DaddyB Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 I suspect most of them dont believe evolution and side with current revelation on the matter.Pres. Hinckley summed up the current revelation on the matter when he said, "what the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest."I have read contemplated much about this topic and there are ways to fit most of the theories involved in evolution into what we know from revelation. I see no reason to suspect that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will ever change its position on such scientific areas of exploration.
Rob Osborn Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Pres. Hinckley summed up the current revelation on the matter when he said, "what the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest." I have read contemplated much about this topic and there are ways to fit most of the theories involved in evolution into what we know from revelation. I see no reason to suspect that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will ever change its position on such scientific areas of exploration. Revealed doctrie is that man is not the result of a lower order of animal evolution. We apply the above statement to this and there you go.
ERayR Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Your welcome, but the Theory of Evolution does not contradict the doctrine of the church, that is why General Authorities are not worried You know this how? I always thought clairvoyance would be nice.
ERayR Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Pres. Hinckley summed up the current revelation on the matter when he said, "what the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest."I have read contemplated much about this topic and there are ways to fit most of the theories involved in evolution into what we know from revelation. I see no reason to suspect that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will ever change its position on such scientific areas of exploration. For me it is pretty hard to fit the concept of a fall in there as macro-evolution is going the other way.
3DOP Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 Hi Rivers, You asked my take on evolution. I earlier cited the necessity for Catholics to believe that we all came from one set of parents. I don't believe most evolutionary models allow for such a phenomenon. God chose two apes to become Adam and Eve? No? It is even worse if God chose two humans. What about the other humans? Where did they go? What happened to them? Who or what are their children? Human history doesn't go back very far. That is my argument for a recent creation. I don't believe in humans that were so backwards that they couldn't make their history known to us...for hundreds and thousands of years. But that's my take. I don't say that anybody has to agree. 1
Rivers Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 Oh boy. Another evolution thread. I think I am officially burned out by this topic. I wonder if the church will ever address this topic in one of the new essays seeing that it causes so much contention.
Boanerges Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 Oh boy. Another evolution thread. I think I am officially burned out by this topic. I wonder if the church will ever address this topic in one of the new essays seeing that it causes so much contention.I have wondered this, too. Guess we'll have to wait and see. I like the essays, and one on evolution or just Adam and Eve would be great. I'm not sure it fits with the themes of the others, but it certainly could.
Rivers Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) I could see the church putting out an essay on science in general. They could call it The Gospel and Science. I think this would fit very well with the others. Edited October 31, 2014 by Rivers 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Here is the fossils evidence for human evolution. Please do not respond with an ad hominem argument, and please see the full video. Please respond to the details Edited October 31, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Sevenbak Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 In a few more years the prophet of our church is going to say the same thing.Maybe if you start one more thread about it, he just might. MADB is essential reading for the correlation commitee, don't ya know...
MormonFreeThinker Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 Maybe if you start one more thread about it, he just might. MADB is essential reading for the correlation commitee, don't ya know... i can't talk about evolution in sacrament meeting, i have no where else to go to talk to fellow LDS.
Tacenda Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) MFT, I watched clear through the video, but I wasn't convinced that humans were apes once, why couldn't God had just put similar bone structure on both humans and chimps etc? But for some strange reason my mind has changed a little, maybe going backwards? After viewing this video! Because I was on board with evolution of some kind.Side note, in HS I had a teacher that walked and portrayed the stance of an ape on two feet while presenting the same theory as this video. Why didn't this video convince me, especially when I had been close to believing before? What did it prove? Not trying to be disagreeable in the least. But truly do want you to point out the blaring evidence that didn't come clear to my fuzzy mind. Edited October 31, 2014 by Tacenda 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) MFT, I watched clear through the video, but I wasn't convinced that humans were apes once, why couldn't God had just put similar bone structure on both humans and chimps etc? The video was talking about bipedal apes (not chimps). DNA evidence proves evolution. Like that video said, why would God create too many similarities like that if evolution was not true? Does that mean that nothing well ever convince you that evolution is true? Edited October 31, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Sevenbak Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 i can't talk about evolution in sacrament meeting.Take a hint, there's a clue there.
MormonFreeThinker Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Take a hint, there's a clue there. because it is not official doctrine, I agree, it is science. Science has revealed that Evolution is true. Science is not philosophy Edited October 31, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Stone holm Posted November 2, 2014 Author Posted November 2, 2014 I thought the Church previously addressed it in the Handbook of Instructions by saying it didn't apply to Adam and Eve, but the rest was fair game. My point about Pope Francis was the magic wand reference. There seems to be this need among some for God not to follow any of the natural laws or physics, which seems very out of place in a Church which believes God's House is a house of order, and where we follow a plan, etc
Teancum Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 Your welcome, but the Theory of Evolution does not contradict the doctrine of the church, that is why General Authorities are not worried http://www.pewforum.org/2007/05/16/in-focus-mormonism-in-modern-america/ In a rare interview, Russell M. Nelson, a member of the church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, recently talked with the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life about the church’s role in American society. Lance B. Wickman, the church’s general counsel, joined him in the telephone interview from the denomination’s headquarters. 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.I am not an expert on evolution but from what I know it seems to me Nelson's stqtements above do discrete with th theory of evolution. It posits that we species did evolve from other species including humans.I recommend the book Your Inner Fish:http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453
Teancum Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 Revealed doctrie is that man is not the result of a lower order of animal evolution. We apply the above statement to this and there you go.Revealed doctrine is then in error, That seems problematics now doesn't it?
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 Revealed doctrine is then in error, That seems problematics now doesn't it? Just Robs version of it. 1
Teancum Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 Just Robs version of it.Is Rob's version an inaccurate portrayal?
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 Is Rob's version an inaccurate portrayal? Yes.
Teancum Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) Yes.How so?Does the church accept that man is a product of organic evolution? Edited November 2, 2014 by Teancum
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 How so?Does the church accept that man is a product of organic evolution? The Church takes no position on evolution. Individual members are free to believe whatever they want about evolution. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MORMONISM EVOLUTIONThe position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity.... Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of 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....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, April 7, 1931].
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 How so?Does the church accept that man is a product of organic evolution? No, the church does not have an official position. "What the church requires is only belief that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race" Gordon B. Hinckley in 2002; cited in Elaine Jarvik, "Beliefs on Darwin's evolution vary from religion to religion," Deseret Morning News (19 January 2006).
Teancum Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 No, the church does not have an official position. "What the church requires is only belief that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race" Gordon B. Hinckley in 2002; cited in Elaine Jarvik, "Beliefs on Darwin's evolution vary from religion to religion," Deseret Morning News (19 January 2006).Does the theory of the evolution of humans support there being one man and one woman that we are all (all 7 billion of u) descendants of as little as 6000 years ago?This seems problematic when taking evolution into account as does the Bible teaching of the flood and Noah and really all of us descending from 8 persons maybe 4000 years ago.
Recommended Posts