"Nothing has been revealed concerning evolution." Balderdash

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

If you read into this question, it also inherently includes the idea that even if we accept the idea that evolution is real, based on our knowledge that worlds without number have come and gone, we must also logically conclude that the process of evolution was initially completed an extremely long time ago (unless God didn't use it then and somehow started using it for us?).  Therefore, even if evolution were real, it would be a waste of time for God to use it specifically for our world, because he could just take the work He had already completed and migrate what he needed to here.  Either way, this world would not have any need to have been involved in the evolutionary process.

Some (atheistic) abiogenesis theories actually consider this. The theory is that life came to this earth via a comet or other extraterrestrial collision. This leaves open the question of where the extraterrestrial life came from, but also fits the LDS idea that Earth wasn't the first planet inhabited by life. It's important to keep in mind that, more so than evolutionary theory, abiogenesis is a highly theoretical field. 

I would also submit that a God that can form a complex array of lifeforms from simple, single-celled organisms is far more impressive and powerful than one that simply blinks fully-evolved organisms into existence based on constructs from other worlds. My biggest issue with creationism/intelligent design theory is that it forces you to put ridiculous constraints on the creative power of your diety based on very simplistic mortal understanding of how life came to be.

[person0]

20 minutes ago, Godless said:

I would also submit that a God that can form a complex array of lifeforms from simple, single-celled organisms is far more impressive and powerful than one that simply blinks fully-evolved organisms into existence based on constructs from other worlds. My biggest issue with creationism/intelligent design theory is that it forces you to put ridiculous constraints on the creative power of your diety based on very simplistic mortal understanding of how life came to be.

I am having trouble determining how to respond because I am not sure if you are providing general statements of your opinion, or if you are responding to what you think is my opinion. 

I suppose I will respond anyway. . . I am not so sure about the blinking things into existence part.  I don't believe creation of matter is possible, which is congruent with the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy.  The idea of something coming from another world would merely be for transportation purposes, not as in creating a copy of it.  In the example I presented that you responded to, God would have first used evolution somewhere else, and then rather than taking the millions of years needed to do it again, would have used His existing finished product as a source for all the other worlds He wanted to create.  That said, I don't necessarily believe that is what happened, I was just using it as an example of what would have made more sense than starting from scratch all over again.  Also, I am having trouble determining what constraints are placed on God's creative power by one believing in a creationist/intelligent design theory?

Also, in my perspective, even without evolution, God still could have done exactly what you said in forming 'a complex array of lifeforms from simple, single-celled organisms'; even without evolution our world is made up of many organisms, beginning with single celled.  What if God, rather than use evolution, created a singe celled organism, then from there created a multi-celled organism, and made tweaks and changes, and essentially accomplished what might appear as evolution, but instead was a planned and calculated process of building upon previous work to create the plethora of life forms in existence?

[BJ64]

11 hours ago, vitaminwater120 said:

According to the October 2016 edition of New Era, "nothing has been revealed about evolution" and "the Church has no official position on evolution."

But the Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith and the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson spoke plainly against evolution.  The Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith taught: 

"It has been truthfully said that organic evolution is Satan’s chief weapon in this dispensation in his attempt to destroy the divine mission of Jesus Christ. It is a contemptible plot against faith in God and to destroy the effective belief in the divine atonement of our Redeemer� There is not and cannot be, any compromise between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the theories of evolution. Were evolution true, there could be no remission of sin. In fact there could be no sin. (Ibid., p. 184)"

And the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson taught:

"Now, we have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc."

If the teachings of our own prophets don't constitute an "official position" for a given topic, then the church doesn't have an official position on anything. 

You bring up a very interesting point. It’s something I’ve also noticed. 

 

[LePeel]

4 hours ago, person0 said:

You are going to have to be way more specific than that.

That's about as specific as I can get, I don't know much more than that. I'm assuming the theory of evolution was and continues to be verified like any other scientific theory. If it is, then its an explanation of the data.

4 hours ago, person0 said:

Either way, this world would not have any need to have been involved in the evolutionary process.

How is an ecosystem achieved if all the plants and animals are alien to this earth? Various biomes with regional flora and fauna which are made for those environments, the pull of the moon, fresh water fish can't drink salt water, you don't see cati in the Scottish highlands etc, etc.

[person0]

6 hours ago, LePeel said:

How is an ecosystem achieved if all the plants and animals are alien to this earth? Various biomes with regional flora and fauna which are made for those environments, the pull of the moon, fresh water fish can't drink salt water, you don't see cati in the Scottish highlands etc, etc.

You are assuming God would not create the appropriate environments where those things could dwell as part of His process?

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, vitaminwater120 said:

If the teachings of our own prophets don't constitute an "official position" for a given topic, then the church doesn't have an official position on anything. 

The church has an official position - God created us.  The problem with the evolution theorists/theories that those prophets warned us about is the teaching that God did not create us because... evolution.

[Traveler]

Two things about evolution:

First: When a human is conceived a sperm fertilizes an egg and human life begins as a single cell organism we call a zygote.  What takes place from conception until a child is born is in every sense of the definition – evolution.   To believe that G-d does not create via evolution is pure ignorance and might I add unmigrated stupidity.

Second: One argument often rendered concerning the above – by those that do not understand evolution – is a case of micro evolution as opposed to macro evolution.  Their argument is that there is no conclusive evidence that evolution has ever or currently produces new species.  Again this is pure speculation (of the worse kind) based in ignorance.  From a scripture standpoint, if we consider the size of Noah’s ark as described in scripture and overlay that with what we know of the abundance of variety of life – both what has existed and now currently exist – if we reject evolution we cannot account for the number of species (from then to now) that we currently know exist.  In fact – just considering all the known species of worms only; the Ark is not big enough to contain a breeding pair of all species of known worms – let alone so many other forms of life.  Simple fact – Without evolution of species there is no answer.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

What takes place from conception until a child is born is in every sense of the definition – evolution.

Except in the sense of "organic evolution", which applies to a species through generations, not to any individual.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Except in the sense of "organic evolution", which applies to a species through generations, not to any individual.

You are correct – I did not address organic evolution (like why some humans have blue eyes and others have brown + why some have more skin pigments than others) and the idea of genetic replication error or genetic changes from a virus (which is at least remotely related).  I intended to start with the low hanging fruit of evolution.

Thanks for noticing.

 

The Traveler

[person0]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

just considering all the known species of worms only; the Ark is not big enough to contain a breeding pair of all species of known worms – let alone so many other forms of life.  Simple fact – Without evolution of species there is no answer.

Your logic would lead to the conclusion that evolution happens at a much faster rate than what science currently teaches.  Also, not me, but many believe in a local flood, which would immediately negate your premise.

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

First: When a human is conceived a sperm fertilizes an egg and human life begins as a single cell organism we call a zygote.  What takes place from conception until a child is born is in every sense of the definition – evolution.

I agree with this, but most people I know almost never use the word 'evolution' in this context, including me.

[LePeel]

6 hours ago, person0 said:

You are assuming God would not create the appropriate environments where those things could dwell as part of His process?

I'm thinking the development of an ecosystem is dependent on evolution.

[person0]

4 minutes ago, LePeel said:

I'm thinking the development of an ecosystem is dependent on evolution.

How/why?  Please elaborate.

[LePeel]

1 minute ago, person0 said:

How/why?  Please elaborate.

Flora and fauna interact with the environment, a natural selection takes places, and over time, we get a more and more refined ecosystem.

[person0]

2 minutes ago, LePeel said:

Flora and fauna interact with the environment, a natural selection takes places, and over time, we get a more and more refined ecosystem.

And why would God have any difficulty in placing the right plants in the right places?

Quote

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden;  (Genesis 2)

Edited July 27, 2018 by person0

[BJ64]

It seems that most responders to this topic have misunderstood the original question. 

The question was not about evolution per se but rather why is it that the church says there has been nothing revealed about it and has no official stance on it when prophets have clearly made numerous statements on the topic. 

I realize that a few statements by prophets don’t necessarily equate to official policy or position but on other issues a statement or two from a single prothet has been considered doctrine or policy. 

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

The question was not about evolution per se but rather why is it that the church says there has been nothing revealed about it and has no official stance on it when prophets have clearly made numerous statements on the topic. 

An official stance is not the same a a church leader making a remark on it. 

6 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I realize that a few statements by prophets don’t necessarily equate to official policy or position 

... ... you just disagreed with yourself...

It would be nice if people spent the time to study what consists of an official stance and what doesn't.  

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

 

It would be nice if people spent the time to study what consists of an official stance and what doesn't.  

The irony is that anti-Mormons do this all the time! 

[BJ64]

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

An official stance is not the same a a church leader making a remark on it. 

... ... you just disagreed with yourself...

It would be nice if people spent the time to study what consists of an official stance and what doesn't.  

I didn’t disagree with myself. I merely attempted to restate the op in order to get the thread back on track. 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

If the teachings of our own prophets don't constitute an "official position" for a given topic, then the church doesn't have an official position on anything. 

The official position of the church is that not everything a prophet says is an official position (really).

Otherwise these would all be official positions of the Church:

Brigham Young

There are men living on the sun.

Blacks will not receive the priesthood until every white person has a chance to hear the gospel.

Interracial marriage will forever be punishable by death.

Joseph Fielding Smith

Automobiles are just a fad.

Man will never walk on the moon.

Spencer W Kimball

Cain is big foot (implied rather than exact quote).

The Civil Rights Movement is a Socialist Plot.

The Mark Hoffman forgeries are genuine (add Gordon B Hinkley to this as well).  

Of course there are a lot more. 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Scott

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

It would be nice if people spent the time to study what consists of an official stance and what doesn't.  

Indeed... that would be nice...

Instead what we get is picking and selectively choosing what they wish to be true/official to support whatever it is they want to believe...  But people making their own choice is part of the plan so this is simply an expected (and annoying side effect)

[person0]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

The Civil Rights Movement is a Socialist Plot.

I'm not so sure this one is false.

[Guest Godless]

13 minutes ago, person0 said:

I'm not so sure this one is false.

So am I understand that this document could be erased from federal law and you would be okay with it? Because that's 100% what the civil rights movement of Kimball's day fought tooth-and-nail for.

[MrShorty]

Part of me feels like I shouldn't add to this discussion, but I will anyway.

On one hand, this is another one of those issues that really brings home the whole prophetic fallibility question. As pointed out, Joseph Fielding Smith (and probably others)  have clearly been Creationists (and Young Earth Creationists). Does this make Young Earth Creationism the official position of the Church? Why or Why not (which usually leads me into some of the questions around prophetic fallibility and when is a prophet speaking as a prophet).

The other thing that the OP reminds me of is that the official publications of the Church have a very strong tendency towards Creationism. This really hit home to me a couple of months ago while reading through the Old Testament Institute manual (https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng ). Two highlights from the lesson:

1) The authors of the lesson take great care on the question of the age of the earth to present multiple points of view and draw a clear "the Church has no official position regarding the age of the earth" conclusion.

2) In the points to ponder section, the authors rely very heavily on Creationist sources (such as Joseph Fielding Smith). But that isn't what really stood out to me. The thing that most stood out to me was that there was no mention of a theistic evolution perspective. The authors seemed only interested in discrediting any kind of perspective that includes evolution.

So, I guess what I really want to do here is ask point blank (and recognizing mormonhub's disclaimer that nothing here represents the official position of the Church), is there any room within Mormonism for a cosmology that incorporates some flavor of theistic evolution? It seems to me that, if the New Era Q&A article is to be believed, the Church takes no stance against theistic evolution. The Church's main concern is that our cosmology incorporate some form of "God is ultimately the Creator" (which most flavors of theistic evolution do). What does the mormonhub community say?

[person0]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

So am I understand that this document could be erased from federal law and you would be okay with it? Because that's 100% what the civil rights movement of Kimball's day fought tooth-and-nail for.

In today's society?  Modern outrage culture + social media = such a law is not necessary in the private sector.  Knowledge is power, and if I know a certain business is openly racist, I wont shop there, and neither will most people these days.  I agree with Rand Paul's position:

John Stossel also spells it out very clearly here.  I agree with this (libertarian) position.

Edited July 28, 2018 by person0

[Anddenex]

On 7/26/2018 at 11:37 AM, vitaminwater120 said:

According to the October 2016 edition of New Era, "nothing has been revealed about evolution" and "the Church has no official position on evolution."

But the Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith and the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson spoke plainly against evolution.  The Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith taught: 

"It has been truthfully said that organic evolution is Satan’s chief weapon in this dispensation in his attempt to destroy the divine mission of Jesus Christ. It is a contemptible plot against faith in God and to destroy the effective belief in the divine atonement of our Redeemer� There is not and cannot be, any compromise between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the theories of evolution. Were evolution true, there could be no remission of sin. In fact there could be no sin. (Ibid., p. 184)"

And the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson taught:

"Now, we have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc."

If the teachings of our own prophets don't constitute an "official position" for a given topic, then the church doesn't have an official position on anything. 

As pertaining to "evolution" and an official Church position it would be better to use the following proclamation provided by the Presidency of the Church in 1909, "The Origin of Man." This proclamation has been republished and shared on lds.org as official doctrine -- here. Arguing with this proclamation would be very similar to arguing against "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

There is a difference though, the first was only signed by three (the Presidency at that time), whereas the latter was signed by all 15 prophets and apostles. The latter is not an official declaration, meaning that it is not yet "canon" scripture. Once any of these are added to the Doctrine and Covenants, or the Church decides to organize a new book of scripture, then these proclamations can be considered official. As of right now, these are the Church's position, which for some reason (known to them) they accept one without any qualm, while rejecting the other. Then you have others which are true to form, they reject both and continue to believe as they want to believe (their God given right).

The concept of organic evolution would bring into question the fall -- which is what the first quote testifies of. I would tend to agree with them. Adam, according to scripture was created in an "immortal" state, a perfect body. Organic evolution is the opposite of a perfect body and is already "fallen" thus it is changing -- blood. Adam and Eve could not die, but a body created through organic evolution (as described by organic evolution) dies. How then did sin enter the world, if Adam was already mortal? Organic evolution occurs within a corrupt world, we live in a "Telestial" world that describes organic evolution (thus succumbed to the laws of the Telestial world). In correlation with the proclamation of 1909 by the First Presidency and others who have given a similar witness -- I know where I personally place my trust (as has been repeated here multiple times).

I whole heartily agree with the second bold sentence of Ezra Taft Benson. We are able to see the corruption of the world and the world is ripening in iniquity. We have witness already of our youth leaving the Church due to evolution and the scholars of evolution, because the youth are not prepared to combat such theories. They do not know how to isolate their testimony from what is revealed science today -- which could change tomorrow. For example, growing up in school I was taught that a new species cannot mate with the previous parental kind. In college, I was informed this had been corrected and now they can -- at least for some.

Also, I think it important to point out regarding "the falsehoods in ...organic evolution" the key word "in."  The falsehood I can see clearly is the organic evolution of Adam and Eve. This would require a person to believe Adam was mortal >> immortal >> mortal.  It is clear from scripture that Adam was created spiritually (Eden - Immortality) and then temporally (the fall - mortality) -- at least to me. This doesn't mean that since Adam that God hasn't used organic evolution to create species within species. I have no problem believing the different species of horses all stem from a common ancestor that is a horse (same kind).

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by Anddenex