Comments on: “Is That Your Final Answer?” Guest Post by David Bailey!

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 31 May 2009 21:05:02 +0000

ujlapana,
Do you believe Elder Mark Peterson’s teachings on race?
How about President Brown’s statements about the evils of nuclear weapons (and how we shouldn’t have dropped them on Japan during WWII)?
I clearly disagree with some of the things Peterson said. And I think most conservatives in the church would disagree with some of President Brown’s statements.
GAs have said some pretty wacky things in the past. They have also contradicted one another. This doesn’t mean they’re not inspired to lead this church–it just means that they’re human, and make mistakes.
Henry Eyring (President Eyring’s father) said that he and the prophet at the time didn’t always see eye to eye (with things such as the age of the earth, etc.) but, despite that, that the prophet is prophet, and if one followed the prophet’s teachings, one would make it to heaven. Eyring was never convinced that the Earth was young. But I’m fairly confident he made it to heaven anyway.

By: ujlapana

ujlapana — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:15:08 +0000

Steve, your response is a great example of the core problem of any symbolic (word-based) communication. You believe you honor GA’s because you obey them and feel honor, Gary says honor requires believing their doctrinal teachings on evolution as well. The Mormon/Christian thing is no different. A good thing to keep in mind if one doesn’t consider a self-identified Mormon a “true” Mormon because he doesn’t think GA’s are more inspired than, say, the Pope.

By: SteveP

SteveP — Sat, 30 May 2009 14:21:22 +0000

My comment on BCC is relevant here:

Gary, you’ll never convince me that I don’t honor the Brethren, because I do. You remind me of the anti-Mormon literature I used to get on my mission that told me I could not believe in Christ because I did not interpret the scriptures like they did. Despite their claims, I did believe in Christ, and honor and love him. Same things holds here. Truth is, I love the brethren, read their words and try to live by them. I pray for them and have made the decision the let them lead me to knowing my Savior. Their words are studied by me and my family and treasured. Your words suggest I am less than faithful, just as the anti’s words suggested I was not Christian. None of your words will remove me from my love for them no matter how hard you try to argue you have exclusive access to understanding their words–you do not. There is room for believing evolutionary biologists in this church. Your attempt to marginalize us and paint us as less than faithful will not touch what I actually believe. The trend is in a more open discourse with all deep believers. I invite you to explore this diversity of thought. Whether you do so is your prerogative. But don’t try painting me in non-faithful colors.

By: R. Gary

R. Gary — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:24:30 +0000

SteveP,

In your comments, you speak of “church leaders past state of knowledge about evolution [and] the context for thier [past] beliefs.”

“We have to grow out of the stage,” you said, “where we hold people in the past libel for not understanding what we understand today.”

The definition given above does not include the word “unintelligent.” It says “dead” (as in the past) and “scientifically uneducated” (as in not understanding what we understand today).

I like how you claim to “honor them as apostles” but at the same time insist that their opinions about science are “irrelevant.”

By: SteveP

SteveP — Sat, 30 May 2009 02:50:08 +0000

Hi Gary, who got called a lummox? Neither I or David have said such a thing. Hopefully you’ll find find nothing but respect for the brethren here. I honor them as apostles. We’ve never implied in anyway that I find them unintelligent (although commentors who I don’t control might have said such things I disagree with them when they do). Your definition of lummox above seems to imply it came from the content of this site. It has not. Don’t put words in my mouth that aren’t there.

Are you arguing that the brethren are infallible? I think you are confusing them with the Pope. And I don’t think they make that claim about themselves.

By: R. Gary

R. Gary — Sat, 30 May 2009 02:04:09 +0000

lummox n. any dead and scientifically uneducated Church leader who didn't believe in evolution, or any blogger who quotes him. Count me in. Although I have noticed that, during the past 20 years or so, two of the most senior current apostles have spoken out regularaly against evolution.

By: David H Bailey

David H Bailey — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:38:51 +0000

In the second paragraph, I meant to say “increasing concerned about”..

By: David H Bailey

David H Bailey — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:37:58 +0000

Everyone has raised some valid points.

I think it is important to recognize, however, that beginning about 1985 as I recall, the First Presidency, increasingly almost about reports of petty theological contention within the Church, decided to issue a declaration instructing general authorities to henceforth focus only on basic principles (I saw a copy once, but can’t find it). In part this is reflective of numerous passages in the scriptures, both ancient and modern. Examples:

D&C 19:31. And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.

3 Nephi 11:31. Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.
3 Nephi 11:40. And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil…

Matt 7:21-23. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Thus you will notice that for the past 20 years or so, the overwhelming focus of general conference talks and Ensign articles have focused on basic principles and morality, and that the Church has studiously avoided doctrinal and scientific controversies.

In this light, it is certainly reasonable to read older statements where general authorities were commenting on evolution (or any other arena of speculative theology), etc, but hardly any in recent years.

To me personally, this seems like a very healthy development. In looking at history, most religious wars have been fought over entirely petty and speculative points of theology (or politics, which is even worse). And all of the great, long-lasting religions have focused on morality and charity, not arcane theology. Thus the Church is heading in the generally right direction.

By: DB

DB — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:56:04 +0000

ujlapana is right about R. Gary and I would add that he is dismissed here much more than he should be. Although I don’t agree with everything he’s put on NDBF, I believe he’s right about the doctrine of no physical death before the fall, and clearly, the General Authorities agree as well. General Authorities are usually not experts on any field of science, it’s not their calling to preach science to the world, and they could probably care less about the validity of scientific principles and theories. They are called to preach the gospel to the world. I would argue that they’re not really attacking science but rather they’re defending the gospel. After all, the best defense is a good offense, right? Now, I admit that attacking science is not the best way to preach the gospel, but what do you do when science teaches something that appears to invalidate part of the gospel? And after all, in the eternal scheme, falling away from science is less serious than falling away from the gospel. Are they wrong in their defense of the gospel? No. Are they right in their attack on science? Not really. But like I said, they are really just preaching and defending the gospel. However, it is a poor way to preach the gospel and as has already been acknowledged, these misguided attacks on science do result in harm in the form of faith crushing doubt for many LDS. The best solution, of course, would be for everyone to seek to understand the gospel and to understand how scientific principles and theories work with all of God’s creations without contradicting each other. Unfortunately, there’s been very little effort to do this. We humans tend to discard something we don’t understand rather then invest the time to fully understand it, but that’s understandable as some things take a lifetime or more to understand.

By: ujlapana

ujlapana — Fri, 29 May 2009 09:49:52 +0000

“Mislead” was not the best word choice. I don’t think there’s a deliberate attempt to deceive. Let’s say, “err in describing reality.”

I don’t think eugenics was applied to learn whether blacks were equal to whites. The inferiority was assumed as a guiding principle, and eliminating it was approached scientifically. That’s very different than saying science warped the worldview of racists. We obviously have to be asking the right questions first, not accepting our biases as facts, as the eugenicists did. Asking “right questions” (which, right ones not being known in a prior, means “any question”) is difficult, and I don’t think LDS culture encourages it.

Applying these observations to our times suggests that at one point we will look back and feel the same shame towards our treatment of gays and women that we (or a few of us, at least) feel towards erstwhile racist priesthood/temple policies. Do you believe it possible that GA’s were in error in mobilizing against gay marriage in CA? Not from a political or PR standpoint, but actually morally wrong? I would say that there is (apparently) “overwhelming evidence” that they could have been mistaken. Which in turn suggests that singing “Follow the Prophet” would be better sung as “Follow your Conscience.” But that’s not the song, is it?

Finally, I don’t think your view of GA’s is in harmony with President Benson’s, based on his “14 points” speech. As much as we might agree that that speech is incorrect in content, it has reappeared in the Ensign and was even the HC speakers’ theme in my stake one month last year.