- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
For 150 years it was preached as wrong, it is only recently that it is gaining acceptance because the evidence is so overwhelming. If it is fact today it was fact 150 years ago and the leaders should have seen it and accepted it. I will bet the vast majority of Mormons over 50 still reject it. I know I did for years because of my Mormon upbringing.
This is one issue where trying to step back and analyze the actual statements makes a HUGE difference.
I have read most, if not all, of the statements about evolution from church leaders, and they all, without exception, come from a perspective of addressing an either/or issue. They start from the premise that “evolutionists” are arguing an atheistic construct – and that means they are denying what I call “godless evolution”. In other words, they aren’t all claiming a young earth idea but rather are saying, at heart, that we aren’t just nothing more than smart apes. They are focusing on the belief that we are “living souls” comprised of both body and spirit, not just biologically evolved animals.
Yes, there are those who have taught a six thousand year creation, and there are those who teach that there was no death before a literal fall from a literal Garden of Eden, but they aren’t the majority of Mormon scientists or leaders. Evolution is taught and endorsed openly in the BYU Science Department. Quite a few apostles have believed in evolution. The official Church statement on the origin of the species doesn’t reject evolution as the way our physical bodies were created; in fact, it says directly that the first man might have started life as an embryo.
What is denied is that evolution explains completely the existence of humanity as a species and removes God from the creative process – and I believe it’s important to understand that when discussing how “The Church” views and has viewed evolution over time.
That distinction gets lost on lots of members (including leaders), but it’s there in spades in the actual statements over time.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:For 150 years it was preached as wrong, it is only recently that it is gaining acceptance because the evidence is so overwhelming. If it is fact today it was fact 150 years ago and the leaders should have seen it and accepted it. I will bet the vast majority of Mormons over 50 still reject it. I know I did for years because of my Mormon upbringing.
This is one issue where trying to step back and analyze the actual statements makes a HUGE difference.
I have read most, if not all, of the statements about evolution from church leaders, and they all, without exception, come from a perspective of addressing an either/or issue. They start from the premise that “evolutionists” are arguing an atheistic construct – and that means they are denying what I call “godless evolution”. In other words, they aren’t all claiming a young earth idea but rather are saying, at heart, that we aren’t just nothing more than smart apes. They are focusing on the belief that we are “living souls” comprised of both body and spirit, not just biologically evolved animals.
Yes, there are those who have taught a six thousand year creation, and there are those who teach that there was no death before a literal fall from a literal Garden of Eden, but they aren’t the majority of Mormon scientists or leaders. Evolution is taught and endorsed openly in the BYU Science Department. Quite a few apostles have believed in evolution. The official Church statement on the origin of the species doesn’t reject evolution as the way our physical bodies were created; in fact, it says directly that the first man might have started life as an embryo.
What is denied is that evolution explains completely the existence of humanity as a species and removes God from the creative process – and I believe it’s important to understand that when discussing how “The Church” views and has viewed evolution over time.
That distinction gets lost on lots of members (including leaders), but it’s there in spades in the actual statements over time.
I will buy that but like many things it does not filter down to the average member. So we get left with our children being raised with false information in Sunday school and seminary. They could put an end to the speculation and just say at conference what the deal is.
We agree on that, Cadence. I can come up with an explanation in my mind as to how God could work within multiple-dimensions (including time) to create the earth through evolution or “intelligent design”. This worked for me for years. However it relegates the Adam and Eve story to allegory or myth, which is where research is showing where most bible stories belong anyway. Just a few of many items on the shelf. Although it makes me feel good to be validated, but I’m aware that the purpose of this forum isn’t to convince others that the church isn’t true, or to spread my lack of faith to others so I won’t go into it. I completely agree with SamBee. Happiness is the goal, and we are emotional beings. Trying to deny our emotional needs is going to end in unhappiness regardless of if we are rejecting something that isn’t “true”. I realize that the church does a great job of filling many of our emotional needs. In fact research consistently shows that religious people are happier than atheists. Most of this can be statistically explained by a religion’s ability to provide a supportive community or group. My cousin left the church a few years ago on intellectual principle and still deeply misses the church community.
I think that most of our most intense emotional needs can be explained by evolution: Getting kicked out of the tribe meant almost certain death and the end of your genes. Status in the group means better prospects for spouses or mates and the best care for your offspring. This desire to fit in with and gain status within the group explains a ton of human behavior. We punish kids (time-outs), and adults (prison) by isolating them from their groups. Loneliness is true suffering. The church does a great job of filling this need for a supportive tribe. I am a little disturbed however by the data from John Dehlin’s recent survey that showed that non-believing active members had more angst than those that simply left the church. I realize it was from a biased sample.
Tim wrote:I can come up with an explanation in my mind as to how God could work within multiple-dimensions (including time) to create the earth through evolution or “intelligent design”. This worked for me for years. However it relegates the Adam and Eve story to allegory or myth, which is where research is showing where most bible stories belong anyway. Just a few of many items on the shelf. Although it makes me feel good to be validated, but I’m aware that the purpose of this forum isn’t to convince others that the church isn’t true, or to spread my lack of faith to others so I won’t go into it.
I completely agree with SamBee. Happiness is the goal, and we are emotional beings. Trying to deny our emotional needs is going to end in unhappiness regardless of if we are rejecting something that isn’t “true”. I realize that the church does a great job of filling many of our emotional needs. In fact research consistently shows that religious people are happier than atheists. Most of this can be statistically explained by a religion’s ability to provide a supportive community or group. My cousin left the church a few years ago on intellectual principle and still deeply misses the church community.
I think that most of our most intense emotional needs can be explained by evolution: Getting kicked out of the tribe meant almost certain death and the end of your genes. Status in the group means better prospects for spouses or mates and the best care for your offspring. This desire to fit in with and gain status within the group explains a ton of human behavior. We punish kids (time-outs), and adults (prison) by isolating them from their groups. Loneliness is true suffering. The church does a great job of filling this need for a supportive tribe. I am a little disturbed however by the data from John Dehlin’s recent survey that showed that non-believing active members had more angst than those that simply left the church. I realize it was from a biased sample.
For me Adam and Eve gain more relevance to me when I make them parables/metaphors and not literal/historical beings.
Also, I know the John Dehlin survey was well intentioned, but it was a very biased piece of research (unintentionally I imagine, but I’m surprised it got the GA attention he says it did). The premise, the sampling and the questionnaire structure all meant the projects conclusions were probably a foregone conclusion.
Having said that, I can imagine it’s entirely likely that someone who has no belief whatsoever that there is divinity in the LDS church and that it is an entire fraud and only attends to keep their family happy is probably going to find it difficult.
There have been times in the last 6 months when I was only attending for my kids and extended family (my wife does not attend), and during those times I deeply disliked attending.
On the other hand, there are many who are no longer TBM (or don’t believe the D&C 1:30 “only true church”) but still find joy and pleasure from the experience of being part of the ‘fold.’
Adam and Eve just mean Man and Woman in Hebrew. Whether or not they existed is a moot point, but it’s not impossible. Humans descend from very small numbers and this has been proven genetically. The Finnish people for example descend from a mere thirty individuals. Amerindians who still number in the millions despite their decimation seen to be descended from several bottle necks as do Polynesians, who all came out of several large canoes. I see it partly as a metaphor for childhood. Eden could stand for the womb or innocence. Nudity gets mentioned for example. Young children really don’t care about nudity, it’s only later they put on “fig leaves”. Last month I think I mentioned we had a boy in the chapel running around with his pants down, chasing the sister missionaries! He didn’t care. Likewise they gain knowledge of right and wrong. Most children (with exceptions) grow up in a safe environment, or are protected; even so there’s often a Lucifer about.
Adam fell that men might be. It’s unique to the BoM. I think it’s positive – we can have joy now. The verse is about learning from our mistakes and moving on. We evolve personally by learning from them, and we have joy because we can see the contrast between right and wrong.
Ps Beware of literalists – atheist or believer – since they miss the wood for the trees.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.