Evolution And Varying Reconciliation Theories

[mfbukowski]

In his speech entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies" (Copyright 1980 Intellectual Reserve All Rights Reserved), Bruce R. McConkie listed the harmonization of organic evolution with what he termed "revealed religion", as one of the deadly heresies.

This is a lie.

He did not say that. Here is a link to the talk. http://speeches.byu....der.php?id=6770

--The doctrines of salvation are not discovered in a laboratory or on a geological field trip or by accompanying Darwin around the world. They come by revelation and in no other way.....

...My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself, and that the Atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself.

What he did say is that HIS REASONING CAUSES HIM TO CONCLUDE what he concluded, and I actually agree with what he actually says here

But can apostles make mistakes? Of course. They are not infallible.

Elder McConkie was human and made other mistaken statements about Blacks and the priesthood for example, which he later retracted.

I disagree with his reasoning- mine is different, but sustain him as a prophet seer and revelator, who, as many have, made some statements I personally believe were mistaken because they are human beings

Mistaken statements of apostles are not doctrinal, which you should know, but of course conveniently ignore. Read the recent conference talk by another apostle, Elder Christofferson- I trust you know how to look it up- I don't have time at the moment

Edited May 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

The statement about when water boils has nothing to do what brings you personal peace, and never will.

Unless you are craving a hard boiled egg.

[cdowis]

This speech is copyrighted by the LDS Church (Intellectual Reserve) it is therefore doctrine (according to bcspace, and I would assume, most other apologists).

(emphasis mine)

This is a joke, right?

Mariner, you live in some fantasy world, and we appreciate your good humor.

1. Apologists would agree that copyright and canonize both start with a "C". Utterwise they are unrelated.

2. It would be helpful if you quoted what McConkie actually said, rather than putting words into his mouth. It is not possible to take you seriously.

Edited May 6, 2012 by cdowis

[DBMormon]

and in order to make peace, the other guys has requested a hardboiled egg and so you cook it for him to appease hm and thereby make peace!!!!

Well, I never expected this thread to far outlast the others on faith crisis. hmmmm.... I stopped reading by about page 4 and gave up as it would take a lot of reading on my end to understand all the jargon and theories discussed here. I read enough to know that there are ways to make things fit which was my hope......

You are all free to disband now!!!!!!!!

Edited May 6, 2012 by reelmormon

[Calm]

Deviled eggs for everyone before they go....

[Mariner]

mfbutowski and cdowis,

So let me get this straight. McConkie gives a speech entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies" that is copyrighted and published by the Church, in which he names harmonization of science and revealed religion as the second (not the sixth or seventh) of the seven deadly heresies. (Perhaps you should re-read the text of the speech).

Since you don't agree that harmonization of science and revealed religion is a deadly heresy, you call me a liar. Just to be safe, you then claim that apostles are human and can make mistakes. In fact, you leave the impressions that you believe that whatever apostles say that turns out to be true is revelation from God and whatever they say that turns out to be false is a human mistake. Not very classy, but par for the apologetic course.

You then make the blanket statement that claiming a violation of special relativity by the anthropogenic Mormon God is philosophically naive without explaining how violation of special relativity can be harmonized with science.

Great guys.

Well done.

I am impressed with your apologetic skills.

Just glad I am not obliged to defend your kind of reasoning every day as you are. It must take real dedication.

[cdowis]

mfbutowski and cdowis,

So let me get this straight. McConkie gives a speech entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies" that is copyrighted and published by the Church, in which he names harmonization of science and revealed religion as the second (not the sixth or seventh) of the seven deadly heresies. (Perhaps you should re-read the text of the speech).

Copyright has nothing to do with canonization. The church publishes many things, some of which is doctrine and some is opinion.

Hope you are now clear on that point, because I do not intend to repeat myself.

Since you don't agree that harmonization of science and revealed religion is a deadly heresy, you call me a liar.

I did not use that word. I said you were putting words into his mouth, but you can read what he actually said and judge for yourself.

Just to be safe, you then claim that apostles are human and can make mistakes. In fact, you leave the impressions that you believe that whatever apostles say that turns out to be true is revelation from God and whatever they say that turns out to be false is a human mistake. Not very classy, but par for the apologetic course.

Yawn.

You then make the blanket statement that claiming a violation of special relativity by the anthropogenic Mormon God is philosophically naive without explaining how violation of special relativity can be harmonized with science.

There is no such thing as a "Mormon god".

Finally, I see is no point in responding to your silly, childish insults.

Edited May 6, 2012 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

mfbutowski and cdowis,

So let me get this straight. McConkie gives a speech entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies" that is copyrighted and published by the Church, in which he names harmonization of science and revealed religion as the second (not the sixth or seventh) of the seven deadly heresies. (Perhaps you should re-read the text of the speech).

Since you don't agree that harmonization of science and revealed religion is a deadly heresy, you call me a liar. Just to be safe, you then claim that apostles are human and can make mistakes. In fact, you leave the impressions that you believe that whatever apostles say that turns out to be true is revelation from God and whatever they say that turns out to be false is a human mistake. Not very classy, but par for the apologetic course.

You then make the blanket statement that claiming a violation of special relativity by the anthropogenic Mormon God is philosophically naive without explaining how violation of special relativity can be harmonized with science.

Great guys.

Well done.

I am impressed with your apologetic skills.

Just glad I am not obliged to defend your kind of reasoning every day as you are. It must take real dedication.

I don't know how many times I have to say this- statements about science have nothing to do with statements about religion. You just don't get it, but I hope you do some day.

Shakespeare was a terrible scientist because he called Juliette "the sun". She really wasn't that fat.

What a dummy he was!

This is precisely the depth of your argument.

[mfbukowski]

mfbutowski and cdowis,

So let me get this straight. McConkie gives a speech entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies" that is copyrighted and published by the Church, in which he names harmonization of science and revealed religion as the second (not the sixth or seventh) of the seven deadly heresies. (Perhaps you should re-read the text of the speech).

Since you don't agree that harmonization of science and revealed religion is a deadly heresy, you call me a liar.

That wasn't very charitable of me was it?

How about if I just change it to "deliberately misstated what McConkie said".

Does that make you feel better? This now makes twice you said it.

Nowhere in that entire statement does it say that "harmonization of science and revealed religion is a deadly heresy"

Nowhere.

Now we can keep arguing about your poor reading comprehension skills or we can get on with life. Which would you prefer?

[mfbukowski]

Deviled eggs for everyone before they go....

[Mariner]

cdowis and mfbukowski,

As to the issue of a "Mormon God"; how can you claim that an anthropomorphic God of flesh and bone who lives on or near Kolob is not unique to Mormonism?

If McConkie did not believe that harmonization was one of the seven deadly heresies, why would he list it as second among the seven in his speech?

Given the vehemence of your responses, I take it that you do believe that science and Mormonism can be harmonized. Is this the case?

If so, what rationalization do you call upon when falsifiable truth claims of Mormonism are falsified by science?

Edited May 6, 2012 by Mariner

[SamIam]

hmmmm.... I stopped reading by about page 4 and gave up as it would take a lot of reading on my end to understand all the jargon and theories discussed here. I read enough to know that there are ways to make things fit which was my hope......

You are all free to disband now!!!!!!!!

If you start a thread and you only read to page 4 of what has become a 12 page thread. I think first you have missed some very good material amidst the typical one liners and "text message style tweets" which usually serve little purpose, but you have missed some very interesting material. Secondly, if you really aren't interested, then what is your purpose for constantly trying to discourage those that are interested in the topic. There are moderators and they do a fine job. If we can maintain a sense of decorum - then let the thread die a natural death and all is well. If something is genuinely not written well enough to make it understandable give us a chance and we will try a bit harder.

Edited May 7, 2012 by SamIam

[cdowis]

If McConkie did not believe that harmonization was one of the seven deadly heresies, why would he list it as second among the seven in his speech?

1. I see no evidence that you have actually read what he said.

2. Now what if he had made it number 4, or 6? Would that have changed his belief on religion and science? You talk about copyright, and now you are fascinated that this is point number 2. Your arguments are rather childish.

Given the vehemence of your responses, I take it that you do believe that science and Mormonism can be harmonized. Is this the case?

What I believe is irrelevant. The issue is your misrepresentation of McConkie, and official doctrine.

If so, what rationalization do you call upon when falsifiable truth claims of Mormonism are falsified by science?

There are many threads on that particular issue, and I have actively participated and addressed that issue many times.

Edited May 7, 2012 by cdowis

[SamIam]

There are plenty of examples. Here are two:

1. The Mormon God and his son Jesus are said to be anthropogenic beings with material bodies of flesh and bone. Yet it is claimed that this God and/or his son can, from their place of abode on or near Kolob, travel to Earth at will (to pay a visit to Joseph Smith or appear now and then in the temple, for example). Such a trip would require at least 8 years at the speed of light. It is also claimed that they can answer prayers almost instantly. Since information is limited to the speed of light as is matter, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. And since Kolob must be more than 4 light years away from Earth (assuming that the closest star to Earth could be Kolob) then prayers cannot be answered in less than approximately 8 years (information round trip time to Kolob at the speed of light).

I have no problem with the nature of your questioning. I agree that the material you posit does not come off well under a mortal microscope. However, perhaps you will let me rephrase the perspective. I have said this before somewhere recently but do not remember exactly where… I consider it to border on some form of insanity to admit to the existence of a being that we call a GOD and whom we acknowledge to be all knowing, all powerful, and every where present and then try to describe his activities within the constraints of an imperfect mind, that admittedly knows little of anything and that for most of us requires 20 minutes to find the bathroom in a Wal-Mart.

How do you take the infinite and make it finite – truth be told you do not. Each of us however, feels the need, if we are sincere, to know him as best we can within the constraints that he defines. Twenty years ago I served as a Bishop. I couldn’t hardly explain one thing of deep significance on anything in the scriptures. I was young, I was inexperienced, but I did all I could to do what was required. I probably then would have resorted to the responses of supernatural deference in describing any road blocks I might run into. The point is I am on a journey. A journey from there to now which finds very few things that I will chalk up to supernatural per se. Still - much I do not understand but I have, what to me has become, a reasonably solid sense of comfort with a much better level of knowledge that lets me feel like I can make most things a bit more tangible than I could 20 years ago within the limits of my mortal capacity.

I am more than willing to let everyone travel that road. I observe what you have commented on quite often – people who are afraid of their own doctrine to the point they quiver and tremble when they get pushed into a corner but I realize they are on the same journey that I am on and I hope that in 20 years they will look back and say they understand better then than they do now. Sometimes when I detect what I think is posturing or grandstanding or outright obstinacy I can get a little snarky…I’m trying to get better but disingenuous people hurt the cause perhaps more than any other group in my mind.

So when you posit questions about our view of an anthropomorphic God and how we have trouble squeezing and infinite being into a finite enclosure I hope you will realize that it is not necessarily our ability to capture Him and put Him in a Mason Jar that makes him real to us. He is God and is real and while we may try to give some meanings to the things we observe about Him we stand a good chance of getting to the edge of what we know and having to recognize how impossible it is to put an infinite being into words or complete understanding.

As far as the Jaredite issue, I don’t see what you are calling into question other than the entirety of the event itself. In which case I would be interested if you accept the entire Noah’s ark story which is saddled with the same level of burden as the Jaredite journey is.

Which brings to my final wonderment…I apologize that I really know little of most on these boards but it does help to know where someone is shooting from. What is your perspective? Are you LDS, anti LDS, Christian, anti religious, agnostic or what. This is important as I am more than willing to take the challenge of trying to address some of the points you make or may make. However, if your goal is not one of serious inquiry then I would simply become your next pop-up duckling on the rotating shooting gallery wheel at what might appear to you to be an LDS carnival and I’m just not up for that.

[Mariner]

cdowis,

I have read what McConkie has said about organic evolution and the harmonization of revealed religion and science many times, in his speech and elsewhere.

He has gone on record as clearly believing that harmonization of science and religion is one of the deadly heresies, having called the idea "false and devilish", and "logically and scripturally absurd". It is no surprise that he listed harmonization among his seven deadly heresies.

In Mormon Doctrine McConkie states unequivocally that "There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution".

(Bruce R. McConkie (1966, 2d ed.). Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft) p. 256.)

_____________________________________________________________________________

BTW: Are you ever going to learn to properly use the "quote" feature on this board?

Edited May 7, 2012 by Mariner

[cdowis]

Quantum mechanics shows that there are some strange things going on in the universe. We are already familiar with FTL communication with an entangled electron pair -- Einstein's spooky action at a distance. The state of one electron is reflected in the other non-local electron. String theory (branes) may have some interesting developments. Multiple dimensions.....

The universe is very weird in some respects but that does not stop the neo-newtonians from making assertions.

Edited May 7, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

cdowis,

I have read what McConkie has said about organic evolution and the harmonization of revealed religion and science many times, in his speech and elsewhere.

He has gone on record as clearly believing that harmonization of science and religion is one of the deadly heresies, having called the idea "false and devilish", and "logically and scripturally absurd". It is no surprise that he listed harmonization among his seven deadly heresies.

In Mormon Doctrine McConkie states unequivocally that "There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution".

(Bruce R. McConkie (1966, 2d ed.). Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft) p. 256.)

Was this published and copyrighted by the church? He also published his opinion on the priesthood ban in the same book, and had to retract it later on.

Please stop wasting our time. Your arguments are embarrassing. McConkie expressed his opinions, and other apostles expressed contrary opinions. It is not "official doctrine", which is just a fantasy of the rabid antimormons.

Edited May 7, 2012 by cdowis

[Mariner]

I have no problem with the nature of your questioning. I agree that the material you posit does not come off well under a mortal microscope. However, perhaps you will let me rephrase the perspective. I have said this before somewhere recently but do not remember exactly where… I consider it to border on some form of insanity to admit to the existence of a being that we call a GOD and whom we acknowledge to be all knowing, all powerful, and every where present and then try to describe his activities within the constraints of an imperfect mind, that admittedly knows little of anything and that for most of us requires 20 minutes to find the bathroom in a Wal-Mart.

How do you take the infinite and make it finite – truth be told you do not. Each of us however, feels the need, if we are sincere, to know him as best we can within the constraints that he defines. Twenty years ago I served as a Bishop. I couldn’t hardly explain one thing of deep significance on anything in the scriptures. I was young, I was inexperienced, but I did all I could to do what was required. I probably then would have resorted to the responses of supernatural deference in describing any road blocks I might run into. The point is I am on a journey. A journey from there to now which finds very few things that I will chalk up to supernatural per se. Still - much I do not understand but I have, what to me has become, a reasonably solid sense of comfort with a much better level of knowledge that lets me feel like I can make most things a bit more tangible than I could 20 years ago within the limits of my mortal capacity.

I am more than willing to let everyone travel that road. I observe what you have commented on quite often – people who are afraid of their own doctrine to the point they quiver and tremble when they get pushed into a corner but I realize they are on the same journey that I am on and I hope that in 20 years they will look back and say they understand better then than they do now. Sometimes when I detect what I think is posturing or grandstanding or outright obstinacy I can get a little snarky…I’m trying to get better but disingenuous people hurt the cause perhaps more than any other group in my mind.

So when you posit questions about our view of an anthropomorphic God and how we have trouble squeezing and infinite being into a finite enclosure I hope you will realize that it is not necessarily our ability to capture Him and put Him in a Mason Jar that makes him real to us. He is God and is real and while we may try to give some meanings to the things we observe about Him we stand a good chance of getting to the edge of what we know and having to recognize how impossible it is to put an infinite being into words or complete understanding.

As far as the Jaredite issue, I don’t see what you are calling into question other than the entirety of the event itself. In which case I would be interested if you accept the entire Noah’s ark story which is saddled with the same level of burden as the Jaredite journey is.

Which brings to my final wonderment…I apologize that I really know little of most on these boards but it does help to know where someone is shooting from. What is your perspective? Are you LDS, anti LDS, Christian, anti religious, agnostic or what. This is important as I am more than willing to take the challenge of trying to address some of the points you make or may make. However, if your goal is not one of serious inquiry then I would simply become your next pop-up duckling on the rotating shooting gallery wheel at what might appear to you to be an LDS carnival and I’m just not up for that.

Samlam,

Thank you for a thoughtful response. While I can empathize with what you say about the God in which you believe, you must admit that the LDS Church makes certain truth claims about the nature of God that are falsifiable. This leads to great confusion and internal inconsistency, and forces one to pick and choose among the statements of the Prophets in order to create some kind of a consistent picture of the deity they worship. Not everything that the LDS Prophets have said about God can be true, since many of their statements are contradictory.

One approach to this dilemma that is often proposed is that the words of living prophets should trump the words of dead ones. However, since the words of many dead Prophets are "set in stone", as it were, in scripture and lesson manuals, it is still difficult (I claim impossible) to come up with a internally self-consistent description or concept of the Mormon God. (President Joseph F. Smith taught that God performed his work in strict accordance with natural laws. This is still taught, but is clearly irreconcilable with Joseph Smith's narrative concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, for example.)

With regard to Noah's ark and the global flood, I consider this story a bronze age myth with some possible basis in a cataclysmic local flood (perhaps the overflow of the Med into the Black Sea that occurred some 5600 years ago near the end of an ice age).

As to as my point of origin as a poster here, I am a former member of the Church and professional scientist. My concern is mainly what my children and grandchildren are being taught by the LDS Church in terms of magical thinking and the necessity to create for themselves a "shelf of disbelief" or a place in their minds where they can somehow partition off those embarrassing questions that the LDS Church cannot answer about its religious beliefs (but which science generally can).

I would guess that you are not interested in engaging in discussion of these fundamental issues, so I will thank you again for your time in writing a response.

[Mariner]

Was this published and copyrighted by the church? He also published his opinion on the priesthood ban in the same book, and had to retract it later on.

Please stop wasting our time. Your arguments are embarrassing. McConkie expressed his opinions, and other apostles expressed contrary opinions. It is not "official doctrine", which is just a fantasy of the rabid antimormons.

Since you seem so dead set against belief in anything McConkie says in terms of harmonizing science and religion, is it your contention that, in spite of what any number of GAs have said to the contrary, including Russel M. Nelson in the last General Conference, that science and revealed religion can be harmonized?

If you believe they can be harmonized, why not just say so?

If not, then why do you continue to argue in this lost cause?

[SamIam]

Samlam,

Thank you for a thoughtful response. While I can empathize with what you say about the God in which you believe, you must admit that the LDS Church makes certain truth claims about the nature of God that are falsifiable. This leads to great confusion and internal inconsistency, and forces one to pick and choose among the statements of the Prophets in order to create some kind of a consistent picture of the deity they worship. Not everything that the LDS Prophets have said about God can be true, since many of their statements are contradictory.

I would guess that you are not interested in engaging in discussion of these fundamental issues, so I will thank you again for your time in writing a response.

Mariner,

Thank you for your response. As I can see that you are willing to honor the bounds of genuine interaction and communication, I am more than willing to engage you on your fundamental topics of interest. To be candid, I find individuals who have left the church some of the most interesting people to me as I must profess it boggles my mind that one could do so. I am very interested in the points that made that decision appropriate for you.

If we can engage in the first topic you mention of conflicting statements of God I would find that very interesting and make no predictions as to how I will fair but if we are open minded and allow some leeway for the nature of our perspectives I think we can at least make a go of it.

I’m sure you have given this subject a lot of thought, so I’m guessing you have the conflicting quotes available to you. If you will just do the ones that relate to God and where you see conflicting statements then we can work through that one on to others. I am very thorough and not inclined to abbreviated efforts so it is best for me if we stay tight with each subject we may choose to discuss and not change mid stream before a reasonable treatment if possible.

Again, this is only if you have the time and are interested. I suspect I can assure that it will not be according to previous conversations you may have had on these subjects with other LDS – but we shall see.

[altersteve]

Mariner, are you saying that it is a "necessity" for every member of the Church to create a "shelf of disbelief"?

[mfbukowski]

If so, what rationalization do you call upon when falsifiable truth claims of Mormonism are falsified by science?

We have been over this an uncountable number of times and it is always the same with you.

How does the church suggest we develop a testimony of the gospel? By studying scientific evidence? OF COURSE NOT BECAUSE IT IS NOT ABOUT SCIENCE.

Have you even read Alma 32?

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a ^asign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

believe, for he knoweth it.

more ^bcursed is he that ^cknoweth the ^dwill of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into ^etransgression?

21 And now as I said concerning faith—^afaith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye ^bhope for things which are ^cnot seen, which are true.

Does that even sound TO YOU as if these alleged "truth claims" are supposed to be verifiable or falsifiable by science?

"HOPE FOR THINGS WHICH ARE NOT SEEN WHICH ARE TRUE."

You have been coming here with the same old tired arguments now for years- and have no comprehension whatsoever about what we are even talking about.

Edited May 7, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

Since you seem so dead set against belief in anything McConkie says in terms of harmonizing science and religion, is it your contention that, in spite of what any number of GAs have said to the contrary, including Russel M. Nelson in the last General Conference, that science and revealed religion can be harmonized?

I understand why you are determined to change the subject.

[BCSpace]

Since you seem so dead set against belief in anything McConkie says in terms of harmonizing science and religion, is it your contention that, in spite of what any number of GAs have said to the contrary, including Russel M. Nelson in the last General Conference, that science and revealed religion can be harmonized?

Nelson said nothing contrary to evolution in GC. He is restrained from doing so by doctrine. What he did say is contrary to a certain erroneous conclusions about evolution, that God is not involved etc.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

The book "Mormon Doctrine" is not LDS doctrine.