canard78 Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 cinepro: The question wasn't for an Official LDS Source. I provided an LDS Source. More to the point there has never been unanimous agreement among the Brethren on the subject of Evolution. Without which there is no doctrine.http://biology.byu.edu/DepartmentInfo/EvolutionandtheOriginofMan.aspx In case of any uncertainty in my initial post I meant an official source. I couldn't use EOM as a credible source with many of the people I know. But thanks all the same for the EOM reference. Even that was fairly ambiguous.
omni Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I can understand why people don't want to believe the Church takes that position, but it remains endlessly interesting (and entertaining!) to me to see how they convince themselves it isn't the case. I mean, when you look at what President Hinckley, President Packer, Elder Nelson and others have said recently and in official LDS talks and publications, it is astounding that there is any confusion on the issue. I can understand how they convince themselves it isn't the case, since I used to do the same thing myself. Looking back at it now I realize it was wishful thinking on my part.
omni Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Incorrect. Evolution merely addresses the physical body of man and not the gospel definition of man (body and spirit). In addition, did you notice the context of the 1909 statement? This is a 'like produces like' argument which evolution also teaches. So it's not really evolution the Church has a problem with, it's an atheist conclusion about evolution the Church has a problem with. Unfortunately, some in the Church, including some in it's top leadership, Russel M. Nelson, confuse the two (such as when Nelson argued to Pew Research that 'dogs have always been dogs and cats have always been cats'). However, they continue to be restrained as evidenced by Nelson himself taking long distance pot shots in Conference but missing the mark completely. Steadying the ark and speaking ill of the Lord's annointed in one post? I must say I'm thoroughly disappointed.
omni Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Perhaps one day the Church will officially acknowledge the possibility that there was physical death before Adam's Fall, but until they do, we'll just have to maintain the status quo of two different groups of thought co-existing in the Church, each thinking the other is crazy. Based on what we've seen from the essays so far, I think you could very well be proven correct in the coming months.
thesometimesaint Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 In case of any uncertainty in my initial post I meant an official source. I couldn't use EOM as a credible source with many of the people I know. But thanks all the same for the EOM reference. Even that was fairly ambiguous. The Official source is ambiguous, and so is the EoM. The Leadership has had a difficult time resolving age old false belief of a 6000 year old year earth and the science of a multibillion year old one.http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds/lds-history-evolution.php They talk about two fundamentally different things. One being the physical creation of us and our world, and the other spiritual creation of religious man. I see no way at present to reconcile the two ideas. So I believe the best answer so far is found in the BYU packet on Evolution. Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,"Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the soul of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church...."
theplains Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 There is also the recently reiterated (p.280) teaching that Adam's fall took place around 4,000BC (or 6,000 years ago). Even this simple teaching totally contradicts fast amounts of knowledge in several fields of science dealing with the history of the Earth and humans. "Invite a student to read Doctrine and Covenants 77:6–7 aloud. Ask the class to follow along,looking for Joseph Smith’s questions about Revelation 5:1, as well as the Lord’s responses.(It may be helpful to explain that the 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adamand Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation.)" Sounds like the scientists are ignoring the fall of Adam and are looking at the larger timeframe instead. Regards,Jim
KevinG Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 President Grant has something to say about this debate a while back... http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution "Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931]."
Recommended Posts