NOM

I just listened to the FairMormon podcast Genesis and Evolution with Steve Peck.

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2017/08 ... teven-peck

Steve Peck is a Biology Professor at BYU. He basically comes out and says that evolution is scientific fact (including human evolution). I have heard him say similar things on podcasts before, but I am surprised FairMormon would have him on their podcast to say these things.

When I was at BYU in the 1980's, this would have been heresy! My religion professor used to bad mouth the Geology and Biology professors in class. Mind you, this was not that long after Bruce R. McConkie gave his Seven Deadly Heresies talk.

Later I would hear members say that it is macro evolution that is false (evolution that produces new species). Evolution on a micro level I guess was ok. The one thing that has always been taboo is to say that humans evolved. But Steve Peck doesn't seem to be afraid to bring it up. He mentioned in the podcast that the First Presidency knows what they teach about evolution and they are ok with it.

Just today I saw a facebook post by a member liking a book on evolution where it was mocked as being a ridiculous non-scientific theory.

It was just five years ago that we heard this in general conference:

Russell Nelson wrote:Yet some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, “Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?” The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!

Supposedly the official position of the church is that the church doesn't have an official position on evolution. There is an evolution packet at BYU that contains a collection of official statements from the church on the subject. But when I read it last it seemed to be very much against human evolution.

I don't know that there is another subject in the church where there is such strong disagreement as with evolution.

"I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so..." Joseph F. Smith, Doctrines of Salvation

Fine with me, Joseph Remember The F

There are no GA''s today that I'm aware of that are writing about evolution pro or con. It's nothing like the Joseph Fielding Smith and 1950's.

Trying to deal with evolution as a TBM is how I earned my first gold medal in mental gymnastics. It is pretty difficult to interpret statements from church leaders, including the BYU evolution packet, in a way that fits with the overwhelming evidence of evolution. However, many biologists apparently manage to do it. It was a huge relief for me when I no longer had to try and make evolution fit within the context of orthodox beliefs.

Did Mormon apologetics form in the primordial ooze or did it spring from the Word of Daniel C. Peterson, where it has been making the eternal round since 1830?

Examine if you will the magnificence of this "River Horse" and decide for yourself.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:09 pm There are no GA''s today that I'm aware of that are writing about evolution pro or con. It's nothing like the Joseph Fielding Smith and 1950's.

This is just yet another subject where the bretheren used to know the answer. But now they realize they were probably wrong, so instead of acknowledging that, they just stop talking about it except to say we don't know and previous statements were all personal opinions and not doctrine.

moksha wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:06 am Did Mormon apologetics form in the primordial ooze or did it spring from the Word of Daniel C. Peterson, where it has been making the eternal round since 1830?

I think that Dan Peterson would give a lot of credit to Hugh Nibley for modern apologetics. But I Brother Peterson is likely the best known face of apologetics today. How you feel about Dan's face specifically is a more personal opinion.

moksha wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:06 am Examine if you will the magnificence of this "River Horse" and decide for yourself.

It's too bad that the Greeks who named this creature had no seer stone to see the original Eqyptian name, "Deb". This is, of course, after 5 minutes of intense linguistic study of ancient Egyptian. The Greeks were obviously an arrogant bunch since the word "Egypt" is also a Greek word. Those racially appropriating Greeks didn't bother to keep the earlier name of Egypt, "Kemet". This is unfortunate for Joseph Smith who figured that the founder of Egypt was obviously some woman named Egyptus. Perhaps translation was not Joseph's strong point.

Corsair wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:41 am It's too bad that the Greeks who named this creature had no seer stone to see the original Eqyptian name, "Deb". This is, of course, after 5 minutes of intense linguistic study of ancient Egyptian.

That list also notes that a hippopotamus in Arabic is referred to as Kalb el nil (dog of the Nile).

The Greeks were obviously an arrogant bunch since the word "Egypt" is also a Greek word. Those racially appropriating Greeks didn't bother to keep the earlier name of Egypt, "Kemet". This is unfortunate for Joseph Smith who figured that the founder of Egypt was obviously some woman named Egyptus. Perhaps translation was not Joseph's strong point.

The name Egyptus itself must, therefore, be Greek.


It was clearly this dog's night at the table