Page 1 of 1
Evolutionists versus Creationists in Mormon history
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:24 pm
by _Daheshist
The LDS Church was not always "Creationist". In fact, there is a statement written by the First Presidency that says it is neutral on the subject of the age of the Earth, but says that Adam is the "primary parent of our race". In the 1930s there were two "camps" among Church leaders: the Evolutionists led by Elder James Talmage, and the Creationists led by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith. Elder Talmage gave a talk in General Conerence, I believe in 1934, wherein he said that Adam was NOT the first human being, and that Adam was the father of the Adamites only; not all races of mankind (by Adamites he meant white people). The Church published this talk as a pamphlet titled "The Earth and Man" under "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Today, the Church claims that anything published by the Church under its name is "official doctrine". I guess "The Earth and Man" was official doctrine in 1934. It was pro-evolution, and claimed that Adam was the father of the Adamites, and that the Earth was billions of years old.
Anyway, Joseph Fielding Smith lived a lot longer than James Talmage. Because of this, his Creationist views prevailed. Joseph Fielding Smith was also the Church Historian, and he made sure that all references to pre-adamites or of prophets before Adam were written OUT of all Church publications; even though they exist in Church history. That is not honest. During the 1960s until his death, Joseph Fielding Smith rootinely had BYU professors threatened or canned if they taught evolution.
These Creationist views were popularized even more by Joseph Fielding Smith's son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie, who wrote "Mormon Doctrine". When I was a Mormon, "Mormon Doctrine" was on the shelf of every single Mormon I knew, and routinely used in Sacrament talks, Priesthood talks, Seminaries, Institutes...it was EVERYWHERE! Nobody considered it "personal opinion" as they say now. Everyone considered it on par with the Standard Works. That is how everybody viewed it. To even "suggest" it was McConkie's "opinion only" would bring LAUGHTER from a Mormon Sunday School crowd...because they think you were STUPID to even suggest that. I know, because when I said "I think Elder McConkie was just uttering his own opinion" during a Sunday School class, the Mormons laughed at me like I had told the funniest joke they ever heard, and the teacher shook his head in a "no" movement saying, "Well, we all know of course that what you said isn't true". How times change!
The Church should have stuck with "THE EARTH AND MAN" by Talmage. It would have saved perhaps 100,000 young intellecutal Mormons from losing faith and leaving the Church over the decades.
Please read my post below: Some Answered Questions About Dr. Dahesh and Mormonism
Re: Evolutionists versus Creationists in Mormon history
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:18 pm
by _bcspace
Half of Mormons say WoW not "Essential" to be "good Mormon"
Old news. JFS and BRM's works never made doctrinal status; they were denied official publication. The 1931 statement to all GAs, which you didn't mention, put an end to debate on the 1909 statement by saying in part:
The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.
So if pre Adamites can co-exist with LDS doctrine, then so can death before the garden state and evolution. Nothing really changed since then. Even after a concerted effort by the Fielding-McConkites, evolution still does not conflict with LDS doctrine.
When I was a Mormon, "Mormon Doctrine" was on the shelf of every single Mormon I knew, and routinely used in Sacrament talks, Priesthood talks, Seminaries, Institutes...it was EVERYWHERE! Nobody considered it "personal opinion" as they say now. Everyone considered it on par with the Standard Works. That is how everybody viewed it. To even "suggest" it was McConkie's "opinion only" would bring LAUGHTER from a Mormon Sunday School crowd...because they think you were STUPID to even suggest that. I know, because when I said "I think Elder McConkie was just uttering his own opinion" during a Sunday School class, the Mormons laughed at me like I had told the funniest joke they ever heard, and the teacher shook his head in a "no" movement saying, "Well, we all know of course that what you said isn't true". How times change!
My calling in the Church is one of the six in a Stake that gives TR interviews. Sunday School and missionary work are part of my direct responsibility. I've taught that evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine in classes and meetings. I've taught the Church's view of doctrine they way I present it here. All in the presence of visiting GA's. One would think I would have been reprimanded or released by now if I were wrong......
The Church should have stuck with "THE EARTH AND MAN" by Talmage. It would have saved perhaps 100,000 young intellecutal Mormons from losing faith and leaving the Church over the decades.
Perhaps you should have done your homework (assuming you are claiming to be an "intellectual"). When I was about 15, I stood up for evolution in Teacher's Quorum. The adviser was appalled and sent me to see the bishop. The bishop was appall ed. Next week, the bishop was meeting with me and my Dad about it and the Stake President come down and said evolution was alright vis a vis LDS doctrine. Re-affirmed that BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" was not doctrinal. That was back in the late 1970's.
Re: Evolutionists versus Creationists in Mormon history
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:52 am
by _Daheshist
The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.
BCSPACE: So if pre Adamites can co-exist with LDS doctrine, then so can death before the garden state and evolution. Nothing really changed since then. Even after a concerted effort by the Fielding-McConkites, evolution still does not conflict with LDS doctrine.
DARRICK: Nice to know that bcspace. I wish you would have been with me all those times I was told ther exact opposite.
BCSPACE: My calling in the Church is one of the six in a Stake that gives TR interviews. Sunday School and missionary work are part of my direct responsibility. I've taught that evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine in classes and meetings. I've taught the Church's view of doctrine they way I present it here. All in the presence of visiting GA's. One would think I would have been reprimanded or released by now if I were wrong......
DARRICK: Had your Stake President been a McConkite, you probably would have been "warned" once and then released if you persisted. True. I never heard it discussed with any GAs. The only GA I ever met with Elder David B. Haight, who told me that he never believed in the Curse of Cain Doctrine. He said, "The Brethren were wrong on that. I never agreed with the Brethren on that". Yet, he sustained them, and never uttered a WORD against it as it was taught just about all his life. I did write to the First Presidency several times asking "Is evolution Lucifer's lie? Must I believe in Creationism to be a Member of the Church?" The only reply I got back was "Ask your bishop". I did. He has no idea either way. I asked other bishops over the years. One told me "of course" I could not believe in evolution. Another kept asking me, "Why are you asking questions? Why are you asking questions? you know, if you were living the Gospel, you wouldn't be asking these questions". Another said, "Don't worry about it. Just follow the Brethren". Utter confusion. Utter contradiction. God is not the Author of Confusion. Many teachings in the Church are "generational"; such as God having sex with Mary and the Curse of Cain. Most older Mormons accept it, but younger Mormons usually have never heard of it, so they don't believe it. Some Mormon teachings are "regional". Where I was a Mormon, in Western Washington, I was told by Mormon bishops that "Mormon women never lie" and "Mormon women would NEVER do anything sexual before marriage unless forced to by an evil male". Of course...PURE BULL crap. But, you must remember, about 80 per cent of the Mormon bishops I knew in Western Washington state never grew up in the Church. They married Mormon women, and later converted. They were told BULL crap and accepted it as PURE TRUTH, and repeated it to me. I doubt any Mormon bishop who was born and raised in the Church would teach such utter non-sense as the things I was told.
BCSPACE: Perhaps you should have done your homework (assuming you are claiming to be an "intellectual"). When I was about 15, I stood up for evolution in Teacher's Quorum. The adviser was appalled and sent me to see the bishop. The bishop was appall ed. Next week, the bishop was meeting with me and my Dad about it and the Stake President come down and said evolution was all right vis a vis LDS doctrine. Re-affirmed that BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" was not doctrinal. That was back in the late 1970's.[/quote]
DARRICK: I did not do much research when I was an 18 year old Mormon, because I was told to TRUST MY PRIESTHOOD LEADERS. I was told by Institute Instructors, who studied Mormon doctrine and history for years or decades, that the Church said "There were no pre-Adamites" and the Negroes were rightfully cursed and that God begot Jesus just like a man begets with a woman, etc. All told me that, and I asked all who worked at the Seattle and Tacoma Institutes, and even when I went down to Los Angeles to work, the Institute Instructors at UCLA, and Cal State Northridge, and Cerritos College, and El Dorado College, and in Hungtington Beach, and in Riverside and in Cypress and in Long Beach..all said the EXACT same thing:
*Cain was a white man until God cursed him, causing him to become the first Negro.
*The Flood was universal because the Earth had to be baptized by immersion.
*God the Father "stepped down" and joined with Mary and begot Jesus just as a man begets any child with a woman.
*There were no pre-Adamites, that was against the teachings of the Church.
*Brigham Young was misquoted about Adam-God, or he was speculating only.
*Evolution is Lucifer's lie, and the Church is officially Creationist (although some said the Earth was 6,000 years old, and others said it was much older but all agreed Adam and Eve were the first humans)
Every...single....one told me this. And I asked all of them! Every single one had well-worn copies of Mormon DOCTRINE either on their shelves or their desks, and a few had multiple copies of the book. You state that the book "was not officially published". Hell..it MIGHT AS WELL have been! I can't see how the book could have been MORE accepted than it already was. The book was EVERYWHERE in the 1970s and 1980s. You know that. Everywhere! One Mormon told me half-jokingly he didn't bother to read the Scriptures anymore because if he needed to know anything all he had to do was look it up in Mormon DOCTRINE.
You put "intellectual" in quotes, hinting that I'm not really "intellectual" and that I "should have done my research". AFter I ran into anti-Mormonism, I did ONLY research for 17 months. That's all I did. Some of that time I lived in my car, which was not fun, because I wanted to be free to do research. The rest of the time I slept on my friend's coach. To date, I've done 10s of thousands of hours of research into all things Mormonism, pro and con. Wasted my life on it, unfortunately. I should have went to university and got a Masters and taught high school, got married, had a family I was a damned FOOL to waste my time on this, but, that's what I did. I HAD TO KNOW if Mormonism could be defended, and I HAD TO KNOW if Mormonism could stand close examination. After tens of thousands of hours of research, pro and con, I had to come to the conclusion: No...it can't! Wasted my life to find that out.
Your Stake President was an enlightened man, very rare in the LDS Church, but they do exist, and they existed back in the 70s. I just didn't know any when I was a young Mormon in the early 80s. The Sunday School teachers I had, the Institute teachers I knew and met, all were staunch Smith-McConkites. To the last man. The best thing this Church ever did was to SHIT-CAN that book! The Smith-McConkie legacy was one of ignorance. It was the "Wahabiism" of Mormonism; a reversal into ignorance and anti-intellectualism. Joseph Fielding Smith/Bruce R. McConkie has destroyed more testimonies than all the anti-Mormons combined. There were ignorant self-righteous men. Plain and simple. You should write a book, bcspace, to counter their teachings; without mentioning them of course. Nobody will publish any book criticism Church leaders, dead or living. However, you can "counter" their teachings without mentioning them by name.
Make sure to read my post "Some Answered Questions about Dr. Dahesh and Mormonism.