New Video on Evolution and Latter-day Saints

[katherine the great]

33 minutes ago, rpn said:

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.  

You sound like Cleon Skousen. 

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, rpn said:

The Gospel of Jesus Christ incorporates all absolute truth.   

I agree because the truths of the church are not based on the confused and confounded language of men, as this board for example, is, or all "discussion" is

They are based on each individual's direct affirmation through direct experience from God of their absolute truth.

This experience is called "testimony".

If you ain't got it, you ain't got it, so get it. Moroni 10 4 &5, Alma 32

 

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

On 11/5/2021 at 11:13 AM, CV75 said:

Maybe it's just me, but given current evens at any level, more and more people seem to be asking "why?" questions.

I also personally enjoy "if?" questions.

[Navidad]

On 11/5/2021 at 12:02 PM, mfbukowski said:

And if we don't understand the difference between why and how, the Restoration may have to be restored.

There is no God? No, there is no empirical evidence, period, end of story.

But that is irrelevant to questions like WHY is there anything at all?

What is MY purpose in life?

How do I know my purpose? How do I find purpose/ meaning in MY life?

Why do I feel compelled to become a fulfilled human and reach my highest purpose if I don't have one?

Why be the best I can be?

These are the nagging questions that point the mind toward ideas that cannot be answered by empirical data 

 

Hola - You have also inserted "if" questions in this post. As I just said, I also enjoy "if" questions a lot!

[Navidad]

On 11/5/2021 at 1:22 PM, rpn said:

The Gospel of Jesus Christ incorporates all absolute truth.  

Hi - I am not sure what this means? Would you mind clarifying what you are saying in this sentence. Are you saying that the Gospel of Jesus Christ incorporates all the absolute truth that can be known? There is no absolute truth anywhere but in the Gospel? Are you using the term "The Gospel of Jesus Christ" in the broad Christian sense of the Gospel, or only in the LDS conception of the Gospel? Many years ago I was ordained a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Baptist church. Is there absolute truth in the gospel to which I was ordained? I guess, as always I have lots of questions when I don't understand something. Thanks.

[rodheadlee]

On 11/5/2021 at 10:23 AM, 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.

 

I agree with you but the "How " questions are fun. I love the study of history, astronomy, geography etc.

[CV75]

2 hours 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....

It is certainly not beside the point. as names and labels are often misapplied. Church leaders were teaching the underlying, fundamental spiritual principles using secular arguments of the day to illustrate justify them in the same way many leaders use today (airplanes, gravity, etc... psst, Elder Uchtdorf, we don't need pilots anymore!). But I'm sure they would characterize themselves and their concerns more broadly than "creationists" or "aeronautical engineers". This is why we still teach the creation story as in the canon (the spiritual value).

Thank you for the link; it also shows how robust a discussion can be had in addressing the pressures of the day on promulgating our fundamental spiritual principles.

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I also personally enjoy "if?" questions.

That is precisely what is behind "Moroni's Promise," which gets to the unrecognized "whys."

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, I have been meaning to mention Ben.

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

In the link that was provided, the old-fashioned arguments in today's CES manual point to this one idea: "believing life originated through a creative act," which is a spiritual principle. Also, the spiritual principle that "Constant exposure to one theory of origins, and only one, has convinced many that no alternative exists ...[it is better to] weigh the evidences on both sides!"

[rodheadlee]

22 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? Yes, spiritual death. Not physical death.

Is Adam the head of the human family still? Yes

Was or is Adam a real person? Yes

Do we all come from Adam and Eve? Spiritually, Yes

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

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

Do the people who lived before Adam get resurrected? We don't know. Does your cat get resurrected? I don't think they have the same awareness that we do.

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.

The answers in red are what I believe through the Churche's teaching and my own study and communications with Heavenly Father. 

I believe Adam was the first  man with a spirit of our race placed into a human body to get us on to the second phase of our evolution to  become an eternal celestial being.

Edited November 6, 2021 by rodheadlee

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

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.  

Could you clarify what you mean by this, please?

[california boy]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

 

I think what is at issue is how the Church interrupts those scriptures.  Every church claims their doctrine comes from scripture, and look at that chaotic mess that is.

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Also, the spiritual principle that "Constant exposure to one theory of origins, and only one, has convinced many that no alternative exists ...[it is better to] weigh the evidences on both sides!"

If only the manual in question had modeled this idea by presenting both creationist and evolutionist perspectives.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

how the Church interrupts those scriptures.

Interrupts may be a more appropriate term at times than interprets.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think what is at issue is how the Church interrupts those scriptures.  Every church claims their doctrine comes from scripture, and look at that chaotic mess that is.

So the Church's consistent interpretation of scripture (that man was created/organized by God) is indeed the issue, and not what the Church taught to support this  interpretation along the way. It is interesting that the interpretation can remain the same while the ways, means and arguments to support it can change, and so it really isn't a big deal that the philosophical points for the latter haven't changed in the Institute Manual.

I think posts like the one shared in the Ben Spackman link are used to criticize the follies of earlier thinking when the modern exponent may well have thought the same way 90 years ago  -- but what else were the brighter stars back then supposed to think? That the best of earlier thinking still applies in many ways today and is included in the Institute Manual for religious purposes shouldn't be cause of concern because it admits to teaching the religious orientation of our history, and not to confine ourselves to one single, narrow theory.

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

If only the manual in question had modeled this idea by presenting both creationist and evolutionist perspectives.

The manual does explicitly recognize that the student is well-exposed in the science, and that the purpose of the religious education therein is to provide a spiritual perspective. That is what BYU / CES is all about -- using secular tools properly and well toward building Zion (see Elder Holland's recent speech on the topic). The science of evolution can do that, in the right hands/minds, but the Manual is covering the spiritual principles.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The manual does explicitly recognize that the student is well-exposed in the science,

Can you point out where it does this please. 
 

I ask because the little that science is discussed recommends those who weren’t seen as that reputable even in the 70s back when I was taking the Old Testament classes.  And looking at the current manual, I am not seeing any reference to “as you learned in biology” or whatever. One reference to genetics compares that to the phrase “after his kind”, which is a very limited view of genetics as applied long term and in evolutionary context. 
 

I do think this paragraph is important and wish the manual had followed its own suggestion by not referring to any scientific theory, especially in the paragraphs preceding this one.

Quote

Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77–79), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng 

Sec 2-3 How Old is the Earth?

Quote

That the best of earlier thinking still applies in many ways today 

If you are referring to the science theory presented in the current model, I don’t believe it was ever considered the “best” science.  Even the manual states they were a small minority:

Quote

there are a small number of reputable scholars who disagree. These claim that the geologic clocks are misinterpreted and that tremendous catastrophes in the earth’s history speeded up the processes that normally may take thousands of years.

 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can you point out where it does this please. 

I quoted it up here: Posted 3 hours ago (does this copy/paste link feature work anymore?)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

Conclusion

“Constant exposure to one theory of origins, and only one, has convinced many that no alternative exists and that evolution must be the full and complete answer. How unfortunate that most of the millions who pass through the educational process [but BYU teaches the science also] have little opportunity to weigh the evidences on both sides!

“Examinations of the fossils, stony records of the past, tell us that complicated living things suddenly (without warning, so to speak) began to exist on the earth. Furthermore, time has not modified them enough to change their basic relationships to each other. Modern living organisms tell us that change is a feature of life and time, but they also tell us that there are limits beyond which they do not pass naturally and beyond which man has been unable to force them. In consideration of past or present living things, man must never forget that he is dealing with life, a profoundly unique force which he has not been able to create and which he is trying desperately to understand [a spiritual principle].

“Here are the facts; here are the evidences; here, then, are the sound reasons for believing life originated through a creative act [a spiritual principle]. It is time that each individual has the opportunity to know the facts and to make an intelligent choice.” (Coffin, Creation, p. [15].)

I'm not about to quibble over the science in paragraph 2 except to say it does not constitute BYU, CES or the Church teaching what can be characterized as creationism and creationism only.

[Calm]

I have not read every post nor is my retention great right now, so apologies for requiring you to repeat yourself.  And it is quite possible I am misreading you because of the poor retention, so apologies for making you clarify. 
 

I assumed that “well exposed” meant the same as well educated. I don’t see exposure as inherently meaning educated enough to be able to use one’s knowledge well/effectively or being knowledgeable about a topic. 

The manual uses “constant exposure” which could be constant repetition of a very superficial treatment (which is how I interpreted it eons ago when I first read the manual shortly after it came out).

And the manual is disapproving in its comment, so it doesn’t convey the sense of what your comment does for me.  I read your comment as saying the students who read the manual are well grounded in the science and therefore can then use the info provided in the manual to reconcile or balance appropriately the paradigms as needed rather than being more likely to dismiss one or the other.

The manual talks about presenting the history and geography of the times of the OT (see preface) even while some supervisor was refusing to add actual historical context (Dan Peterson’s quote in Ben’s blog).  While I do believe any CES teaching emphasizes the spiritual, this manual most definitely does not present its content as purely referencing the spiritual side of the text. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I think what is at issue is how the Church interrupts those scriptures.  Every church claims their doctrine comes from scripture, and look at that chaotic mess that is.

You are assuming it should NOT be a chaotic mess!  THAT is part of the problem.

That's why we are to acquire our own testimonies to see through the mess to the correct personal path we need.  We all need our personal paths to the truth.

I personally needed to be Catholic, then athiest, then Buddhist to find the path to where I am today. I would not be here if I did not take all three experiences.

First, Catholic. I learned Christianity and the educational value of ritual and symbols

Then atheism. I learned humanism and that atheism is just another paradigm and that the best atheist philosophers see that religion is intellectually justifiable. 

Then Buddhism. Meditation can lead you to God.

Then LDS. We are a Christian faith that believes that we need to become perfect humans and are taught to develop our own testimonies through meditation and prayer and have temple worship from which we learn through symbolic rituals.

Every contrasting faith gave me a new paradigm upon which to build my ideas "verified" by personal religious experience and validated by philosophy, per Alma 32 and many philosophers.

So yes, every church has it's own Doctrine.

Isn't that GREAT?

This is a test for us to zig zag through that maze and find the best one.

Here it is!!

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I quoted it up here: Posted 3 hours ago (does this copy/paste link feature work anymore?)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

Conclusion

“Constant exposure to one theory of origins, and only one, has convinced many that no alternative exists and that evolution must be the full and complete answer. How unfortunate that most of the millions who pass through the educational process [but BYU teaches the science also] have little opportunity to weigh the evidences on both sides!

“Examinations of the fossils, stony records of the past, tell us that complicated living things suddenly (without warning, so to speak) began to exist on the earth. Furthermore, time has not modified them enough to change their basic relationships to each other. Modern living organisms tell us that change is a feature of life and time, but they also tell us that there are limits beyond which they do not pass naturally and beyond which man has been unable to force them. In consideration of past or present living things, man must never forget that he is dealing with life, a profoundly unique force which he has not been able to create and which he is trying desperately to understand [a spiritual principle].

“Here are the facts; here are the evidences; here, then, are the sound reasons for believing life originated through a creative act [a spiritual principle]. It is time that each individual has the opportunity to know the facts and to make an intelligent choice.” (Coffin, Creation, p. [15].)

I'm not about to quibble over the science in paragraph 2 except to say it does not constitute BYU, CES or the Church teaching what can be characterized as creationism and creationism only.

They are still saying we can learn religion thru scientific evidence.

Sigh

BUZZZZZZZZZ.  Sorry, wrong answer.

Only religious evidence answers religious questions. It's like trying to cure cancer through talk therapy

 

 

Edited November 7, 2021 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

On 11/5/2021 at 6:38 PM, 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.

Here's what is currently on the Church website regarding each of those points. If you can find anything on the website, including any Church publications, talks from GAs, or curriculum, that contradict this or accept alternate theories and explanations, let me know:

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

2 Nephi 2:22 - And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

 

Is Adam the head of the human family still?

Gospel Principles Chapter 6 - God prepared this earth as a home for His children. Adam and Eve were chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34; 4:26). Their part in our Father’s plan was to bring mortality into the world. They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:54–56.)

Also Guide to the Scriptures: Adam is the father and patriarch of the human race on the earth.

Was or is Adam a real person?

D&C 116 - Adam will come back to Adam-ondi-Ahman

Do we all come from Adam and Eve?

(Already discussed).

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

Never acknowledged or admitted Adam might not have been a real person, so question is moot.

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

It is never acknowledged or admitted there might have been others already living on earth. The idea contradicts the "first people" idea above.

Do the people who lived before Adam get resurrected?

It is never acknowledged or admitted there might have been "people who lived before Adam." Again, it contradicts the "first people" teaching above.

 

Edited November 7, 2021 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Interrupts may be a more appropriate term at times than interprets.  

Not to mention the philosophies of men mangled with scriptures... 😳

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I agree with you but the "How " questions are fun. I love the study of history, astronomy, geography etc.

Sure!

But they are always the garbled alleged interpretations of humans, not "things as they are"

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

The manual does explicitly recognize that the student is well-exposed in the science, and that the purpose of the religious education therein is to provide a spiritual perspective. That is what BYU / CES is all about -- using secular tools properly and well toward building Zion (see Elder Holland's recent speech on the topic). The science of evolution can do that, in the right hands/minds, but the Manual is covering the spiritual principles.

The LDS  concept of Zion has certainly morphed over the years. Does the term currently sync with what non-LDS Christians would deem the "New Jerusalem?"