Evolution and the Gospel

[bmy-]

He has seriously been allowed to disparage and belittle people for 5 years on here?? Astounding!

He raises valid questions that you refuse to answer or consider. Snow is an asset to this board. Perhaps if you enter into a meaningful conversation with him and quit avoiding his points.. you would realize that -and- possibly learn something new. Please consider that sometimes.. the hardest questions to answer are the ones you should be asking.

Defeat makes men invincible.

Edited August 12, 2009 by bmy-

[Guest Believer_1829]

He raises valid questions that you refuse to answer or consider. Snow is an asset to this board. Perhaps if you enter into a meaningful conversation with him and quit avoiding his points.. you would realize that -and- possibly learn something new. Please consider that sometimes.. the hardest questions to answer are the ones you should be asking.

Defeat makes men invincible.

I do not discuss things with people that cannot speak with respect.

[bmy-]

I do not discuss things with people that cannot speak with respect.

I think that's just an excuse. Be intellectually honest and engage in debate.. and i'm confident you will find Snow polite enough. He will tell you when you're wrong, that's for sure.. but that shouldn't offend you.

[Snow]

He has seriously been allowed to disparage and belittle people for 5 years on here?? Astounding!

There - right there. You all saw it. Believer is disparaging and belittling me.

Now we see the inequity in the system... help me. I'm being repressed.

Hey Believer. what you call it when someone does what they accuse others of doing? Would you like a hint?

[pam]

I think that's just an excuse. Be intellectually honest and engage in debate.. and i'm confident you will find Snow polite enough. He will tell you when you're wrong, that's for sure.. but that shouldn't offend you.

Kiss up

[Kawazu]

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

What is the source for this quote?

Thank you.

Regards,

Kawazu

[AdamWyson]

Nice quote, but we live in the age of intelligence. If we plan on growing the church in a day when atheism runs rampant, we need to have these answers.

[Guest Godless]

Nice quote, but we live in the age of intelligence. If we plan on growing the church in a day when atheism runs rampant, we need to have these answers.

Why? If everything were to be revealed by your prophet, then there would be no mystery. Without mystery, there can be no discovery. Mystery is what drives scientific progress. If we had all of the answers, then there would be nothing to learn. We would be intellectually stagnant. Our ability to think for ourselves (a central part of what you call free will) would disintegrate. Does intellect really scare you that much?

BTW, atheism is quite far from running rampant. Religion is still alive and well in this country, and more people are able to reconcile it with science than you may realize.

[AdamWyson]

I disagree, atheism IS rampant amongst the younger generation. I am 26 and all of my friends are atheist, everyone i knew growing up was atheist and many people I knew who were church goers are now atheist. I don't know where you live but you must be in a bubble, no offense. I currently work at best buy on the geek squad and have invited practically everyone to church. Of around 26 employees 2 other people other than myself believe in God. There is a plague spreading and I fear most members who live in areas such as Utah and Idaho are not aware of it.

I also disagree on the "mystery", The Prophet could reveal things all day long and still not even touch the immense amount of knowledge our father in heaven has in store for us. Your words sound nice but they fall on deaf ears, this Is the age of knowledge, we can dance around the bush all we want, but if we plan on picking up our dwindling baptism numbers, we need to make a change now.

Edited August 12, 2009 by AdamWyson

[Guest Godless]

I disagree, atheism IS rampant amongst the younger generation. I am 26 and all of my friends are atheist, everyone i knew growing up was atheist and many people I knew who were church goers are now atheist. I don't know where you live but you must be in a bubble, no offense.

Close, I live in Texas. I'll submit that atheism seems to be on the rise (something that I personally have no qualms about for obvious reasons), but we're still surrounded by believers. BTW, I'm more or less in the same boat as you are. Most of my closest friends are atheists, including a couple of people who I met through the LDS church. Deconversion is certainly on the rise, but I'm also noticing a large trend in believers who are open to scientific research and evidence, things which used to be considered unsafe territory for theists, and Christians in particular. Sure, there's still fundamentalists out there who believe that the Earth is 7,000 years old and that there were dinosaurs in the garden of Eden, but they are becoming a minority as more and more Christians are educating themselves in areas of science.

I also disagree on the "mystery", The Prophet could reveal things all day long and still not even touch the immense amount of knowledge our father in heaven has in store for us. Your words sounds nice but they fall on deaf ears, this Is the age of knowledge, we can dance around the bush all we want, but if we plan picking up our dwindling baptism numbers, we need to make a change now.

If you're that worried about your numbers, then I'd say that disagreements over evolution should be the least of your concerns. You're right, we are in the age of knowledge. Some people, like me, believe that scientific knowledge makes God irrelevant. Others, like Snow, believe that scientific knowledge only enhances the way that God's methods are understood. In the end, it's all up to the individual. Each of us has to make up our own mind about how we perceive the relationship between God and his creation. There's no need for a prophet to spell it out.

[Kawazu]

I disagree, atheism IS rampant amongst the younger generation. I am 26 and all of my friends are atheist, everyone i knew growing up was atheist and many people I knew who were church goers are now atheist. I don't know where you live but you must be in a bubble, no offense. I currently work at best buy on the geek squad and have invited practically everyone to church. Of around 26 employees 2 other people other than myself believe in God. There is a plague spreading and I fear most members who live in areas such as Utah and Idaho are not aware of it.

I also disagree on the "mystery", The Prophet could reveal things all day long and still not even touch the immense amount of knowledge our father in heaven has in store for us. Your words sound nice but they fall on deaf ears, this Is the age of knowledge, we can dance around the bush all we want, but if we plan on picking up our dwindling baptism numbers, we need to make a change now.

Hi,

This is just an opinion, however I think that a rise in atheism may be due to the fact that religion is perceived as having little to do with kindliness, patience and adherence to one's own moral code. Instead, it could be seen as a tool to artificially elevate one person over another.

Again, this is just my personal opinion, but I sometimes wish that there were more clergy folk tending to the concerns of the needy, rather than social workers. It would do well to improve the image of religion at large, I surmise.

Have a great day.

Regards,

Kawazu

[Snow]

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

What is the source for this quote?

Thank you.

Regards,

Kawazu

It is a letter from the First Presidency in 1931, also from First Presidency Minutes, April 7, 1931. It can be found in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1992 vol 2, pg 478.

For some crazy, and wrong, idea, some Mormon think that they are supposed to not believe in evolution so they don't. Some of the Church's greatest theologians (and prophets, seers and revelators) have been evolutionists.

[Justice]

God took 6 "time periods" to create the "heaven and earth," so it's clear to me that some evolution took place, even if not in the traditional sense that many think of. All have to agree it took "6 days."

We can safely say the body of man is created by the birth process. And, in my estimation, it always has been.

I believe the spirit of man is created much the same way as his physical body is, but obviously spiritually. However, this idea is up for debate.

What I wonder about is how/when the 2 are joined.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Justice

[Gatorman]

It is a letter from the First Presidency in 1931, also from First Presidency Minutes, April 7, 1931. It can be found in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1992 vol 2, pg 478.

For some crazy, and wrong, idea, some Mormon think that they are supposed to not believe in evolution so they don't. Some of the Church's greatest theologians (and prophets, seers and revelators) have been evolutionists.

The other side of the coin is, when evolutionists believe that we HAVE to believe in evolution. That would be equally false. Until we have perfect knowledge OR the prophet is told to provide us the answer, we won't KNOW for a FACT. We have evidence that suggests it and nothing more.

[Dravin]

I do not discuss things with people that cannot speak with respect.

This is suppose to further the matter being discussed how? There are people who don't like Snow, they have their reasons for not liking him, I'm not going to pass judgement at the validity of those reasons, but if you don't like him ignore him and certainly don't jump into random threads and clutter them up with your recreational outrage.

P.S. I'm speaking as a random poster, I've not got my Mod hat on.

For some crazy, and wrong, idea, some Mormon think that they are supposed to not believe in evolution so they don't. Some of the Church's greatest theologians (and prophets, seers and revelators) have been evolutionists.

I'm curious, but might I ask for a (partial) list? I don't think you are lying, I'm just curious. A list containing Apostles and Presidents of the church certainly puts a crimp in accusations that belief in evolution is an indicator of a dangerous lack of faith (Not necessarily noticed that here, but I have noticed it as an accusation from time to time, thus the 'rule' in this thread.)

I gotta say, all in all I've found this thread enlightening and enjoyable. Its made me realize that a more allegorical interpretation of the doctrines and scriptures of the Church is more sensible then I think I at first gave it credit for.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Dravin

[Guest Believer_1829]

This is suppose to further the matter being discussed how? There are people who don't like Snow, they have their reasons for not liking him, I'm not going to pass judgement at the validity of those reasons, but if you don't like him ignore him and certainly don't jump into random threads and clutter them up with your recreational outrage.

P.S. I'm speaking as a random poster, I've not got my Mod hat on.

Snow's lapdog, bmy, felt the need to jump into the conversation, so I merely explained why I will not be engaging him in discussion. But I see the way things work around here now, so you won't be seeing more of my "recreational outrage" cluttering Snow's ever so enlightening topics of scripture nit picking and faith mocking.

[DigitalShadow]

Have to run, another point, if you want proof of ID – google “fine tuning problem”

Try googling "sentient puddle."

[DigitalShadow]

Have to run, another point, if you want proof of ID – google “fine tuning problem”

It is of coarse not a "problem" to anyone but the atheists.

What happens if gravity is a little stronger? There would be nothing but one big black hole. What happens if gravity were a little weaker? There would be nothing but dust floating around – no planets, no stars.

What happens if the atomic force were a little stronger? Not but radioactive elements. What if the AF were a little weaker? Nothing but H, or nothing but electrons and protons floating around with nothing of the periodic table of elements that we know.

There are many many constants like this – constants whose values have been set just so to make life possible. Change any of them, and everything is destroyed. How did all of these constants come to be just the right value? ID is how.

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.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 30:44)

The universe as we know it is shaped by these constants, if the constants were different, the universe would be completely different, it might have no life of any kind or it might have a completely different type of life. Planet, stars, and black holes are phenomenon that happen to matter if the forces and constants are they way they are in our universe, can you really say with any accuracy that no new phenomenon and niches for life would occur if you changed the rules?

It is true that life as we know it would not be sustainable if universal constants were much different, but that does not mean the universe was fine tuned for us, it just means that the life that exists now is fine tuned for the way the universe works, which a process like evolution seems ideal for. Try googling "sentient puddle."

Edited August 12, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[Guest Godless]

The other side of the coin is, when evolutionists believe that we HAVE to believe in evolution. That would be equally false. Until we have perfect knowledge OR the prophet is told to provide us the answer, we won't KNOW for a FACT. We have evidence that suggests it and nothing more.

The same is true of literally every scientific theory out there. We don't know for a fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or that diseases are caused by microorganisms called germs and viruses, but everyone accepts it as truth. One thing that I can't stress enough (and I know I've said it multiple times on this board), and that evolution skeptics can't seem to understand is that in the world of science, there are no absolute truths. There are NO proven theories. So the fact that evolution hasn't been proven is a moot point. There is enough supporting evidence to treat it as fact.

What happens if gravity is a little stronger? There would be nothing but one big black hole. What happens if gravity were a little weaker? There would be nothing but dust floating around – no planets, no stars.

Bold statements, considering that everything we know about gravity is based on theories.

We come from the stars. We are eternal beings who have come from a heavenly home.

Panspermia is really a mind-boggling concept. There are multiple theories that address the relationship between stars and the origin of life. Again, this leaves plenty of room for a non-literal interpretation of gospel doctrines regarding how life came into the world. It's already accepted in Church doctrine that everything was created from pre-existing matter. This in no way contradicts the scientific theories of abiogenesis and panspermia.

[Guest Godless]

I disagree. strong panspermia is very simple and easy to understand. It can be summed up in one simple statement:

Life is eternal. no beginning. no end.

you see how simple that is? No need to create life or evolve life - it just has always been around. It's that simple.

Agreed. But how are you defining life? Life may have always existed, but in what form? Abiogenesis allows for the possibility that life previously existed and was brought to earth via space debris or aliens or what-have-you. And evolutionary theory takes over from there as those pre-existing bacteria and simple organisms adapted to their new home. Keep in mind, this is a very theoretical field we're discussing, as is panspermia. The opposing theory is that life didn't previously exist, but the elements and biological process necessary to create life did. And scientists believe that many of these essential elements came from dead stars, which ties back to your theological idea of life dwelling in the stars, albeit in a very allegorical sense..

evolution/abiogenesis is the mind-boggling overly complicated concept.

Abiogenesis is very complicated and incredibly theoretical. Evolution is not. We know how natural selection works. We've been able to observe it in modern ecosystems. We may not know for sure exactly how prehistoric organisms evolved into the ones we see today, but we do know that the means have always been in place for them to do so. The more fossils we find, the clearer the picture becomes.

[Traveler]

I am amazed and stunned when someone says they do not believe in evolution. For me it is like someone standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon facing away from the famous canyon saying that they do not believe there is any such thing called the Grand Canyon. I have discovered that many people do not want to seek, search or learn. They want someone else to take responsibility and tell them what to believe and once that is settled they will stand on a clear day and noon and declare it night before they will consider any evidence.

Many times I have attempted to point out that evolution is a fact not a theory. Evolution is demonstrable and observable the only question is how far reaching is evolution? When does evolution cease to be the deciding process and something else become operable (if there is another process)? I am personally willing to accept evolution until something better comes along. Implying that G-d did it and is hiding how he does his magic is so counter to every religious principle I believe in G-d that I am not willing to accept that.

I am willing to accept that G-d has his methods but not from someone that is trying to tell me from a religious stand point that they understand G-d’s methods but from any practical or scientifically independently verifiable means that G-d’s methods cannot be understood – well let me say I have my doubts. If you cannot identify scientific truths I very much doubt you are much better with religious things – Unless you are like Prison Chaplin and are willing to demonstrate by your actions that you believe in G-d and not just with your mouth.

The Traveler

[Snow]

That's the mantra of those that do not or cannot understand the magnitude of the evidence. Sticking one's head in the sand is seldom a worthwhile endeavor.

[Gatorman]

That's the mantra of those that do not or cannot understand the magnitude of the evidence. Sticking one's head in the sand is seldom a worthwhile endeavor.

Snow - I am not sticking my head in the sand. I am proudly standing here before all present and declaring, with no amount of doubt on my part, that I trust in Heavenly Father before I trust in science. Evolution is not proven, as others have made aware. If Heavenly Father is capable of creating the earth, the sun, the stars, teh moon, etc, why is it difficult to believe that he can create a fossil record to serve his own purposes?

Please note, I have not said evolution or science is wrong either. In fact, my first post in this thread stated that I believed that evolution was one possible answer to how Heavenly Father performed the creation. The point being, we do not have a perfect knowledge to be certain either way. So, for me and my dogmatic, I will put my trust in Heavnly Father rather than in the arm, or brain, of flesh.

[Gatorman]

As I believe in the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the teachings of the prophets of said church, I turned to those sources to try to help explain my answer of why Faith trumps science for me, since science is the understanding of man, while faith is the understanding of Heavenly Father.

D&C 3 - 1-8

1 The aworks, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be bfrustrated, neither can they come to naught.

2 For God doth not awalk in crooked paths, neither doth he bturn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his ccourse is one eternal round.

3 Remember, remember that it is not the awork of God that is frustrated, but the work of men;

4 For although a man may have many arevelations, and have bpower to do many mighty works, yet if he cboasts in his own dstrength, and sets at naught the ecounsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and fcarnal desires, he must fall and incur the gvengeance of a hjust God upon him.

5 Behold, you have been aentrusted with these things, but how strict were your commandments; and remember also the promises which were made to you, if you did not transgress them.

6 And behold, how aoft you have btransgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the cpersuasions of men.

7 For, behold, you should not have afeared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and bdespise his words—

8 Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and asupported you against all the fiery bdarts of the cadversary; and he would have been with you in every time of dtrouble.

D&C 58 - 2-6

2 For verily I say unto you, blessed is he that akeepeth my commandments, whether in life or in bdeath; and he that is cfaithful in dtribulation, the ereward of the same is greater in the kingdom of heaven.

3 Ye cannot behold with your natural aeyes, for the present time, the design of your God concerning those things which shall come hereafter, and the bglory which shall follow after much tribulation.

4 For after much atribulation come the bblessings. Wherefore the day cometh that ye shall be ccrowned with much dglory; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand.

5 Remember this, which I tell you before, that you may alay it to heart, and receive that which is to follow.

6 Behold, verily I say unto you, for this cause I have sent you—that you might be obedient, and that your hearts might be aprepared to bbear ctestimony of the things which are to come;

After reading this, I come away even more convinced that what my own eyes can see or prove means nothing to Heavenly Father. His ways may be far different than what science can 'prove'.

[Snow]

I am amazed and stunned when someone says they do not believe in evolution. For me it is like someone standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon facing away from the famous canyon saying that they do not believe there is any such thing called the Grand Canyon. I have discovered that many people do not want to seek, search or learn. They want someone else to take responsibility and tell them what to believe and once that is settled they will stand on a clear day and noon and declare it night before they will consider any evidence.

I'm with you on that Traveler. Elder B.H, Roberts got it right a hundred years ago:

“On the other hand, to limit and insist upon the whole of life and death to this side of Adam's advent to the earth, some six or eight thousand years ago, as proposed by some, is to fly in the face of the facts so indisputably brought to light by the researcher of science in modern times, and this as set forth by men of the highest type in the intellectual and moral world; not inferior men, or men of sensual and devilish temperament, but men who must be accounted as among the noblest and most self-sacrificing of the sons of men -- of the type whence must come the noblest sons of God, since ‘the glory of God is intelligence’ (D&C 93:36); and that too the glory of man.”

... and think how much more we know now than then.