PeterPear Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 You're brand new here, so I can't decide whether you're serious, sarcastic or trolling.Well, let me first peruse your 4,568 posts to determine if you're truly a Canard who loves to flex his muscles by pointing out weaknesses of our Priesthood Leaders. Sound fair?
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 BYU teaches false doctrine to become accredited as a University. Elder Nelson said “This university is committed to search for truth, and teach the truth" which means that there is no secret agenda. There is no conspiracy, the scientists simply do their homework. Evolution is not doctrine, it is science. 1
jwhitlock Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 (edited) "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". Not really. It's important for students to become familiar with the theories of the world, even if they're wrong. As you've noted, and ironically ignored, is the fact that what is being taught is -->theory<--. Part of understanding truth is understanding various theories and trying to come to a decision as to what's right. After all, that's what we do on this board. We listen to those critical of the church so we can more fully understand the truth of the church and how those who find fault with it are wrong. We don't ignore it. If what you posted is the point of the thread, you've basically set up another strawman to tilt at. Edited May 3, 2015 by jwhitlock 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 (edited) Not really. It's important for students to become familiar with the theories of the world, even if they're wrong. Read what Elder Nelson said post 102Evolution is not a theory, it is a scientific theory, there is a big difference. BYU teaches Evolution because it is truth. 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
thesometimesaint Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 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. To his credit he did change his mind. Nothing like a little science to do that. We get ourselves into trouble anytime we say that God won't allow something to happen. Let alone use our positions in the Church to say it.SEE May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu: "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it.The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen". 1
canard78 Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 Well, let me first peruse your 4,568 posts to determine if you're truly a Canard who loves to flex his muscles by pointing out weaknesses of our Priesthood Leaders. Sound fair?Be my guest. You didn't answer my question but I'll take it from your reply that you were being serious. 1
Stone holm Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 My only child to have graduated from BYU was of the firm opinion that any academic department which had as the second word in its name the word "science" wasn't a real science. I find then the real irony being in the life science terminology.
Jeanne Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 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.Wow..this is what you call literal belief!
thesometimesaint Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Wow..this is what you call literal belief! Cortes never set foot in what is now Mexico. He wore boots and sailed in a ship, bringing Spain with him. Edited May 4, 2015 by thesometimesaint 1
PeterPear Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 Have any of you ever wondered why President Joseph Fielding Smith was foreordained to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator and you were foreordained to criticize him?
mfbukowski Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 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. 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? 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 Sorry, I don't wish to discuss this with you. We have done it all before.
mfbukowski Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) You're brand new here, so I can't decide whether you're serious, sarcastic or trolling.I suggest stop worrying about it. Wait for some substance Edited May 4, 2015 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 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: No mind reading necessary. Just normal reading.Please summarize your point in one or two sentences and explain your problem with what I said. I think I did not say what you think I said, though at this point I really don't care a whole lot, quite honestly. Where's your "gotcha"?
mfbukowski Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 Be my guest.You didn't answer my question but I'll take it from your reply that you were being serious.Quite a compliment that he will read all your posts. I wish I could get MFT to read mine, and actually recall previous discussions. In one ear out the other.
mfbukowski Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 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.Well I think it is too strong to call any of it "correct". How do we know what is "correct"? I have no way to read his mind to know what he wanted to express. No, it appears that he does not "believe in evolution." But what does that MEAN? Does anyone really that that Darwinian evolution as we presently theorize it probably "happened" (whatever that could mean) will be the final position reified into the eternal "TRVTH" of science written in stone over the temple of ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE? You have more faith than I do if that is the case. Yes, it may be the best explanation for the data we have now. So does that make his statements "incorrect"? What exactly could he have said which would have been "fully correct"?? You need to understand that skepticism is a life long commitment. All you can know for sure is what is under your nose, and THAT is a statement in psychology about the certainty your brain is experiencing, and has nothing to do with the world "as it is". Science is hardly complete and never will be.
mfbukowski Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Fergitabout it If you got the email go ahead and respond. Good luck Edited May 4, 2015 by mfbukowski
thesometimesaint Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 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? Yes, but only in a spiritual sense. Not a physical sense. IE; Neither one of my parents were members of the Church. So they were the parent of my physical body but not of my spiritual body.
thesometimesaint Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 Have any of you ever wondered why President Joseph Fielding Smith was foreordained to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator and you were foreordained to criticize him? Because a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.
cinepro Posted May 4, 2015 Author Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Not really. It's important for students to become familiar with the theories of the world, even if they're wrong. As you've noted, and ironically ignored, is the fact that what is being taught is -->theory<--. Part of understanding truth is understanding various theories and trying to come to a decision as to what's right. After all, that's what we do on this board. We listen to those critical of the church so we can more fully understand the truth of the church and how those who find fault with it are wrong. We don't ignore it. Are you saying that BYU's Biology department teaches evolution because it's not a valid theory? I hate to break it to you, but the professors in that department really, really believe in the theory of evolution and treat it like it's the bedrock of modern biology. They teach it as if it is true. Edited May 4, 2015 by cinepro 2
Nevo Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 I hate to break it to you, but the professors in that department really, really believe in the theory of evolution and treat it like it's the bedrock of modern biology. They teach it as if it is true. Indeed. Steven Peck is actually something of an evangelist for the theory of evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsDA4pSC9l4 2
Rivers Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Indeed. Steven Peck is actually something of an evangelist for the theory of evolution without much elaboration.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsDA4pSC9l4I like Steven Peck but I don't think he does a very good job of explaining how evolution and the gospel can be harmonized. He just keeps saying there is no conflict. Edited May 4, 2015 by Rivers
Rivers Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 Are you saying that BYU's Biology department teaches evolution because it's not a valid theory? I hate to break it to you, but the professors in that department really, really believe in the theory of evolution and treat it like it's the bedrock of modern biology. They teach it as if it is true.And the teachers in the religion department teach that it it is false. They can't both be right.
canard78 Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 If it is for real and not a troll....I'm going with troll but would be willing to be proven wrong.
canard78 Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 Yes, but only in a spiritual sense. Not a physical sense. IE; Neither one of my parents were members of the Church. So they were the parent of my physical body but not of my spiritual body.But your parents were still human. My parents were members and they weren't the parents of my spiritual body either. What's your point?
Recommended Posts