Charles Darwin - Sacred Cause - Abolitionist?

[_Moniker]

Please review link:

Darwin's twin track: 'Evolution and emancipation'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7856157.stm

Showing that all humans have common ancestry actually can make us less likely to view "others" as less than human, eh?

This sort of flies in the face of certain criticisms (Stein) that link Darwin to Hitler/eugenics.
;;
;;
;;
;;

[Guest]

Speaking of eugenics:

Thinking of eugenics earlier, too and thought I'd paste this:

Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of certain people and traits.[4] Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.[5] The movement, led by race scientists, financed by private philanthropies such as the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation and implemented by governments was practised in North America, Europe (particularly Nazi Germany), and Australia (among others).[citation needed] The "interventions" advocated and practised by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families (including the poor, mentally ill, blind, 'promiscuous women', homosexuals) and entire "racial" groups (such as the Roma and Jews) as "degenerate" or "unfit", the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, their "euthanasia", and in the worst case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.[6] The practices engaged in by eugenicists involving violations of privacy, attacks on reputation, violations of the right to life, to found a family, to discrimination are all today classified as violations of human rights. The practice of negative racial aspects of eugenics, after World War II, fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[7]

[_Yoda]

How do you feel your OP ties into Mormonism? Do you feel that those who participate in the Mormon culture show signs of eugenics?

Just trying to figure out if this topic needs to be in Terrestrial or Off Topic.

If you are interested in discussing Darwin and eugenics in how it relates to Mormon culture, I'll leave the thread here. If you are interested in discussing Darwin and eugenics in more of a general form, then we should probably move it to Off Topic.

[_Moniker]

Well, doesn't the LDS Church teach that some are not as valiant in the pre-existence? Doesn't the LDS Church have doctrine that goes against evolution?

I thought it certainly did!

[_Yoda]

Well, doesn't the LDS Church teach that some are not as valiant in the pre-existence? Doesn't the LDS Church have doctrine that goes against evolution?

I thought it certainly did!

OK...just trying to verify which way you wanted the discussion to proceed.

I'll add my thoughts shortly.

[_Yoda]

Well, doesn't the LDS Church teach that some are not as valiant in the pre-existence?

There has been a lot of debate on this issue, on this site, in particular.

My personal opinion is that Brigham Young was a little "off" and wrote a lot of things in the Journal of Discourses that are simply NOT doctrinal AT ALL. And, as far as official doctrine of the Church today, writings in the Journal of Discourses are not considered official doctrine of the Church.

Therefore, when Brigham Young and other prophets referred to people of color not being as righteous in the pre-existence, and people born into non-member families being less faithful, it is considered opinion, and nothing more.

The official stance of the Church is that we are all spirit children of Heavenly Father, and have an equal shot at exaltation.

When I was growing up, I actually felt burdened at being born in the Church. We were constantly told that those who were born in the Church had a "greater responsibility". We were the ones "chosen" to bring others into the Church, and would be held accountable if we didn't do it, since we had been "blessed" enough to be born into the gospel.

I always thought that non-members kind of had it made.

[_Moniker]

Well, it's difficult to ascertain what is or is not doctrine, for me.

I found this earlier:

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/08/eugenics/

George Q. Cannon was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1860. Three years earlier, in 1857, he was serving as the President of the California and Oregon missions, and from San Francisco he published The Western Standard, a Mormon newspaper. The August 7 issue contained an article he apparently wrote entitled “The Improvement of Our Species.” Here are some excerpts from that article (emphasis added):

“… Experience has long since taught mankind the necessity of observing certain natural laws in the propagation of animals, or the stock will degenerate and finally become extinct. But strange to say, in regard to the human animal, these laws, except in certain particulars, are more or less disregarded in these latter times. The inevitable consequence is, the race is degenerating, new diseases are introduced, while effeminacy and barrenness are on the increase: and worse than all, this evil condition of the body has its effects upon the mind…

I went from thinking about evolution as saying we all are a shared humanity to thinking about how the LDS Church seems to foster (in my view) an outsider vs. insider view. Then I began to think about how some in the Church (of course this is in all sorts of fundamental religions, as well, and they use it to uphold their racist attitudes) seem to dismiss the theory of evolution.

Can evolution ever be reconciled with LDS beliefs? I think that's comforting to find that all humans (according to LDS) are linked by being children of heavenly father and mother, though.

[_Yoda]

Can evolution ever be reconciled with LDS beliefs?

I personally think that they can. Others may disagree.

When we go through the temple, we are taught that the Lord created the world in six "creation periods" rather than six days. (On the seventh "day", He rested.)

The Lord's "days" are not the same as man's "days". Therefore, it is quite conceivable that the world could be billions of years old, because no one really knows what the Lord's perception of time is. It is different from ours.

Also, if the Lord created the world and life in a logical way, who is to say that He didn't use evolution as a logical way to do it?

[_Yoda]

Well, it's difficult to ascertain what is or is not doctrine, for me.

As an aside, you're not the only one who has a hard time ascertaining what is doctrine and what isn't. Most, if not all members have similar issues!

[_Yong Xi]

Well, doesn't the LDS Church teach that some are not as valiant in the pre-existence? Doesn't the LDS Church have doctrine that goes against evolution?

I thought it certainly did!

It appears that early church leaders believed that their innate righteousness necessitated God's command that they spread their seed among the righteous young virgins of the church. This alleged commandment, as suggested by some, was for the raising up of righteous seed unto the Lord. I don't know if this would be labeled eugenics, but seemingly, church leaders/God attempted to produce a clan of SuperMormons.