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

[_bcspace]

BCSpace never answered my most recent reply in the thread I started specifically to refute his 2Nephi 2:22 "loophole".

Never at any time has Sethbag referred to a scripture or otherwise doctrinal statement that I might be in conflict with.

[_sunstoned]

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.

I fail to see a stawman here at all. Tal did not invent the framework by which this First Presidency statement is being judged. From the cradle we were taught that the prophet speaks for God, and that when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done. This is the very core of the restoration. That First Presidency message was presented in the most official way possible, which means its scripture. It was not presented as opinion. It was presented the same way and just as official as the 1890 and 1978 statements.

To sit on this thread and repeat over and over that they did not refute evaluation is to deny the common reading of the statement. I understand the cog dis you are going through, because this example cuts to the very foundation of the restoration. If prophets speaking in official capacity and pronouncing doctrine can be so wrong, then the whole divinity and mantle of the prophet is suspect.

[_bcspace]

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.

I fail to see a stawman here at all. Tal did not invent the framework by which this First Presidency statement is being judged.

But he is applying doctrine that doesn't exist.

From the cradle we were taught that the prophet speaks for God, and that when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done. This is the very core of the restoration.

Given this statement, I highly doubt you are familiar at all with the "thinking has been done" quote.

That First Presidency message was presented in the most official way possible, which means its scripture. It was not presented as opinion. It was presented the same way and just as official as the 1890 and 1978 statements.

Since I have no problem with anything in that statement, I fail to see how this bears on your claim.

To sit on this thread and repeat over and over that they did not refute evaluation is to deny the common reading of the statement. I understand the cog dis you are going through, because this example cuts to the very foundation of the restoration. If prophets speaking in official capacity and pronouncing doctrine can be so wrong, then the whole divinity and mantle of the prophet is suspect.

I'm simply asking for a verse or a doctrinal statement to preclude evolution or my take on it.

[_Chap]

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.

I have read these words of bcspace several times, trying to apply the 'principle of maximum charity' (i.e. assuming that they must have made sense to him, and trying to find what that sense was). But I have concluded that there is no sense to be found there.

bcspace's reference to the 'magic variable' spirit does nothing to remove the fact that (according to the FP) the 'theory of men' denies that Adam was the first man, while 'the word of the Lord' (according to the FP) says he was. So how can he deny that the FP is saying that the theory they refer to is wrong?

If any other reader of this board thinks that bcspace is making sense here, or elsewhere in his posts, please explain what that sense is.

[_harmony]

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.

I fail to see a stawman here at all. Tal did not invent the framework by which this First Presidency statement is being judged. From the cradle we were taught that the prophet speaks for God, and that when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done. This is the very core of the restoration. That First Presidency message was presented in the most official way possible, which means its scripture. It was not presented as opinion. It was presented the same way and just as official as the 1890 and 1978 statements.

To sit on this thread and repeat over and over that they did not refute evaluation is to deny the common reading of the statement. I understand the cog dis you are going through, because this example cuts to the very foundation of the restoration. If prophets speaking in official capacity and pronouncing doctrine can be so wrong, then the whole divinity and mantle of the prophet is suspect.

The prophet is not divine. The prophet is always a man. Men are often wrong, often with the best of intentions. The ancient prophets were often wrong; the modern prophets are no different. It seems strange to me that non-LDS so adamently seek to hold us to something that LDS do not hold to, telling us what we believe when indeed we are counseled by our prophets to seek our own understanding and to not lean on any man. Even while we're counseled to follow the prophet and that the prophet will not lead us astray, we have ample examples of when following the prophet did indeed lead us astray (the priesthood ban and polygamy are two prominent examples). Through continuing revelation and personal inspiration, God continues to correct the course of the church for the church as a whole and for individuals.

[_Tal Bachman]

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?

---Moksha

Are you capable of understanding the differing levels of authoritativeness between an official First Presidency statement, which announces that it contains "eternal truth" and is directed at the church on a matter relevant to personal salvation, and the personal comments of David McKay? Do you understand that following the logic (I use the word loosely) of your comments, you should ALSO be telling us that Brigham Young's claim that people live on the moon is just as authoritative as "The Proclamation on the Family"? Is that REALLY something you want to go on record as supporting? Moon men? Javelins through the heart? Death on the spot for those guilty of miscegenation? Those are the kinds of things you're committing to, when you claim that the personal comments of a church president equal in authoritativeness official pronouncements of doctrine published by the First Presidency. You do understand that, don't you? Please tell us your mind's not as gone as it seems...

By the way, the statement in question was composed and signed by the First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith, not the later apostle Joseph Fielding Smith.

[_Chap]

The prophet is not divine. The prophet is always a man. Men are often wrong, often with the best of intentions. The ancient prophets were often wrong; the modern prophets are no different. It seems strange to me that non-LDS so adamently seek to hold us to something that LDS do not hold to, telling us what we believe when indeed we are counseled by our prophets to seek our own understanding and to not lean on any man. Even while we're counseled to follow the prophet and that the prophet will not lead us astray, we have ample examples of when following the prophet did indeed lead us astray (the priesthood ban and polygamy are two prominent examples). Through continuing revelation and personal inspiration, God continues to correct the course of the church for the church as a whole and for individuals.

But are prophets in general more reliable in their doctrinal statements than non-prophets?

If so, about how much more reliable?

If they are not in general more reliable in their doctrinal statements than non-prophets, then what do they do that is worth all the fuss?

[_harmony]

---Moksha

Are you capable of understanding the differing levels of authoritativeness between an official First Presidency statement, which announces that it contains "eternal truth" and is directed at the church on a matter relevant to personal salvation, and the personal comments of David McKay? Do you understand that following the logic (I use the word loosely) of your comments, you should ALSO be telling us that Brigham Young's claim that people live on the moon is just as authoritative as "The Proclamation on the Family". Is that REALLY something you want to go on record as supporting? Moon men? Javelins through the heart? Death on the spot for those guilty of miscegenation? Those are the kinds of things you're committing to, when you claim that the personal comments of a church president equal in authoritativeness official pronouncements of doctrine published by the First Presidency. You do understand that, don't you?

You are not accurately describing either LDS doctrine or the penquin. You do understand that, don't you? LDS do not hold prophets as infallible. They never have. They do not now.

Please tell us your mind's not as gone as it seems...

This is both unnecessary and beneath you. Moksha has not resorted to personal insults. He never stoops that low. Perhaps you would benefit by following his example.

By the way, the statement in question was composed and signed by the First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith, not the later apostle Joseph Fielding Smith.

Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong about several things; Joseph F Smith was wrong about even more. So were their predecessors; so were their antecedents. I think you don't understand prophet infallibility, and the LDS lack of belief in it.

edited for clarity

[_harmony]

The prophet is not divine. The prophet is always a man. Men are often wrong, often with the best of intentions. The ancient prophets were often wrong; the modern prophets are no different. It seems strange to me that non-LDS so adamently seek to hold us to something that LDS do not hold to, telling us what we believe when indeed we are counseled by our prophets to seek our own understanding and to not lean on any man. Even while we're counseled to follow the prophet and that the prophet will not lead us astray, we have ample examples of when following the prophet did indeed lead us astray (the priesthood ban and polygamy are two prominent examples). Through continuing revelation and personal inspiration, God continues to correct the course of the church for the church as a whole and for individuals.

But are prophets in general more reliable in their doctrinal statements than non-prophets?

If so, about how much more reliable?

If they are not in general more reliable in their doctrinal statements than non-prophets, then what do they do that is worth all the fuss?

Prophetic reliability is no more pertinent than prophetic infallibility. That is not the point. We are not saved by prophets. We are saved by Christ. Each individual is responsible for their own salvation. Even the canon itself is not without blemish. It is simply what members have agreed to accept as binding. That does not make it divine or infallible. That which non-LDS think is binding is not binding on those who do not accept a non-LDS interpretation.

Men see through glass darkly. And prophets are men first, and no more divine than the lowliest nonmember.

[_Tal Bachman]

Harmony wrote:

Even while we're counseled to follow the prophet and that the prophet will not lead us astray, we have ample examples of when following the prophet did indeed lead us astray (the priesthood ban and polygamy are two prominent examples).

---So let's see if we can lay this out as plainly as possible for all those reading along, Harmony.

1.) You claim to believe in LDS scripture;

2.) Doctrine and Covenants contains these canonized words:

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray"

3.) But even though you believe in the canonized statement above which states that the Lord won't permit a church president to lead the church astray, you ALSO believe that church presidents HAVE led the church astray;

4.) Annnnd......you don't see any problem there. In sum, "A" and "not A", according to you, can both be true.

Well, that was tidy. I must say...I couldn't have proven my original point any better.

By the way, Harmony, just as one internet friend to another...where do I begin....?

Okay. Can you name one single LDS doctrine, right now, which you would say is absolute, eternal truth? I'd like you to answer that question. Just give me one item of LDS doctrine which qualifies as "eternal truth", and then stand by for the next question.