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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

Tal Bachman wrote:
---"Adam"="whatever it needs to mean so that I can just keep believing"


Not like that at all. I think that evolution, which was set in motion from the Universal creation, was responsible for Modern Man. My beliefs are not contingent upon insisting that the first human progenitors be named Adam and Eve. Those are names assigned to them by the creation story. I however am content to use those names for familiarity's sake.

Why must you persist in the idea that we Mormons are joined in some rigid lock-step?

.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

moksha wrote:Why must you persist in the idea that we Mormons are joined in some rigid lock-step?
.


---That's a laugh.

This is from my very first post on this thread:

"Can Mormons believe in evolution?

"The answer is: YES. They can believe that human life evolved from lower life forms in the same way that they can believe that gays should be able to marry, that it's okay to drink beer every once in a while, and that it's okay to look at pornography. Or, like Mormon "intellectuals", that Joseph Smith's stories, while not technically true, are "true in a broader, metaphorical sense". Or, like Van Hale, that the Book of Mormon isn't an actual record of things which once happened.

"Strictly speaking, "Mormonism" doesn't exist; only individual versions of what people enjoy imagining is "Mormonism" exist. Hence the comment on another thread on this site by a (pitiable) man who enjoys imagining he's a devout Mormon, that Mormons can believe that humans evolved from lower life forms - notwithstanding an official First Presidency statement declaring that this is not true.

"Does that matter? No, not at all. All that matters, when we are devout Mormons, or devout anythings, is the effectiveness of the mind games we can play on ourselves".
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

sunstoned wrote:
bcspace wrote:
Already answered. There is nothing that requires a 5700 years ago date.

As for skin colors, both science and scripture show that this can happen relatively rapidly.



Come on, now you are just messing with us.


---Uh - he's actually like that.

By the way, awesome alias!
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

harmony wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:Harmony, my apologies - I'm not familiar with you or your posts, and because of some of your comments, I mistook you for someone who is a believing Mormon.


So you took it upon yourself to enlighten me, under the guise of "friend". How sweet.


---I do a lotta sweet things...

I am a believing Mormon.


---Right - what was I thinking? Since when does the phrase "believing Mormon" imply that you "believe" actual Mormon doctrine - whatever it might be at the moment?

The more a phrase can mean, the less it actually means - and judging from some of the comments on this thread and Mormons in general, the phrase "believing Mormon" is now nearly meaningless. Just hearing someone describe themselves that way, one wouldn't know whether the person believed in a metaphorical or literal Book of Mormon", evolution or Darwinism, prophets routinely leading the church astray or never leading it astray, or a million other things...it's almost comic. It might even be the best indication, next to GBH's talk "Loyalty", of Mormonism now be nothing more than a loyalty cult.

Ah well...I suppose they have their place for some folks.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Tal Bachman wrote:---I do a lotta sweet things...


I tell myself the same thing.

I am a believing Mormon.


---Right - what was I thinking? Since when does the phrase "believing Mormon" imply that you "believe" actual Mormon doctrine - whatever it might be at the moment?

The more a phrase can mean, the less it actually means - and judging from some of the comments on this thread and Mormons in general, the phrase "believing Mormon" is now nearly meaningless. Just hearing someone describe themselves that way, one wouldn't know whether the person believed in a metaphorical or literal Book of Mormon", evolution or Darwinism, prophets routinely leading the church astray or never leading it astray, or a million other things...it's almost comic. It might even be the best indication, next to GBH's talk "Loyalty", of Mormonism now be nothing more than a loyalty cult.


I am one of the few Mormons who actually believes in prophet fallibility and isn't afraid to discuss it publically, Tal. I am consistent in that. And I am well within the bounds of church doctrine, were I to be faced with a bishop's visit because of my comments. Just because you still feel it necessary to assume that all Mormons believe in prophet infallibility is not my problem. We don't all walk that path, and we don't feel compelled to change just to appease someone who stumbled under the yoke of prophet infallibility. I don't carry that burden; I refuse to be compelled to carry that burden, when carrying that burden is contrary to my instructions.

Ah well...I suppose they have their place for some folks.


Indeed. How sweet of you to allow us to live our own lives.
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

I am one of the few Mormons who actually believes in prophet fallibility and isn't afraid to discuss it publically, Tal. I am consistent in that. And I am well within the bounds of church doctrine, were I to be faced with a bishop's visit because of my comments.


---Of course you're "well within the bounds", providing that simply believing you are "well within the bounds" is magically equivalent to that actually being true.

By the way, the question isn't some broad one about "fallibility" versus "infallibility". If there were some Mormon doctrine of prophetic infallibility, the church would have been over once Emma caught Pres. Clinton I mean Joseph Smith shagging Fanny Alger.

The question here is, rather, whether "the Lord will permit the prophet to lead the church astray". Canonized Mormon scripture (D&C Manifesto One) says no. Does it matter to you? Of course not. Why should it? It matters no more than any other LDS doctrine matters to any other Mormon who just can't believe it anymore. Nothing matters except the mindgames which can, at a stroke, render mutually exclusive propositions perfectly compatible.

Just because you still feel it necessary to assume that all Mormons believe in prophet infallibility is not my problem.


---Don't misrepresent me, Harmony. Of course I don't believe that. As I've said from the beginning, the only thing that "all Mormons" seem to have in common these days is a limitless ability to play mindgames on themselves, so as to remain able to believe absolutely anything they want or need to, while still convincing themselves they're "well within the bounds of Mormon doctrine".

Ah well...I suppose they have their place for some folks.


Indeed. How sweet of you to allow us to live our own lives.


---Told ya I did a lot of sweet things...
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Tal Bachman wrote:
I am one of the few Mormons who actually believes in prophet fallibility and isn't afraid to discuss it publically, Tal. I am consistent in that. And I am well within the bounds of church doctrine, were I to be faced with a bishop's visit because of my comments.


---Of course you're "well within the bounds", providing that simply believing you are "well within the bounds" is magically equivalent to that actually being true.


Well, since I'm still a member in good standing, I suppose I'm free to continue thinking what I think. And you are unable to impact that at all.

By the way, the question isn't some broad one about "fallibility" versus "infallibility". If there were some Mormon doctrine of prophetic infallibility, the church would have been over once Emma caught Pres. Clinton I mean Joseph Smith shagging Fanny Alger.


This comment doesn't make sense to me. Please explain what you're trying to say. Joseph "shagging" Fanny isn't doctrinal, so I don't see what that has to do with LDS doctrine or prophets.

If you're saying Joseph lost the prophetic mantle the instant he walked outside his marriage vows to Emma, then I agree with you. I don't see what that has to do with prophet infallibility today though, except that Joseph's resultant loss of prophetic ability led to numerous mistakes in doctrine that subsequent prophets have had to correct. And unfortunately some of those attempts at correction have led to worse mistakes (Joseph F has a lot to answer for).

The question here is, rather, whether "the Lord will permit the prophet to lead the church astray". Canonized Mormon scripture (D&C Manifesto One) says no.


Of course God will allow the prophet to lead the church astray. That is not in question. We have numerous corrections to accepted doctrine to prove that God has indeed allowed the prophet to lead the church astray. Appeals to scriptures certainly don't mean what the scripture prohibits has never happened. Canonized scripture of any variety is made up of the words and doctrines of men. Very little is God-breathed. Mormons are not alone in their mistake.

Does it matter to you? Of course not. Why should it? It matters no more than any other LDS doctrine matters to any other Mormon who just can't believe it anymore.


There you go again, trying to tell me what I believe. Try to avoid that, Tal. It doesn't help your argument.

I parse scripture very carefully, seeking the little gems that are God's own. My affiliation with the LDS church is immaterial to my relationship with God. My patience with members who don't parse the scriptures is as great as my patience with my children when they do stupid things, and similiarly with you.

Nothing matters except the mindgames which can, at a stroke, render mutually exclusive propositions perfectly compatible.


Mindgames? Please rephrase and clarify.

Just because you still feel it necessary to assume that all Mormons believe in prophet infallibility is not my problem.


---Don't misrepresent me, Harmony. Of course I don't believe that.


And yet you feel free to misrepresent me repeatedly. Interesting.

Just because I drew an incorrect assumption from your words doesn't mean I'm misrepresenting you, at least not intentionally. Clarify that which is obviously unclear, don't accuse.

As I've said from the beginning, the only thing that "all Mormons" seem to have in common these days is a limitless ability to play mindgames on themselves, so as to remain able to believe absolutely anything they want or need to, while still convincing themselves they're "well within the bounds of Mormon doctrine".


You say this as if it's something only Mormons indulge in. If you indeed think that, you are incorrect. You have a limitless ability to play mindgames yourself, and you aren't LDS. We all are guilty of manipulating our worldview in order to maintain our comfort zone; it's a human trait that enables us to get through each day without killing ourselves. It's part of living. Once you recognize that in yourself and in the greater world out there, it would be hoped that you could extrapolate that recognition to allowing those Mormons you know to actually lead their own lives, without interference from you.

Indeed. How sweet of you to allow us to live our own lives.


---Told ya I did a lot of sweet things...[/quote]

That explains the ache in my teeth no doubt.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

The question here is, rather, whether "the Lord will permit the prophet to lead the church astray". Canonized Mormon scripture (D&C Manifesto One) says no. Does it matter to you? Of course not. Why should it? It matters no more than any other LDS doctrine matters to any other Mormon who just can't believe it anymore. Nothing matters except the mindgames which can, at a stroke, render mutually exclusive propositions perfectly compatible.


Still looking for the conflict Tal. Feel free to go line by line and verse by verse and we'll answer it all for you.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

harmony wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:
I am one of the few Mormons who actually believes in prophet fallibility and isn't afraid to discuss it publically, Tal. I am consistent in that. And I am well within the bounds of church doctrine, were I to be faced with a bishop's visit because of my comments.


---Of course you're "well within the bounds", providing that simply believing you are "well within the bounds" is magically equivalent to that actually being true.


Well, since I'm still a member in good standing, I suppose I'm free to continue thinking what I think. And you are unable to impact that at all.


---Two points: it doesn't surprise me at all that you're still a member in good standing. Bill Marriott has been one of American's biggest pornography profiteers for years, and he's still a member in good standing. Van Hale is on record as saying that the Book of Mormon isn't historical - a position D.H. Oaks labeled "Satanic" (sigh) - and he's still a member in good standing. Mitt Romney's position on abortion when running for governor of Massachussetts was (literally) virtually identical to Ted Kennedy's or Barbara Boxer's, but he's still a member in good standing. Technically, I think I'M still a member in good standing...Hell, if a seminary teacher had publicly called into question the doctrine of eternal progression twenty years ago, he would have been fired and probably disfellowshipped or even exed; but when Hinckley did it as president of the church...no problem. Obviously, if you're on the right side of prophetic capriciousness, there is an incredibly wide latitude about what "members in good standing" can publicly preach or stand for (hint: leave aside the gay marriage issue). And no wonder, when Mormon "doctrine" is about as solid as a bowl full of warm jello.

Second point: You seem to be quite proud that I am "unable to impact" your opinions. But there was never any hope of that, Harmony. After all, if LDS scriptures, the LDS Bible Dictionary, LDS First Presidency statements on doctrine, and sitting LDS church presidents are ALSO "unable to impact" your opinions, what hope would anyone else have? You just keep inadvertently making my point for me...

By the way, the question isn't some broad one about "fallibility" versus "infallibility". If there were some Mormon doctrine of prophetic infallibility, the church would have been over once Emma caught Pres. Clinton I mean Joseph Smith shagging Fanny Alger.


This comment doesn't make sense to me. Please explain what you're trying to say. Joseph "shagging" Fanny isn't doctrinal, so I don't see what that has to do with LDS doctrine or prophets.


---Uh....

You know what?

I think if Mormonism is working for you right now, you should stick with it.
If you're saying Joseph lost the prophetic mantle the instant he walked outside his marriage vows to Emma, then I agree with you
.

---What would ever make you think he had a "prophetic mantle" to lose in the first place?

Of course God will allow the prophet to lead the church astray.


---If the words "lead" "church" and "astray", and the most elementary rules of logic, have any meaning whatsoever, then...yup.

Does it matter to you? Of course not. Why should it? It matters no more than any other LDS doctrine matters to any other Mormon who just can't believe it anymore.


There you go again, trying to tell me what I believe.


---What you believe you've already made clear. The point is just that it is in conflict with LDS doctrine. Not that I particularly care what you choose in the end to believe; what is germane is just that it IS in conflict...but that that doesn't bother you. And like I said - why should it, really? It's not like "Mormon leaders reveal the truth" or something. They no more do that than anyone else on the planet. So why believe them, or "the scriptures"?

About the rest of your post - like I said, I think if Mormonism is working for you right now, and you're not bothered by discrepancies between your own views and LDS doctrine, then you should probably stick with it.
Last edited by NorthboundZax on Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:18 pm, edited 4 times in total.
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

bcspace wrote:
Still looking for the conflict Tal. Feel free to go line by line and verse by verse and we'll answer it all for you.


---Right. Well let's start with a few more basic questions, BCSpace:

1.) Can "A" equal "not A"?

2.) If by some chance, Joseph Smith didn't tell the truth about his experiences, and his church wasn't what it claims, would you want to know? Why or why not?
Post Reply