Should The Church Correct Those Who Have An Incorrect Understanding Of Gospel Subjects?

[ANACO]

I'm amused by some of the reasoning here.

For example, to heavily paraphrase: "it's not ok to teach evolution in Sunday School. But it's ok to accept evolution during the remainder of the week," as if Church teaching are only good on Sundays.

"Does your Church believe in evolution?" an investigator may ask. "The Church has no official stance on the matter, except on Sundays when it's not taught."

"But our leaders believe

the Creation is a 'crucial component of the plan of salvation' "

"The Creation? I thought you just said your Church had no official stance on Evolution."

"Just on Sundays."

[ksfisher]

I'm amused by some of the reasoning here.

For example, to heavily paraphrase: "it's not ok to teach evolution in Sunday School. But it's ok to accept evolution during the remainder of the week," as if Church teaching are only good on Sundays.

"Does your Church believe in evolution?" an investigator may ask. "The Church has no official stance on the matter, except on Sundays when it's not taught."

"But our leaders believe

the Creation is a 'crucial component of the plan of salvation' "

"The Creation? I thought you just said your Church had no official stance on Evolution."

"Just on Sundays."

I also accept the laws of thermodynamics and the pythagorean therum, but I don't teach them on Sunday. We teach the gospel in the church.

[Darren10]

I'm amused by some of the reasoning here.

For example, to heavily paraphrase: "it's not ok to teach evolution in Sunday School. But it's ok to accept evolution during the remainder of the week," as if Church teaching are only good on Sundays.

"Does your Church believe in evolution?" an investigator may ask. "The Church has no official stance on the matter, except on Sundays when it's not taught."

"But our leaders believe

the Creation is a 'crucial component of the plan of salvation' "

"The Creation? I thought you just said your Church had no official stance on Evolution."

"Just on Sundays."

"No official stance" on evolution means there is no official endorsement, nor condemnation, upon those who believe in evolution. Therefore, anyone, even on Sundays, who choose to believe in evolution is not affected one bit in the church. It's simply that evolution is not taught in Sunday School of under an activity directly sponsored by the Church. The connotation in your post is that believing in evolution is spiritually bad. It's not. It's simply one's own scientific conclusion which has never bore any weight upon church membership. Making evolution, or even rapid creation a spiritual matter, I think, is foolish and even juvenile. What's taught on Sunday are the doctrines. Nothing more, nothing less. It is designed to uplift the soul, not science.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Darren10

[Thinking]

There is indeed advantages, perhaps that of unity in this case, in conformity of beliefs. However, since its inception, the LDS Church has never dictated what man should believe in science. I think there is much wisdom in that.

"Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the [book of Mormon] to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, and so forth." (Ezra Taft Benson, A Witness and a Warning, p. 6)

[thesometimesaint]

Thinking:

Organic evolution without God would be against LDS thought, with God it fits nicely into it.

Edited June 19, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Log]

Thinking:

Organic evolution without God would be against LDS thought, with God it fits nicely into it.

Organic evolution with God is not organic evolution at all - but intelligent design.

[SamIam]

Thinking:

Organic evolution without God would be against LDS thought, with God it fits nicely into it.

Can you expand on what you mean. In what way are they compatible to you?

[thesometimesaint]

Sure. Organic evolution is simply the method by which God did it.

[ERayR]

Thinking:

Organic evolution without God would be against LDS thought, with God it fits nicely into it.

Not really.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

Yes really.

Edited June 19, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[zerinus]

I also accept the laws of thermodynamics and the pythagorean therum, but I don't teach them on Sunday. We teach the gospel in the church.

"No official stance" on evolution means there is no official endorsement, nor condemnation, upon those who believe in evolution. Therefore, anyone, even on Sundays, who choose to believe in evolution is not affected one bit in the church. It's simply that evolution is not taught in Sunday School of under an activity directly sponsored by the Church. The connotation in your post is that believing in evolution is spiritually bad. It's not. It's simply one's own scientific conclusion which has never bore any weight upon church membership. Making evolution, or even rapid creation a spiritual matter, I think, is foolish and even juvenile. What's taught on Sunday are the doctrines. Nothing more, nothing less. It is designed to uplift the soul, not science.

Thinking:

Organic evolution without God would be against LDS thought, with God it fits nicely into it.

Sure. Organic evolution is simply the method by which God did it.

I wonder if it is okay to teach this doctrine in Sunday School:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. (Emphasis in the original.) Source

[cinepro]

"No official stance" on evolution means there is no official endorsement, nor condemnation, upon those who believe in evolution. Therefore, anyone, even on Sundays, who choose to believe in evolution is not affected one bit in the church. It's simply that evolution is not taught in Sunday School of under an activity directly sponsored by the Church. The connotation in your post is that believing in evolution is spiritually bad. It's not. It's simply one's own scientific conclusion which has never bore any weight upon church membership. Making evolution, or even rapid creation a spiritual matter, I think, is foolish and even juvenile. What's taught on Sunday are the doctrines.

But here's what the Church itself said in 2002 when we were studying the Old Testament in Sunday School. There was an entire issue of the Ensign dedicated to the course of study, and they must have assumed the topic of evolution might come up.

Instead of saying what you said, they reprinted the First Presidency statement with this note:

In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. A reprinting of this important First Presidency statement will be helpful as members of the Church study the Old Testament this year.

(Emphasis Added)

That issue also has a helpful section for readers titled "Making the Most of This Issue", where we are told:

Ever wondered about the Church’s official teachings on the creation of mankind and evolution? Find assistance for your study of Genesis 1–3 [Gen. 1–3] on p. 26.

So you can say that the Church doesn't have a "doctrinal position" or "official teaching" on the subject, but to the degree that the Ensign represents "The Church" and its teachings, it would appear The Church would disagree with you.

[Craig Paxton]

But here's what the Church itself said in 2002 when we were studying the Old Testament in Sunday School. There was an entire issue of the Ensign dedicated to the course of study, and they must have assumed the topic of evolution might come up.

Instead of saying what you said, they reprinted the First Presidency statement with this note:

That issue also has a helpful section for readers titled "Making the Most of This Issue", where we are told:

So you can say that the Church doesn't have a "doctrinal position" or "official teaching" on the subject, but to the degree that the Ensign represents "The Church" and its teachings, it would appear The Church would disagree with you.

Wow..well there youhave it...the church is clarifing some of these positions...good for them Quote "To tell the truth as God has revealed it, and commend it to the acceptance of those who need to conform their opinions thereto, is the sole purpose of this presentation.

So on some subjects...the church is seeking conformity...I guess the only acceptable evolution in the church is that where a man evolves in to a god.

All you who believe in evolution better conform and get in line

Edited June 19, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

I've taught Sunday School for teenagers, and us old fogies in Gospel Doctrine. I don't put my own speculations and stick with the manuals. At most I'll say is: "However God did it, it was God that did it".

Now when not teaching a Sunday School class or just talking with friends. I stick with the science, and tell them I believe that evolution is how God did it.

[thesometimesaint]

Craig Paxton:

Men(women) are already Gods. Though obviously not fully mature ones at this time.

[ERayR]

ERayR:

Yes really.

I find a few problems with it so no not really.

[ERayR]

I wonder if it is okay to teach this doctrine in Sunday School:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. (Emphasis in the original.) Source

Some things we do agree on.

[ERayR]

Wow..well there youhave it...the church is clarifing some of these positions...good for them Quote "To tell the truth as God has revealed it, and commend it to the acceptance of those who need to conform their opinions thereto, is the sole purpose of this presentation.

So on some subjects...the church is seeking conformity...I guess the only acceptable evolution in the church is that where a man evolves in to a god.

All you who believe in evolution better conform and get in line

If the doctrine is properly understood man doesn't have to evolve into a God, all he has to do is not devolve. Man is already the offspring of

God.

[Craig Paxton]

If the doctrine is properly understood man doesn't have to evolve into a God, all he has to do is not devolve. Man is already the offspring of

God.

Well. I was only quoting the first presidency. But if you disagree. I'm ok with that...

[DBMormon]

I've taught Sunday School for teenagers, and us old fogies in Gospel Doctrine. I don't put my own speculations and stick with the manuals. At most I'll say is: "However God did it, it was God that did it".

Now when not teaching a Sunday School class or just talking with friends. I stick with the science, and tell them I believe that evolution is how God did it.

That is a good approach - It gives them the same flexibility God has given them.

What would you do if someone in your class insisted in discussion that evolution is false?

[Kevin Christensen]

What would you do if someone in your class insisted in discussion that evolution is false?

I'd point out the language of the Book of Abraham, as Nibley pointed out in "Before Adam." "Let the earth be prepared that it might bring forth..." which is future potential tense. I'd point out the open-ended language for time. "Until..." which means take all the time you want. I'd point out that Abraham also describes the degree to which creatures are obedient to the charge to reproduce after their own kind. "Very obedient..." which of course permits variation. I'd point out that every geology teacher and every biology teacher at BYU teaches evolution. And I'd talk about how our scriptures do not bind us to the Fundamentalst interpretations or agenda. I'd mention that the strongest LDS opinions expressed against the notion of evolution were just that, the opinions of individuals, The social environment in which such ideas were expressed had an impact on the arguments made, simply assuming with Fundamentalists and the Darwinists that there is an irreconcilable conflict, and choosing sides and arguments based on what I see as a false assumption. As Nibley pointed out, we have a different story to tell, and have no obligation to play their silly game, bound by their rules. The official LDS statements are all open ended. For every LDS GA who opposed any reconcilliation, there are others equally prominent who were comfortable with reconcilliation. All or nothing thinking all too often increases the danger of leaving a student with nothing. I'd also point out that the Genesis account is not a history but a ritual text, originally part of a temple drama, and that drama appears to originally describe the erection of the Tabernacle. (See Margaret Barker, Temple Theology: An Introduction.) The way to build a world in six days is to build a model, that is, the desert tabernacle.

I've been doing this for years when I teach, or comment during someone else's comments, and in Wards in California, Kansas, and Pennsylvania have had no trouble getting along.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[DBMormon]

• Kevin as always, good post. thank you...exactly how I would approach as well
  

[thesometimesaint]

reelmormon:

I've never had that happen to me. Lucky I guess. But if that were to happen I'd tell them it really isn't an issue I want to discuss in Sunday School as it has nothing to do with my, or their, salvation. However if they want I'll gladly talk to them afterwords.

Edited June 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Log]

I'd point out the language of the Book of Abraham, as Nibley pointed out in "Before Adam." "Let the earth be prepared that it might bring forth..." which is future potential tense. I'd point out the open-ended language for time. "Until..." which means take all the time you want. I'd point out that Abraham also describes the degree to which creatures are obedient to the charge to reproduce after their own kind. "Very obedient..." which of course permits variation. I'd point out that every geology teacher and every biology teacher at BYU teaches evolution. And I'd talk about how our scriptures do not bind us to the Fundamentalst interpretations or agenda. I'd mention that the strongest LDS opinions expressed against the notion of evolution were just that, the opinions of individuals, The social environment in which such ideas were expressed had an impact on the arguments made, simply assuming with Fundamentalists and the Darwinists that there is an irreconcilable conflict, and choosing sides and arguments based on what I see as a false assumption. As Nibley pointed out, we have a different story to tell, and have no obligation to play their silly game, bound by their rules. The official LDS statements are all open ended. For every LDS GA who opposed any reconcilliation, there are others equally prominent who were comfortable with reconcilliation. All or nothing thinking all too often increases the danger of leaving a student with nothing. I'd also point out that the Genesis account is not a history but a ritual text, originally part of a temple drama, and that drama appears to originally describe the erection of the Tabernacle. (See Margaret Barker, Temple Theology: An Introduction.) The way to build a world in six days is to build a model, that is, the desert tabernacle.

I've been doing this for years when I teach, or comment during someone else's comments, and in Wards in California, Kansas, and Pennsylvania have had no trouble getting along.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Unfortunately, the conflict is irreconcilable; the point at issue is that evolution has been defined in such a way as to preclude intelligent intervention in the creation of biological structures. It is "unguided" versus, at the least, "guided," and being, as they are, jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, therefore it is not a false dichotomy. Intelligent intervention by a creator-God is therefore logically incompatible with evolution.

Those who insist otherwise are engaged in transparent equivocation on the word "evolution."

To my knowledge, there has not been a positive statement from any of the Brethren towards evolution since the early 1900's. Exactly zero have spoken out in favor of the actual theory as promulgated by Darwin and his successors, so far as I can tell: no GA has ever taught that the sole causes of Creation were matter in random motion and natural selection. That idea has always been explicitly contradicted each time it has been addressed, as recently as the last General Conference. Interestingly enough, BYU was founded, in part, to counter Darwinism.

I am disturbed by teachers who seem to prioritize teaching their pet theories instead of sticking with the scriptures and the teachings of the Brethren. If someone insists evolution is false - well, the Church agrees that it is false, officially. That anyone called of God to instruct in his Church should presume to undermine that view, is, to say the least, disappointing in the extreme. Your calling is NOT to make yourself feel better about the doctrinal compromises you've made in order to blend in better with the world - your calling is to teach the truth as the Church has presented it, and to do so by the power and authority of God. Do NOT mingle the philosophies of men with scripture for consumption in the Lord's house.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

I don't have any problem with God using Evolution in the Creation of everything. If you want to go the science route I'm more than capable of defending that position. If you want to go the Scripture route I'm fine with that too. Personally I've never viewed the Scripture as a science text book, or the science textbook as the Scriptures. So however God did it. God still did it.