Now my question to you is this. If this is not meant to rebut the idea that man evolved from lower forms then what is it?? Why even take the time to make this statement?
It is meant to respond to the debate but it simply states LDS doctrine.
And which theories of man do you think they are refering to? I would guess that everyone to the person hears a reference to evolutionary theory here.
Sure. But where is the rejection of it? Where is the doctrine that precludes evolution? At worst, the quote does not even address evolution as evidenced by this section.....
There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.
Tell me, does evolution teach that a being changes species within a single lifetime?
But if that s the case, once again God's prophet can't seem to make himself clear! He has a habit of saying things in a way that makes 99.9% of his listeners misunderstand. I don't think so. This is a statement to rebuke the notion that humans evolved from "lower" life forms. Its a plain as it could be.
I don't believe humans evolved from lower life forms. The physical body, sure, but not the human as defined in doctrine. At best, this statement is against the atheist notion that man is not created in the image of God.
You have apostles and prophets repeatedly coming out against evolution, calling it heresy, a theory of man, etc. etc. and you still can't see it?
There are indeed some of those. But I notice that there are no such statements in any doctrinal work. It takes all 15 apostles to make doctrine.
You may as well claim that the church is not officially opposed to homosexual activity.
How so? Such is explicitly in the scriptures. Not so for any anti-evolutionary hypothesis.
Now my question to you is this. If this is not meant to rebut the idea that man evolved from lower forms then what is it?? Why even take the time to make this statement?
It is meant to respond to the debate but it simply states LDS doctrine.
And which theories of man do you think they are refering to? I would guess that everyone to the person hears a reference to evolutionary theory here.
Sure. But where is the rejection of it? Where is the doctrine that precludes evolution? At worst, the quote does not even address evolution as evidenced by this section.....
There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.
Tell me, does evolution teach that a being changes species within a single lifetime?
But if that s the case, once again God's prophet can't seem to make himself clear! He has a habit of saying things in a way that makes 99.9% of his listeners misunderstand. I don't think so. This is a statement to rebuke the notion that humans evolved from "lower" life forms. Its a plain as it could be.
I don't believe humans evolved from lower life forms. The physical body, sure, but not the human as defined in doctrine. At best, this statement is against the atheist notion that man is not created in the image of God.
You have apostles and prophets repeatedly coming out against evolution, calling it heresy, a theory of man, etc. etc. and you still can't see it?
There are indeed some of those. But I notice that there are no such statements in any doctrinal work. It takes all 15 apostles to make doctrine.
You may as well claim that the church is not officially opposed to homosexual activity.
How so? Such is explicitly in the scriptures. Not so for any anti-evolutionary hypothesis.
OK, let me play by your rules. Where in the scriptures does it say that homosexuality is wrong? (I think we are about to learn something here).
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
It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth
How does evolution preclude Adam from being the first man on earth? LDS defines a man as a physical body with a spirit child of God.
and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men.
That the physical body was devolped from lower orders is indeed a theory of man. Where is the LDS rejection of that theory?
The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.
Amen! How does this preclude evolution?
True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.
Amen! How does this preclude evolution?
What more evidence does any faithful LDS need?
Some doctrine that precludes evolution. So far, there is none.
Are you serious?
The First Presidency says it is a 'theory of men' that Adam was not the first man and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation.
It then tells us that instead of believing that theory, we must believe that Adam WAS the first man. and says that despite the embryological development of a human baby (which as is well known was held to be an evidence for evolution), the first man began as a man and that was that.
Like Tarski, I can only ask - if the FP article is NOT opposing evolution, what is it saying?
And if it is saying nothing about evolution why did the Ensign recommend the article to its readers with these words:
In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters.
The First Presidency says it is a 'theory of men' that Adam was not the first man and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation.
Indeed. However, how does evolution force Adam not to be the first man (as man is defined by LDS doctrine)?
It then tells us that instead of believing that theory, we must believe that Adam WAS the first man. and says that despite the embryological development of a human baby (which as is well known was held to be an evidence for evolution), the first man began as a man and that was that.
Indeed. Do you honestly believe that evolution has a species change within one generation?
Like Tarski, I can only ask - if the FP article is NOT opposing evolution, what is it saying?
It is simply expressing LDS doctrine. The smart thing to do when all has not been revealed.
And if it is saying nothing about evolution why did the Ensign recommend the article to its readers with these words:
The First Presidency says it is a 'theory of men' that Adam was not the first man and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation.
Indeed. However, how does evolution force Adam not to be the first man (as man is defined by LDS doctrine)?
It then tells us that instead of believing that theory, we must believe that Adam WAS the first man. and says that despite the embryological development of a human baby (which as is well known was held to be an evidence for evolution), the first man began as a man and that was that.
Indeed. Do you honestly believe that evolution has a species change within one generation?
Like Tarski, I can only ask - if the FP article is NOT opposing evolution, what is it saying?
It is simply expressing LDS doctrine. The smart thing to do when all has not been revealed.
And if it is saying nothing about evolution why did the Ensign recommend the article to its readers with these words:
Because it does indeed express LDS doctrine.
So you agree that the FP statement is telling us that the 'theory of men' it refers to is false. Correct me if I have that wrong.
And you do not deny that the 'theory of men' in question is the theory of evolution. Correct me if I have that wrong.
So you agree that the FP is saying that the theory of evolution is false. Correct me if I have that wrong.
So you agree that the FP statement is telling us that the 'theory of men' it refers to is false. Correct me if I have that wrong.
They are not so saying. However, as stated, that theory of man is false according to man and not even evolution.
And you do not deny that the 'theory of men' in question is the theory of evolution. Correct me if I have that wrong.
I do not deny that they are making the statement in response to the debate over evoltuion.
So you agree that the FP is saying that the theory of evolution is false. Correct me if I have that wrong.
Incorrect. They did not say any theory of man (that I know of) on the issue was wrong. At best, they are addressing the notion that man is not created in God's image. Evolution does not preclude that.
I think you guys are emphasizing the wrong part of the 1909 statement. Here is what you should be emphasizing...
To tell the truth as God has revealed it, and commend it to the acceptance of those who need to conform their opinions thereto, is the sole purpose of this presentation.
I have so conformed and am quite certain my theory does not conflict with LDS doctrine. There are many LDS who accept evolution with no such problems either though their theories as to how that is accomplished might differ from mine.
Even BRM bowed to this in his Ten Deadly Heresies speech to BYU, essentially admitting that if you can reconcile evolution and still accept LDS doctrine, more power to you.
BCSpace, Harmony, and Moksha, have a problem. That problem is that the most authoritative sources in their religion - namely, its canonized scriptures, its official First Presidency doctrinal statements, and even the church's official magazine and official scripture dictionary for good measure - are all entirely unanimous on a point of LDS doctrine (humans didn't evolve from lower orders) which they are incapable of believing.They are caught: a certain point of LDS doctrine is unbelievable - or perhaps I should say, has been identified by them as being false - but they cannot admit that to themselves.
What can they do?
Well...here they attempt escape using the same sorts of strategies I once used: "the flip" (where a devastating question is spontaneously eliminated in favor of a non-threatening but vague and irrelevant, question like, "can prophets be wrong, and still be prophets"?); the ad hoc Hail Mary word redefinition ("all we need to do is know the 'true' meaning of the word 'man', and there's no problem"), the ad hominem thrust ("if you weren't spiritual enough to understand that there's no problem here, that's your problem, not ours"); and underneath it all, a brute exercise of will: denial, no matter what.
"The Flip" doesn't work because - well, it's clearly just an exercise in self-distraction and changing the subject. The ad hoc Hail Mary word redefinition doesn't work because what matters isn't how we retroactively project meaning on to words, but what the writers of those words actually meant. And in this case, I submit that President Joseph F. Smith and his counselors could not possibly have been clearer about what they meant. Certainly it cannot be believed that they would leave unmentioned all the sorts of almost desperate, retroactively-generated exceptions posited by BCSpace. If they did so, it would be tantamount to a deliberate deception; at best, the document in question would actually be meaningless.
And even if it can seriously be imagined that oracles speaking ex officio and ex cathedra had published such a meaningless or misleading document, it is unbelievable that now, a century later, equally authoritative voices would not only NOT take the opportunity to so clear up that confusion, but in fact reprint that official First Presidency statement with nothing but unqualified endorsement. So the ad hoc Hail Mary word redefinition strategy doesn't work either.
The Ad Hominem thrust of course doesn't address the core problem at all. It resembles the desperate lashing out a cat might do when cornered by a pack of wild dogs - just that in this case, Harmony thinks that I and other non-Mormons are the wild dogs, when in reality, it is LDS doctrine itself which is doing the cornering. That the theory of evolution, for humans anyway, is false, says the First Presidency, is "eternal truth"; it is no wonder, then, that the First Presidency, both overtly in the original statement and by inevitable implication by republishing it in 2002, has officially announced the requirement that Mormons "CONFORM" their belief to the doctrine that it is false - yet Harmony can't do it. That is a problem.
Indeed, the situation is so obvious that it is easy to feel sympathy, even for me, who long ago acknowledged what I just don't think can ever be justifiably denied anymore - that whatever it is, or however great it might be, the one thing that Joseph Smith's religion cannot be is...what it claims to be.
BCSpace, Moksha, and Harmony are caught, and there is no way out. Prophets they are canonically committed to believing cannot lead the church astray have explicitly proclaimed an "eternal truth" fundamental to the principles of salvation, which - no matter how hard they try - they are incapable of believing - which they know isn't true at all.
It's all so simple to recognize and understand when one understands, and accepts, that the LDS church isn't actually true, and that the LDS Prophets, Seers, and Revelators don't actually have any more access to eternal truth than anyone else, and probably a lot less than some. These things could hardly be any more obvious, and yet to the faithful, that one conclusion, that one outcome, that one judgment call, is in fact the very one that they cannot allow themselves to make.
It's far easier to twist one's mind into a pretzel, and play more word games than Hasbro, than it is to accept that one's chosen and cherished church and faith community is actually no more true than any of the thousands of other manmade churches out there.
BCSpace never answered my most recent reply in the thread I started specifically to refute his 2Nephi 2:22 "loophole". He's completely and utterly refuted and shown to be wrong about this, and yet he blithely goes along calling out "nothing in LDS doctrine conflicts with science" at every opportunity. Apparently if he keeps saying that enough times he actually fools himself into believing it.
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
Yes Sethbag, all you say is true. Yet our minds are such that they resist painful realizations, especially when our identities, friendships, marriages, are based on a particular belief. It is, in a word, a lot easier to play mindgames on ourselves, than to begin to wonder if we have been wrong about everything most important to us in life.
Following along with what you're saying...we often say that inductive inferences ("Sethbag has stopped at that coffee shop every night for the past twenty years; therefore, he will stop there tomorrow night") cannot approach the certainty of DE-ductive inferences ("Either A or B; not B; therefore, A").
But all that has to happen for a deductive inference to not afford certainty practically speaking, even when we accept the premises, is a simple denial. Every man has the right to acknowledge that:
1.) If A, then B; 2.) A
but STILL deny that the inexorable conclusion is B. All he has to say is "The conclusion isn't B", and the matter, for all intents and purposes for that person, is settled.
He may say, "I know that it doesn't follow because God told me" or he may not; but no reasons really need be offered. Denial, strictly speaking, needs no justification. (Though of course, some may choose justification strategies like those displayed on this thread...). .