Quick quote on evolution

[Anonymous]

Ok that helps.

I would still wish they didn’t beat about the bush – but at least I can say the above to people.

Thanks again.

[Anonymous]

Ciasiab,

There is no misapplication. When you read the entire statement very, very carefully for what it says and how it is phrased, what I have said is the only logical conclusion. I mean that seriously. The sentence I bolded says exactly what it says, and there is no other way to interpret it and be true to the actual words.

Every time “man” is used in the statement, it means “combination of mortal body and immortal spirit child of Heavenly Parents”. Thus, Adam being the first man means absolutely nothing except that he was the first unique creation that was a combination of mortal body and immortal spirit child of Heavenly Parents. He could have had parents of his mortal body and still be the first man. Evolution, therefore, is not inconsistent with that idea.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Joseph Fielding Smith was the biggest anti-evolution church leader we have ever had. Fact is, BYU teaches evolutionary theory. Steven Peck, who also blogs occasionally at BCC, teaches life sciences there and has written several great OPs about evolution:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2010/09/why-mormons-should-embrace-evolution-byu-biology-professor-steven-peck.html

If you prefer podcast, there’s a two-parter:

http://www.fairblog.org/2011/11/17/fair-conversations-episode-12-steven-l-peck-on-evolution-part-1-of-2/

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56317-%E2%80%9Cfair-conversations%E2%80%9D-episode-13-steven-l-peck-on-evolution-part-2-of-2/

I also blogged about my son’s seminary teacher who was anti-evolution which I found shocking. However, she was from Texas where creationism is taught in the schools: http://www.wheatandtares.org/4963/evolution-vs-creationism-in-seminary/

I find it incredibly discouraging that lds.org uses anti-evolution as evidence of member faith in several stories I cite in my OP. Some people must really love being confidently on the wrong side of science where they will inevitably look like idiots in time. As SteveP put it: “literalist creationism, where it exists in Mormonism, is a leak from sources other than the Restoration that misunderstands the scriptures’ purpose.”

And the best source of all, an absolute must read site called Mormon Organon. As Steve has told me, there isn’t a biology professor at BYU who doesn’t believe in evolution. Because they wouldn’t be biology professors if they didnt’: http://sciencebysteve.net/

Yep, my son came home from his first year at BYU a firm believer in evolution and in fact says there is no way any thinking member of the church cannot believe in evolution (although I doubt that last part).

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi, you are giving me hope. I get very discouraged when my fellow Mormons make really dumb arguments and then those get lauded on lds.org as if they are evidence of the best qualities rather than the worst.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Ciasiab,

There is no misapplication. When you read the entire statement very, very carefully for what it says and how it is phrased, what I have said is the only logical conclusion. I mean that seriously. The sentence I bolded says exactly what it says, and there is no other way to interpret it and be true to the actual words.

Every time “man” is used in the statement, it means “combination of mortal body and immortal spirit child of Heavenly Parents”. Thus, Adam being the first man means absolutely nothing except that he was the first unique creation that was a combination of mortal body and immortal spirit child of Heavenly Parents. He could have had parents of his mortal body and still be the first man. Evolution, therefore, is not inconsistent with that idea.

Ray,

I don’t disagree that it can be read that way. We will have to disagree that Joseph F Smith meant it that way. To me it is pretty clear when he says “It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’ (Moses 1: 34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race.” that he is allowing for evolution. To me it smacks too much as an apologetic attempt to harmonize all statements uttered by prophets to maintain some sense of infallibility (I know that this is not your intent nor your style). To me it’s just easier to say that he got it wrong on that one.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

We will have to disagree that Joseph F Smith meant it that way.

I never said Joseph F. Smith meant it that way.

He had two counselors and twelve apostles, and more than one of them believed in evolution. I think the wording was a very careful statement saying the Church wasn’t taking an official position on the issue of evolution but that they were united in their belief that “man” was different than the rest of the animal kingdom in a very important way – that evolution isn’t the only thing that created “man”, IF our bodies were created through an evolutionary process.

[Author]

Posts