Proof That The Church Loves Irony

[jwhitlock]

 

Apologists have long explained any LDS statements against their theory of choice by slicing and dicing the words into pickle relish, as if the person speaking really intended to convey some obscure meaning by pretending to say something different. 

 

As with so many other things, I suspect Elder Nelson used the words he used only because it never occurred to him that someone who speaks English could misunderstand him.  Does anyone really think these are the words of someone who believes the idea (or is open to it) that all animals on Earth (including humans) evolved from a common ancestor?

 

Strawman cheap shot at apologists.

 

Elder Nelson's observation is more credible than the assumptions (golly, that word was used an awful lot in the article) some scientists work from. Must be a matter of faith to them.

 

Of course, we're left with the first life form swimming in the frothy primordial seas, and an inability to explain exactly how it got there, or why we can't recreate something so simple in a controlled lab environment, or how it didn't mutate itself out of existence before it could evolve to the next level.

 

Or maybe those questions aren't really that important to Scientific Truth, as explained to us by white coated laboratory oracles and accepted uncritically by those who are otherwise cynical about religion.

 

My take is that Elder Nelson's original complete quote really is applicable here: 

 

"There is no conflict between science and religion. Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both"

[cinepro]

Strawman cheap shot at apologists.

 

 

Just to be clear, if you believe that Elder Nelson was actually saying he disbelieves in the theory of common descent, then you would be agreeing that the attempt to "interpret" his words as meaning something different was erroneous and agreeing with my "shot at apologists".

[jwhitlock]

Just to be clear, if you believe that Elder Nelson was actually saying he disbelieves in the theory of common descent, then you would be agreeing that the attempt to "interpret" his words as meaning something different was erroneous and agreeing with my "shot at apologists".

 

Just to be as clear, maybe you can point out on this thread that an actual apologist actually did that. Random speculation by board posters doesn't justify the strawman tarring of apologists.

[mfbukowski]

So Elder Nelson was technically correct - the best kind of correct!

There are no facts, only interpretations.  That's the way I interpret it.  He ain't no dummy.  That statement is ambiguous enough to please everyone, from Boyd K to weirdos like me.

[cinepro]

Just to be as clear, maybe you can point out on this thread that an actual apologist actually did that. Random speculation by board posters doesn't justify the strawman tarring of apologists.

 

Post #39, where mfbukowski argues that Elder Nelson's statement that "dogs have always been dogs" isn't a contradiction to the theory of common descent.

[mfbukowski]

If that's what Elder Nelson meant, then they should have had him dedicating the Law School, not a science building.

 

But I'm pretty sure he meant exactly what he said.  It's basically the same thing Elder Packer said:

 

I am so glad that YOU, are "pretty sure" that it is "basically the same".  Clearly that is a very strong statement of certitude.

 

And of course YOU know "exactly what he meant", right?   Got those mind reading skills going again, huh?

 

Cats are basically the same as dogs really.  I mean both are small pets which work well in a household.   Basically the same.

 

And of course Elder Packer is basically the same as Elder Nelson, right?   And you have two arms and legs and one head and are basically the same as anyone else, right?   Clearly interchangeable with any other human being in every way, right?  After all, they are basically the same.

 

I am pretty sure of it.

Edited May 3, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

 

Apologists have long explained any LDS statements against their theory of choice by slicing and dicing the words into pickle relish, as if the person speaking really intended to convey some obscure meaning by pretending to say something different. 

 

As with so many other things, I suspect Elder Nelson used the words he used only because it never occurred to him that someone who speaks English could misunderstand him.  Does anyone really think these are the words of someone who believes the idea (or is open to it) that all animals on Earth (including humans) evolved from a common ancestor?

 

It's seems pretty clear to me that Elder Nelson does not believe in evolution. But I think he was accidentally correct. Humans have always been humans. But their ancesters include non-humans.

[jwhitlock]

Post #39, where mfbukowski argues that Elder Nelson's statement that "dogs have always been dogs" isn't a contradiction to the theory of common descent.

 

Nice to know that mfbukowski has been elevated to the status of official apologist.

 

Is what he stated wrong? Has the theory of common descent, which has always been treated as a scientific assumption, now undisputed fact? Or were you just taking your usual shots - using a strawman in this case - at those who support the church? I didn't see where mfbukowski claimed anything remotely similar to the tone of what you portrayed. He's not typically given to doing so.

[cinepro]

Nice to know that mfbukowski has been elevated to the status of official apologist.

 

Is what he stated wrong? Has the theory of common descent, which has always been treated as a scientific assumption, now undisputed fact? Or were you just taking your usual shots - using a strawman in this case - at those who support the church? I didn't see where mfbukowski claimed anything remotely similar to the tone of what you portrayed. He's not typically given to doing so.

 

"Official apologist?" Wow, deja vu.

 

The point of this thread is that Elder Nelson, an apostle who has at several times made comments explaining that he doesn't believe in organic evolution, the big bang, or common descent (and does believe in no physical death anywhere on the planet before the fall of Adam) was asked to dedicate the Life Sciences building at BYU. 

 

In that building, they teach and study the theory of evolution, including the theory of common descent. 

 

That's pretty much the definition of "irony".  

[Teancum]

Translation: I can't respond cogently to what you wrote, so I'll instead demean you and dismiss it as utter nonsense. Hopefully I'll get a rep point for it.

That is really how I felt about your responses to my posts,

Thank you.

[cinepro]

I am so glad that YOU, are "pretty sure" that it is "basically the same".  Clearly that is a very strong statement of certitude.

 

And of course YOU know "exactly what he meant", right?   Got those mind reading skills going again, huh?

 

Cats are basically the same as dogs really.  I mean both are small pets which work well in a household.   Basically the same.

 

And of course Elder Packer is basically the same as Elder Nelson, right?   And you have two arms and legs and one head and are basically the same as anyone else, right?   Clearly interchangeable with any other human being in every way, right?  After all, they are basically the same.

 

I am pretty sure of it.

 

Now I'm confused.  I only know what he said.  You're the one adding an additional layer of mind reading. 

 

If you honestly believe that Elder Nelson supports the theory of common descent, and the theory of pre-Adamites, and thousands of generations of evolution on the Earth as the different species evolved from simpler life forms (including physical birth and death before Adam's fall), that's great.  I've only claimed that, based on what he has said over the years, that really appears to not be the case, and I don't find your "nuanced" interpretation of what he didn't say to be convincing.

 

And for those who are just tuning in, here are a few of the statements I've referring to:

 

 

 

Others have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been a natural selection of the species, or organic evolution from one form to another.  Many of these people have concluded that the universe began as a "big bang" that eventually resulted in the creation of our planet and life upon it.

 

To me, such theories are unbelievable!  Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?  It is unthinkable!  Even if it could be argued to be within a remote realm of possibility, such a dictionary could certainly not heal its own torn pages or renew its own worn corners or reproduce its own subsequent editions!

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/the-magnificence-of-man?lang=eng

 

 

Adam and Eve were the first people to live upon the earth.¹⁸ They were different from the plant and animal life that had been created previously. Adam and Eve were children of God. Their bodies of flesh and bone were made in the express image of God’s. In that state of innocence, they were not yet mortal. They could have had no children,¹⁹ were not subject to death, and could have lived in Eden’s garden forever.²⁰ Thus, we might speak of the Creation in terms of a paradisiacal creation.

If that state had persisted, you and I would still be stranded among the heavenly host as unborn sons and daughters of God.²¹ “The great plan of %5Bhappiness%5D would have been frustrated” (Alma 42:5).²²

 

The Fall

 

That leads us to the fall of Adam. To bring the plan of happiness to fruition, God issued to Adam and Eve the first commandment ever given to mankind. It was a commandment to beget children.²³ A law was explained to them. Should they eat from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:17), their bodies would change; mortality and eventual death would come upon them.²⁴ But partaking of that fruit was prerequisite to their parenthood.²⁵

 

While I do not fully understand all the biochemistry involved, I do know that their physical bodies did change; blood began to circulate in their bodies. Adam and Eve thereby became mortal. Happily for us, they could also beget children and fulfill the purposes for which the world was created. Happily for them, “the Lord said unto Adam [and Eve²⁶ ]: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden” (Moses 6:53). We and all mankind are forever blessed because of Eve’s great courage and wisdom. By partaking of the fruit first, she did what needed to be done. Adam was wise enough to do likewise. Accordingly, we could speak of the fall of Adam in terms of a mortal creation, because “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).²⁷

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/constancy-amid-change?lang=eng

 

 

 

The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God.¹² Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam.¹³

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/04/the-creation?lang=eng#13-

 

No mind reading necessary.  Just normal reading.

Edited May 3, 2015 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Joseph Field Smith believed than man would never be in space or on the moon. The true irony is that BYU fully teaches that we do and did. Just maybe we could put Neil Armstrong's "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" by chiseling it into the Eyring Science building at BYU.

[Jeanne]

 

"Official apologist?" Wow, deja vu.

 

The point of this thread is that Elder Nelson, an apostle who has at several times made comments explaining that he doesn't believe in organic evolution, the big bang, or common descent (and does believe in no physical death anywhere on the planet before the fall of Adam) was asked to dedicate the Life Sciences building at BYU. 

 

In that building, they teach and study the theory of evolution, including the theory of common descent. 

 

That's pretty much the definition of "irony".  

Just wondering how to become an official apologist..??  Are the rest of us to wear these dunce hats or like what?

[Senator]

Just wondering how to become an official apologist..?? 

 

It requires the meeting of a very hot iron to the flesh of one's body. Not for the faint of heart.

[MormonFreeThinker]

There are no facts, only interpretations.

If you believe in God, you have to believe in facts and objective morality. 

"Truth is a knowledge of things as they really are, were, and will be. It does not change with conditions or time. Truth is the same in every age and culture. God is the source of all truth" - Preach My Gospel 

 

There are no facts in a atheistic world. 

 

They certainly encourage and support my hope that there is a God. 

 

There are better philosophical arguments (not empirical evidence), for example the fine tuning of the universe and the new God argument.

 

Just our of curiosity, what is a better Pascal's wager? A cure for aging and Cryonics or Theism? 

 

 

So Elder Nelson was technically correct - the best kind of correct!

He said, “This university is committed to search for truth, and teach the truth,” 

 

What does it teach? Evolution, Macro-Evolution, Death before the Fall, Old Earth 

Edited May 3, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[canard78]

It's seems pretty clear to me that Elder Nelson does not believe in evolution. But I think he was accidentally correct. Humans have always been humans. But their ancesters include non-humans.

If you read this out loud to yourself does it still makes sense to you? So you're saying that humans have always been humans... except for when they weren't?

If humans have non-human ancestors then who was the last generation of non-human that begat a human?

[thesometimesaint]

If you read this out loud to yourself does it still makes sense to you? So you're saying that humans have always been humans... except for when they weren't?

If humans have non-human ancestors then who was the last generation of non-human that begat a human?

 

Whomever the biological parents of Adam and Eve were.

[MormonFreeThinker]

You can also look at the probability for the spontaneous generation of life and think about how that has evolved on this earth.

 

it was not spontaneous, but that can happen somewhere if the universe is infinite  

 

Edited May 3, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[cinepro]

Joseph Field Smith believed than man would never be in space or on the moon. The true irony is that BYU fully teaches that we do and did. Just maybe we could put Neil Armstrong's "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" by chiseling it into the Eyring Science building at BYU.

If Joseph Fielding Smith had been asked to dedicate a Physical Sciences building at BYU, I would find it equally ironic.

 

Although to be fair, we don't know if he changed his mind about men on the moon after July 20, 1969.  Until then, "men on the moon" was just a theoretical (although increasingly likely) possibility.  There's a difference between saying something won't happen and something didn't happen.

[PeterPear]

Joseph Field Smith believed than man would never be in space or on the moon. The true irony is that BYU fully teaches that we do and did. Just maybe we could put Neil Armstrong's "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" by chiseling it into the Eyring Science building at BYU.

Mission Control, we have a problem!

I don't believe man set his foot on the moon. His boot did, but man was inside a spacesuit containing Earth's atmosphere, as is true with any man or woman venturing into space outside of the Earth. So technically, Pres. Smith was correct as Man took Earth with him.

[PeterPear]

If Joseph Fielding Smith had been asked to dedicate a Physical Sciences building at BYU, I would find it equally ironic.

 

Although to be fair, we don't know if he changed his mind about men on the moon after July 20, 1969.  Until then, "men on the moon" was just a theoretical (although increasingly likely) possibility.  There's a difference between saying something won't happen and something didn't happen.

Why the irony? BYU teaches false doctrine to become accredited as a University. Rendering unto Caesar was taught by the Savior. Caesar, after all, was defended by 'centurions' of followers who wore tin-foil hats.

[CV75]

 In that building, they teach and study the theory of evolution, including the theory of common descent. 

But there is so much more to Life Sciences than just that, which is taught in that building. Whatever we learn of a secular nature is also subject to our spiritual stewardship and gifts (the counsel in D&C 109 about using the "best books... by study and also by faith) to learn of "things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—" (D&C 88:79).

 

It is not necessarily ironic -- which rests only the eye of the beholder(s)! -- for Elder Nelson to dedicate the building for the teaching of things which are scientifically acceptable but which he does not recognze as spiritual truths. There are many aspects of our practical activities and secular understanding that cannot be expected to be used in relation to exercising of the keys of salvation.

 

I think the study of Life Sciences, as with any other discipline taught at BYU, is on the whole very useful for the material blessing of mankind on earth even though there are some aspects of it that have nothing to do with our eternal blessings, at least in fact or directly. Dedicating the building for the good that is done there seems to be a completely straghtfoward thing to do, to me.

[canard78]

If Joseph Fielding Smith had been asked to dedicate a Physical Sciences building at BYU, I would find it equally ironic.

Although to be fair, we don't know if he changed his mind about men on the moon after July 20, 1969. Until then, "men on the moon" was just a theoretical (although increasingly likely) possibility. There's a difference between saying something won't happen and something didn't happen.

Actually, we do know:

"...Smith had written that "it is doubtful that man will ever be permitted to make any instrument or ship to travel through space and visit the moon or any distant planet".[29] At the 1970 press conference where Smith was introduced as President of the LDS Church, he was asked about these statements; Smith reportedly responded, "Well, I was wrong, wasn't I?"[30][31]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fielding_Smith

[canard78]

Mission Control, we have a problem!

I don't believe man set his foot on the moon. His boot did, but man was inside a spacesuit containing Earth's atmosphere, as is true with any man or woman venturing into space outside of the Earth. So technically, Pres. Smith was correct as Man took Earth with him.

You're brand new here, so I can't decide whether you're serious, sarcastic or trolling.

[canard78]

Whomever the biological parents of Adam and Eve were.

So you believe that Adam and Eve had non-human parents?

That's clever biology. Non-humans giving birth to humans. Did non-cats give birth to cats at around the same time?