Excellent discussion going on in the Freethought Blogs thread. Link in the OP.

Excerpt from "Sastra":

"Religious faith is a commitment to spin the evidence so that it either supports the existence of God … or it supports the existence of God even more! Skeptical doubts are called “struggles” and you’re supposed to get major credit for not changing your mind no matter what. Because that is what it is to be humble."

There was no talk of intelligent design or god when I studied evolution at YBU, maybe things have changed

Link to thread in which Steve Benson discusses organic evolution with LDS leaders:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,950869

From the comments below the PZ Myers post:

"What I was teached [sic] about mormon doctrine, after 1992 it is important to add, is that there was no death nor procreation on earth until the fall of Adam about 6000 years ago. I cannot imagine what kind of evolutionary theory they are teaching that doesn’t include death and reproduction. How is it possible that students, atleast in the 90ies, didn’t notice this HUGE contradiction? How are animals supposed to evolve in a paradisical state where everything is immortal and sex is unknown?"

The OP on Freethought Blogs links to this article:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865557613/Science-and-faith-Navigating-the-world-of-discovery.html?pg=all

Excerpt below:

Mike Bell, a pastor for South Mountain Community Church in Draper, said he's skeptical any time scientists say they have a new discovery.

"Call me a cynic, but I feel like it's going to be the emperor's new clothes again," he said.

Bell recalled a college anthropology class where model skulls were set out in front of him as well. He said he assumed that because his professor was an academic, "she knows what she's talking about." Years later, when Bell became a Christian, he had to figure out how what he was taught in anthropology fit in with his understanding of the Bible.

"I did a little research and I found out every single thing that professor had taught had been refuted," he said.

Bell said within his church, there is a diversity of opinions on topics like the age of the earth and dinosaurs, but it doesn't cause problems.

"People have to come to their own conclusions," he said.
-----------

What the heck?

TSCC continually plays a game. It's different than fundie Christians.. Those guys flat-out refute science and want to pick a fight. Mormons play the passive-aggressive shell game of "we don't know yet, science isn't certain." A certain Orwellian rat-holing of things is also practiced. Reading McConkie is discouraged. Reading the Journal of Discourses is also discouraged, the excuse often given "Deep doctrine is best read by advanced scholars," or "We go by current prophets, those things are obsolete because they were for that time, not now." This whole fuzzy, equivocative approach always bothered me. It's so obvious now that this construct is being utilized to cover the fact that the whole thing is a fantasy.

Questions from the thread on Freethought Blogs:

"I thought Elohim was just a fancy word for a patron deity, a leftover from when Yahweh was just one of a clutch of polytheistic tribal gods."

"Jehovah = YHWH with the vowels of eloha, meaning “god”. And the final H is just there to indicate that the word ends in a vowel."

"...OK, Elohim’s the Dad? Elohim is Hebrew for gods right (Eloha presumably being the singular?)? Sometimes used to referr to the God, but the Torah normally uses his name? So have Mormons just arbitrarily decided that Elohim is a name as well?"

Can anyone clear this up, mormon style.

Here's another question that popped up on the FreeThought Blogs thread:

"I overheard an individual who’s Mormon recount how he spent his vacation with his family touring Latin America and ancient sites “connected to the Book or Mormon.” Totally sincere.

I just don’t get it."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/10/mormon-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-649508

Answer? Or links to answer(s)?