage to account for that. So I guess I contradict myself, and Jody very well could have "meaninged" his way into God just for the sake of meaning itself.

In terms of the planet and/or the origins of humans, I don't think it takes an evolutionary process for several reasons, one of which is program theory. But I guess I don't want to go there right now. But I don't mind discussions where I take the evolutionary position for the origin of our bodies and our planet as assumed and discuss in that vein. There's no reason not to, and see what that paradigm really yields as a consequence.

[sbjazzman]

Nemesis - I see a note concerning my possible use of copyrighted materials. The links are to my site - my book is copyrighted and available to read for free right now while it's in its final editing stages.

[RadioFreeDeath]

I always thought the essay by William James "the will to believe" was the best argument justifying a belief in God. That is at least what finally brought me to peace with my own conflicts on the issue. I think it goes along with the God is experienced thing discussed above but above that how a belief in God works. And if it works, dont knock it. Discussing why it works is a whole other issue though.

[TAO]

I like what you say, Tao, and I think I may have been a bit confusing in some ways. I personally do not think God is invented. God is experienced, and too many people have experienced him, including myself, and including it sounds like you also have experience of God.

My point was replying to the OP who brought up an interesting question, as I understood it, which is that does God's reality hinge on his necessity of being the creator of the planet. That is just one of my personal balloons I like to pop a pin into because I think there is just too much paradigm gunk from both the "religious" and the "scientific" side. We need new ways of thinking and talking about it. So I'm doing it my way, ha ha ha.

Maybe you are trying to say that Jody would eventually come to a point in his evolution that he would need a purpose and invent God in order to feel purposeful and meaningful in life?

Well, the fact is, we are always questioning things, us humans. We bathe in meaning, us humans. So I guess our way of being just IS, by whatever means we can manage to account for that. So I guess I contradict myself, and Jody very well could have "meaninged" his way into God just for the sake of meaning itself.

In terms of the planet and/or the origins of humans, I don't think it takes an evolutionary process for several reasons, one of which is program theory. But I guess I don't want to go there right now. But I don't mind discussions where I take the evolutionary position for the origin of our bodies and our planet as assumed and discuss in that vein. There's no reason not to, and see what that paradigm really yields as a consequence.

Oh, nah, I know that you believe in God =).

You got what I was trying to say kinda. I would say yes, Jody might reach that point (depending on what type of person she is). Ultimately, I think believing in a God is justified ignoring whether he exists at all or not (because, in my opinion, life is rather pointless if everything ends up dying in the end). So truly, whether he invented it or not... even if it was invented... wouldn't matter... because having a reason to live through life is the most important thing in life there is. Without it, we can't go on. Without it, it doesn't matter what the truth is; we'd rather die anyway.

Mmm... I don't know that you contradicted yourself. I think it's the one exception to your rule. However, I also think it's covered by the justification I mentioned; purpose is more important than truth, in a sense, because purpose makes knowing the truth possible. Without purpose, we can't even want to reach for truth in the first place.

In any case, I'm not too concerned with the whole evolution issue; people may believe what they like. I'm sure God could have created a world with or without evolution, based upon his own choice, no matter the result. So really, evolution isn't a big deal. If it happens, it does, but it doesn't make God any more or less 'likely' to those without experiences.

As to answer the OP: I think you could find someplace to fit God into evolution if you really wanted to. But is that satisfying? Is that really going to make you happy? Is that necessarily going to teach truth? Not really. What makes you happy, satisfied, and full of truth, is the experiences you receive from faith and the spirit. So I would say regardless of whether God can be fit into an evolutionary perspective, you should search for him through prayer, the scriptures, and the church first. They are... much more useful, I guess you could say =).

[Xander]

Xander:

Nope. For whatever reason God has chosen not to tell us how he did it. We are ALL free to speculate all we want.

Evolution

From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Author: Evenson, William E.

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. 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….

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

BTW I have no problem with, just as I have no problem with science.

I don't know why you think this somehow addresses what I said. All you did here was change the question. Nobody is asking "how" God did it. The problem is obvious the second the Church claims Adam is the "primal" parent of our race. That, along with the claim that God created Adam in his literal image, and that his image is literally identical to modern humans. Evolution states that all life forms, including mankind, evolved from single-celled organisms and that the "image" of our species has changed dramatically over time.

The Book of Moses was supposedly a direct revelation from God given to Joseph Smith about the creation of the world and life that exists. According to official Mormon doctrine/revelation, God creates plant life on the third day. On the fourth day he creates the sun. So official Mormon doctrine runs contrary to the scientific axiom that the sun makes life possible. How can plants live before the sun existed? If one day = 1000 years as so many apologists have asserted, then this means plants lived for a thousand years without sunlight! Also, according to Joseph Smith's revelation, God created water after creating life? He's got it all backwards according to science.

Besides, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is just personal opinion anyway.

[Xander]

Xander: I think there are quite a few authoritative statements by the Lord's anointed found in the standard works I referenced. On the other hand, I don't think either the scriptures or the Lord's anointed are infallible, and I don't think they're particularly called to be geneticists or historians.

Then what good is having a Church with true prophets and apostles if what they say cannot be trusted as truth? Why have faith in such a fallible system, where authoritative comments are eventually overturned by the ever changing consensus among the general membership?

I weigh statements by how true they seem to me, not who says them.

Wow. Does your bishop know this? So you base truth only on your personal subjective opinion of what "seems" true? Why follow the Church at all then? Or, as in your case, the Church of Nibley?

The only authority, ultimately, is truth. This, of course, gets into a forest of theological questions which I am frankly too tired to get into

The only question here is how you determine truth. The church does not allow members the freedom to go rogue and claim truths are whatever seems true to them. I guess you're one of many modern/liberal Mormons who have decided that to maintain faith, they need to create the Church in their own image. I guess you can get away with it so long as your truths "seem" to correspond to whatever the Church says and you keep it all on the down low. I can tell you that didn't wash for me, when I told them what seemed true to me wasn't what the Church was claiming. That kind of truth didn't work for them then, and I doubt it would today.

(been up all night, and man it is painful.) (Indeed, the only reason I'm actually replying to this thread is to comment on Maidservant's wisdom, and since you replied right before her, I didn't want to be thought to be ignoring someone's response to me -- I wouldn't have commented if not for that, since, again, I didn't want to get into the whole epistemological quandary that's been raging throughout all of recorded history of when to trust what someone says and how to verify it, etc.)

Why is that such a bad question? Credibility means something doesn't it? If someone has a history of making false claims for the sake of supporting a predetermined dogma, then why should they ever be trusted again?

[thesometimesaint]

Xander:

That is why we don't put our trust in man. We put our trust in God.

Each of us is responsible for what we personally believe.

Within broad limits the Saints are entitled to believe anything they want. See Articles of Faith for those limits.

You shouldn't. That is why we don't trust men. We trust God.