New Video on Evolution and Latter-day Saints

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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!!

 

If I understand you correctly, then being LDS is the fourth step on your way to finding absolute truth as a Mennonite, right? 😇

[CV75]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

 

 

They are not saying that.

For example, they do explain why people believe one way or the other about the age of the earth, while concluding, “While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth…” followed by 3 or 4 theories, one by “reputable scholars”,  “reputable” being in the eye of the beholder, of course. 😊

Skipping down to (2-18), the “Points to Ponder” and the organic evolution sections, scientific justification is used only to support, not prove, the Church’s doctrines as taught by the prophets in (2-1) to (2 – 17). It is no different than using the laws of gravity or sociological studies to support a point in a General Conference talk.

(2-18) “In relation to this theory, the following statements should help you understand what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man.”

(2-19) The Coffin pamphlet is used to present “one scientist’s view of how life began” that challenges the theory of evolution, including the conclusion as I copied it above.

Edited November 7, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

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.

 

This is a fine download, but does not address my question to californiaboy in context.

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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?"

I'd love to comment, but in context: how do you describe the non-LDS Christian concept of Zion, its relationship with the New Jerusalem, and the concept of the New Jerusalem?

[longview]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

17 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"

Not necessarily.  We have eyes to see and a mind to ponder the wonders of Creation.  People need to view videos by Stephen Meyer the great philosopher and debater. 

Alma 30:44. But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Edited November 7, 2021 by longview

[katherine the great]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

(2-19) The Coffin pamphlet is used to present “one scientist’s view of how life began” that challenges the theory of evolution, including the conclusion as I copied it above.

Evolutionary theory doesn’t provide an explanation for how life began. (just sayin)

[longview]

24 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Evolutionary theory doesn’t provide an explanation for how life began. (just sayin)

It must!  Just because people cloak the beginnings of life using the term Abiogenesis does NOT eliminate their obligation to consider the processes of evolution in the earliest stages.  The evolutionists do speculate about the primordial soup, coacervates, primitive RNA, various amino acids, viruses, bacteria, etc.  How single cell began "living", how they acquired protective walls, how did reproduction even get started, and on and on.  The great philosopher and debater Stephen Meyer provides many wonderful perspectives and questions on the origins of life and even deals with cosmology.  Have a look at his videos - - - 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

Evolutionary theory doesn’t provide an explanation for how life began. (just sayin)

Of course, but I was responding to the claim that the Chinch is "saying we can learn religion thru scientific evidence." It is not, as I explained (how) in my post.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

If I understand you correctly, then being LDS is the fourth step on your way to finding absolute truth as a Mennonite, right? 😇

Hey, man, wherever The Boss leads me.  I'm ready!

At my mom's funeral, the Catholic priest allowed me as an LDS bishop, to sit in the sanctuary and speak.

That is a huge no-no usually- I think- but before, he asked me ",Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and Savior of the world?"

I said "Yes of course"

He said "Ok, after that, everything else is really the same anyway" and winked.

[katherine the great]

30 minutes ago, longview said:

It must! 

Actually it must not. It explains how life changes and how the variety of life we see around us today came to be. Of course scientists have their speculations about the beginnings of life but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. To provide a point of reference, books may briefly discuss those possibilities (primordial soup, etc.) because naturally discussing evolution would cause students to ask questions like “well okay but how did life begin in the first place?”

[california boy]

18 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

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.

Thanks Rod for your answers.  I really appreciate that.  It is pretty much in line with what I was taught, except, I was taught that Adam brought physical death into the world.  

Given the op of this thread, do you think this is still the Church's position?  Or has it become a little less defined and more up to the individual to figure out?

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks Rod for your answers.  I really appreciate that.  It is pretty much in line with what I was taught, except, I was taught that Adam brought physical death into the world.  

Given the op of this thread, do you think this is still the Church's position?  Or has it become a little less defined and more up to the individual to figure out?

I think the OP is about evolutionary theory, but "evolution" in rodheadlee's post refers to our spiritual development.

Related to the Institute manual that is part of the OP, I simply don’t see where the Church is teaching about the Creation and the Fall through science. All the references explaining the them are scriptural and prophetic sources. It does discourage students from concluding from science that the scriptural and the prophets’ teachings are not correct, and uses arguably disputable science (and isn’t all science disputable, by design?) to support that discouragement, but not to prove the Church teachings.

Edited November 7, 2021 by CV75

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

uses arguably disputable science (and isn’t all science disputable, by design?)

They use low quality science or even pseudoscience. There is a difference. 

The manual:

Quote

Immanuel Velikovsky, for example, wrote three books amassing evidence that worldwide catastrophic upheavals have occurred in recent history, and he argued against uniformitarianism, the idea that the natural processes in evidence now have always prevailed at the same approximate rate of uniformity. These books are Worlds in Collision, Ages in Chaos, and Earth in Upheaval. 

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

Velikovsky’s training was in medicine and psychology. He was a psychiatrist.  His theories were more informed by mythologies than physics. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Calm

[katherine the great]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

They use low quality science or even pseudoscience. There is a difference. 

The manual:

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

Velikovsky’s training was in medicine and psychology. He was a psychiatrist.  His theories were more informed by mythologies than physics. 

It’s also just a false argument. Uniformitarianism is the rule and catastrophism is the exception. They each create some of the natural phenomena we see in geology but (by far) most are created through slow gradual processes. 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

It’s also just a false argument. Uniformitarianism is the rule and catastrophism is the exception. They each create some of the natural phenomena we see in geology but (by far) most are created through slow gradual processes. 

It is beyond me how this is still in the manual given the efforts to follow best practices of scholarship in other fields in producing the Joseph Smith Papers. 
 

I am embarrassed by very few things in the Church (in terms of being willing to share with nonmembers). This is one of them.  I am so curious to know the behind the scenes story on its staying power. 
 

If they had presented it as more along the lines of what Joseph Campbell did or just as a scholar’s theory, but to label it science….

Edited November 7, 2021 by Calm

[JAHS]

On 11/5/2021 at 10:37 AM, MrShorty said:

I loved the face palms for the current (soon to be retired??) Old Testament Institute manual.

I liked that he mentioned the long debate that has featured such notable names as B. H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith and James E. Talmage and Bruce R. McConkie. I think a big problem with this debate in the Church is that, as a top down, authority driven church, the debate is mostly about who decides what the Church believes. Part of the problem I see is that the anti-evolution side has tended to draw the brightest lines around the issue (Elder McConkie -- Evolution is a deadly heresy, J. F. Smith --the gap between evolution and the gospel cannot be bridged), and those voices seem to have carried the day in the mid to late 20th century.

Overall, it was a good video. I doubt it has the authority to improve the discussion around evolution, but it was good.

He discussed well all the known things regarding the church's stance on the subject, but I did not learn anything I didn't already know.

[california boy]

13 hours ago, cinepro said:

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.

 

Yeah this is exactly what I was taught.  There was literally no "this is figurative, not historical" type discussion.  That seems to be a more recent development.  Thanks for taking the time to pull up these references.

[Olmec Donald]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Evolutionary theory doesn’t provide an explanation for how life began. (just sayin)

Nor why.

[uneducated amateur ramblings] I suppose there doesn't need to be a why, but I can't help wondering what our amino-acid-from-stardust ancestors would think of their descendants sitting at keyboards discussing such things (assuming they could "think").   The improbability of the fundamental laws of physics plus a set of initial conditions resulting in creatures such as ourselves, without there ever being any intention involved, seems astronomical to me.  [/ramblings]

Here's a cool animation of "how", but "why" doesn't come up:

 

[Calm]

That is dang cool, Olmec. 

[katherine the great]

38 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

 

Here's a cool animation of "how", but "why" doesn't come up:

 

I often marvel that innerspace is as vast and complex as outer space!

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

They use low quality science or even pseudoscience. There is a difference. 

The manual:

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

Velikovsky’s training was in medicine and psychology. He was a psychiatrist.  His theories were more informed by mythologies than physics. 

 

3 hours ago, katherine the great said:

It’s also just a false argument. Uniformitarianism is the rule and catastrophism is the exception. They each create some of the natural phenomena we see in geology but (by far) most are created through slow gradual processes. 

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It is beyond me how this is still in the manual given the efforts to follow best practices of scholarship in other fields in producing the Joseph Smith Papers. 
 

I am embarrassed by very few things in the Church (in terms of being willing to share with nonmembers). This is one of them.  I am so curious to know the behind the scenes story on its staying power. 
 

If they had presented it as more along the lines of what Joseph Campbell did or just as a scholar’s theory, but to label it science….

These particular references can certainly be picked apart, can't they!

But I think the Church is on solid ground with regards to not teaching about the Creation and the Fall through science, not using science to prove these teachings, and discouraging students from concluding from science that these teachings are not correct.

How would you update this chapter and retain these 3 objectives? Perhaps by simply removing any appeal to science to illustrate that not all science leads to the same conclusion?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Nor why.

[uneducated amateur ramblings] I suppose there doesn't need to be a why, but I can't help wondering what our amino-acid-from-stardust ancestors would think of their descendants sitting at keyboards discussing such things (assuming they could "think").   The improbability of the fundamental laws of physics plus a set of initial conditions resulting in creatures such as ourselves, without there ever being any intention involved, seems astronomical to me.  [/ramblings]

Here's a cool animation of "how", but "why" doesn't come up:

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

That is dang cool, Olmec. 

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I often marvel that innerspace is as vast and complex as outer space!

...and yet I would not use these concepts in the Institute Manual to support ("prove") the scriptural and prophetic teachings on the Creation and Fall. Maybe to show that there is all kinds of science is out there, but our belief in the scriptural and prophetic teachings comes from some other "place."

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, katherine the great said:

It’s also just a false argument. Uniformitarianism is the rule and catastrophism is the exception. They each create some of the natural phenomena we see in geology but (by far) most are created through slow gradual processes. 

Then there's this classic article in the Ensign from 1980...

The Gospel and the Scientific View: How Earth Came to Be

 

Quote

In sum, the ultimate conditions of uniformity that we observe in the course of nature in our present sphere are severely limited. From the time of the Fall until the end of the Millennium is described as seven thousand years (see D&C 77:6). And while seven thousand years is long in comparison to a human lifetime, from the perspective of eternity (and also from the perspective of modern theories of astronomy or geology), it is extremely short. In seven thousand years, neither stars nor earth nor biological species change enough, according to naturalist principles, to be very significant.

It is therefore helpful to remember, when pondering the millions of years secularists postulate to explain the formation of the earth, that all current geological dating processes are based on the assumption that the present order of nature preceded us and will continue uniformly hereafter. This secularist view also holds that God, if he exists, never has and never will interfere. However, the revelations Latter-day Saints have about the earth and God’s dealings with it simply do not permit us to make those assumptions. As Latter-day Saints we do not throw out the Genesis story—as so many secularists have done—nor do we regard scientists’ honest efforts to learn the truth as the work of the Adversary (though the Adversary does, of course, use those views to fulfill his ends). Instead, we would do better to wait patiently with faith in the scriptures until the Lord fulfills his promise to reveal at the beginning of the Millennium, “things which have passed, … things of the earth, by which it was made,” which, we are assured, will still be part of the “hidden things which no man knew” (D&C 101:32–33). Once the truth is known, all conflicts arising from part truths will vanish. In the meantime, scientists (including many Latter-day Saints) can continue to supply us with helpful knowledge about our present, mortal sphere, or even with ideas about how things might have occurred in the past if the processes under consideration really were uniform over the necessary length of time.

 

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Then there's this classic article in the Ensign from 1980...

The Gospel and the Scientific View: How Earth Came to Be

 

 

Don't tell Dennis Horne that! his 55 part blog series on evolution🤢

http://www.truthwillprevail.xyz/2021/04/introduction-to-this-55-part-series-on.html

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Perhaps by simply removing any appeal to science to illustrate that not all science leads to the same conclusion?

I would have them excise that paragraph or two because it wasn’t an appeal to science, but an appeal to pseudoscience.  All it ended up illustrating was CES writers and editors and whoever else approved that paragraph didn’t understand the topic.
 

I personally would prefer if they treated the creation scripture as a temple text.

And simply admit that the reality of Adam is something we need to rely on faith for, just as we do the divine nature of Christ.  And that whatever that reality is, we will someday learn through God. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Calm