New Video on Evolution and Latter-day Saints

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Sure. Nothing really matters, nothing really matters at all......

If one cares about the “why”, it likely matters a great deal. 

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

If one cares about the “why”, it likely matters a great deal. 

Great video about "whys" and "purpose" of life.

Really one of the best

The church is actually getting it

Note how often those words are used.

NOTHING about empirical evidence- it's irrelevant 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2009-01-0059-finding-happiness?lang=eng&collectionId=d71e069336a041ed9de8be986b78c40a

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

On this board we've seen posters declare that "science" has definitively disproven the doctrines of the Church. 

"Doctrine" is what the church teaches. 

That could only be possible IF the church taught anything about science.

It does not, therefore those who espouse such opinions are.... logically impaired.   It's as simple as that.

I see no laboratories in wards or even temples.  It would be great if we could cure cancer at church- we CAN, but not using science!  

But actually Alma 32 teaches the scientific method and shows WHY that method works: Pragmatism

The same METHOD works for BOTH religion and science, but the subject matter is vastly different.

Religious "data" is subjective- scientific data is objective.  BIG difference!

 

Edited November 5, 2021 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

I am a little confused what the Church currently teaches or if it even still teaches a few things.  Wonder of someone could clarify.

Does the Church still believe that the fall of Adam brought death into this world?

Is Adam the head of the human family still?

Was or is Adam a real person?

Do we all come from Adam and Eve?

Was Adam given the priesthood if he wasn't a real person?

Was Adam more advanced in terms of understanding real knowledge than those already living on the earth?

Do the people who lived before Adam get resurrected?

 

This actually opens up a whole can of doctrinal issues, at least from what I was taught.  Love to hear peoples understanding to these questions.

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am a little confused what the Church currently teaches or if it even still teaches a few things.  Wonder of someone could clarify.

Does the Church still believe that the fall of Adam brought death into this world?

Is Adam the head of the human family still?

Was or is Adam a real person?

Do we all come from Adam and Eve?

Was Adam given the priesthood if he wasn't a real person?

Was Adam more advanced in terms of understanding real knowledge than those already living on the earth?

Do the people who lived before Adam get resurrected?

 

This actually opens up a whole can of doctrinal issues, at least from what I was taught.  Love to hear peoples understanding to these questions.

Please cite what you were taught on each of these points, and provide a reference (CFR of what you were taught) so we can compare with today's teachings. Thank you.

[esodije]

My brother gave me his early-70s edition of Mormon Doctrine to take with me on my mission in 1979. I remember McConkie saying something along the lines of “the dinosaurs were pre-Flood animals.” I remember my friend almost didn’t get a temple recommend when he told the stake president that he didn’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve. It’s hard to square that with Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the redemption of the dead, however, as he reported that Father Adam was in the congregation. (I’ve always wondered how Smith knew that was Adam—was he wearing a stickie with “HELLO - my name is Adam”?)

Edited November 6, 2021 by esodije

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Please cite what you were taught on each of these points, and provide a reference (CFR of what you were taught) so we can compare with today's teachings. Thank you.

While they were all concepts I was taught, I am not really interested in some back and forth argument on my questions.  I am more interested in how any of those questions now fit into Mormon theology.  Or if it still does.  Have you never really heard any of those teachings?  I did look up this on the Church Website.  So it appears that the Church is still in conflict about whether Adam was a real person.

 

Quote

 

Adam-ondi-Ahman

As Latter-day Saints gathered to dedicate the Kirtland Temple in 1836, they sang “Adam-ondi-Ahman,” a hymn composed by William W. Phelps and included in the newly published Latter-day Saint hymnal. The lyrics celebrated teachings from Joseph Smith’s revelations about a place called Adam-ondi-Ahman, where Adam bestowed his last blessing upon his posterity. The hymn also looked forward to the Savior’s Second Coming, when Adam-ondi-Ahman would be restored to its former beauty and glory.¹

Two years later, while searching for lands the Saints could settle in Daviess County, Missouri, Joseph Smith and a group of Church leaders found a beautiful spot near the Grand River with abundant water, wild game, and grass-covered prairies. Speaking of a prominent knoll in the area called Spring Hill, the Lord in a revelation explained that He had named it “Adam-ondi-Ahman” because “it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people.”²

The Saints rejoiced at this news, and soon families began moving to the area. They patterned their settlement after the plat of Zion (Joseph Smith’s urban plan for Independence, Missouri) and identified a location for a temple.³ Leaders organized the Adam-ondi-Ahman Stake in 1838, one of the first in the Church.⁴ As many as two hundred homes were built, but the settlement at Adam-ondi-Ahman lasted only a few months. Violence soon erupted between the Latter-day Saints and other Missourians in the fall of 1838, and the Saints at Adam-ondi-Ahman were forced to abandon their homes.

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by california boy

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I am a little confused what the Church currently teaches or if it even still teaches a few things.  Wonder of someone could clarify.

Does the Church still believe that the fall of Adam brought death into this world?

Is Adam the head of the human family still?

Was or is Adam a real person?

Do we all come from Adam and Eve?

Was Adam given the priesthood if he wasn't a real person?

Was Adam more advanced in terms of understanding real knowledge than those already living on the earth?

Do the people who lived before Adam get resurrected?

 

This actually opens up a whole can of doctrinal issues, at least from what I was taught.  Love to hear peoples understanding to these questions.

When searching on the church's website I took two of the first related articles. Both are from church magazines...so not exactly official statement 

Here:

Quote

Before we were born on earth, we were spirit children of heavenly parents, with bodies in their image. God directed the creation of Adam and Eve and placed their spirits in their bodies. We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, our first parents, who were created in God’s image. There were no spirit children of Heavenly Father on the earth before Adam and Eve were created. In addition, “for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family.” They fell from that state, and this Fall was an essential part of Heavenly Father’s plan for us to become like Him. (See Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet,” Apr. 2015 general conference.)

And here...this line I particularly resonate with:

Quote

The different roles science and religion play is illustrated in a study of the dinosaurs. From the fossil record we learn that the dinosaurs were the dominant animals on earth between 225 and 67 million years ago. Some were carnivorous, others herbivorous. Some were small, while others were gigantic, weighing up to eighty tons and growing to lengths of more than ninety feet.

The existence of these animals is indisputable, for their remains have been found in rocks all over the earth. What eternal purpose they played in the creation and early history of the earth is unknown. The scriptures do not address the question, and it is not the realm of science to explore the issue of why they were here.

Personally, I leave a lot of space of "i dunno." Several of those questions don't have a ton of baring on our eternal state, so they're not necessary to even have a firm yea/nay answer anyways. Which is probably why the church more officially leaves it open for interpretation. When I was a teen in biology class I remember being really curious about this controversial evolution I'd heard vaguely about. I watched the video and though "oh, that's it....makes since and would fit the creation account if you didn't take it literally." I never had a problem with it. How that meshes fully ain't really a big concern to me. I figure one day I'll know, even if it takes some time in the next life. Who knows maybe they have an intro to the creation vid too on the other side  

 

With luv,

BD 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Please cite what you were taught on each of these points, and provide a reference (CFR of what you were taught) so we can compare with today's teachings. Thank you.

Great way to handle it. Because someone's uncle believed X, that doesn't mean it was ever Doctrine 

And that is the problem with BRMcC and JFS, but they got more publicity than your uncle did.

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

On a related subject:

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2021/11/300-million-year-old-fossil-skeleton-in-utah-could-be-the-first-of-its-kind/

[CV75]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

While they were all concepts I was taught, I am not really interested in some back and forth argument on my questions.  I am more interested in how any of those questions now fit into Mormon theology.  Or if it still does.  Have you never really heard any of those teachings?  I did look up this on the Church Website.  So it appears that the Church is still in conflict about whether Adam was a real person.

So why not just list the most important "teachings" where you think "the Church is still in conflict"? 

I see no sense of conflict expressed in the Adam-ondi-Ahman quote you shared (source, please). Is there another Church source that contradicts it?

[california boy]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So why not just list the most important "teachings" where you think "the Church is still in conflict"? 

I see no sense of conflict expressed in the Adam-ondi-Ahman quote you shared (source, please). Is there another Church source that contradicts it?

Because I am more interested in what the Church teaches now about the questions I asked. Does it teach the same doctrine that I was taught about Adam and who he was now that I learned when I was active in the Church.  If the teachings are the same now as they were when I was in the Church, then really there isn't an issue is there.

Are my questions really that hard to just answer?

[katherine the great]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Great video, exactly what I say on this board daily

But he did not take it far enough.

Objective evidence itself has nothing to do with religion AND THAT INCLUDES HISTORY and things like a historical Book of Mormon. Both science and history require objective observations, from humans, but do not tackle WHY the earth and humans even exist at all, and deliberately avoid even that way of thinking!

How questions have nothing to do with why questions.

HOW we got the BOM and its alleged history has nothing to do with WHY God gave it to us and how it teaches WHY we are here.

Obviously the BOM has a history, and origins, but how we got it is irrelevant to WHY we have it.

I believe it shows us WHY mankind exists at all.

 

This. A lot of time is given to trying to reconcile Adam and Eve with science but the Noah narrative (to me) is far more problematic.

In my first lecture of every semester I tell my students that science answers important questions but so does religion. They each address important parts of the human experience.

[katherine the great]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It does not, therefore those who espouse such opinions are.... logically impaired.   It's as simple as that.

I enjoy your worldview but nothing is “as simple as that”. People process information differently and to just dismiss their concerns because you see it differently is really unfair.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Does it teach the same doctrine that I was taught about Adam and who he was now that I learned when I was active in the Church

Are you making a claim here that you were simply taught this within the context of church or is one of your claim that this was the doctrine of the Church at that time?

Just curious about how you are framing the context of your questions…is the doctrine itself changing or are possibly wrong beliefs of what doctrine is changing? Or perhaps you would state it in a different way. 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Calm

[california boy]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you making a claim here that you were simply taught this within the context of church or is one of your claim that this was the doctrine of the Church at that time?

Just curious about how you are framing the context of your questions…is the doctrine itself changing or are possibly wrong beliefs of what doctrine is changing? Or perhaps you would state it in a different way. 

Honestly, these days, what I believed was once doctrine seems to now be opinion on a lot of issues.  Which is why I really don't know where the Church stands on the questions I asked.

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are you making a claim here that you were simply taught this within the context of church or is one of your claim that this was the doctrine of the Church at that time?

I'm going to agree with @california boy. While, in hindsight, it seems clear that we were "simply taught [creationism] within the context of the church", in the moment, this felt like "this was the doctrine of the Church at that time." Telling us that it is somehow our fault for not being to tell the difference is, IMO, disingenuous. This is why I think Snell's facepalms over the still current Old Testament Institute manual are a propos. That 40 year old manual that has not been officially repudiated is a perfect example of why I think it should be obvious that we should not be questioning people who honestly believed that creationism was the [quasi-] official position of the Church. This is also why I think one of the best things the Church could do for this discussion is an official repudiation of the creationist stuff in that manual (and maybe even Elder McConkie and Elder Joseph Fielding Smith). I know we don't like to come right out and "disavow" what past prophets and apostles have taught, but this issue seems unwilling to die on its own.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I enjoy your worldview but nothing is “as simple as that”. People process information differently and to just dismiss their concerns because you see it differently is really unfair.

I guess I should always say "the way I see it" in front of everything I say because WHAT I say is within my paradigms.

In my paradigm, everything everyone ever says is in THEIR paradigm, and nothing CAN be said OUTSIDE of the speaker's paradigm.

To me that is clear as glass. If it comes out of your mouth it is part of your individual world view, period.

We all live within our own "reality" made from our experiences.

So in my paradigm it IS simple as that, and if others want to be metaphysical and pretend we all see things the same way, good luck.  

Again it is the Rorty quote in my siggy- of course there are CAUSES of our perceptions "out there" but we cannot get past our personal perceptions to what those causes of perception "really are".

When I am driving am I actually moving through a sea of subatomic particles?

"Look out! Here comes a gamma ray!"

No, our brains are built (or have evolved)  to see what they see - not "things as they are".

So if I see things simply, for me they are simple.

Probably every sentence everyone say should start out with "The way I see it....."

But that IS how I see what others say, no one is "right", all we can do is agree on the description, and call it "true".

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Honestly, these days, what I believed was once doctrine seems to now be opinion on a lot of issues.  Which is why I really don't know where the Church stands on the questions I asked.

The Doctrine of the church is that there IS no "Doctrine", no Creeds etc. The scriptures are the only "doctrine"

Joseph repeatedly said that.

The only reason we have even for the articles of faith is that a newspaper wanted a description of our beliefs, and they are not canon.

We are to read the scriptures and become our own "prophets".

Yes, we have standards that allow us into the temple, etc, and we accept priesthood authority.

Here is the official church position on Doctrine:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/core-belief-and-doctrines

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Because I am more interested in what the Church teaches now about the questions I asked. Does it teach the same doctrine that I was taught about Adam and who he was now that I learned when I was active in the Church.  If the teachings are the same now as they were when I was in the Church, then really there isn't an issue is there.

Are my questions really that hard to just answer?

A couple of the questions use "still" in them, so I can only assume that is what you learned. But the rest do not, so I cannot even assume what you learned.

I'm giving you some credit here by using "learned" rather than "taught." Specifically, if you can describe what you learned about these topics, I might be able to comment. Also, why they are so important to address in terms of now vs. then.

Also, what is the issue if the teachings have changed?

[CV75]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Because I am more interested in what the Church teaches now about the questions I asked. Does it teach the same doctrine that I was taught about Adam and who he was now that I learned when I was active in the Church.  If the teachings are the same now as they were when I was in the Church, then really there isn't an issue is there.

Are my questions really that hard to just answer?

A couple of the questions use "still" in them, so I can only assume that is what you learned. But the rest do not, so I cannot even assume what you learned.

I'm giving you some credit here by using "learned" rather than "taught." Specifically, if you can describe what you learned about these topics, I might be able to comment. Also, why they are so important to address in terms of now vs. then.

Also, what is the issue if the teachings have changed?

 

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I'm going to agree with @california boy. While, in hindsight, it seems clear that we were "simply taught [creationism] within the context of the church", in the moment, this felt like "this was the doctrine of the Church at that time." Telling us that it is somehow our fault for not being to tell the difference is, IMO, disingenuous. This is why I think Snell's facepalms over the still current Old Testament Institute manual are a propos. That 40 year old manual that has not been officially repudiated is a perfect example of why I think it should be obvious that we should not be questioning people who honestly believed that creationism was the [quasi-] official position of the Church. This is also why I think one of the best things the Church could do for this discussion is an official repudiation of the creationist stuff in that manual (and maybe even Elder McConkie and Elder Joseph Fielding Smith). I know we don't like to come right out and "disavow" what past prophets and apostles have taught, but this issue seems unwilling to die on its own.

But his questions are not about creationism.

Yes. I'm a lazy learner in many ways so I'm asking you in case you are already in the know: where did Elders McConkie and Smith, or the old manuals, use the term "creationism"?

[Steve Thompson]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But his questions are not about creationism.

Yes. I'm a lazy learner in many ways so I'm asking you in case you are already in the know: where did Elders McConkie and Smith, or the old manuals, use the term "creationism"?

You may want to take a look at Ben Spackman's blog.  In several posts he makes plain the relationship between Joseph Fielding Smith's writings on Adam, the creation, etc. with the work of a prominent 7th Day Adventist Creationist.  Take a look at https://benspackman.com/2020/09/interpreting-science-and-scripture-joseph-fielding-smith-seventh-day-adventists-and-hermeneutics-in-lds-history/#more-5653. Whether or not the term "creationism" was used by Smith, McConkie, or in church manuals is really beside the point.  A rose by any other name....

[rpn]

On 11/5/2021 at 4:22 PM, rpn said:

The Gospel of Jesus Christ incorporates all absolute truth.     We do not know how God created our earth.   Prophets have said that Adam and Eve are the two first mortals, IOW the first whose bodies were alive via spirit child of God being inside it.   I've been alive long enough to have seen multiple times when science changed its mind on "facts"  and history being redefined after new facts.   I don't think we know everything out this world yet, and I won't be surprised if the process included trial and error before it was declared "created".

I should also have pointed out that since this earth was organized with pre-existing matter, the leaps we make about what the earth was as originally is likely based on data points that aren't related to its inclusion in the creation of this earth.  

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, Steve Thompson said:

You may want to take a look at Ben Spackman's blog.  In several posts he makes plain the relationship between Joseph Fielding Smith's writings on Adam, the creation, etc. with the work of a prominent 7th Day Adventist Creationist.  Take a look at https://benspackman.com/2020/09/interpreting-science-and-scripture-joseph-fielding-smith-seventh-day-adventists-and-hermeneutics-in-lds-history/#more-5653. Whether or not the term "creationism" was used by Smith, McConkie, or in church manuals is really beside the point.  A rose by any other name....

Yes, I have been meaning to mention Ben.

IMO He is THE go-to guy re the church and evolution, besides me, of course. 🧐🤪

Edited November 6, 2021 by mfbukowski