The argument against evolution is more untenable than that against homosexuality. It seems kind of disingenuous, dishonest, to expect members to reject evolution. It doesn't really come up in doctrinal discussions, or Sunday School classes, it is essentially ignored, i.e., pay no attention to that elephant in the room.

Like everything else, the COB will make the changes silently. The upshot will be that the rest of the world will think things have really changed when in fact nothing will actually change.

and the reality of what they really think are two totally different things. In all these years since I found out my boyfriend/husband is gay in March of 1983, I have yet to see them change anything substantially. I've heard them way many things, but then a few years later they change things.

It was very triggering when they had the teaching about children of gay parents. They told me to marry him and then said they were second class citizens. THEN they changed it back to before that revelation and didn't announce it.

Just recently that talk ballard or holland gave at BYU was anti-gay. I don't believe they will ever change their stance on gays and definitely on temple marriage for gays. They just change the wording to everyone thinks they are coming around.

lol out loud ~




OPie will believe anything ~

The church has disavowed all the old anti-evolution nonsense--well, not "disavowed" but rather consigned to the rubbish heap of history. It is now taught openly at church universities.

But 99.999% of active members still insist that evolution is a vicious lie thought up by Satanic scientists to open the way for the imposition of gay marriage into the temples.

Prove me wrong.

As others have said here, Mormonism has developed an amazing knack for presenting one face to the critics and quite another to the mainstream believers.

I wrote this down from somewhere:

"Evolution says nothing about belief in God, it describes how biology works over time. If your biology theory is better, provide evidence."

Science isn't religion,

Religion isn't science

Notice the difference?

Confusion between the Real & the imagined seldom goes unpunished!!!

Oh, I don't know. The movie Avatar made 3 billion dollars.

I don't think they have lightened up on homosexuality at all. They signed onto the Respect For Marriage Act in order to get legal protection for its universities as they continue to discriminate against gay married couples.

Executive summary: OK, if you want to recognize gay marriage, fine, but we still get expel legally married gay couples from our universities without legal consequence.

That's not "lightening up". It was the highest level of oppression they thought they could get away with. I think they were right.


Meanwhile, the LDS Church came out with an FP statement on evolution around 1925 as I recall, that basically said we don't really know how the diversity of life was created, and its not essential to your salvation, or words to that general effect. There were once upon a time a few hardcore anti-evolutionists (Joseph Fielding Smith comes to mind) but now the Church remains pretty silent about evolution. It is taught in LDS universities because it is the backbone of modern biology. You really can't avoid it there.

I think, BoJ, that you are misremembering the early 20th century church position.

The key document was "The Origin of Man," written AND SIGNED by the First Presidency in 1909. It left no room for evolution--"the theories of men"--especially for humans, whom, we were taught, were created as a finished product by God. There was no death before Eden; there were no "pre-Adamites."

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Primary_sources/Evolution/First_Presidency_1909

In his Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith maintained that hoary old doctrine; as did his son-in-law, Bruce McConkie although in Mormon Doctrine the latter allowed for some evolution within but not between species. Evolution accordingly remained verboten into the middle 1970s.

It was gradually de-emphasized thereafter to the point where the church now has no position on the matter. But that should not obscure the fact that for many decades publicly espousing evolution could get you excommunicated for heresy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2023 04:51PM by Lot's Wife.

If that's true, then they are trying to decouple evolution from Adam & Eve. The church is still openly teaching a literal Adam & Eve in Eden.

Both Nelson & Holland have taught A&E in GenCon, as I recall, and church mags have also mentioned Our First Parents in recent years.

Yes, but that narrative is based on a different tradition. There has long been a thread in Mormonism, spun IIRC by Nibley, that the mechanisms through which God created Adam and Eve isn't important. God my thus have used evolution to create the bodies into which he stuck human spirits.

The church doesn't overtly endorse that theory, as they don't endorse many theories on many subjects, lest science and/or history disprove the official position. But they no longer reject evolution either.

As a practical matter they can't. If they did, then BYU could no longer teach biology or derivative topics in medicine and other fields. They'd look as silly as, say, a right-wing Christian belittling science by means of information technology that is based on that science.

Here's a good paragraph on the early 20th century statements from Wikipedia:

In 1925, in the midst of the Scopes Trial in Tennessee, a new First Presidency issued an official statement which reaffirmed the doctrine that Adam was the first man upon the earth and that he was created in the image of God.[14][15][16] . . . The 1925 statement is shorter than the 1909 statement, containing selected excerpts from the 1909 statement. "Anti-science" language was removed and the title was altered from "The Origin of Man" to "Mormon View of Evolution".[10] The comment which concluded that theories of evolution are "theories of men" in the 1909 official statement was no longer included in the 1925 official statement.[17]: 22  The First Presidency has not publicly issued an official statement on evolution since 1925.[18]: 2 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution#1931_statement_%22First_Presidency_Minutes%22

Again, that does not represent a repudiation of the 1909 document. It just creates some wiggle room. Meanwhile Fielding Smith, McConkie, and other prophets and apostles continued to condemn evolution.

Contrast that with Spencer Kimball in 1975: ". . . we don't know exactly how [Adam and Eve's] coming into this world happened, and when we're able to understand it the Lord will tell us."[60]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution#1925_statement_%22Mormon_View_of_Evolution%22

And this from Hinckley in 1997 and following years:

"People ask me every now and again if I believe in evolution. I tell them I am not concerned with organic evolution. I do not worry about it. I passed through that argument long ago."[65]. . . In the late 1990s, Hinckley recalled his university studies of anthropology and geology to reporter Larry A. Witham: "'Studied all about it. Didn't worry me then. Doesn't worry me now'"

Ibid.

No argument there, but still, it's all of a piece, and a child's coloring book version of history. Evolution denial is no less stupid than insisting on Eden, the ark and flood, 900-year-old people, the tower and language origins, etc. Downplaying or even discarding one while embracing the others isn't the pivot to credibility they hope it is. The gaps are forever shrinking, and so is their puny god of those gaps.

Agreed.

LOL

That's an example of Hinckley "Standing for Something."

You have to hand it to Hinckley. He was slick.


That bit, "Studied all about it", is a side-step that works on many. Then to follow it up with the Alfred E. Neuman quote from Mad Magazine. Genius!

I'm under the impression that as with most humans, and their institutions, avoiding a fight is, in the long run, as good as winning a fight.

Those interested in mormonism being seen as *True* are undoubtedly aware that the battles they can win are few...if there are any.  There's an argument to be made that there are ZERO arguments they can win that depend on facts; repeated playing of the 'Belief' trump card is not a winning strategy in the long run.

I think they've abandoned many of the old-fashioned beliefs:
  a)  no death before Eve bit the apple
  b)  Adam was the first human
  c)  evolution is a science-based fairy tale
  d)  the earth is approaching its 6,000th birthday

They are left relying entirely on faith:
  1)  JoJu had a vision in the sacred grove
  2)  Moroni invaded JoJu's dreams yearly
  3)  The Gold Plates are real
  4)  The Book of Mormon is a history of America
  5)  Ghawd leads the church via prophets who are never 'wrong'
  6)  Someone is going keep tabs on church surveys and it will be embarrassing

Every year going forward, more mormons will un-mormonize than the year before; the church's April Conference tally of their growth is every year a bigger exercise in futility than the year before.

The laughter in social media after next GC's announcement of the list of new temples is going to drown out the gasps of appreciation from the believers.

I think items 4 and 5 on your second list are ready for promotion to your first list.

Scientists in many fields have failed to find any evidence to confirm the BoM, and plenty of evidence that contradicts the BoM. It is now really hard to claim it is an actual history of real events and keep a straight face.

The Mark Hofmann affair pretty much demolished "the prophet is never wrong", several times over. And the prophet deliberately lying was the cherry on top of that s*** sundae.

Then there was the policy that children of gay parents could not be baptized, which was declared by the FP to be "revelation", to quash all the kvetching from members. Three years later the kvetching won, and the "revelation" was rescinded, without ever actually using the word "rescinded".

So much for "the prophet is never wrong."

And then the prophet told people to wear masks and get vaccinated, managing to alienate much of the formerly totally brainwashed followers, who had managed to ignore the real prophetic missteps.

Cultural Mormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The argument against evolution is more untenable
> than that against homosexuality. It seems kind of
> disingenuous, dishonest, to expect members to
> reject evolution. It doesn't really come up in
> doctrinal discussions, or Sunday School classes,
> it is essentially ignored, i.e., pay no attention
> to that elephant in the room.


Mormonizm only revolves around itself.
It isn't going anywhere, or doing anything.
It has NO PLANS to grow or change in any way.