Why Mormons should embrace evolution


Moksha
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I definitely believe evolution is real. The only thing I'm unsure of is if we evolved from monkeys.

Is this an issue with the choice of ancestor, the idea that animals can evolve from one species to another, or the idea that such applies to man?

Definitely not from monkeys. Ancestors of monkeys, maybe.

Yep, I'd go for decending from primates. It's a true statement regardless of your stance on evolution? :)

What I find interesting is that we are more closely related to chimps then chimps are to apes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cockroaches are repugnant. God doesn't make anything repugnant, therefore either cockroaches or God do not truly exist. Yep! Works for me!

I do not think that a belief in or against evolution has anything to do with exaltation. I do believe that LDS need to keep an open mind to all possibilities. Why? Because when we close a door, we are basically shutting off any chances of receiving any new revelation in connection with that issue. Millions reject the LDS Church on that same premise: they do not like anything that opposes Trinity, or promotes modern prophets, or makes men the literal children of God, etc., and therefore the LDS Church must be false because it is repugnant to me.

We will receive according to the amount of truth we receive and accept in life. This means we must scrutinize all things, or "prove all things" as Paul enjoins us to do. But to reject a concept, simply because an apostle rejected, is to potentially ruin our chances at advancing our knowledge base. And D&C 130 warns us that the person who is more advanced in knowledge and truth will have a bigger advantage in the next life.

Of course that is exactly the same logic that our detractors use...."prove all things" and they would claim that they have as would we. The real difference maker is the Holy Spirit.

And I am not so sure that is what D & C 130 is saying:

18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.

And I can only assume, but, your reference to an Apostle (which are prophets ,seers and revelators) you doubtless are referring to Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie....probably others as well? Whether they were wrong or right on this issue...time will tell.....but, I think anyone that chooses to fall in to their camps and believes in their teachings is probably on pretty solid ground with the Lord.

And just out of curiosity....."We will receive according to the amount of truth we receive and accept in life. " Scriptural references?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, Darwin has nothing to do with global warming - Something that many scientists still believe and also something that doesn't make THEM evil, either. Mars... Global warming... Nothing to do with Darwin.

Actually it's my fault the subject of global warming got introduced. My point was that some people disagree with global warming not because of scientific facts (even if they do introduce a few cherry-picked factlets to justify their position) but because it requires them to change their lifestyles. Similarly some people disagree with evolution because it would require an uncomfortable shift in their worldview. Neither of these attitudes could be described as reasonable or scientific - just human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No he [darwin] was an atheist until he was on his death bed. It was then he recanted evolution.

I'm pretty sure that's an urban myth....

Charles Darwin's deathbed conversion: A woman by the name of Lady Hope allegedly visited Darwin shortly before he died and heard his deathbed conversion to Christianity. This event might have happened, but it is extremely doubtful. Lady Hope did visit Darwin, but it was originally believed to be "in the fall of 1881, about 6 months before Darwin died." 2 Many historians believe that he had lost his faith completely some 30 years before his death, when his beloved daughter Annie died. One researcher, Richard Rorty, tracked down over 100 occurrences of the legend, and successfully showed that Lady Hope (Elizabeth Cotton) did exist, and probably did visit Darwin near the end of his life. But he discounts the possibility that Darwin abandoned his Agnostic beliefs. His family energetically denied his conversion. His daughter Henrietta commented in 1922: "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever." 3

The fable appeared in the 1955-OCT issue of the Reformation Review and in the 1957-FEB issue of the Record of the Free Church of Scotland. It circulates widely on the Internet via Email and is seen on many creation science web sites.

P.S. I finally got to the end of the thread - my apologies to Funky and Moksha who already made this point.

Edited by Jamie123
point already made
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely not from monkeys. Ancestors of monkeys, maybe.

HiJolly

Yup - No one thinks we evolved from monkeys. The belief is that humans and great apes (gorillas, chimps and orangutans) share a common ancestor. That common ancestor (I don't know if its ever been identified, let alone given a name) would itself share a common ancestor with monkeys, baboons and other primates.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course that is exactly the same logic that our detractors use...."prove all things" and they would claim that they have as would we. The real difference maker is the Holy Spirit.

And I am not so sure that is what D & C 130 is saying:

18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.

And I can only assume, but, your reference to an Apostle (which are prophets ,seers and revelators) you doubtless are referring to Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie....probably others as well? Whether they were wrong or right on this issue...time will tell.....but, I think anyone that chooses to fall in to their camps and believes in their teachings is probably on pretty solid ground with the Lord.

And just out of curiosity....."We will receive according to the amount of truth we receive and accept in life. " Scriptural references?

My reference to apostle was to any apostle on either side of the argument, whether it is Bruce R. McConkie to James Talmage. It is all the same, they were giving their own opinions, based upon their own imperfect knowledge on the subject (just as we do). As I mentioned, evolution will not determine a person's exaltation, whether they are in one camp or the other, as long as they are not so attached to their pet theory they refuse exaltation to hold onto it.

Scripture reference comes in D&C 130 as well as other places. We give diligence and heed, we receive more. In several places it tells us that when we accept light, we receive more; and when we reject the light we have, that light is taken from us and given to another. D&C 88 discusses this. D&C 93 tells of going from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace. We are even told that if we accept the Book of Mormon, the Lord will reveal more to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is Darwin a repugnant human being?

He said what he thought based upon what he saw. Being wrong doesn't make you repugnant.

It just makes you wrong.

I don't know whether he was wrong or not, but I agree with this post. He judged on the basis of facts and perceptions he had at the time.

FWIW I'm agnostic as to evolution, tending towards not believing in it. Although not being a religion, can one believe or not in it??

Call it a working hypothesis.

Edited by mrmarklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being racist makes you repugnant - saying that certain humans were lower on the evolutionary track, and more closely related to animals, that some of us are evolved while others are a sub-species more related to primates - yes that is repugnant.

Darwin's racism aside, there are elements of evolution which might be true, while other that are not. Darwin was a materialist, and tried to promote his religious/philosphical views by labeling them as science - so it should be known that his "science" was science with an agenda...

Personally, I'm a fan of panspermia, and HGT. More and more people are tending towards this view based on what we see in the fossil record, and what we can actually observe. panspermia/HGT is VERY different than what Darwin taught BTW.

if you want to see Darwin's racist stuff: The Racism of Charles Darwin

Um, a lot of people were racist back then. Not trying to justify it, just stating a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being racist makes you repugnant - saying that certain humans were lower on the evolutionary track, and more closely related to animals, that some of us are evolved while others are a sub-species more related to primates - yes that is repugnant.

Had to track this down in the Wikipedia, to make sure this was indeed misinformation rather than something valid.

Wikipedia:

Darwin's theory of evolution was a matter of explanation. He thought it "absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another"...

Darwin did not share the racism common at that time: a point examined by the philosopher Antony Flew, who is at pains to distance Darwin's attitudes from those later attributed to him.[160] Darwin was strongly against slavery, against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species", and against ill-treatment of native people.[161][VI]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think darwin is a repugnant human being, a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory, and I will not embrace it. Just my personal view.

How much more evil has come into this world because of religions and their followers? :confused: As previously covered the myth that he converted on his deathbed and recanted evolution is entirely false.

How many other false things do you believe due to your lack of research?

Edited by Intrigued
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I do kinda believe in evolution after thinking about it a few day.

I remembered a thing I thought to myself or maybe it was someone else speaking to me at the time about someone I was having a hard time forgetting.

It was something like this.

"Yes it's hard but let go of the beautiful dust."

So yes, I guess in a way there has been some evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheists under the banner of communism have killed orders of magnitute more than all the religious people combined ;). He did cry out to God on his deathbed, but did not convert.

Read some of the quote he wrote, repugnantly racist.

Read quotes of some early LDS leaders, repugnantly racist. That doesn't make them repugnant -- it is their culture that is at fault. Just like the majority of people born in the U.S are christians.. it's something you're born in and is difficult to escape.

Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question." - link

I don't understand what is wrong about his statement? In a world of ups and downs there has to be a best and a worst, it's undeniable. It's not politically correct to talk about but it is true. It all depends on how you define 'best' really.

Disagreeing with a mans science because one has a problem with his morals or attitudes is ignorant. A villain can discover the truth just as readily as a hero.

Evolution is widely skeptical and most scientists that I've met are adamant that it happened/happens. They do not particularly care if it happened on earth or if it happened on some other planet. It's a nonfactor because both abiogenesis and evolution had to occur somewhere (close to us, likely) within our universe or we would not exist.

Edited by Intrigued
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what is wrong about his statement? In a world of ups and downs there has to be a best and a worst, it's undeniable. It's not politically correct to talk about but it is true. It all depends on how you define 'best' really.

Disagreeing with a mans science because one has a problem with his morals or attitudes is ignorant. A villain can discover the truth just as readily as a hero.

Wait wait wait!! You don't get what's wrong with Richard Dawkin's statement? Some things are clearly wrong with or without morals. It's only a seriously deranged mind that believes Hitler was right. Even if there were no devil prodding him onward, what he did in trying to rid the world of Jews went far beyond anything scientific.

Sure thing a villain can discover truth. But what Hitler was discovering wasn't truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't get what's wrong with Richard Dawkin's statement?

Am I the only one who followed the link and seeing the context had to wipe Dawkin's sarcasm off his monitor in regards to Dawkin's quoted statement?

It's only a seriously deranged mind that believes Hitler was right.

Dawkin's may be a terrible nasty man with a bone to pick with religion but the evidence presented has to be positively tortured to support the claim that Dawkin's believes Hitler was right*.

* He may indeed believe so, I have no clue, but the quote doesn't support such a claim.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I didn't read the whole link. OK so maybe he isn't saying he agrees with Hitler but to even suggest that we need to ponder if Hitler was right seems ...conceited. That's the only word I can think of right now. I don't know how to adequately describe this sense. It's as if Dawkins is so wrapped up in himself, in his own thoughts and theories that he can no longer distinguish between right and wrong. I get the feeling that he gets such a charge out of the attention that he gets from his outlandish statements that he really has no compassion or feeling for anyone else but himself. I believe that at his deepest core he does believe in God and doesn't know how to extricate himself from this outrageous show he is putting on. I think he consciously thinks he's an aetheist who believes soley in a scentific explanation for our existence and is trying madly (that sounds British doesn't it? ) to gather as much support as possible. But subconsciously he knows he's on the wrong train careening at full speed for the edge of the cliff. Just MY impressions.

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to even suggest that we need to ponder if Hitler was right seems ...conceited. That's the only word I can think of right now. I don't know how to adequately describe this sense.

If one lacks an authoritative basis for morality then decided what is right or wrong requires thought (not that an authoritative basis make one brainless but not having to start from scratch makes things easier), you can't make, "It's so obvious!" the basis of an ethical system. I'm curious, do you also think that philosophers such as John Stuart Mills or Immanuel Kant (or indeed any number of ethical philosophers) are conceited because they tried to think on and create guidelines by which to judge ethical behavior?

Just because he feels it's a fascinating and difficult question, why was what Hitler did wrong?, doesn't mean he's suggesting that what Hitler did was right. It just means fully fledged out ethical systems are not discovered in fortune cookies and some of the greatest minds in history have wrestled with the question of what is right and what is wrong. It is a difficult question without an authoritatively based ethical system, and a fascinating one if you are inclined towards philosophy.

I believe that at his deepest core he does believe in God and doesn't know how to extricate himself from this outrageous show he is putting on. I think he consciously thinks he's an aetheist who believes soley in a scentific explanation for our existence and is trying madly (that sounds British doesn't it? ) to gather as much support as possible. But subconsciously he knows he's on the wrong train careening at full speed for the edge of the cliff. Just MY impressions.

How would you feel if a Baptist applied this reasoning to you? The reason Mormons are so vigilant about spreading the gospel is because it's a stop gap measure to soothe the conscience because at the core we all know we're fundamentally wrong and worship the wrong Jesus and on a train careening at full speed to hell?

P.S. This is kinda trippy, I feel like I'm defending the bully at school because while he may beat you up and steal your lunch money he did not cheat on the test.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Stuart Mills or Immanuel Kant

Don't know who they are. But I do believe that lots of philosphers are self absorbed. I know I am when I get too thinky. I don't believe it takes so much deep thought to figure things out. They are making life way too hard. Using the Holy Ghost and spiritual inspiration makes life easier and more enjoyable. But to each his own. If they derive satisfction from thinking things to death, that's their perogative.

I've had "Christians" tell me I'm on my way to hell. I was offended and shocked at first. Now just mildly amused. I had to seriously ask myself if they might be right. And happily for me, sadly for them, they're wrong. "Sadly" because it's a really sad belief. Ours is a gospel of joy! I opt for joy whenever possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting the sense (possibly wrong, the internet can be tricky like that) that you're finding the paradigm shift to understand where he's coming from to be difficult, or possibly just not worth the effort. Relying on the Holy Ghost is not within the purview of a non-authoritative ethical system, certainly outside of an ethical system contemplated by an atheist.

It's kinda like the following exchange:

Person A: Why don't you enjoy a nice BLT?

Person B: It's not kosher, I'm a practicing Jew.

Person A: Well, that's okay, Jesus said we can eat pork. Remember the revelation he gave to Peter.

Person B: I'm Jewish not Christian, I don't believe permission has been granted to eat pork by anyone with authority to do so.

Person A: Well, okay, if you want to be difficult. But I think it's just easier to trust Peter on this.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting the sense (possibly wrong, the internet can be tricky like that) that you're finding the paradigm shift to understand where he's coming from to be difficult, or possibly just not worth the effort. Relying on the Holy Ghost is not within the purview of a non-authoritative ethical system, certainly outside of an ethical system contemplated by an atheist.

It's kinda like the following exchange:

Person A: Why don't you enjoy a nice BLT?

Person B: It's not kosher, I'm a practicing Jew.

Person A: Well, that's okay, Jesus said we can eat pork. Remember the revelation he gave to Peter.

Person B: I'm Jewish not Christian, I don't believe permission has been granted to eat pork by anyone with authority to do so.

Person A: Well, okay, if you want to be difficult. But I think it's just easier to trust Peter on this.

Well you've lost me now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carlimac,

Dravin is putting forth salient points here. I'm not a Dawkins' fan, either. The gist of his point is, however, that right and wrong all depends upon where a person starts. Logic is a funny thing, because if two people use the same logic, but start at different points on the same problem, logic will lead them to two different outcomes.

For example, Dr Phil wrote about his time working in a mental hospital. As he walked along the sidewalk one day, he saw one of his patients hiding behind a park bench, motioning frantically for him to come over. As he went over there, the patient told him to get down because they were shooting. Dr Phil ducked down, but then noticed that no one else was hiding from a shooter. He then asked the patient who was shooting. The patient explained that space aliens were shooting heat rays at people. He came to this conclusion because the sun's rays were warm that day, and as he felt them on his shoulder, he thought he was being hit by a heat ray, therefore space aliens.

He used logic. However, his beginning point was clearly different than most, and so his end point was very different, even though the logic process was the same as we use.

For millions of people in 1937, and even for many people today, Hitler was a hero. He lifted Germany out of its worst economic Depression, where a barrel of money would not buy you a loaf of bread. France and defeat in WWI had incapacitated the nation with huge debt (they just paid off the last of it this week), and economic instability. People were starving. Hitler's changes made for real jobs and social stability. When hungry people are eating, they aren't so concerned about what is happening behind the scenes, such as in the concentration camps. It is often best to be ignorant or in denial, and so the Fuhrer seemed like a Messiah to them. For those hungry people, Hitler was right!

Even today, we see the same things within the LDS Church. For decades, the Church whitewashed much of its history: Mountain Meadows Massacre, curse of Cain, Danites, and the bad parts of polygamy. In LDS written "histories", Joseph Smith did absolutely no wrong, nor did he have a questionable past in regards to soothsaying or talismans.

For people like Joseph Fielding Smith, only completely faithful (as in faith promoting) renditions of the Prophet Joseph's history were acceptable. Only in the last decade or so has the beginning point for LDS history been moved to where it really needs to be. With Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, faithful LDS are now beginning to realize that Joseph was not perfect, and that mistakes and bad decisions were clearly made on occasion. We now can say that a person does not have to be perfect to be Prophet.

So, while I agree with you that Hitler was evil, it depends on one's starting point. Dawkins begins from a philosophical and atheistic standpoint, so his outcome will be different from yours. That you have obviously not studied philosophy deeply, nor have you studied the arguments of atheists, also means they do not make sense to you.

BTW, many philosophers were not conceited. Socrates' main point was that we know nothing, and he used his method of questions to help others see that most of what they thought they knew really was just conjecture on their part.

Philosophy is what began this nation with freedom. It was based upon economic and religious philosophies that ensured the greatest freedoms to the individual - very different from the philosophy that all were the subjects of the King and it was his responsibility to rule and reign over them, while their responsibility was to obey and honor him. Again, it depends on one's beginning point that determines all of this.

For a person who does not believe in continuing revelation, the Restoration makes no sense at all. Or, as in Dravin's example of the Christian and Jew on eating pork, each arrived at conclusions based upon the same logic, but starting in different places (one believing in the Law of Moses' diet laws, and the other believing in the fulfillment of those dietary laws).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Stuart Mills or Immanuel Kant

Don't know who they are. But I do believe that lots of philosphers are self absorbed. I know I am when I get too thinky. I don't believe it takes so much deep thought to figure things out. They are making life way too hard. Using the Holy Ghost and spiritual inspiration makes life easier and more enjoyable. But to each his own. If they derive satisfction from thinking things to death, that's their perogative.

I've had "Christians" tell me I'm on my way to hell. I was offended and shocked at first. Now just mildly amused. I had to seriously ask myself if they might be right. And happily for me, sadly for them, they're wrong. "Sadly" because it's a really sad belief. Ours is a gospel of joy! I opt for joy whenever possible.

It might be interesting to point out that we tend to revere people who pursue enough education to obtain a PhD. And what does PhD stand for? It's an abbreviation for "Philosophiæ Doctor," or Doctor of Philosophy.

Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. It is not, nor should it be, mutually exclusive of the Holy Ghost and spiritual inspiration. Philosophers are responsible for almost all of the greatest advances of our species.

Just sayin'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share