DiscussMormonism.com

In a 2007 interview with the Pew Research Forum, the following exchange occurred. Note that "Wickman" is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy and General Counsel for the Church. Perhaps since this has been around for a while, it has been the focus of another thread, so forgive me if that is the case. Thought it was an interesting, candid moment and that Wickman's effort to quickly remind Elder Nelson that it might make sense not to opine further on the matter is somewhat telling.

Forum: The church has said it neither promotes nor opposes capital punishment. It says it "opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience." It does not oppose removing a medical patient from "artificial means of life support." Different denominations deal differently with questions about life's origins and development. Conservative denominations tend to have more trouble with Darwinian evolution. Does the church have an official position on this topic?

Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It's interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.

Forum: Why is that?

Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It's just the way genetics works.

Wickman: The Scripture describing the Lord as the creator of all of these things says very little about how it was done. I don't know of anybody in the ranks of the First Presidency and the Twelve [Apostles] who has ever spent much time worrying about this matter of evolution.

Nelson: We have this doctrine, recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101: "When the Lord shall come again, he shall reveal all things, things which have passed, hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth by which it was made and the purpose and the end thereof, things most precious, things that are above, things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, upon the earth, and in heaven." So as I close that quotation, I realize that there are just some things that we won't know until that day.

Wickman's effort to quickly remind Elder Nelson that it might make sense not to opine further on the matter is somewhat telling

I've pointed this out on several occasions. Jr comp saved Sr comp in this case.

It is also interesting to note that evolution also teaches that man has always been man, dogs have always been dogs, and monkeys have always been monkeys.

bcspace wrote:

Wickman's effort to quickly remind Elder Nelson that it might make sense not to opine further on the matter is somewhat telling

I've pointed this out on several occasions. Jr comp saved Sr comp in this case.

It is also interesting to note that evolution also teaches that man has always been man, dogs have always been dogs, and monkeys have always been monkeys.

It's too bad those ignoramus general authorities don't seem to know what evolution is, eh wot?

It's too bad those ignoramus general authorities don't seem to know what evolution is, eh wot?

Indeed. Some apostles don't seem to know what evolution is and therefore, their criticism of it doesn't bite. It's very similar to LDS critics not knowing doctrine and so their criticisms also don't bite.

At B.Y.U., to get a grade in a science class, biology, I had to read Darwin's "Origin of Species", and write a 10 page paper on it showing I understood the basic tenets of evolution. The professor permitted us an addendum at the end bearing our testimony pro or con if we desired, but nothing could take the place of actually being conversant in the science. I have 9 books, well read, from Stephen Gould, "America's Evolutionist" in my library, and I prize his intellect and his fair and careful approach to the study, especially with respect to religious beliefs. I believe God created the Heavens and the earth; quite probably by the means of a "guided" evolution. The study of evolution, I believe, is basically a process of reverse engineering, and I support the science fully, as long as it's not done with an agenda of undermining religion and faith. One of Gould's books, "Rocks of Ages", deals eloquently with this separation, and I support his ideas of "non-overlapping magisterium", and "punctuated equilibrium." I don't expect the G.A.'s to be knowledgeable on these issues any more than I expect them to be gourmet cooks or wizards of baseball statistics. I just expect them to have enough background in priesthood administration and the gospel to keep this church headed in the right direction of preparing the world for the second coming of Jesus Christ. If they come up short on evolution, the big bang, or any other current scientific theory, so what?

Joseph Smith didn't come up short on Kolob, did he? Or the Kokabeam, or zippidy zee doo dah day or whatever other made-up Egyptian words he showed off to his audience, demonstrating his divinely-inspired ancient astronomy. He had it all figured out. He could identify Adam's altar, pinpoint the location of the Garden of Eden, give samples of the original Adamic language, and talk about the creation of the Earth by Michael and Jehovah.

And that's part of the whole point. Joseph Smith could look at a skeleton and tell you which Nephite it belonged to. He could regail his family for hours with tales of how the ancient Indians (before he knew they were actually Lamanites) did things. He could tell you why you failed to find the buried treasure in the location he pinpointed with his magic rock (the spirit guarding it moved it before you dug deep enough).

What can Elder Nelson tell you? A bunch of hogwash, that's what. He talks about evolution and reveals that his source of "knowledge" is just ancient superstition and mythology, and he quite literally doesn't know what he's talking about.

Some legacy of prophecy, seership, and revelation. Today's Mormon leadership are all about corporate governance, not doing the works of Joseph Smith. Boyd K. Packer would have us believe that the mantle is far, far greater than the intellect, and Ezra Taft Benson would have us believe that the Prophet was entitled to speak on any subject, whether he knew anything about it or not. But the reality is these are just some schmoes who played the LDS game well enough, and/or were closely related enough to other leaders before them, to rise to the top of the LDS corporate hierarchy and join its Board of Directors.

Logjam, just out of curiosity, do you believe there's any good reason to listen to what Elder Nelson has to say about almost anything?

That's about as embarrassing as Packer's talk about how ducks have chicks and dogs have puppies, ergo, evolution is false.

logjamislds wrote: I just expect them to have enough background in priesthood administration and the gospel to keep this church headed in the right direction of preparing the world for the second coming of Jesus Christ. If they come up short on evolution, the big bang, or any other current scientific theory, so what?

Follow the administrator, follow the administrator, follow the administrator, don't go astray.
Follow the manager, follow the manager, follow the manager, he knows the way!

The Dude wrote:Follow the administrator, follow the administrator, follow the administrator, don't go astray.
Follow the manager, follow the manager, follow the manager, he knows the way!

Do you sustain them as prophets, seers, and executives?

bcspace wrote:
It is also interesting to note that evolution also teaches that man has always been man, dogs have always been dogs, and monkeys have always been monkeys.

??

In what way? Like adults have always been adults and big canyons have always been big canyons? (etc.)

Certainly monkeys evolved from one cell animals like the rest of the animal kingdom?

Is this another one of your weird word games. I can almost guess.