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

[_Gazelam]

And how does anything evolve if theres no death?

[_moksha]

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 doctrine is simply not compatible.

You are ultimately right that evolution and the creation story are incompatible. However, President McKay held the door open for members to believe in evolution when he declared that the Church had no official policy about evolution. Who knows? Someday the Church may jump on the science bandwagon and assign the creation story to the sacred allegory category. Till then, there will be both members believing in evolution as well as the creation story sitting in the pews on Sunday.

As far as the missed point goes, recall that the original question put to us is whether Mormons can believe in evolution. The simple fact that there are Mormons who do indeed believe in evolution would seem to give a yes answer.

[Guest]

And how does anything evolve if theres no death?

Here we go again.....

Nothing does in that case. However, the scriptures allow us to differentiate between the creative and created states. Notice how Adam was placed into a state of no death (2 Nephi 2:22). What we have are the properties (no death) of the world when it was finished and God rested, but no such description for the world while it was being created. Therefore, we can fill in the gaps as we desire without conflicting with LDS doctrine in the case of evolution.

I believe all LDS doctrine in this matter.

Adam the first man? Yes.
Adam created in the image of God? Yes.
The Fall of Adam brought death into the world? Yes.

I'm sure there are other details you may have trouble with. You can ask about them or read over my responses in this thread.

Just make sure you understand I'm not teaching my evolution theory for doctrine (because it's not). But what I do teach is that it is possible to accept standard evolution as described by scientists in general and LDS doctrine as well without conflict.

[_moksha]

As you probably know, the word "Christ" is a transliteration into English from the average Greek word "Christos", meaning "anointed one". Strictly speaking, all that anyone would need to be accurately referred to as "Christos" is to have been anointed at some point in their lives. That would include you and me, Pat Robertson, millions of people.

Tal

Did your wife use this "anointed one" argument on you recently to get you to take our the garbage?

[_Tal Bachman]

---Well of course, BC - in your world, as you've demonstrated so clearly, it can be true that prophets can lead us astray, and ALSO be true that prophets cannot lead us astray.

Selective quotes aren't convincing

---I think your comments here, which anyone is free to review on this thread, tell every reader just what they need to understand about the sorts of mental mazes we create when we are desperate to believe in something which, at some level, we also cannot believe in. No one has demonstrated these games better than you, BC. I didn't put a gun to your head and force you to type what you have. You demonstrated those games on your own - just as predicted in my very first post on this thread.

I love quantum physics, too!

I love it so much, I have a degree in it (secondary to my major).

---It shows.

Aren't you going to ask how I inferred that? Am I magic, BC?

[_Tal Bachman]

Harmony wrote:

You've been anointed? To be the Christ? Not a Christ, but the Christ?

---Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough, Harmony? Don't dodge the question. If you actually think that there is some LDS claim about Jesus that is "absolute, eternal truth", let's see some specifics. It really should be easy.

[_bcspace]

---Well of course, BC - in your world, as you've demonstrated so clearly, it can be true that prophets can lead us astray, and ALSO be true that prophets cannot lead us astray.

Selective quotes aren't convincing.

---I think your comments here, which anyone is free to review on this thread, tell every reader just what they need to understand about the sorts of mental mazes we create when we are desperate to believe in something which, at some level, we also cannot believe in. No one has demonstrated these games better than you, BC. I didn't put a gun to your head and force you to type what you have. You demonstrated those games on your own - just as predicted in my very first post on this thread.

Well, I think it's quite telling that you continue to hold to an erroneous view of LDS doctrine despite the Church's own statements on the matter and being shown the principles that LDS believe in (such as D&C 107). I predict you'll be doing alot of teeth gnashing until you finally accept what LDS belief actually is. Until then, you're not even addressing the issues.

Aren't you going to ask how I inferred that? Am I magic, BC?

A profound wizard!

[_GoodK]

So where does that leave the whole garden of eden story? Myth? Allegory?

I've also heard the popular theory that God allowed evolution to happen to all the other animals while earth was still orbiting around Kolob, and when conditions were juuuuuuust right, he placed man there. Thus, science can be right about evolution and the earth being billions of years old and Christians can be right about Adam being the first human.

It's funny how this theory was never even imagined before scientists were able to substantiate the theory of evolution with solid evidence.

[_Tal Bachman]

What we have are the properties (no death) of the world when it was finished and God rested, but no such description for the world while it was being created.

---That's simply not true - at least for those of us who assign normal word definitions to normal English words (because if we don't, "everything can be true or false, whenever we need it to be"...which sounds rather reminiscent of some of the posts on here).

In an earlier post on this thread, I reproduced a list of scriptures produced in the LDS Bible Dictionary which make clear that, if Mormon scriptures have any meaning whatsoever, they state that there was no death of any kind, animal or vegetable, PRIOR TO THE FALL OF ADAM. Some "prior" state which doesn't count as "prior" exists only in your mind, BC - and only because of the particular problem you have: wishing to remain a believing Mormon who doesn't - cannot - believe a fundamental Mormon doctrine.

Does any of this matter to you? Obviously not. It doesn't matter if the prophet comes out and says, "Proposition X is true". If YOU can't believe it, BC - and obviously you are cognitively incapable of believing LDS doctrine on the matter of man's origin - then nothing else matters. Mindgames must be initiated.

And one important function of the mindgmames is to obscure to yourself your rejection of a "fundamental" (FP's words) "eternal truth". Evidently, you are no more capable of believing in this false LDS doctrine, than you are of acknowledging to yourself that you can't believe it. You simply must lie to yourself; and you must believe that lie, wholly. And you do - you seem to have convinced yourself entirely that notwithstanding the unanimous, explicit, authoritative, and repeated expressions of LDS doctrine on the falsity of human evolution, that you still have an "out".

But what I do teach is that it is possible to accept standard evolution as described by scientists in general and LDS doctrine as well without conflict.

---Of course - just as long as you blur to yourself the very words of Mormonism's most authoritative sources, and invent all sorts of ad hoc hypotheses- just like those who think that they can believe in Mormon doctrine AND that it's okay to drink a beer once in a while, watch a porno movie once in a while, let gays marry, marry ten wives and move to Colorado City, or steal once in a while. Or, like Moksha, who believes that church presidents lead the church astray all the time, but also believes that they don't.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to admit that Mormonism's blown it on the matter of man's origin?

Should that really be the end of the world? The Bible was written thousands of years ago, the uniquely LDS scriptures were written almost two centuries ago, the official FP statement announcing that evolution is FALSE on the matter of man's origin is a century old...none of these guys knew what you know, BC. They were wrong, and you are right. Why can't you just admit it? LDS doctrine on this point is clear - but most importantly, it is, now, LITERALLY UNBELIEVABLE. That's how wrong it is. It's so wrong that devout members like you are inventing complete alternative realities just to try to obscure that fact to yourselves, to square the circle.

But at bottom - it's just wrong.

So what?

[_Tal Bachman]

Well, I think it's quite telling that you continue to hold to an erroneous view of LDS doctrine despite the Church's own statements on the matter

---Alright then, BC. I've produced EXPLICIT quotes from an official First Presidency statement on LDS doctrine, LDS scriptures, and the LDS Bible Dictionary, all of which state LDS doctrine very clearly on the matter of man's origin.

So why don't you go ahead and produce quotes from equally authoritative LDS sources which state that "man may have evolved from lower orders", or any other clear negation of the quotes I've produced?

Let's see them, BC.