Evolution And Varying Reconciliation Theories

[David T]

The actual Gospel of Jesus Christ generally goes unchanged or unchallenged. The Epic of Eternity, or the contextual framework story, is very flexible, and since the period of the Restoration has already had multiple iterations, beginning since Parley Pratt made the first attempt to articulate it in his 1837 A Voice of Warning. His Key to the Science of Theology even offered a revised version.

[thesometimesaint]

Shamlam:

I am crafting a response to yours and the other dissenting voices but I pose a question that seems could be asked of each of those that seem to have taken umbrage at my comments.

I would like to see your response. I really would. I didn't take umbrage at any of your comments. I simply don't agree.

In each instance I have been told I don’t know scripture and in each instance I have been told I don’t know monkey’s – but you defend the monkey’s. Why?

I didn't say you didn't know the Scriptures, and I never said a word about monkeys.

You have provided yourselves the most convincing evidence for the point I was making. Answer that question truthfully and you will know by reading your own reactions to my comments the point I was attempting to make.

What reaction was that? I simply disagree with your assertions. I've consistantly truthfully answered your questions to the best of my knowledge. Are you acccusing me of lying?

That has got to resonate somewhere in your psyche as a point of consideration.

A point of consideration I've done. When religion make falsifiable claims about the natural world/universe only someone acting silly would reject the provable natural explanation for that claim. IE: If a religionist claims the world is flat, Pi is equal to exactly three, or our planet is only 7000 years old they are making falsifiable claims. The earth is not flat, Pi is 3.14..., and this planet we live on is about 4.5 Billions of years old. Further my psyche is just fine thankyou.

[ERayR]

Someone may have already addressed this, but evolution is absolutely not simply an ascension from the primitive to more advanced. Evolution is change that adapts to the environment. Populations either evolve, move to a more suitable environment or they die. Some species stay basically the same for millions of years because their environment does not not change enough to require a lot of adaptation--others change relatively quickly. The second problem you cited is based on a more literal interpretation of scripture than I take of the fall. I view it more metaphorically. I think our descent from our heavenly home to this planet to take on a covering of "skin" was enough of a fall.

I am well aware of what evolution is. There is evolution(micro-evolution) that adapts to change, which includes engineered change (selective breeding of animals and plants). This proposition is a given. Different species can have a number of variations (different breeds of dogs) but regardless of how wide the variations they still are the same specie. They do not jump species. The other(macro-evolution) is the theory that evolutionary change develops new species from the original. This is by no means proven. It has been extrapolated from micro-evolution but that has not been proven to be a valid extrapolation.

As a livestock producer I used micro-evolution by selective breeding to produce desirable characteristics in my animals. It was a guided process.

Edited April 23, 2012 by ERayR

[ERayR]

Samlam:

I like the Scriptures just fine, but I'm not fine with some of the interpretations of them.

I have no problem with God using Evolution in the Creation of everything.

Then do you have any problem with intelligent design?

Disclaimer: I am not advocating intelligent design.

[Calm]

Shamlam:

I am crafting a response to yours and the other dissenting voices but I pose a question that seems could be asked of each of those that seem to have taken umbrage at my comments.

I would like to see your response. I really would. I didn't take umbrage at any of your comments. I simply don't agree.

In each instance I have been told I don’t know scripture and in each instance I have been told I don’t know monkey’s – but you defend the monkey’s. Why?

I didn't say you didn't know the Scriptures, and I never said a word about monkeys.

You have provided yourselves the most convincing evidence for the point I was making. Answer that question truthfully and you will know by reading your own reactions to my comments the point I was attempting to make.

What reaction was that? I simply disagree with your assertions. I've consistantly truthfully answered your questions to the best of my knowledge. Are you acccusing me of lying?

That has got to resonate somewhere in your psyche as a point of consideration.

A point of consideration I've done. When religion make falsifiable claims about the natural world/universe only someone acting silly would reject the provable natural explanation for that claim. IE: If a religionist claims the world is flat, Pi is equal to exactly three, or our planet is only 7000 years old they are making falsifiable claims. The earth is not flat, Pi is 3.14..., and this planet we live on is about 4.5 Billions of years old. Further my psyche is just fine thankyou.

TSS, I really want to understand your responses, but if it has been several hours since I have read the post you quote without indicating it's quoted in your post, I am lost on who is saying what and without a link back to the original one, I usually just give up and skip it. Please if you can't figure out the quoting feature (which is just capturing the quote and clicking on the balloon like icon), then at least indicate with a few **** or something at the beginning of the section quoted. It will make reading so much easier.

Edited April 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

TSS, I really want to understand your responses, but if it has been several hours since I have read the post you quote without indicating it's quoted in your post, I am lost on who is saying what and without a link back to the original one, I usually just give up and skip it. Please if you can't figure out the quoting feature (which is just capturing the quote and clicking on the balloon like icon), then at least indicate with a few **** or something at the beginning of the section quoted. It will make reading so much easier.

Agreed.

Actually it's not even that hard. I just checked it as I am writing this. All I did (I am signed in under my name) was click on the word "quote" at the bottom of the quote I wanted to comment on (this one) and start typing.

When done, I hit "post" and that's it.

I have noticed TSS sometimes just makes a one-line comment about some post- and I don't have a clue what post he is even commenting on. Yet his comments always seem to be good, if I can just figure out who or what he is talking about.

Not meant as a criticism really, just pointing out something which will it make it easier to understand each other.

Edited April 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[BCSpace]

I am well aware of what evolution is. There is evolution(micro-evolution) that adapts to change, which includes engineered change (selective breeding of animals and plants). This proposition is a given. Different species can have a number of variations (different breeds of dogs) but regardless of how wide the variations they still are the same specie. They do not jump species. The other(macro-evolution) is the theory that evolutionary change develops new species from the original. This is by no means proven. It has been extrapolated from micro-evolution but that has not been proven to be a valid extrapolation.

As a livestock producer I used micro-evolution by selective breeding to produce desirable characteristics in my animals. It was a guided process.

Evolution does not propose that one species gives birth to another species. The change in species is evident only when comparing those widely separated by many generations.

[Calm]

That works if you don't want to divide up the statement to respond to different parts. It is slightly more complicated if you want to respond to one section at a time, but not that hard, just cut/copy the section you want to quote from the quoted post (created as you indicate) and then paste it below, capture/highlight it and the click the balloon while it's still highlighted. Then write your response below that. And then continue to do that for any additional sections you want to respond to. Edit out of the original/first quote any remaining material that is not necessary if you want to tidy it up and then post the whole thing. Takes a few minutes longer, but then people will read the post and why bother posting if people aren't going to read it?

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

I don't have a problem with God, or if you will the Inteligent Designer, as a religious belief. My belief fits in nicely concerning the WHY God did it. Unfortunately I don't have such a belief in HOW God did it. For that I must of necessity turn to science. And as you know science by definition can not put God into any explanation as to HOW it was done.

Edited April 23, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Calmoriah & mfbukowski:

I don't know why just my response shows up on your screens. My response is just below the OP. It shows up on my screen just fine.

[ERayR]

Evolution does not propose that one species gives birth to another species. The change in species is evident only when comparing those widely separated by many generations.

I am well aware of the long periods of time involved. It doesn't matter what you call it if you start with ones specie and over one generation or a million generations you end up with an entirely different species the new has derived from the old. That has not happened without a lot of speculation in interpreting of data.

[Calm]

Calmoriah & mfbukowski:

I don't know why just my response shows up on your screens. My response is just below the OP. It shows up on my screen just fine.

The problem is you don't indicate where his quote stops and yours begins, at least not in a way that stands out. I don't know if every other sentence, paragraph or whatever is yours or his.

Edited April 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[SamIam]

Wierd result on post - deleted in its entirety until I can get it to post correctly

Edited April 23, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

In each instance I have been told I don’t know scripture and in each instance I have been told I don’t know monkey’s – but you defend the monkey’s. Why?

I didn't say you didn't know the Scriptures, and I never said a word about monkeys.

Still crafting my major response but...

I just want to point out something about your response. First off I enjoy an bit of levity in discussion. I don't want to lose the fun of interaction with as obsessive sense of defensive posturing. It may not be necessary but as a mechanism to sort keep things light and fluffy I make use of a bit of light hyperbole, sometimes sarcasm and perhaps a bit of absurdity.

However, when I do so, I'm opening myself up for responses where people attempt to dodge the question by pointing to the obvious. I know you didn't say anything about monkeys but you were supposed to understand that as a funny little allusion to evolution. I know you didn’t outright state that "I don't know scripture" but I presumed you would be able to recollect this statement you made:

I've got the same Scripture you do. I just read it from a different perspective.

My scripture:

I prefer our Scripture.

Maybe, I need to make use of emoticons or something to indicate my light minded moments but I think that when you hide behind the obvious intent of my question and make me the offender for a word by being unwilling to even attempt an effort of mutual understanding of the beautiful nuances of the English language we share in common then the act of feigning ignorance to what I am talking about creates a playground neh na neh na neh neh mentality. Joke a little, have fun but when you never get back to the point and ignore the obvious it comes across as petulant.

If you continue to hide behind the offender for a word defense then there is no act of communication taking place and I am wasting my time and yours. We don't have to agree but...

Now for the sake of clarity this time without unnoted levity the question is more directly stated as such:

You indicated that you do not agree with my interpretation and application of the Moroni verses I cited and you indicated that you do not agree with my take on creationalism, evolution and so on...

However, even though I appear to be lacking on both sides of this debate and you have an equal opportunity to address both, the only point you took me to task on was my "mistaken" approach to evolution. The reason I am asking this question in this fashion is for you to examine the Freudian implications of your priorities. Now I am far from a supporter of Freudian psychotics (emoticon tongue in cheek) but I do believe this type of situation can potentially have benefit for insightful examination. When we don't realize that someone is watching we tend to act according to our natural inclinations. I am asking why was it your natural inclination to take no occasion against my "wresting" of scripture but to leap boldly in defense of ... dare I say it...the monkey's.(Normal smilely emoticon)

I'm not saying there is anything here but I am wondering about your ability for answering this question honestly from the perspective of self introspection. I'm am not saying you are a liar but I could be implying that you like the majority of us, at times in our lives often mistake what is our real motivation. If you can do this then I recommend you reread my entire post and you may realize that I'm not really putting much effort into explaining my real take on evolution as much as I am talking about why some people need the concept of evolution to be true for their piece of mind. I am saying that it is possible that many of us are like Thomas in the scriptures that had to see Christ to accept he had resurrected. Thomas had observed that 9 times out of ten (emoticon goofy smile) when they are dead , well they are dead. Them's the facts and he was sticking to it until proven otherwise. Many if not all of us at one time or another naturally prefer to see tangibles over believing in what is contrary to the physical evidence.

However, that in and of itself is in direct opposition to the principle of the laws of faith in God. He purposefully provides opportunity for each of us to trust Him even though we have no clue as to what he may do to promote our trust in Him. I am saying that the theory of evolution for an awful big bunch of folks has become their replacement for believing God. They may not realize that is the case – that’s why we call it deception.

Where God says Adam is first flesh or he introduced death or that all creatures could only reproduce after their kind - these kinds of statements generally by most LDS evolutionary supporters are seen as problematic and generally the preference for evolutionary minded types is to cast their faith on the interpretation of a data record that seems at odds with a few (key-but few) of the creationalistic perspectives. I am also saying that many of those who prefer the facts to the absence thereof may not realize that the motivation for them is that it is easier to go with what I see as opposed to what God has given. I am positing that asking the question of Creation vs. evolution out loud in a group of secular evolutionists and perhaps even amongst less secular ones, in University classes even on as limited as scale as the three key points from above in this post will be to potentially subject yourself to derision and abuse and that for many people they do not ask the question because of the ostracizing potential. I am also saying a dozen things along this same vein of thinking but really I hope that I have surrounded my simple monkeys and scripture question with enough background, insight, and self-revealing commentary to allow you to understand why the answer to the question is very important. I can guess how you are going to answer but I would prefer to not guess.

One more tiny little thought … You may have noted in the temple that whenever the servants of God come down and ask a question of Adam and Eve, immediately Satan jumps in and starts providing answers before Adam and Eve can even have time to think about the question. I have accepted that as another type for general human behavior. The first thoughts in our mind, especially unconverted minds is typically those that Satan is inspiring…give me your second set of thoughts that you had to drive out the negative petulant initial responses to get to …thems the ones I am most interested in.

Can I take a breath now...please? (oops, Where did that thought come from??)(emoticon showing red monkey with little horns on his head and a pitchfork and a second smiley face with a just joshin gloved hand wave).

Edited April 23, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

(you could also incorporate the Adam-G-d theory into this, that Eden is the perfect celestial world the Gods are resurrected into, they then sacrifice, and come back into the terrestrial world kind of cycle)

I found your approach to this very intriguing. This statement above I took to imply that you have read a quote or such that implies resurrected beings cycle in and out according to a creational process I have been doing some researching on a similar idea and was wondering if you have a source for this quote. Thanks in advance if you have the time to look it up.

[SamIam]

There are so many possible explanations for this that "what really happened", even if it could be characterized linguistically, which it can't, it would be unknowable as to which was "right".

If God wanted it that way, he could have done it that way with a snap of his fingers.

But we can't know that.

The fact is that we can't really know much of anything except what God personally tells us, which may disagree with what he personally tells others, and that is because we all learn in our own ways and start out with different personalities and different needs.

Come up with all the simple answers you like- just know that they will be the simple answers YOU came up with.

At least I know I came up with mine, you might not be so lucky.

And trust me, that has absolutely nothing to do with being embarrassed about how stupid I am. That should already be abundantly clear.

It's people who think they have answers that make me suspicious.

Since you didn't quote anyone I acnnot be sure but the edge to your post seems at odds with the things I have stated since I find that for the most part we are in agreement. I made the same observation that it is what we cannot know but claim to "know" that is the dividing line that determines our attitude towards God when compared with evolutionary theory.

If you are referencing me, I think you might be reading a bit more into my attitiude than I intend to convey. The only answer I am genuinly claiming is that how we respond to the areas we do not have the capacity to genuinely know defines a criticle aspect of who or what is our God.

[thesometimesaint]

Still crafting my major response but...

I just want to point out something about your response. First off I enjoy an bit of levity in discussion. I don't want to lose the fun of interaction with as obsessive sense of defensive posturing. It may not be necessary but as a mechanism to sort keep things light and fluffy I make use of a bit of light hyperbole, sometimes sarcasm and perhaps a bit of absurdity.

However, when I do so, I'm opening myself up for responses where people attempt to dodge the question by pointing to the obvious. I know you didn't say anything about monkeys but you were supposed to understand that as a funny little allusion to evolution. I know you didn’t outright state that "I don't know scripture" but I presumed you would be able to recollect this statement you made:

Maybe, I need to make use of emoticons or something to indicate my light minded moments but I think that when you hide behind the obvious intent of my question and make me the offender for a word by being unwilling to even attempt an effort of mutual understanding of the beautiful nuances of the English language we share in common then the act of feigning ignorance to what I am talking about creates a playground neh na neh na neh neh mentality. Joke a little, have fun but when you never get back to the point and ignore the obvious it comes across as petulant.

If you continue to hide behind the offender for a word defense then there is no act of communication taking place and I am wasting my time and yours. We don't have to agree but...

Now for the sake of clarity this time without unnoted levity the question is more directly stated as such:

You indicated that you do not agree with my interpretation and application of the Moroni verses I cited and you indicated that you do not agree with my take on creationalism, evolution and so on...

However, even though I appear to be lacking on both sides of this debate and you have an equal opportunity to address both, the only point you took me to task on was my "mistaken" approach to evolution. The reason I am asking this question in this fashion is for you to examine the Freudian implications of your priorities. Now I am far from a supporter of Freudian psychotics (emoticon tongue in cheek) but I do believe this type of situation can potentially have benefit for insightful examination. When we don't realize that someone is watching we tend to act according to our natural inclinations. I am asking why was it your natural inclination to take no occasion against my "wresting" of scripture but to leap boldly in defense of ... dare I say it...the monkey's.(Normal smilely emoticon)

I'm not saying there is anything here but I am wondering about your ability for answering this question honestly from the perspective of self introspection. I'm am not saying you are a liar but I could be implying that you like the majority of us, at times in our lives often mistake what is our real motivation. If you can do this then I recommend you reread my entire post and you may realize that I'm not really putting much effort into explaining my real take on evolution as much as I am talking about why some people need the concept of evolution to be true for their piece of mind. I am saying that it is possible that many of us are like Thomas in the scriptures that had to see Christ to accept he had resurrected. Thomas had observed that 9 times out of ten (emoticon goofy smile) when they are dead , well they are dead. Them's the facts and he was sticking to it until proven otherwise. Many if not all of us at one time or another naturally prefer to see tangibles over believing in what is contrary to the physical evidence.

However, that in and of itself is in direct opposition to the principle of the laws of faith in God. He purposefully provides opportunity for each of us to trust Him even though we have no clue as to what he may do to promote our trust in Him. I am saying that the theory of evolution for an awful big bunch of folks has become their replacement for believing God. They may not realize that is the case – that’s why we call it deception.

Where God says Adam is first flesh or he introduced death or that all creatures could only reproduce after their kind - these kinds of statements generally by most LDS evolutionary supporters are seen as problematic and generally the preference for evolutionary minded types is to cast their faith on the interpretation of a data record that seems at odds with a few (key-but few) of the creationalistic perspectives. I am also saying that many of those who prefer the facts to the absence thereof may not realize that the motivation for them is that it is easier to go with what I see as opposed to what God has given. I am positing that asking the question of Creation vs. evolution out loud in a group of secular evolutionists and perhaps even amongst less secular ones, in University classes even on as limited as scale as the three key points from above in this post will be to potentially subject yourself to derision and abuse and that for many people they do not ask the question because of the ostracizing potential. I am also saying a dozen things along this same vein of thinking but really I hope that I have surrounded my simple monkeys and scripture question with enough background, insight, and self-revealing commentary to allow you to understand why the answer to the question is very important. I can guess how you are going to answer but I would prefer to not guess.

One more tiny little thought … You may have noted in the temple that whenever the servants of God come down and ask a question of Adam and Eve, immediately Satan jumps in and starts providing answers before Adam and Eve can even have time to think about the question. I have accepted that as another type for general human behavior. The first thoughts in our mind, especially unconverted minds is typically those that Satan is inspiring…give me your second set of thoughts that you had to drive out the negative petulant initial responses to get to …thems the ones I am most interested in.

Can I take a breath now...please? (oops, Where did that thought come from??)(emoticon showing red monkey with little horns on his head and a pitchfork and a second smiley face with a just joshin gloved hand wave).

Samlam:

I don't expect an immediate response. Take all the time you need.

No problem with levity. I use it quite a bit myself. Sometimes others understand it.

I am aware of the connection some try to make between man and monkeys. It just never made much sense to me. It always comes accross as a flip answer to put off further discussion, or as a racial putdown. I do hope you didn't mean it in any of those ways.

That might help. Unfortunately emotions, intent, and nuance don't transfer across the internet very well. In person I'm sure we'd understand each other much better.

While I am a retired Psychiatric Social Worker I'm not Freudian. I am however of the Ericsson school of development with a subspecializtion in Glassers' Reality Therapy.

I don't do petulant. It is a bar to effective communication. Believe me I have no problem in telling people exactly what I think.

As I said before I didn't take offense at anything you said. Disagreement is not offending at least in my world. What a dreary world this would if we had to agree with everything.

I can agree with a Scipture, but not someones use of that Scripture in the furtherance of their ideas. Again I not a Freudian, but I do understand his methods.

If you don't mean a monkey then don't use one as an example. Saves a lot of confusion as to what you really do mean.

My motivations are pretty simple really to communicate how I percieve the world as precisely and as accurately as I can. I am at home in the world of faith and the world of science. I personally have no problem with either one. Ask me what I believe I will tell you. Ask me about science and I will tell you what I know. Sometimes like all human beings I am wrong on either one or both at the same time.

I fully believe in the Resurrection of Christ. I am first and foremost a Christian, and I also happen to be a LDS type Christian. Sure I'd love to see the Resurrected Christ in this life. What believing Christian wouldn't? But my testimony doesn't hing on that happening. I'm 60 years old and I probably won't live long enough to see the Second Coming. If it happens GREAT but my personal feeling is that it is more important for me to live my life in such a way that whether he comes to see me, or I go to see him the results are still the same.

On this very Forum we have what is called Mormon Scholars Tesify. Please read the testimonies, pay particular attention to the scientists. That might give you a different perspective on what real scientists do and believe.

Adam was obviously NOT the first flesh. According to Scripture God put plants and animals here before he put man here. What Evolution says is that as plants and animals reproduce there are sutle differences, that those differences accumlate over time and that in isolated populations those diferences can lead to those isolated populations being unable to reproduce with the parent population. Thus a new species. Cats don't morph into dogs and grasshoppers don't morph into lobsters. That is not what Evolution says.Though they are related.

I believe in God, and his prophets. What I don't believe is every thing that comes out of mortal mens' mouth is directed by God. I also believe God gives scientists, innovators, explorers the inspiration to seek new ways to better understand his great works including man himself.

I know quite well the Temple Ceremony I've gone reguarly for over 40 years now, though recently ill health has prevented me from going as often I'd like.

Please don't impugn my status as a faithful member of the Church with being a dupe of Satan again. I will not respond to you if you do so again.

Take all the breathes you need. Breathing is a good thing.

[Calm]

thank you for using the quote function.

[thesometimesaint]

[Calm]

I found your approach to this very intriguing.

You (changed as well) might want to check out this thread

We are just getting into Adam-God now, not knowing too much about it (though I've read all the relevant BY statements it's been awhile and I never really got into discussing them before) I am in the process of deciding whether or not I want to add anything. It might help me decide if someone else did first.

[SamIam]

This is acting funny again entire post deleted until I can get it posted correctly.

Edited April 24, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

Do you exclude Joseph Smith (possibly reported by WW Phelps, though it could be original from Phelps) from this group with his claim of the earth being 2.55 billion, Brigham Young who was comfortable with the claim of geologists of his day or David O. Mckay with his apparent belief that the earth took millions of years to prepare from this conclusion?

http://www.jefflinds...ience.shtml#age

PS: I hardly ever discuss evolution with nonLDS these days. How does your theory deal with debates among believers?

Which had nothing to do with my own point as I was talking about the age of the earth.....just to stay focused on what I was trying to convey in my response to Samlan in hopes that he will respond to my question.

Samlam made a comment about God's creationary processes and the timeline suggested by scripture...I focused that on where we have had obvious (imo at least) comments by prophets relating to the process taking longer than a literal interpretation, which is the age of the earth, not in regards to evolution. Prophets who I do not think were all that concerned about looking foolish.

Calmoriah,

I’m sorry, I thought I had responded to this but now realize I have not…I have no difficulty with 6000 years or 2.55 billion nor am I uncomfortable the claims of geologists. As a generality, I will side with inspired leaders over science. My reasoning is not what tends to be the expectation of most.

One of the most interesting debates between an LDS evolutionist and an LDS creationalist is the discussion between Henry Eyring and Joseph Fielding Smith. Dialogue Journal of Mormon Thought does a good job of collecting and presenting the two primary sides of the debate. It can be found at the following link:

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V15N03_89.pdf

My reasoning before I clip a couple of quotes from the article: There is always more at play more than what is obvious. I draw this idea from several places but one of the most prominent is 1 Corinthians 8.

This is a principle and bearing in mind that the source of the principle may having nothing to do with our discussion of evolution but can be applied to it as a principle I will reference it.

The basic storyline is that Paul is warning those in the know about eating meat sacrificed to idols. He states that even though he knows idols have no power and that they who might eat idol meat realize idols have no power there is more to be concerned about.

1 Cor 8:9

9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

In other words what if those who are weak minded observe what you are doing and are negatively influenced by it. He ends with the following assertion:

13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

In any instance where my observations can be construed as opposing a prophet or other general authority’s observations, even if in my thoughts I did disagree, I would make every effort to not utter them lest they be construed to someone of weaker testimony to be opposition to prophetic authority. This also extends to ancient prophets as recorded in the scriptural text. As we discuss evolution much of the material does not directly impugn any of the valued sources of God’s word – person or text. Talk about it, have fun with it, ponder upon it as much as you feel inclined.

However, there are several places in the discussion where we are brought right up to the edge of sustaining the scriptural and prophetic record or sustaining the incomplete theory and analysis of research and data from sciences perspective. In those instances, I will not equivocate and I am suggesting to others to do the same, but I will not ever sustain a point that has not:

1.) been revealed to me by revelation AND

2.) been taught by leaders of the church for the edification of the membership.

Those are the guidelines that have been established in church history to protect the membership of the church from being “duped” by Satan.

Joseph Fielding Smith outlines several of the points that conflict with science in the following quote from the dialogue article mentioned above:

1. Adam was the first man on the earth. This is declared in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. In the Prophet Joseph Smith's revision of the Bible, the last verse in the lineage of Christ in Luke, reads as follows: "And of Enos, and of Seth, and of Adam, who was formed of God, and the first man on the earth." This is the same as recorded in the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 84:16. Those who accept organic evolution contradict this doctrine.

2. The scriptures teach that Adam was the first flesh on the earth. This is the doctrine in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price, but it is rejected by the advocates of organic evolution.

3. These scriptures teach that Adam was not subject to the mortal and spiritual death before the Fall, and that the fall brought these deaths into the world. This doctrine is denied by organic evolutionists.

4. These scriptures teach that Jesus came into the world to atone for Adam's transgression and through his death redeemed Adam and all mankind from the effects of the fall. This is denied by the organic evolutionists.

5. These scriptures teach that through the death of Jesus Christ came the resurrection of the dead, and that every soul will be raised with spirit and body inseparably united. This is denied by organic evolutionists.

6. These scriptures teach that this earth is passing through seven days of temporal existence of one thousand of our years for a day, and that it was not temporal before the fall. This is clearly stated in the Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, but it is definitely and positively denied by organic evolutionists.

7. These divine records promise us that the earth on which we dwell will be renewed and restored to its primitive beauty for one thousand years and be cleansed of all its iniquity. This is denied by most scientists.

8. These divine records declare that the earth shall die, for it is a living body, and will rise again in the resurrection through the redemption of Jesus Christ, to become a celestial globe and the abode of the righteous. Scientist

preach a far different doctrine.

It’s been over 50 years since these points were made and I am not willing to concede that any of these points have been trumped by science. I know others may be convinced but that is not my point exactly – my point is that if I did think science had made this accomplishment I am not going to come out in open opposition against the leaders of the church. Not a good idea …and I think that some do not do the math the same way I do and do not see their support of science as coming out against the brethren – I do.

[SamIam]

I am having to do this is two pieces as for whatever cause it is not taking it in one....

Still Joseph Fielding Smith echo’s a couple of sentiments that are mine exactly. One is as follows:

So far as the philosophy and wisdom of the world are concerned, they mean nothing unless they conform to the revealed word of God. Any doctrine, whether it comes in the name of religion, science, philosophy, or whatever it may be, if it is in conflict with the revealed word of the Lord, will fail. It may appear plausible. It may be put before you in language that appeals and which you may not be able to answer. It may appear to be established by evidence that you cannot controvert, but all you need to do is to abide your time. Time will level all things. You will find that every doctrine, every principle, no matter how universally believed, if not in accord with the divine word of the Lord to his servants, will perish. Nor is it necessary for us to try to stretch the word of the Lord, in a vain attempt to make it conform to these theories and teachings. The word of the Lord shall not pass away unfulfilled, but these false doctrines and theories will all fail. Truth and only truth, will remain when all else has perished. ( Joseph Fielding Smith from October Conference 1952 as quoted by Heath in Dialogue Magazine pg 92, Henry Eyring’s Achievement)

The second is as follows:

The Church holds to the definite authority of divine revelation which must be the standard, and that, so-called "science" has changed from age to age in its deductions, and as divine revelation is truth, and must abide forever, views as to the lesser should conform to the positive statements of the greater; and further, that in institutions of education, its instructors must be in harmony in their teachings with the principles of doctrine. The truth persists, but the theories of philosophy change. (Joseph Fielding Smith by Heath in Dialogue Magazine,page 91, Henry Eyring’s Achievement,)

Now of course this can appear problematic since here we have dialogue between two great LDS giants who oppose each other. How do I sustain one without opposing another? It is a prickly problem which fortunately I can count on two hands for the number of times it has occurred in the course of my personal studies. To answer that I only hope to be at least as gracious as Elder Eyring was as he commented to the love and gratitude he had for his and President Fielding’s friendship and their ongoing supportive relationship. This also is how I think it should be with LDS discussions. If you read my posts, with an eye to not taking sides I hope it is obvious that I am not criticizing evolutionists or creationalists on any other points but of remaining in conformity to the doctrines of the church and the sustainment of its leaders. I do this because contrary to popular opinion it seems, I am loathe to see people who have the gospel in their grasp trade it for a bowl of lentil soup. (Referencing Esau ) I am not intending to judge anyone as having done so only that I wonder if I’m not starting to smell the beans from time to time.

In my opinion to “face” towards sustaining the leaders and scriptures is far more important than if I throw the monkey out with the beaker water.

[shalamabobbi]

This is acting funny again entire post deleted until I can get it posted correctly.

Samlam,

Please use a word processor to prepare your post then copy and paste. You will not have any issues that way, with the exception of too long a post, which gets rejected.

Better a lot of short posts anyway each addressing a particular point than one long run-on post that likely won't get read by very many.

[mfbukowski]

One of the most interesting debates between an LDS evolutionist and an LDS creationalist is the discussion between Henry Eyring and Joseph Fielding Smith. Dialogue Journal of Mormon Thought does a good job of collecting and presenting the two primary sides of the debate. It can be found at the following link:...

... I know others may be convinced but that is not my point exactly – my point is that if I did think science had made this accomplishment I am not going to come out in open opposition against the leaders of the church. Not a good idea …and I think that some do not do the math the same way I do and do not see their support of science as coming out against the brethren – I do.

An interesting quandry. You link to a "debate" between the brethren and then don't want to "oppose the brethren".

Which of "the brethren" should we support- those in favor of evolution or those opposed?

I don't think it is anyone's desire to "oppose the leaders of the church", at least it is not mine. When they put out an official statement on any of this, will will be the first to salute and jump in line.

In the meantime, we are not supposed to think for ourselves?

It's not that I am opposed to you- I just can't figure out where you are coming from sometimes because you appear to take both sides of a position sometimes. Even that's fine- I do it all the time, but that IS my position- that you can look at it one way which is just as valid as another way of seeing it.

But you seem to take a position and then take another one simultaneously without saying they are both "valid", as you above:

and I think that some do not do the math the same way I do and do not see their support of science as coming out against the brethren – I do.

I am totally confused.

Edit: I was writing this when the second installment appeared- still not totally sure I get it.

Maybe you could do one quick clarifying post of 25 words or less- just your opinion no quotes- resolving all this so we can tack down where you are coming from?

Edited April 24, 2012 by mfbukowski