Doctrine confusion

[Seminarysnoozer]

I love her enough that I don't want her to ever need to feel as if she's given anything up

I think this statement speaks of you being, in part at least, in touch with your spiritual side. If you build on this and explore why you don't want her to feel that way, you might come to the conclusion that life serves a greater purpose than to just follow animalistic, neuronal and hormonal influences. There is something there that is speaking to your "spirit" that allows you to give of yourself for someone else. The more one pays attention to that, the more one is able to discern what is true and a correct belief. On top of that, you will discover where true happiness comes from, it is from that type of love and giving.

[spamlds]

I appreciate your concerns, but you have a bigger problem than making the Lord and the scriptures fit into your "logical" boxes. It is the tendency of mankind to want a controllable, predictable Deity. There are two camps that strive to do this. The first group is religious scholars who try to lock God into a scriptural box. The Pharisees of old did this, as do the sectarian ministers of today. They refuse to believe in a God that doesn't match the "logic" or restraints of their scriptural interpretations.

With these types, the Lord challenges them with wording of things. For example, he'll have a few scriptures that say "saved by grace, not by works" and then have two dozen others that say that we're "judged according to our works." There are passages that refer to the "everlasting covenant" of circumcision that comes to an end when he declares it to be fulfilled.

The Pharisee types get hung up on those things because they want logic, not God's Spirit and his wisdom. They want everything nice, neat, and well-defined. They want rules on what they can do on the sabbath and what we can't, etc.

Then there are the Pharisees of science. They try to limit God to what they perceive as logic, based on man's puny understanding of things. For example, they say there can be no God because nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Meanwhile, we have recently seen experiments from CERN that produced particles that move faster than light, which would redefine the very fundamentals of our understanding of physics. We are reluctant to admit that we had it wrong for a long time. God's existence only gets contradicted by incomplete science.

So when you say that something in the scriptures is a "deal breaker," it shows me that you don't really have faith, or maybe you're just beginning to develop it and it's still very weak. I've heard scientists say that religion is a crutch for the weak-minded. It's really the other way around. People who claim to be scientifically-minded are unwilling to take the leap and stand on their own faith.

If you ever rode a bike with training wheels, it's much the same thing. You come to rely on the training wheels, but they hinder your freedom to really ride a bike. When you take them off, it's kind of scary. You don't know if you'll crash. Sometimes you do while you're practicing. Then one day, when you get it right, there is this amazing elation. Faith works like that.

I would encourage you to take your questions to the Lord instead of asking us flawed mortals on an Internet forum. What does James 1:5-6 say? It says if you lack wisdom, ask of God. It's very simple. It doesn't say, "If you lack wisdom, ask of Google." You will get an answer and you walk by faith, trusting in that answer. Your faith will be tested and, if you pass the test, you faith will be stronger. It's the same for everybody.

Remember that none of us are in the position to demand any proof from God. He responds to humility and a willingness to submit to his demands. When we do that, every single glorious possibility opens up to us. The logic in his ways becomes apparent as we live the gospel over a long time. The Lord has your answers. Go to him in faith. Trust him!

[Forget-Me-Not]

Well, I keep asking Google, lol. Still haven't found what I was looking for, but I did just run across this link. Did not check all the articles, but it might have something helpful. As spamlds and others have expressed, the Lord has your answers. Really. As the creator, he is the master scientist. I have no doubt that you can resolve what seem to be difficult issues where religious faith and science is concerned. If science and faith were not compatible there would be no LDS scientists. Do, though, be patient with yourself. It's a journey.

Are Science and Faith Compatible in Mormon Religion? | Mormon Women - About LDS Life and Belief

[scholasticspastic]

Then there are the Pharisees of science. They try to limit God to what they perceive as logic, based on man's puny understanding of things. For example, they say there can be no God because nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Meanwhile, we have recently seen experiments from CERN that produced particles that move faster than light, which would redefine the very fundamentals of our understanding of physics. We are reluctant to admit that we had it wrong for a long time. God's existence only gets contradicted by incomplete science.

This isn't as helpful as you may have intended. I am comfortable positing the existence of God without evidence. I do, however, become extremely uncomfortable when scripture about things on Earth is expected to trump evidence on Earth about things on Earth.

Unfortunately, I may not be able to be honest, a Biologist, and a Mormon all at once. I just found this:

Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual Chapter Thirty-Seven: Moving Forward into the New Century

Perhaps the most heated and prolonged discussions during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries centered on the creation of the earth and the theories of organic evolution. In the midst of these controversies the First Presidency asked Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to draft a statement that would convey the Church’s official position on the origin of man. Elder Whitney’s statement was subsequently approved and signed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and published in 1909 as an official declaration of the Church. This statement affirmed that:

Given the procedure described I must assume that what they decided is doctrine.

“It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’ (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. … Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father.” 14

This seems a very clear indictment of the descent of Man via the mechanism of evolution as false. Based entirely on scripture.

My response must be this:

If I must regard this as doctrine, then my time as a hopeful Mormon is done. Because no Christian should forget that they have two sources for the word of their God:

The one most commonly known is their scripture. But within that scripture it is also claimed that the whole of the Universe is the word of God. Further, while the Bible and other records may be the word of God, they are written by men, through the lens of their understanding at the time they were written. Whereas the Universe, if it is created, cannot be anything other than the naked word of God. It seems prideful and myopic to give precedence to scripture and refuse to accept the Universe itself as a source of information. Because while the understandings of men change over time, reality has a stubborn tendency to remain immutable and immune to fashion.

The theory of evolution was proposed over a century and a half ago. Since that time, it has been tested hundreds or even thousands of times every year. Rather than having been shown false by these experiments, it has become the bedrock upon which the rest of our understanding of Biology rests.

I would challenge anyone to tell me who's being prideful. Is it the person who ignores reality as created by God in favor of their understanding of scripture? Or is it the person who is willing to alter their understanding scripture as they gain more information about reality as created by God?

Because it appears, in this case, that one of them is wrong.

[Vort]

This isn't as helpful as you may have intended. I am comfortable positing the existence of God without evidence. I do, however, become extremely uncomfortable when scripture about things on Earth is expected to trump evidence on Earth about things on Earth.

Unfortunately, I may not be able to be honest, a Biologist, and a Mormon all at once.

This is an honest attitude, which I appreciate. However, I think your example is flawed and that the passage you quote does not mean what you think it means.

Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual Chapter Thirty-Seven: Moving Forward into the New Century

Given the procedure described I must assume that what they decided is doctrine.

This seems a very clear indictment of the descent of Man via the mechanism of evolution as false. Based entirely on scripture.

On the contrary, what it says is that all men descend from Adam, the first man.

The scriptures talk extensively about God's work with "man", meaning men and women, and how his work and glory is "to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man." The passage you quote functions as a definition for "man". Whatever the fossil record may say, whatever the theories of men may teach, whatever evolutionists may derive as the physical ancestry of humanity, the term "man" in the LDS scriptures and the gospel means "children of Adam". It does not refer to other creatures, hominid or otherwise.

At least, that is my take on it. For the record, I have no beef with evolutionary theory and do not see any obvious contradictions between it and the revealed gospel. On the contrary, it explains in my mind many gospel principles that I would otherwise wonder about, such as the carnal nature of the "natural man" spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

[annewandering]

On the contrary, what it says is that all men descend from Adam, the first man. Whatever the fossil record may say, whatever the theories of men may teach, whatever evolutionists may derive as the physical ancestry of humanity, the term "man" in the LDS scriptures and the gospel means "children of Adam". It does not refer to other creatures, hominid or otherwise.

At least, that is my take on it. For the record, I have no beef with evolutionary theory and do not see any obvious contradictions between it and the revealed gospel. On the contrary, it explains in my mind many gospel principles that I would otherwise wonder about, such as the carnal nature of the "natural man" spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

Interesting theory and it does make sense. :) I like it.

[JudoMinja]

scholastic-

It is not impossible to believe both the statement above and the theory of evolution. I have my BS in Fish and Wildlife management, so I've done quite a bit of studying on the animal science and of course evolution. I believe that life on earth was created through this process of evolution.

However, I also believe that Adam and Eve were created separately- a final creation that God placed in the Garden of Eden upon completing all other creations. Nowhere in the scriptures is there a reference to how long they were in the Garden, and it is quite possible that life continued on for thousands of years growing and changing and evolving while Adam and Eve remained in "stasis" in the Garden. I think it is even possible that the "fiery archangel" sent to block the way back to the garden once they were cast out may have been the meteor that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Now, we can also see from Biblical accounts that the people of that time either related time differently or they lived to be very very old. So, I think it is possible that Adam and Eve lived long enough for other "humanoids" to evolve in order to provide greater genetic diversity to their "gene pool". This could account for the archeological difference between Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man. Essentially- Adam and Eve were the first humans created exactly and literally in the image of our Heavenly Father, but there were other "humans" out there which evolved and "mated" with Adam and Eve's offspring.

At least- this is what I believe and how I explain both my belief in evolution and a literal creation by God. But there are plenty of members who have their own specific explanations for their belief, some of them find evolution entirely false, others do not. This is why I said that getting into the details is less important. We all identify ways to explain what we believe and make it make sense "unto our own understanding", but there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong until all truth has been revealed unto us. Even our church leaders do not have ALL the answers and may have been mistaken about some details- especially since they may not have put sufficient study into what they are disbelieving.

The only things that are considered to be the doctrinal beliefs of the LDS faith are found in the standard works- The Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. If it is not there, it is not considered doctrine, and we are free to speculate and extrapolate as we wish to explain away our beliefs.

[scholasticspastic]

On the contrary, what it says is that all men descend from Adam, the first man.

Yes, it does say that. But it says it in such a way, together with mentioning, "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men." that I can't help worrying that denial of the possibility of the evolution of Man was their intent.

The context in which they made this proclamation means it's official church doctrine. The subject of the proclamation is very relevant to my line of work. So getting a straight answer about what the church's position on evolution is prior to making any commitments to that church becomes an important issue to me.

So far everything I've been able to find at lds.org implies that evolution is contrary to LDS doctrine without actually saying outright that evolution is contrary to LDS doctrine. In many ways this is far more maddening.

I am a Biologist. I've spent most of my life- not just my time in academia- researching biology. The evidence for evolution is more compelling than the evidence that I am my Father's son. In fact, any evidence that I'm my Father's son, as used in a court of law, is only possible via the theory of evolution.

So this is a big issue for me.

[scholasticspastic]

However, I also believe that Adam and Eve were created separately- a final creation that God placed in the Garden of Eden upon completing all other creations. Nowhere in the scriptures is there a reference to how long they were in the Garden, and it is quite possible that life continued on for thousands of years growing and changing and evolving while Adam and Eve remained in "stasis" in the Garden. I think it is even possible that the "fiery archangel" sent to block the way back to the garden once they were cast out may have been the meteor that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

I can't do this. Because the very same evidence which is so compelling in other animals can also be found in the human body. You're talking about committing the fallacy called special pleading.

Fallacy: Special Pleading

[Forget-Me-Not]

Another article that might be helpful...

No definitive LDS stance on evolution, study finds | Deseret News

And just speaking for myself, mind you, I have no difficulty with the idea of God using evolutionary processes in the creation process. Sometimes there are those who think it must be either/or, though I've never seen it that way. I'm looking forward to the day all the "how" questions will be answered, but, until then, I'm satisfied with wondering. :)

[JudoMinja]

I can't do this. Because the very same evidence which is so compelling in other animals can also be found in the human body. You're talking about committing the fallacy called special pleading.

Fallacy: Special Pleading

And of course those evidences WOULD be found in the human body, if we mated with "evolved man" and mixed our genetic characteristics. Of course I'm coming up with an explanation that makes sense to me and that others may not agree with, but I don't see how this makes it "special pleading". I am not exempting myself from any standard that I hold others to...

The problem with the statement you provided is that it is NOT doctrine. I cannot remember who it was or where they provided it, but someone on this site listed exactly what something in the church has to go through to be considered "doctrine". There are many things that get muddled and confused within the church because many people do not know what doctrine actually is and often take words from our leaders to be doctrine when it is really just their limited human opinion or speculation. Doctrine, for us, is only what is found in what we consider to be scripture.

You may not be able to devise your own explanation to come to terms with both a belief in science and religion, but ultimately this is what everyone will have to do if they are to have any kind of faith, and they will just have to keep an open-mind that the explanation they came up with may not be correct. That further scientific findings or religious revelations may prove their explanation wrong. But until that time comes, we only know what we know and can only speculate about everything we don't know.

[Windseeker]

I like what the scientist says in this video. That science is another witness.

Our Divine Creator

[Vort]

Yes, it does say that. But it says it in such a way, together with mentioning, "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men." that I can't help worrying that denial of the possibility of the evolution of Man was their intent.

The men who wrote that proclamation had previously voiced their disbelief in and disdain for evolutionary theory. Had they wished to communicate that evolutionary theory is contrary to revealed truth, they would have come right out and said so in a straightforward manner, as clear as that.

But they did not. The fact that they did not, especially when you consider how hostile they were toward the idea of organic evolution, is very significant. It means they were speaking to the limits of their authorization, but not beyond.

If you want to research this topic more thoroughly, start with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism's article on evolution. The second paragraph is the most important, in my opinion:

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, 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….

So far everything I've been able to find at lds.org implies that evolution is contrary to LDS doctrine without actually saying outright that evolution is contrary to LDS doctrine. In many ways this is far more maddening.

I would suggest you worry less about what you think the implications are of any one person's or statement's wording and instead concentrate on what was said, and more especially on what is now being said. One of the twelve apostles is a well-known and greatly respected heart surgeon who has spent his life in medical science. If he cared to make a statement on evolution, I am sure he would be heard very closely by everyone in the Church who cared about the topic -- and if my understanding is correct, Elder (Doctor) Nelson does not believe in the organic evolution of human beings from previous life forms. Nevertheless, and despite his ability to preach his views from a position of great authority, Elder Nelson has never made a statement about the truth of evolution in a General Conference talk. To my knowledge, he has never mentioned evolution at all in a General Conference talk.

The issue simply is not of any importance or relevance to the apostles. I understand that it's an area of concern for you and for many others, but the Church's leadership apparently does not think it is an important enough area to spend much (or any) time talking about or clarifying. Since it would be exceptionally easy for them just to say in an official capacity, "Evolution is false", the fact that they have refused to do so speaks volumes to me. Even Elder Packer, the president of the Quorum of Twelve and a long-time antagonist toward evolutionary theory, says nothing beyond (and I paraphrase), "We are not the children of monkeys. We are children of God through father Adam."

So this is a big issue for me.

I understand and respect that, but you need to understand that the Church is not about vetting biological models. People in the Church, including the men in high leadership positions, still have opinions about things, some of which are wrong or shortsighted. It's the inevitable consequence of living in this mortal realm. That does not make them evil or even particularly ignorant, and it certainly does not make the kingdom of God on earth "false". It means they leave science to the scientists and instead concentrate on bringing people to Christ.

As I said before, if you do not honestly believe the teachings of the Church, you should not pretend you do just to join. But by the same token, you should not let pretended and non-existent doctrinal difficulties (such as the Church's non-existent stance against evolution) prevent you from progressing.

As a final note: Many people, including scientists, tend to state as "scientific fact" or (worse yet) "scientific truth" things that are neither factual nor truthful. For example, I have often heard how it is scientifically established that homosexuality is "normal" and therefore "good". Obviously, science cannot possibly establish a moral standard, but many people -- especially those predisposed to a scientific bent -- fall for such transparent fables. If you are one of those who tends to be unduly influenced by the claims of science, you should watch out for this potential weakness in yourself.

[scholasticspastic]

I'm not so loyal to the theory of evolution that I'm unwilling to give it up. But there's a tonne of evidence for it. Almost all of the modern synthesis in Biology has evolution twined through it. So I'm extremely resistant to letting go of it without some very compelling evidence. And logical fallacies as are necessary to literally interpret scripture about the origins of man really rub me the wrong way. God made reality. Reality should be consistent with what God says. When it isn't, as scripture is always transcribed by man, it seems more reasonable to assume a faulty transcription rather than a faulty God.

I'm willing to admit that I will never have a faith so strong that I'm able to deny the reality of what I see when I find a scripture that says it's false. Nor do I think such a faith would be a good thing.

If this makes me a bad Mormon, should I manage to get to a place where I can be Mormon at all, then I will be a bad Mormon.

Thanks for that recent link, Forget-Me-Not!!! It's exactly what I was looking for.

[RMGuy]

I tend to agree with you Scholastic, though this is what Elder Packer had to say about evolution, "Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles."

-RM

[estradling75]

Thanks for that recent link, Forget-Me-Not!!! It's exactly what I was looking for.

As you read that link... Notice that the General Authorities are struggling and disagreeing on the subject. Church doctrine is establish by unity... If such high level church leaders have different opinions on evolution then it is pretty safe to say lay members are safe to do so.

This is not to say you might not run into very opinionated members on the subject, but that is all they are

[Windseeker]

You don't have to deny evolution. My wife has her PhD in physiology, graduated from medical school and is several years into her medical residency. She loves research and loves Darwin. She does not find any conflict between evolution and her faith.

I think your biggest challenge will be to let go of some of the misconceptions and stereo types you have about religious people in general.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Windseeker
spell

[scholasticspastic]

As I said before, if you do not honestly believe the teachings of the Church, you should not pretend you do just to join. But by the same token, you should not let pretended and non-existent doctrinal difficulties (such as the Church's non-existent stance against evolution) prevent you from progressing.

The difficulty hasn't been pretended.

My sources for understanding the LDS church are as follows:

Church, including the publication Gospel Principles (which I've been reading). My current Ward bishop makes a point of making anti-evolution comments. Gospel Principles shouldn't be expected to clarify the issue for me and it doesn't.

My literal creationist LDS family members who seem intent upon slapping me in the face with whatever they can find which they feel backs them up when they try to tell me I must believe in a literal creation to be Mormon.

So between getting slapped in the face with literal creationism at church and getting it from my family members, and compounding the problem by admitting a very poor personal understanding of doctrine, it's easy to see where I'd get confused.

I am not here as a "concern troll." I am exactly what I say I am. There seem to be as many ways to be Mormon as there are Mormons and I'm trying to learn how to navigate this new landscape. I'm doing my best to learn the doctrine of the church because I don't want to lie, by intent, by ignorance, or by omission, should I be baptized.

I'm happy to accept that the theory of evolution is a non-issue in terms of LDS doctrine. That is enough for me. But you can see why I might have gotten the impression that this isn't the case.

[Windseeker]

My literal creationist LDS family members who seem intent upon slapping me in the face with whatever they can find which they feel backs them up when they try to tell me I must believe in a literal creation to be Mormon.

So between getting slapped in the face with literal creationism at church and getting it from my family members, and compounding the problem by admitting a very poor personal understanding of doctrine, it's easy to see where I'd get confused.

Sounds like your family likes debate and that's great when it comes to scientific matters but it's not what's going to help you find the truth when it comes to religion. In the end you will have to seek the answers from the creator himself.

[scholasticspastic]

Sounds like your family likes debate and that's great when it comes to scientific matters but it's not what's going to help you find the truth when it comes to religion. In the end you will have to seek the answers from the creator himself.

There are a lot of people who would say that's what we're doing when we utilize the scientific method.

[Windseeker]

I'm talking about prayer ya dummy!

[scholasticspastic]

And of course those evidences WOULD be found in the human body, if we mated with "evolved man" and mixed our genetic characteristics. Of course I'm coming up with an explanation that makes sense to me and that others may not agree with, but I don't see how this makes it "special pleading". I am not exempting myself from any standard that I hold others to...

Man cannot mate with any other species of animal. If we're using "Man" to mean "human" as in the human species, then you've got me very confused, indeed. I don't see this as helping to clarify.... well, anything, really.

You seem to be saying that there were evolved humans. Then Adam was literally created. Then Adam's descendents mated with the evolved humans.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply say there were humans before Adam and Adam was the first of them to have some sort of interaction with God? Why is it acceptable that the other animals are evolved, yet we have to get all complicated when it comes to ourselves?

[scholasticspastic]

I tend to agree with you Scholastic, though this is what Elder Packer had to say about evolution, "Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles."

-RM

Surely no one without reverence for slime could have studied microbiology.

[Vort]

The difficulty hasn't been pretended.

My sources for understanding the LDS church are as follows:

Church, including the publication Gospel Principles (which I've been reading). My current Ward bishop makes a point of making anti-evolution comments. Gospel Principles shouldn't be expected to clarify the issue for me and it doesn't.

My literal creationist LDS family members who seem intent upon slapping me in the face with whatever they can find which they feel backs them up when they try to tell me I must believe in a literal creation to be Mormon.

So between getting slapped in the face with literal creationism at church and getting it from my family members, and compounding the problem by admitting a very poor personal understanding of doctrine, it's easy to see where I'd get confused.

I am not here as a "concern troll." I am exactly what I say I am. There seem to be as many ways to be Mormon as there are Mormons and I'm trying to learn how to navigate this new landscape. I'm doing my best to learn the doctrine of the church because I don't want to lie, by intent, by ignorance, or by omission, should I be baptized.

I'm happy to accept that the theory of evolution is a non-issue in terms of LDS doctrine. That is enough for me. But you can see why I might have gotten the impression that this isn't the case.

Indeed I can. And I did not mean to suggest that you were pretending in your concerns; rather, I want to point out that any supposed LDS doctrinal impediments to believing organic evolution are misunderstandings or misinterpretations. To be clear: Many Church leaders, past and present, disbelieved/disbelieve evolution. But personal opinion does not determine Church doctrine, in this or any other area.

Consider that BYU, a Church-owned university whose president is appointed from among the First Quorum of Seventy and whose governing board is composed of apostles, has a strong program in microbiological evolutionary research. A rather paradoxical position for the university, if the Church really did teach that evolution was false.

The bishop is called to lead his congregation in the truths of the gospel. He does so, to the best of his ability. Maybe he sees evolution as a stand-in for all the ungodly influences of the world; even those who accept evolution must admit that it has often been invoked in unclean, even criminal, activity, and not just to explain but to exculpate. "That's just how my body is evolved!" is not a sufficient explanation to dismiss homosexual behavior, beating up your neighbor because he made you mad, committing adultery with an intern, ravaging yourself with drugs, or many of the other things people seek to excuse themselves over by pinning it all on their animalistic origins. Maybe this is what your bishop is responding to, and why he tries to caution his ward members not to fall into such faulty patterns of thinking.

Or not. Maybe he just hates evolutionary theory. I don't know. Whatever the case, he's spending lots of his own time taking care of the ward and its members when he could be ignoring them and doting on his own family. He is making a great sacrifice for the benefit of the ward, and he is doing it because he believes God has required the sacrifice of him. I think that is worthy of letting some of his less enlightened opinions slide.

In short: Don't condemn either the bishop or the Church because of the bishop's possibly benighted opinions about some things. If you join the Church, one day you may well find yourself in his shoes; in that day, you will fervently hope and pray that your ward members support you despite all your faults and follies, and that they overlook some of your more egregious personality quirks, choosing instead to focus on the sincere effort you are trying to make in their behalf.

[Just_A_Guy]

Speaking of BYU:

The Darwin Seminar at BYU