Is Evolution Still a Threat

[_deacon blues]

I grew up in the 60's and 70's. During that time I was exposed to a lot of discussion about evolution. Much was was made of comments by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie about the teaching of evolution being a threat to the church, and I was surprised to see it missing from the recently discussed power point. Is this a sign that the Brethren no longer consider the teaching of evolution a threat?

[_cwald]

Yes it is still a threat. It would fit under the Secularist bubble.

They are probably too embarrassed to actually say evolution is an issue, but they still think it.

[_spotlight]

I don't see any way that evolution is not a threat unless it produces the same results with the same history each time it happens presumably on the many worlds created by a god. That's a tall order. It means that not just all the variation due to mutations other than the beneficial ones are filtered out, but the beneficial mutations are also filtered out except the very specific ones that result in identical DNA in humans evolving on different planets.

Members that accept evolution usually modify the concept with god doing the mutating. This isn't really evolution. We can do experiments and watch evolution from the same starting point and see that mutations really are random and result in different paths over time. That's the whole reason populations split apart from one another and speciation occurs in the first place.

The brethren used to teach that our spirits look just like us (still do?). Now think about that for a moment. What if your parents had the sexual encounter from which you sprang a month earlier or later? There would be a different egg involved with a different genetic arrangement. The same situation would occur if a different sperm out raced the one that resulted in who you are. You would be your brother (or sister) rather than you, or rather one of the innumerable unrealized potential brothers or sisters with a different personality, intelligence, physical appearance, etc.

Science does not agree at all with the naïve notions of LDS theology.

[_Maksutov]

Yes. There are still plenty of Mormons who can't get past the "No death before Adam" conundrum, let alone the cultural resistance to the "teachings of men" who aren't Mormon or Republican.

[_Analytics]

A couple of months ago the Church published in the New Era, "The Church has no official position on the theory of evolution. Organic evolution, or changes to species’ inherited traits over time, is a matter for scientific study. Nothing has been revealed concerning evolution."

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to- ... n?lang=eng

Nevertheless, evolution will always be a threat because it plainly contradicts the "no death before the fall" doctrine and is a great historical example of Prophets being wrong about the world and Mormonism impeding its members' progress towards understanding reality.

[_Philo Sofee]

I find it interesting that anytime Joseph Smith or any of the early Mormon Brethren had a question all Joseph Smith had to do is pray and God would give him an answer. It's so odd that Jesus Christ who supposedly created the universe has no stance on evolution. Am I the only one that finds this terribly odd?

[_deacon blues]

I find it interesting that anytime Joseph Smith or any of the early Mormon Brethren had a question all Joseph Smith had to do is pray and God would give him an answer. It's so odd that Jesus Christ who supposedly created the universe has no stance on evolution. Am I the only one that finds this terribly odd?

Yeah, the LDS "we don't know" category is vast, it almost seems like it is eternal

[_moksha]

Yeah, the LDS "we don't know" category is vast, it almost seems like it is eternal.

Evolution could be a game changer if a chromosomal aberration in the Mormon Knowing Gene enabled a discernable form of telekinesis. Not only could they nudge the BYU football over the goal line, they could dangle all critics over a cliff until they confessed that the Church is true.

[_Philo Sofee]

Any subject that the church refuses to take a stance on is a threat. I just read John Gee's introduction to the new edition of Hugh Nibley's book "The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri" (p xxi-xxii) and he says whether papyrus Joseph Smith I, XI or X is the source of the book of Abraham, the church does not have an official position on that issue. In other words the church refuses to take a stance on positions that they know they're wrong on, or scientifically they will be refuted.

Joseph Smith clearly described which papyri he translated the book of Abraham from. But the church won't accept his view. Now that is so gosh dang deeply ironic I can't fathom it. Of course this is the one solid empirical claim Joseph Smith actually made that can be scientifically tested that it has all the apologists scrambling. You can't test whether Kolob is real. You can't test whether we were intelligences that went through a spirit birth in a premortal existence. All of those can be taken on faith and they do invoke faith.

But you can't invoke faith when it comes to the papyri because we actually have them. And we can see if Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about. In other words the first truly scientific test that Joseph Smith gave us he actually failed. And that's why the church refuses to take a stand. Ironic isn't it?

[_backyardprotege]

You can't test whether Kolob is real. You can't test whether we were intelligences that went through a spirit birth in a premortal existence. All of those can be taken on faith and they do invoke faith.

But you can't invoke faith when it comes to the papyri because we actually have them. And we can see if Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about. In other words the first truly scientific test that Joseph Smith gave us he actually failed. And that's why the church refuses to take a stand. Ironic isn't it?

I finally learned what were the principle points of Mormonism from a good soul of a Mormon who attended business school with me. As he laid it out, my jaw muscles became increasingly slack. And my eyes got bulgier and bulgier (I know... not a real word)... and by the time he was done, I was thoroughly impressed that a kind of "Greek-style Zeus-oid Corporality" could have such a strong appeal back in the 1800's. I suppose it was inevitable.

What's so great about having an invisible spirit be the great lord of the Cosmos? It's much more interesting and vivid to visualize one's great lord as majestically physical.... and even sitting on a throne somewhere in the Cosmos. Mormonism, as a social and religious experiment, has done awfully well!

Now, is it true? Shucks.... can we really expect everything?