Posted by Walker on February 25, 1999 at 15:58:58:
I read the link to the essay "Mormons for Evolution" in the "What's new" section. I assume rpcman wrote it. I make a few comments.
> In any event, one thing is sure; no matter what one claims doctrine is, they will quickly change that view when something they don't agree with happens to fall into the previously defined parameters.
Isn't this what science does too? I'd say it's a good thing. Claiming immutable doctrine: that's the bad thing. I guess at this point you would quote some Mormon who said, "God's laws are eternal" therefore Mormons are not at liberty to change what they believe. Well, they had better find a way to change their thinking. Let's encourage them to – even while they're stubbornly clinging to some of the myth.
> With regard to evolution, the famous line is that the church has no official position. While some Mormon leaders have stated that the church has no official position, others have said and done things to indicate that the opposite is true. For instance, at least 3 professors have been fired from BYU for teaching evolution, but no one has been fired for teaching creationism. When I was at BYU, the subject of evolution was glossed over quickly.
I took biology 100 in about 1985. At that time the four professors who taught it were united in saying that evolution is a fact; humans evolved from apes (ape like creatures). President McKay's letters on the subject where displayed on the overhead. Something like, "The church has no official position…" I can't say evolution was glossed over. But I could tell the professors where taking extra care to teach it and also do testimony damage control.
> The church has a difficult task asserting that there is no official position and at the same time including D&C 77 as part of the canon of scripture. In a declaration done by an entire First Presidency on the subject these words were included: "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 the 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." This is similar to the consessions that the Catholic Church has made although the Pope has gone much further than any official LDS proclamation.
What did the pope say? Mormons might listen and learn. Also, with regard to Adam, if we Mormons concede that he was just a figurative representation of something and not a real person, it would be interesting to research how much that unravels our entire belief system. I know Jesus makes reference to Adam. Could we say that Jesus can speak about Adam (even though he never existed) and still be a god, or do we have to conclude that Jesus was just a mortal, since he had no clue about the origin of the human species.
I read what McConkie said about other theological questions. Do Semitic (correct term?) religions depend on Adam being a real person. How about Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses? If we throw away everything that is probably myth, is there anything left? My own opinion is that there is something left – and it's probably the best part. But I haven't pinned down exactly what it is. Has anybody?
> A popular theory today in Mormon circles is that both creationism and evolution are true. The reasoning is that for some reason God used evolution to create the human shell and 6,000 years ago he put a spirit into this shell. The first spirit-filled person was Adam. One wonders what Adam must have then thought of his parents or why this God didn't bother putting a spirit into Adam's parents? Others speculate (in direct opposition to the evidence) that there was no death until 6,000 years ago. Sure the earth may be billions of years old but nothing could die until Adam and Eve finally "fell". I've heard some say that although life was evolving on this earth, God transported Adam and Eve to this planet in order to raise up his seed. Why God would bring creatures with DNA so similar to the species already living here is a mystery I suppose. The theories that seek to justify faith could go on forever. The biggest problem with them is that they assume what they are trying to explain.
Another problem is that they are f&#@ing retarded theories. Please excuse my inability or lack of patience to articulate exactly what's wrong with them.
I think the points you are making are:
1. Evolution and Genesis (and all Mormon doctrine which depends on Genesis) are mutually exclusive.
2. If Genesis is false (or even figurative), so is Mormonism since it depends on Genesis.
3. If you are Mormon and believe evolution, you don't know your own religion.
I agree with points 1 and 2. Undecided on 3. But then I'm an oddball Mormon. If there were more Mormons like me, what would the church be like? I imagine a UU church (though I've never been to one) spiced with a dash of pioneer heritage.
I liked the essay because it pointed out the diversity of opinion that exists among church leaders. I didn't like that it seems to say that since "evolution is false" is the dominant Mormon opinion, "evolution is false" is Mormon doctrine. I like to think this doctrine is not well defined because it is in transition.
On first reading it seemed like you were trying to force Mormons into a very uncomfortable position: If you are a Mormon you are compelled to believe idiotic doctrines with regard to natural history.
I wish there were a way to teach evolution to Mormons without making them feel like idiots (by forcing them to acknowledge their idols are false). But I guess that's just a dumb fantasy of mine. But maybe there is no way. The truth hurts.
I'm very interested in this question so I'll ask it again. After you peel away all the interdependent layers of baloney from Mormonism, what's left? Anything worth keeping? At the very least, an interesting piece of American History. Anything else?
I like the things on this site that you "still like about Mormonism". I hope to see more of that. It's really great coming from this site. In fact it's the only site dealing with Mormonism I know of that retains that amount of objectivity.