- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m not a scientist so I would be WAY over my head on this topic, but I feel it deserves some discussion. What I do know is that many in the scientific community think creationists are out of their tree and many Creationist think the same of the scientists. I have to say with the limited knowledge I have on this topic it seems hard to ignore the mounting of evidence in support of evolution. I’m fairly moderate in my beliefs in regards to religion and secularism. I think religon should not be overlooked nor sould secularism. Take the best of the two worlds I say . Schools, museums etc all teach evolution it is hard to avoid its influence. Religious institutions of course teach creationism. In the church we have the temple, genesis, BOM all teaching us Adam and Eve and I would say it is understood in church culture and doctrine to be literal. I suppose in church we can also throw in Adam Ondi Ahman here. It is hard to ignore these influence as well. In the church we run into a similar problem in regards to the BOM’s historicity so in a way we as LDS are getting hit twice . Personally I choose to except the creation story as allegory because it just seems to make the most sense to me that way . But I would say this topic raises questions about how to balance secular and religious influences, were to draw the line in the two worlds , and how to come out sain. Given how long my last comment was, I need to make this one much shorter. *grin* I think it’s open and shut – that evolution is the process by which our bodies were created. The only part of the original post with which I disagree is the following:
Quote:In the church we have the temple, genesis, BOM all teaching us Adam and Eve and I would say it is understood in church culture and doctrine to be literal.
I am old enough to state unequivocally that the temple presentation was constructed to be figurative regarding the creation of Adam and Eve. There used to be no question about that; now, it merely is neutral. However, I have a hard time arguing that anything presented in the temple is meant to be taken literally – and I mean that comprehensively.
I also have said on other threads that the official statement signed by the First Presidency in 1909 (“The Origin of Man” – reprinted in the February 2002 Ensign) about evolution merely emphasized that to be “human” is not to be nothing more than a smart animal – that it is to be the combination of a mortal body with a spirit child of God. It is critical to read that statement slowly and carefully and without pre-conceived notions, since when it is parsed carefully it went so far as to leave open the possibility that evolution was the genesis of our physical bodies. The actual summary quote that lays out that possibility is:
Quote:True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man,
or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man. (That last phrase – that I bolded – is fascinating, since it says that Adam MIGHT have originated as an embryo. Personally, that my belief – and I think it is supported by scripture and the temple and early Mormon perspective.)
That’s enough for now, but I believe strongly that much of what we assume is viewed as literal in the Church actually was originated as figurative (and viewed as such by MANY of the older members of the Church) – especially those things dealing with Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. I think there are good lessons that can be drawn from a literal viewpoint, but I think a large part of reconciliation with “The Church” in this area is recognizing that the figurative perspective used to be the mainstream view – and that it still is prevalent among many, many members and leaders. I think it’s only when God is removed from the process completely (“godless evolution”, as it was called in the early 1900’s statements) that it falls outside the acceptable limits of our doctrine.
(Ironically, as the Church spreads into other countries, the new members probably will be disproportionately those who currently do not believe in evolution. That will be very interesting to watch, imo.)
Various members of the twelve have had heated disputes on this very topic. There’s no official stance (to Ray’s point, the 1909 one has to be parsed closely for what it really says, but IMO Joseph F Smith was simply a creationist and a contemporary of the Scopes Monkey Trial whose day colored his view). The scientific apostles have all essentially come out on the side of evolution, and it is taught at the Y. This is one of the issues on which we differ from hard-core evangelical groups (our softer stance on abortion is another). I always get nervous when anyone tries to put our position too close to that of the evangelicals. I saw Ben Stein’s movie about how “scientists” exploring Intelligent Design were blacklisted from the scientific community, denied tenure and funding, and essentially discredited. Yet, I was unconvinced that this was the travesty suggested by the movie. What I did notice, though, was that evolution does not have a true “origin” theory. It’s just how species evolve–not how they began. There is still no proven scientific theory stating exactly how life began that is replicable or repeatable.
Old-Timer wrote:Given how long my last comment was,
cute
😆 If you want to read some excellent articles on the church and evolution, you really should read the Winter 2002 DialogueShaken Faith Syndrome) wrote an excellent article entitled “The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution.” There is an interview with Duane Jefferey, a professor of biology at BYU who teaches evolution. There is also a great article on how the modern creationism movement gets it wrong, and another on the human genome project. Overall, one of my top 5 Dialogueissues of all time. I doubt there is much that people will find of interest here in my comments but felt compelled to share my pov. I was never conflicted with this aspect of the church, although looking back now maybe this contributed to my increasing disbelief. I always accepted evolution as it was taught in public schools. I did recognize that the theory itself was just that–a theory and not entirely proven but it certainly made sense. I only became aware later that there was a conflict between Mormon theology and evolution, although it should have been obvious. But my understanding of the way some Mormons have reconciled the two is that evolution occurred and that at some point God the Father put the spirit into the evolved body. So Adam and Eve were the first “humans” understood as no longer just animals because they now possessed the spirit. This would explain evolutionary evidence and human development but keep God in the picture. I don’t believe this anymore but my brother does and he is as devout as they come. Curt
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.