Can Mormons Believe in Evolution? (Click here for the answer

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Post by _Tarski »

bcspace wrote:
Ok. lets opperate from this point...

Why was the Fall necessary?


To bring death into the created world.


It seems that the created world by your lights is anything but the world God created (which was what evolution gave us).
Stange use of created. The evolved world is not the created world? Says who?
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

Once again, here's BCSpace's loophole, and my refutation of it. First the reference from fiction:
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.


"All things" would have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created. Notice it does not speak of "The Creation", it speaks of the individual creation of individual things. It simply doesn't work to take these words and spin for oneself a coherent argument about how "The Creation" wasn't finished until hundreds of millions of years after things had been living and dying on Earth. The loophole scripture says that all things, not all species, not all kinds, not "the world" or any other abstraction, but in fact all things must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created.

The only way BCSpace can use this to support his loophole theory is if he proposes a meaning for the word "created" which allows for things to have come into existence, lived long and fruitfull lives, propagated their species, and died and gone back to dust, and yet never have been "created".

BCSpace, was a dinosaur part of the "all things which were created"? The dinosaurs were all dead by the time of Adam. So, were they ever created? Or did the "all things" not include the dinosaurs? We find their fossilized bones, but according to the personal definition of BCSpace of the word "created", they were never created?

According to BCSpace, "all things that were created" can have included none of the trillions of trillions of things which had been born (or subdivided, or whatever), lived, and died, for hundreds of millions of years, because homo sapiens, which had by Adam's time already been around for into the hundreds of thousands of years, were not "created" yet in the sense that they were not possessed by God-child-spirits.

BCSpace, your loophole doesn't work, and you should stop trying to claim it does and stop using it. "All things that were created" does not equal "The Creation" as an abstract process which you can say was not yet completed until the time of Adam. That verse was speaking of the individual coming into being "creation" of all things, and trying to argue that things that had been born, procreated, ate, crapped, and died of old age had never been "created" if they did so before the days of Adam, is just plain stupid.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Tal Bachman wrote:
Harmony wrote:

You've been anointed? To be the Christ? Not a Christ, but the Christ?


---Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough, Harmony? Don't dodge the question. If you actually think that there is some LDS claim about Jesus that is "absolute, eternal truth", let's see some specifics. It really should be easy.


I don't think I've embarrassed myself at all, Tal. You asked me a question. I answered it. I can't help what you believe. I'm not sure why you think LDS don't believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the world, but I'm sure if you ventured over to LDS.org, you'll find an adequate search engine that will help you understand where LDS come from, regarding that piece of absolute, eternal truth. I'm not required to do your research for you.

PS. Friends don't make comments like "haven't you embarrassed yourself enough?". Friends know that question is a loaded question, designed to embarrass someone, and they'd never want to embarrass a friend, nor would they ask a question designed to cause someone the least amount of discomfort, not if they cared enough about that person to call them "friend" . So I guess you know where that leaves you.
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

I answered it. I can't help what you believe. I'm not sure why you think LDS don't believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the world, but I'm sure if you ventured over to LDS.org, you'll find an adequate search engine that will help you understand where LDS come from, regarding that piece of absolute, eternal truth. I'm not required to do your research for you.



--- What - - in the HELL - - are you talking about? lol

I asked YOU - HARMONY - what YOU mean by the phrase "Jesus is the Christ".

I happen to know what most Mormons believe; but I was asking YOU, because I'm not talking to "most Mormons". I'm talking to YOU. I asked you what YOU believed, and you referred me to LDS.org! If you'd done that with evolution, I'd have presumed that you believed what the scriptures and LDS Bible Dictionary say about the matter of man's origin. But you don't. All the more justification for me asking YOU PERSONALLY what YOU mean by the phrase "Jesus is the Christ"?

So, what do you mean by it? Gimme some specifics.


PS. Friends don't make comments like "haven't you embarrassed yourself enough?".


---It's tough love, friend. One day you might thank me for it! :P

Friends know that question is a loaded question, designed to embarrass someone, and they'd never want to embarrass a friend, nor would they ask a question designed to cause someone the least amount of discomfort, not if they cared enough about that person to call them "friend" . So I guess you know where that leaves you.


---Hey Harmony - I don't know if you're a boy or a girl, or how old you are, and - FINE - maybe my language is a tad too drill sergeant here - but let's be serious for a moment.

What if...........

Just a one in a zillllllllion chance.....

What if, Harmony.......

Whatever else it is, however fantastic it might be as a social organization, or a million other things....

What if......J. Smith did not - really - have the sorts of experiences he claimed to have?

What if?

Answer this particular question with a simple yes or no: Would you want to know?

If you wouldn't want to know, then everything I'm writing is totally in vain.

But if you would, then....somehow or other we're going to have to break that trance. Maybe that means a few Dr. Laura-style "friendly" verbal bitchslaps, maybe not. But let's forget that for now, and get back to that question:

If, by some chance, Joseph Smith didn't tell the truth about his experiences, and his church - whatever else it was - wasn't what it claims - would you want to know? Yes or no?

If you sincerely say YES and want to engage on this, I promise I'll become as gentle as a little lamb.

Don't keep me waiting, Dude/Sugar!
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

Well, I think it's quite telling that you continue to hold to an erroneous view of LDS doctrine despite the Church's own statements on the matter

---Alright then, BC. I've produced EXPLICIT quotes from an official First Presidency statement on LDS doctrine, LDS scriptures, and the LDS Bible Dictionary, all of which state LDS doctrine very clearly on the matter of man's origin.


Not in any way the precludes evolution. You seem to forget that I accept all LDS doctrine on the matter. For example, I accept that "Adam is the first man, the primal parent of the human race." How does my theory conflict with that?

by the way, the Bible Dictionary, though published by the Church, is not doctrinal because it says so about itself in it's own introduction.

So why don't you go ahead and produce quotes from equally authoritative LDS sources which state that "man may have evolved from lower orders", or any other clear negation of the quotes I've produced?


Such has not been my claim. My only claim is that evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

My only claim is that evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine.


---BC, let me see if I can explain this better.

You saying "my only claim is that evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine", sounds exactly like every other brute denial, in the face of seemingly explicit evidence to the contrary. It sounds, in a word, completely mindless, because it produces no supporting textual evidence in favor, and no coherent arguments against an avalanche of very clear textual evidence contradicting it.

It is extremely easy to keep repeating to oneself and others, "evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine". It is, in fact, just as easy as saying it DOES conflict - or that black is white and yes is no, or anything else. What matters, BC, if there is anything to be said for truth, is whether there is adequate supporting evidence for our beliefs.

After all, if life teaches us anything, it is that any idiot can have "beliefs". Every idiot does. What distinguishes idiots from non-idiots is the evidence they can produce in support of their beliefs.

Now surely, on a matter of such importance and in the face of such documents as have been quoted here, you can muster something more than a brute denial. Right?

So where is your textual or authoritative evidence that LDS doctrine on the origin of man is compatible with a Darwinian explanation of the origin of man? We're all still waiting.

Will we wait forever? Your answer will tell us.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

What distinguishes idiots from non-idiots is the evidence they can produce in support of their beliefs.


So where is your evidence that evolution conflicts with LDS doctrine? I've produced far more evidence to support my claim than you have supporting yours (none).
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

BCSpace says: So where is your evidence that evolution conflicts with LDS doctrine? I've produced far more evidence to support my claim than you have supporting yours (none).


---Got me, BC. The Bachman ship goes down!
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

Tal Bachman wrote: Or, like Moksha, who believes that church presidents lead the church astray all the time, but also believes that they don't.



There is both true and falsehood in this misstatement. It is both true that we have been lead astray on some matters while at the same time we have been kept on a steady course on other matters. The falsehood lies any assumed implication that what goes astray must stay astray. Many doctrinal missteps have been corrected by later Church Presidents. Predident McKay helping to clarify the Church position on evolution is one of those corrective measures.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

Tal Bachman wrote: Or, like Moksha, who believes that church presidents lead the church astray all the time, but also believes that they don't.



There is both true and falsehood in this misstatement.


---REALLY? You mean, a statement which contains a contradiction might contain both truth AND falsehood? Thanks for the heads up!
It is both true that we have been lead astray on some matters while at the same time we have been kept on a steady course on other matters. The falsehood lies any assumed implication that what goes astray must stay astray.


---Right. Well, let me ask you the same question I asked Harmony. Can you name one single Mormon doctrine, right now, which is absolutely, eternally true? Just one; and please be specific.


Many doctrinal missteps have been corrected by later Church Presidents. Predident McKay helping to clarify the Church position on evolution is one of those corrective measures.


---Well let's hear it then, Moksha. Let's hear "Pres. Mckay's corrective measure on evolution", issued as authoritatively as the official First Presidency statement it "corrected".

Where is it? When was it published in "The Ensign"? Where is it on LDS.org? Let's see the link.
Post Reply