Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

[_bcspace]

Must be why I haven't heard of a single example......

No, I think you know several examples but don't want to admit what they are saying.

http://www.cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/Evolution.html

When you're ready to point one out, feel free.

[_Themis]

When you're ready to point one out, feel free.

Theres plenty there, but having seen you discuss this issue before I already know you won't deal with any of it. I gave you plenty to work with, especielly First presidency statements.

[_moksha]

When you're ready to point one out, feel free.

Excellent point. He should do due diligence reading the works of Joseph F. Smith, especially that controversy at BYU back in 1915 about trying to teach evolution at the Y.

He might even come across that letter from President David O. McKay affirming that the Church had no stand against the theory of evolution.

[_Themis]

When you're ready to point one out, feel free.

Excellent point. He should do due diligence reading the works of Joseph F. Smith, especially that controversy at BYU back in 1915 about trying to teach evolution at the Y.

He might even come across that letter from President David O. McKay affirming that the Church had no stand against the theory of evolution.

Try reading Their statement that expressed the church's position on the matter. It certainly did come against evolution as it pertains to man. Like I said the church has come out with positions against evolution, even though there are various opinions on it, especially at later times with Mckay, whose letters do not represent the church's position. The church today tends to stay quiet on these kinds of issues.

[_bcspace]

When you're ready to point one out, feel free.

Excellent point. He should do due diligence reading the works of Joseph F. Smith, especially that controversy at BYU back in 1915 about trying to teach evolution at the Y.

He might even come across that letter from President David O. McKay affirming that the Church had no stand against the theory of evolution.

He might indeed.

Try reading Their statement that expressed the church's position on the matter. It certainly did come against evolution as it pertains to man.

Which one? Talmadge and Roberts continued to debate the issue (in the format of pre-Adamite races) with JFS even after the 1909 statement (which never precluded any form of evolution). The first presidency settled the matter in 1931 when they said:

"The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all."
First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931

[_Themis]

Which one? Talmadge and Roberts continued to debate the issue (in the format of pre-Adamite races) with JFS even after the 1909 statement (which never precluded any form of evolution). The first presidency settled the matter in 1931 when they said:

"The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all."
First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931

This is what I said

God may not have but the church certainly has.

I have shown this with more then one example, the most important being a first pres statment which is offical for the church's position on the subject at that time. Now if one believes LDS scriptures are from God, then he has also come out with doctrinal positions in conflict with evolution like no death before the fall. I do recognise as you are trying to show that GA's have different views on the subject.

[_bcspace]

God may not have but the church certainly has.

I have shown this with more then one example

When you're ready, quote one specifically. Until then, you've shown nothing.

[_Themis]

When you're ready, quote one specifically. Until then, you've shown nothing.

I already have. The first pres statement from 1909, but you already knew that.

[Guest]

Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

God and science are not in opposition, God being the ultimate scientist. God has certainly not come out against Evolution, even in LDS doctrine.

Once again bcspace makes the claim that Mormonism (which speaks directly for God on Earth) and science are not in opposition. Immediately thereafter bcspace admits that the LDS Church has no official position on evolution, but fails to acknowledge that the Church cannot take a position on evolution because Church doctrine and beliefs are so internally inconsistent, confused and contrary to science that neither position (for or against evolution) could possibly be supported by the LDS Church.

The Church’s failure to acknowledge the reality of evolution certainly does not give one confidence that science and Momromnism are not in opposition.

And the problems with the unfounded claims of bcspace with regard to the lack of opposition of Mormonism to evolution and the lack of conflict between science and Mormonism go much deeper. Consider the following with regard to LDS beliefs that are related to evolution alone, let alone its beliefs (from scripture) that are incompatible with physics (special relativity , general relativity), cosmology, astronomy, and geology among other disciplines:

Starting with scripture:

In D&C 77:6, we read:

Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was asealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will,mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

The bold emphasis is mine.

Thus we learn, from LDS scripture, that the age of the Earth is 7,000 years (and not 4.7 billion years). Since this is from scripture, the normal bcspace dodge that the absurdities of Mormonism are “not doctrine” cannot be applied here. Perhaps bcspace can explain how this word of God as revealed in LDS scripture is not in opposition to science, and is compatible with the theory of evolution in particular.

Then, of course, we have the following from a General Authority of the Church, Boyd K. Packer, regarding evolution:

"It is my conviction that to the degree the theory of evolution asserts that man is the product of an evolutionary process, the offspring of animals—it is false! What application the evolutionary theory has to animals gives me no concern. That is another question entirely, one to be pursued by science. But remember, the scriptures speak of the spirit in animals and other living things, and of each multiplying after its own kind (D&C 77:2; 2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 3:9; Abr 4:11-12, 24).
"And I am sorry to say, the so-called theistic evolution, the theory that God used an evolutionary process to prepare a physical body for the spirit of man, is equally false. I say I am sorry because I know it is a view commonly held by good and thoughtful people who search for an acceptable resolution to an apparent conflict between the theory of evolution and the doctrines of the gospel..."

 Boyd K. Packer, from "The Law and the Light"

Even though the “that is not doctrine” tactic used by bcspace would allow him skate on this one, I included it anyway for its combination of Mormon anti-science absurdity and arrogance (the way only BKP can do it).

Finally, there is the article in the April 2011 Ensign, which pretty much shuts the door on evolution and shows that unsupported Mormon anti-science beliefs are alive and well in 2011. The quote below in that Ensign article is from Bruce R. McConkie, but a reading of the article shows that the Prophet Seer and Revelator of the Church, President Thomas S. Monson, preaches the same nonsense.

It teaches that all things were created in a paradisiacal state, without death and without procreation. Then came the Fall, by which Adam and Eve became the first mortal flesh on earth, and by which procreation and death entered the whole creation. The Atonement of Jesus Christ saves all things, not just the human race. As in Adam all things die, even so in Christ shall all things be made alive. (Bruce R. McConkie, Ensign, April 2011, 59; summarized.)

Mormon anti-intellectualism and Mormonism’s anti-science beliefs have seldom been more in evidence than they are today - bcspace or no bcspace.

[_mikwut]

I too would be interested in BCSpace articulating DRW's challenge regarding the Mormon scripture itself.

Further, I would point out what DrW implied more expressly. The word 'doctrine' is a red herring. It is enough for me to simply use adjectives such as predominate beliefs and attitudes. The church makes fundamental claims such as the restoration, the true priesthood that enables its holders to act in God's name, it claims additional revealed scripture, ordinances that give extraordinary blessings and spiritual refinement, it has prophets and apostles akin to the literal prophets and apostles of old - speaking in an authoritative way, every baptized member has the gift of the holy ghost to guide them - not little things to be sure. Given these great tools, why is confusion so predominant? I would claim more so than the mainstream Christian world that doesn't claim these additional lofty tools. Why do so many attitudes and beliefs that are inconsistent with science exist, from scripture, to leaders, and finally with the majority of the members?

The predominantly wrong cultural beliefs and attitudes are enough for me given the tools claimed by Mormonism - doctrine, policy etc.. they are just distractions and red herrings to an elephant in the room that doesn't go away regardless of the word you put on it. It also allows for the meaningless debates to surface "what is doctrine" etc.. or "Mormonism has no doctrine" etc.. The creedal or non-creedal nature of the Mormon church is irrelevant regarding the predominant beliefs and attitudes that arise in a religious environment that includes the tools I listed above.

my regards, mikwut