(Do viruses have spirits? If so, I just emerged from an encounter with a particularly reprobate bunch, who doubtless were less valiant in the virus pre-existence.)

Anyway, if that passage only refers to humanity, then I see no problem believing human death only came into the world after the Fall of Adam, who I understand to be the first human being who climbed far enough down from the trees for God to have a rational conversation with him. There was no (human) death before the Fall, because there were no true human beings before Adam.

As has been pointed out, there are plenty of explanations of creation that allow for evolution and a very old Earth. We don’t know how long the creative periods were, we don’t know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, ,we don’t know if there was death before the fall, etc…

Ummmm…are you kidding me? “We don’t know if there was death before the fall”? The Church I go to knows.

There is one doctrine regarding the creation that is quite firmly set in Mormonism. The BYU evolution packet clearly explains this one key doctrine. The essence of statements by the first presidency is this: We don’t know how the creation was performed, but we do know that Adam is the father of all of the generations of man.

There is the key doctrine that Mormons have to explain. Everything else is just a red herring. We have a firm checkpoint in history at 4,000 BCE. All humans must descend from this single man. That’s a pretty difficult argument to defend. In fact, the above defense regarding Book of Mormon DNA depends upon the falsity of this checkpoint.

While you are thinking about my earlier post, I will comment on your complaint that some of my remarks hurt your feelingsor, I believe you said, offended you, when I described you as seemingly a kind of Mormon version of a rigid Protestant fundamentalist. I was not, as you imagined, guessing about your youth or whatever. Instead, I took you seriously when you claimed that you had been taught as, if I understood you correctly, that you were tought as a younger fellow that Latter-day Saints must eschew the sciences grounded specifically in a theory of evolution, and they must believe in a young earth, and hence also one must believe that Adam got the boot from the garden in exactly 4000BCE, that prior to that boot, there had been no death on this earth, and so forth. Every item in your list, except for that no-death-before-the-fall business, I have heard from a few Latter-day Saints now and again. But I have attended Church services recently in four nations and never heard that stuff even once. I have not encountered any of those dogmas at BYU in the last half of my teaching career, and then only among a few in Religous Education who are now long gone.

That no-death business I first heard only perhaps a year ago and then from an someone who had gone missing and was using it as a stick to beat the Church. I never read Mormon Doctrine. I never read Cleon Skousen’s thousand year series. I once had a set in my possession and they immediately went in a trash bin, with my wife’s full approval.

I will, however, grant that there is a naive faith among Latter-day Saints that just accepts some ideas that are at times somewhat similar to what one finds in Protestant fundamentalism. But in many instances, when this naive faith confronts the intellectual world around us, then there is the necessity for the person undergoing the crisis to put aside folk Mormonism and with it some other childish things. My own experience indicates that faith in Jesus Christ and conficence in the Restoration actually thrives on challenges and dealing with doubts. They seen to me to help feed both spiritual and intellectual growth.

Some however, who have never sought to own their own faith and for whom it remains what they once were taught, when they fase a crisis, jettison their faith and they may end up running with the dogs and messing up their lives. They also no longer have a real moral anchor. One can see the signs of this by glancing at RfM.

But what comes after the crisis in which an initial naive faith can be a more mature, reasonable, profound faith. One enters what has sometimes been called a second naivety where some of the old things are shed and one’s faith is better grounded, more mature and productive. I know or have met some of the Brethren. And this is clearly the case with each of them, as well as virtually all of my associates and colleagues at BYU and in my immediate experience in CES and so forth.

What puzzles me is why something like this did not happen to you. I sort of suspect that you may never have really come to own your faith so that you got past this business of talking about what you were taught in Sunday School. I also wonder if you read widely prior to your encounter with doubts? I did.

I have elsewhere published an essay describing my own passion for putting myself out in the field of fire so that I could see for myself whether my faith could stand up to whatever is out there. I made a minor career out of pawing through the most radical of Protestant theology. In addition, I have tried my best to read and absorb the arguments of the very first ancient shy and retiring atheists, as well as the bold ones who turned up later. I very much want to understand them from their point of view.

I can, however, understand how someone who does not read or care to think about such things might get a jolt when they encounter some of the vast, confusing and interesting intellectual world out there. I have not wanted to miss the fun of being right in the middle of that mix.

Despite the snide stereotyping you employ to demonize me, I am quite impressed with the reasonableness of your last post. Both in tone and content, I sense an improvement. And I also agree fully with the note with which you ended an earlier message where you invited all of us to “bury our preconceived notions and have an honest conversation free of polemical tricks, personal attacks and hyperbolae and just have an honest conversation with the intent of forming bridges of understanding.” Who would want to object to such an enlightened proposal, unless they were partisans in a war against the Church?

But I notice in this last post a bit of what seems to me to constitute a bit of a polemical trick and also a personal attack on me. And earlier I noticed some stereotyping and mocking. But this last item suggests a change of mind. Good. But I still must complain about the following: “Whenever I venture onto the FAIR-Blog I feel as if I’ve entered the Twilight Zone or an Alternative Universe where reality is sacrificed for the sake of maintaining belief.” Unless you are ready to jettison those on RfM who have turned up on this blog, and hence back away from that nonsense, how can we possibly have a genuine conversation? Productive, fruitful conversations leading to increased understanding , rather than merely scoring points before a real or imaginary audience, require what ancient philosophers called friendship. What they had in mind in part was an equality between those taking part in the conversation. In a conversation between a child and an adult or between a childish adult and a wise person (think a lover of wisdom), there is no equality. In such situations the best thing would be for the child to shut up and just listen. Now apply this to the endless opining on the lists, boards and blogs.

I hope that you genuinely desire a productive conversation. At least your language suggests that you have changed your mind. It would please me if you honestly and sincerely want a conversation aimed at genuine understanding and for the purpose of build bridges. Such a conversation cannot be focused on you proclaiming why you went missing. And, if you still believe that those on the Fair list who have participated in this blog sacrifice what you call reality in an effort to maintain their faith, and hence are not sincere, honest seekers of that truth, as you indicate you are, then a fruitful conversation is impossible. When we are seen as MORGBOTS and so forth, nothing can flow from an exchange. And those who employ those kinds of labels do not desire a real conversation and will not permit one. They clearly occupy the rhetorical gutter, which we strive, sometimes unsuccessfully, to avoid.

This comment of yours is not only insightful, it also works both ways:

So if applying labels to those of us who have left the church for valid reasons helps you maintain your faith I guess that is your right. But not all Exmo’s left because of some imagined unresolved sin. In fact I’d say thats just another made up church myth.

The same is also true of those who stay in the Church — not all (or even most) of them are still faithful because they have been “duped” or had to do “pretzel-twisting logic” to rationalize their beliefs. That’s just another made up ex-Mo myth that helps people on the RfM board explain why so many people don’t “see the light” like they have.

You made this very interesting statement in your last comment:

Our biggest problem was that we maybe believed in the church too much…and to some here it seem too literally and then tried to learn more.

That has given me a lot to think about. I think I will post an entirely different blog post about that since it is far afield from the topic of this thread. Please–watch for it, as I would be very interested in your observations.

-Allen

I meet with several current and former members of the church for lunch on a regular basis. We’re friends and we haven’t allowed our differnt takes or loss of belief to become a wedge in our friendship, despite our often heated discussions over religion.

Every one of the good non-believers and former members in this group would jump at the opportunity to return to the church if they thought for an instant that the church was what it claims to be.

Each of us has served in high leadership positions. Each was married in the temple and served honorable missions. We are NOT the kinds of members that the church was supposed to lose.

Our biggest problem was that we maybe believed in the church too much…and to some here it seem too literally and then tried to learn more. Although I would never have classified any of us with any of the terms Lou Midgley’s disparagingly designed, stereotypically besmirching subgroups he likes to place people who disagree with him in, I do at least give him credit. It does make it easier to dismiss a so-called enemy when we apply labels to them that are intended to make them appear less intelligent, less dedicated or seemingly fanatical. Becasue surely we couldn’t have lost our testimonies for other reasons. Hey labeling works in all kinds of wars right? Didn’t we apply belittling labels in WW II and Vietnam to our enemies? So if applying labels to those of us who have left the church for valid reasons helps you maintain your faith I guess that is your right. But not all Exmo’s left because of some imagined unresolved sin. In fact I’d say thats just another made up church myth.

For those you who took the high ground and tried to help me understand how your brand of Mormonism works for you in light of reality, I thank you. You’ve given me something to think about…and I do enjoy thinking.

Cheers
Craig

I wish you peace and happiness.

Why is this a problem?

I know I’ve taken this thread into areas the author never intended…so maybe I should just let this go…but I do note that the president of the church gets a pass. Pres. Lee stated that exception is …”unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception”

And yes I know that this is basic stuff… I was on my stake’s high council after all…but much of this arugment is like trying to nail jell-o to a wall…Impossible to nail down.

But thanks just the same…

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency…and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles…counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

My wife is calling me for dinner, so I’m off for the night. I’ll check in here tomorrow.

All other statements, including General Conference sermons, should be given serious consideration, but you are not under obligation to do or believe anything unless the Holy Spirit testifies to you that you should.

This is basic stuff, discussed in Sunday School. (At least the classes I’ve been to.)

Here’s some reading for you: Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders.

I appreciate you taking the time to comment here, even though I obviously disagree with your point of view.

While I enjoy a good back-and-forth here once in a while, I don’t know exactly what profit would come from an email exchange. We both have made up our minds, and I highly doubt either of us is going to persuade the other.

But thank you for the invitation.

You assume that since prophets receive revelation from God that they therefore are inspired in all their personal beliefs and every public teaching. The first does not require the second. Joseph Smith famously noted exactly that, and his exact words (“a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”) are well-known throughout the Church.

The only Mormons I know who accept every word the comes from the prophet’s mouth are those who have left the faith over that very issue.

White and Thomas discuss the history of their article in endnote 1. They were very complimentary of the dozens of people who read and commented on their original drafts (many of them BYU professors and believing Mormons). Personally, I wish BYU Studies had published it, but I’m not on their review panel.

“You continue to not see the forest for the trees. Young-earth creationism, the global Flood, and the division of languages at Babel are peripheral issues that Mormons have (for over 100 years) discussed and debated. But, in the end, whether one takes them literally or not is not an article of faith.”

Granted, but it does go to the heart of the churches credibility claim does it not? If current and past men who allegedly speak with God can’t get it right on these myths it begs the question what else are they misinformed on?

“Did you read the Dialogue article that I linked earlier?”

Yes …read it several years ago…Loved it…I salute these brave men who had to undergo a lot of criticism and several editing’s before they felt they could publish their thoughts. I also believe that their paper was rejected by BYU was it not? I’d have loved to be able to read their original paper.

I came here because I wanted to see what you folks might say about Simon’s latest post on DNA and the BOM. I don’t think I’ve ever come here before that – although I have visited either FARMS or FAIR in the past and read some posts.

I do apologize for having discussed other issues on this thread.

In light of that, I won’t continue here, but would welcome a private discussion with you any time. I do have some very specific responses to what you wrote last. But…. it’s up to you; here’s my email: taylorken AT aol DOT com.

[Email address edited by admin to defeat spam bots.]

You continue to not see the forest for the trees. Young-earth creationism, the global Flood, and the division of languages at Babel are peripheral issues that Mormons have (for over 100 years) discussed and debated. But, in the end, whether one takes them literally or not is not an article of faith.

Did you read the Dialogue article that I linked earlier? Funny how Clayton White is a believing Mormon and BYU professor, and yet he still retains his job and church membership after publishing an article shredding the notion of a global flood.

(Dr. Duane Jeffrey did the same thing in Sunstone a few years ago, and he’s still teaching and practicing, too.)

Don’t you find it odd that you would come here, tell us that we’re believing a lie, and then complain when we respond and compare us to “pseudo-authoritative religious leaders who [have] come to set me straight?”

I can tell you how many times I’ve heard the “I’ve been lied to” excuse. It doesn’t fly with me anymore. I’ll accept being told something that wasn’t correct by people who were well-meaning but misinformed, sure. But claiming you’ve been lied to requires you show proof of intent.

You say that uncertainty sits well with you, and yet it’s that very same uncertainty that you’re not willing to accept within the Church. You wanted your religious and scientific paradigm validated, and when it wasn’t, you bolted.

More power to you as well. Including the power to accept that you’ve changed your views and move on. Hanging around on the most-poorly-named “Recovery from Mormonism” board is about the worst therapy you could get.

It is regrettable that Brother Midgley wants to make this about me and my apostasy from Mormonism rather than on the sincere legitimate questions I’ve brought up and others have been willing to discuss in an open-minded manner. But since this seems to be where Brother Midley always wants to go…let’s go there and be done with it.

Brother Midgley asserts that I had ulterior motives for joining this discussion…perhaps acting as the water boy for Simon Southerton…by drawing attention away from the original content of this thread.

Lou said: (may I call you Lou?)

“And getting these things sorted out does not assist those who want to hang their unfaith on his opinions. This appears to be the reason Craig Paxton shifted away from a discussion of DNA and the Book of Mormon. And hence why he shifted, instead, to a list of elements in folk Mormonism that he thinks one must believe and defend or else go missing.”

Gee Lou, I’m sure it couldn’t have been that I was hoping to form a bridge of understanding and really did have some legitimate questions, that you refer disparagingly to as “Folk Mormonism”. I find it interesting that this so-called folk Momonism is the very Mormonism that is currently being taught in the Mormon church.

You go on to quantify me by stating:

He does not seem to have been at all focused on the core elements of the faith–the doctrine or gospel of Christ–.

Ummm…I don’t ever remember meeting or speaking with you Lou (other than here at FAIR-Blog) How could you possibly know the depth of my soul or the one time level of my commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ while an active believing Mormon? Are you using your super-human priesthood powers of discernment? (couldn’t help myself)

You continue:

Craig seems obsessed with the necessity of the Saints entertaining as opinions the idea that Adam got booted out of the garden park in 4000BCE, or that death started at that moment, or that the story of the flood that is found in the Bible demands that we believe that mountains well over twenty thousand feet high were covered with water, of course, without being able to explain where all that water came from or went, and so forth.

I wonder where I might have gotten these CRAZY fundamentalist ideas Lou? Any ideas? I know I’m not as progressive as you are…I only accepted the words of the so-called prophets (both living and dead) of Mormonism whole cloth…silly me. I must have slept through that lesson where they tell you one can discount and ignore the pronouncements of God’s anointed.

You continue:

Hence, I do not need and do not expect or want the Brethren to be issuing official statements in which they sort these things out for me. They seem properly content to let the sciences, which hopefully are in the long term self-corrective, sort these matters out.

Seems to me that it is Mormonism that is shifting to Science rather than science shifting to Mormonism.

More assumptions:

It appears, unfortunately, that Craig started out believing that the Brethren must be infallible and that every element of folk Mormonism must be made by them to appear in harmony with every other item, or the Church is not what he imagined it claimed to be, to borrow some of the language from one of his friends.

Well at least you made me laugh Lou…Infallible no…consistent and not in conplete conflict with their predecessors, yes.

Some agreement:

I am not, of course, pleased with those Craig calls “cafeteria Mormons,” but I also believe that it is wise and necessary for the Saints to jettison some elements of folk Mormonism, including much or what is found in Mormon Doctrine and other similar efforts to fashion a dogmatic theology. The reason is that the Saints, I believe, should be focus on the redemption from sin and death provided by Jesus of Nazareth.

Yeah you wouldn’t want the members of the church to focus on whether the church IS what it claims to be (to borrow a phrase from one of my firneds)

More from Lou:

I regret seeing RfM type former fundamentalist Saints turn up on this blog. It seems that they have come here in an effort to justify their rebellion against God. I am confident that they can gain the applause they seek on other venues.

Personally, I take offence with your attempt to put me in your stereotyped box as an “RFM type former fundamentalist Saint”, although I understand your need to place these restraints on me in your attempt to diminish me…but seriously Lou, although in this response I’ve taken on a more cynical voice, my participation and questions have been honest and sincere.

Even More:

And I am also puzzled by Craig Paxton’s list of what he sees as absurdities that he wants to insist must be part of the opinions of the Saints, on the false assumption that what is revealed to Prophets and seen by Seers is a kind of alternative science. While saluting what he calls science, he also gives the back of his hand to his former faith. I am genuinely interested in figuring out what drives people like Craig.

First many of those so called absurdities seem to be ideas shared in common with some of the posters on this board. Second I am driven my a sincere search for the truth and an insatiable curiosity in all things Mormon.

And Yet More:

I wonder why those like Craig, who have fled the faith, don’t find something better to do than post up a storm trying to convince themselves and others of the folly of faith. Why is it that someone like Craig must constantly busy themselves making war on the faith of the Saints.

There are other like me?

Isn’t there something better they can think of doing with what remains of their probation? If all they are is an accident of blind chance, can’t they find something better to do with their time before, as they must insist, their light goes out permanently? Their passionate religious devotion to their unfaith is, for me, puzzling. I simply don’t believe that their constant version of secular “home teaching” or pulpit preaching is part of a therapy they must endure to rid themselves of the evils inflicted on them in Sunday School.

Nope nothing better to do…way too much time on my hands and actually here you are very wrong….it’s very therapeutic in ridding myself of these evils.

And finally:

But an additional puzzle is why they cannot remain focused on the topic of a blog, in this case the soundness of Southeton’s opining about DNA and the Book of Mormon.

I agree and apologized to the author.

NOW that we have that out of the way…can we bury our preconceived notions and have an honest conversation free of polemic tricks, personal attacks and hyperbolae and just have an honest conversation with the intent of forming bridges of understanding?

Sorry to disappoint you, but you’ve got it wrong about me. I don’t expect to convince you otherwise. But why not try? I’ve heard your “Ex-Mormon Fundamentalist argument” from others, many times before now.

Frankly, it’s just a little too “neat” of you to put me in that box – I just don’t fit in it, and I never have, even when I was IN the church. I have PLENTY of room in my mind and heart for uncertainty, and believe me, there is PLENTY of it.

But I know when I’ve been lied to. And lies do not sit well with me.

Why, I ask myself, do TBMs INSIST that an honest search for the truth is “fundamentalism?” Beats me, but that’s what it seems like many TBMs do.

I do not demand anything of you, Mike. But the attitudes, arguments and tones I see here on this particular thread of this blog remind me of some pseudo-authoritative religious leaders who has come to set me straight. And that was my point from the beginning.

By the way, if there is a “textbook” about “fundamentalist, orthodox Mormons” there must be a lot of them around. Would you not be led to wonder why there are so many? They might be wrong, but there sure are a LOT of them these days.

And for the record, I freely admit that science is NOT inerrant, as you imply I might think. I’ve noted that both science AND faith are corrected fairly regularly. Science is hardly “perfect reason.” (Where did you get THAT idea?)

No, Mike, you needn’t “fall” for anything at all. You’ve got the “only true church on earth” in which you are apparently an advanced believer and thinker, and you can formulate thoughts and ideas that fit with your personal philosophy. The “best of all possible worlds.”

More power to you. Just watch out for the elephant.

Peace.

So why this insistence that what people are saying here about Mormonism and science is NEW? Ever since I can remember it has been like this.

• Parley P. Pratt
• Orson Pratt
• James E. Talmage (PhD in geology)
• B. H. Roberts
• John A. Widtsoe (PhD in chemistry)
• Russell M. Nelson (PhD in surgery)
• Richard G. Scott (nuclear engineer)

And also LDS scientists like:

• Henry Eyring (pioneered the application of quantum mechanics to chemistry)
• Joseph F. Merrill (PhD in physics from Johns Hopkins)
• Duane Jeffrey (PhD in zoology and genetics)

And many others that I’m not including here.

It’s unfortunate that the contributions of all these men to LDS thought on the sciences have been lost by focusing on two or three Mormon leaders who were, by most definition, anti-science.

You wrote,

I still would hope that in light of scientific reality, the First Presedency would come out and make a definitive statement with respect to this question rather than allowing the membership of the church to speculate.

The First Presidency has declined to offer definitive statements on important scientific issues such as Special Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, or the Big Bang.

And why should they comment on such things? As others have already pointed out, the First Presidency has other concerns.

You seem to be saying that it is a bad thing that the church members are allowed to speculate. What do you have against speculation?

You also wrote,

Evolution is a fact. Period. It would be nice to understand how this reality can be better understood in light of church doctrines.

Suppose we agree to accept the theory of evolution as true in the scientific sense (that is, not falsified). How does that that understanding affect in any way the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

It’s when you start asserting that we all have to follow your private interpretation that we have problems.

I don’t recall asserting that everyone has to follow me, and if I did it was not intentional. As I mentioned to Allen above, “you might consider the following.” What I have said is intended to be persuasive, not assertive.

Theodore

You strike me as a textbook example of a fundamentalist, orthodox Mormon who encountered science and reason and had your rigid preconceptions shattered — along with your faith. You’re out of the Church, but you’re still as fundamentalist as you were before, only now you’ve replaced the falsehood of an inerrant Gospel with the falsehood of inerrant Science.

Now you come demanding that we be fundamentalist Mormons like you were, so we too can have our faith shredded and replaced by Perfect Reason.

But we don’t have to fall for that false dilemma, when there are other alternatives that incorporate both perspectives quite adequately.

On this blog we have seen evidence that some once seemingly Protestant fundamentalist type Saints now claim to have been taught to read see in the scriptures answers to questions that the authors of the language they mine could not possibly have asked and clearly were not addressing. They insist that the scriptures coupled with every opinion ever uttered by one of the Brethren must somehow add up to a system that has to be at war at every point with truth, where truth is understood as science as they imagine science to be. From my perspective, they end up having one imaginary Straw Man doing battle with another Straw Man. They clearly have employed these images as part of their argumentative ploy. My hunch is that they do this as a way of convincing themselves that they are all for truth and nothing but the truth, and so forth. They even boast of how they are sincere and honest. And if the faithful were like them, then faith would presumably evaporate.

It is, from my perspective, clear to thoughtful and faithful Saints, those who have passed through the inevitable challenges to some initial naïve faith, that their faith is not necessarily in conflict with what goes on in the sciences. One obvious reason is that the scriptures are not badly conceived science. They are, instead, primarily stories, always from the perspective of the believes, of some of their encounters with God, and then what they learned the hard way by not keeping faithfully the covenants they once made. The scriptures do not teach a physics or a geology—they are not what is commonly called theoretical but practical or moral. It is true that there are some myths about the sciences that since the Enlightenment have functioned as a kind of substitute religion—what is often called scientism—that are latched onto by those whose experience within the Church of Jesus Christ has been closely patterned after the very worst of what is found in Protestant fundamentalism, who end up using that nonsense as a stick to beat the Church. But the faith of the Saints does not rest, for example, on some speculation by the Bishop of Ussher about when Adam got the boot from the garden or on the age of the earth and so forth.

My advice to those who insist on parading their prattle, in the name of honesty and truth, against the faith of the Saints, is to either stick to getting clear on the problems in Simon Southerton’s rationalization for his having gone missing or take their act to some venue where they can get some unfaith supporting applause from the rabble.

If you’d just leave it there Theodore, that would be great.

It’s when you start asserting that we all have to follow your private interpretation that we have problems.

My simplistic explanation (and opinion) on this subject is that there could be little or unnoticeable difference between two generations of the same living origanism, but after hundreds or thousands of generations, these differences could be more evident to the point that you may argue that the original living form is ancestral to the one observed today. Therefore, the law of multiplying after their own kind is respected from one generation to the next, but “bended” when comparison is made between organisms separated by a very large number of generations.

There are two problems with this theory. First, it assumes that if the created creatures broke the command of God a little bit at time God would still consider them as obeying Him, even though in the end they produced an entirely different creature. I don’t think He would let us get away with that in our own lives. Second, this is not consistent with the fossil record. The fossil record does not show this gradual, blending transition but shows various periods when a plethora of new species suddenly come into existence, which is consistent with the scriptural record.

Allen,

I have a problem with what you seem to be implying—that the Brethren say one thing in public but another in private. It is (to me) tantamount to saying “well, if the Brethren were really free to talk, you would find out that they agree with me.” That is an assertion without evidence, honestly.

I apologize that I gave you that impression. I was not implying that at all. I’m sure that some of the Brethren would privately agree with you and some may even agree with me. As you have pointed out, and what I was implying in my post, is that these things are of private speculations. That is why I can speak openly about these things but they cannot.

Being that you are willing to have an open mind on this issue you might consider the following:

Because our natural and scientific knowledge of the power and workings of God are limited we tend to confine His methods to concepts we can more easily understand and relate to. What we understand we call natural processes and what we do not understand we call supernatural. The supernatural is discounted by most scientists. For example, with our present understanding of physics we cannot relate to how Jesus got His resurrected physical body through the walls or the ceiling of a locked room so that His disciples could feel the prints of the nails in His hands. So, most scientists discount this event as fiction.

Moses was a highly educated warrior and engineer. After the Lord showed him the vision of every particle of this earth and every inhabitant thereof (past, present and future), the first response from the enquiring mind of Moses was to ask the Lord two questions. “Why did you do it,” and, “how did you do it?” (paraphrase from Moses 1:27-30) The Lord was very direct in His answer to both questions. To the “why” question the Lord answered, “To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). To the “how” question the Lord was equally concise and direct, “By the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son” (Moses 1:32). The power of God is such that the elements of the universe are controlled by His words. The creation account is clear that when God commanded things to happen “it was so even as I spake” (Moses 2:11). Even Satan understood this. He said to Jesus, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread” (Matthew 4:3). Water to wine; instantly providing cooked loaves of bread and fish flesh; walking on and calming water; were simple demonstrations that He was the creator and that He created and controlled the earth by His words. Nephi understood this when he said, “If he should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done (1 Nephi 17:50). Lazarus had been dead four days and his body was decomposing and rotting, but at the command of the Son of God, Lazarus came forth from the tomb alive. In my opinion, God didn’t need, or use, a low tech “natural” process that we can now relate to in order to create the earth. The fossil record does not match the theory of evolution but it does match the scriptural account.

Theodore

You say your scriptures are “…entirely focused on the covenant relationship between men and God.” I don’t think so.

Agreed, in the context of Mormonism, salvation is paramount to science.

But to me, it’s truth — at any and all levels.

How is your last statement (“when you acknowledge it and deal with it, you will eventually come to accept reality”) any different than the types of statements you decry among other comments (such as “if you think about it some more, you’ll find out I’m right”)? It is not productive to resort to stereotyping while engaging in the same stereotyping.

In reading back through the comments, I don’t think anyone gave a blanket renunciation of Craig’s comments. Mike agreed with many of them. Craig, in turn, asked how someone could reconcile what he saw as irreconcilable. And, the answers were provided. From those answers Craig said he learned from that he and at least Mike Parker “agree on a whole lot more than I could have imagined.”

That isn’t condescension; that’s discussion.

-Allen

The irony of you chastising the Saints for being condescending and then telling us to “accept reality” is quite thick.

The biological origin of human beings has been the subject of much speculation among Mormons since at least the days of Brigham Young. I find it interesting, however, that our scriptures are entirely focused on the covenant relationship between men and God. That is what is important when it comes to salvation.

And salvation is what the Latter-day Saints as a group are concerned about, not scientific understanding.

At least Craig politely acknowledges that he learned something from you. I can’t say the same.

How can a church that purports to be ‘the only true church on the face of the earth’ and also ‘the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ” – NOT be able to clearly and definitively answer, through a prophet of God, basic questions about the origins of human beings?

To use the general TBM approach in this discussion, there is an elephant in your room. And when you acknowledge it and deal with it, you will eventually come to accept reality.

Whether my opinion on the age of the earth is correct or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether I have been regenerated by allowing the Holy Spirit to make me into what God wants me to be.

Unfortunately, two or three now-deceased LDS leaders have gathered up a following among the Saints by teaching that correct beliefs about evolution and other such things are essential to salvation. On this point I vigorously disagree with them. If God can forgive my unjust acts that offend others, he can certainly forgive any of my errors in reasoning that offend no one.

And that is ultimately what concerns me most — forgiveness and exaltation.

Ugo Perego’s comments made a solid contribution to getting these matters sorted out. His commentary helps us to understand what was driving Southerton ventures. And getting these things sorted out does not assist those who want to hang their unfaith on his opinions. This appears to be the reason Craig Paxton shifted away from a discussion of DNA and the Book of Mormon. And hence why he shifted, instead, to a list of elements in folk Mormonism that he thinks one must believe and defend or else go missing. From my perspective what he must have been, if his list is at all an accurate reflection of his version of folk Mormonism, is a kind of Protestant fundamentalist type of Latter-day Saint. He does not seem to have been at all focused on the core elements of the faith–the doctrine or gospel of Christ–that is on the absolute necessity of repentance (or turning or returning to God and away from the ways of the world), or on faith (understood as trust in the Holy One of Israel for redemption from death and sin), and on the necessity of allowing the Holy Spirit to burn out of us the old stuff and transform us into new sanctified beings that Jesus Christ (the God of the Old Testament) in the final judgment can present to his father (known at times as the Most High God and the one Jesus called Daddy when he prayed) as now justified and hence ready to live in the presence of divine beings.

Craig seems obsessed with the necessity of the Saints entertaining as opinions the idea that Adam got booted out of the garden park in 4000BCE, or that death started at that moment, or that the story of the flood that is found in the Bible demands that we believe that mountains well over twenty thousand feet high were covered with water, of course, without being able to explain where all that water came from or went, and so forth. I have always believed that the meaning of that story for those who told it was based on some large local event. The land that was covered was the land as they knew it. I have also always believed in some version of organic evolution. Put another way, I have never thought of the grounds and contents of my faith required me to make war on sciences. Most of my colleagues at BYU, in one way or another, share my unwillingness to imitate the worst elements of Protestant fundamentalism by making war on all intellectual endeavors, including the natural sciences.

Hence, I do not need and do not expect or want the Brethren to be issuing official statements in which they sort these things out for me. They seem properly content to let the sciences, which hopefully are in the long term self-corrective, sort these matters out. It appears, unfortunately, that Craig started out believing that the Brethren must be infallible and that every element of folk Mormonism must be made by them to appear in harmony with every other item, or the Church is not what he imagined it claimed to be, to borrow some of the language from one of his friends.

I am not, of course, pleased with those Craig calls “cafeteria Mormons,” but I also believe that it is wise and necessary for the Saints to jettison some elements of folk Mormonism, including much or what is found in Mormon Doctrine and other similar efforts to fashion a dogmatic theology. The reason is that the Saints, I believe, should be focus on the redemption from sin and death provided by Jesus of Nazareth. One reason is that we live by stories and not by dogmatic theology, much of which turns out to be mere speculation piled on speculation that tends to decoy us from what is crucial in our faith. We do not or at least should not strive to live by creeds for dogmatic theology but by faith–that is, by discovering in our lives the wondrous, enchanted and enchanting world described for us in our scriptures and in the founding story of the Restoration. We must live in the Light and not just talk about it as it it were some ideology. Striving to do this should take all the wind out of our sails and hence dampen our urge to harmonize and speculate.

I regret seeing RfM type former fundamentalist Saints turn up on this blog. It seems that they have come here in an effort to justify their rebellion against God. I am confident that they can gain the applause they seek on other venues. And I am also puzzled by Craig Paxton’s list of what he sees as absurdities that he wants to insist must be part of the opinions of the Saints, on the false assumption that what is revealed to Prophets and seen by Seers is a kind of alternative science. While saluting what he calls science, he also gives the back of his hand to his former faith. I am genuinely interested in figuring out what drives people like Craig. I wonder why those like Craig, who have fled the faith, don’t find something better to do than post up a storm trying to convince themselves and others of the folly of faith. Why is it that someone like Craig must constantly busy themselves making war on the faith of the Saints. Isn’t there something better they can think of doing with what remains of their probation? If all they are is an accident of blind chance, can’t they find something better to do with their time before, as they must insist, their light goes out permanently? Their passionate religious devotion to their unfaith is, for me, puzzling. I simply don’t believe that their constant version of secular “home teaching” or pulpit preaching is part of a therapy they must endure to rid themselves of the evils inflicted on them in Sunday School. But an additional puzzle is why they cannot remain focused on the topic of a blog, in this case the soundness of Southeton’s opining about DNA and the Book of Mormon.

I pretty much agree with your list, with a few exceptions:

• D&C 77 doesn’t require a belief in a “young earth,” although some have interpreted it that way. (You might be interested in the class notes I prepared on this subject; see pages 8–10 of this PDF document. Yes, I taught exactly what’s written there in a stake-sponsored class of 30 adults, without so much as a gasp or a raised eyebrow.)
• Mormon scripture doesn’t “demand death being introduced with the fall,” although that’s one way to interpret it. As Theodore mentioned, above, there is only one scripture that comes close to this (2 Nephi 2:22), and even that is open to interpretation.
• The notion that the Flood represented a “baptism” of the earth is not scriptural or based on revelation.
• I wouldn’t say that LDS prophets are “often wrong,” but they are subject to their own beliefs, opinions, and interpretations. When they speak authoritatively, they speak for the Lord. But even then we don’t subscribe to any doctrine of infallibility.
• I accept the reality of revelation (I’ve experienced it myself), so I wouldn’t say the Brethren’s experience is “more human feeling based” in any way. Revelation happens; that I know. How much personal experience they have had with Jesus Christ, that I don’t know. My reading on this leads me to believe that their witness need not be a physical one. (I don’t believe that President Monson has lunch with Jesus every Thursday.)

And, FWIW, I know lots of other Latter-day Saints who believe like I do. Your experience seems to be limited to only the most extremely orthodox Mormons, but they are not the sum total of the Church, especially among those who have done any serious reading of Church history and doctrine.

You reject:

The young earth theory as set in scripture in D&C 77

The Mormon scripture/doctrine that demands death being introduced with the fall.

A universal flood that baptized the earth (so the earth had a catholic baptism of sprinkling?)

The scripturalized historical Babel story

You accept that:

Mormon Prophets are Fallible, subject to human error and are often wrong

Evolution is a reality and is God’s tool for creation (interesting accommodation)

The earth is Billions of years old…more than likely just as science claims…4.5 billion give or take a few million years.

The America’s where pre-populated prior to Lehi’s supposed arrival

Humankind emerged out of Africa and not Missouri.

The America’s were not touched by the flood…thus its inhabitants were also unaffected as was the majority of the worlds population. (This accommodation seems to undermine a lot of the Bible’s credibility but I’m ok with that)

Human-kind has existed in its present form for 10’s of thousands of years (coincidently just like science claims)
Death has existed for literally billions not thousands of years.

The revelatory powers of the Mormon “Brethren” are more human feeling based rather than an actual physical experience…i.e. feelings rather than a personal P.P.I. with Jesus on a monthly basis. (although I may have gone too far on that one…I think most of you still beleive that Jesus physically makes regular visits with his annointed church leaders)

Hmmm…maybe there is hope for me…we agree on a whole lot more than I could have imagined. But I still don’t know how in light of Mormon doctrine you make these accommodations…although I understand why you do.

I still would hope that in light of scientific reality, the First Presedency would come out and make a definitive statement with respect to this question rather than allowing the membership of the church to speculate.

I agree with you, Craig, that evolution is a fact. And I wholeheartedly agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s conclusion that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” The evidence for it is overwhelming, and the arguments against it are extremely weak.

There has been and continues to be rejection of evolution among doctrinally hard-line Mormons (there’s that fundamentalism again). This resistance has a long history, going back to the publication of Darwin’s work 150 years ago. It is a mirror of the larger Christian community’s difficulty squaring science with a literal reading of the Bible.

And that last sentence is important to understanding what’s going on here. There is nothing in Mormon scripture or revelation that invalidates evolution, only in the interpretation by some of that scripture and revelation. Some prominent Latter-day Saint leaders were comfortable with evolution (most notably James E. Talmage), while others railed against it (most notably Joseph Fielding Smith). While many Latter-day Saints have followed JFS’s approach, many others have not. Well-known LDS scientist Henry Eyring (father of the current apostle) believed in an old earth and rejected JFS’s arguments. Today there are even blogs by LDS scientists who advocate for evolution.

As to how today’s Church leaders feel, note the BYU news article Trevor previously posted. Evolution is taught at BYU without hesitation or reserve. BYU’s board of trustees is made up largely of members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve; they could shut down the teaching of evolution today, if they wanted. Instead, they allow free and fair instruction of it without religious interference. Personally, I think that speaks volumes.

So why doesn’t the Church take a stand on the veracity of evolution? I think there are two reasons:

1. The purpose of the Church is to reveal and teach spiritual truths that will bring salvation to men and women. Scientific truths are interesting, but largely irrelevant our salvation.
2. There has been no revelation from God on the subject of evolution, and the Brethren won’t make a statement without one.

So while the truth of evolution seem indisputable to me, and I sometimes struggle with what I see as an anti-intellectual strain among some Mormons with whom I associate, ultimately whether one accepts or rejects it has not bearing on whether we are saved in the kingdom of God. And so I maintain my friendships with Saints who don’t believe as I do on evolution, and enjoy the healthy debate I have with them, and rejoice that we’re all still brothers and sisters in the gospel.

Evolution is a popular and interesting theory but it is not a proven fact.

…………………………………………………..

HUH? You’re kidding right? With all due respect Theodore, Gravity is only a theory but I seriously doubt you questions its existance.

The only people I know that do not accept evolution as fact are those people that have not studied it. May I suggest an excellent introduction to evolution “Evolution” by Carl Zimmer, after reading this book, I seriously doubt that you will be able to question the reality of Evolution.

Oh and it’s ok to study Evolution…BYU teaches it so you already have a subtle green light from the First Presidency.

I have the luxury of speaking only for myself, from my own reasoning from the scriptures. Living prophets must be more guarded or they will stir up a hornets nest for the Church.

I have a problem with what you seem to be implying—that the Brethren say one thing in public but another in private. It is (to me) tantamount to saying “well, if the Brethren were really free to talk, you would find out that they agree with me.” That is an assertion without evidence, honestly.

If your implication is true, then it is possible that they keep their private speculations (including those about the origins of life) out of the public sphere because they are just that—speculations. And, those speculations could be just as strong for evolution as against it; it cuts both ways.

Do you not agree that God commanded every form of life to multiply each after their own kind, in their own sphere and element? And, do you not agree that God said that all forms of life obeyed His commands to do so?

I agree that this is what scripture reports. As to whether God really did those things or whether the ancients felt it was self-evident that God must have done those things, I can’t really say.

If you agree to those statements, how would you conclude that God used evolution to fill the earth?

I don’t conclude what you assert that I am concluding. What I conclude is very simple—we don’t know. We don’t know if God spoke and everything came about and operated by command (which is very close to the concept of creation ex nihilio, which which I disagree) or if God used natural methods (including evolution) to bring about His purposes.

The bottom line is that He has not revealed the means by which He created the Earth and everything in it. I trust that someday I will understand, and until then I am willing to have an open mind on both sides.

-Allen

In the 60th generation there is only one pure paternal line (i.e. y-ch DNA). Likewise there is only one pure maternal line (i.e. m-DNA). And that’s where I focus my questions on DNA studies as they relate to the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps the following article by Hugh Nibley (Before Adam) can offer you an alternative and less orthodox view on the creation: http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=73. By no means I take the words of Professor Nibley as the revealed gospel and the talk itself is quite outdated in few parts as it is nearly 30 years old (for example it is now evident through genetic data that the Neanderthals are not the ancestors to modern humans). However, I like Nibley’s take on the subject as it is very much in line with some of my thoughts when I study the creation accounts through my scientist glasses, particularly the one given in the 4th chapter of the Book of Abraham:
20. And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life; the fowls, that they may fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven.
21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great awhales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.
24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so, as they had said.
25 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they would obey.

Note that it was the waters (primordial soup?) and the earth that brought forth the moving and living creatures. The Gods prepared the “ingredients” and blessed them.

Regarding: “Do you not agree that God commanded every form of life to multiply each after their own kind, in their own sphere and element?” My simplistic explanation (and opinion) on this subject is that there could be little or unnoticeable difference between two generations of the same living origanism, but after hundreds or thousands of generations, these differences could be more evident to the point that you may argue that the original living form is ancestral to the one observed today. Therefore, the law of multiplying after their own kind is respected from one generation to the next, but “bended” when comparison is made between organisms separated by a very large number of generations.

I have the luxury of speaking only for myself, from my own reasoning from the scriptures. Living prophets must be more guarded or they will stir up a hornets nest for the Church.

Do you not agree that God commanded every form of life to multiply each after their own kind, in their own sphere and element? And, do you not agree that God said that all forms of life obeyed His commands to do so?

If you agree to those statements, how would you conclude that God used evolution to fill the earth?

Theodore

I appreciate your frustration on the matter. There are a couple of issues (not this one) that sometimes frustrate me and I wish the church would take a more definitive stance. Additionally, the earthly bureaucracy is sometimes something we have to roll our eyes over. So why do I stay?

1) I believe in God
2) I believe the Book of Mormon is historical.
3) Therefore–Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.

I have read the books and webpages that I have been directed to by post-Mormons, and I find the scholarship to be sloppy and lacking. Yes, I can say the same thing about many of the pro-church books. But, I find that most (not all) historical arguments against the church are resolved by going back and looking at the actual and the cultural context. It is often the paradigm we use when we look at church history that seems to make the difference.

I understand your disdain for cafeteria Mormons. I don’t consider myself one of those. But, I feel free to believe what I wish on those items on which the Church doesn’t have an official position–however frustrating that lack of position may be.

This next item isn’t meant to be a stab, but I recognize it will probably come across as one. My apologies in advance, but I hope it helps you understand where I am coming from. While you are frustrated by the belief-pretzels we believers sometimes tie ourselves up into, I get frustrated by the intellectual laziness of some of the ex-Members who use books like Palmer’s and Southerton’s as a justification to leave. I know I probably expect too much from a culture that loves TV programming geared to an 7th & 8th grade level.

I find there are many bright, intelligent, warm, and funny people who have chosen to leave the church. My heart goes out to their suffering in making the transition through the life changing decision like they have made. I hope that we can all continue to make progress toward building a better and healthier community.