LDS homeschooling essay

[LeSellers]

I imagine [onine schools] benefit the self-motivated learners

One of the major advantages of other-than-grtf-welfare schools is the fact that there is far less (and even no) beating out the natural curiosity of children. I dislike online schools precisely because they are "schools" with defined curricula and timelines, etc.

Children want to learn why the world works. Each one has his own style of learning and his own goals for learning. When the teacher (and this includes parents) understands what the child wants to learn and why, "teaching" is almost trivial: he charges on ahead as long as he is still interested.

The trick is finding the why and what and making the resources available, and to know when the interest is lagging.

In his major work, The Underground History of American Education, John Taylor Gatto (twice New York City Teacher of the Year and even the state laureate once) tells us that among the primary reasons for grtf-welfare school curricula are wasting time and creating confusion and what he calls "the disconnectedness of everything". That's why there are "periods" and "subjects". After an hour, just about when the child is getting interested and involved in the matter at hand, the bell rings, and it's time to shift gears completely. The next day, it takes most of the period to get back to the point they left, and so little real progress is made — by design. That's not the way people learn anything important.

In any case, children want to learn, they are all motivated. They are just motivated by different things at different times. No bureaucrat can impose real learning on anyone. The beauty of Family-Centered Education is that each child can have his own tailored course. He's always inclined to learn because he chose that material.

When we understand that "learning" is just a tool to achieve an end, then the magic happens because arithmetic or reading is not a thing in and of itself: it's a means to getting something done, a tool to make things happen.

Lehi

[yjacket]

I was happy just reading other people's opinion.  But I just have to interject here.  You've given a "good" review of FPE.  I obviously did not have the experience you did.  So I'll give the counterbalancing "bad" review.  What I read on the ads and the website sounded great.  I thought, "finally.  What we've been looking for." But oh how disappointing the reality.

 

They were totally unorganized.  Their teachers had not reviewed the texts.  They were learning them as they went.  Many of the assignments didn't match the texts (page numbers that didn't exist, chapter titles that didn't match the page numbers, etc.) Texts that were missing entire sections and appendices that were used to complete assignments (geography books missing the maps sections, etc.).  Some of the math tests covered topics that weren't even covered in the chapters.

 

And they were given an enormous amount of homework.  They took fewer classes than I had in public school, but their homework load was greater than my load in public school in AP/IB classes.

 

They had computerized tests that didn't provide the correct answers in the multiple choice tests.  Many of the choices were confusing. 

 

Example: Which is the correct answer?

 

A) 3   B) 1   C) 4   D)2

 

Uhm, could  you put the numbers in order?

 

It was filled with fundamentalist Christian dogma as history.  They "proved" the earth is really only 6,000 yrs old.  They didn't teach evolution as a theory.  They taught it as a myth and provided fundamentalist Christian myths in its place.  There was a history chapter on Joseph Smith being fraud, a criminal, and "obviously not a godly" man.  This last one was what broke the camel's back.  We disenrolled all our kids.

 

We wrote to them about each of these issues.  Their response was simply "Well that's the curriculum.  We can't do much about it." pretty much on every issue.  We at least asked for an apology about the chapter on Joseph Smith.  They wouldn't.  One of the administrators simply said, "Well, I'm a Catholic and I had the same reaction when they said something anti-Catholic, but I'm still working here."  I honestly don't remember anything anti-Catholic in the entire curriculum.  Maybe it was in one of the grades that my kids were not in.

 

Bottom line: I do NOT recommend FPE.

 Just curious how long ago and what grades?  

 

I haven't had any of the issues you have stated. For elementary school, the teachers are well prepared, they have 2 hours of class and pretty much two hours of homework-if the kids pays attention.  If he doesn't pay attention in class it takes him a lot longer. 4 hours a day for elementary age is pretty much what I would expect. I really enjoy that they use scriptures in teaching.  They write scripture sentences using the KVJ for handwriting practice. For now, and for elementary school it is really pretty good.

 

If it is in high school, I would probably have an issue with the science; not because I believe in evolution-I don't and think macro-evolution is a bunch of hooyey but the kids need to be exposed to it.  I don't think I'd have too much issue with the JS stuff . . .it's not any worse than I've gotten in high school or college. I have a college prof. once say something about Bingham Young being the founder with the Books of the Mormons or something like that.

 

The only issue I've had is just technology issues from time to time but that is a minor annoyance.  Ideally, I'd like traditional homeschooling for the one in FPE-but for right now he needs a little more structure.

[yjacket]

I'm a bit wary of online schools despite an interest in teaching that way. I would have to learn more. I imagine they benefit the self-motivated learners, but I fear a bunch of stuff to read and a quiz here and there without much interaction.

Technology is getting better all the time.  They have an interactive class with a virtual chalkboard.  The teacher will call on students and the students have to answer through the mike; the students also virtually raise their hand for questions. It works pretty well . . .it's not exactly like being in a classroom-but it's not bad.

 

In the future, online schools and colleges will be the wave of the future.

MIT has http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Standford has http://online.stanford.edu/courses

Georgia Tech has https://pe.gatech.edu/online-masters-degrees

You even have a new breed of courses: Massive Open Online Courses:

http://www.omscs.gatech.edu/

 

Plus with things like Khan Academy online is getting pretty good.

 

Is it exactly like being in a classroom? No, but what you give up in being in a classroom you gain in efficiency.

Let's face it-public school is basically a learning day care center for kids. You can teach the same material in half the time if you didn't have to babysit the kids.  So while you lose the classroom "feel", you gain in extra time.

[Backroads]

LeSellers, are you familiar with the Sudbury School?

[LeSellers]

LeSellers, are you familiar with the Sudbury School?

"Familiar" is a vague word. I've heard of them (the original is in the Nathaniel Bowditch "cottage" in Massachusetts, but there are copies across the country), and I know how they work. In general, I like the concept, but it's a bit too "democratic" for me.

Is there anything in particular I should mention?

Lehi

[Backroads]

Mostly asking how you feel about the basic philosophy of the child - led learning. I too don't care for the voting on everything.

[Vort]

It was filled with fundamentalist Christian dogma as history.  They "proved" the earth is really only 6,000 yrs old.  They didn't teach evolution as a theory.  They taught it as a myth and provided fundamentalist Christian myths in its place.

 

This is, without a doubt, by far the worst thing about homeschooling curricula. Evolution specifically is attacked and shunned, and in general the religious-oriented textbooks are almost unreadable in their attempt to squeeze religious sensibility into every possible nook and cranny. A lot of such texts are simply garbage and should be shunned without mercy.

[LeSellers]

Mostly asking how you feel about the basic philosophy of the child - led learning. I too don't care for the voting on everything.

It's hard to argue with success: they have among the highest college attendance rates of any school, every child learns to read before leaving, knows math and is more likely to be "successful" in life than most.

This in spite of the lack of any formal curriculum, or even any "goals" for learning. Every child gets what he wants, and, if he can get a few others (including staffers) to request a "learning group" on any subject, they find someone willing to "teach" it. The process does work, so I say, "Hooray!" for those parents with the insight to use this resource.

That said, the notion of each child and each staffer to have a vote on who remains in the school, what lunch will be next week, and so on is disconcerting. These are children, after all, and to make everything a matter for majority rule turns the whole place into a beauty contest. Not the real world, which is what education (as opposed to schooling) is about.

Lehi

Edited January 1, 2016 by LeSellers

[The Folk Prophet]

I seem to have a different reasoning for my homeschooling views than others. It's not, for me, about the educational value (though I like the idea of that potential in homeschooling). For me it's entirely about sheltering my family, controlling what they are exposed to, etc. Now let's argue about that.

[yjacket]

This is, without a doubt, by far the worst thing about homeschooling curricula. Evolution specifically is attacked and shunned, and in general the religious-oriented textbooks are almost unreadable in their attempt to squeeze religious sensibility into every possible nook and cranny. A lot of such texts are simply garbage and should be shunned without mercy.

?? For starters there is no such thing as one homeschooling curricula.  The beauty of homeschooling is that you can choose.

 

And for people of religious faith, do we really believe in the Gospel and the Prophets or is it something that is nice one Sunday but for school it's not so nice.

 

While the Church currently has no "official" stance on evolution-it's pretty easy to find out where they have stood in the past and where they would stand today if they needed to make a statement.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

 

As far as squeezing religiousness out of every place . . .that's what was done in this country for the first 100+ years and you know I think it worked out okay for the people who were raised that way.  People can complain all they want about the current society-but it all starts at home from 0-13. If you want a kid to be religious then you teach them to be religious, you want a kid to be in the world then teach them to be in the world. Personally, since God has given me so much and as I think about religion all the time in my work or at home- yeah I will indoctrinate my kids to continually give thanks to God and to see God's hand in all things.

[yjacket]

For me it's entirely about sheltering my family, controlling what they are exposed to, etc. Now let's argue about that.

Bingo; with the absolute mess that public schools are in today-they are more like a jail than a place to be educated.  Billy brings a knife to school and he is expelled-yet when my dad was growing up kids were expected to have bb guns, knives, etc. all in their vehicles. Teachers who can't discipline the kids-kids who don't know how to shut up, sit down and pay attention, kids who bring their family values to school and then teach my kids their family values.  Considering how atheist the world is becoming and lack of self-control, humility, etc. my kids end up bringing home that stuff with them.

 

No thank you. Yes, they need to learn in the real world and they need to learn how to function and overcome today's problems. But if I can indoctrinate them until they have a good solid base, then they might stand a much better chance out there.

 

The Amish do a pretty good job of keeping tight knit families and communities.

[Vort]

 

?? For starters there is no such thing as one homeschooling curricula.

 

"Curricula" is a plural.

 

And for people of religious faith, do we really believe in the Gospel and the Prophets or is it something that is nice one Sunday but for school it's not so nice.

 

Um. We really believe in the gospel and the prophets. What has this to do with my comment?

 

While the Church currently has no "official" stance on evolution-it's pretty easy to find out where they have stood in the past and where they would stand today if they needed to make a statement.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

 

Sorry, I did not see evolution mentioned anywhere therein. Can you specify which parts you think touch of theories of organic evolution?

 

As far as squeezing religiousness out of every place . . .that's what was done in this country for the first 100+ years and you know I think it worked out okay for the people who were raised that way.  People can complain all they want about the current society-but it all starts at home from 0-13. If you want a kid to be religious then you teach them to be religious, you want a kid to be in the world then teach them to be in the world. Personally, since God has given me so much and as I think about religion all the time in my work or at home- yeah I will indoctrinate my kids to continually give thanks to God and to see God's hand in all things.

 

I think you could not have misconstrued my meaning more if you had tried...which makes me wonder if you did, in fact, try to misconstrue it.

 

Teaching math with examples such as, "If Jesus had five loaves, but fed the multitude with a thousand loaves. How many loaves did Jesus create out of nothing?" is contrived and embarrassing, and much less useful than a real example such as, "If I tell you to bake five loaves and you bake a thousand, how many wasted loaves are going to get docked from your weekly salary?"

[yjacket]

 

"Curricula" is a plural.

Obviously you don't understand that it is plural-you knock it as saying that the worst thing about all homeschooling curricula is that they don't teach science-which is 100% wrong-you can find whatever you want with homeschooling-that is the point of homeschooling.

Um. We really believe in the gospel and the prophets. What has this to do with my comment?

Well you have multiple comments that can be easily interpreted as anti-religious teaching in school. For example, comments about "homeschooling" not teaching evolution and teaching creationism or giving some absolutely stupid example about interjecting religion into math; the example of which is ludicrous and I have never seen nor heard of. Now maybe somebody somewhere has taught like that-but not in any of the homeschooling books we've got.  Oh and did I mention by the way that you can choose which books you want to teach you kinds? Your math example is stupid and in no way representative of anything I have ever seen in homeschooling.

 

You quite simply do not know what you are talking about when it comes to homeschooling. Until you get educated on actual homeschooling, please don't bother to put input into what you "think" homeschooling is like.

[yjacket]

Sorry, I did not see evolution mentioned anywhere therein. Can you specify which parts you think touch of theories of organic evolution?

 

I think you could not have misconstrued my meaning more if you had tried...which makes me wonder if you did, in fact, try to misconstrue it.

 

No, I don't purposefully misconstrue your meaning, you just simply don't know what you are talking about.

 

As for organic evolution:

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/originofman.htm

 

Do a search of organic evolution.  Figure it out yourself-organic evolution and the Fall of Man are incompatible.  The only way evolution could somehow work is for every other creation except Man to have been created through evolution. Having said that I do believe it is good for children to learn about evolution as long as it is taught as a scientific theory-which ultimately has absolutely 0 effect on their life. 

Edited January 1, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest]

To clarify:  It was not just a single off-handed snide remark about Joseph Smith.  This type of abuse we're used to.

 

Instead, it was an entire, large page that was lifted directly from an anti-Mormon tract that was so bad that even more respectable anti-Mormons no longer use it.

 

It mentioned the "twelve historical errors of the Book of Mormon" and that Joseph was a "gold digger" and basically committed a character assassination of him, among other things.  My 10 year old was brought to tears as he read through it.  He was required to read this and then write a summary of the major points and state it as fact.

 

While I did like the fact that it used Bible words for spelling lessons and so forth, it was the continued specifically fundamentalist dogma that I objected to.  There are plenty of "generically" Christian ideas that were perfectly acceptable.  To be honest, I was just trying to supplement their learning by discussing those points.  After all, it was not an LDS curriculum.  But it was a constant irritation.  Then the Joseph Smith lesson was the thing that I just couldn't stand.  Not only was it anti-Mormon, but it was a work of pure fiction.  It wasn't historical.  What were they thinking?

 

So, we're doing the best we can on our own.  While I do have concerns about some topics that many of my kids seem to be behind on, at least they are very advanced in reading.  So, if worst comes to worst, all they need to do is buy a book about any topic and start reading.

[yjacket]

Not only was it anti-Mormon, but it was a work of pure fiction.  It wasn't historical.  What were they thinking?

Hmm, weird . . .I will definitely be on the lookout for it; as for now it is working pretty well-but who knows. What book were they studying from?

[Vort]

 

Obviously you don't understand that it is plural

 

Um...did you notice that I was the one who pointed out that it was plural? That would indicate that I do, in fact, understand that it is plural. It was your usage that was mistaken, treating it as a singular.

 

This seems pretty obvious, leading me to suspect you are driving at some other point. Is that so? If it is, you might want to try stating it again, because your meaning didn't come through the first time.

 

you knock it as saying that the worst thing about all homeschooling curricula is that they don't teach science-which is 100% wrong

 

I challenge you to find anywhere that I wrote this.

 

Well you have multiple comments that can be easily interpreted as anti-religious teaching in school.

 

Given your example above, how you interpret things seems to have very little to do with what I actually wrote.

 

For example, comments about "homeschooling" not teaching evolution and teaching creationism or giving some absolutely stupid example about interjecting religion into math

 

So you think that giving examples of bad teaching is "anti-religion". That's tough for you, and you have my pity, but I daresay it's not very convincing for most people.

 

Oh and did I mention by the way that you can choose which books you want to teach you kinds? Your math example is stupid and in no way representative of anything I have ever seen in homeschooling.

 

Ah, I see. So if you personally have not seen it, then it doesn't count. Gotcha.

 

You quite simply do not know what you are talking about when it comes to homeschooling. Until you get educated on actual homeschooling, please don't bother to put input into what you "think" homeschooling is like.

 

So 20+ years of personal homeschooling experience with my own children doesn't count?

 

Or is it possible that I actually have a great deal more experience in homeschooling than you do, and you just want to pretend otherwise because you don't like my opinions?

 

No, I don't purposefully misconstrue your meaning, you just simply don't know what you are talking about.

 

Hmmm. I have to say, I'm not convinced. I'm pretty sure that I do in fact know what I'm talking about. I therefore strongly suspect that you are indeed purposely misconstruing my meaning.

 

As for organic evolution:

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/originofman.htm

 

Do a search of organic evolution.  Figure it out yourself-organic evolution and the Fall of Man are incompatible.

 

Amazing that the Church doesn't proclaim your gospel. What do you make of that?

 

The only way evolution could somehow work is for every other creation except Man to have been created through evolution.

 

The fact that you believe things to be a certain way does not mean that they are in fact that way. If you had homeschooled your children, this would likely have been one of the first lessons you would have taught them.

[yjacket]

So 20+ years of personal homeschooling experience with my own children doesn't count?

If you really had done 20+ years of homeschooling you would know that one can easily find secular books to do homeschooling with.

http://www.amazon.com/Glencoe-Integrated-iScience-Student-INTEGRATED/dp/0078600472/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451613278&sr=8-1&keywords=7th+grade+science+textbook+mcgraw+hill

 

You said "This is, without a doubt, by far the worst thing about homeschooling curricula. Evolution specifically is attacked and shunned, and in general the religious-oriented textbooks are almost unreadable in their attempt to squeeze religious sensibility into every possible nook and cranny. A lot of such texts are simply garbage and should be shunned without mercy."

 

Instead of saying; "some of the homeschooling curricula isn't good" you said "the worst thing about the homeschooling curricula."  And yes I will ask for a CFR on your absolutely stupid example-show me a link.

 

And I completely agree some homeschooling isn't good, some parents stink at it, some books are bad, some people give it a bad name-but the beauty and the joy of it is that you really can make it what you want it to be.

Edited January 1, 2016 by yjacket

[yjacket]

Amazing that the Church doesn't proclaim your gospel. What do you make of that?

I get it, some people need an official Church declaration on everything or "no the Church doesn't proclaim that".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution#Statements_of_Presidents_of_the_Church

 

Stomp your feet in the ground and say "the Church doesn't proclaim your gospel". Okay, I've read enough of the Prophets and Apostles to understand where they stand on the issue, so if it's good enough for them it's good enough for me-I don't need to have an official Church statement.

 

I know it's fashionable in today's society with stuff like homosexuality, priesthood for women, etc. to say "well the Church doesn't specifically say xyz" and until they do declare it official we can't really know. And then when the Church does declare it "oh how dare them, the Church is uneducated bigoted, etc., they don't really know what they are talking about".

 

Is it possible that evolution is a fact-hey anything is possible-it's possible we are really in a Matrix dream world; but until the Prophets and Apostles change what they've said-it is pretty clear that while there is no official declaration and one doesn't have to not believe in evolution, it is pretty obvious where the leaders of the church have stood on it.

[yjacket]

 If you had homeschooled your children, this would likely have been one of the first lessons you would have taught them.

 

Well I have and no that is not one of the first lessons I taught my children. The first lessons you teach in homeschooling is obedience and discipline; without those two anything else you teach is worthless.

[NeuroTypical]

We take our kids to a homeschool co-op run out of our local Mega-church.  Good Christian folk.  We've had ten thousand wonderful experiences.  But also a small handful of less-than-wonderful experiences.

 

- Pretty much all of their classes are fine.  Music, art, math, American history, chemistry, and tons more.  We steer clear of the geology and archaeology classes.   Because they all teach creationist nonsense from a position of being wary of science to the extent that they're not even familiar with what science is and isn't.

 

- About once every three years, someone tries to tell my wife something anti-mormon.  Usually hoardes of her Christian friends descend on the critic and give them a good talking to about how Christians should invite and give reason, not criticize or denounce.  Then they love bomb my wife with so much love she almost drowns.

 

- Kids and I went on a nature/science hike in a nature preserve.  One mommy had a handful of kids, one asked her what made wood fossilize.  She stammered and was incredibly uncomfortable, so I tried to jump in and say something nonspecific like "The way it was explained to me, is that wood or bones or whatever get buried in the earth, and the surrounding earth hardens to rock first, and then over a long time, the wood or bones are slowly replaced with minerals that turn into a different rock."  The lady's reaction interested me.  She almost winced with every few words I said, but looked very relieved that I was saying it.  She thanked me for explaining such a sensitive thing to her kids.    Hours later as we were leaving, I saw the lady point out a log sitting in the river, telling her kids "Look kids!  That log is fossilizing!"  (The kids were pretty young, but I think they already had mom figured out for when to listen to her and when to just discard what she had to say.)

[yjacket]

We take our kids to a homeschool co-op run out of our local Mega-church.  Good Christian folk.  We've had ten thousand wonderful experiences.  But also a small handful of less-than-wonderful experiences.

 

Hmm, weird.  I've always thought the young earth creationist just simply lacked a little more light and knowledge. Within the Church, we have concepts like "matter unorganized", creation periods, time is relative (Kolob, etc.) which fit pretty nicely with fossilization and the earth being older than 6000 years, etc. 

Edited January 1, 2016 by yjacket

[Vort]

If you really had done 20+ years of homeschooling you would know that one can easily find secular books to do homeschooling with.

 

So then, to be clear. you are suggesting that I have not homeschooled my children for over 20 years. Correct?

 

You said "This is, without a doubt, by far the worst thing about homeschooling curricula. Evolution specifically is attacked and shunned, and in general the religious-oriented textbooks are almost unreadable in their attempt to squeeze religious sensibility into every possible nook and cranny. A lot of such texts are simply garbage and should be shunned without mercy."

 

Instead of saying; "some of the homeschooling curricula isn't good" you said "the worst thing about the homeschooling curricula."

 

If I said, "The worst thing about European vacations is dealing with anti-American sentiments," would you then suppose that I meant that every European vacation that anyone ever takes is overrun by anti-American sentiments?

 

if I said, "The worst thing about restaurant food is wondering about the hygiene of the kitchen staff," would you then suppose that I mean that every restaurant without exception has questionable hand-washing?

 

If I said, "The worst thing about taking a class at the community college is having a teacher half your age who is just sure she knows twice as much as you do about ancillary issues," would you then suppose that I meant that every class taught at the community college is taught by (1) a woman (2) who is in her early 20s and (3) who doesn't have a good grasp about where her expertise ends and others' understandings begin?

 

If I said, "The worst thing about participating on a discussion list is dealing with some ignorant blowhard who criticizes without having any good idea of what he's talking about and purposely misconstrues your words so he can make irrelevant off-the-wall criticisms to make himself feel smart without facing the fact that he is missing the point completely," would you then suppose that I meant that every unpleasant person one ever deals with on any discussion list is just like that?

 

And yes I will ask for a CFR on your absolutely stupid example-show me a link.

 

Ask away. You won't get it. This was a published book at some homeschool convention years ago. I doubt they have any such material online, and even if they do, I have no idea who published such rubbish.

 

But it doesn't matter. Since you personally didn't see it, it doesn't count.

[LeSellers]

Please find two entries in this message. My comments follow.

Editorial from the Deseret News:

Origin of Man.-- "In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come into existence on this earth?" This question comes from several High Priests' quorums.

Of course, all are familiar with the statements in Genesis 1: 26-27; 2: 7; also in the Book of Moses, Pearl of Great Price, 2: 27; and in the Book of Abraham 5: 7. The latter statement reads: "And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man's spirit) and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

These are the authentic statements of the scriptures, ancient and modern, and it is best to rest with these, until the Lord shall see fit to give more light on the subject. Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God. For helpful discussion of the subject, see Improvement Era, Vol. XI, August 1908, No. 10, page 778, article, "Creation and Growth of Adam;" also article by the First Presidency, "Origin of Man," Vol. XIII, No. 1, page 75, 1909.

Editorial (unsigned) [Joseph F. Smith as president of the Church and Edward H. Anderson were editors], "Priesthood Quorums’ Table," Improvement Era 13 no. 4? (April 1910), 570.

An interesting letter on the subject of evolution:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

47 East South Temple Street

Salt Lake City, Utah

DAVID O. McKAY, PRESIDENT

February 15, 1957

Professor William Lee Stokes

2970 South 15th East

Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Brother Stokes:

Your letter of February 11, 1957, has been received.

On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position. The book "Man, His Origin and Destiny" was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the Church

The book contains expressions of the author's views for which he alone is responsible.

Sincerely your brother,

[signed] David O. McKay

(President)

=========================

Clearly, the Church has no official position on evolution.

Lehi

[Guest]

This truly is a "religious" position.  I am the only one I know of that has changed their position on this because of what I've actually studied on the topic.  Even your eldest DIL and eldest daughter hold to the young earth theory (as far as I'm aware) even when their husbands disagree.  At least this daughter agrees with her husband. :)