Pre-Adamites?

[CV75]

...But just beacuse I love all non human hominids, regardless of DNA, race, color, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, age, veteran status, disability, military service, or other status any non human hominid might enjoy or suffer in common (or not) with human hominids, does not mean I have a covenant relationship with them, as I do with Adam.

Who can tell a non human hominid from Adam? Who can tell who Adam is?

[bdouglas]

This is the best example yet provided for why it is very important to differentiate between truth and error and where our allegiances should lie concerning things such as the OP. One step leads to the next step leads to the next and pretty soon soulless Pre-Adamites become the ancestors of fictional characters represented as Adam and Eve and finally Jesus becomes a myth.

Those who tend to disagree with correct scriptural foundations and discredit their leaders in regards to Pre-Adamites set the stage to find other concepts that they disagree on with the brethren. Until finally we have sacrificed the power of their testimonies of Jesus Christ to have the proper influence on our weakened sustainment of God's chosen servants until their pleas calling us to Christ fade away in the din of the crowd.

You could take what you say above and put the same words in the mouths of the Catholic Fathers of Galileo's day who objected to his scientifici findings, i.e., the earth is not the center of the universe, etc. When you say "correct scriptural foundations" whose interpretation of these "scriptural foundations" are you referencing? BRM's and JFS, or Talmage's, Widtsoe's, Robert's (or even David O. Mckay, who had serious reservations about the literalism of JFS)?

As the First Prez said (as quoted in Des News article), the church has nothing to fear from scientific investigation, or from any truth, no matter its source.

[thesometimesaint]

Samlam:

You are holding Apostles to a standard they themselves rejected.

Edited June 9, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[SamIam]

That's terribly misguided and promotes erroneous belief of inerrancy. In my case when I learned of the massive evidences for an ancient Earth (as a teen), it was precisely this thinking that made me worry that I'd have to reject the church if I didn't reject the truth staring me in the face.

Understanding that our leaders are NOT inerrant means we can accept and be uplifted by their testimonies and teachings without elevating their errors to doctrine.

Yet another that continues to misunderstand my point. Let's try it this way. In our stake conference last night someone inquired of the visiting GA if it was true that members who drank decaffeinated coffee should not be denied a temple recommend. The GA confirmed that was indeed the stance of the church. Then as an aside he stated that a few years back he had been with Elder Ballard when this same question was asked. Elder Ballard confirmed the same stance that he had confirmed and then in strong tones stated, "BUT YOU SHOW ME TWO PARENTS THAT DRINK DECAFFEINATED COFFEE AND I'LL SHOW YOU TWO PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN DRINK REGULAR COFFEE."

Now my point for the third time. It is not about the mistakes or errors that may have been made in the course of a telestial organization that now operates as the church. It is about what we teach in addition to the point we think we are making. Not a one of you who undermine, chastise or correct church leaders or cop out to the "prophet is only a prophet" statement as you share your enlightened opinions to your children, friends and ward members will ever find one good thing that comes from your version of "enlightenment" and "truth".

Form whatever opinions you will, share them if you must, but do so in a way that never undermines the gospel or those who represent it. Then when the day comes where yours, your children's, friends and others encounter their crisis of faith, you can boldly stand and with true conviction state that these are true representatives of Jesus Christ and that by giving heed to their counsel and teachings they will lead in the way of life and salvation. There is limited ability for the spirit to confirm your testimony if to you it is not rock solid and brooks no whisperings of Satan that they are fallible and prone to speak out of turn.

[SamIam]

You could take what you say above and put the same words in the mouths of the Catholic Fathers of Galileo's day who objected to his scientifici findings, i.e., the earth is not the center of the universe, etc. When you say "correct scriptural foundations" whose interpretation of these "scriptural foundations" are you referencing? BRM's and JFS, or Talmage's, Widtsoe's, Robert's (or even David O. Mckay, who had serious reservations about the literalism of JFS)?

As the First Prez said (as quoted in Des News article), the church has nothing to fear from scientific investigation, or from any truth, no matter its source.

Indeed you could but they are not held to the standard of having the restored Gospel in their midst with its attendant blessing of discernment and the Holy Ghost. Those who are members of the church have a greater responsibility and should not seek to be comfortable with the standards these men had to work with.

Still once again you are another that is not hearing what I am saying and the point I am making each and every one of the names above would sustain.

[bdouglas]

Yet another that continues to misunderstand my point. Let's try it this way. In our stake conference last night someone inquired of the visiting GA if it was true that members who drank decaffeinated coffee should not be denied a temple recommend. The GA confirmed that was indeed the stance of the church. Then as an aside he stated that a few years back he had been with Elder Ballard when this same question was asked. Elder Ballard confirmed the same stance that he had confirmed and then in strong tones stated, "BUT YOU SHOW ME TWO PARENTS THAT DRINK DECAFFEINATED COFFEE AND I'LL SHOW YOU TWO PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN DRINK REGULAR COFFEE."

Now my point for the third time. It is not about the mistakes or errors that may have been made in the course of a telestial organization that now operates as the church. It is about what we teach in addition to the point we think we are making. Not a one of you who undermine, chastise or correct church leaders or cop out to the "prophet is only a prophet" statement as you share your enlightened opinions to your children, friends and ward members will ever find one good thing that comes from your version of "enlightenment" and "truth".

Form whatever opinions you will, share them if you must, but do so in a way that never undermines the gospel or those who represent it. Then when the day comes where yours, your children's, friends and others encounter their crisis of faith, you can boldly stand and with true conviction state that these are true representatives of Jesus Christ and that by giving heed to their counsel and teachings they will lead in the way of life and salvation. There is limited ability for the spirit to confirm your testimony if to you it is not rock solid and brooks no whisperings of Satan that they are fallible and prone to speak out of turn.

You make some very valid points here, and I agree with you.

[SamIam]

You make some very valid points here, and I agree with you.

Hey, what do you know - three is the charm. I appreciate that you took a moment to hear the message. Thank you.

[BCSpace]

Not to argue either side of the issue but just make an observation equally applicable to both sides. A multitude that is in error is just as much in error as one who is alone in his error.

And that would be the purpose of discussion, to find the errors.

[BCSpace]

Now in conclusion: It is my conviction that to the degree the theory of evolution asserts that man is the product of an evolutionary process, the offspring of animals—it is false! What application the evolutionary theory has to animals gives me no concern. That is another question entirely, one to be pursued by science. But remember, the scriptures speak of the spirit in animals and other living things, and of each multiplying after its own kind (D&C 77:2; 2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 3:9; Abr 4:11–12, 24).

Boyd K. Packer The Law and the Light

I like the Boyd K. Packer material because it provides the second witness to the oft discounted perspective that Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith championed. I consider it hugely telling when people will discount one witness let alone two or three of the handful of people that have walked the earth that have the right to be the mouthpiece of God. Especially about a subject of such vague understanding on both sides of the debate. We are not so much choosing truth here as much we are choosing sides. There is simply inadequate information to say definitively one way or the other. However, I can only feel safety in sustaining the leaders of the church. I will add that this was not an academic process for me to come to these conclusions. I have pondered them and sought understanding spiritually over these matters. I still do not know the nuts and bolts of creation adequate to answer these difficult speculations but I do know that the spirit has never wavered - stand behind the brethren and you will do fine.

The problem here is that BKP is not addressing Evolution at all but rather the false notion that Evolution speaks to the existence/non existence of God and His involvement in the creation. All evolution speaks to is the creation of our physical bodies which the Church has no specific doctrine on as to what that process was.

This speaks to one of my main points that those, even some apostles, who are speaking against Evolution, do not seem to understand what Evolution is. Take Russel M Nelson's answer to the Pew Forum interview:

The church has said it neither promotes nor opposes capital punishment. It says it "opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience." It does not oppose removing a medical patient from "artificial means of life support." Different denominations deal differently with questions about life's origins and development. Conservative denominations tend to have more trouble with Darwinian evolution. Does the church have an official position on this topic?

Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It's interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.

Why is that?

Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It's just the way genetics works.

Wickman: The Scripture describing the Lord as the creator of all of these things says very little about how it was done. I don't know of anybody in the ranks of the First Presidency and the Twelve [Apostles] who has ever spent much time worrying about this matter of evolution.

Nelson: We have this doctrine, recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101: "When the Lord shall come again, he shall reveal all things, things which have passed, hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth by which it was made and the purpose and the end thereof, things most precious, things that are above, things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, upon the earth, and in heaven." So as I close that quotation, I realize that there are just some things that we won't know until that day.

http://www.pewforum....ge.aspx?id=3838

Yet Evolution does not claim at any point that one species gives birth to or suddenly morphs into another species. Nice play by Elder Wickman to save Nelson from further error btw. And nice save by Elder Nelson to bring it back to the actual doctrine that there is no doctrine on the matter, that we really don't have any revealed details to say it's one or the other.

But...Elder Nelson in a recent Conference, still took a jab at Evolution with a statement about how things were not created randomly. Again, this erroneously supposes that Evolution speaks to the existence of God and his hand in the Creation. Of course he is safe because he never mentioned Evolution, but you know what he meant because of his past. However, as I describe in the post below, I think he is constrained by the 1931 statement.

Edited June 9, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

A daring prophecy which I predict will turn out to be false. For several reasons:

1) I've never heard an apostle or prophet who was specifically opposed to evolution accurately describe evolution. What they are in opposition to are some atheist conclusions about evolution which are also false. A modern example would be Russel M Nelson having to be corrected by his junior companion during the Pew interview. This is also to imply there are or were those who didn't oppose it and even defended it (some were neutral). James E Talmadge, David O. McKay, SWK, GBH, etc.

2) BRM himself essentially, though non doctrinally, admitted that perhaps it was possible to reconcile doctrine with evolution though he himself couldn't see how. That is in his Seven Deadly Heresies Speech.

3) Apostle Ezra Taft Benson gave a stirring Conference talk about the BoM (not mentioning the sealed portion though) in the 1970's; that it was good for combating all sorts of false notions including evolution. However, he repeated this same talk in Conference in the 80's but left evolution off the list.

4) In this very reference you give, BRM also mentions D&C 77:6, the published doctrine on which is a prime indicator that evolution might indeed be possible within the LDS context.

It is disappointing to see something like this published for Seminary teachers and it shows that the conflict within the Church hierarchy about evolution is alive and well even after the HJG first presidency statement. The debate cooled down for awhile especially under David O McKay when he had to clean up after BRM's outspoken views. There are a few who try to resurrect it from time to time. BRM of course continued to be outspoken about it when he could after DoM's death and we see some ripples from that. There was a GA, a Geology professor iirc, who in an Ensign article in the 1990's stated that evolution conflicted with the laws of thermodynamics. This of course has been proven false. Etc.

I've taught my children my views on this and they seem to believe them. We've had several good conversations in Seminary when they've brought it up and the teacher was opposed to evolution and we always ultimately came to the conclusion, at least on the surface, that accepting evolution and LDS doctrine at the same time presented no conflict. In my own case when I was a youth, I spoke up for evolution in the Teacher's quorum and was hauled before the Bishop (who I think merely wanted to convince me of the error of my ways) who then received a call from the Stake President (because of my Dad) who told him to stand down because evolution was not in conflict with the doctrines of the Church. That was more than 30 years ago.

It's been an interesting subject. Hopefully not too much of a Gospel Hobby, but one I enjoy discussing and debating very much. I speak up on it in Church from time to time, usually in answer to someone else who voices their opposition to it.

Regardless of your personal views on the subject it surprises me that when you speak upon the subject from "time to time" that you teach something completely outside of the only official doctrinal statements of the First Presidency.

I disagree. For example, when I speak up against someone claiming that Evolution is false in the LDS context, I am correcting them as to the Church's actual position which is that it has no doctrine for or against Evolution. I often bring up the 1931 statement as an example and other teachings of the apostles and prophets as well as the scriptures. I don't ever say that Creationism is wrong in the LDS context, I merely emphasize that Evolution isn't wrong either.

If there is anything that we as Bishops learn from the get go....

So as not to create too much of a logical fallacy based on my own calling in the Church (Example: I am a...fill in the blank...and therefore my word must be true), I will only say that I also give TR interviews which gives you six callings to choose from that are most likely and a few others which are unlikely.

It is okay to go into the meeting disagreeing with the stake presidents viewpoint behind closed doors but when you leave his viewpoint is yours or .... you don't serve much longer.

Usually the same with a GA. But interestingly enough, I still am not released.

I can absolutely see no difference in this and this is truly "disappointing" The official doctrine of the church is clearly stated and has never been retracted. Until the day it is retracted I would be playing on the team that knows the proper way to support the doctrine of the church over personal opinions.

The statement in no way invalidates evolution in the LDS context. If it did, it would be in conflict with other statements to which I have referred. Rather notice the context which is "as it is taught in the halls of academia". That teaching often includes many false and unscientific notions just as the private opinions of some apostles do. And while I would certainly grant that BRM is speaking of the theory of evolution itself, it is interesting to note that he has to contextualize it that way rather than merely saying "Evolution". I'd be willing to bet he, like his mentor Joseph Fielding Smith, still felt the sting of the 1931 statement and the correction by the prophet David O. McKay which seems so far to virtually ensure that he and others of similar opinion to have to be very careful about what they say on the subject.

Consider also another part of that same statement by BRM:

For another, they will set forth an entirely different concept and time frame of the creation, both of this earth and all forms of life and of the sidereal heavens themselves, than is postulated in all the theories of men.

This is in direct conflict with other currently published official LDS doctrine which has been around since BEFORE BRM made his statement:

While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77–79), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable.

http://www.lds.org/m...is-1-2?lang=eng

So it's not the possible implications against Evolution that disappoint me. It's the blatant conflict with other more generally available and publically visible doctrine on the matter that does. It's not surprising to me that this comes from an obscure seminary teacher's supplement. IMHO, CES has long been a refuge and a holdout for doctrinal refugees from the Fielding-McConkie era. But charitably, perhaps it was the best they had on sealed books and sealed portions of the BoM at the time. I certainly won't judge too harshly because of the mistakes of men which have obviously occurred here because we have multiple conflicts.

Edited June 9, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

The church has no official position on evolution. See link:

http://www.deseretne...nds.html?pg=all

Yes they do. See this link:

http://www.lds.org/e...of-man?lang=eng

This is a statement signed by the entire First Presidency in 1909, and reprinted in the Ensign in 2002. The introduction for the reprint notes that the statement "expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters."

Of course we've yet to see cinepro highlight the portion of the 1909 statement which somehow invalidates Evolution in the LDS context. I think the best he can do is a rather neutral sounding phrase about the theories of men. All the 1909 statement does is set forth LDS doctrine and does not specifically address the rightness or wrongness of the theory of Evolution.

The 1909 statement was the genesis of the debate between Roberts/Talmadge and JFS which finally culminated in the 1931 First Presidency statement:

After receipt of this latter communication the Presidency carefully reviewed the papers which had been submitted to the Council of the Twelve, and after prayerful consideration decided that nothing would be gained by a continuation of the discussion of the subject under consideration.

The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.

[omni]

As it pertains to the subject of the OP and pre-Adamites, which has always been the sticking point and which is the issue clearly publicly opposed by the First Presidency and certainly one we can clearly accept as a foundational expectation of evolution your article states the following:

Thus once again we are back to the point I have been making all along. Evolution is not the point but how you sustain the church and it's leaders is far more an indicator of an individuals allegiance in the overall big scheme of things. Even though one might disagree with them, we should not publicly espouse such for its faith weakening impact. Thus it is woefully inappropriate to discredit Bruce R McConkie and the others for the fact that once you convince your children they were wrong on this subject it is so much easier for them to take it to the next level that they were wrong all together. Best to take the "memo" approach and sustain the "we can't be sure" or "we don't know enough" and properly preserve the image than sully it with unproveable personal opinions. People who do such often rue their choice in the next generation.

Elder Packer...is that you?

[SamIam]

The problem here is that BKP is not addressing Evolution at all but rather the false notion that Evolution speaks to the existence/non existence of God and His involvement in the creation. All evolution speaks to is the creation of our physical bodies which the Church has no specific doctrine on as to what that process was.

This speaks to one of my main points that those, even some apostles, who are speaking against Evolution, do not seem to understand what Evolution is. Take Russel M Nelson's answer to the Pew Forum interview:

Yet Evolution does not claim at any point that one species gives birth to or suddenly morphs into another species. Nice play by Elder Wickman to save Nelson from further error btw. And nice save by Elder Nelson to bring it back to the actual doctrine that there is no doctrine on the matter, that we really don't have any revealed details to say it's one or the other.

But...Elder Nelson in a recent Conference, still took a jab at Evolution with a statement about how things were not created randomly. Again, this erroneously supposes that Evolution speaks to the existence of God and his hand in the Creation. Of course he is safe because he never mentioned Evolution, but you know what he meant because of his past. However, as I describe in the post below, I think he is constrained by the 1931 statement.

You are correct the Elder Packer is not specific addressing evolution. However, he nails on the head the point of this discussion based on the OP. Which same point is generally accepted as a specific tenet of the theory of evolution to most of our understanding.

Why don't you give us a paragraph or 2 of what evolution really is from your perspective and how that differentiates from a theory that man is descended from a progressively advancing life model. It perhaps would help me know the point on which we disagree.

Edited June 9, 2013 by SamIam

[mfbukowski]

Genetic testing of human fossils provides strong evidense that the races of the Earth that we have today were tens of thousands of years in the making. Human evolutionary biologists are now able to date these fossil remains because genetic mutations that spawn evolutionay changes have occured at a very consistant rate. So if God did create Adam and Eve however long ago, he would have had to have given them a genome variation that matches the same percentage of differences from us to Adam and Eve, as their most recent predessesors in human form as if they never went extinct. Why would God choose to make this genetic rate of change back to them appear constant as if Adam and Eve were not really the first human ancestors of us. I find it had to beleive that God would make it appear this way a if to test our faith or something. I dont beleive that the story of Adam and Eve is really anything more than legend. Are there any spin doctors here that would like to add any remarks?

Yes I would.

Read some previous threads.

[SamIam]

Elder Packer...is that you?

Well, you've just got to know that I take that as a supreme compliment. Would that it were more true.

[mfbukowski]

Of coarse we do not have Adam and Eves DNA to test, but is our ancestors from 5000 years ago vary from our own by .005 percent, and our DNA from our ancestors from 50000 years ago vary by .05 percent, and our ancestors from 500000 years ago vary from our own by .5 percent, then something is amiss with our commonly held views of the Adam and Eve origins of mankind.

You are obviously too smart and educated for us for us country bumpkins to take on. Woe is me- what shall we do?

[SamIam]

I disagree. For example, when I speak up against someone claiming that Evolution is false in the LDS context, I am correcting them as to the Church's actual position which is that it has no doctrine for or against Evolution. I often bring up the 1931 statement as an example and other teachings of the apostles and prophets as well as the scriptures. I don't ever say that Creationism is wrong in the LDS context, I merely emphasize that Evolution isn't wrong either.

Again the OP is not evolution per se. However, let's come at this through the back door. Can you think of any other single concept that has been taught amongst men, that though it may have points of truth, has had the probable effect of turning more of the population of earth away from God and Jesus Christ and or undermining their actuality than the theory of evolution? Not in terms of measurable numbers but simply an honest appraisal of the over all impact which initiates from this theory and permeates everything that flows from it. Has it benefited mankind or has it damaged mankind?

[mfbukowski]

Your position is far more readily discerned from this response and I can see no conflict with your perspective and my own.

That's good to know. I was trying to make my positions simple and clearer for people who were not educated in matters like anti-realism and ended up making my positions less clear while trying to make them simpler.

Go figure.

[Questing Beast]

This is the best example yet provided for why it is very important to differentiate between truth and error and where our allegiances should lie concerning things such as the OP. One step leads to the next step leads to the next and pretty soon soulless Pre-Adamites become the ancestors of fictional characters represented as Adam and Eve and finally Jesus Christ becomes a myth. If the clarity of my stance makes it clear to everyone that I am as far away as conceivably possible from this type of perspective then I feel better already.

Those who tend to disagree with correct scriptural foundations and discredit their leaders in regards to Pre-Adamites set the stage to find other concepts that they disagree on with the brethren. Until finally we have sacrificed the power of their testimonies of Jesus Christ to have the proper influence on our weakened sustainment of God's chosen servants until their pleas calling us to Christ fade away in the din of the crowd.

Ooo! I like being a "best example" of something. It's so rare.

Your religious faith is your province. My religious faith is mine. So it is with everyone. However, a life can be mapped, we can all observe how others live and we inevitably make judgments on how "good" they are based on the acts that define their lives in our midst. That does not, at any point, allow us to make judgments on what is going on inside their minds. "Good" acts are obvious. So are "bad" acts. We have clear definitions of what they are. Mostly, though, acts are pretty much neutral, even appearing to be largely thoughtless.

That paragraph leads to this assertion: religion to you is not the same as it is to me. Just because Jesus Christ is a "myth" to me does not mean his story is not scripture. I consider any and all inspirational literature as scripture, because it tends to improve the reader, which persuades them "to do good", which means it is of God. Does all good literature persuade to a belief in Jesus Christ? No, because not all literature is concerned with Jesus Christ, but inspirational literature does persuade to do good, so it is of God. Does the Bible fail to be consistent on many points? Yes. Does inconsistency encourage belief in Jesus Christ? No, inconsistency does not persuade belief in Jesus Christ. Is the Bible to be taken warts and all? Yes, humans can only make things with "warts", so that's the best we will ever have.

Just because I see imperfections is not the reason why I have unbelief in Jesus Christ as a historical person as presented within Christianity.

I have unbelief because Christianity ultimately does not make sense to me. I would not do it that way if I were "God". Much about it offends my sense of justice, and I believe that "God" is Infinitely more just than I will ever be. I believe that Christianity is justified of all her children as long as Christians are taught and practice being well behaved.

Those who use their religion to pound on others not exactly fitting their religious world paradigm of "truth" are misusing religion, as the worst among us always have.

I warned my children who attended BYU, as they left home for university life: "You will find the best and the worst people at that place, proceed with caution"....

[Questing Beast]

...

Now my point for the third time. It is not about the mistakes or errors that may have been made in the course of a telestial organization that now operates as the church. It is about what we teach in addition to the point we think we are making. Not a one of you who undermine, chastise or correct church leaders or cop out to the "prophet is only a prophet" statement as you share your enlightened opinions to your children, friends and ward members will ever find one good thing that comes from your version of "enlightenment" and "truth".

Form whatever opinions you will, share them if you must, but do so in a way that never undermines the gospel or those who represent it. Then when the day comes where yours, your children's, friends and others encounter their crisis of faith, you can boldly stand and with true conviction state that these are true representatives of Jesus Christ and that by giving heed to their counsel and teachings they will lead in the way of life and salvation. There is limited ability for the spirit to confirm your testimony if to you it is not rock solid and brooks no whisperings of Satan that they are fallible and prone to speak out of turn.

I don't undermine the gospel or those who "represent it". That's because I am not critical of what other people believe and teach. Well, I make exception for pure BS and agenda-driven drivel. But the leaders of the LDS faith are not like that, quite opposite in fact. I never put down anyone who is, imho, doing their best to make the world better. There are countless ways to go about it. Mormonism is one of the best dogmatically organized religions. But something like three quarters of the human race don't seem to need dogma much if at all in order to behave themselves toward one another, i.e. that many of us don't associate in regularized religions at all....

[SamIam]

There is a history of LDS interpretation on the topic, with larger social trends and, social contexts, opposing interpretations, and trends over time. David Bailey is very good on this for people who prefer to go beyond twitter levels of understanding, and the supposition that quoting one's favored authority tells the whole story, with the succintness of the bumper sticker that says, "God said it, I believe it, that settles" as though interpretation is not a variable worth pondering.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/

Another layer of this debate happens with personality type. People of SJ temperament tend be traditionalists, having things closed and decided. They also tend to be the best administrators. But our scriptures provide long lists of diverse spiritual gifts, and administration is not the only gift out out there. We're told that no one has all the gifts, and knowledge is also a gift, and we are commended to seek the best gifts. And as Joseph Smith said, "It don't prove that a man is a bad man because he believes false doctrine." I can think of some very good men with whom I disagree, and am thankful that Joseph Smith wants me to be comfortable with that difference.

Another aspect of difference happens along the Perry Scheme. At position 2 of 9, for instance, people tend to depend heavily on favored authorities as a way of dealing with complexity.

And of course, there is the problem of using non-scriptural opinions from favored personalities as proof texts in light of the way D&C 1 cautions interested readers on what to expect. Some people prefer to deal with complexity by appealing to authority, as though their authorities are like a black box, the hidden inner workings of which contain some secret understanding and infallibility.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Kevin - you are polite to a fault and carefully navigate these treacherous waters with tact and diplomacy. However, I have to read three times as carefully and frequently and then presume upon which parts refer to this person or that person. Thus I am inclined to opine that diplomacy is not the best form of communication. Feel free to bust loose and let it all hang out and let your inner archer aim for the bullseye on my forehead and then I won't have to guess as much.

Since I have been most adamant and orthodox in my interpretation I tend to think that at least the first paragraph represents your perceptions of my attitude. If so then I think you as well are missing the picture of the grander scheme of things that I am trying to point out.

[SamIam]

I don't undermine the gospel or those who "represent it". That's because I am not critical of what other people believe and teach. Well, I make exception for pure BS and agenda-driven drivel. But the leaders of the LDS faith are not like that, quite opposite in fact. I never put down anyone who is, imho, doing their best to make the world better. There are countless ways to go about it. Mormonism is one of the best dogmatically organized religions. But something like three quarters of the human race don't seem to need dogma much if at all in order to behave themselves toward one another, i.e. that many of us don't associate in regularized religions at all....

We are all happy to behave when things are okay, our mouths are fed and we have a place to lay our heads at night. If things went down hill and food and shelter was scarce how many days would it take until your three quarters ceased to behave themselves one to another?

[Stone holm]

There is a history of LDS interpretation on the topic, with larger social trends and, social contexts, opposing interpretations, and trends over time. David Bailey is very good on this for people who prefer to go beyond twitter levels of understanding, and the supposition that quoting one's favored authority tells the whole story, with the succintness of the bumper sticker that says, "God said it, I believe it, that settles" as though interpretation is not a variable worth pondering.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/

Another layer of this debate happens with personality type. People of SJ temperament tend be traditionalists, having things closed and decided. They also tend to be the best administrators. But our scriptures provide long lists of diverse spiritual gifts, and administration is not the only gift out out there. We're told that no one has all the gifts, and knowledge is also a gift, and we are commended to seek the best gifts. And as Joseph Smith said, "It don't prove that a man is a bad man because he believes false doctrine." I can think of some very good men with whom I disagree, and am thankful that Joseph Smith wants me to be comfortable with that difference.

Another aspect of difference happens along the Perry Scheme. At position 2 of 9, for instance, people tend to depend heavily on favored authorities as a way of dealing with complexity.

And of course, there is the problem of using non-scriptural opinions from favored personalities as proof texts in light of the way D&C 1 cautions interested readers on what to expect. Some people prefer to deal with complexity by appealing to authority, as though their authorities are like a black box, the hidden inner workings of which contain some secret understanding and infallibility.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I actually didn't intend for this topic to turn into a bashing of several General Authorities, living and dead, but it seems to have evolved in that direction. First, my feeling has always been that unlike some early 20th Century politicians, I have never felt the necessity to choose between The Rock of Ages and the age of rocks. I think the science behind the age of rocks and the Scriptures are perfectly compatable without having to throw modern geology out the window. Further, as to how plant and animal life developed I don't see any real reason why evolution wasn't a tool in God's toolkit. When you have certain parameters set by climate, gravity, etc. and you trigger certain things evolution, I suspect when studied in creation after creation, tends to follow certain pathways kind of like when you put certain ingredients together in a pan and put it in the oven you get a cake. I see no basis for this idea that you cannot evolve from one species to another, and it certainly isn't good science. The question then about pre-Adamites is, one did something we might call a hominid, but not a human once exist on the planet. The fossil evidence certainly suggests that such did. The question then is what is their relationship to humankind, in particular Adam. Its this last jump that starts to get dicey.

We show a very, very strong similarity physically to animals in our anatomy. Scientifically, there is increasing evidence that animals -- in particular mammals may have a greater mental similarity to us than we once thought, so the idea that there were once great apes roaming the planet which were much more similar to us than the ones that have survived is not exactly fantastic. Given modern human's tendency towards racism -- its not at all surprising that such would have been exterminated by humans whenever they came in contact. Although the current cutting edge of genetics suggests that at least the first modern humans to encounter such hominids, specifically the Neanderthal, may have made love not war.

Now, then perhaps the term pre-Adamites is unfortunate, because it suggests that these hominids were the direct ancestors of Adam. At this point, I do think we have a conflict between our doctrine and the idea that Adam was the offspring of these hominids. Here I believe that our doctrine leads us to the conclusion that as far as this Earth is concerned, Adam and later Eve were placed here. Further, that there is something different between that primal pair and the rest of the animal kingdom, I would suggest that this primal difference is two-fold: 1) that they were the literal offspring of Heavenly Parents born into a non-mortal state (unlike Christ who was the offspring of Heavenly Father and a Mortal woman hence the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the Flesh); and 2) that there was some kind of physical reaction (as well as spiritual reaction) which occurred when they partook of the tree. Now it is possible, that something additional occurred when they were cast out of the Garden of Eden, either they changed the rest of the planet, or the rest of the planet had been evolving on its own and the Garden of Eden just vanishes.

As to General Authorities. The best that can be said is that with regards to evolution except for that last jump from the hominids to humans, they are all over the place. And yes, I do believe that some GAs have strongly held personal opinions that wind up in their talks and writings which may not be exactly correct. I find Boyd K. Packer extremely refreshing, because when you ask him a question he will give you his straight out honest opinion without sugar coating it or putting a bunch of PR dressing over it. He has strong opinions and is not afraid of stating them. As a result he is also at times a public relations nightmare, or as Dalin Oakes put it, he is like trying to stage manage a grizzly bear. I love him for it, I also careful study what he says to see if he by chance has gone off on a personal opinion tour -- in my humble opinion, on certain topics he does seem to do that. I was asked if I would discount what Bruce R. McConkie has written, and I responded, "absolutely". Again, Bruce R. McConkie was a much beloved Apostle and a prolific writer, he also held personal opinions and published them. He also appears to have been repeatedly nudged to change his writings in particularly the unfortunately named "Mormon Doctrine" which most would concede was riddled with errors. But for those who lean towards literalism and a tendency to think light of science, he was a favorite author. As to Prophets, if you put some of the writings of Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith up side by side and compare what they had to say about the Creation, you might begin to wonder if they belonged to the same church, but they did. One might also suspect that that Joseph Fielding Smith would have been the earlier prophet since he is more difficult to reconcile with modern science than Brigham Young on some issues pertaining to the creation.

So there you are have at it. But there is no cause to say that somebody is less spiritual, or less doctrinally knowledgeable than another because of their views on evolution -- because truth is the doctrine is pretty confusingly muddied.

[Questing Beast]

Again the OP is not evolution per se. However, let's come at this through the back door. Can you think of any other single concept that has been taught amongst men, that though it may have points of truth, has had the probable effect of turning more of the population of earth away from God and Jesus Christ and or undermining their actuality than the theory of evolution? Not in terms of measurable numbers but simply an honest appraisal of the over all impact which initiates from this theory and permeates everything that flows from it. Has it benefited mankind or has it damaged mankind?

Benefited. People actually think that there is truth in the scientific method and see it as complementary to their religious stance. Before it was instantly held in conflict with religion, but that was an error in perception that is still being done away.

I do not see atheists as a demographic inferior morally to religious people. I do not see religious people as more enlightened in their ideas on how to live responsibly. Your opinion will no doubt differ. If you consider the increase in personal religion over the dogmatic and organized kind for the masses as damage to mankind we disagree: I believe that individual religion must trump dogma as passed down the ages. As long as anyone's personal religion causes them to do good, that is what any religion is for....

[Questing Beast]

We are all happy to behave when things are okay, our mouths are fed and we have a place to lay our heads at night. If things went down hill and food and shelter was scarce how many days would it take until your three quarters ceased to behave themselves one to another?

Oh, so it's only the openly "religious" among us who would remain "civilized", right? Human beings don't divide along dogmatic religious lines. Virtually everyone in the fourteenth century was "religious", openly so as well. When the Hundred Years War came, followed soon after by the Black Death, and Europe's population literally dropped by c. a half in the next fifty years, who was it that picked up the pieces? It wasn't the Roman Catholic Church, that's for sure. The RCC took a fatal hit during the second half of the fourteenth century, by being incapable of explaining why "God" was so angry at everyone, punishing the just along with the unjust. The dogma doesn't make sense and it never did. People turned to themselves to find answers. A while later they started to "publish" their answers as science. Did such people turn away from God? Mostly they did not. Some simply ignored the question of God and lived as they had always done, for the main part doing no harm to any....