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

[_Chap]

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.

What????? They say:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34)

So the FP says it is a theory of men that Adam was not the first man.

And the FP says that the word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” , which flatly contradicts the said theory.

And you say that the FP is not saying that the said theory is wrong?

Do words have any rights when they stand in the way of your being able to affirm the proposition you have set your heart on?

[_harmony]

Not to put too fine a point on it: you have changed the question. The question isn't, and never has been, "can a Mormon prophet be wrong, and still be considered a prophet"?

A better question would be: "If a Mormon prophet, along with his two counselors, claiming to be pronouncing 'eternal truth' in their official capacity of prophets in an official statement to the church, while in fact teaching the entire church false doctrine on a matter relevant to their personal salvation, doesn't qualify as 'leading the church astray'.....what on earth would?"

Actually, I never changed anything. What I said was, prophets, even speaking in their official capacity, have been wrong before. Everything else you complain about simply underscores your inability to allow these men to be wrong.

Not all of us are like that, though. Some of us allow them to be wrong, even in their official capacity. We rejoice when they finally get it right (like the end to the priesthood ban) and we continue to hope that the other incorrectness that masquerades as doctrine (kinda like your current example) will someday be corrected. We just hope it doesn't take as long as the priesthood ban did.

[_Tarski]

Not to put too fine a point on it: you have changed the question. The question isn't, and never has been, "can a Mormon prophet be wrong, and still be considered a prophet"?

A better question would be: "If a Mormon prophet, along with his two counselors, claiming to be pronouncing 'eternal truth' in their official capacity of prophets in an official statement to the church, while in fact teaching the entire church false doctrine on a matter relevant to their personal salvation, doesn't qualify as 'leading the church astray'.....what on earth would?"

Actually, I never changed anything. What I said was, prophets, even speaking in their official capacity, have been wrong before.

and they won't have gotten it all straight until they give up the whole fantastic story.

Seriously, I thougth they couldn't lead us astray. LOL
They already have on something as profound as human origins. (Even they tell that this is important).

[_harmony]

Preliminary Conclusion:

BCSpace, Harmony, and Moksha, have a problem.

Actually, you seem to be the one with the problem. You expect prophet infallibility. I don't. Your expectation is unwarranted and unjustifiable, but that's not my problem. I've seen prophets be wrong several times. That doesn't negate the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ though, mainly because prophets have been wrong for millenia, yet the gospel continues.

Another problem you have is that you equate the gospel of Jesus Christ as being the LDS church. Which it's not. But your personal history notwithstanding, you have a hard time dealing with that reality.

[snip]

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.

Actually, I am not caught at all. You're the one calling for prophet infallibility. I'm the one who has maintained my stance for literally years (just ask Shades and some of the other longterm posters here), that the prophets have been wrong before and will be wrong again. Heck, even McConkie figured that out!

[_harmony]

Not to put too fine a point on it: you have changed the question. The question isn't, and never has been, "can a Mormon prophet be wrong, and still be considered a prophet"?

A better question would be: "If a Mormon prophet, along with his two counselors, claiming to be pronouncing 'eternal truth' in their official capacity of prophets in an official statement to the church, while in fact teaching the entire church false doctrine on a matter relevant to their personal salvation, doesn't qualify as 'leading the church astray'.....what on earth would?"

Actually, I never changed anything. What I said was, prophets, even speaking in their official capacity, have been wrong before.

and they won't have gotten it all straight until they give up the whole fantastic story.

Seriously, I thougth they couldn't lead us astray. LOL

Goes to show what happens when men don't listen to women.

They already have on something as profound as human origins. (Even they tell that this is important).

It's all important to our leaders, Tarski. That doesn't make it important to God, though.

[_moksha]

Tal and Sethbag go through a lot of gyrations to insist that the theory of evolution is opposed by the Church when President McKay said on more than one occasion that the Church is neutral on the question. Since they really don't place any stock in what Joseph Fielding Smith had to say, why are they so adamant about supporting his position? Is it merely to be contrary or to bolster an argument against the Church?

[_Tarski]

Tal and Sethbag go through a lot of gyrations to insist that the theory of evolution is opposed by the Church when President McKay said on more than one occasion that the Church is neutral on the question. Since they really don't place any stock in what Joseph Fielding Smith had to say, why are they so adamant about supporting his position? Is it merely to be contrary or to bolster an argument against the Church?

Being led by prophets of God looks suspisciously similar to being tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrines of men. :)

[_bcspace]

Preliminary Conclusion:

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.

Again CFR.

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.

What Tal Bachman fails to do is reference the specific quotes or verses that preclude evolution. He is caught betwixt his favorite strawman and actual LDS doctrine. The only way his argument works is if he flips LDS doctrine into something that doesn't exist.

[_bcspace]

Tal and Sethbag go through a lot of gyrations to insist that the theory of evolution is opposed by the Church when President McKay said on more than one occasion that the Church is neutral on the question. Since they really don't place any stock in what Joseph Fielding Smith had to say, why are they so adamant about supporting his position? Is it merely to be contrary or to bolster an argument against the Church?

They are too heavily invested intheir strawman to back out now. I think it unlikely they intentionally created this strawman, rather, it is a symptom of not knowing what LDS doctrine is which in turn is a symptom of Fortigurn's lazy research or not paying attention in Church as seems to be typical in the case of former LDS.

[_bcspace]

So the FP says it is a theory of men that Adam was not the first man.

And the FP says that the word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” , which flatly contradicts the said theory.

Not so, the theories of men don't account for the spirit whereas LDS doctrine does. Therefore, they are not speaking of the same thing. More evidence that this is so is found in the snippet...

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ or 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.

Is that a description of evolution or not?

All the statement does is reiterate LDS doctrine and this particular 'theory of men' is not repudiated nor is it in conflict with LDS doctrine if the physical is created in the image of God via the process of evolution.

And you say that the FP is not saying that the said theory is wrong?

Do words have any rights when they stand in the way of your being able to affirm the proposition you have set your heart on?

You've set your heart of this for so long that you seem to be incapable of rationally thinking this through. I certainly believe Adam is the first man, though not necessarily the first homo sapien (though if he were, that would not conflict either). I also believe there was no death before the Fall in the created world. Where is the conflict?