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

[_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?

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.

I didn't ask harmony whether 'we' are saved by prophets.

I just asked whether, and if so to what degree, a prophet speaking on doctrinal matters is generally more likely to be reliable than the average LDS in the ward house.

And if the answer is 'no, a prophet is no more reliable than anybody else', I'd like to know what is the point of all the 'we thank thee, God. for a prophet' fuss.

May I be answered directly, please?

[_harmony]

[size=14][color=darkred]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"

And who wrote that, Tal? Men. Geez.

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.

But you see, I'm a cafeteria Mormon, Tal. I don't hold myself to anything that seems "off" to me. Try again.

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.

Certainly. Jesus is the Christ.

[_harmony]

I didn't ask harmony whether 'we' are saved by prophets.

I just asked whether, and if so to what degree, a prophet speaking on doctrinal matters is generally more likely to be reliable than the average LDS in the ward house.

And if the answer is 'no, a prophet is no more reliable than anybody else', I'd like to know what is the point of all the 'we thank thee, God. for a prophet' fuss.

May I be answered directly, please?

Directly? Have I ever not answered you directly? I'm so sorry! Please accept my abject apologies.

I've often asked that same question: why do we need a prophet? And the answer is, there is still so much that needs to be corrected, and only the prophet can correct the doctrine. We're still cleaning up the messes from the earlier prophets. And we probably will continue to clean it up for at least another generation.

[_Tarski]

But you see, I'm a cafeteria Mormon, Tal. I don't hold myself to anything that seems "off" to me. .

Under the heading of "off" I personally would include

1. disapearing gold plates,
2. translating in a hat with seer stones when plates aren't even present,
3. the Book of Abraham mistranslation
4. anthropomorphic mammal gods and celestial procreation
5. polygamy and polyandry
6. The hypnotic notion of personal witness (what a mind “F” that idea is)
7. Adam and Eve in Missouri
8. Brigham Young's behavior
9. Joseph Smith's behavior
10. Prophets disembling

just to name a few

[_Chap]

I didn't ask harmony whether 'we' are saved by prophets.

I just asked whether, and if so to what degree, a prophet speaking on doctrinal matters is generally more likely to be reliable than the average LDS in the ward house.

And if the answer is 'no, a prophet is no more reliable than anybody else', I'd like to know what is the point of all the 'we thank thee, God. for a prophet' fuss.

May I be answered directly, please?

Directly? Have I ever not answered you directly? I'm so sorry! Please accept my abject apologies.

I've often asked that same question: why do we need a prophet? And the answer is, there is still so much that needs to be corrected, and only the prophet can correct the doctrine. We're still cleaning up the messes from the earlier prophets. And we probably will continue to clean it up for at least another generation.

My question may have seemed a bit too insistent to be polite - sorry about that.

So the unique role of a prophet is to "correct the doctrine", and that may involve "cleaning up the messes from the earlier prophets"?

Can you give me an example of where that has been done? I am essentially looking for a situation where prophet A states something as doctrine and it is accepted as such by the church at the time, and fulfills the conditions demanded today for something to be stated doctrine, but then prophet B later "corrects" that doctrine?

Has that ever happened?

Or is it always just a case of most (or at least many) members of the church being under the mistaken impression that something was doctrine (such as the denial of the priesthood to black men), and later being told by the current prophet that it never really was?

[_bcspace]

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"

CFR

However, it does seem to be a true principle. That is why there is D&C 107 in which we see that the FP and Qo12 have equal authority. It would be impossible for any one man, even if President of the Chruch to lead us astray.

[_bcspace]

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...

This is not the issue as authoritative doctrinal statements are well defined and understood in the LDS Church. At issue is whether or not evolution conflicts with any of these statements. It does not.

[_Tarski]

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...

This is not the issue as authoritative doctrinal statements are well defined and understood in the LDS Church. At issue is whether or not evolution conflicts with any of these statements. It does not.

Perhaps it is a mistake to focus on whether there is a definitive doctrine. Why not focus on the best rational story about both the science and the church with the least ad hoc hypotheses.

If you do that you may arrive at a very stable point of view.

1. There is no warrant for belief in either any religion or anything supernatural.
2. All plants and animals evolved by natural selection of random mutation. It is a process unguided by external intelligence and is guided by nothing but the structure of what is possible given the laws of physics and biology.
3. We do not have any knowlege about the universe that is not revealed by good science. It is imperfect and fallible but it is all we have.
4. There was no first human anymore than there was a first chicken. (similarly, there was no first moment when I was tall either. Sometimes there is just no fact of the matter when it comes to firsts)
5. Inner witnesses, private feelings, mytical experiences, revelations etc. are exactly the worst ways to decide what is real.

[_bcspace]

2. All plants and animals evolved by natural selection of random mutation. It is a process unguided by external intelligence and is guided by nothing but the structure of what is possible given the laws of physics and biology.
3. We do not have any knowlege about the universe that is not revealed by good science. It is imperfect and fallible but it is all we have.
4. There was no first human anymore than there was a first chicken. (similarly, there was no first moment when I was tall either. Sometimes there is just no fact of the matter when it comes to firsts)

I have virtually no problem with any of those, even the "unguided by external intelligence" phrase as I can accept God setting things into motion and letting it go with the foreknowledge of what would happen down the road according to natural laws (and previous experience).

1. There is no warrant for belief in either any religion or anything supernatural.

Depending on the definition of 'supernatural' being used, this is no problem for me either as I believe God operates within the bounds of natural law.

5. Inner witnesses, private feelings, mytical experiences, revelations etc. are exactly the worst ways to decide what is real.

What if they lead to that which is better to decide what is real?

[_Sethbag]

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?

You've really missed the point here, Moksha. It doesn't really matter whether Pres. McKay said that the church was "neutral" on the question or not. They may intend to be neutral, and yet the conflicts between doctrine and science will still be there, whatever intent any given GA might have in his heart of hearts.

The theory of evolution and such science as demonstrates that things have been living and dying on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, and that human beings have existed on earth for into the hundreds of thousands of years, is simply incompatible with the doctrine that Adam was the first man, BCSpace's word-mangling notwithstanding, nor is it compatible with the doctrine that Adam ushered death into the world through the Fall.

The doctrine is simply not compatible. Whatever McKay said, whatever JFS said, whatever BRM said, it's not about whether the church has a "stand" on evolution per se - it's about whether the Church's doctrine's are even compatible, at a nuts and bolts level, with the science.

Would it make any more sense for the LDS Church to pronounce strict neutrality on the subject of science showing uninterrupted human and animal life on every inhabited continent in the world going back tens of thousands of years, while at the same time teaching as "revealed truth" that Noah's Flood really did happen on a global, catastrophic scale just a few thousand years ago? No, of course not. Such a claim to neutrality would be (and in fact is) utterly meaningless, because at the nuts and bolts level, the teaching by the Church, and the science, are simply not compatible.

And the whole point of bringing these things up is to demonstrate that the church Prophets, Seers, and Revelators lack credibility when they stand up and claim to be pronouncing "revealed" truth to the world. They simply don't know what they're talking about, and seem to be coasting along on institutional and cultural momentum, combined with a liberal dose of making it up as they go along. This realization ought to help a truly thinking individual who is a believer in the church more clearly see their true situation, ie: believing in fairy tales and pretend prophets, like every other religion out there.